Frank Mckenzie: ‘We are in a very dangerous period of the war’
Former commander of US CENTCOM describes big mistake of American leadership in Afghanistan, analyzes turmoil in Ukraine
He was the commander who oversaw the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, a move he later described as “doomed from the start.” General (ret.) Frank Mckenzie was called upon to end the 20-year US presence in the hot zone of Afghanistan and saw the Taliban regain power within days. For the first time, the former commander of the US Central Command (CENTCOM) speaks to the Greek press and describes the big mistake of the US leadership in Afghanistan while also analyzing the war in Ukraine.
Author of “The Melting Point: High Command and War in the 21st Century” and executive director of the Global and National Security Institute at the University of South Florida, the veteran general explains to Kathimerini Iran’s constraints on a crushing blow to Israel and Hezbollah’s second thoughts.
In recent days Hezbollah has been escalating its attacks on Israel, and information reported in the press shows increased mobility of strategic precision missiles in Lebanon. Do you think we have passed the boiling point and are we waiting for a multifaceted Israel-Hezbollah war?
I do not think that Hezbollah has yet made a final decision to attack Israel. Since last October, Hezbollah has been engaged in a tit for tat with Israel across the northern border. They fired several missiles and Israel responded.
What Hezbollah has not yet done is bring their heavy and precise missiles into the fight combat. I do not believe they have yet made the decision to do so. They may be very close to doing so, but Hezbollah knows that if they choose to use these heavy missiles, possibly against Israeli population centers like Haifa or Tel Aviv, the Israeli response is going to be significant. And [Hezbollah leader] Hassan Nasrallah knows that if that happens, his sponsor, Iran, is going to be able to do very little to help him.
With Iran not having retaliated against Israel, many question the military capabilities of the Revolutionary Guard. In your estimation, is Iran’s delayed response attributed to an inability to carry out an all-out strike, or is the current time being used to plan a strategic strike in the heart of Israel?
I think it is both. The core of Iran’s strategic deterrence is not so much the pursuit of possessing a nuclear weapon as it is ballistic missiles, its drones, and its land attack cruise missiles, and they have thousands of those. As you know, they have been working on them for decades and they are very accurate. However, employing those weapons in a large-scale attack, as they did in April, and by any objective assessment, that attack was a failure, and that is due to Israel’s capabilities and the fact that the Arab nations and the US helped Israel defend itself.
Another limitation for Iran is that even though it has thousands of weapons, they have to put those weapons on transporter erector launchers or “TELs” and that is something they can only do for a few hundred at a time. Therefore, their ability to generate a huge salvo against Israel is limited. So, I think the more Iran looks at the problem, the more they realize how limited they are. And in fact, the only entity that can really strike into Israel and hurt Israel significantly is Hezbollah. And for reasons we have already discussed, Hezbollah will eventually make an independent decision about whether or not to attack Israel.
On a different but equally crucial battlefield, do you believe that Russia has been militarily unmasked? Also do you see any strategic value in the Kursk offensive?
I think the attack in the Kursk area threw Moscow off balance. Putin does not deal very well with new and uncertain situations and Kursk created such a situation. On the other hand, Putin has extended the front over 60 miles (96.5 kilometers) and Russia still ultimately has more resources than Kyiv as they fight back and forth. So, I think Kursk is good from a tactical point of view, but it is too early to say what it will mean in terms of overall strategy and how Moscow will react.
Putin, because of the nature of his rule and his belief system, cannot afford to be weak, but he tends to be paralyzed when new things happen. Consequently, he does not jump on new decisions very quickly and this is something of an Achilles’ heel. Also, his campaign in Ukraine is not over yet and I believe Putin is willing to use all Russian resources in order to prosecute this campaign.
‘The area that worries me the most right now is Ukraine, and that is because we are dealing with a state with nuclear capabilities and a totalitarian leader who has the messiah complex’
Prominent voices in American politics, such as former president Trump, criticize NATO. In your opinion, is the Alliance still vital for the US, or are those who prefer a militarily “independent” America right?
I believe that NATO is the most successful defense organization in the history of the world. I do not know of any other organization that has kept the peace for as long or as effectively as NATO. And of course, Putin’s actions have given it a new lease of life.
I mean, three or four years ago, no one could have imagined a future where Finland and Sweden would have been members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Now they are. So, I think NATO is a profoundly effective organization, and I think the United States is always better, smarter, and stronger when we act in consonance with allies and partners abroad.
Could the base at Souda on Crete be used as a regional command post to conduct operations in the Middle East?
The United States Navy uses Souda Bay for refueling and logistical support. The government of Greece has always been very supportive of us, and that is an important part of the architecture of NATO bases along what we call the Southern Tier, and the facilities we use in Greece are an important part of that mission.
China or Russia? Which one should the US really worry about?
In the long term, the pacing problem is China and we need to recognize that. China is a chronic problem and is going to be around for a long time. There are some immediate threats from China, but most of it is long-term and we need to prepare to confront China. Russia is an immediate problem. Remember that Russia is the only country in the world that has the capability to destroy the United States with its nuclear weapons. You must respect that capability. So, in the short term, the area that worries me the most right now is Ukraine, and that is because we are dealing with a state with nuclear capabilities and a totalitarian leader who has the messiah complex. And that should worry us all as we look to the days ahead. I think we are in a very dangerous period of the war and what Russia might do going forward.
Further east, in the hot zone of Afghanistan, you have publicly expressed that the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan was “doomed from the start.” In your opinion, what went so wrong?
The decision to leave Afghanistan was a decision implemented by two presidential administrations, the Trump administration and the Biden administration. The desire of both was to leave Afghanistan, regardless of the consequences. The original Doha Agreement was interpreted at the highest levels as an exit timeline.
When President Biden came into the presidency in January 2021, there were about 2,500 US troops in the region and he eventually made the decision to continue the plan and go to zero (full withdrawal). My recommendation was that if we went to zero, the Afghan government would collapse. I did not feel there was any way that the Afghan government would remain in existence if we withdrew our support, so we had to maintain a fairly low level of support, and the Afghan government would have limped along.
Remember, the reason we wanted to be in Afghanistan was to prevent attacks on the United States by Al-Qaeda and ISIS. The Taliban was never going to attack the United States, they had no capability or interest in doing so. But what made them problematic was the fact that they supported and hosted those who would do so. Therefore, the flaw in the decision to go to zero was that it was made in April 2021, we completed the withdrawal of our forces by August 2021, but we did not simultaneously withdraw our embassy, American citizens, and Afghans who were in danger because of their support for us.
Is the return of US forces to Afghanistan considered a strategic priority?
I can see no conditions really under which would put US forces back into Afghanistan. But here is the problem. Right now, we do not see what is happening in Afghanistan because we have chosen to look away and because we have very few resources in the Middle East to look at Afghanistan. We know that ISIS is growing and planning to attack our homeland, and we know that ISIS recently carried out a very successful attack on Moscow. So, this organization is growing, and we have very few capabilities and resources to put against this problem. And this is going to be a problem that will haunt us in the future.
With many analysts advocating the tackling of terrorist movements in the womb, do you consider the implementation of pre-emptive strikes on emerging terrorist leaders as a strategic solution?
I believe that the United States should reserve the right to strike anywhere in the world against any target that threatens us. And I would explicitly say that this includes the leaders of terrorists that we know are planning attacks against the United States. But this is not a military decision, it is a political decision.
