All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 24, 2024 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
23:31
Aaron Maté : US Wins a Dirty War.
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Tuesday, December 24th, 2024, Christmas Eve.
Our dear friend Aaron Mate joins us now.
Aaron, as always, a pleasure.
Thank you very much, and thank you for all you've done for the show and for educating me and our viewers in the past year.
It's been a wonderful collaboration, and I hope we can continue in the next year.
What is the IDF doing in Syria as we speak?
They're grabbing as much territory as they can, taking advantage of the fall of Assad.
Immediately when Assad left, they went on a rampage attacking Syria's military infrastructure, taking out the Navy, just to ensure that in case anybody in Syria ever gets any ideas about trying to take back Syrian territory, which Israel stole in 1967,
the Golan Heights, that Syria would not be able to do that.
And they...
Basically announced that because of the change of government in Syria, that a 1973 armistice no longer took effect.
And so Israel not only wiped out scores of positions of the Syrian military, but took even more territory, including Mount Hermon, which is a very high point in Syria, giving Israel new strategic depth over Syrian territory.
So that was just a message that the Golan Heights, which Israel stole in 1967, Why is Syria being trashed or destroyed between the Kurds,
the Turks, the U.S., and the Israelis?
Well, Syria, going back many decades, has long been the site of so much geopolitical squabbling.
Because of its location, because of its history.
In the case of Israel in the U.S., Syria was worth targeting because Syria was a land bridge through which Iran could supply Hezbollah.
And Hezbollah is the main force in the region that, as we've just been seeing over these last...
And then you have Turkey,
which is ruled by Erdogan, who is...
And then there's this, cut number 11. We have been briefing you regularly that there are approximately 900 U.S. troops deployed to Syria.
We recently learned that those numbers were higher and so asked to look into it.
I learned today that in fact there are approximately 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria.
As I understand it, and as it was explained to me, these additional forces are considered temporary rotational forces that deploy to meet shifting mission requirements, whereas the core 900 deployers are on longer-term deployments.
I will also highlight that, again, as it was explained to me, these forces, which augment the defeat ISIS mission, were there before the fall of the Assad regime.
That, of course, was General Pat Ryder at the Pentagon.
I don't know who has the worst job, he or Matt Miller, and I don't know who is the bigger liar, he or Matt Miller.
Remember Milton Friedman, there's nothing more permanent than a temporary government program.
Who is he kidding these troops are temporarily there?
Well, this is part of a long-running deception in Syria where top U.S. officials have concealed the fact That there are a sizable number of U.S. troops inside Syria.
If you were to poll most Americans, I don't think a majority would even know that U.S. troops are in Syria because it's just been completely kept out of the front pages.
It's seldom ever discussed, except when U.S. officials have to make admissions like this, such as, oops, yeah, remember when we told you we had 900 troops?
Actually, the number is more like...
And this has been out in the open ever since President Trump, back in 2019, ordered the withdrawal of all U.S. troops in Syria.
And what happened immediately?
Rather than implement the orders of the commander-in-chief, top Pentagon and State Department officials simply ignored him.
And James Jeffrey, who was at that point a top Trump official for Syria, Even acknowledged that he fudged the numbers, that he misled Trump on how many troops were actually there.
So this is just the latest extension of that.
Lying to the American public, lying to the president about how many U.S. troops are in Syria.
And the reason why U.S. troops are in Syria is also never admitted.
The official pretext is that we're there to fight ISIS.
But if you read the Pentagon's own reports about the mission, as I have and I've written about this, U.S. troops are barely fighting ISIS.
What they're actually doing...
It's what Trump admitted to after he stood down in the face of the resistance from his top officials to his orders.
He admitted, we're there to take the oil.
We're there to protect the oil.
And what did he mean?
To protect the oil from the Syrian people.
Because at that point, although the U.S. had stopped arming insurgents through the CIA to overthrow the Syrian government by occupying Syria's oil and wheat fields, as the U.S. has been doing, that was the way to starve the Syrian government.
That military occupation has deprived Syria of its oil and wheat, coupled with the sanctions that the U.S. has imposed that have prevented Syria from rebuilding and just cratered the value of its currency.
And these were key factors in the suffering and the decimation of a country that led to Assad's ouster finally just in recent weeks.
What was the reason given for the initial introduction of U.S. troops or even, I think we've talked about this, Obama's determination to top Assad?
Start with the troops.
What was the justification for their presence in the first place if it wasn't to facilitate the theft of oil?
It was the spread of ISIS, because thanks to the U.S. war in Iraq and the dirty war in Syria, ISIS spread throughout the region.
And established a caliphate in parts of Iraq and Syria.
As, by the way, U.S. intelligence officials had predicted years earlier in a Pentagon Defense Intelligence Agency report early on in the Syria Dirty War, where they pointed out that the rebels are intent on creating a caliphate.
We have to stop this threat.
And so that's why U.S. troops are in Syria.
Also ostensibly to help out the Kurds, which are U.S. proxies inside Syria.
But the main reason was to stop the spread of ISIS.
But just to underscore...
How the U.S. was not initially concerned with the spread of ISIS.
There's a leaked audio where John Kerry admits that the U.S. was sitting back and watching as ISIS spread in Syria because they hoped that the growth of ISIS and its encroachment on Damascus would force Assad to negotiate his way out of power and basically bring in someone who the U.S. favored,
who the U.S. could get behind.
So the U.S. went from sitting back and watching ISIS spread to then going into Syria under the guise of trying to stop it.
And there has been some fighting by the U.S. against ISIS.
But that's been inconsistent.
In areas where it suited the goal of regime change in Syria, the US basically sat back and watched, as John Kerry said, they watched ISIS spread.
So, for example, they watched ISIS as it crossed the desert to take the ancient town of Palmyra.
So now, after watching ISIS spread, that's how they justified a US military occupation in Syria that is really ultimately intended at looting Syria's oil and wheat to starve the country.
Here is...
There are many differences between Syria and the Taliban.
The way we govern is different.
Afghanistan is a tribal community.
Syria is completely different.
The people just don't think in the same way.
The Syrian government and the ruling system will be in line with Syria's history and culture.
What could he be talking about when he says the Syrian government?
Over what part of Syria does his gaggle of terrorists even have authority or jurisdiction or control?
Well, they have control now over the major cities, stretching from Aleppo to Idlib to Damascus.
But do they have legitimacy?
They're an insurgency, after all.
And let's even assume for a second that Al Jalani...
The former leader of Al-Qaeda in Syria, the former deputy leader of ISIS, is somehow magically now a moderate rebel.
He's changed his ways.
Under his command, his forces during the Dirty War slaughtered minorities in places like Latakia.
Let's say all that is behind him.
But the problem is, he's not the only insurgent force inside Syria.
There are so many militias from around the world, armed to the teeth, newly empowered.
Will Jelani be able to exert control over all of them and bring them in line?
We've just seen an example of in one town, a massive Christmas tree was burned.
Jelani's forces claim that this was a mistake and that this was done by a foreign force and that they will be punished.
Okay, I mean, let's assume that they're sincere in that.
But would they be able to control?
These newly empowered militias who have all the weaponry from around the world, who are composed of people who, in large part, are not even Syrian.
In a country that's been decimated by war, just look at the examples of Libya, of Iraq.
It's very hard to imagine that even if Jelani really is magically rehabilitated, that this will go well.
How safe is Syria?
There have been reports of that, and there are reports that I get from friends of mine who are still there.
There are telegram channels devoted to the rights of minority groups in Syria.
And you see so many stories of people living in fear, and awful videos of summary executions and other atrocities.
And this is just inevitable in a country that's been torn apart by war.
Let Syria become dominated by sectarian militias, as was basically the CIA strategy in the dirty war.
Chaos will reign.
No matter, again, even if Jelani has now suddenly, and I'm not saying he does, because I just have a hard time believing it, but even if he does have the best of intentions, when you destroy a country through sanctions, through military occupation, and through a dirty war,
inevitably, you're going to lead to chaos.
I pray for the best for Syria.
I mean, the best thing that the U.S. could do, I think at this point, is drop the sanctions, the sanctions that have destroyed Syria's currency that prevent Syria from rebuilding.
I mean, maybe if Syria gets the chance to breathe a little bit, gets a little bit of a respite from the foreign-imposed economic siege, maybe there's a better chance at a somewhat peaceful future.
But under these conditions, it's very hard to imagine.
And he sent me photos of a slave market, female slaves being auctioned in downtown Damascus.
Do you know, have you seen any of these reports?
I have not heard that one, so I can't vouch for that.
What I do know is that there was a protest in Damascus recently after a top...
We're not going to be sectarian.
We're going to respect women and minority rights.
It's very hard to believe based on Their ideology and their record.
I mean, this group ruled Idlib for many, many years, where women were all forced to cover, where there was repression, where the political dissidents against Hayat Arasham were imprisoned, just like people were imprisoned in Assad's prisons.
So it's very hard to believe that this country, which was once secular, where women's rights were protected legally.
It's hard to imagine that that tradition is going to continue to be followed.
Hasn't Jelani dismissed the entire judiciary, many of whom were female, and didn't he tell the females, don't bother coming back?
Yes, there was a report of women judges being told not to come into work.
Yes. Are Christians safe in Syria, Aaron?
Well, certainly, I know many Christians who are very worried for their safety.
I don't want to speak...
In broad terms, there are videos of Christians in some towns being able to celebrate Christmas this year, which is a positive sign.
When the sectarian militias controlled Aleppo years ago, scenes of Christians celebrating were absent.
It just wasn't allowed because people lived in fear of these sectarian insurgents.
Now, on the positive side, you are seeing in some places some Christians celebrate, but it's varied.
In some places, they're not.
And they're afraid.
And certainly, the fact that a Christmas tree in a public square was burned down sends a very chilling message to people.
So it's hard to speak in broad terms for a very complex situation.
In some areas, I think it's positive.
In some places, I think it's very negative.
And people are definitely, and I can say this from first-hand accounts, are living in fear.
Do you foresee a military conflagration between Israel and Turkey?
Over dominance in Syria?
I don't.
I think these two are working hand in glove.
They have divvied up the territory that they want for themselves.
I don't think Israel has the kind of grand expansionist plans that Turkey does when it comes to Syria.
I mean, Syria definitely wants, for example, the town of Aleppo, which it sees as a part of its historical political sphere.
Back. During the high years of the Dirty War, Turkish-backed militias basically, when they took over Aleppo, they stripped it of its vital industries and took the parts back to Turkey.
And so I suspect we'll see that.
I don't see Israel trying to take over any major cities, at least not right now.
I mean, you never know with Israel.
They're always an expansionist, messianic state.
But I think it's Turkey that will make the major grab for influence while Israel will just be content.
To take the territory around the Golan Heights that it sees as integral for its own security, which means its own ability to ensure that Syria cannot resist and cannot take back this territory that Israel has stolen since 1967.
When you say take territory around the Golan Heights, do you mean Netanyahu or Ben Gavir or Smutrich or one of those folks will proclaim it as a part of Israel, or they'll just say this is some buffer zone that nobody can come in?
Well, that's a great question.
You have people like Ben Gavir who are so extremist and who really believe that the Bible has granted them the right to steal as much land as they want.
So you might hear claims like that from him.
Some Israelis have talked about how Damascus is a part of greater Israel.
So who knows?
But Netanyahu, I suspect, was a little bit more political savvy.
I suspect he'll go with the security line.
This is a buffer zone.
We need this for our own security.
The same way he steals West Bank land and Gaza land and says that we need this for our security.
Right. You talk about Israeli fanatics saying Damascus is a part of Israel.
We saw chants of Turkish fanatics chanting to President Erdogan, you ready for this?
On to Jerusalem.
What does that mean?
Well... Yeah, I don't think we'll see that happening.
Erdogan, despite all his rhetorical support for Palestinians, is still facilitating oil sales to Israel.
So Erdogan's played a very cynical game.
In public, he claims to be a foe of Israel, to stand up for Palestinians.
But what has he done in real life?
He's sold energy that keeps Israel's death machine going.
And he focuses energies on stealing territory in Syria and overthrowing its government.
So that's the real air to one, I think.
Not the one we get in public.
Do you think that Donald Trump and his Republican allies in the Congress and in his new administration will undermine the quest for a Palestinian state?
I think they'll continue U.S. policy of undermining the quest for a Palestinian state.
There's no president.
With the exception of Jimmy Carter after he left office, who's endorsed the notion that Palestinians have the right to self-determination in a contiguous state inside the West Bank in Gaza.
Which, by the way, for Palestinians is already a massive compromise that they've accepted.
The Palestinian leadership, beginning in the 1970s, but formally made official in the 1980s, accepted a Palestinian state of just 22% of their historic homeland.
We're good to go.
Have Hezbollah and Hamas been effectively degraded as fighting forces?
I wouldn't say Hezbollah has been degraded as a fighting force, no.
I mean, like, the fact that Israel was forced to accept a ceasefire with them shows that, you know, Hezbollah is still a deterrent.
But I do think it's been weakened.
It suffered major blows.
I mean, the Pager attacks were very devastating.
The killing of...
Hassan Nasrallah and other top leaders.
I mean, there's no denying that.
And Hamas, Hamas can fight Israeli forces once they enter Gaza.
I mean, we still see that.
But in terms of Hamas posing a major military threat to Israel, I never believed that they did.
They were able to strike a major blow on October 7th.
But that was just one day, a few hours.
Is that sustainable over the long term?
It's not.
I mean, how can it be when you're located inside a besieged death camp?
Where Israel controls what gets in and what gets out.
So I do think Hamas has been degraded.
The one thing they have going for them is that Israel has been so genocidal and monstrous inside Gaza that they've ensured that generations of people inside Gaza, I mean those who remain, will be wanting to fight Israel based on just how barbaric it's been in its assault on Gaza.
Is there significance to Prime Minister Netanyahu's decision not to attend the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, which of course is located in Poland?
Yes, which is where Netanyahu's family is from, and he can't go because he's fearful of an arrest warrant from the ICC.
So that's hugely symbolic that Netanyahu, who's currently overseeing the current Holocaust, Can't go commemorate a previous Holocaust, which he's exploited along with, you know, other Israeli officials to perpetuate the current one.
So of course, I mean, that's very, very symbolic.
It shows that it draws a connection between the genocide of Jews in the Second World War and then how the state claiming to act now in the name of the Jewish people is perpetrating a current genocide.
And the fact that the...
Leader of that genocide, Netanyahu, is afraid of traveling to a European country because of an arrest warrant for the ICC.
I mean, in a very grim year, that's one tiny modicum of justice that people, I think, who care about fairness in this world and some accountability can take heart in that in some ways Netanyahu is facing consequences for what he's done.
Is he still on trial almost as we speak?
Yes, he is.
Yes, he is.
And the fact that he is on trial will continue to incentivize him to prolong Gaza's misery for as long as possible.
And that's why, again, there's been renewed talk from the U.S. of a new ceasefire round of negotiations brokered by Qatar.
But it was made clear it's not happening.
It's not happening under his watch.
Aaron Maté, thank you, my dear friend.
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, the best of everything to you as we conclude this year.
We look forward to working with you in the new one.
Thank you, Judge, to you as well and to your audience.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All the best.
Coming up, our last live interview of the year.
We have many surprises coming up for you during the holiday break, but our last live interview of the year at 11 o'clock this morning.
Who else?
Scott Ritter.
Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom.
▲
Export Selection