March 26, 2026 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
22:43
LtCOL. Bill Astore : Why Air Power Alone Never Wins
|
Time
Text
Undeclared wars are commonplace.
Tragically, our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression, with no complaints from the American people.
Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government.
To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected.
What if sometimes to love your country, you had to alter or abolish the government?
What if Jefferson was right?
What if that government is best which governs least?
What if it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong?
What if it is better to perish fighting for freedom than to live as a slave?
What if freedom's greatest hour of danger is now hi everyone?
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Ajudging Freedom.
Today is Thursday, March 26th, 2026.
My friend Colonel Bill Astori joins us now.
Colonel Astori, thank you very much for your time.
Thanks for accommodating my schedule.
Is there a consensus that you're able to perceive among non-government observers that this war in Iran is not going as the United States and Israel planned it?
Yeah, I think that's definitely the case, Judge.
You know, this war, remember when we were told that the war would be over within a month?
And now the war is already stretching into its second month.
And I would say that it's fairly obvious that we are not, we, the United States, as well as Israel, we're not in control of the narrative here.
I think Iran is doing a very good job both in retaliating and in their own propaganda, which in many ways is just as effective, I think, if not more so, than what our government is putting out,
because our government's been all over the place about what this war is about.
Is it a regime change war?
Is it for Israel or isn't it for Israel?
Is it about missiles?
Is it about nuclear weapons?
What is it about?
I think the American people don't know.
And that's a big problem.
And you know, Colonel, I agree with you 100%, but the laws of war, the Constitution, federal statutes, and even basic principles of morality, of right and wrong,
indicate that if you're going to kill people that are not engaged in violence against you, you have a very heavy burden to meet.
You must make a very strong, publicly scrutinizable case.
Lay the evidence out.
Let members of Congress debate it.
Instead, we had Marco Rubio talking to eight members of Congress in a secret room.
And before they went into that room or before he came in, they signed a piece of paper saying they wouldn't reveal what he told them.
Well, what kind of a representative democracy is that?
Right, right.
No, I love it that you're a judge.
You come from a background where the law is vitally important, because that is what our country is supposed to be about.
As we all know, as a service member, when I first enlisted back in ROTC in 1981, I swore an oath to the United States Constitution.
That's what it's all about.
Our system of government and our laws, our liberties, our freedoms that are reflected in that constitution.
And we have a process of going to war.
That's what our founders enshrined in that constitution.
They didn't want it to be easy for America to go to war.
They wanted it to be a lawful process in which the people united.
And that is not the case today.
And it's very much to our detriment that we're losing.
The idea of a lawful republic and we're moving toward lawlessness, the the sense that I get colonel, from the people that uh, we've been interviewing is that uh, American generals and the American intelligence community warned the president against this crazy scheme, which was pushed by Mossad onto prime minister Netanyahu and by prime minister Netanyahu onto
the president Trump personally, that once the ayatollah was killed, there would be riots in the streets, massive chaos.
Mossad was on the ground, it would foment the chaos and these riots would force the government, uh to flee or be killed uh, and a new government would take its place.
I mean, this is just fanciful.
This actually had been denounced by and i'm not a fan of this guy a guy named Yossi Cohen, the former head of Mossad, who said, this is not going to work.
But Trump bought the idea and it was a miserable failure.
And now colonel, they want to put American troops on the ground, something he at one point promised he'd never do.
Right yeah I, I think this is the nature of war, is it?
Is that?
Is that as, as we know, that wars sadly, you know, rarely end uh quickly or or decisively.
There's there's an escalatory dynamic to them.
You know, we saw it in Vietnam.
Uh, we've seen it more recently in uh, Afghanistan and Iraq, and and I I, I hope, I hope to god we don't see it in Iran, but it seems like it's heading there.
As you said judge, with the news reports that 82ND Airborne is heading there.
Uh, marines are heading there.
I even I even saw a statement from our favorite senator, Lindsey Graham.
You know, something to the effect that well, you know, we did Iwo Jima uh, so so we can do uh the straits of uh the Straight Of Wormud.
And I was thinking to myself well, I mean, we lost uh, you know, thousands of men, you know, taking Iwo Jima.
The casualties were somewhere in the neighborhood of 26 000.
I mean is this, is what?
Is this what Lindsey Graham is looking for?
A repeat of Iwo Jima?
Well uh, congressman Tim Burshett says senator Graham gets into a barroom fight and wants to carpet bomb the whole neighborhood.
I mean, this is just uh ridiculous.
It would turn your stomach if we played senator Graham saying this now.
But yes, he does say these things, he.
He is a favorite on the sunday talk shows for a couple of reasons.
One, he says the most incendiary things which, being in television, I can tell you, and that's just common sense that draws eyeballs right.
And two, he plays golf with the president.
That's, the two of them are alone in a golf cart.
So this nonsense that he says on the sunday morning shows, he actually whispers into the president's ear and the president, most respectfully, is gullible to this stuff.
Yeah, how do we hit?
There's the question, how do we get more sensible people uh, in the proximity of president Trump?
Well, I don't know what the answer to that is.
Joe Kent resigned.
And in his letter of resignation, and this is not just anybody, this is the head of counterterrorism who had a huge staff and a security clearance.
He said, let's face it, Iran poses no imminent threat to the United States.
And let's face it, this is Israel's war.
He said the two things that Trump didn't want to hear.
And then his boss or his former boss, the director of national intelligence, went under oath before Congress and refused to say that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States.
Right.
Well, a little bit of credit to Telsu Gabbat there because she's right.
I know she's very hesitant to say it, but Iran posed no imminent or direct threat to the United States.
The biggest threat to the United States is a failed Iran and instability in the Middle East and recession or depression that could result from that.
I've decided to ruin your breakfast.
Here's your favorite senator from South Carolina with the Iwo Jima analogy.
Chris, I'm sorry for this.
Number five.
We got two Marine expeditionary units sailing to this island.
We did Iwo Jima.
We can do this.
The Marines, my money is always on the Marines.
I don't know if you take the island or you blockade the island, but I know this.
The day we control that island, this regime, this terrorist regime, has been weakened.
It will die in a vine.
And here's what I want to do.
I want to get with Chris.
I want to sprint the peace.
As the war winds down, I want peace to ramp up.
The reason we don't have Saudi Arabia and Israel making peace is October the 7th, 2023, Iran through Hamas attacked Israel, stopping normalization.
I want to take up and complete what Biden started.
As soon as we get Iran defanged so they can never do another October 7th, I want to start up peace talks between Saudi and Israel this year.
I want a peace deal between Saudi and Israel normalizing, ending the Arab-Israeli conflict.
It's been going on for 2,000 years this year, and you can't do it with a lethal Iran.
So we're weeks away from this Iranian regime not having the capability to stop peace.
Has he ever met a war?
He didn't want somebody else to fight.
I like the way he says we did Iwo Jima.
I didn't realize that Lindsey Graham was in the first amphibious push.
But no, I mean, even the mention of the Arab-Israeli conflict lasting for 2,000 years.
Well, Israel's only been a nation state since 1948.
So I know the senator thinks in biblical terms, but that's very misleading in these circumstances.
Colonel, why is it that air power alone never wins a war?
Right, right.
Well, yeah, you're an Air Force veteran.
Right.
If I was still in the Air Force, I would get into trouble for saying that air power alone can't win wars.
We like to think in the Air Force that Air Force, you know, that air power can be decisive.
But of course, no, air power doesn't occupy territory.
It's a transitory process.
I mean, basically, the airplanes go in, they drop bombs, they launch missiles, they can destroy targets, but they can't exercise control.
I mean, that is what you need troops on the ground for.
I mean, if you want to exercise permanent control over an area.
So, you know, air power, I think, gives you an illusion of power and control, but the reality is something very different.
And when people are bombed, as we've witnessed throughout history, whether it be London during the Blitz in 1940 or even Nazi Germany under the bombs 1943, 1944, I mean,
bombing tends to bring people together.
Because where else are they going to look?
They look to their government leaders for some kind of response.
And so it's often the case where bombing actually strengthens the resolve of a people.
And I think we're witnessing that to a certain extent in Iran.
Now, if you had said, as an active duty Air Force officer, what you just said, what would have happened?
Well, I have a colleague who wrote a book on the limits.
He wrote it on the limits of air power in Vietnam.
And he had a lot of guts saying that, because basically what he argued was that Rolling Thunder, the linebacker campaigns during the Vietnam War, you can't bomb your way to victory.
And he did find his career options and promotion opportunities limited afterwards.
It's not a popular line of argument in the Air Force.
I mean, the Air Force likes to think that somehow it can do it all.
Colonel, watch this Q ⁇ A.
It's fascinating.
Chris, cut number 19.
What is Israel's nuclear capability in terms of weapons?
I can't comment on that specific question.
I'd have to refer you to the Israelis on that.
Does Israel have nuclear weapons?
I'm not prepared to comment on that.
You're not prepared to comment on it?
It's a very basic question.
We are with an ally conducting a war against Iran.
This war continues to escalate.
Tell us something as Congress, as the oversight body, what is Israel's nuclear capability in terms of weapons?
I can't comment on that specific question.
I'd have to refer you to the Israelis on that.
Does that mean you don't know?
I can't comment on that, sir.
You're the main person in charge of knowing this and understanding it.
Will you not give us an answer?
I don't understand why this issue is so taboo when it's a basic question and we're in a war alongside Israel against Iran.
We're dealing with the potential for nuclear fallout and you won't answer this basic question.
Well, again, it would be outside of my purview as the Arms Control Non-Proliferation Under Secretary to discuss that specific question.
Sir, that is a dereliction of duty.
A fellow who needed a hair combing was the Under Secretary of Defense of the United States, and he obviously had gotten the talking points not to mention this.
Colonel, how can the mere possession but non-use of a nuclear weapon be a basis for an invasion when both the United States and Israel, the two invading countries, possess but don't use,
although the U.S. did in 1945, nuclear weapons.
Right.
Well, it shouldn't be the basis.
And it strikes me as so, I mean, I know the word surreal is overused, but it's surreal to listen to that testimony.
I mean, we all know Israel has been, has developed nuclear weapons beginning in the 1960s.
And there are various estimates for how many that they have, probably somewhere between 90 and 200 are the estimates that I've seen.
So there's absolutely nothing wrong with saying that, that Israel has nuclear weapons.
We know that they have nuclear weapons.
And to obfuscate it, to not comment on it, I have to agree.
It is, it's more than a dereliction of duty.
It's just dishonest and duplicitous.
And it makes our government look so weak as if we can't comment on this because Israel won't let us.
Right.
So I misspoke.
Mr. Denano is the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Secretary of State, not defense.
He's the number three in the Department of State, and he refuses to answer that question.
Now, this is an older clip.
This goes back to 2012.
I expect you're a fan of this person, but if you're not, you say whatever you think.
Right.
Who maintains that in 2012, Israel had 300 nuclear weapons capable of use.
Chris cut number 15.
There are many Americans who genuinely believe that if Iran, they believe Iran is moving toward a weapon, and if it is, they would favor military action to prevent it.
There are a number of people that want a war.
But is there a really vital threat coming from Iran as you see it?
I don't know.
I don't look.
Iran is not Iran.
I mean, during the Cold War, with due respect, Soviet Union had thousands of weapons.
They could have destroyed us in an afternoon.
And we could have done the same thing.
I was around during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
That was genuinely terrifying.
But Iran doesn't frighten me, and I don't think it should frighten the American people.
They don't have a bomb.
They haven't made a decision to build one.
They don't have the means to deliver one.
And the Israelis have 300 atomic bombs.
I mean, who presents the existential threat to whom?
Iran, they got the Ayatollah, and they got Ahmadi Najad, and he will always help out the Hawks with some insane statement every couple of months.
He's going to destroy somebody or other.
And then the Americans say we have to get him.
What is the danger of such rhetoric?
The danger of such rhetoric is that it leads to another war in the Middle East, which I think would be a disaster for my country.
And I think it would be a disaster for the world economy.
And I think it'd be a disaster for the world.
I don't think we can, you can't replicate the Middle West in the Middle East.
That was, of course, the great Pat Buchanan who served Republican presidents from Nixon to Reagan.
No, I completely agree with Pat Buchanan there.
And yeah, I've heard the 300 number.
I mean, anywhere from 90 to 300, possibly.
And he's absolutely right.
I mean, we've all heard that this mantra from Israel that Iran is within weeks of developing a nuclear weapon.
And yet they've been saying that same line for the last 30 or 40 years, and Iran hasn't developed yet a nuclear weapon.
And this is something Tulsi Gabbard testified about.
And when she testified about it, and a reporter said to the president in Air Force One, your director of national intelligence just said under oath that they haven't been working on a bomb since 2003, the president's response.
2003.
The Pap Buchanan statement was made in 2012.
The president's response was, I don't care what she said, I believe they do have it because that's what Netanyahu told him.
If you were still in the Air Force, this is your boss, Chris, the new piece from Hegset.
We see ourselves as part of this negotiation as well.
We negotiate with bombs.
This is what the Defense Department, which he calls the Department of War, puts out for American consumption.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It recalls Dr. Strangelove and was it General Buck Turgitson, you know, played by George C. Scott, I think, where, you know, he always wants to bomb.
It's the attitude.
And we're all, and of course, Dr. Strangelove is supposed to be a dark satire.
And yet, you know, Hegset seems to believe that this is what America wants.
Well, it's certainly not what any sane person wants.
Well, Colonel, thank you very much.
It's always a pleasure.
You're always so unflappable and so steady, no matter how dark and gloomy these things get.
You always have a warm smile.
It's a delight to be with you, my dear.
It has nothing to do with your last name.
It's a delight to be with you.
Well, you know, my father, who loved opera, said that we laugh to hide the tears.
And I think that's a saying that somehow applies in these dark times.
Yes.
Yes.
My patron saint, St. Thomas Moore, joked with his executioner, believing that a sense of humor was a manifestation of great faith.
Thank you, Colonel.
All the best, my dear friend.
We'll see you again soon.
Thank you, Judge.
Thank you.
Full day for you, cutting me up.
At 10:45 this morning from Norway, our friend Professor Glenn Deason, at one o'clock this afternoon, Matt Ho, at two o'clock this afternoon, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson.
Yeah, just spoke with him.
He's madder than a wet hen, but he'll let him express that anger for you.
And at three o'clock, the great Colonel Douglas McGregor, judging the Paul Towno for Freedom.