Open Book with Anthony Scaramucci - Secretary of Defense Mark Esper’s Oath to America

Episode Date: April 24, 2023

Mark Esper, the 27th Secretary of Defense under President Trump joins Anthony to discuss his bestselling memoir, A Sacred Oath: Memoirs of a Secretary of Defense During Extraordinary Times. Together they make sense of the Trump years, sharing stories from behind the closed White House doors, and of course, both of their firings. Then, Secretary Esper examines America’s current national security, considering the threat of China, Putin - and the United States itself. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMDM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor.

Free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario. Hello, I'm Anthony Scaramucci, and this is open. book where I talk with some of the brightest minds out there about everything surrounding the written word, from authors and historians to figures in entertainment, neuroscientists, political activists, and of course, Wall Street. Sorry, I can't resist. Before we get into today's episode, if you haven't already, please hit follow or subscribe wherever you get your podcast and leave us a review. We all love a review, even the bad ones. I want to hear the parts you're enjoying or how we can do better. You know

I can roll with the punches. So let me know. Anyways, let's get to it. Next up on Open Book, one of the great patriots during the Trump years, Mark Esper, the 27th Secretary of Defense. You can learn so much from listening to Mark, not just about the security of America, but about what it means to love and serve our country. Secretary Esper gives us his take on China and Russia, what changes we need to make internally and regals us with stories from his time in office. As you know, we're both part of the Trump-fired support network. It's a legion of people. So you can expect some of all of that good stuff in there as well. Joining us now on Open Book is Mark T. Esper. He's the 27th Secretary

of Defense. He wrote a phenomenal book. Mark, it truly enjoyed the book, A Sacred Oath, Memories of a Secretary of Defense during extraordinary times. There's also a great background in this book about your life and what you've done. And first of all, thank you for your service of the country. I've known of you, but I've got to tell my viewers and listeners, when I first really met Mark for the first time, I opened the door to the suite at the Army Navy game. And Mark said to me, oh, are you here for the Trump Fire Support Network? And I said, yes, of all of course I am, okay?

Although, you know, I was probably the most short-lived of all the people, but it was certainly a very impactful time in my life. I got fired before it was fashionable to get fired, by the way. I was like the first of the 80 people that got fired. But, you know, you are a man that loves the country. You wrote something. I'm going to read this to my viewers because I really wanted to go out and buy your book because they'll learn so much about what makes this country great. Mark Meadows called you and said, the president isn't happy with you. You're not sufficiently loyal. And you said, and I quote, my oath is to the Constitution, not to him. What do you think, Mark, about all of this? Like, you know, when you read the Constitution,

you served the country, you went to West Point, you understand this decentralized nature of the government, the checks and balances in the system. What do you think is going on right now? Like, what do we need to do? You and me are contemporaries. What do we need to do to teach younger people about the sacredness of what you said to Mark Meadows? Well, first of all, you're very kind and generous in your comments, and I appreciate you give me the chance today to talk about my memoir. Look, I was very fortunate to have been accepted to go to West Point at the young age of 18 in what were still the formative years of my life.

And so at the academy, they taught us the importance of duty and honor and country that was drilled into you and explained to you and emphasized. And, of course, the criticality of putting your country above all things. And as I write in a memoir, I swore my first oath to the Constitution at the age of 18. not at the age of 55 or so when I became Secretary of Defense. So it was something I lived with from a very young age and continued throughout a career in the Army and eventually as a civilian. So look, I think the important thing to answer your specific question is people coming into service

for the country, either through the military, of course. But as civilians, whether you're a political appointee or a career civilian, you've got to understand that oath comes number one. It's to the Constitution. It's not to a president. It's not to a party. it's not to political philosophy. Frankly, it's not to your own policy preferences. And oftentimes we have that happen in our government as well. But it's what is the oath to the country, what's

best? And then from there, you know, you are responsible for carrying out your tasks. I mean, so, so well said. And I, you know, we, we've got probably so many war stories that we could share. We would laugh about together because we, obviously, you know, I worked with Trump during the campaign more than in the White House. And I guess I didn't. see the kaleidoscope going on in his brain that I should have. That's my fault. I have to own that. But I want to go over a couple of things. And I'm just going to call it crazy shit. Is that okay? Because, you know, people know I'm a profane person. Sure, that's an acceptable contemporary. Yes, you accept this. This is some crazy shit in a sacred oath. Your fantastic book. Okay, number one, he proposed going after the cartels and said no one would know it was us. He suggested bringing the military to shoot protesters. You can't get more authoritarian than that. That would have been like Tiananmen Square. He proposed military action in Venezuela. He proposed a blockade of Cuba. You know, I know from other sources inside the White House, he asked people, well, what if we nuke Tehran? I mean, the guy was like, you know, Trump would always say that he was just kidding or

all this other stuff, but he's the American president saying and spewing this sorts of nonsense. So now you're a rational guy. You have a phenomenal reputation and you're very well read. How do you respond to this? And I'll again call it crazy shit. So how do you respond to this? How do you respond to crazy shit like this, Mark? Well, part of the challenge, too, I might add, though, is you had many folks around him enabling or amplifying or, you know, exaggerating those ideas. So that was also presented another complication for a number of folks in the administration. You were trying to kind of manage this, if you will. So, look, I think you have to go back in all things, whether it's the military, government, corporate life.

And I've served in all three. What are your core principles? And what's the mission of your institution? and stay true to those things. And I always felt that I owed the president my honest advice. I owed him options more than just one that he might choose or propose and try and figure out how do I help him advance the policies that he was elected for, but do so within certain guardrails, if you may,

that have been long established with regard to our Constitution, of course, the law and the norms of accepted behavior, if you will. I kind of viewed that as my job because I had not just a responsibility to the country, but also to my institution, to the people who work for me, both civilian and military, all these different factors play in when you're in these jobs. And you experienced it as well during your tenure at the White House. There are a lot of stakeholders, a lot of people with different opinions and different agendas. Oftentimes not, you know, a lot of times they're personal agendas, unfortunately. And those are other things you have to work around.

I mean, you see, this is why he lasted longer to me because you're like such a diplomat, I used to like fight with them and say, are you effing crazy? You know, and he would look at me. And then he would say, oh, well, you know, I'm just kidding. I'm like, why, they don't sound like, you're the American president. You know, I mean, he had me an Air Force won in the office. And he's like, I'm going to veto the Russian sanctions bill. I don't know if you remember this. It was like July of 2017.

Paul Ryan and McConnell passed the sanctions bill because of what the tampering in the election. I'm going to veto it and show these guys, Russia had nothing to do with my election. I'm like, they're going to call Chuck Schumer. override the veto. And then he looks at me, he's like, they can do that? I'm like, yeah, they can do that. Then he calls McCann, you know, the White House, he's calling him from the Air Force One, and he's asking him if they could do that. And of course, McCann says that they can do that. And then he looks at me, he goes, oh, you're a smart cookie. I mean, he signs the bill. Cushner asked me, how the hell did you get them to sign it? I said, I told them they were going to get an override.

These are his teammates. But you were doing exactly what you should do. Just what I said. You were being honest with him, your best advice, and you were giving him information that he didn't have, that somebody else might not have told him. But Jared said something very telling Mark. He said, no, you can't talk to him like that because now he knows that you know something that he didn't know. And he's so insecure that he's going to say, oh, Anthony's out there telling people that I'm an idiot that I don't know. You don't talk to him like that. I said, I couldn't get him to sign it for six weeks. I said, well, why don't you just tell him they were going to override? He goes, you can't talk to him like that.

And you know exactly what I'm talking about because McMaster and I, you know, McMaster was trying to explain a Shia and a Sunni, the difference between the two Muslim faith, the sex. And he got pissed off because he felt like he was being lectured to. You follow what I'm saying? Yeah. Look, there is a way to do it. And I said this a couple times. You have to learn how to manage your boss, right? Or how you manage yourself the boss to kind of make sure that you can help him get to the right place. And that's part of the art. Some of that drama is too much for me to figure out. And again, my view is to always, you know, present faith. giving my honest opinions. And if you didn't like it, which you often didn't, that's fine. But I felt I was doing my job. And you obviously had a different relationship because yours was more personal, arguably, than mine. But look, that's what we, that's what we do. That's what you owe not just Tim, but you owe the country in the role you're playing. I guess I have to ask you this. I hope you don't mind me asking you this, because I, you know, because I have to ask this of myself. And so I've got to, you know, and if it's a little bit of our support group thing. So what were you thinking? Okay, because, you know, my friend Vinnie Viola, he looked at the situation. He was offered the Secretary of the Army. He said,

ah, not for me. I made the mistake of ego. I think you were thinking about service, right? You were like, okay, how can I better the country, right? Right. You know, and Vinny approached it the same way. Vinny entered West Point in age 18 or so. He's another great American hero. And he would have done a great job as Secretary of the Army, but he had a much more, far more complicated financial situation than I had. But look, he and I and others are, you know, gluttons for service, if you will. And that public service calling has always been there and probably always will. And look, that's what you go and to serve. You go to serve your country. Again, not necessarily a president or a party or a philosophy, but, but your country. And that's why it was, you know, it's been so unfair.

And this happens every cycle, both sides of the party is people start casting blame and name calling about people who choose to serve. And I think that's wrong. It's unfair. There are some who deserve it, but it's a minority. But most people go to serve their country. I'll tell you that you and I obviously have a mutual friend. We didn't start out so friendly because he fired my ass. Okay, that was General Kelly, but we've become very close friends. And he is incredibly fond of you. I was in Iowa at a public speaking event with him. And he said, you know, you and Mark Esper would get on. You got to get together with Mark. And so he was fortunate that we were able to connect with each other. Well, he's a great man. He's given his entire life to the country. His son served. He lost

his son in combat for the country. He's a gold star. He's a four-star general, gold-star family member. Yes. You and Kelly have something in common, though, which is remarkable restraint. Okay, so I want you to react to this, okay? In the book, you know, I mean, it's sort of after the book. Trump tweets out, okay, that you were a rhino, which is a Republican in the name only.

You were incapable of leading. And I had to run the military myself, which is typical Trump nonsense, okay? When he started firing at me, okay, I have no restraint. I think I called him the fattest president since William Howard Taft because I know he ate being so fat. But you guys, give me the restraint lesson. Is that coming from the military? Is that coming from, all right, I'm just going to ignore this?

Go ahead. Give me the restraint lesson. Look, I think part of it is how I was raised, number one. Number two is, I was raised like a wild animal swinging from the trees. No, no, no. This is like really morally rectitude. No, no indictment on your parents. I think the second thing, look, I think the greatest threat facing our country today, surprise, is not China.

It's actually the extreme political partisanship from both sides of the political aisle. And it's marked by this incivility. It's marked by name calling. It's marked by getting down to the mud with folks who want to go there. And I've just never wanted to go there. So I'm not going to get in that type of contest with Donald Trump. He enjoys being in that milieu. And I don't.

And I don't think it's good for the country. So look, he called, like you said, he name calls everybody, calls me a Rhino. I worked in Reagan's think tank, if you will, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative organization. I worked for Republicans conservative leaders on the hill ranging from Jesse Helms to Fred Thompson to Bill Frist. So I'm comfortable that my record speaks to the fact that I'm a Republican, but I'm a Reagan Republican. And I believe in common sense, core American values. I appreciate that. I got the chance to sit next to Ed Meese in 2012 and one of the.

Republican events in D.C. We did a debate in D.C. As Governor Romney was rising to the nomination, I got it just by luck, I hadn't to be sitting next to him. And that was a thrill for me because obviously I admired him as a student when I was a kid. Right. I want to set the scene about the American military and the Pentagon. And I want you to tell us some things, you know, from your life experience in your book,

which you write about this amazing organization known as a defense department. And your time there. And what would you say to young people about their defense department and the Pentagon, the culture there, and the responsibility that it has not only here, but around the world? You know, I'm going to differentiate the question a little bit, too, because there's the Pentagon. And I serve five tours in that building as both the Army officer and a civilian. So I know the Pentagon, but I think more importantly, I want to talk about the armed forces, the fielded forces, whether it's a ship at sea, a marine training, a forward deployed soldier, whatever the case may be. That is the heart and soul of America's military. That's where you have, you know, young men and women from all walks of life, from all quarters of the country, from all faiths and ethnicities coming together, wearing a common uniform with a standard mission to defend our nation.

And they work together to do it and often under very trying circumstances. And they bring their families along to do it as well. And that's probably the toughest job in the military. So to me, there's a big difference. And I tell young people, look, you don't have to serve a career. Come serve two, three, four years. You'll never regret it. You'll meet some of the best people you'll ever will.

you'll stay friends forever. The experiences will carry you a lifetime and you'll learn some tremendous skills that any employer would love to have in his or her workplace. And that's kind of my pitch to young people today. And it is very well said. I guess, you know, and I want to hear all that. I think it's very important for young people to hear it. Let me take a different approach to the question because I don't think people understand the magnitude mark. You know, I mean, is it an $800 billion military? How big is the footprint around the world? How many bases? is the design plan? Why is our Navy so large? What are we thinking about with our Navy? Look, it's one of the top two or three largest organizations in the world, certainly the largest

in the United States government, 2.8 million people, civilian and military. I hate $840 billion budget. We have, I think, 1,700 installations around the world in almost 100 plus countries. And it's a vast organization focused on one thing, defending the American people, defending the country and advancing our interests abroad. And that's why we have a global military force with an international footprint. And every day, again, young Americans, most of them are between 17 and 24, are out there on the front lines doing it. And, you know, the job I help people think about, like you said, the Navy, the Air Force. But look, you're also responsible for hospitals and daycare centers and schools and electric facilities and you name it, all kinds of things. It's like running a small

city that's deployed around the world in all these locations. It's a truly extraordinary thing. The more and more I learn about it, the more impressed I am. But yet we both know that even though we have this amazing military, all this great technology, it still can't solve every problem around the world. And so we've got this big problem going on in the Ukraine right now. Listen to some of your interviews. You were a little critical of what was going on in Ukraine with the Biden administration. Where are your thoughts now? Tell us what you think is going on in the U.S. Ukraine and what do you think the potential outcomes could be? Well, look, I think Ukraine marks the first battle of this long struggle in the 21st century between autocracies and democracies. And it's proven

a strategic failure on multiple levels for Vladimir Putin. And Ukraine has showed us the virtue of strength and tenacity and skill and courage by pushing back up much, much bigger neighbor who's a bully. And they've taught us some lessons about tenacity and grit, right? And so I think it's important for America to live up to our values and frankly to defend forward that we support the Ukrainians. They're not asking us from American soldiers, Marines or whatnot to come defend them. All they're asking for is arms and ammunition. And I think the quicker and sooner we can provide that, which is where I've been critical to Biden administration, that the shorter this war will be and the less deadly, if you will. But look, we think about it in Europe, but Xi Jinping and Beijing

is watching very closely what's happening. And he's sizing us up. He's sizing up our NATO allies. he's sizing up the Western democracies. And I'm sure it's all figuring into his calculations about whether he attacks or tries to seize Taiwan or some other neighbor in the end of the Pacific. So it's interesting. We're there providing the support. It's the right cause. But we also have to send messages to other people that we're going to protect freedom and democracy around the world, which is super important to us, right? So let me frame it differently because I think it's important for Americans to understand this. Why, though? Because remember, we've had a history of isolationism. And we have a history of people saying, hey, that's not our problem. Franklin Roosevelt

had some great speeches in the late 30s explaining, well, actually, it is our problem because it's going to end up on our shores. So explain it to us, Mark. Look, the best way to explain it is something nearly everybody understands. It's the schoolyard bully, right? If you don't stand up to the schooly bully, all the bully does is pick on more kids, other kids, and eventually it comes around to you, right? And so if you can stand up, face that bully down, it puts him in his place. And you can rid yourself with the problem, if you will. Look, if Russia captures Ukraine, who's going to be next? Georgia, Moldova, would he then try and make a move on the Baltics? And at the same time, while Putin is acting very aggressively

in Europe, does that give Xi Jinping the motivation to make a move as well? If we're tied down there and we're not responding, does Xi Jinping look and say, look, the Americans really are weak. They're focused inward. They really don't care about international affairs. they're not going to support others, so I'll make my move now. And at the end of day, look, the vision that Xi Jinping and Beijing wants to achieve is a world by the year 2049 where China dominates, where we're living by their rules and norms. And I would say to you and your listeners, if you love living in a surveillance state with concentration camps, if you love having no personal freedoms, no liberty, if you love having no rule of law, then move to China, move to

Russia. But that's not the role I want to live in. I want my kids to live in. And that's what we're fighting for. We don't want to go back to the Cold War, but unfortunately, it looks like we're heading that way. You brought up 2049, and the reason I believe that you did that is that they have these 10, 15, 20, 100 year plans. 249 would be the 100th anniversary of the communist takeover of mainland mainland China. And so I guess my question to you is, where is our long-term planning? You know, we had a policy of containment. George Kennan helped the development. It became the Truman doctrine, 40-year plan, contain communism, defeat communism. The plan begins in 1946. It ends in 1989 or something like that. You get my point. Where is our long-term planning now?

Wow. Well, first of all, I commend you for that quick recitation of American Forum Policy's history and strategic doctrine. So that's great. Look, we've struggled for finding out what that doctoral name is since the end of the Cold War in 1991. And I think we're going back to containment, if you will. Containment of the Chinese. And I'm fine with that because they are the ones misbehaving. They're the ones trying to change the international order. But we haven't come to that yet. Now, this is where I give credit to the Trump administration. I think an achievement of that era was the fact that we consolidated a view within the United States government that China is a long-term strategic threat. And we need to get all

organs of government focused on that. And I think we made a lot of accomplishments. And my role was to really implement a national defense strategy that said just that. And we made a lot of progress with regard to doing that, standing up at China office, reorienting our doctrine, making sure that we had, we were teaching Chinese tactics in our schools, all those types of things. But we're still not there yet as a country. We need a countrywide approach. And then we need our allies and partners to come along. Some are already there, particularly if you look into the Asia Pacific. But in Europe, they're not all there yet. And we'll need to stand together if we're going to deal with that. But I think we're coming full circle back to the strategy to containment. So let me ask the obvious

question, Chinese have a different economy than the former Soviet Union. Yeah, they have one. Exactly. And they've got, they've got a lot going on there that is in some ways very powerful. They've got AI going on, chip development and manufacturing. They've deployed a lot of resources into this market-based, communist centralized, hybrid economy where the government is helping the private sector and vice versa. There's a positive loop there. There's negative loops in some ways, but there's a positive loop there, which is different from the Soviet Union. Soviet Union was weakened by its ideology. The Chinese Communist Party has a different sort of ideology. Harder to combat, Mark, what's your reaction to that? And then how would we have to gauge ourselves to win that, if you will, that competition? But great, great point. You've summed it up well, a very great insights. And you're right. I mean, the Soviet Union was, I like to say, a unidimensional threat, right? We were really concerned about their military capability. China is a full spectrum threat. They have a very large, very large.

capable military. They have a very large economy. The second largest in the world, it's very diverse. It's number three. They have a lot of tech prowess. And number four, they have a lot of diplomatic reach as well. So they are a full spectrum threat. And that will be the challenge, particularly on the economic side. We see some of our partners in Europe, especially Germany and France. And for example, President Macron and the head of the EU commission are there right now or just left China on a trade deal, trade deals. That's the area that is the most complex. because we are so integrated, our economies, United States, European, so forth and so on. We're not going to completely break from China, nor should we, but I do think we need to have

what we call strategic decoupling. That means key areas, such as rare earth elements and certain materials. That means semiconductors. That means some other high-end technologies that are really crucial to the Chinese military and intelligence apparatus. I think we need to start denying them. The administration has done a good job on this, begun in the Trump era, and I think needs to continue. But we're going to see a strategic decoupling, but not a complete decoupling because we can't afford to do so, frankly. Yeah, well, we can't afford to do so, but also I think we both know that a little bit of economic interdependence and a little bit of commercial activity between us may reduce some of the tension. Yeah, yeah, you hope. You know, that was the theory

when we let them into the WTO in 2000, 2001. And as you know, I write about this one memoir. I was there in Congress at the Senate at the time. And the theory was, if we let them into the WTO, you if we brought them into all these international organizations that they would continue to moderate over time and change and become accepting of the international order. And it just hasn't proven itself true. And as you know, I mean, again, I partly wants to believe that economic integration argument, but we've seen Xi Jinping crack down really hard in the economic sector in China, particularly the tech sector, and it's hurt him economically.

Now, it looks like he's trying to claw his way back a little bit and find some type of middle ground. But this is going to be a fundamental question going forward is where will Xi Jinping take his economy? You're bringing up a fascinating point because, you know, that's how we all got trained, right? You know, that's the whole Kissinger, Nixon, even Reagan, you know, then Zhao Ping. He's reforming. Let's help them rise, increase their living standards. I mean, this goes back to George Marshall, rising living standards around the world. Yeah, we brought almost 700 million Chinese out of poverty just by letting them in and helping them come forward.

It's fascinating. I, President Xi visited President Trump in April of 2017. He was carrying a book with him by Graham Allison, the dean of the Kennedy School. I think the title of the book was destined for war. And the thesis in the book was that a rising superpower often threatens the existing power structure. I mean, he took it all the way back to the Peloponnesian War between Athens. Yeah, it's the so-called Thucydides. Right, exactly. He took it right back to the Peloponnesian War. And so he put you through 16 episodic events. 12 of which we went to war, four of which we didn't. The most dramatic one was when the UK was in decline and its kissing cousin, the United States was in rise. And so they were okay. Same Christianity, same set of rules and, you know, white English-speaking people. Let's just be frank about it. So they didn't go after each other. But now you have two different tribes. One is rising. Right. And we can debate whether or not one is declining. I'd like to think America's best days are ahead of it if we can get our act together. But here we are. So what do you say?

say to that as a foreign policy theorist, a defense theorist, how do we prevent the tension that these thudicity strap, if I'm even pronouncing it right, is upon us right now between us and the Chinese? Well, it's an interesting theory, a lot of historical example, and it's important that we learn from those examples. I don't think that war with China is inevitable and certainly not imminent. I think it's something that we need to continue to manage. I think it's, you have to work it in multiple ways. And in some way, some of those ways may seem like they conflict with each other, but they don't. So for example, going back to our previous discussion, I think we need to continue to pursue some degree of economic integration in as many non-strategic areas as possible. That gives

everybody on both sides instead of not to go to war, not to have tension. On the other hand, at the same time, we need to build the most capable military we can. It goes back to Ronald Reagan's peace through strength doctrine. And we need to bring our allies and partners along with us, because what we want is Xi Jinping to wake up every morning to look outside his window. We want to look at the Taiwan straight and look at Taipei and say, you know, not today. It's not worth it. It's not worth losing my economy and it's not worth having my military destroyed by the United States and its allies. And that's what we have to manage until we get a new set of leaders in Beijing.

I think it's well said. And I think I think that's been the policy. And I think it's also reflected there in the Ukraine. The late and very terrific and the late great Ash Carter had the opportunity. to interview him a few months prior to his untimely death. He said something to me that I want you to react to. He said, Anthony, the Russian military has been decimated, incredibly weakened, more so than even the press is indicating.

And obviously there's propaganda on both sides. The Russians are telling us they're winning the war. The Ukrainians, we believe, are winning the war. What is really happening there? And is Ash Carter correct that their military has been decimated? Yeah, so first of all, yeah, we miss Ash. He was a good man, and his death was so tragic and too soon, right, for all of us. Absolutely. He was a very smart man, too, and I was privileged to get to know him. He was helpful to me when I was Secretary of Defense.

But look, I think he's right. We know at this point more than 90 percent of the Russian ground forces have been committed to Ukraine, and they've been torn up, decimated. And I think in a way that, look, they've proved themselves not to be very capable going into the fight, whether from the general officer level to the NCOs, to the privates, their equipment has been found. to have many flaws and weaknesses. Their tactics are unsound. So when you take all that and you decimate it, look, not only do they have a very incapable, incompetent ground force now, it will take them years and years and years to rebuild it because their industrial base has been wiped out as well. That is due largely to the economic and financial and other sanctions, tech sanctions we've placed on them. And we need to continue to do that. Now, that's said, that's the good news. The bad news is they still, their Air Force is largely intact. Their Navy is largely.

intact and it's a very good Navy and they still have nuclear weapons. And so we need to be very cognizant, but they still remain, while their military, their army's been decimated, they still remain quite capable. Whether they are as competent in those other areas as we thought their army was, who knows. But I think we need to be, we need to keep those things into consideration. When you and I were young, although I'm in denial and I like to think of myself as still young, the, yeah, exactly. Let's, let's continue the denialism, Marcus. Okay, but, but, but. Yes. In the 1989 period, I was coming out of law school and I was told Japan, Inc. And that the Japanese were going to take over the world.

They had the best economic footprint and their stock market was soaring and they were going to eat everybody's lunch. That did not happen. We were told that the Soviet Union prior to that could eventually envelop the world. That did not happen. I'm wondering if sometimes we think linearly, but the world's happening around as exponentially, is there a scenario where Putin loses control? and even possibly the Chinese Communist Party, because you and I both know we're students of history.

These one-party systems have a tendency to last about 70 years. And then they break down and they sort of dissolve. And both of these things are in overtime. So what say you to that sort of radical contrarian thought? Well, first of all, I agree with you about what was talked about in the early 90s. I was going to grad school then as well. And everybody wants to predict America's decline and demise and downfall. And we're just such a vibrant nation. with this, you know, the spirit of immigrants coming in and a very innovative culture. You can never count us out. So I'm very hopeful. You like failure in this culture.

I mean, I've been failing upwards for 30 years, Esper. There you go. There you go. Well, look, we got fired in our last job. So there you go. It won't be the last time I've been fired, though. I can assure you that. I'm looking forward to more firings in my future.

But, you know, these authoritarian states are quite brittle. And they get more brittle over time. And I think it's questionable as to what happens to Putin. He's not fighting a three front war, right? He's fighting a military battle in Ukraine. He's fighting, if you will, the West led by NATO. And he's fighting on the home front. There's a lot of tension inside Russia. And the question is, can he survive that? I don't know Russian politics all that well, but we also know that he's a former KGB agent. I'm sure he knows what's happening all around him. But he could fall. He could be pushed out. Now, whoever comes behind him may not necessarily be better. It could be a real, you know, hardcore right winger. We just don't know. And this is, this is why it's so important. It's, we need to get beyond Putin and try and restore some sense of democracy in that country. So we have, you know, there's more checks and balances and what happens there. And look, Xi Jinping in the other part of the world just secured himself a third unprecedented term for five years. If he remains healthy, he'll probably take another five years. He's going to be around for a while,

I suspect. So these guys aren't going away. Certainly not the Chinese leadership anytime soon. Well, well, well said. I guess my last. question on this and I'm going to switch to my lightning round and we'll conclude this fascinating interview. But is democracy, I think we're trying to export it into Iraq. Iraq is probably a better place city than it was when Saddam Hussein had it, but obviously the difficult place. But is it exportable? Number one, is democracy exportable? Number two, are nations like Russia and China. Tell me, they've had histories of kingdoms, monarchies, czar, autocracy. So is it possible to even break that cycle? and create democracy in countries like those?

Well, there's far more better qualified people to meet an instance, but I'll take a stab at it. I think it's exportable if the people want it, if they're willing to fight for it, if they're willing to defend it. And we didn't see that in Afghanistan, right? And it was questionable for a period of time there in Iraq. And like you said, now at least Iraq has some type of functioning democracy. There's a lot going on in turn with regard to partisanship and Sunni versus Shia, as you've mentioned, earlier. But it's something. But look, I think at the end of day, we can't impose our values on people. We can't impose our form of government. If they want it, if they're willing

to fight for it and defend it, then I think we should help them. But I think we need to get better at figuring those things out earlier than what we did in Afghanistan, for example. We spent a lot of time there trying to work within a culture that never had, that I can recall, a true democratic experience. And because of the nature of the fight, the civil war, they weren't willing in the end to fight for it. At least they didn't have the political leadership, probably to be more fair, didn't have the political leadership that was willing to stay and fight and defend it, like President Zelensky in Ukraine was willing to defend his democracy. Well said. Okay, I've got five words, statements. It's actually people in your case. I need you to

give me a lightning fire response to these if you don't mind. Okay, ready? Cash Patel. I think I maybe met Cash once as well. His reputation is being a bad actor, but that's based on, you know, what other people said, what I've read, so forth and so on. But somebody who puts Trump first. General Nacosone. Paul Nacosone is an American treasurer in many ways. He's a very capable officer who's led both the NSA and Cyber Command. I got a lot of respect for him and we worked together very well. Vice President Pence. I like Vice President Pence. I think he's a good man, an honest man who did an extraordinary job and got a lot of respect for him. He certainly showed who he really was on January 6th. Well, I'm in your camp with the vice president. I have an enormous

amount of respect for him. And I think that like yourself, he exercised restraint when necessary. And Mark, you're never going to say this. So I'm going to say it. Okay. I guarantee that there were things that you've done silently and anonymously that served and protected the country during your term in the Trump administration. And I know I can say that about General Kelly. And for that matter, Vice President Pence. And the most dramatic thing for Vice President Pence was the 6th of January in terms of keeping our constitutional dignity. What about President Zelensky? I think he's a man who rose to the occasion and stood tall during some tough times. I think if he would have left Keev in those early days of the conflict when I guess we called over and offered him a way out, there would be a very different

situation in that country now. I suspect the government would have collapsed. The military might not have fought as hard and Russia would have occupied far more of Ukraine these days. So his actions are very Churchillian, if you will. He can win this? Absolutely. He can win. witness. He just needs to have the, you know, the arms and ammunition and assistance that he keeps asking for, and we keep slow rolling. Yeah, I know, I know, I know. We like to do that, right? What do the right thing, right? We do the right thing, but we have to exhaust every other opportunity, right? That's right. What about our old boss? Let's, let's end it with Donald Trump. Look, he's obviously a complicated figure. I've said my issue with him, many occasions, is he doesn't

put the country first. He puts himself first. And in leaders, you need people of character and integrity who are willing to sacrifice themselves, if you will, and certainly put country first. And he doesn't check any of those boxes for me. And so that's why I don't think he's fit to be president. I'm hoping that we see a next generation of leaders within the GOP, and frankly, on the Democrat side as well, rise up and move beyond the leaders we have today. And that's my hope. And I hope we'll see another Ronald Reagan at some point, too. Couldn't agree with you more. And I think we have to get there and we have to help these people get there. What's next for you before I let you go, sir? Oh, I'm busy these days, working in venture capital and private equity and boards and public speaking and stuff like that.

So I have a busy agenda with the lots of things. And we'll see what the future holds. I never rule anything in or out. All right. Well, I think your future is incredibly bright. And I hope it's back in the service of our country, this fragile democracy that we both love. I appreciate you joining me today on Open Book. And the title of your book is A Sacred Oath, Memories of a Secretary of Defense during extraordinary times.

Thanks for joining us, Park. My closing thoughts on my conversation with Secretary Esper, in terms of America's defense, what I'm most worried about is the way we have designed the Pentagon is still a uniform to uniform war, primarily predicated on the way we're thinking about fighting wars during the Cold War. It is a different strategy now. There's a lot of soft power. There's a lot of potential terrorism. Hacktivists, people that could hack our electrical grid, people that can declare economic, war on us. The setup as an example of a new currency that adversaries of ours would trade with each other would cause a weakening to the dollar supremacy, which is a form of war. And I guess what I'm the most

worried about is despite our incredibly large defense budget, we seem to be behind on a few things. AI as an example, hypersonic missiles. I think it's become very clear that our aircraft carriers and the battalions associated with our aircraft carriers are now vulnerable to supersonic missile attack. And the Russians and the Chinese, whether we'd like to admit this or not, they seem to be ahead of us in terms of their testing and the efficacy of their supersonic missiles. That puts our aircraft carriers and that former strategic defense, that line of defense that was protecting places like Taiwan at risk. And so I don't think there's anything eminent in terms of a potential attack of a place like Taiwan, but that doesn't mean by 2027 or 2028 that couldn't happen.

I love Mark's line. My oath is to the Constitution. It was interesting because he had to be respectful of the president, respect the authority of the office of the president, and Donald Trump as commander of chief, the civilian in charge of the American military, but he was also more important to hold himself steady to the Constitution and what was appropriate to do on behalf of that document. This is reminiscent of a quick story I'd like to share with everybody here on Open Book. And that was a time I was in the Oval Office where Mr. Trump was talking to Paul Ryan, who at that time was the Speaker of the House of the United States, he got in Paul's face in the Oval Office and was barking at Paul saying to him, you work for me. I'm your boss. I'm the President of the United States.

And Paul looked at him and scratched his head and said, I actually don't work for you. There are separate articles in the Constitution, and you're at a different branch of government than me, separate but equal branches of the government. And so therefore, I don't work for you. And moreover, I work for and you work for the American people. And we should take our common cause there. And of course, Mr. President, I have to do what's in the best interest of the American people. And so when I think about Paul or Mark Esper, I think about great Americans that were committed to that ethos and in many ways protected the country from a lot of nonsense. All right.

You're ready to join the show? Do you remember Secretary Mark Esper? He was the Secretary of Defense for Donald Trump. You remember the Trump forced him to walk in the park with him in front of the church? And he got really pissed off at Trump for that. He was on today's show. He had the Bible upside down. Right.

You remember when he held the Bible upside Donald Trump? Okay. In Mark's book, he told some crazy stories about Trump. And, you know, one of them was that Trump. wanted to use the military to shoot protesters. Does that surprise you about Trump? No. You know what I think of Trump is I don't think, I think that he's not educated enough because he doesn't think before he speaks and he's so narcissistic that he just blurts things out without thinking of what he's saying. You know, he's very strong in his manner,

but I think that he ruins himself on the way he conducts himself. Right. You think he's going to make it back to the presidency, Ma? Possibly, but I don't think so. Okay. All right, why not? Because I think that he, the people that have any form of ability and education will see the real him. He doesn't think about what he's saying sometimes. He just blurs it out because he can't control himself.

And he's not a good enough speaker, but he does have clout and his character on his statue. Like people would be afraid of him because he would do the men if he had a lot. do the thing where I think that Biden is very soft and I don't think he has the hutsper to acknowledge he doesn't have the strength that someone like Trump has but I don't think Trump is good because he's very insulting to the person that he's trying to criticize I don't think that's right right it's too much bullying right too much bullying a bully that's a bully and he likes being a bully which is right itself because people that are bullied you like when I fight with him though right because you know out of fight with bullies, right? You like that, right?

Well, I think that one of the reasons why, can I say what I think? Yes. I think one of the reasons why you were fired by, because of Elizabeth, being an obnoxious creep, and Trump didn't save you because he was afraid that you would take over because you're not how to talk better than him, and you're more educated than him, and you think of your words better than him, and he doesn't think right. He says things that are way out there. All right, I love you, Ma.

That's it for today on Open Book. All right, baby. All right. Be looking at it. All right. Love you, ma. I am Anthony Scaramucci, and that was Open Book. Thank you for listening.

If you like what you hear, tell your friends and make sure you hit follow or subscribe wherever you listen to your podcast. While you're there, please leave us a rating or review. If you want to connect with me or chat more about the discussions, it's at Scaramucci on Twitter or Instagram. You can also text me at Plus 1.9. 917, 909, 2996. I'd love to hear from you. I'll see you back here next week.