January 12, 2024 • 9 mins
After months of strikes in the Red Sea, the US finally fought back against the Houthis.
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):
I think it's important to highlight that no one wants
to see any type of escalation or increase in conflict
in this region. But it's also important that when you
have the international community being regularly attacked indiscriminately by these
hoothy rebels, that we need to take action. And last
night we did that.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Who was that? Who was that?
Speaker 3 (00:22):
That was the Pentagon spokesman, Major General Patrick Ryder.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Why do we constantly say, look, the last thing we
want is for this to become a bigger fight. Why
do we constantly say that as opposed to every now
and then hinting toward you better not mess with us.
We will wipe you off the face of the earth.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
Yeah, we're gonna go nuts, just so you know. Yeah,
the very same thing struck me talking about the strikes
conducted by US and British forces supported by other allies
that targeted radar and air defense systems of the Huti
rebels based in Yemen. There they've been attacking shipping in
the area in the Gulf seventy three strikes, hundreds and
(00:59):
hundreds of missiles and bombs and that sort of thing.
To what extent did we do any damage? Will it
escalate the fight. All sorts of questions to ask and
a great guy to ask him to Doctor Jeff mccoslm
CBS News military consultant joins us, Jeff, how are you, sir?
Speaker 4 (01:14):
Doing very well? But a busy day to say the least.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Yeah, I'd say so. Was that a big punch in
the nose? Like really a no, no, We're serious? Or
not so much? Where does it rank in terms of
the amount of force it that that demonstration was yesterday?
Speaker 4 (01:33):
Those significant response, There's no two ways about it. I mean,
there's nothing like, you know, a whole bunch of cruise
missiles and F eighteen strikes landing your backyard to get
your attention. And you also have to look at in
relative terms. You know, Yemen is a very very poor country.
He's been involved in a war with Saudi Arabia since
twenty fourteen. Was labeled prior to the war in Ukraine
and the war in the Gaza as the largest humanitarian
(01:56):
disaster on the planet Earth, with well over half of
the popular being male norrish people involved in starvation. But
why the government of Yemen once right now to pick
a fight with not only the United States? I think
it's important underscore this is a fight with the international community.
Why the government who should be looking after the population
want to do this right now is beyond me.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
And I get Iran's motivation in wanting to constantly portray
themselves as the other power in the Mid East for
their own purposes, but as you point out, I can't
imagine what the Hoosies think is in it for them
unless it's purely a case of Iran said, look, if
you want continued financing, you're going to do this for us.
Speaker 4 (02:37):
Well, there's that. There's a certain motivation based on the
Palestinian cause, there's no two ways about that. Yet, Palestinians,
there's the inception of Israel nineteen twenty eight apply to
the Palestinians does resonate with the Arab populations all across
the region. There's no two ways about that. But also
I have to agree with you. I think in many
ways what we're seeing is this power game. Largely the
(02:59):
conduct by Iran Yemen is a proxy of Iran. Doesn't
mean Iran has completely control over the Yemen So there's
really a large control over them, and the military power
they have is derived from Iran and Iran is willing
to fight to the last Yemeny, the last Palestinian, the
last Elevenese because hits the law and the Lebanons involved
(03:20):
the last Rocky, They're willing to fight to the last
one of them. I'm not quite so sure that Iran
itself wants to get into a direct confrontation or direct
conflict with the United States and more broadly the Western communities.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
But we keep saying you better stop, you better stop,
and they don't. So what would if they if they don't,
if they continue to not stop, if they continue to
attack the shipping lanes, what would be the next step.
Speaker 4 (03:47):
The next step would be a larger scale bombing attack.
And I think over time we can render their ability
to conduct these kind of attacks pretty much in non
existent because obviously, though they have a snificant military force,
it's not an overwhelming military force number one, nothing like
the United States can bring to bear. Certainly, they haven't
got the air defense networks or counter air aircraft that
(04:08):
can interrupt our air strikes. So we can make life
put pretty dog on visible for them and their ability
to conduct these picture strikes. I don't see at this moment,
at least a need for the United States to coming
on the ground in Yemen. So I don't think that
is a possibility, but the moment we could see ratcheting
up of escalation. Certainly, the rhetoric coming out of Yemen
(04:29):
right now has been not afraid of American That's pretty typical.
Whether that then translates into a subsequent military strike, that's
another question.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
Jeff.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
You're a very measured commentator, which we appreciate, so I'm
going to ask this in a measured way. As you
have observed the foreign policies of administrations that have come
and gone through the years, does it strike you that
this one is pretty reticent to protect to project American
power around on the globe compared with others.
Speaker 4 (05:03):
I wouldn't say reticence so much. I would say measured
or came o't be the right word. There is a
very big concern in this administration about the possibility of escalation,
and we have to look at the conflict beginning with
the war in Iran in Ukraine really and I think
in this particular case, there was a concern at the
very beginning that that war could spiral very quickly into
(05:24):
a confrontation between the United States and Russia. Which could
then bring on the consequences of a nuclear confrontation or
a nuclear catastrophe, something you need to think about very
hard and not be very reckless about. In the case
of the war in Gaza, certainly what the administration has
been trying to do, and some might say they have
faulted too much on being less active than they should
(05:45):
have been, is send out a large amount of military
power and don't forget when the war in Gaza starts out,
what's the first thing that happened. We have two carrier
battle groups immediately dispatched the region. We double the number
of combat aircraft in the region. We put an awful lot
of military power out there, basically to say don't get involved,
do not get involved. Now, one can say, well, that
(06:06):
didn't work, because we have seen the Hooti's attack, We
have seen huts a law attack and the like. But
one can only imagine what it might have transpired if,
in fact, you hadn't put that much military power out there.
And that being said again, in the response to the
Hooti that has been very measured in terms of, first
of all, a strategy of deterrence through denial. We're going
to shoot your missiles down and show you that it's worthless.
(06:28):
It's a waste of time and money for you to
launch these missiles, but we're gonna shoot them all down. Well,
now de terres by denial just hasn't worked. So now
we're going to the next step, which is to turns
through punishment. You keep doing this, We're going to punish you.
So long way to perhaps response. But I think what
they've tried to do is walk that tightrope of being
responsive to the event, trying to deter expansion of violence
(06:50):
and escalation, while at the same time reserving the possibility
of greater effort. And finally, I think what they've also
tried to do is cloak all their efforts in international consequence.
This is an international response. United Kingdom was involved, the
Dutch were involved, Bahrain was involved, Australia was involved, Cana
was involved. This is an international response to Houthis. In
(07:11):
like fashion, the response to the Russians has been that
concerted ef provided administration to bring together NATO and a
whole bunch of countries in response to the Russian aggression
in Ukraine. So they've also wanted an international response these
crisis as opposed to the United States operating unilaterally.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
Would you guess that this was delayed in any way
or altered any way by the Secretary of Defense being
in the hospital and all that confusion of last week.
Speaker 4 (07:37):
No, I don't think that flowed. The decision to making
the tipping point was Monday, when you had this very large,
complex attack by the Houthis of over two dozen missiles,
drones and a ship missiles, one of which was fired
very close to a ux flag vessel full of jet fuel.
I think that was the tipping point. But this has
been coming for some period of time. I'm sure Pentagon
(08:01):
planners have been dusting off target list over Yemen. I'm
sure there's been a whole bunch of intel drone flights
and satellite imagery over Yemen. I'm sure there's been a
repositioning of aircraft and the repositioning of the Eisenhower Task
Force and preparation. There's been preparing to do this for
quite some period of time. But the Secretary of Health
challenge is it's just unfortunate that is transpiring in the
(08:23):
Middle List. I'm sure for the administration it's just one
more thing that they really don't need right now.
Speaker 3 (08:29):
Last question, for Jeff mccauslan and CBS News military consultant, Jeff,
I'm told that the Huthis are fond like camases, of
hiding their military assets and civilian centers and civilian facilities
like hospitals and schools. Is that what you've heard as well?
Speaker 4 (08:44):
Yeah, that's that's decidedly the case. That being said, the
type of things we're talking about in this case, unlike ams,
which we're talking about fighters or you know, conventional ammunition
or anti tank weapons or whatever, you can hide that,
you know, hiding a cruise missile amongst the population, move
an interet, hiding a radar, many of which are fixed
as opposed to mobile amongst the civilian population. That comes
(09:08):
back to that, Well I said you before. This is
a country that is backed by unbelievable humanitarian crises. People
are literally starving to death. So how can anyone imagine
a government which was looking out for its population would
decide the best thing for us to do is pick
a fight with not only the superpower of the planet,
let's pick a fight with the entire international community over
(09:28):
an issue which surely doesn't affect us directly at all.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
Boy, Well said, Well said Jeffer Coslain, CBS News Jeff
thanks million for the time.
Speaker 4 (09:36):
Take care, guys,
I think it's important to highlight that no one wants
to see any type of escalation or increase in conflict
in this region. But it's also important that when you
have the international community being regularly attacked indiscriminately by these
hoothy rebels, that we need to take action. And last
night we did that.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Who was that? Who was that?
Speaker 3 (00:22):
That was the Pentagon spokesman, Major General Patrick Ryder.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Why do we constantly say, look, the last thing we
want is for this to become a bigger fight. Why
do we constantly say that as opposed to every now
and then hinting toward you better not mess with us.
We will wipe you off the face of the earth.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
Yeah, we're gonna go nuts, just so you know. Yeah,
the very same thing struck me talking about the strikes
conducted by US and British forces supported by other allies
that targeted radar and air defense systems of the Huti
rebels based in Yemen. There they've been attacking shipping in
the area in the Gulf seventy three strikes, hundreds and
(00:59):
hundreds of missiles and bombs and that sort of thing.
To what extent did we do any damage? Will it
escalate the fight. All sorts of questions to ask and
a great guy to ask him to Doctor Jeff mccoslm
CBS News military consultant joins us, Jeff, how are you, sir?
Speaker 4 (01:14):
Doing very well? But a busy day to say the least.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Yeah, I'd say so. Was that a big punch in
the nose? Like really a no, no, We're serious? Or
not so much? Where does it rank in terms of
the amount of force it that that demonstration was yesterday?
Speaker 4 (01:33):
Those significant response, There's no two ways about it. I mean,
there's nothing like, you know, a whole bunch of cruise
missiles and F eighteen strikes landing your backyard to get
your attention. And you also have to look at in
relative terms. You know, Yemen is a very very poor country.
He's been involved in a war with Saudi Arabia since
twenty fourteen. Was labeled prior to the war in Ukraine
and the war in the Gaza as the largest humanitarian
(01:56):
disaster on the planet Earth, with well over half of
the popular being male norrish people involved in starvation. But
why the government of Yemen once right now to pick
a fight with not only the United States? I think
it's important underscore this is a fight with the international community.
Why the government who should be looking after the population
want to do this right now is beyond me.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
And I get Iran's motivation in wanting to constantly portray
themselves as the other power in the Mid East for
their own purposes, but as you point out, I can't
imagine what the Hoosies think is in it for them
unless it's purely a case of Iran said, look, if
you want continued financing, you're going to do this for us.
Speaker 4 (02:37):
Well, there's that. There's a certain motivation based on the
Palestinian cause, there's no two ways about that. Yet, Palestinians,
there's the inception of Israel nineteen twenty eight apply to
the Palestinians does resonate with the Arab populations all across
the region. There's no two ways about that. But also
I have to agree with you. I think in many
ways what we're seeing is this power game. Largely the
(02:59):
conduct by Iran Yemen is a proxy of Iran. Doesn't
mean Iran has completely control over the Yemen So there's
really a large control over them, and the military power
they have is derived from Iran and Iran is willing
to fight to the last Yemeny, the last Palestinian, the
last Elevenese because hits the law and the Lebanons involved
(03:20):
the last Rocky, They're willing to fight to the last
one of them. I'm not quite so sure that Iran
itself wants to get into a direct confrontation or direct
conflict with the United States and more broadly the Western communities.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
But we keep saying you better stop, you better stop,
and they don't. So what would if they if they don't,
if they continue to not stop, if they continue to
attack the shipping lanes, what would be the next step.
Speaker 4 (03:47):
The next step would be a larger scale bombing attack.
And I think over time we can render their ability
to conduct these kind of attacks pretty much in non
existent because obviously, though they have a snificant military force,
it's not an overwhelming military force number one, nothing like
the United States can bring to bear. Certainly, they haven't
got the air defense networks or counter air aircraft that
(04:08):
can interrupt our air strikes. So we can make life
put pretty dog on visible for them and their ability
to conduct these picture strikes. I don't see at this moment,
at least a need for the United States to coming
on the ground in Yemen. So I don't think that
is a possibility, but the moment we could see ratcheting
up of escalation. Certainly, the rhetoric coming out of Yemen
(04:29):
right now has been not afraid of American That's pretty typical.
Whether that then translates into a subsequent military strike, that's
another question.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
Jeff.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
You're a very measured commentator, which we appreciate, so I'm
going to ask this in a measured way. As you
have observed the foreign policies of administrations that have come
and gone through the years, does it strike you that
this one is pretty reticent to protect to project American
power around on the globe compared with others.
Speaker 4 (05:03):
I wouldn't say reticence so much. I would say measured
or came o't be the right word. There is a
very big concern in this administration about the possibility of escalation,
and we have to look at the conflict beginning with
the war in Iran in Ukraine really and I think
in this particular case, there was a concern at the
very beginning that that war could spiral very quickly into
(05:24):
a confrontation between the United States and Russia. Which could
then bring on the consequences of a nuclear confrontation or
a nuclear catastrophe, something you need to think about very
hard and not be very reckless about. In the case
of the war in Gaza, certainly what the administration has
been trying to do, and some might say they have
faulted too much on being less active than they should
(05:45):
have been, is send out a large amount of military
power and don't forget when the war in Gaza starts out,
what's the first thing that happened. We have two carrier
battle groups immediately dispatched the region. We double the number
of combat aircraft in the region. We put an awful lot
of military power out there, basically to say don't get involved,
do not get involved. Now, one can say, well, that
(06:06):
didn't work, because we have seen the Hooti's attack, We
have seen huts a law attack and the like. But
one can only imagine what it might have transpired if,
in fact, you hadn't put that much military power out there.
And that being said again, in the response to the
Hooti that has been very measured in terms of, first
of all, a strategy of deterrence through denial. We're going
to shoot your missiles down and show you that it's worthless.
(06:28):
It's a waste of time and money for you to
launch these missiles, but we're gonna shoot them all down. Well,
now de terres by denial just hasn't worked. So now
we're going to the next step, which is to turns
through punishment. You keep doing this, We're going to punish you.
So long way to perhaps response. But I think what
they've tried to do is walk that tightrope of being
responsive to the event, trying to deter expansion of violence
(06:50):
and escalation, while at the same time reserving the possibility
of greater effort. And finally, I think what they've also
tried to do is cloak all their efforts in international consequence.
This is an international response. United Kingdom was involved, the
Dutch were involved, Bahrain was involved, Australia was involved, Cana
was involved. This is an international response to Houthis. In
(07:11):
like fashion, the response to the Russians has been that
concerted ef provided administration to bring together NATO and a
whole bunch of countries in response to the Russian aggression
in Ukraine. So they've also wanted an international response these
crisis as opposed to the United States operating unilaterally.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
Would you guess that this was delayed in any way
or altered any way by the Secretary of Defense being
in the hospital and all that confusion of last week.
Speaker 4 (07:37):
No, I don't think that flowed. The decision to making
the tipping point was Monday, when you had this very large,
complex attack by the Houthis of over two dozen missiles,
drones and a ship missiles, one of which was fired
very close to a ux flag vessel full of jet fuel.
I think that was the tipping point. But this has
been coming for some period of time. I'm sure Pentagon
(08:01):
planners have been dusting off target list over Yemen. I'm
sure there's been a whole bunch of intel drone flights
and satellite imagery over Yemen. I'm sure there's been a
repositioning of aircraft and the repositioning of the Eisenhower Task
Force and preparation. There's been preparing to do this for
quite some period of time. But the Secretary of Health
challenge is it's just unfortunate that is transpiring in the
(08:23):
Middle List. I'm sure for the administration it's just one
more thing that they really don't need right now.
Speaker 3 (08:29):
Last question, for Jeff mccauslan and CBS News military consultant, Jeff,
I'm told that the Huthis are fond like camases, of
hiding their military assets and civilian centers and civilian facilities
like hospitals and schools. Is that what you've heard as well?
Speaker 4 (08:44):
Yeah, that's that's decidedly the case. That being said, the
type of things we're talking about in this case, unlike ams,
which we're talking about fighters or you know, conventional ammunition
or anti tank weapons or whatever, you can hide that,
you know, hiding a cruise missile amongst the population, move
an interet, hiding a radar, many of which are fixed
as opposed to mobile amongst the civilian population. That comes
(09:08):
back to that, Well I said you before. This is
a country that is backed by unbelievable humanitarian crises. People
are literally starving to death. So how can anyone imagine
a government which was looking out for its population would
decide the best thing for us to do is pick
a fight with not only the superpower of the planet,
let's pick a fight with the entire international community over
(09:28):
an issue which surely doesn't affect us directly at all.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
Boy, Well said, Well said Jeffer Coslain, CBS News Jeff
thanks million for the time.
Speaker 4 (09:36):
Take care, guys,
Popular Podcasts
1. Stuff You Missed in History Class
Join Holly and Tracy as they bring you the greatest and strangest Stuff You Missed In History Class in this podcast by iHeartRadio.
2. Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
3. Crime Junkie
If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people.