November 2, 2023 • 50 mins
In this episode of "The Middle with Jeremy Hobson," we discuss what role the United States play should be playing in the wars in Israel and Gaza – and in Ukraine. Jeremy is joined by Ret. Gen. Philip Breedlove, a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe who is now at Georgia Tech; and Elizabeth Shackelford, a former diplomat who is now a senior fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. The Middle's house DJ Tolliver joins as well, plus callers from around the country.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Welcome to the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
I want to welcome the listeners of w SHU in
Connecticut and WUNC in North Carolina this week, and as always,
Tolliver is here.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
Hi Tolliver, Jeremy.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
I am very excited for this show because I know
there isn't an American out there who doesn't have a
strong opinion about this one.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Absolutely absolutely, you know, last week Tolliver, at least one
Senator said she had to google the new House speaker,
Mike Johnson because she'd never heard of him. Now people
have googled him, They've found out he's got a lot
of power when it comes to how much aid the
US is going to give Ukraine and Israel. We're going
to talk about that in a moment, but first, we
(00:46):
heard from so many people young and old last week
on our topic. Are our political leaders too old? Listen
to some of the voicemails we got.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
Hi, This is Bo Campbell caller from Chicago.
Speaker 5 (01:00):
From Saint Paul, Minnesota. Hello, this is Georgia Donovan from Rockford, Michigan.
Speaker 1 (01:05):
My name is Chris and.
Speaker 6 (01:06):
Colin from Bradenton, Florida. Are these people listening to Biden talk,
there's no way he's cognitively remotely close to being normal.
In every caller that you've had that says that he's
better than Trump, there's no way. There's absolutely no way.
Speaker 4 (01:22):
This debate about age is utterly ridiculous. When you age,
you become wiser. If you're a politician, you become more experienced,
and you have less today, you have less brass rings
to chase. That's what's wrong with our politics in America today.
Speaker 6 (01:39):
The people who are making the decisions are not the
ones who are going to be around to face the
consequences of those decisions.
Speaker 5 (01:47):
Term moments, we have them every four years. We have
a choice to vote people out if we want to.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Thank you bye, well, thanks to everyone who called in. Okay,
So the question this hour what role should the United
States play in the wars in Ukraine and Israel in Gaza.
President Biden is asking Congress to approve a package worth
more than one hundred billion dollars, which includes money for Ukraine, Israel,
and humanitarian assistance for Palestinians. The new House Speaker, Mike
(02:17):
Johnson has just gotten the Republicans in the House to
pass a much smaller package just for Israel that is
paid for by cuts elsewhere. That package is a no
go in the Senate and with the White House. Here's
President Biden speaking with Scott Pelley on sixty minutes.
Speaker 7 (02:33):
Are the wars in Israel and Ukraine more than the
United States can take on in the sect? Why are
the United States of America God's sake the most powerful
nation in the history not in the world and the
history of the world, the history of the world. We
can take care of both of these and still maintain
our overall international defense.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
So what do you think should billions more American dollars
be sent to fund conflicts overseas? And what should the
un U role bee in the wars in Ukraine and
the Middle East? Tolliver, what is our phone number?
Speaker 3 (03:05):
It's eight four four four Middle That's eight four four
four sixty four three three five three. You can also
write to us at Listen to the middle dot com.
We want to hear from you.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Let's go and while we wait for your calls, let's
meet our panel guest, Philip Breedlove is a retired four
star US Air Force general and former NATO Supreme Allied
Commander Europe. He's now a Professor of International Affairs at
Georgia Tech General.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Welcome to the Middle.
Speaker 8 (03:28):
Hey, it's good to be with you guests tonight. It
sounds like a fun subject.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
Absolutely, I'm sure we're going to get some very interesting calls.
And Elizabeth Shackelford, former diplomat, is with us. She's now
a Senior Fellow of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs
and author of the Dissent Channel, American Diplomacy and a
Dishonest Age.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
Elizabeth, welcome to you, happy to be here.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Well, before we get to the phones, Elizabeth, we mentioned
the political disagreements in Washington, but in your view, big picture,
what's at stake for the United States here.
Speaker 9 (03:58):
Well, the United States does much better and Americans prosper
more when we're functioning in a globalized world where things
are stable, you know, stable for business, for travel, for trade.
And both of these conflicts are threats to that, their
threats in the regions where they're happening, and their threats
that could more broadly expand across, you know, kind of
influence other conflicts around the globe if you look at
(04:19):
you know, if Hamas is able to succeed without cost
here in their assault on Israel. That gives fuel and
encouragement to other terrorist organizations around the world. And if
you're looking at the war in Ukraine, if Russia is
able to succeed in Ukraine, that gives other aggressors and
those who flout national sovereignty and kind of the general
international order that we function very well in.
Speaker 10 (04:42):
That's going to give encouragement to others too.
Speaker 9 (04:44):
So I think big picture, we have we have a
big interest in helping resolve these I'll take issue with
one thing you said, Jeremy. You said, are should we
be funding conflicts overseas? We should be funding resolving these
conflicts overseas and do it and doing that well.
Speaker 10 (05:00):
And in the American.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Interest general, what do you think There are big questions
now about whether there's enough support not just in Washington
but around the country for these conflicts and resolving these conflicts.
But what happens if the US doesn't help these allies.
Speaker 8 (05:15):
So, first of all, thanks for having me on and
let me agree with what Elizabeth brought up. And I'm
glad she questioned you on your remark because I was
going to ask the same question. This is about staying
out of conflict resolving conflict, setting a world that is
stable because commerce does not follow instability. Commerce follows stability.
(05:43):
And so to answer your question about whether we should
be involved in supporting these conflicts, well, you're asking a
military officer who values peace and stability, whose children wear
the cloth of this country and would be in the
next five day. We have one, and so I have
(06:03):
some distinct views, but one of them is that we
cannot allow these disruptive people, these despots, these autocrats, these
kleptocrats around the world to be able to foil and
foist their violence on their neighbors. I mean, for me,
(06:25):
it's pretty straightforward in Europe about Russia. Russia invaded Georgia
in two thousand and eight, and we rewarded their bad
behavior by allowing them to hold twenty percent of Georgia.
The invaded Ukraine in twenty fourteen, and we rewarded their
bad behavior, the world did by allowing them to hold
(06:48):
twelve to thirteen the most important percent of Ukraine, including
two of its biggest ports. And now we're on the
precipice of thinking about yet again rewarding bad behavior by
trading a loss of Ukrainian land for peace and if
you've raised children, if you reward bad behavior, reward bad behavior,
(07:13):
reward bad behavior, do not expect good behavior to follow.
As it relates to Israel, this is pretty straightforward for me.
We have long as a nation stood out against terror,
and we can abide by terror. And Iran is the
number one exporter of terror in this world, and it's
(07:33):
exporting terror to the Middle East, and I believe we
have the rule.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
Well, I'm sure we're going to get to that.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
Let's get to the phones because we've got a lot
of calls coming through right now. Charles is joining us
from Fayetteville, North Carolina. Charles, go ahead, welcome to the.
Speaker 11 (07:48):
Middle Hey, thank you for having me. One of the
most concerning developments in the past week have been not
one but two Israel airstrikes on the Jibalia refugee camp,
both of which were confirmed to be deliberate actions by
an IDF spokesperson. I think one of the questions that
(08:11):
comes to Americans' minds is, well, if we continue to
allow this activity unchallenged, are we essentially awarding bad behavior
with US contributions while wars against humanity crimes against humanity
go unchecked In this instance.
Speaker 1 (08:33):
Charles, that's a great question.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
Thanks for that call, and I'm sure there are a
lot of people thinking that exact same thing across the
country right now. Elizabeth Shackelford, what about the idea of
people who may agree that the United States should stand
with Israel, should should stand with Israel after the terrible
attack by Hamas on October the seventh, but don't believe
(08:54):
that the United States should stand with Israel no matter
what Israel does in retaliation.
Speaker 9 (09:00):
Well, you know your your question at the outset of
this is what role should the US play in these wars?
And I think we should be. We should be playing
both of those roles, and we can. They are not
mutually exclusive. As a very very close partner and friend
of Israel, it is incumbent upon us to use our
relationship and our influence on them to push back hard
against this type of these types of acts. I understand fully,
(09:24):
and you know, the emotion around these attacks and the
need to really root out Hamas. I fully support the
fact that we are supporting Israel, but in this we must.
But it's also it's both morally imperative and strategically imperative
that we ensure that our close partner, Israel doesn't tee
up a worse situation by its response to this terrorist attack,
(09:47):
and the way that they fight hamas and the degree
to which they take care to minimize civilian civilian harm
is going to have a huge impact not just on
how this war is fought, but on the ability of
them to reach a sustainable piece in the long run,
which is going to require addressing this question that they
haven't for a long time. So I think that the
(10:07):
US government for a long time should have been pressing
Israel and using our influence on them to push them
towards a solution, a real solution with the Palestinian conflict.
Speaker 10 (10:16):
And I think now we.
Speaker 9 (10:17):
Need to be a supportive partner that tells in the
hard truth that they need to reign in those types
of attexts well in general.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
Breedlove Briefly, how much pressure do you think the US
is putting on Israel to rein in some of what
it's doing in retaliation.
Speaker 12 (10:32):
I believe it's doing an awful lot.
Speaker 8 (10:34):
I believe that a lot of the battle rhythm of
what Israel would have done in this war has been
slowed down and adjusted because the United States wields some
pretty big tools withdrawing support, etc.
Speaker 12 (10:48):
Etc.
Speaker 8 (10:48):
And I believe that we are already have our fingers
all over it, although we deny that in the inn
open press. I think it's pretty much May I just
go back to the original question for a minute. Yeah, so, Charles,
I understand your question, and I think that Elizabeth brought
(11:10):
up a good point that Israel should not act out
of emotion here.
Speaker 12 (11:16):
I also believe that it's.
Speaker 8 (11:17):
Incumbent on us, Charles, to see through exactly what Hamas
is doing. Remember that Israel is going after Hamas. I
do not believe in any way, shape or form that
Israeli's want to just kill the Gosen people or Palestinians.
Speaker 12 (11:35):
I do not believe that.
Speaker 8 (11:37):
I do believe that Israel is absolutely bent on it
to get after Hamas. And what no one is calling
Hamas out for, which is also a war crime, is
that they are surrounding themselves with the Gosen people, and
so to get to Hamas, there are going to be
collateral damage. And this is exactly what com Moss.
Speaker 12 (12:00):
And Iran want.
Speaker 8 (12:02):
This is the narrative they want to build for the world.
They know they can't win militarily. So they need to
win the narrative.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
You can reach out to us at eight four four
four Middle that's eight four four four six four three
three five three, or you can reach us at listen
to themiddle dot com.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
You know Tolliver.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
There was a poll from CNN in August that found
more than half of Americans don't think one more dollars
should be sent to Ukraine. There's a lot of skepticism
about American involvement in foreign wars, especially after Iraq and Afghanistan.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
Yeah, and not many politicians expressed skepticism about the Iraq
War early on, except for Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Here
he is back in two thousand and two.
Speaker 13 (12:44):
But a time when this country has a six trillion
dollar national debt and a growing deficit, we should be
clear that a war and a long term American occupation
of Iraq could be extremely expensive. Who will govern Iraq
when Saddam Musain is removed and what role will the
US play in ensuing civil war that could develop in
that country. Will moderate governments in the region of Lodge
(13:07):
Islamic fundamentalist populations be allverthrown and replaced by extremists. Will
the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palace then and
authority be exacerbated.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
That was Senator Bernie Sanders, a millennial required reading. We're
going to be right back on the Middle waiting for
your calls. Let's get it.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
This is the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson. If you're just
tuning in, we are a national call in show. We're
focused on elevating voices from the Middle geographically, politically, and philosophically,
or maybe just want to meet in the middle. My
guest this hour our Philip Breedlove, a retired four star
US Air Force general now Professor of International Affairs at
Georgia Tech, and Elizabeth Shackelford, a former diplomat now a
(13:46):
Senior Fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. And
we're asking you what role should the United States play
in the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. Tolliver,
what's that number again?
Speaker 3 (13:57):
It's eight four four four Middle that's eight four four
four six four three three five three. Go ahead and
give us a call.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
And let's go to the phones. Spencer is joining us
from pro Vote Utah. Spencer, go ahead, Welcome to the Middle.
Speaker 14 (14:12):
Hi, Jeremy. So here's my thoughts. So you talk, let's
I'm gonna address Ukraine first, ye, the US. I'm this
a little bit of a preface. The US has for
the past, like their use, been a little bit confused
about its foreign policy in the post Cold War world,
and now has kind of found his purpose now that
(14:34):
you know, autocrats and dictators are trying to challenge it
and question American ability to provide things like security and
you know, help prevent fights. It's rolling like securing global
trade and whatnot. And also it's everything to be built
(14:54):
ever since World War Two. So we need to support
Ukraine as we have been doing U. It's a little
bit dishonest whenever I hear certain Republican legislatures say what
about feeding the poor and whatnot? Because you can't really
feed the poor with one hundred and fifty five millimeters shells.
(15:15):
You can't really do that. That's not how that's not
how defense spending works.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
Well, but what about people who would say, you ought
to feed the poor in this country instead of spending
money on conflict overseas?
Speaker 14 (15:29):
What do you say to that, Well, spending money over seas,
we're sending them backlogs. We're sending them stuff from the eighties.
This is old cold cold war stuff that we're sending over.
It's stuff we've already built that that these dollar tag evaluations,
they're largely like valuations of what this equals to an
(15:50):
amount of like this is okay, this is worth this much,
and this is how much these armaments are worth. We're
sending that much to them. That's how it's usually is done.
So we should continue to support them because we don't
want dictators to question that philosophical question. Should the US
continue to stand up? The answer is yes. A lot
(16:12):
of people respond, a lot of people rely on us,
like the Europeans. We have very deep security arrangements with them,
like it's that we're a part of NATO.
Speaker 11 (16:25):
For crying out left right with.
Speaker 14 (16:27):
Israel, we should also, I would say this, We've had
an interesting relationship with them. We want to also maintain
our relationship.
Speaker 15 (16:37):
With the Israelis.
Speaker 14 (16:38):
They're very good for us.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
They yeah, Spencer, let me, let me let me take
your let me take your comment to to our guests
general what about that? And that's a view that many
people have that the United States has a responsibility to
stand up for other democracies to stand with our allies,
and that there's not really a choice when it comes
(17:01):
to supporting countries like Israel and Ukraine.
Speaker 8 (17:07):
Well, I'd like to step back if you don't mine,
and let me just add because I have been doing
this all my life and I was the commander of
NATO the first time the war started, and Spencer, I
don't mean to be rude or anything, but I need
to correct the record on a couple of things.
Speaker 12 (17:27):
First, let me agree with you. Let me agree with
you that over.
Speaker 8 (17:30):
The last three administrations, including this in the grand scheme
of things around the world, America has, if nothing else,
confused the world about what it's doing, the kind of
decisions it's making. From how we started to disassemble NATO
to how we were trying to exit Afghanistan two years later,
(17:53):
how we actually exited Afghanistan, I think we confused a
lot of people in the world with where we were going,
and I think some of that confusion is the reason
we're seeing more challenges today. As far as how we
support Ukraine, it's not exactly how you describe it. Yes,
some of the stuff going into Ukraine is overages that
(18:16):
we're giving them to use, and especially when it came
to cluster munitions and some of those, we were never
going to use them, and so we're allowing Ukraine to
use them. But the money there is money being spent
on new equipment, but almost all that money being spent
on new equipment is being paid into American corporations and
(18:38):
American jobs. So we say we're giving them X billions
to do this, and actuality, we're paying an American firm
to do X, and then we're handing them X. So
it's a little bit more complicated than you described. Now,
as far as your last question and responsibility, I don't
mean a short sheet it.
Speaker 12 (18:59):
I see you want to move on.
Speaker 8 (19:00):
But the fact of the matter is, yes, I believe
the West, bigger than the United States, liberal democracies of
the world should be helping other liberal democracies of the world.
And may I say there are broad bands of what
a liberal democracy look like. I love it when people
(19:23):
try to really trash Ukraine on corruption. They've had a
problem they're working in. How long has Ukraine been trying
to be a democracy? If you really stretch, you go
back to about nineteen ninety two. Okay, how long has
the United States been trying to be a democracy and look.
Speaker 12 (19:43):
At all the corruption we have now.
Speaker 8 (19:48):
So I think we need to be a little introspective
on some of these issues. And I believe liberal democracies
should help other liberal democracies.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
Okay, let's go to another call. This is Joan, who
is on the line from Grand Murray, Minnesota. Hi, Joan,
welcome to the Middle Well.
Speaker 5 (20:07):
Welcome, thank you for this talk. I actually feel pretty
emotional about this, So we can't kill an idea, and
Hamas feelings, emotions, ideas about Israel are ideas, and so
(20:31):
even if we kill all the military leaders, how is
that going to destroy Hamas?
Speaker 2 (20:40):
So do you think that the United States should not
be aiding Israel in its retaliation against Hamas for the
attack on October seventh.
Speaker 5 (20:51):
No, I'm very conflicted about that whole thing, very conflicted.
It's just that it just seems like is Israel's line
is that they're going to destroy Jimas, and since Hamas
is an idea, really, I mean, it's a function. It's
a horrible organization. They have really destroyed a lot of things.
(21:13):
But nevertheless, I think there are people who support them
in terms of their anger at Israel, we're taking their land.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
Well, Joan, thank you for that call. Elizabeth Shackelford, let
me go to you on that. What about Jones point
there that whatever happens, even if Israel goes in and
roots out every Hamas terrorist from the underground cave network
in Gaza, that the ideas that Hamas believes in, especially
(21:44):
with the backing of Iran, will still exist.
Speaker 10 (21:47):
I mean, those ideas will exist.
Speaker 9 (21:49):
And that's why the way that Israel pursues this is
really important. And that's why you know, our relationship the
US government working with them to ensure that they're able
to offer a solution on the other end of this
that provides peace and security and stability for both the
Israelis and the Palestinians. And General Breedlove mentioned earlier that
the US government clearly is talking a lot to the Israelis,
(22:12):
and we have seen that, I think, really shift and
change some of the Israeli response.
Speaker 10 (22:16):
We've seen them, you know, temper.
Speaker 9 (22:18):
What was going to look like it was going to
be a full scale ground invasion to something that's been
you know, they've taken more time with I clearly disagree
with some of the choices that have been made.
Speaker 10 (22:27):
But these things are really hard.
Speaker 9 (22:29):
You know, there's nuance around how you try to address
a conflict like an organization and entities like Hamas, And
it's going to take a long time. But it's not
going to be defeated entirely. On the battlefield. They're going
to be able to take care of leadership. They're going
to be able to do a lot of damage to Hamas.
But unless there is something at the other end of
that that gives the Palestinian people hope for a better future,
(22:52):
Israel is going to just be playing whack a mole
over and over again into perpetuity. So that's why the
way they fight this and having an eye on a
is really essential.
Speaker 2 (23:02):
Let's go to Khalil in Chicago, Illinois. Khalil, welcome to
the Middle Go.
Speaker 11 (23:06):
Ahead, Hi, thank you Jeremy for taking my call.
Speaker 16 (23:12):
My question is a country who is paying six hundred
billion dollars an interest as of now, even in twenty
twenty three, and a country who is not able to
take care of their kids' school, who doesn't have ac
In this last summer, many school close because of many
many facilities not having a heater. In Philadelphia, Chicago and
many places. Why do we want to keep on business
(23:34):
in other countries business? Why can't they take care of
their own business? We need to take care of our
country first, right, This is all my question. Somebody else
said same question. Why do we get into other people
even before taking care of others our own business and
paying our own interests six hundred billion in twenty twenty three.
And this whole nurse of we are giving old amnition
(23:55):
is not correct. We are paying Ukrainian people's salary with
old cash. It is not just old weapons we are
giving them, right, That's all My question is, simbol Okay,
you need to take it of our own business before
taking care of other people's stuff. It's a common sense.
Speaker 1 (24:10):
Khalil, thank you for that call. General.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
I'm sure that in your in your many many years
in the military, you've thought about this idea of the
money that the United States spends on so many things
overseas versus people who say this money should all be
spent in the United States.
Speaker 8 (24:29):
First of all, thanks to Khalil first questions Clary's passionate
about it. This is a conversation that Elizabeth could probably
write a book about of what we used to call
guns and butter guns versus butter, and I think that
it is a it is it's a legitimate conversation that
(24:52):
has to be done. I think from fact and not
from emotion. And here is I am not I am
not a historian. But here's what historians have said to
us Khalil's idea that we stopped worrying about the rest
of the world and we take care of our country.
That was the United States before World War One, and
(25:15):
we fought and fought and fought to stay out of
World War One. And when President Wilson finally got us
decided it was time to go in, they punished him
by naming the war after him. They called it Wilson's War, Okay.
And when we finally went into World War One and
we ended up doing what we had to do to
(25:38):
stop that carnage, historians, most.
Speaker 12 (25:42):
Of them, will tell us that we ended up having.
Speaker 8 (25:46):
More people killed, a worse impact to the world economy
than if the United States had entered earlier and had
finished the war early and reprived in World War Two.
The same thing reported by most good historians, that the
cause of the United States fought to stay out of
(26:08):
that war and be isolationists and take care of us
at home by the rest of the world. That when
the war finally came to us, then it ended up
costing more to the world economy, more in terms of
life loss in Europe, and certainly more in terms of
life loss of Americans. So I understand Khalil's passion, but
(26:30):
the fact of the matter is that the West has
to lead. And I will say this unabashedly, the United
States has to leave the West, and we have to
be a part of solutions rather than pushing everything away
until it gets so bad that then we have to
go take care of it and the cost is astronomically higher.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
Well, and we've heard President Biden say, you know, have
you ever seen a war in Europe that the United
States doesn't get draft into. Let's go to another call.
This is Kate calling from Merritt Island, Florida. Hi, Kate,
welcome to the Middle Hello, Hi, go ahead, thanks for calling.
Speaker 11 (27:13):
Hi.
Speaker 17 (27:14):
I just want to state that I think that the
US should be supporting the Palestinians like we support the
people in Ukraine. I think both those groups are freedom fighters.
I think that is I think it's a theocracy and
(27:37):
I think that the Palestinians are being treated in much
the same way that we watch those movies that we
feel so strongly about, like Dwarsaw Ghetto. I think Giza
is equal to the Warsaw Ghetto. It's people are trapped,
they have to have ID cards, they can't come in
(27:59):
and out, and I think America should be on the
side of people fighting for their freedom.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
Kate, thank you for that call.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
Yeah, let me take that to Elizabeth Shackelford. Elizabeth Shackelford
another call to that similar point that we heard earlier
in the program.
Speaker 9 (28:15):
Well, I'll start by saying, it's been a very, very long,
complicated conflict between Israel and the Palestinian and various Palestinian
organizations and entities, and so it's not that simple just
to say that you know who is the oppressor at
any given time, and in this particular conflict, the attack
that originated this absolutely came from Hamas and was perpetrated
(28:37):
against the Israeli people and a terrorist attack. But I
do think that the broader point of the situation of
the Palestinian people, it's unsustainable. We put out a survey,
the Chicago consul did a few weeks ago, and this
was taken before this particular conflict started. But most Americans
understand that the current situation for the Palestinians is untenable
(28:57):
and that there needs to be some type of solution.
Two state solutions seems preferable to most Americans. But this
is a wake up call that this containment strategy that
this particular Israeli government and recent ones has really leaned into,
where they're not resolving the problem, they're just boxing them
in simply won't.
Speaker 10 (29:15):
Provide peace for either side.
Speaker 9 (29:17):
So we do need to use our influence on Israel
to help encourage a real resolution this time around.
Speaker 2 (29:23):
Let's sneak in one more call here. Paul is with
us from Houston, Texas. Paul, welcome to the middle go ahead, thank.
Speaker 18 (29:31):
You for having me. I have just two observations to
make with regard to the Ukraine conflict. What I don't
understand is all the world leaders are talking about giving
arms to Ukraine. We understand for self defense. Well why
is nobody talking peace? Why is not anybody getting all
(29:52):
the world leaders together trying to I don't hear anything
on the news on Tolandos. The news is not putting it,
or why can't they just get some peace talks going.
Why does it have to only come from China? Why
can't it come from you know, many other leaders. That's
observation number one with regard to the current conflict that's
(30:15):
going on. My observation is that they need to talk
to the Palestinian people and tell them, do you really
like this? Every time rockets are sent and Israeli does
air raids, why can't you all give up Hamas people
and we'll work something out where as you know, a
(30:37):
two seats solution where they have more freedom or whatever.
But do they really like this? I think the Palestinian
people should understand that there's the only way to get
this done is by not violence.
Speaker 19 (30:54):
Those are my comments, all.
Speaker 2 (30:55):
Right, Paul, thank you so much for giving us that call.
I just want to take a look at what's coming
in online as well. Milaana writes, I think it is
absolutely insane that the US has enough money to fund
multiple wars but cannot provide US with healthcare, education, et cetera.
I support Ukraine, but what Israel is doing is a
genocide in the US is absolutely on the wrong side
(31:17):
of history, you know, Tolliver, many of the leaders in
this country who are making the case for sending more
financial support to Israel and Ukraine are saying that by
doing so, the US will be able to keep American
troops out of these wars.
Speaker 3 (31:28):
Yeah, which sounds similar to what President Lyndon Johnson was
saying about Vietnam head of the nineteen sixty four election.
Speaker 1 (31:35):
We are not.
Speaker 8 (31:36):
About to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles
away from home to do what Asian boys ought to
be doing for themselves.
Speaker 2 (31:47):
Wow, and we all know how that turned out. Stay
right there. More of the Middle coming right up. This
is the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson. We're talking about the
role that the United States should play in the wars
in kra and the Middle East. My guests are Elizabeth Shackelford,
a former diplomat with the State Department now with the
Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and Philip Breedlove, a retired
(32:09):
four star US Air Force general now professor of International
Affairs at Georgia Tech. Our number is eight four Middle
that's eight four four four six four.
Speaker 1 (32:18):
Three three five three.
Speaker 2 (32:19):
You can also reach out to us at Listen to
Themiddle dot com. Mordecai is with us from Raleigh, North Carolina.
Hi Mordechai, welcome to the.
Speaker 19 (32:27):
Middle Yes, hello folks. Yeah, my comment might be just
a little bit outside the box, but just hear me
out on this one. In terms of Ukraine, first, I
personally think we could spend our money better with Ukraine
if we put some boots on the ground and we
(32:49):
supplied some air power to help the Ukrainians out. There's
no way that Ukraine is going to win that war
against Russia without without adequate air power, and certainly our
boots on the ground would go a long way to
help them in that regard. So so our money can
be better spent as far as that goes. In terms
(33:13):
of what's happening with Israel and the Palestinians, I don't
support sending a red scent UH to to that conflict.
I just don't. We've already got two aircraft carrier battle
groups in that in that area and I think that's enough,
and quite frankly, if we, if we had the wherewithal
(33:35):
we could send those assets to healthy Ukrainians. So certainly
we can't send two aircraft battle groups to health the
Ukrainians because we don't have that that cap go in
that area. I'm sure. I guess we could put something
in a black sea, but that's the way I feel
about it.
Speaker 1 (33:48):
Okay, Well, Mardika, I thank you for that call. General.
Let me go to you first on that.
Speaker 2 (33:53):
This is the first call that I think we've had
where somebody says the US should be actually giving more
to Ukraine.
Speaker 8 (34:01):
Well, I think I would agree to a certain extent.
Our President has said over and over we're going to
give them everything they need, and he said over and
over we're going to be there.
Speaker 12 (34:12):
For as long as it takes.
Speaker 8 (34:14):
To a military planner, both of those are incomplete sentences.
We're going to be there as long as it takes
to do what. We're going to give them everything they
need to do what. We avoid that definition because that
would be declatory policy. In this particular administration is very
very very slow to issue declatory policy on things like this.
(34:38):
But if we expect Ukraine to win, then we should
give them what the United States would take to the battlefield.
The United States does not send soldier sailors air normaries
to the battlefield without at least battlefield air superior word,
and we have not given Ukraine what it needs to
(35:00):
establish battlefield their superiority. If you told an American army
general that he was going to war without his long
range artillery, his head would explode. Okay, and we have not.
We have not given Ukraine long range, precise artillery. We
just finally have given them atackums. But in our creeping
(35:22):
incrementalist way, we gave them the old short ranged attackums
with the warhead that is less suited to this conflict.
So we haven't sent them the type of weapon that
we really need to send them. There was a great
op ed about that today. So the bottom line is
I agree to a certain degree with what Mordecai said.
(35:45):
You're not going to see American boots on the ground.
Speaker 12 (35:49):
It's past that.
Speaker 8 (35:50):
If we had put caps up or boots in the
Ukraine before the war started, as many people were crying,
this would have gone very very different. But now that
we're engaged in the war, we're not going to throw
them in there because they will end up fighting Russians
and we all know that goes to a bad place.
Speaker 2 (36:10):
But but let me ask, let me ask Elizabeth Shackelford
on that would it have been politically possible in the
last few years for the United States to send troops
in to fight in Ukraine.
Speaker 8 (36:24):
Yeah, I don't you said fight, right, I didn't say
anything about that.
Speaker 1 (36:28):
What did you mean by.
Speaker 20 (36:31):
Yeah?
Speaker 9 (36:31):
But the General's referencing is, uh, there were a lot
of people in the months before, because we knew that
Russia was planning to invade, a lot of our European
counterparts weren't.
Speaker 10 (36:40):
Didn't believe didn't believe us.
Speaker 9 (36:42):
You know, we had a lot of intelligence they were
amassing troops in the border, and even in the years before.
Speaker 10 (36:46):
In General breed Left knows this much better than I do.
Speaker 9 (36:48):
But there were many who voiced their opinions of putting more,
putting US troops in Ukraine as a deterrent factor. And
I do think that even that was very politically difficult
at a time when this current administration and the last
administration were really focused on winding down wars. I think
it will continue to be debated into the future whether
(37:09):
that would have been enough to prevent Russia from going
in politically, whether they could have pulled off troops ahead
of time, I'm not sure, but I actually would agree
with General Breedlove had they been able to Russia would
have been picking a fight directly with the United States,
and I think they probably wouldn't have done that.
Speaker 2 (37:25):
Let's go to another call. Douglas is joining us from Circe, Arkansas. Douglas,
Welcome to the Middle Go ahead.
Speaker 21 (37:32):
Hi, I would like to say thanks for your service
to General Breedlove retired. I served in the Air Force
for twenty five years and retired just last year, and
so a lot of what I'm going to say comes
from a similar point of view. First off, nobody likes conflict.
(37:57):
We as a country were able to avoid conflict with
Russia for decades by peace through the terrents. We carried
a big stick, and they know that we had a
big stick and they didn't want to get hit with it.
And it's similar factors have sort of well, that has
(38:20):
been eroded away. We used to have that big stick
and we protected the little guy. And if you look
at both of these conflicts, Ukraine was a little guy.
They were invaded in twenty fourteen. We seem to think
that Ukraine just happened over the last couple of years,
But Russia took Crimea almost nine years ago, and Ukraine's
(38:43):
a little guy and they're getting they got picked on
and nobody stood up for him, and I wish we
would have stood up for him. I think if we
would have stood up back then, I think this could
have this whole conflict could have been avoided. In the
same regards, when you look at the countries of the
(39:05):
Middle East and the historical and religious context that is
included with that, Israel is a population base of nine
or ten million, and all the countries around them have
cultural and religious differences, and there are a lot of
(39:27):
people that want to do to Israel what Hamas just
did to them on October seventh. And so when we
talk about the actions that Israel is taking, you know, Americans,
we have this. We're on the other side of the
world and our two neighbors are smaller than you know,
(39:49):
Mexico and Canada, and they're friendly with us, and they're
smaller than us, and we're we're the big guy. And
so when we look at the actions that Israel is taking,
they don't know what. You know, they're the little guy
right in the Middle East has approximately four hundred million
people and they have ten right, and so they have
(40:14):
to carry a big stick to defend themselves.
Speaker 2 (40:17):
Douglas thank you for that, Collin, and thank you for
your service as well. Let me take that call to
the general General Breedlove. Your thoughts on what Douglass had
to say there.
Speaker 8 (40:28):
Well, I kind of said it a little earlier, and
that was that, you know, I think that liberal democracies
need to be in the business of trying to help
other liberal democracy liberal democracies, and to some points Elizabeth
made very well earlier that sometimes that means, you know,
helping them to understand a better way forward. It doesn't
(40:49):
always mean endorsing one d per what they do, although
I must say I endorse what Israel is doing now.
To Douglas's point, Douglas, one thing you may remember is
that leading into this frakas that we have now, Israel
had formed some incredible relationships with Egypt and in the Sinai,
(41:14):
and they had developed some incredible relationships with Jordan, and
so they had been developing these relationships to get along,
and they were in the middle of trying to put
one of those together with Saudi Arabia. And I believe
that one of that is one of the causes Bella
(41:35):
here in that Iran who is behind all of this,
It's Iran it's Iran, it's Iran. They could not sit
by and watch Israel have success at forming a relationship
with Saudi Arabia that could further stabilize the area. So
I think a big part of why Hamas, which is Iran,
(42:00):
chose to launch now is because Iran did not want
to see that that relationship grow with saugy Ras.
Speaker 2 (42:07):
Elizabeth Zakov, by the way, do you do you agree
with that that this is Iran Iran Iran?
Speaker 10 (42:13):
I mean, I think Iran is the biggest player behind it.
For sure.
Speaker 9 (42:15):
Hamas wouldn't be able to do any of what they're
doing without Iran support.
Speaker 10 (42:19):
Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (42:21):
Let's get to another called James is with us from Chicago. Hi, James,
Welcome to the Middle Agraezing.
Speaker 20 (42:27):
I think we need to continue to find both the
efforts in Ukraine and Israel, particularly in Ukraine at least
to start Ukraine to signing the world. One of the
world's largest opponents of democratic republicists republicanism, and that's Russia,
(42:48):
whose objective in Ukraine through its invasion a couple of
years ago, was to establish in Fermanly Russian hegemony. If
we examine what is going on between Israel and the Palestinians.
There's some Russian involvement as well. We just learned today
that Russia through Iran has sent the weapons system to
(43:13):
hezebal Up that hesibles the current needs against the IDs. Also,
a few days back, in an airport outside of Moscow.
I don't know what airline the plane gets from, but
a plane landed in a city outside Moscow that apparently
just turning a group the Jewish or Israeli citizens, and
(43:37):
inside that airport there some Russian citizens who were waiting
outside with the objective of harassing. This was probably an
s has Be operation that would not surprising you. So
I think we need to continue to provide funding for
the next both to the Ukrainians and to the Israelis,
(43:58):
if anything, to curtail the aspirations of they never really
went rush up, who I think outside of China poses
the greatest threat to democracy any place in the world.
Speaker 1 (44:15):
James, thank you for that call.
Speaker 2 (44:17):
I'm gonna let you go there just because we can
hear the difference between a speakerphone and when you're holding
it up to your mouth. It does sound a lot worse.
But we got your points, so we appreciate your call.
Let me get another one in here. Rod, who's in Atlanta, Georgia?
Rod welcome?
Speaker 15 (44:34):
Hello, quick clarification, Nam is.
Speaker 1 (44:36):
Glaed not Rod Okay, Glad welcome.
Speaker 15 (44:40):
So I feel like America is the arsenal democracy after all.
I feel like we need to back up liberal democracies,
like the General said, and we need to give Ukraine
at sixteen thirty five, attack them, hire them everything they
need to fit off the Russians. We got our car
are still maate. You know, our quagmire in Congress is
effect seeing the front lines over there. You know, we
(45:03):
have people like Tverville and the Senate, who's the Kingdom Trader?
In my eyes, I'm sorry. If you're a part of
that Genuary six, you got to go. But when it
comes to Israel, it's a little bit more nuanced because
it's people are really suffering. There's I've seen horrible footage
things I can never unsea because of American weapons provided
to the Israelis. So we are complicit, and since we
(45:25):
are complicit, we need to be part of the solution.
And I feel like we should nineteen forty seven or
whenever it happened, the partition of Palsidne, we should have
like done a little America over there, you know, little
little states, little Palestine, Israel, like everybody gets representation, Senate,
all that. But now it's too late, and now we
have to pick up the pieces.
Speaker 2 (45:44):
All right, Rod, thank you for that call. Uh General,
I'll go to you there on that question.
Speaker 8 (45:52):
Well, it was a whole bunch of questions, right, yeah,
I'm just gonna I'm gonna hit really quick little answers.
Speaker 12 (45:59):
One.
Speaker 8 (46:00):
As far as this is going to sound trite and
almost flippant, it is meant to be neither. We have
spent a lot of money in Ukraine, but let's put
it in perspective. For three point something less than a half,
for three point two or three percent of DoD's one
year annual budget, we have enabled Ukraine to destroy forty
(46:24):
percent of the Russian military. Now that is a return
on investment. I get it that people absolutely, you know, God,
that's money we could have spent guns and butter, guns
and butter. But the fact of the matter is we
have given them about three percent of one year of
dud's budget and they reduced Russian capability five nearly forty percent. Uh, Glad,
(46:49):
I was tracking with you on a lot of things.
I do not track with your thought that the US
is complicit because of what's happening in in.
Speaker 12 (47:02):
Because a strip.
Speaker 8 (47:04):
I hope you never have to look at the forty
minute film that was shown to a lot of people
in Israel yesterday of the video that was captured from
the Hamas terrorists, not.
Speaker 12 (47:20):
Israeli.
Speaker 8 (47:20):
Some of it was Israeli, but most of it was Hamas,
and they were celebrating what they did. If you got
to look at that film, young man, you would really
be upset with what's going on over there.
Speaker 12 (47:31):
So I capture your thought. I got it.
Speaker 8 (47:35):
I don't share your opinion, but I understand your opinion,
but I think you should take a look at what
Hamas did the Israel.
Speaker 2 (47:43):
Let me just go to Elizabeth Shackelford finally here because
we are getting close to the end of the hour here,
Elizabeth Shakifer, but your final thoughts on all the calls
that we've heard.
Speaker 9 (47:52):
I mean, I think it's really good that the American
people are paying attention to what we're doing overseas, and
I think that it's incumbent on our political leaders to
make the case for what for why we're funding Ukraine
for why it's important for Congress to continue.
Speaker 10 (48:04):
To do so.
Speaker 9 (48:05):
And I think that we've got a position to, you know,
a responsibility to make the case to the American people
for why we're tracking on what we're doing with Israel.
Speaker 10 (48:13):
I agree with the you know, with the concern that.
Speaker 9 (48:16):
We've heard from a lot of our listeners tonight, the
callers tonight. But I think that we can do two
things at once. I think we can absolutely and I
want the American people to understand this. We can absolutely,
full full throated support Israel in this conflict because they
deserve our support. But we can also help Israel make
a better path that reduces civilian deaths because the Palestinian
(48:38):
people are not Hamas. Amas is a particular contingent, and
I think all Americans need to be able to separate
that and remember that too.
Speaker 2 (48:46):
Okay, very briefly, before we let you go, Tolliver has
a very quick one question quiz.
Speaker 1 (48:52):
For our guest, Tolliver.
Speaker 3 (48:53):
That's right, Jeremy. So, since the end of World War Two,
more than a quarter of US four and eight has
gone to five country Israel, Vietnam, Egypt, Afghanistan, and what
what is the fifth country? I'm going to repeat it.
Since the end of World War Two, more than a
quarter of US foreign eight has gone to five countries Israel, Vietnam, Egypt,
Afghanistan and what what is the fifth country?
Speaker 1 (49:15):
Elizabeth Shackelford or General Breedlove your thoughts.
Speaker 12 (49:20):
Wow, I don't know.
Speaker 8 (49:21):
I guess if we talk about the war spending, I
would say Iraq.
Speaker 1 (49:26):
That is not correct, Elizabeth Shackelford, A guess from you.
Speaker 10 (49:30):
Since World War Two, a European ally.
Speaker 3 (49:35):
No, I mean, Oliver, you got close to the night
in South Korea has received more than one hundred and
twenty billion dollars. Yes, from the US and is world
War two? But I didn't get it?
Speaker 2 (49:44):
All right, well, Elizabeth Shackelford, the Chicago Council on Global
Affairs and General Philip Breedlove now at Georgia Tech.
Speaker 1 (49:51):
Thanks to both of you for joining us. Thank you
enjoyed it and the Middle.
Speaker 2 (49:58):
The Middle with Jeremy Hobson is also available as a
podcast in partnership with iHeart Podcasts on.
Speaker 1 (50:02):
The iHeart app or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Speaker 2 (50:05):
We're a production of long Nook Media, distributed by Illinois
Public Media and Urbana Illinois, produced by joe An Jennings,
John Barth, Harrison Patino, Danny Alexander, and Charlie Little. Our
technical director is Jason Croft. Thanks to Nashville Public Radio, iHeartMedia,
and the more than three hundred and seventy public radio
stations across the country that are making it possible for
people to listen to the Middle, I'm Jeremy Hobson.
Speaker 1 (50:27):
Talk to you next week.
Welcome to the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
I want to welcome the listeners of w SHU in
Connecticut and WUNC in North Carolina this week, and as always,
Tolliver is here.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
Hi Tolliver, Jeremy.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
I am very excited for this show because I know
there isn't an American out there who doesn't have a
strong opinion about this one.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Absolutely absolutely, you know, last week Tolliver, at least one
Senator said she had to google the new House speaker,
Mike Johnson because she'd never heard of him. Now people
have googled him, They've found out he's got a lot
of power when it comes to how much aid the
US is going to give Ukraine and Israel. We're going
to talk about that in a moment, but first, we
(00:46):
heard from so many people young and old last week
on our topic. Are our political leaders too old? Listen
to some of the voicemails we got.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
Hi, This is Bo Campbell caller from Chicago.
Speaker 5 (01:00):
From Saint Paul, Minnesota. Hello, this is Georgia Donovan from Rockford, Michigan.
Speaker 1 (01:05):
My name is Chris and.
Speaker 6 (01:06):
Colin from Bradenton, Florida. Are these people listening to Biden talk,
there's no way he's cognitively remotely close to being normal.
In every caller that you've had that says that he's
better than Trump, there's no way. There's absolutely no way.
Speaker 4 (01:22):
This debate about age is utterly ridiculous. When you age,
you become wiser. If you're a politician, you become more experienced,
and you have less today, you have less brass rings
to chase. That's what's wrong with our politics in America today.
Speaker 6 (01:39):
The people who are making the decisions are not the
ones who are going to be around to face the
consequences of those decisions.
Speaker 5 (01:47):
Term moments, we have them every four years. We have
a choice to vote people out if we want to.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Thank you bye, well, thanks to everyone who called in. Okay,
So the question this hour what role should the United
States play in the wars in Ukraine and Israel in Gaza.
President Biden is asking Congress to approve a package worth
more than one hundred billion dollars, which includes money for Ukraine, Israel,
and humanitarian assistance for Palestinians. The new House Speaker, Mike
(02:17):
Johnson has just gotten the Republicans in the House to
pass a much smaller package just for Israel that is
paid for by cuts elsewhere. That package is a no
go in the Senate and with the White House. Here's
President Biden speaking with Scott Pelley on sixty minutes.
Speaker 7 (02:33):
Are the wars in Israel and Ukraine more than the
United States can take on in the sect? Why are
the United States of America God's sake the most powerful
nation in the history not in the world and the
history of the world, the history of the world. We
can take care of both of these and still maintain
our overall international defense.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
So what do you think should billions more American dollars
be sent to fund conflicts overseas? And what should the
un U role bee in the wars in Ukraine and
the Middle East? Tolliver, what is our phone number?
Speaker 3 (03:05):
It's eight four four four Middle That's eight four four
four sixty four three three five three. You can also
write to us at Listen to the middle dot com.
We want to hear from you.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Let's go and while we wait for your calls, let's
meet our panel guest, Philip Breedlove is a retired four
star US Air Force general and former NATO Supreme Allied
Commander Europe. He's now a Professor of International Affairs at
Georgia Tech General.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Welcome to the Middle.
Speaker 8 (03:28):
Hey, it's good to be with you guests tonight. It
sounds like a fun subject.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
Absolutely, I'm sure we're going to get some very interesting calls.
And Elizabeth Shackelford, former diplomat, is with us. She's now
a Senior Fellow of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs
and author of the Dissent Channel, American Diplomacy and a
Dishonest Age.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
Elizabeth, welcome to you, happy to be here.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Well, before we get to the phones, Elizabeth, we mentioned
the political disagreements in Washington, but in your view, big picture,
what's at stake for the United States here.
Speaker 9 (03:58):
Well, the United States does much better and Americans prosper
more when we're functioning in a globalized world where things
are stable, you know, stable for business, for travel, for trade.
And both of these conflicts are threats to that, their
threats in the regions where they're happening, and their threats
that could more broadly expand across, you know, kind of
influence other conflicts around the globe if you look at
(04:19):
you know, if Hamas is able to succeed without cost
here in their assault on Israel. That gives fuel and
encouragement to other terrorist organizations around the world. And if
you're looking at the war in Ukraine, if Russia is
able to succeed in Ukraine, that gives other aggressors and
those who flout national sovereignty and kind of the general
international order that we function very well in.
Speaker 10 (04:42):
That's going to give encouragement to others too.
Speaker 9 (04:44):
So I think big picture, we have we have a
big interest in helping resolve these I'll take issue with
one thing you said, Jeremy. You said, are should we
be funding conflicts overseas? We should be funding resolving these
conflicts overseas and do it and doing that well.
Speaker 10 (05:00):
And in the American.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Interest general, what do you think There are big questions
now about whether there's enough support not just in Washington
but around the country for these conflicts and resolving these conflicts.
But what happens if the US doesn't help these allies.
Speaker 8 (05:15):
So, first of all, thanks for having me on and
let me agree with what Elizabeth brought up. And I'm
glad she questioned you on your remark because I was
going to ask the same question. This is about staying
out of conflict resolving conflict, setting a world that is
stable because commerce does not follow instability. Commerce follows stability.
(05:43):
And so to answer your question about whether we should
be involved in supporting these conflicts, well, you're asking a
military officer who values peace and stability, whose children wear
the cloth of this country and would be in the
next five day. We have one, and so I have
(06:03):
some distinct views, but one of them is that we
cannot allow these disruptive people, these despots, these autocrats, these
kleptocrats around the world to be able to foil and
foist their violence on their neighbors. I mean, for me,
(06:25):
it's pretty straightforward in Europe about Russia. Russia invaded Georgia
in two thousand and eight, and we rewarded their bad
behavior by allowing them to hold twenty percent of Georgia.
The invaded Ukraine in twenty fourteen, and we rewarded their
bad behavior, the world did by allowing them to hold
(06:48):
twelve to thirteen the most important percent of Ukraine, including
two of its biggest ports. And now we're on the
precipice of thinking about yet again rewarding bad behavior by
trading a loss of Ukrainian land for peace and if
you've raised children, if you reward bad behavior, reward bad behavior,
(07:13):
reward bad behavior, do not expect good behavior to follow.
As it relates to Israel, this is pretty straightforward for me.
We have long as a nation stood out against terror,
and we can abide by terror. And Iran is the
number one exporter of terror in this world, and it's
(07:33):
exporting terror to the Middle East, and I believe we
have the rule.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
Well, I'm sure we're going to get to that.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
Let's get to the phones because we've got a lot
of calls coming through right now. Charles is joining us
from Fayetteville, North Carolina. Charles, go ahead, welcome to the.
Speaker 11 (07:48):
Middle Hey, thank you for having me. One of the
most concerning developments in the past week have been not
one but two Israel airstrikes on the Jibalia refugee camp,
both of which were confirmed to be deliberate actions by
an IDF spokesperson. I think one of the questions that
(08:11):
comes to Americans' minds is, well, if we continue to
allow this activity unchallenged, are we essentially awarding bad behavior
with US contributions while wars against humanity crimes against humanity
go unchecked In this instance.
Speaker 1 (08:33):
Charles, that's a great question.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
Thanks for that call, and I'm sure there are a
lot of people thinking that exact same thing across the
country right now. Elizabeth Shackelford, what about the idea of
people who may agree that the United States should stand
with Israel, should should stand with Israel after the terrible
attack by Hamas on October the seventh, but don't believe
(08:54):
that the United States should stand with Israel no matter
what Israel does in retaliation.
Speaker 9 (09:00):
Well, you know your your question at the outset of
this is what role should the US play in these wars?
And I think we should be. We should be playing
both of those roles, and we can. They are not
mutually exclusive. As a very very close partner and friend
of Israel, it is incumbent upon us to use our
relationship and our influence on them to push back hard
against this type of these types of acts. I understand fully,
(09:24):
and you know, the emotion around these attacks and the
need to really root out Hamas. I fully support the
fact that we are supporting Israel, but in this we must.
But it's also it's both morally imperative and strategically imperative
that we ensure that our close partner, Israel doesn't tee
up a worse situation by its response to this terrorist attack,
(09:47):
and the way that they fight hamas and the degree
to which they take care to minimize civilian civilian harm
is going to have a huge impact not just on
how this war is fought, but on the ability of
them to reach a sustainable piece in the long run,
which is going to require addressing this question that they
haven't for a long time. So I think that the
(10:07):
US government for a long time should have been pressing
Israel and using our influence on them to push them
towards a solution, a real solution with the Palestinian conflict.
Speaker 10 (10:16):
And I think now we.
Speaker 9 (10:17):
Need to be a supportive partner that tells in the
hard truth that they need to reign in those types
of attexts well in general.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
Breedlove Briefly, how much pressure do you think the US
is putting on Israel to rein in some of what
it's doing in retaliation.
Speaker 12 (10:32):
I believe it's doing an awful lot.
Speaker 8 (10:34):
I believe that a lot of the battle rhythm of
what Israel would have done in this war has been
slowed down and adjusted because the United States wields some
pretty big tools withdrawing support, etc.
Speaker 12 (10:48):
Etc.
Speaker 8 (10:48):
And I believe that we are already have our fingers
all over it, although we deny that in the inn
open press. I think it's pretty much May I just
go back to the original question for a minute. Yeah, so, Charles,
I understand your question, and I think that Elizabeth brought
(11:10):
up a good point that Israel should not act out
of emotion here.
Speaker 12 (11:16):
I also believe that it's.
Speaker 8 (11:17):
Incumbent on us, Charles, to see through exactly what Hamas
is doing. Remember that Israel is going after Hamas. I
do not believe in any way, shape or form that
Israeli's want to just kill the Gosen people or Palestinians.
Speaker 12 (11:35):
I do not believe that.
Speaker 8 (11:37):
I do believe that Israel is absolutely bent on it
to get after Hamas. And what no one is calling
Hamas out for, which is also a war crime, is
that they are surrounding themselves with the Gosen people, and
so to get to Hamas, there are going to be
collateral damage. And this is exactly what com Moss.
Speaker 12 (12:00):
And Iran want.
Speaker 8 (12:02):
This is the narrative they want to build for the world.
They know they can't win militarily. So they need to
win the narrative.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
You can reach out to us at eight four four
four Middle that's eight four four four six four three
three five three, or you can reach us at listen
to themiddle dot com.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
You know Tolliver.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
There was a poll from CNN in August that found
more than half of Americans don't think one more dollars
should be sent to Ukraine. There's a lot of skepticism
about American involvement in foreign wars, especially after Iraq and Afghanistan.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
Yeah, and not many politicians expressed skepticism about the Iraq
War early on, except for Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Here
he is back in two thousand and two.
Speaker 13 (12:44):
But a time when this country has a six trillion
dollar national debt and a growing deficit, we should be
clear that a war and a long term American occupation
of Iraq could be extremely expensive. Who will govern Iraq
when Saddam Musain is removed and what role will the
US play in ensuing civil war that could develop in
that country. Will moderate governments in the region of Lodge
(13:07):
Islamic fundamentalist populations be allverthrown and replaced by extremists. Will
the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palace then and
authority be exacerbated.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
That was Senator Bernie Sanders, a millennial required reading. We're
going to be right back on the Middle waiting for
your calls. Let's get it.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
This is the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson. If you're just
tuning in, we are a national call in show. We're
focused on elevating voices from the Middle geographically, politically, and philosophically,
or maybe just want to meet in the middle. My
guest this hour our Philip Breedlove, a retired four star
US Air Force general now Professor of International Affairs at
Georgia Tech, and Elizabeth Shackelford, a former diplomat now a
(13:46):
Senior Fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. And
we're asking you what role should the United States play
in the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. Tolliver,
what's that number again?
Speaker 3 (13:57):
It's eight four four four Middle that's eight four four
four six four three three five three. Go ahead and
give us a call.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
And let's go to the phones. Spencer is joining us
from pro Vote Utah. Spencer, go ahead, Welcome to the Middle.
Speaker 14 (14:12):
Hi, Jeremy. So here's my thoughts. So you talk, let's
I'm gonna address Ukraine first, ye, the US. I'm this
a little bit of a preface. The US has for
the past, like their use, been a little bit confused
about its foreign policy in the post Cold War world,
and now has kind of found his purpose now that
(14:34):
you know, autocrats and dictators are trying to challenge it
and question American ability to provide things like security and
you know, help prevent fights. It's rolling like securing global
trade and whatnot. And also it's everything to be built
(14:54):
ever since World War Two. So we need to support
Ukraine as we have been doing U. It's a little
bit dishonest whenever I hear certain Republican legislatures say what
about feeding the poor and whatnot? Because you can't really
feed the poor with one hundred and fifty five millimeters shells.
(15:15):
You can't really do that. That's not how that's not
how defense spending works.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
Well, but what about people who would say, you ought
to feed the poor in this country instead of spending
money on conflict overseas?
Speaker 14 (15:29):
What do you say to that, Well, spending money over seas,
we're sending them backlogs. We're sending them stuff from the eighties.
This is old cold cold war stuff that we're sending over.
It's stuff we've already built that that these dollar tag evaluations,
they're largely like valuations of what this equals to an
(15:50):
amount of like this is okay, this is worth this much,
and this is how much these armaments are worth. We're
sending that much to them. That's how it's usually is done.
So we should continue to support them because we don't
want dictators to question that philosophical question. Should the US
continue to stand up? The answer is yes. A lot
(16:12):
of people respond, a lot of people rely on us,
like the Europeans. We have very deep security arrangements with them,
like it's that we're a part of NATO.
Speaker 11 (16:25):
For crying out left right with.
Speaker 14 (16:27):
Israel, we should also, I would say this, We've had
an interesting relationship with them. We want to also maintain
our relationship.
Speaker 15 (16:37):
With the Israelis.
Speaker 14 (16:38):
They're very good for us.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
They yeah, Spencer, let me, let me let me take
your let me take your comment to to our guests
general what about that? And that's a view that many
people have that the United States has a responsibility to
stand up for other democracies to stand with our allies,
and that there's not really a choice when it comes
(17:01):
to supporting countries like Israel and Ukraine.
Speaker 8 (17:07):
Well, I'd like to step back if you don't mine,
and let me just add because I have been doing
this all my life and I was the commander of
NATO the first time the war started, and Spencer, I
don't mean to be rude or anything, but I need
to correct the record on a couple of things.
Speaker 12 (17:27):
First, let me agree with you. Let me agree with
you that over.
Speaker 8 (17:30):
The last three administrations, including this in the grand scheme
of things around the world, America has, if nothing else,
confused the world about what it's doing, the kind of
decisions it's making. From how we started to disassemble NATO
to how we were trying to exit Afghanistan two years later,
(17:53):
how we actually exited Afghanistan, I think we confused a
lot of people in the world with where we were going,
and I think some of that confusion is the reason
we're seeing more challenges today. As far as how we
support Ukraine, it's not exactly how you describe it. Yes,
some of the stuff going into Ukraine is overages that
(18:16):
we're giving them to use, and especially when it came
to cluster munitions and some of those, we were never
going to use them, and so we're allowing Ukraine to
use them. But the money there is money being spent
on new equipment, but almost all that money being spent
on new equipment is being paid into American corporations and
(18:38):
American jobs. So we say we're giving them X billions
to do this, and actuality, we're paying an American firm
to do X, and then we're handing them X. So
it's a little bit more complicated than you described. Now,
as far as your last question and responsibility, I don't
mean a short sheet it.
Speaker 12 (18:59):
I see you want to move on.
Speaker 8 (19:00):
But the fact of the matter is, yes, I believe
the West, bigger than the United States, liberal democracies of
the world should be helping other liberal democracies of the world.
And may I say there are broad bands of what
a liberal democracy look like. I love it when people
(19:23):
try to really trash Ukraine on corruption. They've had a
problem they're working in. How long has Ukraine been trying
to be a democracy? If you really stretch, you go
back to about nineteen ninety two. Okay, how long has
the United States been trying to be a democracy and look.
Speaker 12 (19:43):
At all the corruption we have now.
Speaker 8 (19:48):
So I think we need to be a little introspective
on some of these issues. And I believe liberal democracies
should help other liberal democracies.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
Okay, let's go to another call. This is Joan, who
is on the line from Grand Murray, Minnesota. Hi, Joan,
welcome to the Middle Well.
Speaker 5 (20:07):
Welcome, thank you for this talk. I actually feel pretty
emotional about this, So we can't kill an idea, and
Hamas feelings, emotions, ideas about Israel are ideas, and so
(20:31):
even if we kill all the military leaders, how is
that going to destroy Hamas?
Speaker 2 (20:40):
So do you think that the United States should not
be aiding Israel in its retaliation against Hamas for the
attack on October seventh.
Speaker 5 (20:51):
No, I'm very conflicted about that whole thing, very conflicted.
It's just that it just seems like is Israel's line
is that they're going to destroy Jimas, and since Hamas
is an idea, really, I mean, it's a function. It's
a horrible organization. They have really destroyed a lot of things.
(21:13):
But nevertheless, I think there are people who support them
in terms of their anger at Israel, we're taking their land.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
Well, Joan, thank you for that call. Elizabeth Shackelford, let
me go to you on that. What about Jones point
there that whatever happens, even if Israel goes in and
roots out every Hamas terrorist from the underground cave network
in Gaza, that the ideas that Hamas believes in, especially
(21:44):
with the backing of Iran, will still exist.
Speaker 10 (21:47):
I mean, those ideas will exist.
Speaker 9 (21:49):
And that's why the way that Israel pursues this is
really important. And that's why you know, our relationship the
US government working with them to ensure that they're able
to offer a solution on the other end of this
that provides peace and security and stability for both the
Israelis and the Palestinians. And General Breedlove mentioned earlier that
the US government clearly is talking a lot to the Israelis,
(22:12):
and we have seen that, I think, really shift and
change some of the Israeli response.
Speaker 10 (22:16):
We've seen them, you know, temper.
Speaker 9 (22:18):
What was going to look like it was going to
be a full scale ground invasion to something that's been
you know, they've taken more time with I clearly disagree
with some of the choices that have been made.
Speaker 10 (22:27):
But these things are really hard.
Speaker 9 (22:29):
You know, there's nuance around how you try to address
a conflict like an organization and entities like Hamas, And
it's going to take a long time. But it's not
going to be defeated entirely. On the battlefield. They're going
to be able to take care of leadership. They're going
to be able to do a lot of damage to Hamas.
But unless there is something at the other end of
that that gives the Palestinian people hope for a better future,
(22:52):
Israel is going to just be playing whack a mole
over and over again into perpetuity. So that's why the
way they fight this and having an eye on a
is really essential.
Speaker 2 (23:02):
Let's go to Khalil in Chicago, Illinois. Khalil, welcome to
the Middle Go.
Speaker 11 (23:06):
Ahead, Hi, thank you Jeremy for taking my call.
Speaker 16 (23:12):
My question is a country who is paying six hundred
billion dollars an interest as of now, even in twenty
twenty three, and a country who is not able to
take care of their kids' school, who doesn't have ac
In this last summer, many school close because of many
many facilities not having a heater. In Philadelphia, Chicago and
many places. Why do we want to keep on business
(23:34):
in other countries business? Why can't they take care of
their own business? We need to take care of our
country first, right, This is all my question. Somebody else
said same question. Why do we get into other people
even before taking care of others our own business and
paying our own interests six hundred billion in twenty twenty three.
And this whole nurse of we are giving old amnition
(23:55):
is not correct. We are paying Ukrainian people's salary with
old cash. It is not just old weapons we are
giving them, right, That's all My question is, simbol Okay,
you need to take it of our own business before
taking care of other people's stuff. It's a common sense.
Speaker 1 (24:10):
Khalil, thank you for that call. General.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
I'm sure that in your in your many many years
in the military, you've thought about this idea of the
money that the United States spends on so many things
overseas versus people who say this money should all be
spent in the United States.
Speaker 8 (24:29):
First of all, thanks to Khalil first questions Clary's passionate
about it. This is a conversation that Elizabeth could probably
write a book about of what we used to call
guns and butter guns versus butter, and I think that
it is a it is it's a legitimate conversation that
(24:52):
has to be done. I think from fact and not
from emotion. And here is I am not I am
not a historian. But here's what historians have said to
us Khalil's idea that we stopped worrying about the rest
of the world and we take care of our country.
That was the United States before World War One, and
(25:15):
we fought and fought and fought to stay out of
World War One. And when President Wilson finally got us
decided it was time to go in, they punished him
by naming the war after him. They called it Wilson's War, Okay.
And when we finally went into World War One and
we ended up doing what we had to do to
(25:38):
stop that carnage, historians, most.
Speaker 12 (25:42):
Of them, will tell us that we ended up having.
Speaker 8 (25:46):
More people killed, a worse impact to the world economy
than if the United States had entered earlier and had
finished the war early and reprived in World War Two.
The same thing reported by most good historians, that the
cause of the United States fought to stay out of
(26:08):
that war and be isolationists and take care of us
at home by the rest of the world. That when
the war finally came to us, then it ended up
costing more to the world economy, more in terms of
life loss in Europe, and certainly more in terms of
life loss of Americans. So I understand Khalil's passion, but
(26:30):
the fact of the matter is that the West has
to lead. And I will say this unabashedly, the United
States has to leave the West, and we have to
be a part of solutions rather than pushing everything away
until it gets so bad that then we have to
go take care of it and the cost is astronomically higher.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
Well, and we've heard President Biden say, you know, have
you ever seen a war in Europe that the United
States doesn't get draft into. Let's go to another call.
This is Kate calling from Merritt Island, Florida. Hi, Kate,
welcome to the Middle Hello, Hi, go ahead, thanks for calling.
Speaker 11 (27:13):
Hi.
Speaker 17 (27:14):
I just want to state that I think that the
US should be supporting the Palestinians like we support the
people in Ukraine. I think both those groups are freedom fighters.
I think that is I think it's a theocracy and
(27:37):
I think that the Palestinians are being treated in much
the same way that we watch those movies that we
feel so strongly about, like Dwarsaw Ghetto. I think Giza
is equal to the Warsaw Ghetto. It's people are trapped,
they have to have ID cards, they can't come in
(27:59):
and out, and I think America should be on the
side of people fighting for their freedom.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
Kate, thank you for that call.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
Yeah, let me take that to Elizabeth Shackelford. Elizabeth Shackelford
another call to that similar point that we heard earlier
in the program.
Speaker 9 (28:15):
Well, I'll start by saying, it's been a very, very long,
complicated conflict between Israel and the Palestinian and various Palestinian
organizations and entities, and so it's not that simple just
to say that you know who is the oppressor at
any given time, and in this particular conflict, the attack
that originated this absolutely came from Hamas and was perpetrated
(28:37):
against the Israeli people and a terrorist attack. But I
do think that the broader point of the situation of
the Palestinian people, it's unsustainable. We put out a survey,
the Chicago consul did a few weeks ago, and this
was taken before this particular conflict started. But most Americans
understand that the current situation for the Palestinians is untenable
(28:57):
and that there needs to be some type of solution.
Two state solutions seems preferable to most Americans. But this
is a wake up call that this containment strategy that
this particular Israeli government and recent ones has really leaned into,
where they're not resolving the problem, they're just boxing them
in simply won't.
Speaker 10 (29:15):
Provide peace for either side.
Speaker 9 (29:17):
So we do need to use our influence on Israel
to help encourage a real resolution this time around.
Speaker 2 (29:23):
Let's sneak in one more call here. Paul is with
us from Houston, Texas. Paul, welcome to the middle go ahead, thank.
Speaker 18 (29:31):
You for having me. I have just two observations to
make with regard to the Ukraine conflict. What I don't
understand is all the world leaders are talking about giving
arms to Ukraine. We understand for self defense. Well why
is nobody talking peace? Why is not anybody getting all
(29:52):
the world leaders together trying to I don't hear anything
on the news on Tolandos. The news is not putting it,
or why can't they just get some peace talks going.
Why does it have to only come from China? Why
can't it come from you know, many other leaders. That's
observation number one with regard to the current conflict that's
(30:15):
going on. My observation is that they need to talk
to the Palestinian people and tell them, do you really
like this? Every time rockets are sent and Israeli does
air raids, why can't you all give up Hamas people
and we'll work something out where as you know, a
(30:37):
two seats solution where they have more freedom or whatever.
But do they really like this? I think the Palestinian
people should understand that there's the only way to get
this done is by not violence.
Speaker 19 (30:54):
Those are my comments, all.
Speaker 2 (30:55):
Right, Paul, thank you so much for giving us that call.
I just want to take a look at what's coming
in online as well. Milaana writes, I think it is
absolutely insane that the US has enough money to fund
multiple wars but cannot provide US with healthcare, education, et cetera.
I support Ukraine, but what Israel is doing is a
genocide in the US is absolutely on the wrong side
(31:17):
of history, you know, Tolliver, many of the leaders in
this country who are making the case for sending more
financial support to Israel and Ukraine are saying that by
doing so, the US will be able to keep American
troops out of these wars.
Speaker 3 (31:28):
Yeah, which sounds similar to what President Lyndon Johnson was
saying about Vietnam head of the nineteen sixty four election.
Speaker 1 (31:35):
We are not.
Speaker 8 (31:36):
About to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles
away from home to do what Asian boys ought to
be doing for themselves.
Speaker 2 (31:47):
Wow, and we all know how that turned out. Stay
right there. More of the Middle coming right up. This
is the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson. We're talking about the
role that the United States should play in the wars
in kra and the Middle East. My guests are Elizabeth Shackelford,
a former diplomat with the State Department now with the
Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and Philip Breedlove, a retired
(32:09):
four star US Air Force general now professor of International
Affairs at Georgia Tech. Our number is eight four Middle
that's eight four four four six four.
Speaker 1 (32:18):
Three three five three.
Speaker 2 (32:19):
You can also reach out to us at Listen to
Themiddle dot com. Mordecai is with us from Raleigh, North Carolina.
Hi Mordechai, welcome to the.
Speaker 19 (32:27):
Middle Yes, hello folks. Yeah, my comment might be just
a little bit outside the box, but just hear me
out on this one. In terms of Ukraine, first, I
personally think we could spend our money better with Ukraine
if we put some boots on the ground and we
(32:49):
supplied some air power to help the Ukrainians out. There's
no way that Ukraine is going to win that war
against Russia without without adequate air power, and certainly our
boots on the ground would go a long way to
help them in that regard. So so our money can
be better spent as far as that goes. In terms
(33:13):
of what's happening with Israel and the Palestinians, I don't
support sending a red scent UH to to that conflict.
I just don't. We've already got two aircraft carrier battle
groups in that in that area and I think that's enough,
and quite frankly, if we, if we had the wherewithal
(33:35):
we could send those assets to healthy Ukrainians. So certainly
we can't send two aircraft battle groups to health the
Ukrainians because we don't have that that cap go in
that area. I'm sure. I guess we could put something
in a black sea, but that's the way I feel
about it.
Speaker 1 (33:48):
Okay, Well, Mardika, I thank you for that call. General.
Let me go to you first on that.
Speaker 2 (33:53):
This is the first call that I think we've had
where somebody says the US should be actually giving more
to Ukraine.
Speaker 8 (34:01):
Well, I think I would agree to a certain extent.
Our President has said over and over we're going to
give them everything they need, and he said over and
over we're going to be there.
Speaker 12 (34:12):
For as long as it takes.
Speaker 8 (34:14):
To a military planner, both of those are incomplete sentences.
We're going to be there as long as it takes
to do what. We're going to give them everything they
need to do what. We avoid that definition because that
would be declatory policy. In this particular administration is very
very very slow to issue declatory policy on things like this.
(34:38):
But if we expect Ukraine to win, then we should
give them what the United States would take to the battlefield.
The United States does not send soldier sailors air normaries
to the battlefield without at least battlefield air superior word,
and we have not given Ukraine what it needs to
(35:00):
establish battlefield their superiority. If you told an American army
general that he was going to war without his long
range artillery, his head would explode. Okay, and we have not.
We have not given Ukraine long range, precise artillery. We
just finally have given them atackums. But in our creeping
(35:22):
incrementalist way, we gave them the old short ranged attackums
with the warhead that is less suited to this conflict.
So we haven't sent them the type of weapon that
we really need to send them. There was a great
op ed about that today. So the bottom line is
I agree to a certain degree with what Mordecai said.
(35:45):
You're not going to see American boots on the ground.
Speaker 12 (35:49):
It's past that.
Speaker 8 (35:50):
If we had put caps up or boots in the
Ukraine before the war started, as many people were crying,
this would have gone very very different. But now that
we're engaged in the war, we're not going to throw
them in there because they will end up fighting Russians
and we all know that goes to a bad place.
Speaker 2 (36:10):
But but let me ask, let me ask Elizabeth Shackelford
on that would it have been politically possible in the
last few years for the United States to send troops
in to fight in Ukraine.
Speaker 8 (36:24):
Yeah, I don't you said fight, right, I didn't say
anything about that.
Speaker 1 (36:28):
What did you mean by.
Speaker 20 (36:31):
Yeah?
Speaker 9 (36:31):
But the General's referencing is, uh, there were a lot
of people in the months before, because we knew that
Russia was planning to invade, a lot of our European
counterparts weren't.
Speaker 10 (36:40):
Didn't believe didn't believe us.
Speaker 9 (36:42):
You know, we had a lot of intelligence they were
amassing troops in the border, and even in the years before.
Speaker 10 (36:46):
In General breed Left knows this much better than I do.
Speaker 9 (36:48):
But there were many who voiced their opinions of putting more,
putting US troops in Ukraine as a deterrent factor. And
I do think that even that was very politically difficult
at a time when this current administration and the last
administration were really focused on winding down wars. I think
it will continue to be debated into the future whether
(37:09):
that would have been enough to prevent Russia from going
in politically, whether they could have pulled off troops ahead
of time, I'm not sure, but I actually would agree
with General Breedlove had they been able to Russia would
have been picking a fight directly with the United States,
and I think they probably wouldn't have done that.
Speaker 2 (37:25):
Let's go to another call. Douglas is joining us from Circe, Arkansas. Douglas,
Welcome to the Middle Go ahead.
Speaker 21 (37:32):
Hi, I would like to say thanks for your service
to General Breedlove retired. I served in the Air Force
for twenty five years and retired just last year, and
so a lot of what I'm going to say comes
from a similar point of view. First off, nobody likes conflict.
(37:57):
We as a country were able to avoid conflict with
Russia for decades by peace through the terrents. We carried
a big stick, and they know that we had a
big stick and they didn't want to get hit with it.
And it's similar factors have sort of well, that has
(38:20):
been eroded away. We used to have that big stick
and we protected the little guy. And if you look
at both of these conflicts, Ukraine was a little guy.
They were invaded in twenty fourteen. We seem to think
that Ukraine just happened over the last couple of years,
But Russia took Crimea almost nine years ago, and Ukraine's
(38:43):
a little guy and they're getting they got picked on
and nobody stood up for him, and I wish we
would have stood up for him. I think if we
would have stood up back then, I think this could
have this whole conflict could have been avoided. In the
same regards, when you look at the countries of the
(39:05):
Middle East and the historical and religious context that is
included with that, Israel is a population base of nine
or ten million, and all the countries around them have
cultural and religious differences, and there are a lot of
(39:27):
people that want to do to Israel what Hamas just
did to them on October seventh. And so when we
talk about the actions that Israel is taking, you know, Americans,
we have this. We're on the other side of the
world and our two neighbors are smaller than you know,
(39:49):
Mexico and Canada, and they're friendly with us, and they're
smaller than us, and we're we're the big guy. And
so when we look at the actions that Israel is taking,
they don't know what. You know, they're the little guy
right in the Middle East has approximately four hundred million
people and they have ten right, and so they have
(40:14):
to carry a big stick to defend themselves.
Speaker 2 (40:17):
Douglas thank you for that, Collin, and thank you for
your service as well. Let me take that call to
the general General Breedlove. Your thoughts on what Douglass had
to say there.
Speaker 8 (40:28):
Well, I kind of said it a little earlier, and
that was that, you know, I think that liberal democracies
need to be in the business of trying to help
other liberal democracy liberal democracies, and to some points Elizabeth
made very well earlier that sometimes that means, you know,
helping them to understand a better way forward. It doesn't
(40:49):
always mean endorsing one d per what they do, although
I must say I endorse what Israel is doing now.
To Douglas's point, Douglas, one thing you may remember is
that leading into this frakas that we have now, Israel
had formed some incredible relationships with Egypt and in the Sinai,
(41:14):
and they had developed some incredible relationships with Jordan, and
so they had been developing these relationships to get along,
and they were in the middle of trying to put
one of those together with Saudi Arabia. And I believe
that one of that is one of the causes Bella
(41:35):
here in that Iran who is behind all of this,
It's Iran it's Iran, it's Iran. They could not sit
by and watch Israel have success at forming a relationship
with Saudi Arabia that could further stabilize the area. So
I think a big part of why Hamas, which is Iran,
(42:00):
chose to launch now is because Iran did not want
to see that that relationship grow with saugy Ras.
Speaker 2 (42:07):
Elizabeth Zakov, by the way, do you do you agree
with that that this is Iran Iran Iran?
Speaker 10 (42:13):
I mean, I think Iran is the biggest player behind it.
For sure.
Speaker 9 (42:15):
Hamas wouldn't be able to do any of what they're
doing without Iran support.
Speaker 10 (42:19):
Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (42:21):
Let's get to another called James is with us from Chicago. Hi, James,
Welcome to the Middle Agraezing.
Speaker 20 (42:27):
I think we need to continue to find both the
efforts in Ukraine and Israel, particularly in Ukraine at least
to start Ukraine to signing the world. One of the
world's largest opponents of democratic republicists republicanism, and that's Russia,
(42:48):
whose objective in Ukraine through its invasion a couple of
years ago, was to establish in Fermanly Russian hegemony. If
we examine what is going on between Israel and the Palestinians.
There's some Russian involvement as well. We just learned today
that Russia through Iran has sent the weapons system to
(43:13):
hezebal Up that hesibles the current needs against the IDs. Also,
a few days back, in an airport outside of Moscow.
I don't know what airline the plane gets from, but
a plane landed in a city outside Moscow that apparently
just turning a group the Jewish or Israeli citizens, and
(43:37):
inside that airport there some Russian citizens who were waiting
outside with the objective of harassing. This was probably an
s has Be operation that would not surprising you. So
I think we need to continue to provide funding for
the next both to the Ukrainians and to the Israelis,
(43:58):
if anything, to curtail the aspirations of they never really
went rush up, who I think outside of China poses
the greatest threat to democracy any place in the world.
Speaker 1 (44:15):
James, thank you for that call.
Speaker 2 (44:17):
I'm gonna let you go there just because we can
hear the difference between a speakerphone and when you're holding
it up to your mouth. It does sound a lot worse.
But we got your points, so we appreciate your call.
Let me get another one in here. Rod, who's in Atlanta, Georgia?
Rod welcome?
Speaker 15 (44:34):
Hello, quick clarification, Nam is.
Speaker 1 (44:36):
Glaed not Rod Okay, Glad welcome.
Speaker 15 (44:40):
So I feel like America is the arsenal democracy after all.
I feel like we need to back up liberal democracies,
like the General said, and we need to give Ukraine
at sixteen thirty five, attack them, hire them everything they
need to fit off the Russians. We got our car
are still maate. You know, our quagmire in Congress is
effect seeing the front lines over there. You know, we
(45:03):
have people like Tverville and the Senate, who's the Kingdom Trader?
In my eyes, I'm sorry. If you're a part of
that Genuary six, you got to go. But when it
comes to Israel, it's a little bit more nuanced because
it's people are really suffering. There's I've seen horrible footage
things I can never unsea because of American weapons provided
to the Israelis. So we are complicit, and since we
(45:25):
are complicit, we need to be part of the solution.
And I feel like we should nineteen forty seven or
whenever it happened, the partition of Palsidne, we should have
like done a little America over there, you know, little
little states, little Palestine, Israel, like everybody gets representation, Senate,
all that. But now it's too late, and now we
have to pick up the pieces.
Speaker 2 (45:44):
All right, Rod, thank you for that call. Uh General,
I'll go to you there on that question.
Speaker 8 (45:52):
Well, it was a whole bunch of questions, right, yeah,
I'm just gonna I'm gonna hit really quick little answers.
Speaker 12 (45:59):
One.
Speaker 8 (46:00):
As far as this is going to sound trite and
almost flippant, it is meant to be neither. We have
spent a lot of money in Ukraine, but let's put
it in perspective. For three point something less than a half,
for three point two or three percent of DoD's one
year annual budget, we have enabled Ukraine to destroy forty
(46:24):
percent of the Russian military. Now that is a return
on investment. I get it that people absolutely, you know, God,
that's money we could have spent guns and butter, guns
and butter. But the fact of the matter is we
have given them about three percent of one year of
dud's budget and they reduced Russian capability five nearly forty percent. Uh, Glad,
(46:49):
I was tracking with you on a lot of things.
I do not track with your thought that the US
is complicit because of what's happening in in.
Speaker 12 (47:02):
Because a strip.
Speaker 8 (47:04):
I hope you never have to look at the forty
minute film that was shown to a lot of people
in Israel yesterday of the video that was captured from
the Hamas terrorists, not.
Speaker 12 (47:20):
Israeli.
Speaker 8 (47:20):
Some of it was Israeli, but most of it was Hamas,
and they were celebrating what they did. If you got
to look at that film, young man, you would really
be upset with what's going on over there.
Speaker 12 (47:31):
So I capture your thought. I got it.
Speaker 8 (47:35):
I don't share your opinion, but I understand your opinion,
but I think you should take a look at what
Hamas did the Israel.
Speaker 2 (47:43):
Let me just go to Elizabeth Shackelford finally here because
we are getting close to the end of the hour here,
Elizabeth Shakifer, but your final thoughts on all the calls
that we've heard.
Speaker 9 (47:52):
I mean, I think it's really good that the American
people are paying attention to what we're doing overseas, and
I think that it's incumbent on our political leaders to
make the case for what for why we're funding Ukraine
for why it's important for Congress to continue.
Speaker 10 (48:04):
To do so.
Speaker 9 (48:05):
And I think that we've got a position to, you know,
a responsibility to make the case to the American people
for why we're tracking on what we're doing with Israel.
Speaker 10 (48:13):
I agree with the you know, with the concern that.
Speaker 9 (48:16):
We've heard from a lot of our listeners tonight, the
callers tonight. But I think that we can do two
things at once. I think we can absolutely and I
want the American people to understand this. We can absolutely,
full full throated support Israel in this conflict because they
deserve our support. But we can also help Israel make
a better path that reduces civilian deaths because the Palestinian
(48:38):
people are not Hamas. Amas is a particular contingent, and
I think all Americans need to be able to separate
that and remember that too.
Speaker 2 (48:46):
Okay, very briefly, before we let you go, Tolliver has
a very quick one question quiz.
Speaker 1 (48:52):
For our guest, Tolliver.
Speaker 3 (48:53):
That's right, Jeremy. So, since the end of World War Two,
more than a quarter of US four and eight has
gone to five country Israel, Vietnam, Egypt, Afghanistan, and what
what is the fifth country? I'm going to repeat it.
Since the end of World War Two, more than a
quarter of US foreign eight has gone to five countries Israel, Vietnam, Egypt,
Afghanistan and what what is the fifth country?
Speaker 1 (49:15):
Elizabeth Shackelford or General Breedlove your thoughts.
Speaker 12 (49:20):
Wow, I don't know.
Speaker 8 (49:21):
I guess if we talk about the war spending, I
would say Iraq.
Speaker 1 (49:26):
That is not correct, Elizabeth Shackelford, A guess from you.
Speaker 10 (49:30):
Since World War Two, a European ally.
Speaker 3 (49:35):
No, I mean, Oliver, you got close to the night
in South Korea has received more than one hundred and
twenty billion dollars. Yes, from the US and is world
War two? But I didn't get it?
Speaker 2 (49:44):
All right, well, Elizabeth Shackelford, the Chicago Council on Global
Affairs and General Philip Breedlove now at Georgia Tech.
Speaker 1 (49:51):
Thanks to both of you for joining us. Thank you
enjoyed it and the Middle.
Speaker 2 (49:58):
The Middle with Jeremy Hobson is also available as a
podcast in partnership with iHeart Podcasts on.
Speaker 1 (50:02):
The iHeart app or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Speaker 2 (50:05):
We're a production of long Nook Media, distributed by Illinois
Public Media and Urbana Illinois, produced by joe An Jennings,
John Barth, Harrison Patino, Danny Alexander, and Charlie Little. Our
technical director is Jason Croft. Thanks to Nashville Public Radio, iHeartMedia,
and the more than three hundred and seventy public radio
stations across the country that are making it possible for
people to listen to the Middle, I'm Jeremy Hobson.
Speaker 1 (50:27):
Talk to you next week.
Host
Jeremy Hobson
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com