Saturday, August 05, 2017

The things I found interesting from the McMasters interview on the Hugh Hewitt Show...

Thanks to PNW Commando for the link!

Below are a few of the responses that McMaster made during a recent interview that I found interesting....via Hugh Hewitt Show.
HH: Venezuela also has a long history with Iran. And– there are reports that Iran has back and forth with them. Any idea if the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Quds Forces is in Venezuela?

HRM: Well, it wouldn’t– it wouldn’t be surprising. I know, the– of course, their priorities are– are elsewhere, what they’ve done to– to really light the Middle East on fire, to flame this– this very destructive cycle of sectarian violence in the Middle East. I mean, that’s what I think we have to hold the I.R.G.C. accountable for– for. Pull the curtain back on their subversive activities– across– across the greater Middle East.
Of course HH is Hugh Hewitt and HRM is McMasters...but back on task...I never considered the possibility that the Quds Force could be in S. America. If they are then that changes things considerably.  Why I find stunning is that he let it just hang there.  Why would Hewitt even bring it up?  I haven't even heard that theory floating in the military blogging or even conspiracy circles. What has that dude heard?
HH: And General, let’s go to Iran, which I mentioned already. Has Secretary Mattis and President Trump and you decided on clear rules of engagement for when the Iranian ships approach our ships in the Gulf?

HRM: Yes, there are very clear rules of engagement.

HH: And would they, would it be surprising for us to have to sink one of those vessels very soon?

HRM: Well, I– our– our captains, you know, our– our naval– officers and– and leaders are strong leaders who are disciplined. And– and they will do everything they can to, you know, to advance our interests, to protect their sailors and– and to defend themselves if necessary. And the president’s made it very clear. He will never, you know, he will never question– any of our military leaders if they take actions to defend themselves and their soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines.
Hmm.  Haven't heard much about our posture with regard to the Persian Gulf but this seems to signal that Riverines being captured by Iranians won't be allowed going forward.  Of course this DOES bring up a weird issue.  What was that young naval officer that gave up his boats without a fight was told?  Was he operating under some kind of instruction that hasn't been made public?

 HH: All right, let me switch if I can to North Korea, which is really pressing. And– and remind our audience, at the Aspen Institute ten days ago, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Joe Dunford, said, “There’s always a military– option. It would be horrific.” Lindsey Graham on Today Show earlier this week said– “We need to destroy the regime and their deterrent.” Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said on Tuesday, I believe, to North Korea, “You are leaving us no choice but to protect ourselves.” And then the Chairman of the Chief of Staff of the Army said, “Just because every choice is a bad choice doesn’t mean you don’t have to choose.” Are we looking at a preemptive strike? Are you trying to prepare us, you being collectively, the administration and people like Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton for a first strike North Korea?

HRM: Well, we really, what you’re asking is– is are we preparing plans for a preventive war, right? A war that would prevent North Korea from threatening the United States with a nuclear weapon. And the president’s been very clear about it. He said, “He’s not gonna tolerate North Korea being able to threaten the United States.” Look at the (UNINTEL) for that regime if it– if– if they have nuclear weapons that can threaten the United States. It’s intolerable from the president’s perspective. So– so of course, we have to provide all options to do that. And– and that includes a military option. Now, would we like to resolve it short of what would be a very costly war, in terms of– in terms of the suffering of mainly the South Korean people? The– the ability of– of that North– North Korean regime to hold the South hostage to conventional fire’s capabilities, artillery and so forth, Seoul being so close. We’re cognizant of all of that. And so what we have to do is– is everything we can to– to pressure this regime, to pressure Kim Jong-un and those around him such that they conclude, it is in their interest to denuclearize. And there are really I think three critical things, came out of the president’s very successful summit with– President Xi of China that were different– that were different from past efforts to work with China, which has always been, you know, the– the desire, right, to work with China– on the– on the North Korean problem. The three things that came out of that are, first of all, that North Korea, Kim Jong-un s– armed with nuclear weapons is a threat not only to the United States, not only to our great allies, Japan and South Korea, but also to China. So that’s a big acknowledgement. The second thing was that– was that, we’re, the goal– the goal of working together with them cannot be the so-called “freeze for freeze.” Where we freeze our– our– our training and then they freeze their program. Because they’re at a threshold capability now. Freeze for freeze doesn’t work anymore. Right? It’s– it’s intolerable. So the goal is denuclearization of the– of the peninsula. That’s the second big thing. The third big thing that came out of it is, China acknowledged they have tremendous coercive economic influence here. They may not have a great political relationship with Kim Jong-un. I mean, who does these days, right? But– but they recognize that they do have a great deal of agency and control over that situation. And so we are prioritizing Secretary of State in the lead obviously, prioritizing an effort to work with the Chinese. As the president has said, as the president has tweeted, right? We– we also though have to be prepared to walk down a path that assumes not as much help from China as we would like.
Wow.  He went full Obama on this one.  I mean it was a "big" question but the answer is almost encyclopedic!  His terminology is puzzling too.  A preventive war?  Don't think I've ever heard of that before.  Must be something new they're teaching at the War College.

Regardless.  Something is brewing (yeah I'm repeating myself).  They seem to have wargamed this thing because they're almost resigned to the fact that Seoul is a gonner.

Read the whole thing here (or watch the vid).

Hugh Hewitt did a good job on this but I'm not quite sure of the dudes politics. Gotta research him a bit.

Another thing I have to do is assess this N. Korea thing.  We can't have a 3rd world nation threatening a major US city on the mainland with nuclear weapons.  But this march to war seems contrived.  This NEVER came up during the Presidential election but within the span of a few months we're all fired up about the possibility?  Kim suddenly has started firing ballistic missiles like crazy?

Call me tin foil hat guy but it all seems "planned".  It's like someone has scheduled this craziness to pop off right now.

I'll let you know what I come up with.

No comments :

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.