Chapters
Shownotes Transcript
I'm Kevin O'Leary. As an investor in many small businesses, I know how hard it is to acquire new customers using only social media. TV advertising works, but for years has been too expensive and was hard to measure. So I fixed it and created Wonder Ads. Powered by Tattari, Wonder Ads makes TV advertising as simple as digital ad platforms. You'll know what creative is working across all TV networks and streaming services with metrics like customer acquisition costs and return on ad spend.
Yes, SVB.
Learn more at svb.com slash Vox. Hi, everyone, from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. This is On with Kara Swisher, and I'm Kara Swisher. And I'm Naima Reza. Our guest today is former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper. He served under former President Donald Trump from July of 2019 until November 9, 2020, just days after the election, when Trump fired him via tweet, of course. Yeah, he did that with a lot of people. He did a lot of announcements, and he fired people. Chris Krepp.
Chris Krebs, yeah. So it was typical. Yeah. Since then, Esper has been on writing a book. He's been on the cable news circuit warning against Trump, not unlike former Attorney General Bill Barr. What do you make of that evolution from cabinet member and someone who served with Trump to antagonist? Well, there's like a lot. It's getting line. There's a lot of people. He's also become an investor. He's doing a lot of investing and things like that. Yes. At Red Cell, Venture Capital. Yeah. You know, I'm not surprised. There's a ton of them. There's a list as long as...
everything of people who are warning us about Donald Trump and explaining their experience with him when he was president. Yeah, and it really kind of started angering Trump probably around the controversy around St. John's Church. And when
Trump, General Milley, Bill Barr, and Esper famously walked over to St. John's Church for that photo op after police had violently cleared protesters from Lafayette Square. But in the middle of that controversy and aftermath, Esper stated that he opposed the Insurrection Act to call up the military and call the protests, which probably didn't, you know, probably...
help Trump be ready to fire him by tweet. Well, it's kind of ridiculous that we've been discussing a president and using the Insurrection Act. So he did the right thing and he got fired. That's all. As did Chris Krebs. He said the election was not stolen and he got fired. So anybody doing the right thing got fired, which gives you a sense of what Donald Trump is like.
Yeah, which begs the question of what's ahead. We will talk to him about that. In addition to his private sector life, he's also a regular on TV news. You see him on Bloomberg or Fox News, where he's often critiquing the Biden administration's policies, and particular on Iran. He has been
encouraging a more forceful response. Of course, Mark Esper was defense secretary when they killed Qasem Soleimani in Iran and struck at multiple Iranian proxies and various proxy battles that are going on in the Middle East. We taped this conversation on December 4th, just two days before Senate Republicans blocked a bill to fund aid to Ukraine. The reason we wanted to talk to him now was not that bill specifically, but
really broader questions of American foreign policy. First, the war between Israel and Hamas and the civilian crisis in Gaza. Second, the role of the U.S., both in this conflict and in Ukraine, which are often pitted as a kind of false choice. Third, the new Cold War with China, which we just discussed with Representative Mike Gallagher, and we're obviously in a very codependent relationship there.
And then finally, our relationship with India, which of course the United States has been pivoting closer to, but Modi has some similarities to the Putins and the Shis of the world. He's a man with autocratic tendencies, although democratically elected.
And more recently, we've seen this concern over an attempted assassination attempt of a Sikh leader on United States soil and Canadian allegations of Indian government involvement in the killing of a Sikh separatist leader in Canada. So lots to talk to Esper about. Yeah, we just went around the world and asked him all about the things. And these are the things he dealt with as a head running the Defense Department, a critical role in any administration. And, you know, he had a unique view of this and has...
Varying opinions of various things, but we just did a round-the-world tour. And we recorded this just days after Henry Kissinger died, a figure who obviously looms large in American foreign policy. So we wanted to start with that. Kissinger infamously orchestrated the secret bombing of Cambodia and extended the Vietnam War for years, but is nonetheless celebrated by both Republicans and Democrats for his legacy. Yeah.
Yeah, some of them. Is he celebrated by you too, Kara? No, he's not. So, I mean, everyone's a collection of their entire career, but that stopped me, the cruelty. And, you know, everyone's got blood on their hands when you're in those jobs, but...
His are particularly bloody. Yeah. The Rolling Stone obit on this was Good Britain's Henry Kissinger, war criminal beloved by America's ruling class, finally dies. That sounds good to me. Infamy, infamy. But we will start with Henry Kissinger, and then we'll do a round-the-world tour with Mark Esper after this break. ♪♪♪
I'm Kevin O'Leary. As an investor in many small businesses, I know how hard it is to acquire new customers using only social media. TV advertising works, but for years has been too expensive and was hard to measure. So I fixed it and created Wonder Ads. Powered by Tattari, Wonder Ads makes TV advertising as simple as digital ad platforms. You'll know what creative is working across all TV networks and streaming services with metrics like customer acquisition costs and return on ad spend.
Scale your business on TV at wonderads.com. The Capital Ideas Podcast now features a series hosted by Capital Group CEO, Mike Gitlin. Through the words and experiences of investment professionals, you'll discover what differentiates their investment approach, what learnings have shifted their career trajectories, and how do they find their next great idea? Invest 30 minutes in an episode today. Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
Published by Capital Client Group, Inc. Okay, I'm going to start sort of with some new stuff and then we're going to get through Israel and Gaza, Ukraine, Iran, and China. Okay, sounds good. All right. So after Henry Kissinger died, you tweeted, his decades of service to the country and impact on U.S. foreign affairs are unmatched. I was thinking
I'd like you to assess the criticism of him. I understand his importance. Kissinger was infamous for cozying up to dictators and his actions in Laos and Cambodia. While he said he was always in the name of America's interests, I'd love you to sort of assess the wider range of his impact. Sure. You know, first, of course, I'm no expert on Henry Kissinger, but as I tweeted out, he did have an unmatched impact.
on American foreign policy, whether you like it or hate it, it's hard to challenge that. If you look at the decade he served and the key moments, right, we talk about the
ending the Vietnam War, the opening to China. I mean, the impact of what he did with China, it still resonates to this day. In some ways, it both enables and complicates what we're doing today. The discussions with the Russians over arms control. And for many on the right side, he was criticized for detente, right? And I think in many ways, you can kind of go on with other issues, the Middle East, where he had a major impact. But his approach
approach to foreign policy, which is the realist side, if you will, very Machiavellian people would say, contrast with Ronald Reagan. And I consider myself a Reagan Republican who put American values and had a much more idealistic approach to foreign policy
So those two contrast in that way. But like I said, I think when you look at Henry Kissinger, the impact he had first on Nixon and then Ford and then successive Republican and Democratic administrations advising a
assisting, counseling, you name it. You know, you live to be 100 and you live the life you led. You bring a lot to it. And while you bring accolades, you also bring criticisms as well. That's part of the business. So when you talk about that overall impact, obviously it's a complex life and it's a long life, right? How did it impact your conceptual framework of
foreign policy? You said you're a Reagan Republican. My view is we always have to leave with our values. I said that during my confirmation hearing. Somebody asked me when Senator asked, well, what's the most important thing we can do? Something like that. I said, we should always leave with our values, the belief in human rights and freedom and democracy and those things.
But the realistic part of me also knows that, look, if you make that a litmus test for anybody or everybody that you deal with, you'll find that you don't have many partners and allies and friends out there in the world. You have to you have to work with the world you live in and you have to accept the fact that you often may not be dealing with good guys. And so you have to have you have to be able to manage that duality and, you know, kind of a good contrast to not.
we can look at different administrations, but the relevant one is, um, you know, president Biden struggling in some ways to deal with the Saudis. How do you deal with them? Right. We have a lot of concerns about human rights. There's no democracy in that country, but on the other hand, uh, there are major energy supplier. We, we don't want the Chinese, um, dominating in the Persian Gulf. And so you have, again, this duality that you have to manage. And so I don't think it's necessarily, um, I'll say the, the Nixonian camp or the Reagan camp. I, I,
tend to lean toward the Reagan camp, lean with your values, but you have to recognize the world we live in. And it's a rough and tumble world. So let's start first, though, with the Biden administration, which you mentioned, who has been unequivocal about America's support of Israel, gotten flack for it among some corners of the Democratic Party. But a lot of Republicans, and for some in his own party, he's not doing enough in Israel. Assess the Biden administration's response to the crisis in Israel and Gaza to this point.
Sure. Look, I give credit to the Biden administration for speaking with a great deal of moral clarity on this issue, that the attacks of October 7th were terrorist attacks. Some would say homicidal attacks on not just Jewish people, but the nation of Israel, on innocent people. And they were horrific. I think he spoke with great clarity. I think sending Tony Blinken immediately to the region to begin talking about just Israel, but Arab partners was smart. I think
deploying American forces into the eastern Mediterranean. All those things make sense. And now where I faulted the Biden administration is I don't think we've been responding frequently or forcefully enough to these attacks against American troops, American bases in the region, whether it be Iraq, Syria, you name it. We've now suffered 70 some attacks. The news this morning is, of
Of course, Houthis shot at three commercial merchant vessels to include an American destroyer. I just don't think we've responded forcefully enough there. And so that's kind of where I see things right now. We're sending, continue to send the right messages about the need to take care with regard to civilians, limiting civilian casualties. But we've got to be careful about hamstringing the Israelis too much. They have to destroy Israel.
a mosque at the end of the day, or else we're going to continue to go through these cycles over and over and over again, as we have for what, the last 15 years. At any cost, because the cost is high, obviously. It's obvious to anyone who sees the picture.
Well, you know, at any cost, somebody has to draw their cost line. I don't think you look. I think Israel's well, Israel is a democracy. So I think they are obligated to follow the laws of war, just like the United States is. And we do so very diligently. But we've made mistakes in the past, too. So my concern would be, you know, I would want to be looking over their shoulder to make sure, you know, as as.
as Israel's biggest supporter is the White House, the Pentagon, there with them to help them think through how do you limit civilian casualties? Clearly, they need to destroy, defeat Hamas, but how do you do so in the way that limits damage, that limits the destruction, the death of innocent people? And that's the challenge, is how do you do that? Netanyahu's vow to eradicate Hamas.
Let's assume they managed to destroy its current military capabilities and ability to reconstitute them. But in the process, won't that create conditions in Gaza that lead to more terrorism?
I don't know in which way you mean that. Meaning you do it in such a fashion, hurting the civilian population so badly, which it is doing. You create the conditions that you can't find a government that can actually govern there. Oh, I see what you're saying. But that's a challenge. You know, a lot of people, a lot of Palestinians in Gaza don't care for the Palestinian Authority.
because they view it's corrupt and incompetent. And by the way, a lot of Palestinians in the West Bank feel the same way. So there is that challenge. I mean, the least worst option seems to be the Palestinian Authority, but not this one, given that it's run by Mahmoud Abbas and his inability to, again, to be effective. But I mean, this gets to the point of you do have to think about how do you limit civilian casualties. Now, look, the
The majority of people in Gaza were not responsible, did not conduct these attacks, so forth and so on. But that doesn't mean they don't support Hamas.
And so it's you're dealing with a population in many ways has been brainwashed by Hamas over the years. They've been experienced, you know, living in Gaza, so forth and so on. So you you have that factor to deal with. It's kind of different here than what you might find in other conflicts like this. So I take your point. You have to do it in a way that you don't. And I've said this publicly as well. You don't want to conduct a war that for every terrorist you kill, you create three more.
And that's the challenge. And I think that's the coaching that's going on from the administration to the Israelis. At the same time, you can't tell the Israelis, look, you have to call a ceasefire and let this entity exist and threaten you. So shortly after the attack, you speculated it could cause the collapse of the Netanyahu government. Netanyahu's government probably won't collapse, even though we now know that Israeli intelligence had Hamas's actual plans for the invasion. What's the best outcome for Israel?
Israel internally? Is Netanyahu the right leader for the moment? I know you've been critical of him. Well, look, it's always for the people of Israel to decide. Clearly, there's unhappiness with that government. It's viewed as too extreme, too far right. You know, one of the issues that I think he needs to get under control is the settlers in the West Bank. It's hard to find a two-state solution if you have Israeli settlements continue to
crop up in the part of East Jerusalem that many Palestinians think that they could share as a part of the capital. So that's a challenge. And that's why I said at the time, will the Netanyahu government fall immediately or at the end of the conflict? And I think clearly it survived so far. How he conducts this conflict will...
will matter. But at the end, will the Israeli people, will there be a reckoning? And will they look back and say, you didn't conduct it well, or your failures in this administration focusing too much on the West Bank or on the government you were forming, you neglected the security of Israel when it came to threats from Hamas and Gaza. I think those are all outstanding issues that have to be settled. And we now know that Israel apparently knew a year before that they had a copy of the plan and they dismissed Hamas' plan to attack Israel. That's a big failure.
That not just from the intelligence side, the military side, and of course the political side. And I think the Israeli people are going to want to know that age-old question or questions. What did you know and when did you know? Yeah, yeah. You've been in government for a while. What is the best thing for the U.S. to do here besides look over their shoulder, especially given the political situation here? Because it's still not passed.
It's not, and it's going to be months and months, right? This is going to take a long time because you're dealing with a very tricky situation. Gaza was very densely populated beforehand, and now with everybody pushing to southern Gaza, it's more densely populated. And we know Hamas has fled there as well. So this gets really tricky, and I fear for the innocent civilians. It's going to be really challenging for the IDF. But what can the U.S. do? Look, I think there are a few things. I think we can continue to dialogue with our Arab partners because I think there is going to be the day after.
And what we want to get back to is this normalization process that we had ongoing between Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United States, where we get some type of alignment between them, an agreement that involves the United States' participation. And you get Saudi Arabia leading the Arab states aligned with Israel against Iran. Iran's ultimately the big
the big bad guy in the region that we need to deal with. So the second component is I think you need to be talking to those countries and our European friends and others about how do we deal with Iran? How do we get the Ayatollah and the Mullahs back in the box so they end this mayhem, whether it's in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq,
Yemen, Gaza, you name it. And in particular, you've got to cut off the flow of arms and equipment and support to Hamas. So you said that in order to eliminate Hamas, you have to deal with Iran once and for all. Explain what you're alleging about Iran's involvement in this war. And are you actually calling for Israel to go to war with Iran or to create a multi-party force against them?
I don't think a war with Iran right now makes sense. Israel needs to deal with Hamas in Gaza and does not want to open up a northern front with Hezbollah or an eastern front with Iran or militants in the West Bank, for that matter. But I do think, you know, when we talk about defeating an organization like Hamas, part of it's not just eliminating their offensive capability, decapitating their leadership, but also making sure they can't reconstitute themselves.
And what has been keeping Hamas afloat has been, first of all, monetary donations from countries like Qatar, but also money from Iran, arms from Iran, missiles and rockets from Iran, training from Iran, all those things. You have to staunch that flow of arms if you're going to prevent the reconstitution of Hamas. So I think that has to begin now a dialogue with our allies and partners, again, not just in the region, but Europe and elsewhere,
To think about how do we really tighten sanctions, financial, economic, energy, and so on, on the Iranians, close all the loopholes, cut off the flow of money, really put the pressure on them, while at the same time you figure out how do you blockade, prevent that flow of arms. And then you've got to start working the issue. And at some point, I think you have to come to the realization that maybe you have to form a coalition that's going to take on Iran.
militarily if need be, but we keep going through this cycle now. It's been years of mayhem in the region, and it's all financed and influenced by Iran.
So let's focus on the bigger picture for Iran. The U.S. currently estimates that Iran needs about 12 days to produce enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb. When we made the nuclear deal with Iran, the breakout time was about a year. Was pulling out of the deal a mistake? I thought it was a bad deal. I thought it had a lot of loopholes in it, verification shortcomings. I think the endurance of it, the sun setting was inadequate. I think for a lot of reasons, it was a good idea.
but it wasn't a good deal. And I thought we should have pursued a better deal. So once the deal was signed, was pulling out the right choice?
Well, that's a decision President Trump made at the time. He was supported by a lot of Republicans. He was supported by, I mean, I supported that approach. And so, again, I did not think it was a good deal. I thought using the maximal pressure campaign to try and force a better deal was the way to go. I think, you know, at the end of the day, we weren't able to impose maximal pressure on the Iranians because, again,
the Germans, the Brits, I think, and the French just were not there with us. And maybe that dynamic has changed now where you can get everybody back on board after we've seen Iranian bad behavior the last three years. People say, okay, yeah, we agree that, you know, we need to try a different approach.
So you brought up earlier, you think the Biden administration's response to attacks on Americans by Iranian proxies, weak and insufficient. Now, you said you prevented then President Trump from launching military strikes against Iran. But now you want action because you said we need to confront Iran once for all with regards to bad behavior in the region and also its nuclear program. What's the difference? Why not have attacked them then? Was that not the right time? No, look, I think I'll go back to
event I recall well is in December 2019. Now, we were attacked, I think, in northern Iraq, and the decision was made, I recommend it, to strike multiple sites in Iraq and Syria. We killed, I think, 20-some militiamen to include IRGC. We wounded 50-some as well. And to me, that was the right type of response. What I argued about, pushed back on President Trump and some of his advisors about was, look, if you want to take strikes within Iran,
within Iran, then first of all, we have to prepare the theater. There's a lot, we have to put more troops there first. And if you do that, then you're buying into a Middle East war. Is that what you want to do? Because if you want to do that, Mr. President, then we need to prepare, we need to get allies on board. We need to go through all the steps that you should go to to do that.
And so that would be my same recommendation to President Biden is, you know, we've reached this point now. If we think that the Iranians aren't going to come back to the table and negotiate a better nuclear deal, if we see them ramping up their bad behavior, if we see that, you know, they are behind in one way, shape or form the attacks of October 7th, I think they've gone to a new level. And I think we should start exploring again, beyond.
beginning with diplomacy and sanctions, really, but then preparing a coalition because I think the Iranians respect force. But I wouldn't just jump into it. Too many people in Trump's orbit were wanting him to just kind of go in and attack Iran or attack Iranians within Iran. And I thought that was a haphazard way of getting into a conflict if you haven't thought through it and don't have your allies with you and all those other things that contribute to a successful outcome.
Okay, let's move on to Ukraine. The two sides are essentially at a stalemate with no breakthrough in sight. Money's running out. So what
What should the end game be for America and for Ukraine, and how do we get there? I do think we have to support the Ukrainians in terms of what they want to achieve. My view has been aligned with Zelensky's. In a perfect world, they restore all of Ukrainian territory to include Crimea. You know, there would be reparations. Putin would be held accountable as a war criminal at The Hague. You name it. That's what I would like to see. The question is, is that achievable? I don't think, you know...
The support that we've given them so far has been good, but not sufficient. It's not been timely enough. And so that's what I like to see the outcome. I do think, again, I give the president credit for pulling the allies together, supplying arms. I criticize him, though, for the delivery of key weapon systems has been just too late, too late for the Ukrainians. And I think this is a conflict where
much like any conflict, the president has to be out there frequently talking about why it's important, why it matters, and what is the end state that we're trying to achieve. And that's kind of, again, that's the good and bad of where I see the administration is. And you're right, Kara, at this point, it seems it's settling into a stalemate. And we'll see what happens come spring when
When the fighting season, so to speak, begins again, and hopefully by that time they have F-16s and M1 tanks and other weapon systems, will it start up again? It depends on how the winter plays out. So if the Freedom Caucus gets its way, Ukraine probably won't be getting American aid anytime soon. And it's very, it's slowed down. They're trying to decouple it from the Israeli aid. Game out what happens to Ukraine if the aid doesn't come through.
I've said that American assistance to Ukraine is like the biggest block at the bottom of the Jenga tower, right? The game. And I think if you pull us out, I'm concerned that the Europeans won't step up and compensate, that you'll see their support collapse as well. Maybe not all the Europeans. I think like the Baltic states and the Poles and others will be strong. But
I don't think it'll be enough to sustain the Ukrainians. And over time, I think, you know, the Ukrainians will have to ask themselves if we can't sustain the fight, not just because of equipment, but also, you know, they're running short on manpower compared to the Russians. Do they have to cut a deal? Do they have to freeze the conflict in place? And I think that's my concern. The clock in some ways...
is changing against the Ukrainians. They don't have as much time as they might have had before, which is why providing the aid now, getting the, and as important, getting the weapon system to them when they need it. I actually, I believe that the offensive, the summer offensive at this point would have been far different if they had launched it at that time with M1 tanks and European fighting vehicles and F-16s and long range attack them. They still don't have long range attack them. If they had everything they needed to do the counteroffensive,
then I think you would have had a different outcome. U.S. forces would have never fought like that way. It's far riskier. So they didn't have the things. Now, interesting, Senator Mitch McConnell said that your favorite, Ronald Reagan, would turn over his grave if he saw you're not going to help Ukraine. What
Why do you think so many Republicans have become enamored by Putin and unwilling to defend Ukraine? And what's the best way to persuade Republican voters at this point that Ukraine matters? Because it feels like they don't think that's the case. I think it's a combination of things, Cara. First of all, you know, look, it's Trump, right? He's talking about not supporting Ukrainians.
He sees it as a waste of money, but the Ukrainians are corrupt. That feeds into an isolationist strain within the party.
And then that also people are making assertions about false choices, like, well, we shouldn't be supporting Ukraine. We should be supporting Taiwan instead, right? Because China is the bigger threat. And China is indeed the bigger threat, bigger than Russia for sure. But the two are related, right? Because China is watching very carefully how we respond, we being the United States and our allies, to Russia in support of Ukraine. So I think people are presenting false choices and false ideas about this. My argument is, would be, and
that look, if we are, this is an era of autocracies versus democracies. And if you don't stop Putin now, he is going to consolidate gains in Ukraine. And then will he start looking at other states, former Soviet Union states, he wants to reoccupy, reseize, because we know that he said the greatest tragedy that the 20th century was the collapse of the Soviet Union. Will he do that next? And if he does, under Article 5 of NATO, US troops, US forces, United States of America will be involved. And my argument would be is,
I'd rather spend $100 billion now to beat the Russians down and beat them back and teach Putin a lesson than have to spend Lord knows how much more of that in terms of not just treasure but blood if Putin makes a move somewhere else. Ukraine's military is completely dependent on Starlink and therefore Elon Musk.
Clearly, Mercurial—and I think that's—I'm being polite there—has a point of view that might not be shared with the U.S. government. I'm just using it as an example of the Defense Department being reliant on a single person
Do you think he's a threat to national security or is that a real problem for the Defense Department? Well, first of all, for transparency, I do some consulting for SpaceX. So just so you know that up front. Look, I think Starlink has been an exceptional system. I think what SpaceX and other companies, by the way, that are doing to get America into space to give us launch access, whether it's SpaceX, Blue Origin, you name it, I think it's tremendous. It's something that for many years, because it was there when I worked in Congress, we were depending on the Russians.
And that's not a good country to be dependent on. So I think SpaceX and others have done extraordinary things when it comes to America's access to space. I think when it comes to Starlink and the different issues regarding this or that being turned off or turned on, I think that all needs to be under some type of contract.
through DOD, with DOD, driven by U.S. foreign policy, they should be compensated for that. But just like we do with any other defense company, because in this case, they in some ways are serving as a defense contractor. Sure, they're a contractor. That's right. And so if they're going to provide a service in a conflict zone, then it should be, I think, guided, directed by U.S. foreign policy. Why wasn't it?
I'm not sure it wasn't. I've heard, you know, what the SpaceX folks will tell you is that, no, they did have conversations with the Pentagon and the White House. The person to really interview is Walt Isaacson, who did that wonderful bio on Musk. I think he's got the best information on that. But, you know, I think he would say the same thing. But look, I think at the end of the day, I think they or any other companies who are
Working in a conflict zone like this needs to be under some type of, need to follow the guidance of the United States. Actually, Walter was wrong about what was happening there. But is it good to have one person deciding this stuff? I don't understand. I mean, I understand that defense contractors are powerful, but this seems to be a step up on that issue.
Well, that's what I would argue, that it shouldn't be the person. It should be some type of contract arrangement with the United States government. Okay. Where the United States government says, you're going to provide this service, and we will tell you when to turn it on or turn it off. Yeah, he might not listen. Then it's made by the Democratic Party. He might not listen. He still might not listen. Well, then he's bound by a contract, right? Yeah, that's worked a lot in the past. We'll be back in a minute. We'll be back in a minute.
There's a lot of things you might say when your small business has a problem. You've got to be kidding me. Come on. Well, I didn't see that one coming. But that won't get you the help your business needs. What you should really say is something that can help. Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there. State Farm agents are ready to help you with your claim to help you get back in business. On the phone or in person, your State Farm agent is there to help. Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there.
On September 28th, the Global Citizen Festival will gather thousands of people who took action to end extreme poverty. Watch Post Malone, Doja Cat, Lisa, Jelly Roll, and Raul Alejandro as they take the stage with world leaders and activists to defeat poverty, defend the planet, and demand equity. Download the Global Citizen app to watch live. Learn more at globalcitizen.org.com.
I recently spoke to Congressman Mike Gallagher, the most prominent China hawk in government. He wants about $10 billion more in aid for Taiwan than the Biden administration is asking for, and he wants to speed up delivery of weapons to Taiwan. First, is he right about the aid? And secondly, why does it take so long to get Taiwan weapons they've already purchased from us? And I know there's a weapons backlog across the globe. Yeah, look, he's absolutely right. I think we should be providing, and the Taiwanese should be procuring themselves more weapons
and the right type of weapons. So I traveled to Taiwan every year. I was there a few months ago. I met with President Sa, the defense minister, her cabinet.
and talked about that. And my view is they learned a lesson from the Ukraine war and their lesson. And I think our lesson was if you're invaded by a bigger bully neighboring you, you don't need to roll, just roll over that. If you, if your people are willing to fight for their freedom, for the rights, for their country, then you can push back a bully. You can kind of defend yourselves and, and maybe deter the conflict in the first place. I would argue now that if
If Putin knew how the conflict would have turned out now, if he could rewind the clock, would he have actually invaded in February 22? I don't know, because he clearly was overpromised by his generals how easy it would be to take Ukraine. I think Xi Jinping is asking himself those same questions, or I hope he is. So my argument has been to the Taiwanese that, hey, you guys need to arm up. You need to take the steps now that the Ukrainians probably wish they had taken before the conflict. Buy javelins, buy stingers, train your people.
Build a territorial defense, stockpile goods, stockpile energy. I argued that they should return to a year-long conscription, which President Tsai did last year. I think it was a very bold move. So I think the more that we can arm them up, train them up, and help them defend themselves, the more likely it is that Xi Jinping will decide not to invade them.
and not to take them on because you'll see a much tougher fight. So you've recently said great power competition could cross line to great power conflict. It seems we cannot stay out of this. Have we done enough to deter China from invading? And are we currently capable of defending Taiwan from a Chinese invasion? Yeah, war game after war game. And CSIS and other think tanks have shown that...
Two things have to happen if China decides to invade Taiwan. Now, there are other scenarios we can talk about, but a amphibious invasion, number one is the Taiwanese have to be willing to fight and hold on. And number two, the United States has to quickly make a decision to get in or not. And I give President Biden credit here. President Biden said on multiple occasions that we would come to Taiwan's defense. But if we don't, then I don't think they have a chance. And so I think if I were them, knowing that there's maybe some uncertainty there, particularly if
if administrations change, you want to do everything you can to arm yourselves and to make sure, again, you prevent the greatest deterrence you can. I believe they are committed to doing that. But do we have the political willpower and popular support to selectively decouple from China and simultaneously build up our military capability to deter China from invading? I mean, having dealt with them, do you feel that this is their aim? Yeah, I think, look,
Xi Jinping talks often since his installment as general secretary in 2013 about
rejuvenating China, the greater China. And what that means is reclaiming what they view as lost territory, whether it's Hong Kong, which they pretty much they have now completely under control. Taiwan is the last major outlier, but he also has the right, he also claims ground in the Himalayas. That's the Indian territory. He's also claiming a lot of shoals and reefs in the South China Sea, but Taiwan is the big one. And my concern is, uh, uh,
Xi Jinping sees himself as one of the great leaders in Chinese history up there in the pantheon of leaders with Mao. But to do that, he's going to I think he may want to go after Taiwan. That's what concerns me. I mean, he had an unprecedented third term and he'll have that third term through 2027, I think. And then will he try for a fourth term?
He's not an old man, but he's not a young man either. I think he's 70 years old. So he only has so many years to get this done if he wants to get it done on his watch. So who are our allies in that regard? Is it India? You said they have a lot of shared values between the U.S. and India. Do they actually share values? You know, Modi is an authoritarian bent. He cozies up with Russia in certain areas. Can we count on them or who is the ally there?
I think our most important ally is probably Japan, the world's third largest economy, the high tech. They made some really important moves that probably most people don't recognize. In the last few years under the new prime minister, they doubled their defense spending. Their first time since the end of World War II doubled their defense spending, and they decided they would develop an offensive capability when it comes to missiles. I think they really recognize the threat, and they've talked about this. When I was in office, I would talk about it with my colleagues.
with my defense counterpart as well. So I think they're number one. They host more American troops than any other country in the world. It's a very strategic location between Korea and then, of course, Taiwan to their south and right off the coast of China. So very critical that I would count Korea in there as well. Again, American troops there, the Philippines, and then you start working your way around, right? Australia is another very important ally of ours.
And what we have to do is shore up all the other countries, whether it's ASEAN countries. And then the ones we tend to forget are the Pacific Island countries, right? Like Papua New Guinea or Palau, places like that. And then you get to India, right? Where you began. And I've argued, I wrote about this in my memoir, that if China is the greatest strategic
or adversary we face this century, then I believe that India is the greatest strategic partner that we need to develop to counterbalance that. It's now the world's largest country in the world, a very dynamic economy. Look, we do share a lot of values. It is the world's largest democracy.
and I take your points about Modi and the BJP, this kind of gets back to where we began, right? If you start putting a litmus test against everybody. But I think, look, they have a lot of concerns, legitimate concerns about the Chinese, so much so that they're balancing with the Russians, which is a completely different issue that I have a beef with them about. But I do think we need to continue to develop that relationship. And it's one of those relationships where successive administrations, beginning at least with the Bush administration,
when I was at the Pentagon then. But Bush and then Obama and Trump and now Biden, each administration sees the importance of developing that strategic partnership with... Which they generally avoid, formal alliances. And then this recent... They do. This recent hitman on a Sikh separatist in New York and the Indian government in Canada. How do you deal with that then, if that's the case? Yeah, you know, I haven't delved too much into those, but it is startling, those issues. And you're right, they tend to still have that...
non-aligned state mentality that they developed during the Cold War that they're not aligning. And I think it's a mistake. I think it's time to align and they should align with the other democracies of the world and they should fully behave like the other democracies of the world. So I...
Again, I haven't delved into this. Clearly, there's intelligence supporting it, but it's something that needs to be addressed at the highest levels. We can't have, you know, government hitmen running around the world, whether it's the United States or Canada or anybody, anywhere for that matter. It's very Russian. It's a very Russian thing to do. Speaking of Russian, Trump, there isn't much you haven't already said in your book, and you've been interviewed a lot about it. But I'd love to know what your main takeaway, now reflecting on that book, is.
of your time in the Trump administration from which you were terminated? My main takeaway about Trump? Yeah. Look, he's unfit for office, period. He puts himself before country, before the American people. I don't think he has any respect for the Constitution, our institutions, our norms and behaviors. And I've called him a threat to democracy. And I've somebody who experienced it up front, up close, and did everything I can to
to beat back bad ideas and hold on to the election. And then it's, it's only worsened since I left, right? I left and then 70 days, not, not because of that, but I left and then we saw the continued denial of the election and ultimately January 6th. And then it's,
you know, it's gotten worse and worse. So I'm really concerned about the next election. So when you were there, I talked to a lot of administration officials who are, I would say, reasonable people. Why did you all stay so long? They had different, one was like, because he'll blow up the world. That was literally, and I was sort of like, oh, well, that's a concern because of the worst people that would come in. Um,
Why did you do that? Why did you continue? Yeah, I was very explicit about this. You know, my differences with Trump began early and then kind of escalated over time. And then they broke into the public on June 3rd, 2020. But I'd come to my concern had come to be that, you
If I wasn't there, and not just me, but there were others, you know, Mark Milley and I worked side by side. If we weren't there to stop the really bad ideas, not just his bad ideas, but people on his team, people at the NSC, the bad ideas, then he would put somebody in charge that would follow through with them. And of course, so that's why I decided to hang on. Look, I wrestled with this because my view was it would be far simpler for me to just resign. I'd go out and I could say whatever
what I could, and then it would be over in 24 to 48 hours. And I wrestled with this a lot. And I went so far as to call my predecessors, Leon Panetta and Bob Gates said the same, and to a man, to a person, Colin Powell said, no, stay, make him fire you. You got to stay and hold on and be the guardrail. But I wrestled with it. And at the end of the day, I thought the higher duty was if your oath is really to the Constitution, to the country, then you got to stay and fight the fight.
and do as best you can for as long as you can. And that became my thing. So, you know, I talk about in a
Again, the public break happened in June of 2020, but he was talking about, or his people were too, sending troops to the border in the spring of 2020. He talked at least at that time, the spring of 2020, about bombing Mexico. His staff was constantly bringing up ideas about attacking Venezuela. We began at the beginning of this podcast that folks on his team were talking about attacking Iran itself.
I mean, so I had 12 months or so under my belt at that point in time, knowing the bad ideas were out there. And of course, the other one that was out there, he wanted to withdraw U.S. forces from Germany, from NATO. And I pushed back on that for quite some time until, you know, I got a direct order about that. So anyways, that was my logic. And, you know, I developed the four no's, things that would kind of guide me through those final six months. My aim was, how do I get to the election and let the American people decide? And
kind of keep everything on track. And I made it till the election. And then what, a week after it was fired November 9th. And then of course, it not only got rid of me, it got rid of my chief of staff, I think two or three undersecretaries, and then installed all his people to Pentagon. And that's where you saw these plans to attack Iran, withdraw from Afghanistan. We withdrew troops from, I think, Somalia, so forth and so on. All the bad things that I was concerned would happen began happening. And
I look back on this thinking, believing that I did do the right thing. They just didn't have time. Well, good thing they didn't have seven months. Yeah. Now, I've been criticized too, Karen. People say, well, you know, you should have quit. You should have left. My view is, look, all the people at the beginning or throughout the administration said we need adults in the room.
You just can't, you can't tell the adults in the room, we don't want you in the room, but when things go bad, leave the room. Right. The adults have to stay. And I think that's the key thing. And the challenge will be the next time around. So let's talk about that. How do you look at the appointees if there's a second Trump term? What do you expect from them?
future appointees if he wins. Yeah, I think there's one lesson that Trump learned from his first term, his first go-around, was the importance of getting the right people. And people will say Trump was the same throughout his four years. I say that's not the case. I think he was on a learning curve. So I think
After he beat impeachment in early 2020, that's when he began bringing back the loyalists, right? Mark Meadows comes in, Johnny McEntee. He brings Rick Grinnell back in and he pairs up with his buddy, Robert O'Brien. And you have all these other people come back in and Johnny McEntee, the head of presidential personnel, begins the so-called purge of the federal government. And they begin...
drawing up this, what is Schedule F or whatever this is, new plan to replace the civilian bureaucracy. So all these things begin then. And I think my argument is that the end of the Trump administration, certainly with regard to personnel, is where it will begin if he's elected and takes office in 2025. They've learned the lessons. They're building that database of true loyalists. And that will be the litmus test by which
people are appointed or nominated for in the administration. Loyalty be number one. And you can see it in the tests and stuff like that, the questions they're asking. And that's going to be really damaging because you want people who take the oath to the Constitution, hence the name of my book, A Sacred Oath. Your oath is to the Constitution. It's not to a president. Of course, under that construct, you work for the president.
But your oath is not to him or her. So what does one do then? I mean, there's an argument that I heard from someone else that they're still not competent. No matter what, they're still incompetent. There's enough pushback.
throughout not just the bureaucracy, but outside of them? Do they have enough power to do something? Yes. I mean, the president has extensive powers, right, in the executive branch and Article 2. And as much as you would like to believe that Trump loyalists are not competent, that's not necessarily true. There are a lot of competent, capable people who are
kind of, you know, uber loyal to him. And so I think they would know how to pull the strings or push the levers of government to make things happen. And that's got to be a concern. So I don't necessarily...
Just because you're a true loyalist to Trump doesn't mean you're incompetent. He certainly had a lot of incompetent people, but one doesn't necessarily determine the other. So I think there is a reason to be concerned. And Trump has said this is going to be about retribution, about revenge. And he's already talking about how do you use the institutions of government, DOJ, the IRS, and others to deal with your political enemies. Are you yourself worried? Yes. And people like you personally? Yes.
Yes, absolutely. I'm worried. And I talked to, you know, I talked to Bill Barr and others who have left the party. There's a lot of concern out there and there's concern about folks on Capitol Hill. I talked to members of Congress, a lot of concern out there. And what would you be worried about?
Well, the tax arrests that the president would come in and on the you know, he would again attack our institutions of government. He would erode the norms and behaviors. He would use them against political enemies on the foreign policy front. You know, he's said that he would withdraw support from Ukraine. That would, of course, would condemn them to.
to the Russians. I believe that he would eventually pursue the withdrawal from NATO. And then would he go after the other things that he talked about, you know, withdrawing U.S. troops from Japan or Korea? And what would that mean, right, for Taiwan and China and elsewhere? So I'm concerned across the table for what it means to our institutions of government, the norms and behaviors, and ultimately the republic itself.
The public itself. Wow. So you're not in a good place on that. No. Do you think he can win? Yes. I'm afraid that he can win. And look, I'm also one that says, when I go out and speak, people say, what's the greatest threat facing our country, right? And you probably heard this when you and I spoke before. It's not the Chinese. It's the political extremism coming from both sides of the political spectrum that's really eating away at our
our political culture and destroying this country. And at the same time, I think there's a hunger out there for a new generation of leaders from both sides, and certainly on my side,
but a new generation of leaders. I'd like to see us get to that in 2024, not wait till 2028, because I'm concerned about those next four years, if the choices are Trump or Biden. Yeah. All right. Well, let's end on another overlord, AI. Fully autonomous lethal weapons, killer robots will be a reality sooner than later. Obviously, people are going to have the worst case scenarios, but when they're used in large numbers, for example, in drone swarms, humans will be supervising them at most.
I'd love to get just your final thoughts on AI and how you think of it in terms of defense and the practical implications and then the moral implications. Yeah, it's a great question. And, you know, I was secretary of the army for a couple of years before I was secretary of defense. And I made AI my number one top modernization priority. I think it's just because of its impact on everything. It's kind of like electricity. It powers everything or should or will power everything.
so much so that I not only made it my top priority, but I stood up an AI task force at Carnegie Mellon University, and we did a number of other things to advance AI within the Army, and then carried that forward when I was Secretary of Defense. My view was AI was so critical that we had to get there first. We had to dominate when it came to AI, because if we didn't, certainly the Chinese would as well, and use it against us. Now that said, I also have to share a lot of concerns about the ethics of it, responsible use, and in February 2020,
I had Eric Schmidt was on the defense business board. We talked, he brought forward a professional ethics policy that I signed out immediately setting the guidelines for DOD about how we would conduct ourselves ethically and responsibly when it came to AI. And I wanted that to be a marker, not just for DOD, but for the U.S. government. And then of
of course, globally, because it has such great positive potential, but such great negative downsides as well, if not developed and used properly. And that's a concern. It's not just about killer robots and Terminators, but from the positive side, it's everything from
from healthcare to preventive maintenance for the DOD fleet. It's to how do you manage your personnel? How do you use your sensors much more accurately and effectively? It's going to transcend everything in one way, shape, or form. And is the Defense Department ready for that? Is there enough urgency? I don't think there's enough urgency. And look, I say that as somebody who's in venture capital now in my firm, Red Cell, we work in both defense and healthcare with a heavy, heavy AI bias. So for transparency purposes,
But I don't think we're moving fast enough, not because leadership doesn't want to. I think the leadership is very enlightened. They get it. But the machine, the bureaucratics of the Pentagon don't allow it to move as quickly as it needs to be. You know, when hardware still is working under Moore's laws, changing every two years, and software even faster than that, the DOD system, I mean, the congressional budget process is an 18- to 24-month process.
We just have to re-gear DOD and Congress to be able to keep up with the speed at which AI is changing and evolving. But we're not there yet. As much as folks in DOD are pushing and people like me on the outside are pushing, we're just not moving quickly enough on both the technological front, but also on the how do you regulate it? How do you manage it? What are the principles that will guide its ethical development? My last question, does it put too much power in the hands of companies or individuals?
Private companies. Space is now dominated by Elon and Jeff Bezos, I guess, et cetera, et cetera. Could that be the privatization of this thing, given these companies are the ones that have most of the power here right now? I think if you look back, at least in American history, you see epics of time when industries were dominated by very wealthy people. So I don't think that's a new thing. But I do think...
I do like the fact that the White House and Congress recognize that they need to get on top of this far more quickly than they did with the internet, right? And things like that. They missed that turn. They missed that turn. Right. And so I'm glad to see that, but I'm not sure that, again...
all the folks there are capable of understanding that. But I do think it needs to be democratized in that sense. We need to get these big power players together and come up with this in a very consensus-based way, or at least have the discussion about how do we guide its ethical development? How do we make sure that we're testing systems before they are sold to the public or put out in the public domain? Because look, as much greatness as there is, the things that scare me are the fact that, for example,
you know, they say what would take some person years to learn how to develop, for example, a biological toxin. You could use AI with proper tools. Do it now in a couple hours. And that's what really scares me is about biological warfare and things like that. Not to mention, you know, other nefarious things that bad people can do with AI. So I think we need to make sure we...
It develops. And, you know, we have the latest developments with Sam Altman and OpenAI. You know, there's a lot of talk out there. But I don't have all the answers, but I do know we need from a
regulatory standpoint to get on it sooner rather than later and then set the standard for the rest of the world. Because I'm not confident that the Chinese or the Russians are going to abide by this, but we need to set a global standard and hopefully drive it. All right. Mark, thank you so much. So on that happy note, Trump's going to arrest you and we're going to be killed by bioweapons. Can't wait. I really appreciate it. Thanks, Cara. You should interview Walter Isaacson, he said.
You know, I'm actually going to be on stage with him at the New Orleans Book Festival. It's our third round. We had one last March and then our interview after his book came out. And now we're going to go for another. At the very beginning of this conversation, Mark Esper started with kind of defunding
defending American realism as a result of wanting to keep American values but the rest of the world kind of being bad. So America had to be pragmatic, too, as if I felt that was a little bit of gaslighting. Well, that's been American, this real politic, which was reflected by Kissinger. You know, it's someone who's lived in the world. It's an ugly world, you know, as Donald Trump is often saying. But it's not an equal world, and people do not have the values we may have. And, you know, I think...
Esper, while I might disagree with him on certain things, he certainly did the right thing at the right time. You know, people tend to say, well, it was his duty. But I don't like him, but Mike Pence did. They did their duty. So I appreciate that he resisted.
what was clearly autocratic tendencies of former President Trump. Yeah, he was also framing the world as this kind of encounter of autocracy versus democracy, right? The kind of global conflict that we're in. India, of course, challenges that, as we discussed, like, what do you do when a democracy is autocratic? We're about to see that. We might find out, as Liz Cheney told us. I don't know. We'll see. We'll see. Part of that pragmatism and
Israel when he's like, someone needs to draw that cost line. I think he struggled with that question. He struck me as an effective politician, political appointee. You know, he gave credit to Biden on Ukraine, but there was some shade there about, you know, what if we had done better to begin with. Those are good criticisms, I think. I think he's, you know, he's sort of the old school internationalist viewpoint that most Republicans have.
had for a long time. And of course, it's been supplanted by the America first attitudes, America stupidest is what I call it, by the Trump people. And so, you know, it probably really rankles him having grown up in this idea that we have a place in the world. It rankles him.
clearly. One thing we fact-checked him on is his statement about the support for Hamas in Gaza. Polls actually demonstrate that even before October 7th, most Gazans expressed a preference for Palestinian Authority administration and security officials over Hamas, with the majority of Gazans, 70%, supporting a proposal of the Palestinian Authority sending officials and security officers to Gaza to take over the administration there. I think he was just saying war is tough. War is tough. It's an argument by a lot of people. War is...
And someone has to draw that, quote, cost line, which is obviously a horrific way to talk about. Well, he was focused on the long term, right? He's focused on normalization. Absolutely. And let's see if that becomes a thing. And he doesn't seem like he wants normalization with Iran. He seems like he wants war with Iran. I don't think he said war. I think he realizes what tough customers they are, and we need to be firm with them. He wants to do his stick.
He didn't think a war made sense right now, but he wants to deal with Iran. And he talked about preparing a coalition. I don't think anyone...
That wants to go to war with any of these countries But we have to show that we're willing to do so same thing with China over Taiwan And that's a perfectly legitimate foreign policy point of view others don't agree Well, I mean he was talking about deterrence for sure But he was also talking about coalition building right coalition building an alliance to see who will come when it comes to Iran and he said about American assistance to Ukraine. It's the biggest block at the bottom of the Jenga block but
After the Iraq war and Afghanistan, I mean, what if it's the only block in the Jenga tower, right? I want to end on this Trump point because it didn't paint a pretty picture for 2024. We obviously just had Liz Cheney on the show.
What do you think about his takes versus Cheney's? I think they're similar. I think he was more expressive. She's very buttoned down. But I think they're both nervous about themselves personally. They could be subject to Trump's retribution that he pretends he's not talking about this precisely. I think he's nervous about it, and he's nervous for the country and himself.
Yeah, it seems like a nervous for the country is the driving force in the eyes. I think he's scared for himself too. Yeah. I think he's scared for himself. Want to read us out, Cara? Today's show was produced by Naeem Araza, Christian Castro-Rossell, Kateri Yochum, Megan Cunane, and Megan Burney. Special thanks to Andrea Lopez-Cruzado. Our engineers are Fernando Arruda and Rick Kwan. And our theme music is by Trackademics.
If you're already following the show, the killer robots will behave. If not, you're terminated. Go wherever you listen to podcasts, search for On with Kara Swisher and hit follow. Thanks for listening to On with Kara Swisher from New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast Network, and us. We'll be back on Thursday with more.
On September 28th, the Global Citizen Festival will gather thousands of people who took action to end extreme poverty. Watch Post Malone, Doja Cat, Lisa, Jelly Roll and Raul Alejandro as they take the stage with world leaders and activists to defeat poverty, defend the planet and demand equity. Download the Global Citizen app to watch live. Learn more at globalcitizen.org.com.
