February 2, 2024 • 11 mins
US forces have been subjected to more than 160 attacks by the Houthis. The Pentagon announced there will be retaliation, but why has it taken so long?
CBS News Military analyst Dr. Jeff McCausland joins The Armstrong & Getty Show to talk about it.
You can listen to the entire conversation in a new episode of Armstrong & Getty's Extra Large Podcast....
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 (00:00):
It running back to Houti militants launching a new rave
of missiles and drones that commercial ships their response after
the US destroyed ten of their attack drones and a
ground control station in Yemen, but the string of US
and Allied strikes so far failing to slow the Hooty attacks.
Final preparations now under way at the Pentagon for multi
(00:21):
day multi target missilein bomb strikes. Militants and their weapons
in a rock, Syria, and possibly Yemen all on the
list of likely targets for retaliation.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
They have a lot of kabilly, I have a lot more.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
I am frustrated as hell as how this story has
dropped out of the news media so much. Martha raddits
she seems to be frustrated herself on ABC News. I
like the angle She's been taken all week long. But
last yet, so Lloyd Austin does a press conferenceation today.
The only thing anybody seemed to be concerned about was
the you know why he didn't tell the president when
he told the president, and the whole prostate thing and
(00:56):
everything like that barely and he coverage whatsoever. Questions of
what do you think about three of your service people
dying last week. How are they not protected? How are
you going to keep them protected in the future. We've
seen no evidence of deterrence against any of these groups.
To who these are still firing at US? That was
like not even an important story for most of the newscasts.
(01:17):
Really pissed me off.
Speaker 4 (01:19):
Well, we can delve into the media coverage of it
at some point, but let's welcome Jeff mccauslin's CBS News
military consultant to discuss the military aspects of this. Jeff,
there's so much When Jack was just describing the fact
that the Pentagon is still quote unquote making final preparations
and then announcing where the attacks would come. What do
you make of all this?
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Well, I make first of all, I'd share some of
Jack's frustrations. Jean. For a long time, I've been saying
this is almost inevitable, this particular tragedy. US forces in
Iraq and Syria have been subjected to over one hundred
and sixty attacks by these particular groups prior to the
one that hit the tower twenty two and Jordan. The
result in three USKI. So despite our efforts and we
(02:01):
have not been able to shot shoot down and defend
ourselves think pretty dog going well, Inevitably one of these
things was going to get through. Inevitably you were going
to able to tragedy like this kind of this where
you're at. Clearly the Pentagon is preparing for some type
of a large scale response. I think it'll be a
Mouldi day if you will, air campaign real questions of
(02:21):
why this is taken so long. But I think to
some degree, when you're doing something like this, you want
to be a bit deliberate. Clearly, what the Divide administration
has been trying to do in all its responses is
walk a tight rope between trying to send a very
clear and forceful messages these various groups to stop doing
what they're doing, whether there are Rocky groups, CHII groups
back by Iran or whether the huthis in Yemen. Well
(02:43):
at the same time not doing something so precipitous that
the tips that particular conflict, all this being tied to
the war in Gaza into a regional conflict that could
literally stretch from the Mediterranean See all the way to Iran.
And then there are operational requirements that have to be considered. Apparently,
the weather and the target area has been particularly bad,
and they're interested that you go in VFR visual so
(03:04):
you can make sure you hit the right targets and
have the least collateral damage. Number Two, you've got to
make sure that you wouldn't look at force protection because
once this campaign begins, all the bases we have in
a Rock and in Syria, and we have a number
in some places relatively remotely, there may be a large
scale response, and as a consequence, we've got to be
ready to resupply, reinforce, defend, or in fact evacuate those
(03:28):
bases if things were to escalate very precipitously in the aftermath.
We've got to make sure we talk to some of
the allies in the region, make sure we understand they
their concerns, and then we decide where we're going to
go on that tight rope between trying to send a
very very forceful message that hopefully brings us to a
close without kicking this over into a major regional conflict.
Speaker 4 (03:50):
Well, everything you say is unquestionably true, but my counter
would simply be you would think those preparations would have
begun in earnest after say thirty or a sixty or
one hundred and twenty seven attacks, and as we have
been saying similar to you, it seems an awful lot
like the administration endured attack after attack after attack and
(04:13):
needed some dead people to justify the sort of deterrence
that would prevent dead people. And it just I find
that morally and as a patriot unacceptable.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
No, I think your point is very well taken. But
that being said to you, in this case, I learned
when I worked in the White House and I work
in the Pentagon. When you get into a crisis like this,
this immediate attack, you got to make sure you understand
one thing. Half of the initial reports you get is wrong,
and so as a consequence, one thing you want to
make sure as you identify which of the groups is
directly responsible for this attack, It's very likely this group
(04:49):
called katav hits Belah without a doubt, though there are
two or three other Scheite militia groups that are operating
in the area in both Syria and Rock. Second thing
you got to look for is the proverbial smoking gun. Yes,
as the President said, are these groups backed by iron,
no question about it. Is the drone that was using
this attack, largely manufactured in likely manufacturer probably and the
(05:11):
minissions on board, but backed by iron does not mean
directed by iron. Can you find the smoking guns from
intelligence where you have a direct connection between the IRGC
Revolutionary Guards in Iran and this particular group. I mean, metaphorically,
we back Israel in the conflict there involved in, but
we don't direct the ongoing military operations. The fact, we've
(05:33):
complained about the level of violence that the Israelis have
used to kill twenty six thousand Palestinians. So there's that
differentiation of me and those I think will slow that response.
Although you're quite right, many of these things in terms
of so called options, should have been prepared in advance
if in fact we saw the situation deteriorating in terms
of descending, resupplying, or evacuating our bases in the region. Yeah,
(05:56):
I got violence.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
I'm beyond an armchaired quarterback on this. I'm not even
as good is that. But I do not understand, since
you used the word inevitable over and over and over again,
how the Pentagon didn't have all of these plans ready
to go immediately when it finally happened. And then in
terms of you saying they're all backed by Iran but
not directed by Iran. What difference does it make if
you hit Iran hard enough, they'd have to call off
their dogs, wouldn't They wouldn't they have to say, hey,
(06:19):
you better not do that anymore. And we're trying to
deter the houthis also from interrupting the shipping lane. So
we got to send a message to all of those
at the same time, don't we.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Well to sendergree these two they're connected, but they're separate.
I mean, what will deter these Iraqi groups? I think
will be different than necessarily deter the HOUTHI But you're
quite right. We can go after Iran a big way
if we sort of choose. We certainly have the capabilities
beyond question. But we also have to consider what happens
in response. Okay, what happens in response? Uranians have already
(06:50):
demonstrated long range missile capability. They struck Pakistan because of
a terrorist attack in the last few weeks. They struck
a group in Syria a week or so ago against
the so called terror We know they have long rangeists.
They could respond using that. They could intensify their efforts
all across the region to include hitz Fe Lah in
soudn elebanon intensifying their attacks on Israel. They could for
(07:11):
a time at least close the Straits of Hormuz and
drive the price to oil one hundred fifty bucks of barrow.
Those may be things that you're willing to accept without question,
but you've got to consider that particular possibility. In some ways,
I think deterring and getting these people to stop doing
what they're doing in Iraq and Syria is a lot
easier than trying to deter the hooties who have asclutely
nothing to lose and have their own agenda as do
(07:34):
the Iraqis, which is to embellish their brand, attack more resources,
encourage more volunteers, et cetera.
Speaker 4 (07:42):
I find myself wishing we had almost unlimited time for
the Socratic class with doctor Jeff McCausland here CBS News
Military Consultant, because if I was sitting there in your class,
I would say, well, Professor mccauslan, it sounds like we're
What you and Jack are are are talking about is
the question of the US's meticulousness and deliberation that we
(08:06):
have to have a smoking gun. We need to figure
out if Iran was actually directing blah blah blah, as
opposed to not worrying about that sort of thing and
just protecting the sort of power that our advertaries would say.
We don't want to mess with them. We just can't
mess with them. Last time we did, they went nuts,
they blew up things, had nothing to do with it.
(08:28):
We're never going to mess with them again. And I
realized that the answer to that query would take a
very long time. But I think that's where we're at,
isn't it.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
It is the degree. But that one thing I always
about concerned about when we make a response to things
like this is and I saw this in Washington. Nobody
seems to want to answer the following question. And then
what and then what? You know, a military force is
a means and not an answer. We can go and
just devastate it if you'd like. It, could nuke Oran
if you like, We could do all that. What does
(08:58):
that leave us on the other end of it? And
the concern is to lead us into a wider conference concern.
Of course, it results in large scale civilian casualties on
the Iranian side. A lot of innocent people had nothing
to do with all this stuff, are going to die
or get killed in the process. Now, once again, one
might argue, and one could have a convincing argument that
that level of deterrence is required. Okay, but at least
(09:21):
I would I'd like to make sure there was some
consideration of what happens the day after as you go
through this process.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
Sure shouldn't. Ultimately, though, they be more worried about us
escalating than us worried about them escalating.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Well, they are worried about us escalating. Quite frankly. The
first thing the Arrange do is jump up in all
the forms they could find and deny any connection to
this particular mission. At the same time, kadab hits Balah
jumped up in all their forms social media likes, and
Ron was totally disconnected from all this. And oh, by
the way, after negotiation with the Iraqi government, we've decided
we're going to suspend all these particular tacks so that
(09:57):
they're all kind of scurrying towards the exits. And that's why,
instead of a moment ago, it seems to me bringing this
particular sad chapter to a close may be easier than
dealing with the Houthis. Unfortunately, I don't think they've got
a great deal to lose. The problem the Iranians have
got is they basically, I think, in many ways, won
the game. The game for them was to get the
United States out of the reach out of Iraq. In particular,
(10:19):
even prior to this most recent attack, we had begun
negotiations with the Iraqi government on a timetable to withdraw
our forces because of strained relations following previous air strikes
that hit Iraqi soil. So the Iranians had really in
their hand gained what they wanted to accomplish, and I
think they have gone a step too far, or their proxies,
who they may have only limited control of, its going
(10:41):
a step too far. And so what they want to
do is take their winnings and leave the table.
Speaker 4 (10:46):
So interesting. Jeff mccauslm CBS News military consultant, Always enjoy
the conversation, Jeff, thanks a million.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
You guys are a pleasure to talk to.
It running back to Houti militants launching a new rave
of missiles and drones that commercial ships their response after
the US destroyed ten of their attack drones and a
ground control station in Yemen, but the string of US
and Allied strikes so far failing to slow the Hooty attacks.
Final preparations now under way at the Pentagon for multi
(00:21):
day multi target missilein bomb strikes. Militants and their weapons
in a rock, Syria, and possibly Yemen all on the
list of likely targets for retaliation.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
They have a lot of kabilly, I have a lot more.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
I am frustrated as hell as how this story has
dropped out of the news media so much. Martha raddits
she seems to be frustrated herself on ABC News. I
like the angle She's been taken all week long. But
last yet, so Lloyd Austin does a press conferenceation today.
The only thing anybody seemed to be concerned about was
the you know why he didn't tell the president when
he told the president, and the whole prostate thing and
(00:56):
everything like that barely and he coverage whatsoever. Questions of
what do you think about three of your service people
dying last week. How are they not protected? How are
you going to keep them protected in the future. We've
seen no evidence of deterrence against any of these groups.
To who these are still firing at US? That was
like not even an important story for most of the newscasts.
(01:17):
Really pissed me off.
Speaker 4 (01:19):
Well, we can delve into the media coverage of it
at some point, but let's welcome Jeff mccauslin's CBS News
military consultant to discuss the military aspects of this. Jeff,
there's so much When Jack was just describing the fact
that the Pentagon is still quote unquote making final preparations
and then announcing where the attacks would come. What do
you make of all this?
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Well, I make first of all, I'd share some of
Jack's frustrations. Jean. For a long time, I've been saying
this is almost inevitable, this particular tragedy. US forces in
Iraq and Syria have been subjected to over one hundred
and sixty attacks by these particular groups prior to the
one that hit the tower twenty two and Jordan. The
result in three USKI. So despite our efforts and we
(02:01):
have not been able to shot shoot down and defend
ourselves think pretty dog going well, Inevitably one of these
things was going to get through. Inevitably you were going
to able to tragedy like this kind of this where
you're at. Clearly the Pentagon is preparing for some type
of a large scale response. I think it'll be a
Mouldi day if you will, air campaign real questions of
(02:21):
why this is taken so long. But I think to
some degree, when you're doing something like this, you want
to be a bit deliberate. Clearly, what the Divide administration
has been trying to do in all its responses is
walk a tight rope between trying to send a very
clear and forceful messages these various groups to stop doing
what they're doing, whether there are Rocky groups, CHII groups
back by Iran or whether the huthis in Yemen. Well
(02:43):
at the same time not doing something so precipitous that
the tips that particular conflict, all this being tied to
the war in Gaza into a regional conflict that could
literally stretch from the Mediterranean See all the way to Iran.
And then there are operational requirements that have to be considered. Apparently,
the weather and the target area has been particularly bad,
and they're interested that you go in VFR visual so
(03:04):
you can make sure you hit the right targets and
have the least collateral damage. Number Two, you've got to
make sure that you wouldn't look at force protection because
once this campaign begins, all the bases we have in
a Rock and in Syria, and we have a number
in some places relatively remotely, there may be a large
scale response, and as a consequence, we've got to be
ready to resupply, reinforce, defend, or in fact evacuate those
(03:28):
bases if things were to escalate very precipitously in the aftermath.
We've got to make sure we talk to some of
the allies in the region, make sure we understand they
their concerns, and then we decide where we're going to
go on that tight rope between trying to send a
very very forceful message that hopefully brings us to a
close without kicking this over into a major regional conflict.
Speaker 4 (03:50):
Well, everything you say is unquestionably true, but my counter
would simply be you would think those preparations would have
begun in earnest after say thirty or a sixty or
one hundred and twenty seven attacks, and as we have
been saying similar to you, it seems an awful lot
like the administration endured attack after attack after attack and
(04:13):
needed some dead people to justify the sort of deterrence
that would prevent dead people. And it just I find
that morally and as a patriot unacceptable.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
No, I think your point is very well taken. But
that being said to you, in this case, I learned
when I worked in the White House and I work
in the Pentagon. When you get into a crisis like this,
this immediate attack, you got to make sure you understand
one thing. Half of the initial reports you get is wrong,
and so as a consequence, one thing you want to
make sure as you identify which of the groups is
directly responsible for this attack, It's very likely this group
(04:49):
called katav hits Belah without a doubt, though there are
two or three other Scheite militia groups that are operating
in the area in both Syria and Rock. Second thing
you got to look for is the proverbial smoking gun. Yes,
as the President said, are these groups backed by iron,
no question about it. Is the drone that was using
this attack, largely manufactured in likely manufacturer probably and the
(05:11):
minissions on board, but backed by iron does not mean
directed by iron. Can you find the smoking guns from
intelligence where you have a direct connection between the IRGC
Revolutionary Guards in Iran and this particular group. I mean, metaphorically,
we back Israel in the conflict there involved in, but
we don't direct the ongoing military operations. The fact, we've
(05:33):
complained about the level of violence that the Israelis have
used to kill twenty six thousand Palestinians. So there's that
differentiation of me and those I think will slow that response.
Although you're quite right, many of these things in terms
of so called options, should have been prepared in advance
if in fact we saw the situation deteriorating in terms
of descending, resupplying, or evacuating our bases in the region. Yeah,
(05:56):
I got violence.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
I'm beyond an armchaired quarterback on this. I'm not even
as good is that. But I do not understand, since
you used the word inevitable over and over and over again,
how the Pentagon didn't have all of these plans ready
to go immediately when it finally happened. And then in
terms of you saying they're all backed by Iran but
not directed by Iran. What difference does it make if
you hit Iran hard enough, they'd have to call off
their dogs, wouldn't They wouldn't they have to say, hey,
(06:19):
you better not do that anymore. And we're trying to
deter the houthis also from interrupting the shipping lane. So
we got to send a message to all of those
at the same time, don't we.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Well to sendergree these two they're connected, but they're separate.
I mean, what will deter these Iraqi groups? I think
will be different than necessarily deter the HOUTHI But you're
quite right. We can go after Iran a big way
if we sort of choose. We certainly have the capabilities
beyond question. But we also have to consider what happens
in response. Okay, what happens in response? Uranians have already
(06:50):
demonstrated long range missile capability. They struck Pakistan because of
a terrorist attack in the last few weeks. They struck
a group in Syria a week or so ago against
the so called terror We know they have long rangeists.
They could respond using that. They could intensify their efforts
all across the region to include hitz Fe Lah in
soudn elebanon intensifying their attacks on Israel. They could for
(07:11):
a time at least close the Straits of Hormuz and
drive the price to oil one hundred fifty bucks of barrow.
Those may be things that you're willing to accept without question,
but you've got to consider that particular possibility. In some ways,
I think deterring and getting these people to stop doing
what they're doing in Iraq and Syria is a lot
easier than trying to deter the hooties who have asclutely
nothing to lose and have their own agenda as do
(07:34):
the Iraqis, which is to embellish their brand, attack more resources,
encourage more volunteers, et cetera.
Speaker 4 (07:42):
I find myself wishing we had almost unlimited time for
the Socratic class with doctor Jeff McCausland here CBS News
Military Consultant, because if I was sitting there in your class,
I would say, well, Professor mccauslan, it sounds like we're
What you and Jack are are are talking about is
the question of the US's meticulousness and deliberation that we
(08:06):
have to have a smoking gun. We need to figure
out if Iran was actually directing blah blah blah, as
opposed to not worrying about that sort of thing and
just protecting the sort of power that our advertaries would say.
We don't want to mess with them. We just can't
mess with them. Last time we did, they went nuts,
they blew up things, had nothing to do with it.
(08:28):
We're never going to mess with them again. And I
realized that the answer to that query would take a
very long time. But I think that's where we're at,
isn't it.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
It is the degree. But that one thing I always
about concerned about when we make a response to things
like this is and I saw this in Washington. Nobody
seems to want to answer the following question. And then
what and then what? You know, a military force is
a means and not an answer. We can go and
just devastate it if you'd like. It, could nuke Oran
if you like, We could do all that. What does
(08:58):
that leave us on the other end of it? And
the concern is to lead us into a wider conference concern.
Of course, it results in large scale civilian casualties on
the Iranian side. A lot of innocent people had nothing
to do with all this stuff, are going to die
or get killed in the process. Now, once again, one
might argue, and one could have a convincing argument that
that level of deterrence is required. Okay, but at least
(09:21):
I would I'd like to make sure there was some
consideration of what happens the day after as you go
through this process.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
Sure shouldn't. Ultimately, though, they be more worried about us
escalating than us worried about them escalating.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Well, they are worried about us escalating. Quite frankly. The
first thing the Arrange do is jump up in all
the forms they could find and deny any connection to
this particular mission. At the same time, kadab hits Balah
jumped up in all their forms social media likes, and
Ron was totally disconnected from all this. And oh, by
the way, after negotiation with the Iraqi government, we've decided
we're going to suspend all these particular tacks so that
(09:57):
they're all kind of scurrying towards the exits. And that's why,
instead of a moment ago, it seems to me bringing this
particular sad chapter to a close may be easier than
dealing with the Houthis. Unfortunately, I don't think they've got
a great deal to lose. The problem the Iranians have
got is they basically, I think, in many ways, won
the game. The game for them was to get the
United States out of the reach out of Iraq. In particular,
(10:19):
even prior to this most recent attack, we had begun
negotiations with the Iraqi government on a timetable to withdraw
our forces because of strained relations following previous air strikes
that hit Iraqi soil. So the Iranians had really in
their hand gained what they wanted to accomplish, and I
think they have gone a step too far, or their proxies,
who they may have only limited control of, its going
(10:41):
a step too far. And so what they want to
do is take their winnings and leave the table.
Speaker 4 (10:46):
So interesting. Jeff mccauslm CBS News military consultant, Always enjoy
the conversation, Jeff, thanks a million.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
You guys are a pleasure to talk to.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
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.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.