Judging Freedom - Prof. John Mearsheimer : US Troops in Taiwan?

Episode Date: April 4, 2024

Prof. John Mearsheimer : US Troops in Taiwan?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, April 4th, 2024. Professor John Mearsheimer joins us today. Professor Mearsheimer, it's a pleasure today. It's always a pleasure to be able to pick that brain of yours. I do want to talk to you about American troops and what appear to be war games on an island or more than one island off the coast of Taiwan between mainland China and Taiwan. But before we get there, I need to address hot, relatively breaking news with you. The Israeli killing of the seven food service workers, one of whom was an American, all of whom were white, none of whom was Palestinian. What do you think the international reaction will be to that? Well, I think it's quite clear that the international reaction has been one of outrage.

It's interesting. By most accounts, the Israelis have probably killed about 196 people who have been involved in transporting food around Gaza. Just think about about 196 people. But there's not been much of a protest regarding those people because they were Palestinians. But here you have a case where seven white people are killed and there is moral outrage in the extreme. I think that the Americans are really serious about talking to Netanyahu about putting an end to this, although they won't put any real pressure on reporting in the past 15 minutes that the White House has leaked that the president spoke directly with Prime Minister Netanyahu in what the White House calls a tense conversation. I don't know what these conversations are like. I assume that they see each other and I assume that they each are surrounded by many aides. Netanyahu, of course, speaks fluent English, so translators are not needed. But Biden must have people there. Supposedly, President Biden threatened to pivot U.S. policy if the slaughter of civilians doesn't stop. Do you think he would do that? No, I don't. I think he's all talk and no action. He's done nothing up to now. And remember,

genocide has been taking place for a long period of time now. It's readily apparent to almost everybody, but he's done nothing to stop it. In fact, if anything, he is complicitous in the genocide. So I find it hard to believe that he is now all of a sudden going to get tough with Israel. Here's Jose Andres, the chef and founder of World Central Kitchen. He's born in Spain, but he's an American citizen. It's a very moving cut. It's gone viral. I would like your thoughts on it, Professor. What I know is that we were targeted deliberately, non-stop, until everybody was dead in this convoy. This happened over more than 1.5, 1.8 kilometers. So this was not use a bad luck situation where oops we dropped the bomb in the wrong place

or or no this was over 1.5 1.8 kilometers with a very defined humanitarian convoy that had signs in the top in the roof that cannot be the role of an army that cannot be the role of an army. That cannot be the role of an army that has hundreds of drones above Gaza in any single moment. The humanitarians and civilians should never be paying the consequences of war. This is a basic principle of humanity. At the time, this looks like it's not a war against the reason anymore seems this is a war against humanity itself wow a war against humanity itself uh Scott Ritter amplified that with his own reporting the Israelis claimed they thought there was a member of Hamas in one of the cars as if that

would justify killing everybody else that's in the car but they've been doing this collective punishment since October but Scott reports that there were two bodyguards in that car very very astute serious professionals who never would have allowed a Hamas person anywhere near the car for fear that something like what happened might happen and to save their own lives, which of course were lost. Well, I think it's just important to understand that the Israelis, since the very beginning, have been trying to systematically starve the Palestinians in Gaza. You want to remember that two days after October 7th, this is obviously October 9th, Yoav Galant, who is the Minister of Defense in Israel, said that there was going to be a complete lockdown on Gaza. There was going to be no food, no water, no fuel, no medicine

that got into Gaza. And all sorts of Israelis have made the same basic argument since then. You also want to understand that inside the Israeli population, right? A public opinion poll has just been done that shows that 68% of Israelis, now think about this, 68% of Israelis believe that no humanitarian aid should be allowed into Gaza. This is a population in Gaza that is on the verge of famine. People are starving. They are close to death. And what the Israelis are doing is doing everything they can to prevent food and, more generally, humanitarian aid from getting into the Gaza Strip. And part of that operation involves destroying food convoys. It's much more extensive than that. They actually go after buildings where the food is located. They slow walk the aid in and so forth and so on. But

they have been destroying convoys all along. As I said before, reports are that roughly 196 convoys have been destroyed up to this point. I take that back. 196 people in convoys have been killed before these seven were killed. So there's nothing surprising here. This is part of a broad pattern. And by the way, President Biden effectively said that. He made it clear that this was just not one incident that stands out as unusual. It's part of a broad pattern. And it's part of a broad pattern that is integrated into a genocidal campaign in Gaza. He has lost even the late night comedians. Listen, I don't agree with Stephen Colbert on most things.

He's a longtime friend of mine and I've been on the show. But here he is last night being rather serious about this. Now, how could something like this happen? Despite the fact that the World Central Kitchen coordinated their movements with the Israeli military and the team was leaving a warehouse in central Gaza after unloading shipments of food, they were hit by multiple precision Israeli drone strikes. They were riding in three vehicles, including two armored cars carrying the World Central Kitchen logo on the roof.

In the op-ed, Jose makes it clear that World Central Kitchen doesn't take sides. Their work is based on the simple belief that food is a universal human right. It is not conditional on being good or bad, rich or poor, left or right. We do not ask what religion you belong to. We just ask how many meals you need.

And they walk the walk. So far, in this conflict, World Central Kitchen has delivered 1.75 million hot meals in Israel and 43 million meals in Gaza. That. I mean, they get in there. They get in there.

They get in there with the food, and they do the job. They're like SEAL Team DoorDash. You got an unfolding human tragedy and an organization that's just trying to do good. I mean, they literally made a documentary about WCK called We Feed People. Welcome. They have been attacked by the IDF,

and Hamas has hauled members of their team in for interrogation. So whatever you think should happen in Israel and Gaza, I hope we can all agree that people should be allowed to eat. Pretty, pretty direct and profound, given who he is and what he does for for a living. Do you before we go on to the Israeli bombing of the Iran consulate and the likely international reaction to that, do you think the donor class, about which you have written better than anybody in the United States, approves of this collective punishment and this slaughter of civilians, the American donor class? I think that there are many staunch supporters of Israel who back what the Israelis are doing,

and they back Israel completely. I think there are probably a significant number who have serious doubts about what Israel is doing, not because they think it's morally wrong, but because they understand that it's doing enormous damage to Israel's reputation, and it's going to do significant damage to Israel's relations with countries in the West. But I don't think they worry that much about the moral correctness of what's going on here. But the bottom line is that they're unwilling to allow Joe Biden to put pressure on Israel to put an end to this. That's what really matters here. reaction or the Iranian reaction to the destruction of Iran's consulate adjacent to its embassy in Damascus. We all know the basics. We all know who was in there. We all know that they were very significant senior people. We all know they're all dead. Two of them were generals. We all know

that that property is the sovereign property of the country of Iran, even though it's located in Damascus, Syria, and we all know that the Israelis pulled this off. We all know that the American intelligence either helped them or knew about it. Well, I think that as far as the West is concerned, people will make a bit of noise condemning Israel, but they won't be outraged in any meaningful way and punish Israel for doing this. I think that's quite clear. I think in what's commonly called the global South today, people will see this as just more evidence that the United States and its allies really don't believe in the rule-based order. They don't believe in global norms that everyone is supposed to adhere to. And in fact, the United States and Israel

together act like rogue elephants. So I think this will do damage in the wider world for the United States and for Israel. With regard to what the Iranians do in response, it's very difficult to say. The Iranians have no interest in a war with the United States, and they have no interest in a war with Israel. The Iranians have actually been going to great lengths to tamp down tensions in the region since October 7th. And of course, the Americans don't have any interest in a war with Iran either. So one could argue that what the Iranians will do is basically nothing or something symbolic, at least in the short term, because they don't want to fight. But on the other hand, if you read the Israeli press, the Israelis are very fearful that the Iranians are actually going

to attack Israel itself, that the Iranians have said enough is enough, and they will launch missile strikes against Israeli territory. I find that hard to believe, but it is possible for sure. Can Iranian leadership, Professor Mearsheimer, get away with not retaliating in light of what is probably an enraged populace with some number greater than the 68% that you just quoted for Israel? Iran were a democracy, it would be very difficult to sort of keep a cap on that nationalist sentiment that's surely boiling over among the broader population. But I think the governing elites in Iran are in a position where they can hold off that pressure from below and not attack. I mean, the question the Iranians have to ask themselves is what are the costs and what are the benefits of retaliating here? And it's not clear to me that they're in a situation where the benefits outweigh the costs if they were to, say, attack Israel itself. They might be better off just waiting for an opportunity down the road. Do you think the Iran leadership wants war with Israel?

No, because I think they believe that would involve the United States. And the last thing the Iranians want is a war with the United States. I don't think they want a war with Israel either. Okay. Is the Israeli lobby in America ready to abandon Netanyahu? I mean, in the past 24 hours, I don't know who, you may know who, since you're such a student of all this, but a member of his war cabinet was also a member of the Knesset called for new elections. That's pretty telling for that to happen now. There's about 100,000 people that demonstrate almost every night outside his house. I know whoever replaces him will be just as horrific in Gaza, maybe even worse. But I'm just wondering if you have a feel for the donor class in America.

Are they wedded to Netanyahu the person or to the policies of the Israeli government or to both? Well, I think that the donor class, as you call it, or the Israel lobby, as I would call it, is committed to Israel. And they don't care that much who is in charge, whether it's Benny Gantz or Benjamin Netanyahu, just doesn't matter much to the donor class. And I don't think that they were, generally speaking, happy about Chuck Schumer's move to try to unseat Netanyahu. I think that they do not think that the U.S. government should be interfering in Israeli politics. And I agree with that, by the way. By the way, do you know who in the cabinet called for elections? It's a rather extraordinary public statement, but I just haven't gotten the person's name. No, I hadn't heard that. But the fact is

that the war cabinet has people in it who would like to replace Netanyahu. Benny Gantz is a perfect example. He's in the war cabinet, and he would like to be prime minister, and he would like to get rid of Benjamin Netanyahu if he could. There's no question about that. Last question before we get to China. The EU is offering a 100 billion euro loan to Ukraine. Would you lend money to an entity that might not be around in six months? Anyway, they're offering that. The Speaker of the House of Representatives, according to mainstream media, is engaged in some negotiations that involve a lot of extraneous things, including natural gas in Louisiana, where he's from, that would result in the American, the House acceptance. there's a headline from yesterday's Times, the House

acceptance of the Senate passed legislation, which is 61 billion. We know that 40 of that 61 billion stays right here in the United States. Okay, long-winded question. What gain can there possibly be besides prolonging the inevitable to Ukraine if it accepts the loan of 100 billion euros and if one-third or one-quarter of the 61 American billion dollars makes its way over there either in cash or in military equipment? Well, the best case you can make is that it will prolong the inevitable. But I don't even think it's going to matter very much. The fact is we don't have the weaponry to give to the Ukrainians that they need, number one. And number two, we can't solve their manpower problem at all. This aid doesn't do anything on that front. And if you look at what's happening on the battlefield, the Ukrainians

are beginning to lose badly. It's quite clear that the Russians have the upper hand, and the balance between the two sides is shifting at a rapid pace in favor of the Russians. And this aid is not going to do anything to rectify it. As I've argued on a number of occasions now, what we should do here is we should encourage the Ukrainians to turn themselves into a neutral state, to break all ties with NATO, and to sever our relations with the Ukrainians, to stop giving Ukraine economic and military aid. I'm shaking my head because yesterday in Brussels, the Secretary of State of the United States, who has very little credibility amongst you and I and our colleagues, nevertheless,

he's still the Secretary of State, stood next to his counterpart, the foreign minister of Ukraine, and told an international audience, Ukraine will be a member of NATO. This is crazy for him to say it, is it not? It is crazy, but it's what we've come to expect from him and from the Biden administration and from NATO. What they're really doing here by threatening to bring Ukraine into NATO is they're giving the Russians even greater incentives to wreck Ukraine, to take more territory, kill more Ukrainians, and make sure that Ukraine is turned into a truly dysfunctional, rough state. These comments are completely counterproductive if you care about the future of Ukraine and you care about minimizing the number of Ukrainian deaths. I just don't understand why people like Blinken and Biden don't understand this. Yet, here's a quote earlier today from a person I never heard of, who is the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Kurt Campbell, saying that Russia has completely retooled and its military is stronger than it was before the war started.

Number 11, Chris. Russia has almost completely reconstituted militarily. them by a brave and hearty group in Ukraine with the support of China, in particular, dual use capabilities, a variety of other efforts, industrial and commercial, Russia has retooled and now poses a threat to Ukraine as we are struggling to get the supplemental. But not just to Ukraine. Its newfound capabilities pose a longer-term challenge to stability in Europe and threatens NATO allies. I misidentified Mr. Campbell.

As you can see, he's the Deputy Secretary of State. I don't know if that's the job Victoria Nuland had or if it's another job. That is the job that Nuland wanted and the Biden administration chose him for the job. And until he was confirmed, I think it was in February, she filled that position. Got it.

But I'm startled that he's saying what he said. And do you agree with that, that the Russian military is stronger now than it is, to quote him, completely retooled? Absolutely. The Russian military today is much larger and much more formidable than it was when it invaded Ukraine on February 24th, 2022. There's no question about that. And the Ukrainian military is weaker today than it was in the early months or the first year, if you want to put it, of the war. And this is why Ukraine is in a

hopeless situation and should cut some sort of deal. Now, the argument that Kurt makes that the Russians are a threat to conquer all of Ukraine and conquer territory in Eastern Europe is not a serious argument. Now, that's political claptrap. He's expressing gratitude to the people that got him the job that Newland wanted. Yeah, well, it also, I think, is rhetoric that the administration uses for purposes of getting this bill through Congress or getting the aid package through Congress for $61 billion. Right. Are American troops engaged in some sort of war games or training or practice or advising or something with respect to Taiwanese troops on an island or islands off the coast of Taiwan? Yes. It's quite important to emphasize that in February of this year, we decided that we would permanently station troops,

not large numbers, but small numbers of troops in Taiwan that are tasked with training the Taiwanese. And some of those troops, it appears, are on these two islands, Kinmen and Pengju, that are very close to the Chinese mainland. They're in effect between Taiwan and the Chinese mainland. And those troops are engaging, those American troops are engaging in training the Taiwanese. And what are they, I mean, they're doing this under the nose and in the shadow of the mainland. What are they training the Taiwanese for?

To interact with American troops should the mainland invade and a president of the United States be crazy enough to send American troops there to defend Taiwan in the face of the one China policy? I don't get this. Well, I think what's going on here is we are sending a signal to the Chinese that we will defend Taiwan. I mean, this is a tripwire force. It's hard to figure out exactly what the numbers are. I would guess the number will be somewhere between 100 and 200 American troops, maybe a little larger, maybe a little smaller. But it's not a force that's going to be able to fend off a Chinese amphibious assault against the Taiwan Strait

at some point down the road. What it's designed to do is serve as a tripwire and bring us into any war that breaks out over Taiwan. To be clear, by tripwire, you mean these people are sitting ducks and if they are attacked, that's the American justification for sending massive numbers of troops there to retaliate against the attackers. That's one way of looking at it, but I would put a slightly different spin on it. And I would argue that what the administration is doing is simply sending a signal to the Chinese that we are going to defend Taiwan. And therefore, you better not invade Taiwan, because it will involve a great power war between the United States and China. Wow. How much longer is this going to go on? I mean, is this intentional provocation,

Professor Mearsheimer? The way you want to think about this is to ask yourself a simple question. You're dealing with a country, China, that is not a status quo power. It wants to take Taiwan back. It wants to turn the South China Sea into a giant Chinese lake. And it basically believes it should control the East China Sea and those small islands that the Japanese now control in the East China Sea. And do you, as an American, think we have a vested interest in preventing China from doing any of those things? Or do you think that we should just stand back and allow China to take Taiwan, to dominate the South China Sea, and to dominate the East China Sea. Where you come down on that question determines how you think about troops

in Taiwan or American naval forces in the South China Sea, or what have you. Does China want to invade the United States or trade with the United States? It absolutely does not want to invade the United States. But the question is, should the United States allow China to dominate Asia? Should the United States allow China to take Taiwan and to dominate the East China Sea and the South China Sea? You have to have an answer to that. And the same argument applies to past historical cases like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Imperial Germany, and Imperial Japan. Do you think it mattered whether those countries dominated either Europe or Asia? In the past, we have decided that we cannot allow a Germany or a Japan or the Soviet Union to dominate one of those two regions, that's Asia or Europe. And that basic question

is at play here with regard to East Asia and China today. If you don't believe that we should care whether China dominates Asia, then we shouldn't fight for Taiwan or for the South China Sea. But if you think otherwise, then you have to think about clever ways to deter China. China, it's very important to understand, is not a status quo power in East Asia. It's a revisionist power. It's the United States that wants to maintain the status quo in East Asia for obvious reasons. We're the top dog. The Chinese don't like the fact that we're the top dog in their backyard, and they want to change that situation. Who can blame them? But we are bent on preventing them from doing that. Now, you could argue that we shouldn't care one way or the other. But if you do care,

that explains a lot about what's going on in East Asia today. Here's Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell on what he calls, Professor Mearsheimer, I need you to comment on this, Beijing adventurism. If there is a lesson that is drawn that it is acceptable or achievable that a big nation can invade a smaller one, that the lesson of that can be easily undertaken in the Indo-Pacific. And every country in the Indo-Pacific. And every country in the Indo-Pacific wants very much to make clear that what has been undertaken in Ukraine cannot be successful,

so that no one contemplates that in the capitals in Pyongyang or in Beijing as they think about potential adventurism. What do you mean by adventurism? What you're talking about, dominance in East Asia and elimination of Western powers? Look, my view is that from China's point of view, it makes eminently good strategic sense to want to dominate East Asia and to push the Americans out of East Asia. I would not call this adventurism. It's good strategic logic, in my opinion. He, on the other hand,

has a vested interest in portraying the Chinese and their behavior in a negative light, so he calls it adventurism. He wouldn't call the American invasion of Iraq adventurism or the American war against Serbia as adventurism. He would argue there was a good strategic reason for those two conflicts and for us initiating those conflicts. So this is a word game here that's designed to make the Chinese look bad and make us look good. If Joe Biden called you up tomorrow, and we know he won't, and said, John, should I send more troops to those islands outside of Taiwan or should I bring them home? What would you tell them?

I would tell them to keep the troops there. I would go to great lengths to prevent China from dominating Asia. I've argued that for a long time. For the same reason, I think it was good that the United States played a key role in preventing Imperial Germany, Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union from dominating either Europe or Asia. I think it's in our interest not to allow that to happen. So I'm in favor of preventing China, if we can, from conquering Taiwan, dominating the South China Sea and the East China Sea. I want to do it in a smart way. Sea. I want to do it in a smart

way. I don't want to do it in a provocative way. I certainly want to avoid a war between the United States and China, but I do believe it's in our strategic interest to contain China. Wouldn't a war between the United States and China then be inevitable if China invades Taiwan and there's 100,000 Marines there defending it? Well, I think if China were to invade Taiwan, we would have a war between the United States and China. There's no question about that. You want to remember that President Biden has said on four separate occasions that the United States would come to the defense of Taiwan if the Chinese invaded. And I mean, President Biden sometimes says things without thinking, but the mere fact that he has made that controversial

argument, and it is a controversial argument, as our conversation shows, four separate times, tells you that he means business. And I believe, by the way, that given Biden's comments, given the fact that we are now permanently stationing small numbers of troops in Taiwan, the Chinese understand full well that if they invade Taiwan, it will mean war with the United States. And I think that will go to great lengths to deter the Chinese from invading Taiwan, which I think is a good thing. You would think it would go to great lengths to deter the Chinese from invading Taiwan, which I think is a good thing. You would think it would go to great lengths to deter the Americans from sending troops to Taiwan. You want to see missiles in San Francisco? Well, my question to you is, do you think

that it matters whether we prevent China from dominating Asia? Do you think that? That's the value judgment, which you've articulated so nicely. But you have to ante up on that, because it's easy for you to poke at me for wanting to defend Taiwan, right? But if you don't want to defend Taiwan, you are in effect saying that it is not of strategic importance whether China dominates Asia. That's a completely legitimate point of view. Right. And part of the reason I come to that conclusion is because of what my friend John Joseph Mearsheimer has said to me, that China

does not want to invade San Francisco. They want to trade with us. I would just say to you that the argument that you're articulating is the heart and soul of the isolationist argument in the United States throughout much of the 20th century. And it is a powerful argument. I do not for one second want to make fun of the argument that you're making. I disagree with it, but it is a powerful argument. And it's why Franklin D. Roosevelt had an enormously difficult time December 7th, 1941, because he needed that to defeat the isolationist argument. But we're talking about, you know, 80 years ago. Yes, but that 80 years ago is very relevant for the present. Yes. Because one could argue your argument that you're making now is stronger today than it was in the late 1930s.

Yes. Because we have nuclear weapons. Yes. We didn't have nuclear weapons in the late 1930s. So one could argue that San Francisco, to use your rhetoric, is safer today because of the American nuclear deterrent than it was in the late 1930s. Nicely put. Professor, it is a delight to chat with you. I never thought we'd disagree on anything, but the respect you have for my argument and the respect I have for yours and your intellect and your experience is very high. But thank you very much for all you have analyzed for us today, from Gaza to Iran to Ukraine to Beijing to Taipei. Thank you, Professor Mearsheimer. It's a pleasure. Look forward to it already.

Look forward to seeing you next week. You're welcome, Judge. Thank you. A brilliant and gifted human being. Coming up at four o'clock Eastern, the one and only Max Blumenthal. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.