Voices of Freedom - Interview with General Jack Keane

Episode Date: February 22, 2024

An Interview with General Jack Keane, a Retired Four-Star General and Commentator The expanding turmoil in the Middle East and the ongoing war in Ukraine indicate that 2024 will be one of global unrest and uncertainty. The unease comes at a time when the U.S. is wrestling with its role in the world. The ideological divide over America’s posture when it comes to global conflict has transcended party lines, creating greater nuance to our foreign policy. How that impacts our engagement on the world stage, particularly in a presidential election year, remains to be seen. General Jack Keane, a leading figure on national security and foreign affairs, is our guest on this episode of Voices of Freedom. He shares his thoughts on the geopolitical environment, how the U.S, should approach international hotspots, civil society’s role during conflict, and the issues confronting the military. General Jack Keane is a retired four-star general and commentator, whose 37 years of public service culminated in his appointment as acting Chief of Staff and Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army.  He is the Chairman of the Institute for the Study of War, a Senior Strategic Analyst for Fox News, and a member of the Secretary of Defense Policy Board.   Topics discussed on this episode:  Whether we’re on the precipice of World War III The latest developments in the Middle East  How the U.S. should approach the ongoing war in Ukraine The surge in support for Palestine among Americans How civil society impacts countries with sustained conflict America’s role in the world The challenges facing the U.S. military Gen. Keane has received numerous awards and accolades, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom.  He was also a 2015 Bradley Prize winner.     

Hello and welcome to Voices of Freedom, a Bradley Foundation podcast. I'm Rick Graber, President and CEO of the Bradley Foundation. On the podcast, we'll explore issues that affect our freedoms with a focus on free enterprise, free speech, and educational freedom. So let's get started. With the threat of growing conflict in the Middle East, the ongoing war in Ukraine, China's unquestionable ambition to be the global superpower, and of course, a loices of Freedom to share his thoughts on what the latest developments mean for America and for global stability. General Jack Keane is a retired four-star general and commentator whose 37 years of public service culminated in his appointment as acting chief of staff and Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army. General Keene serves as an advisor to presidents, cabinet officials, members of Congress, international leaders, CEOs, and business leaders. He's the chairman of the Institute for the Study

of War and is a senior strategic analyst for Fox News. General Keene is a member of the Secretary of Defense Policy Board, having advised four defense secretaries, and was a member of the 2018 and 2022 Congressional Commission on the National Defense Strategy. General Keene has received numerous awards and accolades, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He was also a 2015 Bradley Prize winner. General, it is wonderful to have you. Great to see you. Yeah, delighted to be here with you, Rick, and our audience. Thank you. Thank you. Well, General, let's jump right in. The current world order really seems to hang in the balance, and I don't think that's an overstatement.

There's a war in Ukraine, conflict in Gaza, Iran-backed Houthi attacks on commercial ships in the Red Sea, rising tensions regarding Taiwan. The surge in global conflict has led to speculation by some that we're on the precipice of World War III. Do you think that's a step too far? Well, you know, I think the global security challenges that the United States are facing are really on a scale we've not seen since certainly the existential threat of the Soviet Union, but even going back to what you just said, World War II. And the reason for that is, is that when you look at the three vital national geographical areas of interest that the United States has, defined by two presidents, President Trump and President Biden, they both agree, Europe, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific region are vital national interests to us. We have war in two of those. And in the third one, President Xi is threatening war. And what we have seen, and one of the things the American people have got to come

to grips with, that these adversaries of ours, China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, they are working together. They have their own national interests and objectives they want to achieve, but they're willing to cooperate and collaborate with each other, assist each other with arms, bail each other out in terms of oil reserves, buy an oil from Iran, etc. They're willing to do that because they believe they have a common enemy in the United States. They believe that the United States' leadership is weak, and we're in decline as a country compared to what we were in the 20th century as the world's global leader. And they think we're vulnerable. And as a result of that, they're seeking opportunity here. So we're not directly involved in the fighting in Europe. We're not directly involved in the fighting in Europe. We're not directly involved in the fighting on any significant scale except for radical Islamists in the Middle East.

But there is potential for both. And there's certainly potential for our involvement in the Indo-Pacific region. So some of the conditions, I would say, are there. It's not directly comparable to the conflict on multiple continents and multiple regions in World War II, but it has the potential to get there. And we can avoid this with strong leadership and returning deterrents into our kit bag to make certain our adversaries know there are consequences if they continue to pursue these negative, ambitious goals that they have. An important point. Let's take a little bit deeper dive into each of the conflicts. We hear an argument from some that we should be cutting our funding to Ukraine and instead focus on the crisis on

our southern border. I don't agree with that. I don't think you agree with that. But what's the impact to America and to the world if Vladimir Putin is victorious in Ukraine? Well, let's first just say something about the southern border. I mean, it is hemorrhaging. It is a national security and humanitarian crisis, to say the least. And certainly the scale it's gotten to is absurd. And it has been unacceptable, I think, right from the very beginning of the Biden administration, when they opened the floodgates and incentivized people to come here with really no check and balance whatsoever. We can't continue like that. And that doesn't mean that we cannot, under a different policy, this is a policy of choice

for the Biden administration, that under a different policy with a different president or maybe this president is going to make a change in the policy. That's his choice. And that's why we have this hemorrhaging and this crisis. There's no other in the policy. That's his choice. And that's why we have this hemorrhaging and this crisis. There's no other reason for it. It's that reason. Secondly, dealing with Ukraine, Ukraine is indisputable. If we pull away from Ukraine and don't provide the material and financial assistance that they need, we will lose it. I chair the Institute for the Study of War. We look at this

24-7. There's no doubt in our minds that Russia would eventually be able to topple the government and take control. The Ukrainians would always arm their citizens and fight them as insurgents for as long as there were Russians on their soil. But Russia would have control of the country. And we know for a fact that Russia plans not to stop at Ukraine, to to put more capability into Europe, more troops into Europe. We would need F-35 stealth fighters. We would need stealth bombers to be able to penetrate Russia's air defense. We have to move in more cruise missiles and other long-range land-based missiles to deal with Russia's capability. The cost would actually exceed what we're doing right now to support Ukraine. And after all, I mean, what our audience has to remind ourselves is

Ukrainians are fighting this. They're not asking for our troops on the ground. They are doing the fighting and the dying. With the proper support from ourselves and the Europeans, we are still of a mind that the Institute for the Study of War, despite the fact that Ukrainians haven't made substantial gain in the last six to seven months, that they can make substantial gain and push most, if not all, of the Russians out of their territory with the proper assistance. What a huge gain that would be for us to hammer the Russians, so to speak, push them back for years from their ability to do anything consequential. And we haven't lost any people in accomplishing that mission. Yes, we have provided with financial assistance in doing that, and that's hard-earned taxpayers' dollar money. But what a return on the investment we get for something like that. And it just seems to me that as a global leader, sometimes the United States has to do more than one thing at the same time,

including the border, including places like Ukraine. Let's move on to Israel. The goal of the Israelis is to eliminate Hamas. How realistic is that? And how long do you see that conflict playing out? between 25 and 30,000 fighters, tens of thousands of rockets and missiles to support them, hundreds of miles of subterranean tunnels, the most complex infantry operation I think any of us have seen in our lifetime, certainly. So the challenge is immense, what the prime minister has assigned to his military forces. It will really take everything they have and the steadfastness and the patience to be able to deal with the elimination of their fighter network, most of the fighters and their leaders and their entire military infrastructure. If they give in to the pressure that the United States is fostering on them and the international community to substantively pull back from that and to just

focus on leaders, Hamas will survive. Their fighters will survive. Some of their leaders will survive. They will declare a strategic victory for sure, and then they will re-attack. It's hard to imagine an administration being able to survive something that I'm describing. I do think that Hamas taking the hostages certainly is in their favor, because in a sense, putting the hostages there gives the prime minister and his war cabinet a dilemma. And that dilemma is they know they have to get those hostages out and get most of them home. 27 of them, we think, in captivity are dead, but get the rest of the over 100 home. And to do that, likely there'll have to be another pause in the operation to do that. I think Hamas would love to be able to put on a table, you're not going to get all your hostages back until you leave our territory, which I thought was always the whole card that they had.

Two things, keep the leaders alive using hostages, preserve themselves, the moral cowards that they are. And number two, leave our territory before you get all the hostages back. So we'll see. It's a very challenging dilemma. But I wish the administration would take the gloves off privately and let the War Cabinet and the IDF make the decisions they need to based on what they're facing every single day. Totally agree. Have you been surprised with the surge in pro-Palestinian support here in America on college campuses and beyond?

Or do you think that's been simmering below the surface? Well, you know, I didn't really have a sense that it was simmering below the surface, but being as explosive as it was, I mean, that to me was what was so stunning about it. So obviously, some of that had to be there. And I think the rapidity of social media and the circular reporting that goes on within their own thought processes and what they're sharing. I was stunned when people provided me some of the information that they're sharing and how inaccurate and misfactual it is. I mean, it's remarkable that you can actually be in college and not have a basic understanding of the geography of the historic relationships and adversarial relationships that existed. What does terrorism really mean?

Who is Hamas? What is their history? Hezbollah's history. The fact that they don't have a grip on all of that is stunning. A lot of this superficial knowledge has led to just extreme emotions and passions. But I do think there is some balance that's being restored in terms of the horrible anti-Semitism that has arisen as a result of this. And it seems to equate pro-Hamas and anti-Semitism at the same time coming out of these youngsters' thoughts, and actually some of their faculty members as well, which is pretty alarming. But there seems to be a balance in the

country returning in terms of this ideology and how false it really is, because it's based on false premises. It's not based on just a political difference. There's a lot of misinformation that's contributed to it. And don't underestimate our friends. I'm being cynical here. The Russians exploit everything that pops in this country. What they did as a result of the George Floyd incident and the rise of Antifa and others was extraordinary in penetration civil society in the United States, taking advantage

of that and trying to create social and political division in our country at that time over race, this time over religion and also geopolitical ideology. And they're in the game here, for sure, taking advantage of this situation. Chinese do this to a lesser degree, but the Russians are absolutely masters at it. Let's stay in the Middle East for a couple more minutes. I mean, I fully understand the desire on behalf of United States policymakers to avoid an expanding conflict in the Middle East. But then the Houthis keep attacking in the Red Sea. How long do we put up with that? How do we handle what is clearly still another difficult and developing situation?

Well, strategically, you have to look at what has really happened. And this administration has actually refused to come to grips. developing situation? Well, strategically, you have to look at what has really happened. And this administration has actually refused to come to grips. But the reality is that Iran's strategy is simply to dominate and control the Middle East and the flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf. And they have two means to achieve that. One is to drive the United States military out of the Middle East. And the second thing is so weak in the state of Israel that people don't want to live there. And they use a much shorter term than that, destroy the state of Israel. But they want to destroy people's confidence in the government and its security forces

and then therefore take away the basis for its existence. And to do that, for 43 years, they have been using proxies to accomplish that goal and trying not to be directly involved in it themselves. And as we all know, they fund them, they train them, they finance them. This is a major effort, and it's been something of a brilliant strategy for them from the outset. When we lost our embassy in Lebanon in the early 80s, our marine barracks, 240 plus killed, and the Kuwait embassy all in the same year, Reagan pulled our troops out of Lebanon. And that was what Iran wanted. I think because that was such a new strategy, a country using a proxy, but in another country, to

accomplish its geopolitical goals, and that's proxy's own national interest, was stunning. And we were like a deer in the headlights. And we didn't know how to cope with this because Iran had deniability. But we have learned. Reagan learned. Now, years later, he attacks Iran because they're interfering with the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf. He goes after their oil platforms and he goes after their patrol boats and the bases from which those patrol boats are coming from. And what happened as a result of that? Iran shut down. Trump went after leaders and Iran's IRGC leaders and Iran shut down.

We have to revisit the strategy. A Biden administration will not admit that their strategy has failed miserably. Diplomatically, we need to isolate Iran and stop trying to negotiate a diplomatic solution. It's not going to happen. Number two, economically, return to maximum sanctions and get our allies and partners into this. Get them to find their spine a little bit, that we have got to step up. Iran is behind what is taking place in destabilizing the Middle East, and we have to impose maximum sanctions. So our audience understands Iran is flush with money. Why is that? Because Biden removed the oil and difficult sanctions that the Trump team imposed. They began to remove them in

January, and they did it secretly, did not tell the Congress, did not tell the American people. Why did they do that? They wanted to convince the Iranians that they were serious about renegotiating the nuclear deal. And then militarily, we have to convince the Iranians that they were serious about renegotiating the nuclear deal. And then militarily, we have to recognize that Iran must be held accountable. We don't want to go to war with Iran. And I'm not suggesting a military campaign that would define war, but I am suggesting go after at least the IRGC capabilities, their training center, their bases, and their leaders. And that would make some sense in terms of holding them accountable. New strategy, diplomatic, economic, and military. Squeeze Iran, and you'll see these proxies begin to stand down as a result of it.

Specifically with the Houthis, job one, take down their capability in a sustained military campaign. It's finite. Numbers of rockets, missiles, radar systems, and command and control, and the launchers. That is what we take down. We've taken out about 25, 30 percent. Let's go get the rest of it. Number two, stop Iran from transloading the rockets and missiles into Yemen, mostly by cargo ships. We have to stop those ships from doing that. And what they fly in there, do what the Israelis do. When the Iranians fly cargo commercial airplanes into the Damascus International Airport, after they offload the airplanes and put the rockets and missiles in a warehouse waiting for Hezbollah trucks to come pick it up, they take it out with an

airstrike. They have done that multiple, multiple times, and they're not killing innocent civilians in doing that. We've got to get tough about this. This is a very doable thing that I'm describing. I'm not talking about war with Yemen. I'm not talking about war with Iran. I'm talking about limited military campaigns to destroy capability and to hold leaders accountable. Makes great sense. Let's switch gears a little bit and talk about civil society, which is a topic that the Bradley Foundation cares deeply about in this country.

At the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, some in the media indicated and suggested that the strength of the Ukrainian civil society really helped prevent Russia from taking control of the country. Would you say that's accurate? And I guess more broadly, what role does civil society play during a sustained conflict? What's been your experience? Yes, well, I was in Ukraine with my wife just prior to COVID on two occasions in 2018 and 2019. And we had never been there before. We were struck by the people and how fierce they felt about Russian occupation of some of their territory and what Russia had done to their people in those occupied territories as well.

And you could feel the sense of commitment they had to deal with this. And it wasn't isolated. We were dealing with different groups of people, different socioeconomic classes of people, and it was all there. It reminded me of a visit in Israel and how they feel about how they're in with their security forces, they're supporting their government, and the people in their communities are all linked together in this struggle against the adversaries that surround them. So I wasn't surprised when the war broke out and how quickly the people in that society stepped up to deal with the horror of what they're facing. I mean, just think of what Zelensky said. He said, if you're a male 65 and

under, we expect you to stay in the country and not leave. And we expect you to help us defeat the Russians. What a staggering statement that is. Can you imagine an edict like that being issued in the United States of America? You know, I mean, I've thought about what our reaction would be to something like that. I would like to think it would be positive if the very essence of the United States was being threatened. But they rose to that occasion. You saw the people exiting, that first four or five million people, they were all women and children. Nothing short of remarkable. I've since been in Ukraine during the war, and they're all in on what has taken place here. that they had when the Russians had huge influence over them, even though independence had occurred in 1991. There were still a lot of ties there, and that model that they used was a way of doing

business. I can tell you, having spoken many times now to some of their key leaders, they are committed to working through those problems. And they look at themselves as a thriving democracy. They are fighting for their freedom. They are fighting for their families. They are fighting for their way of life. But the whole of society has come together to support that fight. I think it's nothing short of remarkable. I mean, we don't have as much contact with them now because international media, by and large, has left. So we don't get the kind of personal anecdotal things about how inspiring their citizens are, regardless of their age, and whether they're men or women, it doesn't make a difference. They have all come together around a common goal,

which is to protect their way of life and their freedom and their homeland. And they are literally willing to die to achieve that end. I have just great admiration for them. And I think many in our own country who have seen this and got to know them feel the same way about it. And it's a struggling democracy. It's not as full-throated as ours because they haven't been at it all that long. But there's no doubt in my mind they're on a wonderful path towards that. They just need our assistance to get the evil out of their country. I think that's right.

And, of course, conventional wisdom at the beginning of this war is that it would be a very quick one in favor of the Russians, and that has proven not to be the case. Having had the chance to live and serve the country in the Czech Republic, I know that the emotions there too are very, very strong about all this. And while the Czech Republic is a couple borders removed, the memories of the Soviet occupation are still very top of mind. So I have a sense for what's going on in that part of the world and the one mind that I think exists in overcoming this terrible conflict. Yeah, you know, the Russians are very quick to say that, you know,

they have all of these Russian-speaking people in these other Eastern European countries, and they really have this affinity, you know, with Russia and the history of the motherland, etc. But when we were there in 2018 and 2019, Rick, I mean, all you had to do was mention the word Russia or something like that, and emotions came right out. I mean, they have historical examples of the butchery that took place with Stalin and everything else and what they did to them. I mean, it is right beneath the surface. Absolutely. In terms of their disdain for what their country had gone through under communist or Russian domination and influence. Switching gears just a little bit. There's been a debate forever in this country about its appropriate role in the world.

And currently on the right, there are plenty of people calling for a more isolationist approach. What happens if America retreats from involvement in the world? I think the United States leadership, it's not about confronting nations and going to war. It's about deterring adversaries from taking advantage of countries on their borders or their own people and keeping stability and economic prosperity growing in the world. That's what our leadership provides. And at times when leaders take advantage of the situation and they have to be stopped, you look around. Who is going to do that in terms of leading if the United States doesn't take the lead? We don't want to go to war with them, but we do have the capability through our geopolitical leadership and with our allies and partners in leading them

and helping them define their own spine to deter them from this aggressive activity, which destabilizes the world economy and adversely impacts the quality of life of our people. We've got to see the basis of our very freedom that we have here and the economic well-being that we have and the quality of life that we have in this United States is absolutely connected to the United States leadership in helping to provide peace and stability throughout the world. And we're not looking for conflict. We're not looking for wars to get involved in. Quite the opposite. We're trying to prevent them from taking place. And our national leaders have got to make the case for that and be articulate in doing it.

And we got the history, Rick, to prove it. Yes, we do. And that articulation is not happening right now, unfortunately. General, last question. Let's wrap up with a discussion on the U.S. military. And I think we all know that recruitment is down. Some blame it on progressive policies, infiltration of DEI. Others say it's a decline in patriotism. What's your take? And how do we make things better?

Yeah, well, I'm pretty close to what's happening in the Pentagon because I'm on the Secretary of Defense's policy board, as you mentioned, and also this Congressional Commission. We've been at work a year now, and so we've taken a look at this thing. So our audience appreciates it. First of all, retention in the United States military is record high. So here we have people in the military who want to stay in the military. They don't have all the resources they would like to have, but they're staying in the military.

Why? Because it gives meaning and purpose to their life. They feel good about what they're doing. They like who they're associating with in doing that. And for some of them, it's actually, I always felt for a person like me, it was a bit of a calling. It was like a vocation. I had an aptitude for it. Not everybody has. And I just literally fell in love with it and was highly

satisfied in sharing this experience with people around me. I said, I lived a life among heroes. And I truly mean that. So retention is good. And that means that people feel good about what is happening. So this idea that the military is woke, I think it's a false premise and a political issue more than anything else. It's not that there haven't been these so-called DEI classes. Yes. Rick, I mean, we had mandatory equal opportunity classes ever since I've been a second lieutenant. And some of them we did and some of them we just didn't do, even though our bosses told us to do those. But they were never extensive, all right? I mean, the thing we did, we flew our helicopters, we drove our tanks, we ran our ships.

You know, I was a paratrooper. We jumped out of airplanes on a regular basis. We trained really hard. That's what we did every day. We did physical training every day. We felt good about what we were doing. And when we deployed, we felt even better. So the military, when they denigrate the military, I think it's more political than anything else. Recruiting is a problem. And here's what the surveys are telling us. People don't want to come in the military because based on the 9-11 wars and all the attention that has been paid to people that survived the wars but got hurt by the war, either traumatic brain injuries or catastrophic loss of an arm or legs or multiple appendages, and well-deserving foundations have come forward and emphasized that. But it's created an image in the military, excuse me, an image among young people. When you go in the military, you're going to get damaged as a result of that service. Well, that's true for a certain percentage, but it's actually a very small percentage of those who actually served in combat. So the military has an obligation to help educate people.

But you are right. There's a generation out there right now, Generation Z, for want of a better term to describe it. When we survey that generation, their patriotism is far less than previous generations. So there is something happening there as far as I'm concerned. And here's part of the reason. The propensity to want to join the military is down at 8%. That is staggering. And those who are qualified, out of those who want to come in, only 23% are qualified. So we've got to change the propensity. And we've got to talk about, we can't take it for granted that everybody knows why the

military is a good thing and why service to the nation for a few years in your life will actually add value to your life and add skills to your life that you may not have had and make you feel better about yourself. And if you find in that process that this is a calling for you, you want to devote your professional life to it, that's something else again. But so we're not doing a very good job of talking about why military service is valuable to the individual and what it's doing for the country. Our leaders, they understand that. But those who aren't qualified, listen to this. As I said, only 23% are qualified. One, we have too many people in this country that are obese, and we have to put them on six-month-a-year programs to get them down,

loss of weight, where they're actually in some kind of condition to be able to go through basic training, which lasts, you know, for four to five months. But secondly, we have, so there's medical disqualifications. We have people, I was talking to one of the doctors who deals with this in recruiting, and he told me, he said, we have young people showing up, men and women with osteoporosis problems. I said, you can't be serious. What is the reason? He said, because they're so sedentary.

He said, and one of the first things that goes out of school systems when money is short is physical education programs. And then we have people, we've always had people who morally are not fit. But there's more of that population in terms of people who are committing crime in this country. And we can see that. And if you're a criminal, you're not going to come into the United States. This is not the place to socially rehabilitate someone. But the third thing is, and this is very disturbing, we have a majority of our people are taking our armed services aptitude test, basic test to get in to make certain that your reading skills and your basic mathematical skills are right, they fail it.

And I think it's an indictment of our secondary education system. I mean, overwhelming majority of everyone that comes into military is high school diploma graduate, with some exceptions. A small percentage are not, and they're GED qualified. But can you imagine that? We have so many people failing it. So what the Army is doing, they take them in for 90 days. They don't teach the test to them, but you know what they're teaching them? They're teaching them reading at the level that they should be at, getting them up to an acceptable reading level after they test them,

and they find out what their reading level really is. They're teaching them basic math. I call it arithmetic is what they're teaching them and basic problem solving with that. That is absolutely stunning that we have to do this in this society. We have to do that, right. The military will get there. They're all involved in it.

But the way I told Secretary of Defense Austin and some of his generals, look at this as a national problem. It's not just a service problem. This is a national problem. And you've got to get the president and influencers in our society to get more involved and educate them on why there's a problem and how they can help to include our congressional leaders, local governors, and other community leaders into why we need a very good military with high quality people who want to be a part of it. And I think we have to stay optimistic. We have no other choice. General

Jack Keane, thanks so much for your service. Thanks for your wisdom and your perspectives during these difficult times. We really do appreciate it. Yeah, great. Great talking to you, Rick, and our audience. Thank you very much. And thanks to all of you, of course, for joining us on this episode of Voices of Freedom. Join us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts for our next conversation on issues impacting our freedom and America's foundational principles. And make sure to subscribe so you don't miss an episode. I'm Rick Graber, and this is a Bradley Foundation podcast. Thank you.