Speaker 1: It running back to Houti militants launching a new rave
Speaker 1: of missiles and drones that commercial ships their response after
Speaker 1: the US destroyed ten of their attack drones and a
Speaker 1: ground control station in Yemen, but the string of US
Speaker 1: and Allied strikes so far failing to slow the Hooty attacks.
Speaker 1: Final preparations now under way at the Pentagon for multi
Speaker 1: day multi target missilein bomb strikes. Militants and their weapons
Speaker 1: in a rock, Syria, and possibly Yemen all on the
Speaker 1: list of likely targets for retaliation.
Speaker 2: They have a lot of kabilly, I have a lot more.
Speaker 3: I am frustrated as hell as how this story has
Speaker 3: dropped out of the news media so much. Martha raddits
Speaker 3: she seems to be frustrated herself on ABC News. I
Speaker 3: like the angle She's been taken all week long. But
Speaker 3: last yet, so Lloyd Austin does a press conferenceation today.
Speaker 3: The only thing anybody seemed to be concerned about was
Speaker 3: the you know why he didn't tell the president when
Speaker 3: he told the president, and the whole prostate thing and
Speaker 3: everything like that barely and he coverage whatsoever. Questions of
Speaker 3: what do you think about three of your service people
Speaker 3: dying last week. How are they not protected? How are
Speaker 3: you going to keep them protected in the future. We've
Speaker 3: seen no evidence of deterrence against any of these groups.
Speaker 3: To who these are still firing at US? That was
Speaker 3: like not even an important story for most of the newscasts.
Speaker 3: Really pissed me off.
Speaker 4: Well, we can delve into the media coverage of it
Speaker 4: at some point, but let's welcome Jeff mccauslin's CBS News
Speaker 4: military consultant to discuss the military aspects of this. Jeff,
Speaker 4: there's so much When Jack was just describing the fact
Speaker 4: that the Pentagon is still quote unquote making final preparations
Speaker 4: and then announcing where the attacks would come. What do
Speaker 4: you make of all this?
Speaker 2: Well, I make first of all, I'd share some of
Speaker 2: Jack's frustrations. Jean. For a long time, I've been saying
Speaker 2: this is almost inevitable, this particular tragedy. US forces in
Speaker 2: Iraq and Syria have been subjected to over one hundred
Speaker 2: and sixty attacks by these particular groups prior to the
Speaker 2: one that hit the tower twenty two and Jordan. The
Speaker 2: result in three USKI. So despite our efforts and we
Speaker 2: have not been able to shot shoot down and defend
Speaker 2: ourselves think pretty dog going well, Inevitably one of these
Speaker 2: things was going to get through. Inevitably you were going
Speaker 2: to able to tragedy like this kind of this where
Speaker 2: you're at. Clearly the Pentagon is preparing for some type
Speaker 2: of a large scale response. I think it'll be a
Speaker 2: Mouldi day if you will, air campaign real questions of
Speaker 2: why this is taken so long. But I think to
Speaker 2: some degree, when you're doing something like this, you want
Speaker 2: to be a bit deliberate. Clearly, what the Divide administration
Speaker 2: has been trying to do in all its responses is
Speaker 2: walk a tight rope between trying to send a very
Speaker 2: clear and forceful messages these various groups to stop doing
Speaker 2: what they're doing, whether there are Rocky groups, CHII groups
Speaker 2: back by Iran or whether the huthis in Yemen. Well
Speaker 2: at the same time not doing something so precipitous that
Speaker 2: the tips that particular conflict, all this being tied to
Speaker 2: the war in Gaza into a regional conflict that could
Speaker 2: literally stretch from the Mediterranean See all the way to Iran.
Speaker 2: And then there are operational requirements that have to be considered. Apparently,
Speaker 2: the weather and the target area has been particularly bad,
Speaker 2: and they're interested that you go in VFR visual so
Speaker 2: you can make sure you hit the right targets and
Speaker 2: have the least collateral damage. Number Two, you've got to
Speaker 2: make sure that you wouldn't look at force protection because
Speaker 2: once this campaign begins, all the bases we have in
Speaker 2: a Rock and in Syria, and we have a number
Speaker 2: in some places relatively remotely, there may be a large
Speaker 2: scale response, and as a consequence, we've got to be
Speaker 2: ready to resupply, reinforce, defend, or in fact evacuate those
Speaker 2: bases if things were to escalate very precipitously in the aftermath.
Speaker 2: We've got to make sure we talk to some of
Speaker 2: the allies in the region, make sure we understand they
Speaker 2: their concerns, and then we decide where we're going to
Speaker 2: go on that tight rope between trying to send a
Speaker 2: very very forceful message that hopefully brings us to a
Speaker 2: close without kicking this over into a major regional conflict.
Speaker 4: Well, everything you say is unquestionably true, but my counter
Speaker 4: would simply be you would think those preparations would have
Speaker 4: begun in earnest after say thirty or a sixty or
Speaker 4: one hundred and twenty seven attacks, and as we have
Speaker 4: been saying similar to you, it seems an awful lot
Speaker 4: like the administration endured attack after attack after attack and
Speaker 4: needed some dead people to justify the sort of deterrence
Speaker 4: that would prevent dead people. And it just I find
Speaker 4: that morally and as a patriot unacceptable.
Speaker 2: No, I think your point is very well taken. But
Speaker 2: that being said to you, in this case, I learned
Speaker 2: when I worked in the White House and I work
Speaker 2: in the Pentagon. When you get into a crisis like this,
Speaker 2: this immediate attack, you got to make sure you understand
Speaker 2: one thing. Half of the initial reports you get is wrong,
Speaker 2: and so as a consequence, one thing you want to
Speaker 2: make sure as you identify which of the groups is
Speaker 2: directly responsible for this attack, It's very likely this group
Speaker 2: called katav hits Belah without a doubt, though there are
Speaker 2: two or three other Scheite militia groups that are operating
Speaker 2: in the area in both Syria and Rock. Second thing
Speaker 2: you got to look for is the proverbial smoking gun. Yes,
Speaker 2: as the President said, are these groups backed by iron,
Speaker 2: no question about it. Is the drone that was using
Speaker 2: this attack, largely manufactured in likely manufacturer probably and the
Speaker 2: minissions on board, but backed by iron does not mean
Speaker 2: directed by iron. Can you find the smoking guns from
Speaker 2: intelligence where you have a direct connection between the IRGC
Speaker 2: Revolutionary Guards in Iran and this particular group. I mean, metaphorically,
Speaker 2: we back Israel in the conflict there involved in, but
Speaker 2: we don't direct the ongoing military operations. The fact, we've
Speaker 2: complained about the level of violence that the Israelis have
Speaker 2: used to kill twenty six thousand Palestinians. So there's that
Speaker 2: differentiation of me and those I think will slow that response.
Speaker 2: Although you're quite right, many of these things in terms
Speaker 2: of so called options, should have been prepared in advance
Speaker 2: if in fact we saw the situation deteriorating in terms
Speaker 2: of descending, resupplying, or evacuating our bases in the region. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I got violence.
Speaker 3: I'm beyond an armchaired quarterback on this. I'm not even
Speaker 3: as good is that. But I do not understand, since
Speaker 3: you used the word inevitable over and over and over again,
Speaker 3: how the Pentagon didn't have all of these plans ready
Speaker 3: to go immediately when it finally happened. And then in
Speaker 3: terms of you saying they're all backed by Iran but
Speaker 3: not directed by Iran. What difference does it make if
Speaker 3: you hit Iran hard enough, they'd have to call off
Speaker 3: their dogs, wouldn't They wouldn't they have to say, hey,
Speaker 3: you better not do that anymore. And we're trying to
Speaker 3: deter the houthis also from interrupting the shipping lane. So
Speaker 3: we got to send a message to all of those
Speaker 3: at the same time, don't we.
Speaker 2: Well to sendergree these two they're connected, but they're separate.
Speaker 2: I mean, what will deter these Iraqi groups? I think
Speaker 2: will be different than necessarily deter the HOUTHI But you're
Speaker 2: quite right. We can go after Iran a big way
Speaker 2: if we sort of choose. We certainly have the capabilities
Speaker 2: beyond question. But we also have to consider what happens
Speaker 2: in response. Okay, what happens in response? Uranians have already
Speaker 2: demonstrated long range missile capability. They struck Pakistan because of
Speaker 2: a terrorist attack in the last few weeks. They struck
Speaker 2: a group in Syria a week or so ago against
Speaker 2: the so called terror We know they have long rangeists.
Speaker 2: They could respond using that. They could intensify their efforts
Speaker 2: all across the region to include hitz Fe Lah in
Speaker 2: soudn elebanon intensifying their attacks on Israel. They could for
Speaker 2: a time at least close the Straits of Hormuz and
Speaker 2: drive the price to oil one hundred fifty bucks of barrow.
Speaker 2: Those may be things that you're willing to accept without question,
Speaker 2: but you've got to consider that particular possibility. In some ways,
Speaker 2: I think deterring and getting these people to stop doing
Speaker 2: what they're doing in Iraq and Syria is a lot
Speaker 2: easier than trying to deter the hooties who have asclutely
Speaker 2: nothing to lose and have their own agenda as do
Speaker 2: the Iraqis, which is to embellish their brand, attack more resources,
Speaker 2: encourage more volunteers, et cetera.
Speaker 4: I find myself wishing we had almost unlimited time for
Speaker 4: the Socratic class with doctor Jeff McCausland here CBS News
Speaker 4: Military Consultant, because if I was sitting there in your class,
Speaker 4: I would say, well, Professor mccauslan, it sounds like we're
Speaker 4: What you and Jack are are are talking about is
Speaker 4: the question of the US's meticulousness and deliberation that we
Speaker 4: have to have a smoking gun. We need to figure
Speaker 4: out if Iran was actually directing blah blah blah, as
Speaker 4: opposed to not worrying about that sort of thing and
Speaker 4: just protecting the sort of power that our advertaries would say.
Speaker 4: We don't want to mess with them. We just can't
Speaker 4: mess with them. Last time we did, they went nuts,
Speaker 4: they blew up things, had nothing to do with it.
Speaker 4: We're never going to mess with them again. And I
Speaker 4: realized that the answer to that query would take a
Speaker 4: very long time. But I think that's where we're at,
Speaker 4: isn't it.
Speaker 2: It is the degree. But that one thing I always
Speaker 2: about concerned about when we make a response to things
Speaker 2: like this is and I saw this in Washington. Nobody
Speaker 2: seems to want to answer the following question. And then
Speaker 2: what and then what? You know, a military force is
Speaker 2: a means and not an answer. We can go and
Speaker 2: just devastate it if you'd like. It, could nuke Oran
Speaker 2: if you like, We could do all that. What does
Speaker 2: that leave us on the other end of it? And
Speaker 2: the concern is to lead us into a wider conference concern.
Speaker 2: Of course, it results in large scale civilian casualties on
Speaker 2: the Iranian side. A lot of innocent people had nothing
Speaker 2: to do with all this stuff, are going to die
Speaker 2: or get killed in the process. Now, once again, one
Speaker 2: might argue, and one could have a convincing argument that
Speaker 2: that level of deterrence is required. Okay, but at least
Speaker 2: I would I'd like to make sure there was some
Speaker 2: consideration of what happens the day after as you go
Speaker 2: through this process.
Speaker 3: Sure shouldn't. Ultimately, though, they be more worried about us
Speaker 3: escalating than us worried about them escalating.
Speaker 2: Well, they are worried about us escalating. Quite frankly. The
Speaker 2: first thing the Arrange do is jump up in all
Speaker 2: the forms they could find and deny any connection to
Speaker 2: this particular mission. At the same time, kadab hits Balah
Speaker 2: jumped up in all their forms social media likes, and
Speaker 2: Ron was totally disconnected from all this. And oh, by
Speaker 2: the way, after negotiation with the Iraqi government, we've decided
Speaker 2: we're going to suspend all these particular tacks so that
Speaker 2: they're all kind of scurrying towards the exits. And that's why,
Speaker 2: instead of a moment ago, it seems to me bringing this
Speaker 2: particular sad chapter to a close may be easier than
Speaker 2: dealing with the Houthis. Unfortunately, I don't think they've got
Speaker 2: a great deal to lose. The problem the Iranians have
Speaker 2: got is they basically, I think, in many ways, won
Speaker 2: the game. The game for them was to get the
Speaker 2: United States out of the reach out of Iraq. In particular,
Speaker 2: even prior to this most recent attack, we had begun
Speaker 2: negotiations with the Iraqi government on a timetable to withdraw
Speaker 2: our forces because of strained relations following previous air strikes
Speaker 2: that hit Iraqi soil. So the Iranians had really in
Speaker 2: their hand gained what they wanted to accomplish, and I
Speaker 2: think they have gone a step too far, or their proxies,
Speaker 2: who they may have only limited control of, its going
Speaker 2: a step too far. And so what they want to
Speaker 2: do is take their winnings and leave the table.
Speaker 4: So interesting. Jeff mccauslm CBS News military consultant, Always enjoy
Speaker 4: the conversation, Jeff, thanks a million.
Speaker 2: You guys are a pleasure to talk to.