what happened even we, the service men felt lost at the time, wondering how we could support our families. there were also a lot of other issues. we were completely desperate america, leon, to day iraq is in the terrible situation. the occupiers who came with their tanks harmed iraq and it's people, as i have said, in many television interviews, the u. s. troops did not find weapons of mass destruction. instead, they planted weapons of mass destruction in the form of these political parties and governors who ronnie rock in their own interests and have destroyed it more than the occupier ever did. iraq was under their control day, but there was resistance. they took part in some of the rebuilding ha, but the spread corruption, that is the case in all the countries that they have occupied. find a hilary shadow. we've got several other reports coming up about of the u. s. invasion and occupation to mom. what is a grim anniversary reduced across the canvas, but more about what was that?

what was one of the biggest military campaigns in the past 20? well, before we get to going on the ground here on our to international, we are all on stand by here at our to international headquarters for the russian president who is a, at the africa, russian summit here at moscow were standing by for life comment. so if you will stick around with us, we hope you can look at the latest information here from us in boston. one asi international. ah ah, i'm african redundancy, and welcome back to going underground, broadcasting all around the world, from dubai in the u. e. today marks 20 years since the u. s. a in britain launched an unprovoked invasion of iraq, which would lead to tens of millions killed,

wounded or displaced in was throughout the region and beyond. the iraq invasion was characterized by a new type of military strategy shock and or defined by using overwhelming force to break the received enemies will to resist snow nature power would officially count the number of iraqi civilians killed. it's now routine across most of humanity to quote iraq, let alone afghanistan, libya and syria nations in africa and latin america as emblematic of how the ukraine conflict today is now seen as the birth of a new world order. well, the national security strategist behind the shocking or doctrine doctor holland omen joins me for today's episode from washington. dcs actively advise us government officials and the heads of governments around the world as well as nature strategic commanders and secretaries general. he's the current senior advisor of the atlantic council chair, the kilbourne group. thank you so much for coming on to us 20 years since since this sir. seismic a change in the world, you design shock and or how do you reflect on it today?

the shock and awe that we design and i was part of a group of people who had actually fought and desert storm as well as donald rumsfeld, secretary of defense, who was a rock member of the group. the shock and all that we design was not the shock and all that general tommy franks administered what price did was a desert storm sort of massive attack on steroids. if the real shock and i had been used, we would have try to depose saddam hussein without firing a shot. and where we would have started was to determine whether or not saddam actually had weapons of mass destruction, which i never believed advised the government. and the reason in many ways why saddam was reluctant to admit that was that he didn't want to tell his enemies. and many of his generals, he was absolutely naked. with the point is that desert storm was the model for

iraqi freedom in 2003. it was not shock and awe, tommy franks, the general use that as a slogan i'm going to put in shock and awe. and the day the attack started, there was a full page photograph in the daily telegraph in england of a bomb going off in baghdad with the caption, baghdad, bliss at that stage shocking off sunk without trace. well, it's funny you mentioned w m d because some david from i think as a piece in the atlantic magazine, mary still maintains that the saddam had some sort of chemical warheads. it's still not admitting it today, which is, which is quite shocking. you know that i'm speaking to you from the middle east, so it as a lasting impact with these tens of millions. there were just base killed or wounded in the region because arguably, syria was her to be affected by that invasion as were other countries in the middle east. you had already previously talking about the way the united states. i think

the abm treaty withdrawal was before the iraq war, but obviously the withdraw to the j. c. p. o, a with iran, the intermediate nuclear forces deal. why do you think the united states has been acting in the way it has since the turn of this century? and now routinely talked about in the globals others, you know, a dying empire. if you go back to vietnam, the united states is operated on lack of knowledge and understanding of the situations in which we were using force. there was no 2nd gulf of tonkin incident. us as turn a joy analysis maddox. we're not fired upon in the 2nd incident. and yet that was the basis for the august 2, 1964 talk in golf incident, which got us into vietnam. one of the many foreign policy blunders that we continued. and then the lessons were supposed to be learned after the what $6000000.00 killed the login and yet now in the span of, for example,

you rightly pointed out, george w bush abrogated the anti ballistic missile treaty. because he was super concerned with the possible threat of missiles from iraq. and part of that was to put aegis assure anti ballistic missiles in europe in several locations. which infuriated the russians because they knew that iran was not going to have a threat. and they feared that those missiles could be used against their strategic systems. this was another case of the lack of knowledge and understanding. and perhaps the biggest blunder, unfortunately, that george bush mate beyond the iraq war was in 2008 at the nato summit in bucharest, romania when george and ukraine, we're not allowed to join the nato membership action plan as a throwaway line. worship said, but of course one day they can jeremiah nina. that became the record ladder. me

a pu was their hootin was there and was furious. i was in the row and bush try to confront or can so potent putting an arm around him and said, look, lad, don't worry about it. it's not going to happen. and pulled news. the same la language that bush's father had use when saddam had invaded kuwait saint george. this will not stand several months later, he laid a trap in georgia at president is really bit, and the russians bit off parts of south the city. and i think that was the turning point from that point on, i think, regarded the americans as not only unreliable, but dismissive and holding the russians in very, very lack of regard. i mean, clearly that clearly there's a lot of antagonism with boot in, in russia as to why it took him so long and the others that you're going to like to understand the as we know there was a lot of pressure on him to intervene in don bass is something that he was

reluctant to do as far as we know. you keep insulting in a way i have asked sway the over factor. that's what you're doing. washington think tanks, the bureaucracy of the state department. you're insulting the national security agencies. analysts, or maybe you're saying there are some good ones that were not being listened to in the current environment right now. i know that you talk to a friend of the show and who in his car moody trump's old breast secretary for short, while saying bill burns kissinger carry these people should not necessarily be, you know, ordering around the by the ministrations. but they should be taken into account their views. what do you think of the current or group think is it aura, analysis of what's happening in europe in lincoln state department or in the white house or so let me take issue. i was not insulting the national security apparatus . i was providing what i thought was positive criticism. i,

you don't disregard the entire apparatus, but what happens at the top? presidents make decisions and life is very, very narrow at the top. george bush had this notion of the freedom agenda and this axis of evil, what korea, iran and iraq there could probably not be a more dis agreeable group of people to work with. and so you have presidents with come up with these ideas. donald trump, who should have taken a course in economics, felt that the trade imbalance with china, of $100000000000.00 a year warranted, carrots when in fact the other part, if you took economics, is called not the current account, but the capital a camp. china had more than 2 with retreat in dollars invested in america, in defenses from i killed a lot of people in defense of trump. ok, killed a lot of people and he put a lot of weaponry in places they didn't start any. was like obama did well,

i'm not sure obama really started any war except i think libya was libya was by the big apple he has written in the home. there again was, was knowledge and understanding because the ban garz's were not under threat from canopy. and so there is a repeat in american foreign policy, whether it's republican or democrat, at george, going back to vietnam, that our lack of knowledge and understanding at the top get us into trunk. and you can just chart out that that's happened. and so how do you fix it? i come up with an awful lot of ideas about how to fix it. most importantly, a read team to challenge seriously all the assumptions. and right now, i think your viewers or listeners will know that the congress has established its electron betty, on china and the strategic competition with the communist party of china. i think group thing is going to take over one of the very few issues that members of congress agree upon is the chinese threat. but nobody is defined sufficiently. what

exactly the chinese threat is, except china is become the enemy. we can't work with them. and i think that may well be true, but if we repeat the past errors and having insufficient knowledge and understanding, i fear that we are headed in the wrong direction at a time. when this is that the most difficult strategic environment, the united states is space since world war 2. unlike the cold war, we are facing a peer or near peer economic superpower, with nuclear weapons. and the largest military in asia, at the same time, were facing a nuclear superpower. that's also an energy giant that is declared war on you. great. we're not used to dealing with 2 potential enemies or adversaries of that level. and during the cold war, we could talk about 2 scorpions in a jar. now you might think that there are 3, and so far we haven't been able to put in place any kind of intellectual framework

to deal with this new challenge that bothers me considerably. you see the red team going on the ground, i never gather a word in edgewise. i notice you are on panels in washington dc talking about your latest book. i think you mentioned the read team idea there. and every time some talk, diplomats, people very well connected in the military industrial complex a yeah. holland makes some good points. obviously some cannot be executed in any way. is the red team one the one they don't what you are allowing anywhere near the white house or in the state department. the idea of having an opposition team there . what's happened? what's happened unfortunately is the political debate in washington has become so 0 sum that you're either with us or against us. and once one party makes up its mind, that is going to be the decision that focuses everything. george w bush. you're either with me or against me, that's how i got column pal, to give that testimony on the 5th of february, you end up in 2003. and so,

unfortunately, the pernicious nature of the politics in america, which are unbelievably partisan and divisive, probably as bad as any time since the civil war make any kind it will turn to abuse very difficult. and so putting a red team in place, which i think is essential in the national security council in the white house, is probably not going to be done because that would leak. and all of a sudden my descent from inside the administration will be taken by the other side as weakness. so the political system here is such that knowledge and understanding truth and fact are among the victims. and that's a very bad position to be. it. of course john, this rely on dissent and the occasional dissenting voice and leak. or you, you mentioned vietnam a few times and see marsh has been on this show quite a few times, most recently about his node stream piece. what do you make of the idea that

vladimir putin hasn't really responded militarily to an infrastructure attack on a russian pipeline? and nor has johnson schultz to a vital energy component of europe's infrastructure. well, it's a bit, it's a bit embarrassing because all the evidence suggests that this was done by tro, ukrainian forces. now, you know, you don't believe that either, right? i mean you do, you know, that's, i mean, that looked like a set up a hijack take and to believe there, there may be some truth and that quite frankly dr. alan norman, i'll stop you there. more from the architect of shock and or li chair, the kilbourne group after this brand. ah ah ah ah

ah, welcome back to going undergrad. i'm still here with the shock and or architect and senior advisor of the atlantic council. go to holland norman, let's just go back to nord stream because he watches be on the showing you seen his reaction to the story that was leaked to design and to the new york times. and it was even the new york times had to go apparently and suggests. and it's been said by so many experts that the kind of explosive devices having to be used show that there is no way this was, i mean, as, as the united states said at the beginning, this is a state actor. now even lady, so you don't believe it's the bible administration. we did it. it sir. that's awesome cuz i don't think we're 1st of all company not to do that, but that's in the site. look, sy hersh has been so discredited on so many things aim on. hang him at name one. think bill. the only he ever got right?

was me lie and that was well, no. but we're not gonna discuss hers what i've taught. oh, but i don't, i don't think you should. he seen is the greatest journalist, one of the greatest journals in all of history. i don't know what you think the abu ghraib scandal getting bike in iraq. my journal spy. so one of my journals come up, jerry, i bow gray, go back and abu ghraib prison in iraq. that wasn't, we saw the pictures of that he released of the torture by american soldiers. never grab. yeah. what a gate hearings. it was the just imagine just a unless look, i don't want to talk about so i more seymour hersh. i got better things to talk at that. the point here is that an information age? it is very easy to affect opinion. one of the things that brags it did with dominic cummings, who worked as you know, where boys johnson was to sway the 1000000 or so british voters who had not registered with either party. the russians also influenced brakes. the russians

also tried influenced us elections in particle angland. hey, when you these read the muller reports i was i was invited on the b, b. c. about that they had to, the mother report showed that there was no conceivable perceived interference in us elections. let's get off this other topic clearly because, you know, i, i read the mother aboard, i've done a lot of work on it. and it showed there wasn't any, i mean, there were a few troll social media. i mean, this was to do with structural changes in the american demographic. trump. i mean, i believe trump is a russia age, a social media and propaganda are being used used every single day. and it's an instrument of policy that the russians have been very, very effective at using. and you cannot deny that, you know, believe trauma, russian agents do you or the steel report. i think i think he was a useful idiot. and if you read them all, report carefully, and the 3rd part,

muller, laid out more than enough grounds for convention. please explain to me how old there are. a posse want a piece of real estate in palm beach from trump value to $20000000.00 for which he paid a $100000000.00. i think trump was viewed, as i said, a useful idiot. was he conspiring with russia? no, but they saw that they could try to exploit him as they would with other people. and from their perspective, that was quite smart of as a disaster, given all the deals that drum pulled out with from russia and all the armaments he put into grey breaking and testing, lemons, agreement to destruction. some might say, let's get on to the idea. economic sanctions or is it over for us sanctions as a weapon of war? i mean the, i read the other day actually, the russian, mia credit cards can be used in havana given what has happened with these sanctions . many people saying the european union is sanctioned itself. i know you predicted

bread lines in russia. we actually see the rubel, the highest revolving currency. we see massive trade. it flows between china, russia, the global south bricks, latin america, africa as it be, the huge a mess, the sanctions regime now. yeah. look, sanctions rarely work. they might have worked in the case of south africa years ago against our time. but these are weapons that are used, which if they ever have a fat that takes a long time, they have double edged sword. for example, our sanctions and tariffs against china. i've heard us consumers more than they've heard the china. why do they do them? i mean, surely they can see that in the state department or in the treasury, janet yellen. julie realizes that because you've got to do something, you're not going to use military force. you are really limited and at least you can say we're trying to punish the other side. so what you do is to try to draw the higher the opposing political party who doesn't accuse you appeasing,

appeasement or weakness. and so we're putting sanctions on as if that's going to work sanctions don't work the way that we needed to deal with ukraine and don't tell me that that trump provided them with all this weaponry because he certainly did not. he with elson, the fact of the matter is we were to slow and body ukraine with the weapons. and i think when needed to try to bring russia to the negotiating tape. this war has got an with negotiation, and it's kind of an soon because ultimately rushes size and strength, i'm afraid will prevail. ukraine is taking a hell of a beating. i just sorry how you said that war weapons should be supplied to ukraine while accepting the rush as overwhelming force. i mean, surely, just more been through crane. that means the obliteration of ukraine doesn't know. the point is that over time, as i said, russia ultimately as the ability out last you gray. here's a question for you. tell me what the situation in ukraine is going to be like. on november 2024,

or 2025 or 2026. and tell me that you really believe that ukraine will still be a functioning state on the current course. that's a very, very difficult answer today. but that's a pigeon. apologize. thing to say. that's exactly what the kremlin and the minister of foreign affairs in russia say, says, well, you just say, well, it is a certain thing. no, don't, don't tune ologist that terrific look is certain thing called reality. we have been derelict in my mind and not providing the ukrainians what they need quickly enough. we've been doing this piecemeal. please tell me what the biden's strategy is towards you credit. i don't know what it is, and please show me the plan of action of providing the necessary equipment to crate . i don't think we have one. yeah, a few tanks, 300 tanks. how long is it gonna take to get there? the m one tanks from america probably aren't going to get there for a year. so please tell me what our strategy is towards you. great. i don't know. and the administration has not been forthcoming. perhaps it thinks it want to keep

it secret. that's fine. but i do not know what our strategy is, and i do not know what the plan of action is to sustain you. great. but what you just said just doesn't appear on a b, c, news, cbs news, that kind of analysis. maybe very occasionally. why is that? why the american people not being asked to, to question things when you were, when you were a young man, you may remember i am a young man. i you may remember that they were an hour long and they had real news in those days and we're talking 50 years ago. the news bureaus were a loss leaders because they were prestigious. today, news is just what can be sold. and so the amount of real news you're getting on the 30 minute programs is nonsense, and very few people watch p p. s or the other networks, not cable, where this is being discussed. so the problem is that as, as, as media has become

a huge profit line, the news a software, and very rarely do you get full reports outside cable networks. and in some cases, when you have cable channels, whether they're cnn or fox. some of that reporting is also quite skew truth, in fact, unfortunately have become victims. but i was, i mean this wasn't even to the fact we were talking about. it was just a question that was wanting to be pose. i don't know whether you have investments in the biggest companies, but the shares of skyrocketed, and the more you look into this war, the increase uranium imports to the united states from russia. the idea of russia paying ukraine for the pipeline usage of oil to the european union. the interconnections in this war, the european union, paying money to russia for the bullets being used in ukraine. why, you know, what? i mean? the only benefit seems to be the arms companies, but at the same time, geopolitical strategy of the kind that you write about you write books about has

nothing to do with it in a way. and until someone settles down and realizes that, well, suddenly the united states and nato, and particularly benefiting out of this as lenin said, there are contradictions, comrade, and there are contradictions, everywhere, and you point out some of the issues. look, the europeans are dependent upon russian energy very. and that applies very much in germany where there is a soft spot for russia. for those reasons. if you go a step further, the bulk of members of the united nations, and if you do it by population or not on the side of the us in the west and you pray, we don't understand that. in the united states, there has always been a notion of exceptionalism since world war 2. and in many ways, an arrogance that we know better than other people. and unfortunately, that has not played out well in vietnam war in iraq,

afghanistan or elsewhere. and so the issue very frankly is that the political system is such that when one side says a, the other science has not only hell know, but even stronger descent. and so it's very, very difficult coming up with a really sensible geo strategic policy. because 1st of all, it's difficult to explain. and secondly, it's very, very difficult to implement. and i would argue that since the george herbert walker bush administration, we really haven't had a very, very solid foreign policy or defense policies that are very much predicated on ideas being able to contain determine if war comes to feet. none of which have really work. we really haven't done a good job of detaining or deterring china or russia. and if we get into a war that could be nuclear, nobody's going to win a nuclear war. so we got to go back to 1st principles and doing that. an american de, sadly, is extremely difficult. well, nothing what you just said them rings a bell when i read atlantic council stuff and you are an advisor to them. i mean,

john bolton comes on this row and says, we should show more force against russia and china. and the only reason things are as they are, is because we didn't. i mean that some of the things he advocates so you can, people can look at our interviews with fulton, i mean the seeing is your obviously a different type of atlantic council advisor. then what, how would you advise putin and gigi and ping to take advantage of this situation? i mean, they clearly are taking advantage if you put a, if you were born in the, you know, sions and nora, st. petersburg and you were fighting for one of those countries. how would you know, wanted to advise you will lead us to take advantage given as you've described it, nato is in disarray. well, let me turn that around because i don't want to give a comfort to what, how would i would buys the united states? look, we have a flawed strategy. fundamental issue that we face,

as i've argued before, our massive attacks of disruption and even small acts of disruption. look at silicon valley bank. dow is down almost a 1000 points, and then it went up and then it went down. but the point is that you have the huge, you don't, we understand that kobe has killed more americans and died and every battle, now we fought in 1775. so we've got these issues of disruption. what we need to do is to change our view in terms of our number one goal needs to be prevention of disruption. this applies to russia, and china deterrence does not work except in terms of preventing a nuclear war that nobody wants to. we've got to be able to prevent what russia and china are doing that's against our interest the way we have it aims like that, i'm sorry to address because we're running out of time. and i mean, that's even the suggest military activity. i mean the, the climate crisis is the worst horseman of the apocalypse. i know your name 5 in

your most recent book. obviously, the pandemic. you just mentioned. the u. s. military is the one of the biggest fossil fuel pollutants on earth. i don't know what the submarines biden is sending to what's really going to do a little in the aircraft carriers an increased defense strategy. the north stream attack was obviously the greatest methane attack event emissions in history. i mean, this is the united states really care about the environment? does it on the hill care about it? really, if they're spending all this one, i think that issue, that's a good point. first of all, nuclear power is by far the safest and environmental form of energy. and the sub range you're talking about nuclear power. so they are not going to, they're not going to pull the environment and nuclear power is indeed safe. what you're talking about is a difficult issue of climate change because we've not been able to put in place a sensible energy problem, a policy that understands that you're going to need to use fossil fuel as you develop alternative systems. and we've not been able to do that and you have one

part of the republicans that come out against all this. and the democrats have double down. so we have the worst of all worlds. yes, climate change is potentially an existential crisis. but the way you deal with that is through common sense, and we're not doing common sense. joe biden goes ahead with a willow project to develop alaskan while which is fine. on the other hand, he shuts off a great deal. the article, people say, well, this is a contradiction, no administration has been able to come up with a sensible policy on the environment, and that's the problem there needs to be compromised. and one of the issues here is that compromise and civility for virtually every political issue are missing in action and compromise, and the constitution will not work totally open. thank you will have we have to have you on again quite soon. and that's it for the show will be bringing you brand new episodes every saturday and monday, so st. jude. meanwhile, you can keep in touch with us or show me if it's not sensitive in your country and had to watch. i'm going on the grantee on ronald come to watch new and old episodes

of going underground. so you very soon with with headlines right now. what are the international gigi ping arrives here in moscow on the heels of his re election. his 1st international trip brings him straight to russia to discuss the emerging multi polar world with president. is a supplier wife in the world by a big margin that she found african countries. and now i forgot shipping out to be in the are just market. india increase as rice export to africa as the country supplies the continent with the crucial food staple to meet.