protects the rights of a solid people. that's a rock for this news hour, but our social media teams are working flats to the not to give us a follow wherever you see that a r t logo. thanks for your company to box the the for decades united states has operated military bases around the middle east and currently have around 30000 station in the area on sky. now he's in on this edition of $360.00

view, we're going to look at the court and justification by the united states and the role their presence is playing or cheating piece in the middle east. let's get started. the the earlier civilizations in history were established around 3500 b c. and the region now known as the middle east, even though the time was not given to the land between a ravia and india until 18 fifties by the british india office. so why is the oldest civilization? do you mean the help of one of the newest? well, i don't want to question the original intent to the united states. that would like to think it was the name of keeping the peace in the world. what do you mean if that was true in the beginning, prior to the united states pulling out of afghanistan,

do us have more than $100000.00 navigators stand alone. that can be extremely concerning. and sadly, 2400 to never made it back home to the united states. lots and more than 20000 were wounded in action. what good was there sacrifice? because within a year of the united states pulling out the taliban regime has almost again to full control of afghanistan. again, the same could be also said following the withdrawal from many american troops interact as well. now, but following the attack, which killed 3 american soldiers in jordan, us military started a series of strikes, including $125.00 munitions against $85.00 militia targets in syria and a rack. and this might just be the beginning, as more and more pressure as being formed on the current administration to take more action. now this is all,

while the united states troops stationed the middle east, are there with the permission of each country's government. well, that's except for syria, and was more than a $160.00 recent attacks on us troops across a rack and serious since october, it's apparent, the residence of the country are not as happy. so what exactly is united states doing was so many deployed service members to the middle east and whose interest are the exactly survey was discussed, our panel. kind of rob manice who is a former air force colonel and a radio talk show host as well. scott ritter, a geo political analyst, an officer, former us military and un inspector. thank you so much for joining me, gentlemen. on this issue that we've been debating for decades, and yet, here we still are. and what are the same situation? i want to start with you scott, what is the main objective of the united states of stationing american troops in syria and iraq in this present time as well?

i mean, we go back to the, i guess the beginning, the, the, the carter doctrine of the decision made that the middle east is in oil is the protection of oil supplies are the in the strategic national interest of the united states. i was part of the marine corps rapid deployment force back in the 1980s ready to play on a moment's notice. i deployed to saudi arabia during operation desert shield, desert storm to respond to a reaction, invasion of kuwait, the invasion that we made, the case threatened your saudi arabian oil fields in eastern saudi arabia, therefore triggering the need to intervene. and then we sort of lost track and became not so much about securing the oil as um, saving face. we didn't get rid of saddam hussein after desert storm. and for the next decade we embarked on policies of regime change using united nations sanctions

to strangle saddam until we could build up a case for war for missed on a lie that got us involved in a conflict in 2003 a couple on that the global warranty, or 911 f ganna stand. um, i'll tell you what, we don't know why we're in the middle. sort of wrapped in this, in this legacy we, we were there. but the target keep moving, and now we're, we're stuck. we, we can't articulate any reasonable premise for having troops in syria, right. we're sustaining and we'll great presence direct. well, scott and i wondering chrome, yes. and this is, let's go back to what you said was it really sold to the american people that the reason why we were sending our troops over there originally was for oil. i mean, i can understand it for national security. i can understand it for, to fight the war on terrorism tech. vietnam was to fight this threat of communism. was it really sold to the american people and did they understand that they were

going over there as for oil and that original intent crow mannus way? scott pointed out, rightly so, the are the original strategic vision of the united states for the area headed signing up to the free flow of oil from the persian gulf was the vital national interest for the united states. i was, well before i even the total it took over, i ran and i believe so. uh so yeah, that's exactly what the purpose was for the war a to a to, to boost or to boot saddam back out of to a dead horse to 8 and saudi arabia are kind of our clause i allies at the time too . so that didn't help anybody's case, it was opposing that, but today, the day scotty is, uh, it is exactly what scott just said. we don't really have a mission on the sand in the middle east right now. and those troops should have

been pulled out of there. years ago. there should never have been american troops without the approval of congress in syria where they are still to day. then every regime, every, every administration is responsible for not doing the right things that lead to the desk. so those 3 soldiers, now we, it's debatable about the, you know, the us navy task force that with the coalition now trying to protect for most or shipping in the red sea, from the who, the terrorist and iranian backed, of course. but when we even be there at all with our naval fleet, if we didn't still say that we needed to do things like keep vices from recreating itself after the trump administration completely destroyed it or protect those oil fields in northern syria, protect them for who, from who i mean, they're not doing us any good. and it just raises the, the issue in a positive life. but why we should be going back to being energy dominant because

is none of these places really matter except for, from an alliance perspective nowadays. then they did the back in the day when we said, hey, is a free flow of oil coming out of the persian gulf is our vital interest. we did that on the heels of the gas shortages, etc. so the politicians were able to get away with it, but today there is no emission of soldier shouldn't have been there on that the, on that ground. and we should be pulling out right now. unfortunately, it's going to look bad for us. so the generals, i'm sure advising president biden, not to do it because we just had a bunch killed. oh, by the way, those 85 targets we hit, we telegraphed to the iranians and there were people what we were going to do and where we were going to hit. so we hit a bunch of empty holes. probably didn't even a destroyer, but maybe one or 2 percent of their command and control and communications equipment. okay, so that bridge, the question right now is scott, you can s as military intelligence just as not making comments as we are warning

those before we strike them. we are, we don't necessarily have a clear mission as to why we're there. so what is the actual thinking and who is actually pulling these triggers to keep the united states in these fields, protecting these oil fields, especially knowing that the series of aaron drums strikes and a rock and it gets ronnie approx. these, there's heard that, like you said, the iraqi government will, we asked, will ask us to leave volume. what does this mean in regards to the region? if americans are ordered to leave, will they actually do so, considering there's not a clearly defined mission at this point as well. you mentioned military intelligence, you know, military intelligence supports an operational objective. and um, you know, you build a collection plan. you, you, you, you gather information, you assess it and then you, you brief, your, your, your, your leaders, military leaders, political leaders. um, you know, at that point in time they have to make decisions. uh, you know, this isn't that intelligence driven war is kurt mcmahon has pointed out. um,

you know, intelligence gave 85 targets. but what, what was the purpose of the targets where you test with providing targets that would degrade the mobile relocatable of, you know, targeting or targets the missiles model, missiles of the hoody or were you task for providing $85.00 points on the ground that could be struck in achieve a political objective of appeasing an american audience that was outraged by the you know, 3 dead soldiers. we just don't know. let's look at syria for a 2nd. why are we there? ostensibly were there because i sis originated from serious spreading out through western i react to motor 0 in 2014 down to decrypt. we intervened in iraq with the permission of the or i could government to form an anti ices coalition, among of which i need to point out was iran in the could force. there's an iconic

photograph taken outside of decrypt, showing american soldiers on one side of the road and custom sumani in the goods leadership on the other side of the road. because we were fighting together allied against isis. we re took moses o, we push onto the syrian border and now we cross into syria, ostensibly to finish the job. but this is where it gets complicated because to finish the job we had to make common cause with a kurdish force. the y p g a did, it's all alphabet soup up there. but they are literally an extension of the p k k. another alphabet soup. but those are turkish curtis groups that we call terrorists . and now in order to fight isis a legitimate terrace group, we're making common cause with a terrorist group that we've designated. so we rename them the syrian democratic forces. and now we're in this battle, but the syrian democratic forces have control over an important part of syria, the, this, the, the northeastern part where oil fields exist,

oil fields that had been sustaining isis, our tied up, and now we sought to keep, to sustain the kurdish forces that were now or allies, even though their terrorist, isis has been destroyed. but we were using the kurdish forces as a mechanism to achieve an unspoken objective regime change in damascus. we're seeking to remove by cheryl aside from power. we were using one of the reasons why isis existed is because we turned a blind eye to their creation because we found it to be useful in the process of the stabilizing syria. now we had the target isis, so we had to replace them with something as isis was defeated, the syrian forces began to expand and they suddenly were going to take control of the jordanian border and the rocky board. and we couldn't allow that to happen. so we moved into syria outcome for 2nd bastion, where we literally made alliance with the pro isis syrian tribes in the region. the diverting their attention from attacking us to attacking the syrian government. we

are state sponsors of terror on syrian soil today in our 3 soldiers who died died in the mission of supporting isis terrorist. we call them something different today, but there isis terrorist for the purpose of getting rid of, by sure all of a sudden, a mission that the united states congress has not said is a legitimate mission. so the colonel is 100 percent. correct. we have americans service members in arms way dying for a mission that has no constitutional authority. and that's the problem right now, because i think i would almost need a diagrams for the different groups we're talking about. but scott, what scott brings up to a very good point that we are, have actually arm some of the same people that are fighting is. so i go to chrome, man is on this. how much does the american people understand? also, how much does a bite and ministration understand is they continue to handle the situation with the who, with these we're going to bring in young men into this situation. how much did they

recognize? what is really happening on the ground will be your 2nd question. i'll answer 1st, i think the by the administration and the team running the country fully understand because there are allies of iran. okay. that explains some of the moves that they've made. they are allies of our read that keep in mind what's got just said he just called out the american government, which one of its admissions, it says it has this to prevent the, the reformation of the isis caliphate. and we're actually allied with isis supporting terrace in this region. think about that. the american people have no idea about that. but the us government does have an idea about that. and those 3 americans died without a mission. the 2nd part of the mission they say is that we're, we're there to enter dic, supply lines of the iranian forces in equipment and, and material and intelligence going into uh, support come off. well,

when was the last time the united states armed forces in any way even in special operations, rage did anything to iran's logistics in supply lines through that part of the world. i challenge you to find me one independent report that states that we've ever done that. and that's because we have not done that. we are on the wrong side there. we have our people in harm's way intentionally, and they need to be got an offer that drowned right now. we can reset to a strategic location. we have all the capability in the world to do those kinds of things. and if we need to do things like we're doing in the red sea, what to protect commercial shipping, we have that capability, but we don't have to put our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen in physical danger, of incessant and costs that attack from the iranian militias, just because they happened to be there and they happened to be backing the wrong side. okay, we're going to take a quick break because when we come back,

i can do this conversation. i want to interject into the new thing with israel and what role they're playing, as well as the by ministration as they continue to escalate the tensions which in the middle east. the when i 1st moved to rush, one of the most amazing things i found was to moscow metro. in fact, at the very 1st phrase that i ever learned and nothing was careful to closing. so what makes this place so specially what secrets is of hiding to find out what deep under the city was, alexander football historian, who studies the wonders of the moscow metro. the

welcome back. i'm sky now. here's an you're watching the 360 view. that's pretty back in our panel. cut off, robert, manage the former air force colonel radio show host, as well as scott ritter, 8 geo political analyst, author, and former u. s. military and un inspector. before the break, we were starting to get into this idea of israel and the escalating conflict that is going on between israel and gaza. how is that effected? the dynamic in the middle east, as obviously, as you 1st start out, scott talk you about was a ron. uh where is that changing any of who are your friends or photos based on the recent events and developments in israel. the 1st of all, we have to understand that is real considered itself to be in a strategic conflict with the wrong. but it's a conflict that israel knows that it cannot militarily initiate and sustain without the assistance of the united states. so one of his real strategic objectives has

always been to create a scenario that would get to united states to take the lead in military action against the wrong that israel could dovetail a lot of the united states determines that iran poses a threat to our extra central survival that warrants military actions. so be a, that's an issue the congress should discuss. and, in, in, in the american people can, can get behind if that's the direction we want to go. but i, i take umbrage at the notion that the united states goes to war because another nation is, know, join us in that direction without the advice and consent of congress or the american people. i'm somebody who spent a lot of time in that region and a lot of time working with israel. i used to consider israel to be, you know, a friendly nation despite the us this liberty attack, despite jonathan pollard. despite apex intervention in american elections. um, you know, i, i felt that we had your common cause in terms of stability. but when you take

a look at what israel is today under the leadership of benjamin netanyahu, in this far right wing government. um i, i just think the american people need to reflect on who's calling the shots and it's not the united states government yet. it's american military forces that are being deployed be called into action. and again, if, if we need to go to war, if we need to take military action is united states to protect our vital national security interest, so be it. but we should have an honest discussion about this right now. i just think this entire is really scenario is a of a situation that, you know, israel is foisting on us and we're, we're getting blurred into a trap that, you know, we may find ourselves with a lot more dead americans and wondering how the heck this happened and that is my concern on this because to we are deal. let me ask chrome is do you feel like the american people are being told the truth of what exactly is happening with in the gaza and is real conflict right now. and the role that runs playing and i do feel like we're being told what is actually happening on the ground. oh,

the american people are being told the truth about pretty much any subject in these days. got a, i mean it's got the right look, you know, i support the, the, the movement of us naval forces in to the area at the beginning of this, when a moss, the crazy people committed their atrocities on october 7th in order to deter other adversaries and bad actors from entering the conflict, but you know what, that deterrence has failed if it was ever established at all. and that requires the united states to take a 2nd look at scott said, you know, if we take a 2nd look and do the analysis and, and see through iran's actions that they are a serious stress and existential threat to united states. or they attack their forces, we obviously have a responsibility to respond to that. but we shouldn't be dancing to any other countries to even though we support israel's right to defend itself based on this

october 7th attack i, i wholeheartedly support their right to do that. but they don't have any say in what the united states of america does. we're allies. yes, we communicate those kind of things. but i'm even opposed to the us giving any money to israel for this because they don't need our money. what they need is allied support, and that's what we should be doing. but if our deterrence effort failed already, then we just need to be reassessing and figure out what our next steps are. because we don't want any wider, regional conflict or worse to happen, especially getting the united states. so america and it's forces to draw on in to a conflict that it shouldn't be in the 1st months. well, i hate doomsday. i hate what a scenario is. however, i don't think we properly know here in america to what exactly is capable of countries like a ron and israel and it and in the middle eastern countries right now. so i am

going to ask you said we, i normally don't ask my guess, i'm gonna ask you scott, 1st, what does a war look like with iran if the united states went up against it? what considering the economic sanctions the us has tried to impose on them over the last few years. what is their actual military capabilities currently? and is this threat that we can to, to hear of a nuclear war? is that something that even a rod would even be considering? well, let's just start off by looking at again. desert storm. a conflict of desert shield, desert storm, a conflict i'm intimately familiar with. you know, we flowed 750000 troops into the region. we were able to do so because we had permissive ports. that means we had friendly ports able to receive our shipping. we weren't under fire, but we could land our aircraft in the air fields that weren't under attack. and today we don't have 750000 troops to flow into the region. we are, we've diminished our military capacity a tremendously, carl, the colonel mentioned the deterrence. you know,

the key aspect of deterrence is that the other side needs to be afraid of the consequences of their actions. that, you know, we need to come in and say if you do x, what we're going to do and response will be so horrible that whatever benefit you think you're getting from x will not exist. we don't have deterrence because people are doing whatever they want. and our strikes are not achieving the kind of, you know, horror that they should receive a. so we've lost a turn. so now if we go toward the run, understand this, we will need because the run is now the rock run is a very large nation. and run has it extremely well did. busy military capability, including ballistic missiles that can sink american ships and they have that potential, they can strike american airfields in the region, strike american bases in the region. we don't have an adequate response to that. we would need 900 to 1500000 american troops deployed into the region to have any

chance of successfully engaging in defeating a rug uh, strategically. we don't have that. you're one of the things that this who the exercise has taught us about the, the, the bellman deb straight, which is the strategic straighten. the red sea is the us navy cannot guarantee that it can keep it open. and now what happens if you run shirts down the street or her moves for years we've been told by the us navy, we guarantee that the street will be open around. can't shut it down. no, i think you ron, can shut it down or we don't have the means available. this is where we have to be careful about allowing a motion to get ahead of actual capability. we have our military so degraded today that we project a power that can't be backed up with meaningful force. we cannot do an operation. desert storm today, and we would need an operation. desert storm on steroids. to take care of you run your runs nuclear threat. i don't believe that they have a nuclear weapon. who knows what the future holds is real, does have a nuclear weapon. but if we're going to talk about potential is really retaliation

. do we run in terms of nuclear, then we have to bring in pakistan. and you know, pakistan does have nuclear weapons in pakistan has hinted that should israel, striking wrong pakistan will strike israel. and this is a whole different ball game um the united states needs if we're going to get in. but. busy the military scenario, we need to be able to control that from the outset. we need to be in charge. we need to have the capacity to meet the objectives. and today we simply don't, we're in there. we don't know why we're there. we don't know what we want to accomplish strategically, and we don't have the force necessary to, to do this. it's a trap. and unfortunately, the people who pay the price in addition to the people of the region are those americans service members who honored us by taking a nose to protect us. and we're going to put them in harm's way without giving you know, due diligence to why we're asking them to sacrifice their lodge. well, uh and that's very dire, but i really want appreciate your being honest with this good. i think that's what we need. people need to understand what the consequences of where this generation,

especially who did not necessarily see what happened with vietnam and post vietnam . and what they had like that is read for generations. chrome man is i have to ask you a saudi arabia. what role of saudi arabia play if that conflict was to occur as, as the layout that scott, describe where it started, right? we are, they still are ally, is it even smart to call them and ally? well, i think they've always been a clause i ally, and it was in their interest to allow us to occupying build bases inside their territory to take care of the desert shield. desert storm situations got pointed out. but one of the things that 2 of the things that he didn't point out to just now are that we also lack, not just the capability to get this job done. if we go to war with iran, we lack the political will. if we had the political will, we would have destroyed the iranian command, control intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, ships that are out in the water. ating the who dees targeting and command control

and which targets to hit. and we didn't, we chose not to do that specifically. so we don't have the political will, and if we were to get into an all out conflict, the honor ran proper with all of the requirements that scott just laid out. we would actually an utterly fail. and here's the re, the big reason why not just a political will, is we don't have the military industrial base needed to even keep up with the amount of rounds that the craniums are getting at. and we don't, we are not replenishing our supplies that we expended during afghanistan. and we continued to, to create more problems for our military industrial base. who can't keep up with the production need to flight the war and ukraine, whether you believe it or not, those are the facts. so we wouldn't be able to last more than about 72 hours to a week. more than likely, if we were to go into and i ran more proper, it would be an absolute disaster and rob chrome in a sense. scott,

we both knew. i think we can all agree. we're just talking about the united states involved. but if there was a conflict that seriously broke out, there's a lot of other countries that have interest of it also be involved and what lines in the sand would be drawn. i wanna thank both of you. we could go on for hours is we're just hitting the surface of this issue, but i appreciate you sharing your insight. thank you. thank you. there is nothing more heart wrenching. then watching a family dressed all in black, waiting along the tarmac to receive a coffin draped to the country's flag of the cargo hold of the airplane. that same family gathered in pride to send their loved one off to a mission, the middle east thinking they were doing something to help make the world a safer place. now there, here are returns, but instead of being greeted with tears of joy is tears of deep sorrow. sadly, the west does it show these images to the people, or what life is like for the injured and their families for generations. where as

a follow up to all of those who started in afghanistan and their stories of what they saw were instructed to do and how life changed when they returned to america. and i think this is all done on purpose, as those are so quit to use the american military to protect our own interests like oil don't want their pause seed as actual human beings. the middle east has always been a powder keg, and unfortunately, it seems astounding. the west are waiting for an opportunity moment to strike the match and sky. now here's an expand your 360 view of the news affecting you. thanks for watching the

i often say that the c, i a is a big, slow, lumbering bureaucracy. it's not the kind of quick moving on mission, super agency like it is in the movies. sure it's had its share of success is even a broken clock is right. twice a day is the old saying goes and it's the same time. the c i a can be a means frightful and vengeful organization, especially for whistle blowers. and when was of lowers are involved the cia often will not release its breath until the whistle blower is ruined. i'm john kerry, onto welcome to the whistle blowers the . 2