Podcast: Rep. Mike Waltz’s case against ending the war in Afghanistan

TRANSCRIPT: Rep. Mike Waltz’s case against ending the war in Afghanistan

Mike Waltz:

What is the only country in the world, Ian, where we have a base that borders China? Afghanistan. Why would we give up a base that's on the Western flank of China, Southern flank of Russia, and Eastern flank of Iran, if our concern are on those top three adversaries?

Ian Bremmer:

Hello and welcome to the GZERO World Podcast. Here you'll find extended versions of the interviews from my show on public television. I'm Ian Bremmer, and today President Biden promises to boldly go where the past three American presidents ultimately did not: a complete withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. The decision has popular support. Most Americans think it's time to get out of both Afghanistan and Iraq. But some Pentagon officials and defense experts are expressing their serious concerns about what comes next for the region and the global war on terror. Today I'm talking to the first combat decorated Green Beret to serve in Congress. Republican lawmaker, Mike Waltz has four bronze stars to his name and no shortage of opinions about this latest military move. Let's get right to it.

Announcer:

The GZERO World Podcast is brought to you by our founding sponsor, First Republic. First Republic, a private bank and wealth management company, understands the value of service, safety, and stability in today's uncertain world. Visit firstrepublic.com to learn more.

Ian Bremmer:

Congressman Mike Waltz. Thanks so much for joining GZERO World.

Mike Waltz:

Yeah, happy to be with you Ian.

Ian Bremmer:

You recently said the following about President Biden's announcement of a full US troop withdrawal, "This announcement breaks my heart." You said, "The best way to cause another 9/11 to happen is to pull all of our troops out of Afghanistan when half the world's terrorist organizations are still there." Do you believe, 2,500 US troops remaining at this point, you think those troops are gone and it becomes a calamity, a catastrophe?

Mike Waltz:

Yeah, I do, unfortunately, and I think we're going to see a descent back into chaos. The intelligence community has been clear that Al-Qaeda does intend to resurge in the wake of a US withdrawal. I do think the Taliban, unfortunately, has ascended. I do not think the Afghan National Security Forces will be able to hold without our air support and without our intelligence support,a nd importantly, that doesn't often get discussed, without our contract support that's helping them with a lot of their maintenance and logistics. One of the things I don't know that everyone realizes, is when the military goes, those contractors will go, the CIA, our eyes and ears on the ground will go, we literally will have a black hole there, and we're going to repeat the mistakes that President Obama made with the full pullout of Iraq that led to the resurgence of ISIS, that led to the untold hundreds of thousands of deaths around the region, attacks across Europe, attacks across the United States. Sadly, I think we're about to repeat that movie, that nightmare all over again.

Ian Bremmer:

I mean, the Pentagon has recently come out just a few days ago, they released a joint statement with NATO, and they promised that, number one, they would continue to fund key Afghan capabilities like the Air Force Special Missions Wing and Afghan Security Forces, and also maintain counterterrorism capabilities in the region sufficient to ensuring Afghanistan cannot become a safe haven for terrorists. Tell me why either you think that's not the case or to what extent that really what we're talking about is there is a compromise out there to be had.

Mike Waltz:

Yeah, listen, I understand the Pentagon's talking points, but I've been talking directly with a number of their leaders. There is no plan. They're incredibly concerned. Here's why this is even worse than the pullout of Iraq. In Iraq, as you know, Ian, just looking at the geography, we have all kinds of basing options to go back in when we eventually needed to, as ISIS went surging across the country and almost took Baghdad after they took Mosul. We have Turkey, we have Israel, we have Kuwait, we have the Gulf States, we have Kurdistan and our local Kurdish allies, both in Syria and Iraq. We don't have any of that in Afghanistan, none. We have Russia and the Stans, China, Iran and Pakistan. We give up that one base at Bagram, we literally are out of options. And the other piece that I find really egregious coming from the administration is this promise to keep funding the Afghan Security Forces with no Americans there to oversee those billions of dollars that are going into one of the most corrupt governments, but going into the security force as they try to fight back against the Taliban.

That's not the administration's decision. That's not the Pentagon's decision. That's Congress's decision. And let's remind everyone that South Vietnam didn't fall when we pulled our advisors back. South Vietnam fell when Congress got frustrated that the monies weren't being spent well with the South Vietnamese army and pulled the funding. And I literally see that happening within the next year or two with the Afghan Security Forces fund that keeps the army going to the tune of billions of dollars. So that is just, I think, wrong and an overreach on many counts.

And finally, one of the reasons that Biden cited in his withdrawal speech was great power competition and a shift to great power competition. I fully support that. I've spent a year on a China task force. I believe we are in a Cold War with the Chinese Communist Party, or at least they are with us and we just need to wake up to it. But what is the only country in the world, Ian, where we have a base that borders China, Afghanistan. Why would we give up a base that's on the Western flank of China, Southern flank of Russia and Eastern flank of Iran, if our concern are on those top three adversaries?

Ian Bremmer:

I'm going to talk to you about China directly in a moment. There's a lot to discuss there.

Mike Waltz:

Sure.

Ian Bremmer:

But I want to stick with the topic at hand for the time being. I mean, the United States has the world's largest blue-water navy. The ability to mass forces in the Indian Ocean is certainly real. There is some discussion talking about using country en engaging in agreements in countries like Kazakhstan, Tajikistan to have bases in the region. We've got drone capacity, we've got intelligence capacity. Are none of those remotely close to being able to use the Bagram base? And if so, why not?

Mike Waltz:

Well, the Bagram base when we pull out will be shut down, right? All of those, if you unpack that for a moment, all of the Stans, K2 [Karshi-Khanabad] in Uzbekistan, Manas in Kyrgyzstan, we've been asked to leave years ago, and I do not see the Russians allowing us to have basing there again. If you just look at the distances that are in play coming from the Gulf States, one, we don't have authorities yet. We may get them, but we don't have them yet to launch lethal strikes into Afghanistan from those states. And the distances that we have make that incredibly problematic. Just with a drone, I was just talking to the Pentagon about this a few days ago, will use up three quarters of its fuel, getting there and back. That gives it very little time to stay on station. It's a landlocked country. We have to keep those over-flight rights over Pakistan. But that's always problematic.

But the real issue is in order to have that source network on the ground, you have to have people on the ground. And I can tell you, because they're all reaching out to me in a panic, our sources, our local allies, those that have fought with us for a better Afghan future are all in a total state of panic right now and will be hunted down by the Taliban once they fully take over the country. So we will be left with a black hole from an intelligence standpoint, incredibly long distances for any type of aviation support, and our special forces will be going in blind. It takes a network on the ground to defeat a terrorist network. And all of that is on the verge of being wiped out.

Ian Bremmer:

Does that necessarily mean that you no longer have US military in an advisory capability, for example? Does that necessarily mean that you no longer have the US intelligence officers that are prepared and engaged directly with Afghan sources on the ground?

Mike Waltz:

I could tell you, I just spoke to someone just back from our embassy in Kabul. They're burning documents as we speak. I can see a small presence left there, but that cannot nearly handle the types of sources that we need going out and about. And it can't possibly oversee the billions of dollars going into the Afghan army out into the hinterlands that I think we'll need for effective oversight. So again, we may leave a very small presence, but the magnitude of the job and to truly understand if trees are falling in the forest, will we know it before it's too late? I have real concern. It significantly, significantly raises the risks.

Ian Bremmer:

Now, the other side of this, of course, is the fact that over the past years, the Taliban have been making gains on the ground whether you've had a Democratic or Republican administration in charge.

Mike Waltz:

Sure.

Ian Bremmer:

The Afghan government has been, such as it is, incredibly weak, very divided, as you mentioned, quite corrupt. And not only that, but also doesn't control much of the country.

Mike Waltz:

Sure.

Ian Bremmer:

I mean, if we're supporting the mayor of Kabul as opposed to the president of Afghanistan, it's a little more difficult to actually effectively fight terror. So given all of that, what in your mind would a future US presence look like? And what kind of condition-based successes could one expect?

Mike Waltz:

Yeah, no, look, I think if you look at, for example, Columbia, the fact that we've had special operators there for over 30 years, we still have them there today advising, assisting, providing logistics, intelligence, and, at times, drone support and other types of support against the FARC guerrillas. I think that's a great model. I mean, there's a lot of holes you can poke in that. But there is a model for the fact that we have an advisory training role. We do have a small presence there prepared to conduct unilateral attacks if we see an attack emanating towards the homeland. And that also provides that backbone of support that the CIA needs and that some of this contract support for the Afghan military as they learn the more technical aspects of maintenance and training and logistics. I foresee a small presence there for some time. Look, we've had 50,000 in Japan since World War II, 30,000 in South Korea.

I mean, you know the numbers, we still have a battalion in the Sinai since the Suez Canal crisis. So if we want to bring a few thousand troops home, there's a lot of places we could do it without incurring such massive risks as we do in Afghanistan. And not to mention the fact that next door is five times the population in Pakistan, that could be dragged into chaos as well. But this time you have a nuclear arsenal at play. Hey, look, I get it hard, long and expensive. I understand the frustration. Nobody does more than me who's lost Green Berets there in combat. My fear is that we're going to lose many more having to fight our way back into Afghanistan just as we did into Iraq. Look at the chaos that unfolded across the region, across Europe and inspired attacks here in the United States with that decision to pull out of Iraq too soon. Look, I'll be candid, the next 9/11, the next Pulse nightclub, which is right on the edge of my congressional district, the next San Bernardino, that's now on Biden's watch, he owns it with this decision.

Ian Bremmer:

And again, President Trump came out publicly very recently supporting the withdrawal. In fact, he's saying that Biden is withdrawing too late. It should have been May 1. I mean, a lot of this is the fact that the public in the United States has just had it up to here with trillions of dollars and thousands of people dying and them saying that there's a war that we're fighting. If you say we're fighting a war, the war is supposed to be over. I mean, so you understand the political pressures that they're under.

Mike Waltz:

Yeah, sure. No, no, absolutely. And again, I understand the frustration and I shared these same very real concerns with President Trump. Just to be ... In fairness, I've been consistent on this issue regardless of political party. And I do think we should have been talking about the war very differently. We didn't lose anyone in 2020. Ian, we lost six in 2019 the year before. And every one of those is tragic. But at the same time, we lost more people in training accidents in the Navy that year than we lost in Afghanistan. So talking about it as we were about Columbia, that this is a 'train, advise, assist' mission, that it's actually the Afghan army that's out there doing the fighting with our support, an important support, they're losing 40 to 50 a day. We have not done a good job of explaining that to the American people, shifting their understanding of what's going on and tamping down some of that frustration.

Ian Bremmer:

Before we pivot to China, I guess that was my final question to you is do you think there is room? I mean, we've already pushed back the formal withdrawal from May 1 until 9/11, an unusual date to pick in many ways. But is there not room for the president to end the war and end the physical deployment of soldiers fighting a war and nonetheless move towards advising, engaging with some small presence on the ground?

Mike Waltz:

I would hope that he would consider that. I hope there is some gray area where we can talk about shifting to a non-combat role, but that provides important support so that the Afghan army can keep the country from being overrun by the Taliban and keep Al-Qaeda from resurging and threatening our allies in the homeland again.

Ian Bremmer:

So if the worst comes and the Taliban actually takes over, the Afghan government falls apart, how do you think the United States responds to that?

Mike Waltz:

Well, I think then it becomes really paramount of what kind of intelligence access do we have, what kind of reporting, how blind will we be? The agency and the intelligence committee has been clear, the military goes, we go too. And what kind of reports are we seeing? I predict that we'll see a fracturing. We'll have a Northern Alliance again, and we'll be back to where we were in 2001. Except this time we'll have an incredibly well armed and trained 300,000 man Afghan army that will have fractured as well. I fear the Civil War will be far worse and we'll find ourselves aligning with the Northern Alliance again, fighting our way back in and possibly going after Al-Qaeda training camps that are threatening the homeland. It really will be the repeat of a nightmare horror movie.

Ian Bremmer:

We'll go to China. That's the big sort of elephant in the room. And you said we're at a Cold War with China, but then you walked it back a bit, and that's okay because I don't think we're in a Cold War with China right now, but you have talked about a boycott of the China Olympics. You think that's a good idea?

Mike Waltz:

I do. And just to your point on whether we're in a Cold War, I certainly believe President Xi and the Chinese Communist Party are in one with us. And if you just look at it kind of doctrinally, when they're using diplomatic, informational, military, and economic means to supplant the United States, don't take it from me, read President Xi's speeches to replace the American dream with the China dream to be the preeminent global power, I would certainly call that a Cold War by every definition. And understanding Chinese military theory, they believe in winning without firing a shot to quote Sun Tzu. So if the United States can eventually step aside as a fait accompli like Britain did at the end of World War II, like the Soviet Union did in the early 1990s, that's their vision of victory, is victory without a hot war. That to me is a Cold War. Look, on the Olympics-

Ian Bremmer:

My pushback on that, just so you know.

Mike Waltz:

I knew you couldn't resist that one.

Ian Bremmer:

No, no. It's not that I disagree with you on the way you just described it. It's that I see that competition as coexisting with a massive amount of economic interdependence between the two largest economies in the world, that both the Americans and Chinese know that they continue to rely upon. And a Cold War implies that that doesn't actually exist. So that's the only thing I would say.

Mike Waltz:

No, but I would counter that that's where we are, but that's not where the Chinese plan to be. Now, China 2025, planned ... Number one, they want to create international dependencies on China, which the COVID pandemic, I think, has just exposed the world. But by 2025 across 10 key technology areas be self-sufficient. So there's a lot of talk about decoupling. Actually, the Chinese are moving there first, and we need to wake up to the fact. And if we can't onshore, then I'm looking to nearshore. I tell Wall Street all the time, if you want to sell into a billion person market, let's look at India. I'll help you with that. Let's sell into a market whose government doesn't seek to supplant the United States and is the world's largest democracy.

Ian Bremmer:

If what you're saying is that we might end up in a Cold War by 2025 if China's successful at decoupling, I'm prepared to go with you there. I just don't think we're there today, but I take that point. But let's get to the Olympics issue. So do you think-

Mike Waltz:

Yeah, sure.

Ian Bremmer:

You've said it, you think the boycott's a good idea, talk about why that is.

Mike Waltz:

Well, to be clear, the preferred action was that the Olympics are moved, and we've repeatedly asked the International Olympic Committee to do so, and they've rebuffed us now for two years. So with just 10 months to go, we finally, until the Beijing Olympics in February of '22, I and others introduced a resolution calling for a boycott. I don't see how after unleashing COVID on the world, clearly covering it up, arresting journalists, arresting doctors, refusing to share data, and the ongoing genocide that two Secretary of States from two different administrations have now agreed is happening that we reward Beijing with this international platform to whitewash everything that they've done to the world. And frankly, I think it sends a horrible signal and a horrible message that the world is willing to collectively shrug their shoulders at what's going on with slave labor, ongoing rape and torture, and a mass sterilization campaign of the Uyghur women, on top of Hong Kong, on top of Tibet. I feel for our athletes, I hate it that the IOC is putting them in this situation, but at this point, I think we have to boycott.

Ian Bremmer:

President Carter said that the boycott of the Olympics in 1980 was one of the worst decisions that he made as a president. Very few allies joined along. It looks like if the US were to engage in a complete boycott, that the US would be virtually alone in terms of major advanced industrial economies.

Mike Waltz:

Oh, not necessarily, no.

Ian Bremmer:

Do you worry about that? Do you worry about that?

Mike Waltz:

So 180, that's a significant number. 180 human rights organizations from around the world are calling on the same. I just saw a poll in Canada, 63% of Canadians would support their government in a full boycott. The leader of the Canadian Conservative Party is also calling for the same. There is a growing movement in the UK, Australia, Japan, and others. And to your point on 1980, I also like to look at probably times in history when we didn't, and we should have. With authoritarian regimes that were emboldened by the platform that the Olympics provides. We all know what Germany did after 1936.

Ian Bremmer:

Absolutely.

Mike Waltz:

But not as many people realize that Russia invaded the Ukraine just one month after the Sochi Olympics, meaning their military planning was happening while the Olympic Games were going on. And let's look at what China's done since 2008 when they last had the Olympics, and they promised the world-

Ian Bremmer:

When Xi Jinping coordinated them as vice president.

Mike Waltz:

That's right. When Xi Jinping coordinated them, and they promised the world Tibetan groups, Uyghur groups and other human rights organizations, that they would improve their record. And it has since gotten far worse. So given that trend of history, what's next after '22? I fear Taiwan.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah, look, I mean, there's no question that the military engagement of China around Taiwan has grown in a very troubling way. And while the US has said that we will provide support to allow Taiwan to defend itself, at no point has the American government said that the US would step in to defend Taiwan. How much do you worry that the size of China, the fact that China is going to be the world's largest economy by all measures within a decade, just means that the costs, the sheer costs... I mean, the American people aren't going to boycott Chinese goods. It's just not feasible. I mean, the entire Fortune 500 pretty much is doing massive business inside China. A boycott would have major knock on economic implications, including for donors, for everyone that runs for Congress. How do you deal with that?

Mike Waltz:

Well, look, I mean, I'm telling these corporations they need to look themselves in the mirror. How do they donate tens of millions of dollars to social justice causes here in the United States, but then just ignore what's going on with as close as we have to modern day slavery in Western China and make millions on top of it.

I mean, a think tank in Australia just released that 80 international brands are benefiting from the cotton, the sugar, and the other raw materials that are coming out of Western China, which the State Department just verified is forced labor in concentration camps. So I think I'm going to call them out. There's a lot of talk about good corporate governance. Well, that doesn't just apply on US borders. That applies around the world too. It is gross and disgusting what the Chinese government's doing to the Uyghurs, particularly to Uyghur women. The BBC was expelled, as you know, for exposing a mass rape campaign that's going on in these concentration camps. And I think the call for a boycott puts a very uncomfortable spotlight on these corporations. We just saw what happened with H&M, the Swedish clothing manufacturer.

Ian Bremmer:

Nike as well.

Mike Waltz:

They withdrew.

Ian Bremmer:

Absolutely.

Mike Waltz:

Nike as well. But Nike since reversed, Hugo Boss has since reversed because the Chinese government has threatened to cut them off from the market as they threatened to cut off the NBA when one coach tweeted to support freedom in Hong Kong. That is just a taste of what's coming for the world I fear if we let Xi continue on his march to global domination.

Ian Bremmer:

Let me try to back you into a compromise like I did on Afghanistan. And look, I'm trying to be honest about what I'm trying to do, which is to what extent, I mean, if the United States was prepared to say, full diplomatic boycott, we're not sending a single official to this thing, and we want all of our allies to get on board with that. And they do. And there are protests that are supported by the governments, by athletes that attend, and the media is engaged in the kind of coverage that you would want to see from free media, is that not a more sustainable place, also more of a show of strength because the United States with everyone?

Mike Waltz:

Well, I'm all for a compromise. I think the compromise is that the games are delayed. Tokyo just showed us that they could be with the summer games because of COVID, and they're moved. I think the IOC needs to live up to its own morals, its own standards and its ethics in its mission statement going forward. But to your point, I don't think many people will really know or care if some politicians don't go to the games. It's the millions that will be, billions that will be made on the sponsorships, on the broadcasting. And importantly, I think that underestimates the propaganda machine that is the Chinese Communist Party. I got to tell you, if it was my daughter going over and she thought she was going to wear a Uyghur T-shirt or stage some kind of protest with the national security laws that Xi has put in place and has shown a very willingness, he's got two Canadian diplomats, registered diplomats in prison.

Ian Bremmer:

The two Michaels that are in prison right now.

Mike Waltz:

Right, the two Michaels. Yeah, so I wouldn't underestimate that for a second. This notion that the athletes can go over there and speak their mind and freely protest. And the other piece is how the American media, frankly, is compromised and willing to compromise themselves. If they're willing to erase flags of Taiwan, if they're willing to erase any mention of the Uyghurs or the Tibetans, I certainly think they'll be willing to not air athletes protesting on the stand in order to have access to that Chinese market. We're drunk on Chinese money Ian, from sports, to Disney, to Wall Street, to our political class, to our universities, think tanks, and research institutions. And that's why this is the most insidious threat we've ever faced.

Ian Bremmer:

Okay. So before we close, lets at least hit an easier issue. Let's go to Russia.

Mike Waltz:

Something that doesn't make us all want to drink, right? That'll be Russia, will do.

Ian Bremmer:

Exactly. Russia doesn't make us want to drink, no question. It's a national pastime. We've got tens of thousands of Russian troops at the border of Ukraine. How should the United States be responding to the Russian government right now after all of this, the SolarWinds hack, everything else, has Biden's approach been appropriate and commensurate in your view?

Mike Waltz:

Yeah, look, I mean, I'll be candid. I think the Russian government, the Iranian government, the Taliban, and I can go around the world, I think they smell weakness in Washington right now. There's an underlying notion, this is many of the same folks, and I know a lot of them that were there in the Obama administration. There's this underlying philosophy that if we're nice to them, as Obama said in his second inaugural speech, "If we extend a hand," then these authoritarian regimes will behave better. Look, they respond and are deterred by strength, and they are emboldened by weakness. And rightly or wrongly, from everything I'm reading and hearing, that is the perception. And that's why you saw the invasion of Crimea and Ukraine under the last administration, and you're seeing a buildup under this one because they don't believe that there'll be real consequences. So I applaud the sanctions that have gone in place around the SolarWinds hack, but I don't think it's enough. I think that's the only thing that Putin's eventually going to respond to.

Ian Bremmer:

But in terms of what the Biden administration is doing right now, what are a couple of concrete measures that, I mean, you've said, "I want them to push back. I want them to move the Olympics." I personally don't think that will happen, but that is certainly a direct policy statement. What's your direct policy statement on Russia you'd like to see?

Mike Waltz:

Lethal aid in Ukraine. I think that's the only thing that the Russians will respond to. Their military is incredibly weak, except for a few elite units. Putin plays a very weak card very well. They are a declining power. But at the end of the day, I would like to see the same support for dissidents in China. This same type of tough action towards those that are fighting for their rights in Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang and others as we are towards Russia. Look, at the end of the day, I think the Russian problem is one to be managed, but the Chinese problem is one that I don't know that we're going to eventually prevail. I do believe at this point the trend lines show us not prevailing.

Ian Bremmer:

And that's Mike Waltz, Congressman from Florida. And my thanks to you for joining us. And thank you for your service, sir.

Mike Waltz:

Great to be with you, Ian. Come on down to Florida anytime.

Ian Bremmer:

That's it for today's edition of the GZERO World Podcast, like what you've heard? Come check us out at gzeromedia.com and sign up for our newsletter Signal.

Announcer:

The GZERO World Podcast is brought to you by our founding sponsor, First Republic. First Republic, a private bank and wealth management company, understands the value of service, safety, and stability in today's uncertain world. Visit firstrepublic.com to learn more.