Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” | full interview

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” | full interview

and we go now to the former Secretary of Defense and Chancellor of William and Mary Robert Gates good morning to you good morning Margaret when we last spoke back in October you said that the US confronts Graver threats to security than it has in decades perhaps ever and among the US presidential candidates at that time you didn’t hear anyone with a real vision of what America’s role in the world ought to be or how to bring along the American people have you heard it since no frankly I have not and I haven’t heard anyone articulate a national security strategy for the United States that uh can gain the support of the American people and and I haven’t heard any of them speaking directly to the American people about what our strategy ought to be and why we ought to be engaged well President Biden gave an over office address back in October when he asked for some of the emergency security funding he spoke to the country and the state of the union is that enough no uh this is a message that needs to be repeated and not just by the president and his uh cabinet but also by members of Congress uh and other thought leaders uh this is this is not something that you give one speech from the Oval Office or two speeches uh or a speech from the floor of the house and let it go at that this has to be a continuing education program of helping American people understand why our Vital interests our national interests uh are at stake in what is going on uh not only in Europe uh in Ukraine for example uh but in the Middle East and and in Asia for that matter this is an election year and as you know you know pundits anyone wants to give their opinion they say oh National Security foreign policy doesn’t matter to American voters when comes to The Ballot Box how do you explain to the American people this moment in time how consequential it is and who that commanderin-chief needs to be well I think there are a couple of aspects to it U First is I think we need to our leaders need to bring these issues home to the American people in a very direct way so for example using historical examples about how our delaying taking seriously foreign threats has ultimately resulted in the deaths of thousands and thousands of American young men and women uh in Conflict the world isn’t going to ignore us uh just because we think we can ignore the world so the first thing is to make clear that if we don’t deal with these problems early they become very dangerous problems and very costly problems for the United States down the road the other is to explain to the American people for example how we need how we are inter economically interconnected with the rest of the world I’ve always thought we made a big mistake in not having data available where you could go into a congressional district and say do you realize how much of the economy of your county or your town depends on exports or Imports uh around the world because our economy is so integrated so it’s it’s both aspects of this in in bringing it home to people in ways that are clear and that make them understand this really does affect them around their kitchen table so there is some dissa excuse me there is dissatisfaction that we see in our polling about the two candidates from both parties um what do you say to the American people about whether there is a benefit to having someone who has served four years coming back there’s a lot of sort of desire for New Blood is there a benefit to the options we have now well I suppose the one benefit we have is that both candidates will have had experience as president of the United States the voters will just have to decide how they did in that job this is a this is a very uh different uh kind of thing we’ve ever encountered I don’t think that there’s been a president out of office that has run and one again since Grover Cleveland uh in the late 19th century so so you’ll have to to judge but I mean we do have the unique opportunity you now have four years experience with two different people which one do you think did a better job well if president Trump were to win again what could he do differently in a second term that would give him a stronger Legacy I know you’ve been critical of some of his behavior when he was in office well I think I think you’d probably see significantly different domestic policies u in in a number of areas I think one thing he’s been clear about for a long time is U the need for tariffs to protect American industry and so on um I think he would also have uh a different approach in many in many areas with respect to foreign policy and and in terms of trying to end the war in Ukraine it’s never made quite clear how he’s going to do that or what terms he would have to agree to um or how he would handle uh the issues in the South China SE differently so you know I think that there’s an element of unpredictability in in the in his case of of not knowing what he really has in mind to deal with any of these specific issues especially on National Security would you be open to voting for Mr Trump oh I’m not even going to begin to go there yeah well because you did write an essay in foreign affairs a few months ago where you were you were pretty specific in criticism you said his disdain for allies fondness for authoritarian leaders erratic Behavior undermined us credibility you were also critical of President Biden and his withdrawal from Afghanistan which used said further damaged the world’s confidence in America do you think Mr Biden has been able to repair that damage I think that he gained a lot of credibility with the speed with which he uh assembled the Coalition of of partner countries allies and friends um before during and after the Russian invasion of Ukraine putting together that three dozen countries willing to help Ukraine with money with fin military assistance and so on being able to warn the allies before the Russians actually invaded so that when they did we had enormous credibility with others that we knew what we were talking about and we knew the nature of Putin’s threat so I think that his ability to put that Coalition together uh I think I think uh is a is a very positive thing and and his resistance to uh to what Putin is trying to do U that said I think that there’s been I think a lot of people would agree that there’s been some uh unnecessary delays in getting necessary equipment to uh certain kinds of equipment to the ukrainians and I’m not talking about the six-month late supplemental uh that that was just passed by the Congress I’m talking about going back a year and a half or two years whether it was tanks or missiles or aircraft that after long debate and deliberation decision was finally made to provide them but were they provided in sufficient numbers and were they provided in a timely way that would help the ukrainians well that is a criticism we hear in particular from Republicans who support Ukraine but as you know there’s also a large portion of the party that has been skeptical about supporting Ukraine I spoke to Mitch McConnell recently on this program um on Face the Nation and he said he actually had to apologize he felt to vomir zilinski he did that on the phone and said it took too long to get you the Security Supplemental that you just mentioned sir he said his party Bears responsibility for many of the battlefield setbacks and this is interesting he said I think the fact that isolationism at least on this issue was defeated on this one bill is not not nearly enough how do pro-ukraine Republicans win this argument that he’s talking about in the long run I think the important thing is to keep coming back to what Vladimir Putin’s terms are for settling this those those who are opposed think we ought to just end this war and that there ought to be a quote unquote negotiated settlement well Vladimir Putin’s negotiated settlement is all four districts in the eastern part of Ukraine quarter of the the country uh all of the Sea Coast down through the South to and including Odessa a change of government in ke with putting in a pro-russian government and a guarantee that Ukraine will never join the EU and NATO those are Vladimir Putin’s terms at a at a time when he is reinforcing and re-equipping in the East uh pressing on kiv and and elsewhere along the front so this is this is the guy that they want to negotiate with not clear to me what are they prepared simply to take his terms in order to end the war and what are the long-term implications of that for Europe and for our own National Security those are the kinds of questions I think need to be asked well McConnell also said in that same conversation that one of the things that helped him get the funding over the Finish Line was that Donald Trump stopped whipping against it um and when I I pressed him on the isol ISM that he saw within the Republican Party he blamed it on Tucker Carlson I mean I I know as someone who who comes from the intelligence community that has to hurt your heart that people who have security clearances are are believing commentators rather than intelligence how do you change Minds if if people aren’t listening to the Intelligence being provided to them well first of all I think I think it it’s a mistake to try and deal with these problems with odd hominum attacks with uh going after specific individuals and saying how unenlightened they are or whatever I think the most important thing is is for leaders to sketch the Strategic environment and the Strategic consequences of not supporting Ukraine of not being engaged internationally you know we’ve had an isol an isolationist element in the United States uh for decades this isn’t a new phenomenon and there have always been political leaders on both sides of the aisle who have worked their way through that and ensured that majorities uh continued to support American engagement now that doesn’t mean world policemen it doesn’t mean us sending our troops everywhere there’s a problem but it does mean being very thoughtful about what are our Vital national interests and how best do we protect them in the context of having to remain engaged around the world if we just pull back we will leave a vacuum and we know who will take the place of that vacuum who will fill that vacuum but I guess what I’m getting at is we are in an information environment where even the traditionally trusted Messengers aren’t being trusted and we see that in our CBS polling uh almost four and five Republicans named Donald Trump as their most trustworthy source of information on Russia and Ukraine only three and five said they trusted the Pentagon the state department was 27% I mean journalists were were were not high on the list either so so how do you’re talking about persuading through consistent argument when but when people aren’t listening to The Messengers how do you do that well in the past what sadly has happened is that when people haven’t listened to the messengers we’ve suddenly found ourselves in a crisis or with a disaster and and I think one thing that needs to be done is to for people who are in favor of our being engaged and who do believe that our national security interests require that engagement is to teach people a little history uh in terms of what has happened in the past when we’ve turned our backs uh and the crises that have followed that and and and often Wars that have followed that so you know it’s up to each member of Congress or each member of the administration up to the president uh to uh to to lay out this message and just keep repeating it you know Franklin Roosevelt once said that the greatest responsibility of a leader is to educate and I just think there hasn’t been a consistent effort to educate the American people in a thoughtful way about why our foreign policy ought to involve keeping not only maintaining and sustaining our alliances but our engagement internationally and that’s a speech that needs to be made over and over and over again Vladimir Putin was in China this past week visiting his ally xiin ping um and he said Friday Russian troops are advancing daily in Ukraine what do you think it will take to stop this momentum well this is one of the places where frankly the six-month delay in getting the supplemental p is has been a problem because and poses a a real crisis I think the circumstances in Ukraine right now are are quite dire the Russians are moving not only around khee but elsewhere along the front um Putin has taken the last six months to a year to rearm re-equip uh to recruit um I’ve read numbers that he’s putting as M as many as 30,000 new troops a month uh into Ukraine they have more troops in Ukraine now the Russians do than they did at the beginning of the war so I think the real issue now is how fast can we get the equipment that the ukrainians need into the field into their hands beginning with air defense but also artillery and rocket and missiles and and so I hope that there is a sense of huge urgency in the Pentagon and and elsewhere about getting this equipment into the hands of the ukrainians literally within the next few weeks because because this Russian offensive has been expected in uh May and June uh for a year we knew that they were going to uh begin an offensive and so the critical question now is how much urgency are we placing on getting that equipment into Ukraine and into the hands of the ukrainians so they can hold off of this Russian uh offensive and establish a firm defensive line in the East that prevents the Russians from making any more any more game and during that time Russia has also build up more support for its effort with Iran with North Korea supplying it weapons with China now us intelligence says uh helping to reconstitute reconstitute Russia’s military industrial base even jointly producing drones what consequence should there be for a country like China for for helping this war to continue well I think everyone uh in the government that has anything to do with this has been U making the point to the Chinese that there is strong bipartisan consensus in Washington um that their assistance to the Russians is a another big problem in the US Chinese relationship there are a variety of other sanctions that are available um to the administration and to the Europeans that uh that could um bring bring additional pressure on the Chinese at a time when their econom is not doing very well they could they could the Chinese have very large Stakes uh in other problems and other relationships around the world in addition to Russia and and you know until a year or so ago they were being pretty careful about what they were providing to the Russians they still have not as best we know have provide have not provided actual weapons to the Russians uh that’s been a line for the United States but what has become clear over the last number of months is how much dual use technology and equipment and supplies they have been sending to Russia that hasn’t has have enabled the Russians to reconstitute their their defense Industries and and Putin Frankl if you look at the cabinet changes that Putin has just made they’re all focused on militarizing the Russian economy to sustain a huge military for a long time going forward this is not a one-time problem with just Ukraine Putin has decided to take Russia in a different in a different direction that poses a real threat to all of its neighbors and the Chinese by helping them are enabling that and and I think it’s not just the United States but the Europeans and others that need to make clear to the Chinese that there are consequences for them of doing that and those most likely consequences are economic well the Chinese president was just touring through Europe up and he was in France um I wonder what you think about the French president’s statement that nothing should be ruled out when it comes to sending Western troops to Ukraine I know some other European countries have also leaned into that idea should it be taken off the table by both Biden and Trump I think the notion of deploying NATO troops uh into Ukraine uh causes a lot of domestic concern not just in this in the United States but in Europe as well I think that there are probably several European leaders that nearly had a heart attack when when macron uh talked about sending uh NATO troops uh so I think you know I don’t think you take things off the table but I but I also don’t think you put them on the table uh in an explicit way you know part of my problem is that our government talks too much and some other governments talk too much as well uh sometimes it’s better just to do things and not tell people you’re doing them but maybe that’s the old CIA guy um okay so do things but don’t necessarily talk about them um is that suggesting more training then of Ukrainian troops acknowledged or not acknowledged I think I think we are clearly there’s going to have to be more training of of the ukrainians particularly with their new conscription law and and and a number of new um young people coming into the Ukrainian military should that take that training can take place in Western Europe or it conceivably could take place in Ukraine as well you you took me there you knew why I was asking you that question if training should take place inside Ukraine so you would be okay then with sending members of NATO into Ukraine to train their troops but not to actively you know to be very clear that they’re just there to train and not to actually fight NATO should not enter this War uh with its own forces but if the US wanted to send its forces to train inside Ukraine you’re okay with that I think that I think figuring out where the best place to to train Ukrainian troops is best left to uh best left to the military uh we’ve been doing most of that I think in Poland and elsewhere in Europe uh whether that’s necessary in Ukraine I think remains to be seen well it is a conversation that sometimes gets distorted I know um you know there are members of the American public who think there are US troops in Ukraine um one of the guests on our our program JD Vance a senator from Ohio has likened us support for Ukraine to the US invasion of Iraq making that argument that there’s like a creeping us role potentially um he also went to the Munich security conference but skipped meetings with president zalinski and and the head of NATO saying he wouldn’t learn anything new what do you say to a a leading Republican like him well I’m I don’t know him and um I haven’t tracked him very closely but again I rather than get into specific personalities I just think that uh people need to open their eyes and uh and be willing to listen to other points of view and be willing to learn uh particularly from people who’ve been around like Senator McConnell and and others who who can help him understand help him and others understand um that that this is a different kind of aggression by far than what happened in Iraq in 2003 uh and and there is no assurance that that Putin will stop uh with Ukraine and and to not understand that Potential Threat and also the degree to which it encourages other aggressors around the world I I think U I think some uh some additional information briefings and education may be required so on China a Us official recently said to me that no one wants to say it explicitly because we’re trying to avoid a shooting War but the United States actually is essentially at war with China that China controls much of the essential materials for green energy projects in the world it is increasingly going and building alliances with oil producing countries like Russia like Iran Venezuela it has more warships than the United States it’s doubling its nuclear forces what is the next commander-in-chief walking into when it comes to this adversary first of all I think we need to be very clear United States is not at war with China we are in a long we and our allies are in a long-term competition with China and it’s going to be a tough competition it will be economic technological scientific and Military the key responsibility of the leaders in Beijing and in Washington is to make sure that this competition remains uh being conducted by non-military instruments of power their main responsibility is in fact to avoid a shooting war between the United States and China because that would be catastrophic for everybody but there is no mistaking that every other aspect of the relationship will be competitive and it will be tough and frankly we need to up our game um the Chinese have devoted enormous resources in areas non-military areas where we have failed to do so in strategic Communications development assistance and so on we we have I think a hugee Advantage when it comes to uh economies and it and and I think we have an advantage when it comes to technology these were advantages we had over the Soviet Union as well but we need to up our game in all of these areas I would say including the military um but the other aspect of this is both sides have to do everything in their power to avoid a shooting war between these two countries that would be a disaster I want to ask you the Middle East um where there already are multiple shooting Wars on multiple fronts involving us Ally Israel um do you agree with President Biden’s decision to withhold some specific armaments from the Netanyahu government while surging others one of the things that uh has struck me has been the degree to which the Netanyahu government has essentially ignored the views uh and and requests of its closest Ally um beginning with more humanitarian assistance and and taking care of the of the civilians uh in Gaza uh I think that uh there are there are ways that we can pressure Israel uh the truth of the matter is 2,000lb bombs that are not Precision guided uh inevitably lead to a lot of collateral damage they basically collapse buildings uh uh I’m all for providing all other kinds of weapons to Israel including Precision guided bombs and and other equipment that they may need uh and they do need to figure out how to U at least dramatically weaken Hamas for the long term but I think when when our allies ignore us and particularly on issues that are of huge importance uh to us and to the region um then I think it’s reasonable to take actions that try to get their attention you support his decision then it sounds like I think with spec specifically focused on the 2,000lb bombs yes I think it sends an important message that we we we like them want to see Hamas weakened if not destroyed and but we don’t think you the way to do that is to flatten um two-thirds of the buildings in Gaza there were extraordinary statements from Israel’s defense minister this past week where he publicly criticized his own prime minister saying he can’t get an answer to some key questions like what happens at the end of this War uh he called on Netanyahu to make a decision declare Israel will not establish civilian control or military control over the Gaza Strip and start talking to International actors about who is going to govern what do you think about such a public split like this in the M of the war well it’s pretty extraordinary but but I think U not unexpected you you know the United States government has been asking U prime minister Netanyahu for months what’s your plan what happens after the shooting stops where are you going with this what’s the solution politically what’s the solution economically and human in humanitarian terms and there and neither we nor the Israelis including his own defense minister get any answers to those questions and I think it’s reason you know back at the beginning of the Iraq War General p asked the famous question tell me how this ends that’s what everybody’s been asking of uh prime minister Netanyahu and they’re not getting any answers but you know some Republicans hear any criticism of the Prime Minister as offensive well that’s up to them uh I know you said you’ve never been a fan of BB Netanyahu you said you met him back in 1989 are your concerns in regard to US National Security that he could draw the us into a wider conflict I don’t think that uh that I don’t think that is likely my biggest concern and we need to back up and have a little perspective here there are in fact four Wars going on in the Middle East right now um not only the war in Gaza but the war on Israel’s northern border with Hezbollah the houthis in Yemen and what the disruption of the global Supply chains through their attacks in the Red Sea and then the militias in in Syria and in Iraq there is one power behind all four of these conflicts and that’s Iran and what we’re not talking about we’ve become so preoccupied with Gaza what we’ve failed to talk sufficiently about is how do we deal with an Iran that is basically the the one providing the arms the planning and the intelligence in all four of these conflicts and that Iran is the source of the problem how do we deal with that that’s the real issue it seems to me that’s being missed and you haven’t heard of strategy as you said uh on many of these key issues no not from anyone not from anyone I want to ask you since you are speaking to us from a college campus what do you make of how resonant this issue is with so many American young people who are out protesting at University well first of all I think you know what has what has gone on transpired between Israel and the Palestinians going back decades is very complex very difficult and I think a lot a lot of the young demonstrators don’t know much of that history I think that the way the universities have handled it depends on one thing almost all universities have rules about how protests can take place protecting students First Amendment rights but at the same time allowing universities to operate without disruption and protect the rights of all the other students I think those law those rules on too many campuses have been enforced uh have either not been enforced in the past or have been enforced consistently in inconsistently so I think where you where you’ve seen success in managing the protests and where the protests have not been disruptive even though the students are making their points are in those universities where the rules have been consistently applied and consistently enforced Mr secretary I have so many more questions I could talk to you all day but we’ve got to leave it there for now thank you for your time it’s been a pleasure we’ll be right back

Watch the full version of Margaret Brennan’s interview with Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that aired on May 19, 2024, on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.”

“Face the Nation” is America’s premier Sunday morning public affairs program. The broadcast is one of the longest-running news programs in the history of television, having debuted November 7, 1954, on CBS. Every Sunday, “Face the Nation” moderator and CBS News senior foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Brennan welcomes leaders, newsmakers, and experts to a lively round table discussion of current events and the latest news.

Subscribe to the “Face the Nation” YouTube channel: https://bit.ly/1SUQc68​
Watch full episodes of “Face the Nation”: https://cbsn.ws/20pbkSF​
Follow “Face the Nation” on Instagram: https://bit.ly/23Xuhk4​
Like “Face the Nation” on Facebook: https://on.fb.me/23Xmz9E​
Follow “Face the Nation” on Twitter: https://bit.ly/1o3QDQo​
Subscribe to our newsletter: https://cbsn.ws/1RqHw7T​
Download the CBS News app: https://cbsn.ws/1Xb1WC8​
Try Paramount+ free: https://bit.ly/2OiW1kZ

For video licensing inquiries, contact: licensing@veritone.com