The first-term Florida Republican discusses his battles both in combat and at the Pentagon, his fight against wokeness at West Point, and his worries about Afghanistan.
To say that Florida Rep. Mike Waltz has a unique perspective on national security is to run the risk of serious understatement. The first-term Republican, whose district on Florida’s east coast includes Daytona Beach and Palm Coast, is the first combat-decorated Green Beret elected to Congress. Over the course of a 24-year career, which included stints at the highest echelons at the Pentagon and the White House, Waltz was awarded four Bronze Stars, two with valor.
Waltz spoke recently to Washington Examiner senior writer Jamie McIntyre, who began the interview asking Waltz how his experience as both a warrior and a policy adviser has informed his view as a lawmaker:
Washington Examiner: Tell us about your background as a soldier for 24 years, how it led to a run for Congress, and how it’s informed your views as a lawmaker.
Mike Waltz: I had this fascinating back and forth that I think only a reserve component, Special Forces officer can have. My day job was in the Pentagon under [Defense Secretaries Donald] Rumsfeld and [Robert] Gates on Afghan policy, then, eventually, for Vice President [Dick] Cheney as his counterterrorism adviser. But in between, I would get mobilized and have to actually go do the strategy and policy that I had advocated for in Washington. The really interesting part would be coming back from the combat zone, taking off the uniform, getting back in a suit and tie, and going, “Hey, boss, I was in the room when you said, ‘Go this direction.’ Well, I just spent a year out on the ground, and we’re not doing exactly that.” I did that, back and forth, three times. Seeing that — the global war on terror from the White House, from the Pentagon, from multiple tours out on the ground — was really fascinating and illuminating. It made me fully appreciate that we are in a generational fight against Islamic extremism. Just as we have fought for generations against communism, we fought for generations against fascism. This is truly a war of ideas and ideology. I saw that from every level.
Washington Examiner: What lessons did you draw from your combat tours in Afghanistan about the wisdom of pulling all the remaining U.S. troops out and ending the NATO advising and training mission after almost 20 years?
Waltz: I think we are repeating the mistakes that President [Barack] Obama made in Iraq. The Afghan army will not be able to hold without our advice, without our air support, without our intelligence support. Importantly, now that I’m in Congress, without our funding. I remind people that South Vietnam didn’t fall when we pulled our advisers out. It fell a few years later when Congress no longer had confidence to send that amount of money over to a place where we no longer had American oversight of those dollars. I fear the same thing is going to happen again. Al Qaeda is going to come roaring back in the wake of the Taliban takeover of the country. The difference here that I don’t think it fully is appreciated is that, in Iraq, we had all kinds of basing options to go back again. We had Incirlik in Turkey. We have Kuwait. We have the [Persian] Gulf states. We have Kurdistan. We don’t have anything like that in Afghanistan.
Washington Examiner: The Biden administration argues it has to pivot to other important priorities such as China.
Waltz: Yes, a big part of the justification is that we need to shift to “great power competition.” Look, what’s the only country in the world where we currently have a base that physically borders China? It’s Afghanistan. It’s Bagram Air Base. Why would we give that territory up if we are preparing as a nation and as a military for a possible confrontation with China?
Washington Examiner: You mentioned President Obama pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq and that subsequently leading to the rise of ISIS. Obama came into office and inherited a plan from his Republican predecessor [President] George Bush to withdraw American forces from Iraq U.S. troops by the end of 2011. Ten years later, Biden now comes into office with an agreement already signed by his Republican predecessor for all U.S. troops to leave by May 1. Weren’t Obama and Biden both somewhat boxed in by their predecessors?
Waltz: I think the difference, particularly in the case of Afghanistan, is that it was conditions-based, right? President Trump’s advisers repeatedly made the case to him that the Taliban, No. 1, has not publicly broken with al Qaeda, had not entered into a ceasefire, and were not seriously engaging in the peace talks. For Biden to then say, “Well, those conditions don’t matter.” For his spokeswoman, [Jen] Psaki to say, “It doesn’t matter how the conditions do change. We’re still pulling out.” I think it’s just incredibly irresponsible.
Washington Examiner: I guess another difference would be that the Iraqi government under then-Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki didn’t want the U.S. to stay, whereas the Afghanistan government does.
Waltz: Well, absolutely. You’re seeing some parsing from President [Ashraf] Ghani because on the one hand, he wanted us to stay, but he would have preferred for us just to leave cleanly rather than to force him into a power-sharing agreement with the Taliban, which is exactly what Ambassador [Zalmay] Khalilzad was doing.
On the point about Maliki, I think that’s really debatable. I’ve talked to a number of Iraqis that said there were many factions that wanted us to stay, but President Obama very much wanted to leave and took whatever statement it took to kind of justify that leaving.
Washington Examiner: The Biden administration argues that the threat from terrorists has basically moved to other countries, that al Qaeda is not currently able to mount attacks against the U.S., and that if they do reconstitute, they can be hit remotely from “over the horizon.”
Waltz: Both of those are totally specious arguments at best. I’m being generous there. The reason, and they know because the intelligence community is also talking to us in Congress, the reason that al Qaeda is on their backfoot is because they’re hitting them every night. So, to say, then, that that is justification to stop our pressure campaign, I find to be kind of a bridge too far. Secondly, this “over the horizon” notion, right now, is a theory. We have no basing agreements from any of the ‘stans: Tajikistan, Pakistan. We’re certainly not going to get it from Turkmenistan. We also don’t have everything that we need even from the Gulf states, from a diplomatic standpoint, from an authority standpoint.
I think too many people in Washington have been reading too many Tom Clancy books. I don’t know if they think we’re going to paratroop, parachute in from the space shuttle or zap people from lasers. But when you look at the actual range of our drones, the fact that you need a network on the ground to understand what is going on, the total dearth of intelligence assets we’re going to have, and the lack of basing options, I’m incredibly concerned.
Washington Examiner: To look at it from former President Trump’s perspective: Over the two decades that we’ve been in Afghanistan, we’ve lost 2,488 lives, with another 20,722 wounded. According to the Pentagon, we’ve spent $825 billion. Some people say it’s more. If we don’t leave now, when does it end?
Waltz: When America can no longer be threatened by half the world’s terrorist organizations sitting along the Afghan-Pakistani border. I just think that it ends when we win this war against the ideology. This problem will follow us home. The intelligence community is crystal clear that these groups will resurge in a vacuum, do intend to attack the west in the United States again.
Washington Examiner: A few weeks ago, you raised concerns with the superintendent at West Point about mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion training at the U.S. military academy, which you said included seminars that were “inflammatory and detrimental to the mission and morale of the Army.” Explain your concerns.
Waltz: Cadets, soldiers, and families at West Point that were sending me copies of seminars that they were being required to attend, one of which was titled, “How to Deal with your White Rage.” Another was, “How to Contend with your Whiteness.“ They attended a seminar led by a female lieutenant colonel, a mandatory seminar, who talked about how she became aware of her white privilege. I find that incredibly destructive to morale as evidenced by these very upset families, some of whom were relatives of law enforcement officers and first responders.
I can’t imagine, in a combat environment, if I’m ordering a Green Beret to go charge the machine gun and he’s wondering in the back of his mind, ‘Am I doing that because he’s black?’ Or you have other white soldiers that have been told they should encompass their white guilt for past sins. I think that’s incredibly disruptive.
Washington Examiner: Based on your more than two decades of service in uniform, do you believe there is a problem with racism and white supremacy in the U.S. military?
Waltz: I think racism exists everywhere. We should always strive to eliminate it. The way to eliminate it is to keep the military merit-based and mission-focused. It is about achieving the standards that we have set to defend the nation. But when we start infusing in the very earliest part with 18-, 19-year-old cadets that race is a focus, I think that’s moving in the exact opposite direction.
I want to be clear that we absolutely should have a clear understanding of our very checkered past as a country with race, but inculcating our future leaders to be focused on race, I think the pendulum is swinging way too far.
Washington Examiner: We’ve only touched briefly on your career, but you’ve written a book, Warrior Diplomat: A Green Beret’s Battles from Washington to Afghanistan. I imagine you have some great stories to tell.
Waltz: Yeah, with President [George W.] Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and out on the ground [in combat], but the proceeds go to veterans charities, by the way, so that is not a shameless book plug on my part.
Note: This interview was edited for length and clarity
Jamie McIntyre is the Washington Examiner’s senior writer on defense and national security. His morning newsletter, “Jamie McIntyre’s Daily on Defense,” is free and available by email subscription at dailyondefense.com.
