Fmr. Defense Secretary Austin: 'I certainly don't believe we've seen a regime change'

[0:00] In his first televised interview in the U.S. since leaving the Biden administration, [0:04] we're gratified to be joined by former Defense Secretary in the Biden administration, Lloyd [0:08] Austin. Secretary Austin is among the most accomplished Pentagon officials in military [0:13] history, having served as vice chief of staff of the Army and head of U.S. Central Command, [0:18] or CENTCOM, before joining Joe Biden's cabinet as the nation's first African-American Secretary [0:23] of Defense. Secretary, thank you so much for joining us. [0:27] My pleasure. [0:27] Well, you published a weighty op-ed in The New York Times this week titled Now We Know [0:33] What a Modern War Looks Like, where you outline the lessons the U.S. can already take away [0:38] from this war with Iran. More on those lessons in just a minute. But first, I just have to [0:43] ask you, if you were sitting in Pete Hegseth's shoes 40 days ago, would you have advised the [0:49] president to launch this war? [0:52] Well, I certainly won't speculate on what I would have done or not done. I will say that [0:57] I know a lot about this problem set, having been the Central Command commander and served [1:01] so long in the U.S. military and having fought in Iraq. And so I know a lot about the region. [1:11] I don't know what the dynamics were that led to the decision. I would just say that the president [1:16] of the United States has access to a lot of very detailed and good information. He gets input [1:24] from a number of advisers, his secretary of state, in addition to the secretary of defense, [1:31] but the director of national intelligence, the director of the CIA. And so there's a lot [1:38] that goes into that decision. I don't know what the inputs were, what our allies were saying, [1:47] and certainly we are a part of an alliance that includes Israel. And so I don't know what the [1:56] exchanges were there. But clearly, you know, I think now it's time to focus on, so we are where [2:05] we are, it's time to focus on where we go from here. What, you know, what do we do about it? And [2:09] where do we want to wind up? Sure. We know that there's a huge difference between having a military [2:14] plan versus a strategic plan. Do you think that the U.S. has met its strategic objectives in this war? [2:21] Well, we've never really been clear about what the strategic objectives were. We've seen that bounce [2:27] around quite a bit. What I would tell you is that as a secretary of defense and also as a combatant [2:35] commander, I worked hard each and every day to make sure that I understood what the strategic [2:41] objectives were and that the operational and tactical objectives enabled us accomplishing [2:49] those strategic objectives. Well, let's talk about some of those strategic objectives. One of them was [2:54] to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. They portrayed it as an imminent threat. Was it? [3:00] I don't know. Again, I didn't have access to the intelligence reads that the president would have [3:07] had. But from what I know about going into this, I don't think that they would have been close to [3:15] developing a nuclear weapon capability because of some of the things that were done back in June. [3:22] And so I think everyone was a bit surprised just to hear that we were concerned that they were that, [3:30] you know, the development of a weapon was imminent. Now, your experience in the army includes commanding [3:38] combat forces in both Iraq and in Afghanistan. And you wrote in your op-ed, the Iran war is strikingly [3:43] different from America's other recent wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan and that it looks more [3:48] like the Russia-Ukraine war. What did you mean by that? Well, what we're seeing, Juju, is a lot of [3:56] use of a lot of unmanned aerial vehicles or drones, the rapid development of additional surveillance [4:05] capabilities. We're seeing things like loitering munitions, you know, in this fight. And that's [4:11] having an impact that some did not anticipate. Now, as we enable Ukraine in its fight against Russia, [4:23] we certainly went to school on what was happening in that fight. We studied, you know, what Russia was [4:31] doing and how Ukraine was responding to that. And we learned a lot of lessons. And one of the things [4:37] that we learned was the value of inexpensive, expendable capabilities like drones that can be [4:49] married with our higher end capabilities to increase our overall capabilities. [4:54] You talked about the lack of clarity of strategic objectives. What is the exit strategy if regime [5:01] change, for example, is something that was talked about? And can that be achieved without boots on the [5:07] ground? My view is that it's not possible to typically to achieve a change of regime without [5:19] some some boots on the ground. And I don't think an air campaign alone will do that. I also think that if [5:27] you really want to see a regime change, then work needs to have been done with the with the elements [5:35] in country. And I'm not saying that that hasn't been done, you know, with some of the people in [5:39] countries so that they're ready to take fill the vacuum when there is an absence of leadership. [5:47] I don't I certainly don't believe we've seen a regime change. We've seen a leadership change. [5:52] I think the regime remains intact. They control the the straight. They still have the ability to to go [6:01] after a nuclear weapon if they choose to do so. And and they still have some ballistic missile capability. [6:07] And decapitation is different than regime change at this point. And we've seen a buildup of forces [6:13] in the region. Would you advise boots on the ground? I certainly don't think at this point that that's [6:23] that's something that I would I would advise. I think there are other ways to go about addressing this [6:28] problem. Well, a high number and a huge number of high profile senior military officers have left [6:34] or have been removed. Many minorities, women and upper ranks, including the army's top general just [6:41] last week. Do these removals concern you? Absolutely they concern me. These are very experienced [6:48] professionals that have have earned their the right to occupy the positions that they occupied. [6:56] They were the best people available to to fill those positions. And when they walk out the door, [7:05] they take with them an incredible amount of experience and in, you know, sound leadership [7:13] that I that I worry about. Now, clearly, there are others that that can that will fill the spaces. But [7:20] but but knowing all of these officers personally, I can tell you that that we've we've seen some fine, [7:27] really fine officers depart. You mentioned allies and partners and a lot of the advice that you gave in [7:33] the op ed involves our alliances. And I wonder you write not one country, not even America can carry that [7:40] burden alone. Given that, what is your reaction to President Trump's recent truth social post slamming [7:47] NATO and calling the alliance very disappointing? I certainly won't comment on on on the president's [7:55] statements. But but I can tell you what I what I know about NATO in the countries in NATO and how committed [8:02] they are to to ensuring that there is a sustainable, enduring peace throughout the region. They've worked [8:13] together in ways recently that we've not seen them work together before. And I think the United States was [8:18] a was a key part of that. You know, we worked hard to make sure that we pulled NATO closer together. We [8:23] actually enlarged NATO and NATO is a defensive alliance. It is the most effective defensive [8:30] alliance in the history of the world. And and so I think the only time that, you know, article five, article [8:40] five of that treaty has ever been invoked is when we were attacked on 9 11. NATO countries came to our [8:48] assistance in Afghanistan. And some of them paid a pretty significant price. I have every reason to [8:54] believe that if something were to happen again, they they would they would do the same thing in [8:59] accordance with the with the rules of the alliance. I think that you'll see our European allies and allies [9:05] from and partners from around the globe begin to work together to to try to add value to this this [9:13] significant issue that we have in the strait. And I would say that, you know, this is a not just a US [9:24] or American issue. This this is an issue for every country around the globe. Freedom of navigation is [9:31] important to every country on this planet. There is so much turmoil in the world throughout the world. I [9:39] wonder, you know, as you think across the regions, what keeps you up at night? Well, you know, I I [9:51] a number of things, you know, concern me. I do worry about, you know, losing the support of our allies [10:02] and partners and our inability to to continue to work together in in meaningful ways. I do worry about [10:10] the US continuing to be able to exercise a sound leadership from from, you know, and influence [10:23] our allies and partners in in in the right way. And I I do think that that's going to continue to [10:29] happen. But it's not a given. I think that's something we're going to have to continue to work [10:33] at. Secretary Austin, thank you for your service. Thank you for your thoughts. And thanks for joining us.