Hosted by Christina Ruffini and Sir Richard Dearlove
Guest
Don Bacon
Don Bacon is a self-described 'old school Reagan Republican' who outlines how China, Iran, and North Korea are propping up Russia's war effort and why a Ukrainian defeat could embolden an attack on Taiwan.
Episode Summary
In this week’s episode, Congressman Don Bacon, a self-described “old school Reagan Republican,” joins hosts Sir Richard Dearlove and Christina Ruffini to unpack the internal battle over Republican foreign policy and what it means for U.S. credibility abroad. Bacon outlines how China, Iran, and North Korea are propping up Russia’s war effort and why he believes a Ukrainian defeat could embolden an attack on Taiwan. He also weighs in on the state of U.S. air power, the future of drone warfare, and the risks of prioritizing party loyalty over national security. Plus, Congressman Bacon and Sir Richard reflect on similar experiences working in Nebraska.
Episode produced by Situation Room Studios. Original music composed and produced by Leo Sidran.
Listen & Subscribe
- Watch on YouTube
- Listen on Apple Podcasts
- Listen on Spotify
Transcript
COLD OPEN
Bacon: He's gonna go down as a terrible president. If Ukraine falls, it's gonna be on him. And he's saying it's gonna be on Biden. No. This war is now on his presidency.
INTRODUCTION
Raffini: Hello, welcome to One Decision. I'm your host, Christina Raffini, joined today by, of course, my cohost, Sir Richard Dearlove. Today's guest is Congressman Don Bacon. He is a Republican from Nebraska, but what makes him stand out is his open criticism of Trump's policy when it comes to Ukraine and Russia. He also has some strong opinions about a few other things, so we wanted to sit down and get the lay of the land with somebody from the middle of the country. Have a listen. Congressman, thank you so much for being with us. I think I just wanna start off by getting your reaction actually to something the president said because I know you've been, even though you are a Republican, you've been a bit of a critic of President Trump's dealings with and policy towards Moscow and how it's impacting the war in Ukraine. And Trump said, quote, we get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin if you wanna know the truth. He's very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless. And I'd love to get your reaction to that quote and kinda tell us how you feel about the Russia policy as it stands at the moment.
INTERVIEW
Bacon: I'm an old school Republican, Ronald Reagan Republican. I first got involved with politics when I was 13 years old, and he ran against Jerry Ford in 1976. I've studied The Soviet Union and Russia my whole life in the air force and beyond. I've known Putin was a terrible guy from the get go. He's killed his rivals. In fact, the Russians have shot down two airliners or severing underground cables. I don't know what it takes to know that Putin's a bad guy and that they're wrong in this invasion. I think it's late, but I'm glad it's happening now that President Trump is coming to this conclusion. Better late than never. I'll just say it that way. If Ukraine falls, Moldova will be next, maybe Azerbaijan, maybe Georgia. General Petraeus was saying it will be Lithuania. I just know that a bully has to be stopped. And I'm so glad that President Trump has made a course correction here. I just hope he sticks with it. And I hope we see some results quickly.
Dearlove: I've been more anxious about this issue than any other because I do think that there's some other aspects of Trump's policy which are positive. But on Ukraine, it's been near to disaster. Is this a genuine permanent shift? Because there's been evidence of moves in the direction that, I think you and I would be entirely in agreement if you're an old Reaganite Republican.
Bacon: You know, I understand that foreign policy very well. Are we going back in that direction? I hope so. But people ask me, can I read what's going on in President Trump's mind? I can't. I hope this is a permanent change. If he doesn't change his policy, he's gonna go down as a terrible president. If Ukraine falls, it's gonna be on him. And he's saying it's gonna be on Biden. No. This war is now on his presidency. And President Biden, I thought, did a poor job helping out Ukraine. The weapons came too slow, too late with a lot of rules of engagement that limited their response, which wasn't helpful. But President Trump's been worse. But I think that kind of talk, I think, does motivate him. He wants to go down as a good president. And so I've been telling his administration privately and publicly, you're gonna go down in history how this Ukraine thing finishes up. You want to be on the good side of this. An independent democratic Ukraine with a free market economic system and rule of law is a game changer for Europe. It can have a tremendous impact for decades to come in Eastern Europe. So this is an international security interest, and I applaud the British. I think the British have been great on this issue. I think the British have been a good influence on Americans many times in our last hundred years, so this is one where we need their influence. That's our role from time to time.
Dearlove: I'm gonna follow up with a specific air force question, given what you've just said about Ukraine. You've got a whole lot of A-10s sitting out in the desert waiting to be scrapped. That's my understanding. Why on earth can't those A-10s just be given to the Ukrainians?
Bacon: Well, I think we surely could, and those F-16s are really being effective. Right? Everybody poo-pooed the idea of sending F-16s to Ukraine, but they've used them very effectively, and they're using the F-16s to shoot down these drones, like one missile shoot down three or four of these drones. And so the F-16s have been very effective. The A-10s are a close support and it could be hard to use them in a high air defense environment and make them effective. But I think if our guys study this, and they think the A-10s could be effective in that environment, then by all means we should send them that way. I just worry that they're pretty easy targets if you have a plethora of SA-11s or SA-13s, and the Russians, they do. So it could be a dangerous threat environment for an A-10.
Raffini: It was surprising to me that your take on this is not more common within your party. Why do you think we don't hear similar things from your fellow Republicans, even though I might hear them off the record or they might say them behind the scenes, they're not voting that way, and they don't seem to be putting a lot of pressure on the president. Is it because they just want to seem loyal to the president, or has the school of thought among conservatives really, really changed so much to noninterventionists that they really truly, in their hearts, just don't wanna get involved?
Bacon: I think there's a couple of factors. One, they didn't wanna get on the wrong side of President Trump. However, I will tell you, I have a lot of folks who privately contact me, thanking me for speaking up. And some of these guys are chairmen of the committees. I wanna go down in history knowing that I was on the right side of this Ukrainian issue and a few other things, but not just Ukraine. I don't know how else to help persuade President Trump. He doesn't really right now care too much if a Democrat disagrees. So he does care when Republicans disagree with him. And so I felt like it was necessary to be a Republican and be vocal about my support for Ukraine with the thought that if I could pull enough people with me, it's gonna make them reconsider this policy. But right now on the populist end of this discussion, you have like four or five people that have a million followers, the Tucker Carlsons, they have a very outsized voice on this Russia versus Ukraine issue. I mean, the stuff they spew out there, it's not true. But a lot of Republicans have been persuaded about it. So some of my friends in Congress, I think they themselves think, yeah, we gotta help Ukraine, but they're intimidated when they have very vocal, quote, Republicans opposing the policy. You know, a lot of these guys, their number one concern is to be reelected. So they're afraid of treading over this thin ice in their mind. I think it's always better to stand on conviction and say this is very important to our national security. What's gonna happen after Ukraine falls? I'll tell you, it's gonna be Moldova, Azerbaijan, maybe Georgia. I can just go on. I'm the Baltic security chairman on the House side for the Republicans, and they know the fight in Ukraine is their fight. But we gotta be able to have this talk with our constituents and the voters, and we gotta fight for the hearts and minds of the Republican party. That's why I don't wanna hide behind a wall and follow the flute player off the cliff. No. I wanna say stop. This is important for America. This is what the Republican Party has stood for since World War II. I'm hoping to try to get us back on track.
Dearlove: Don, can I ask you a more specific question about the sort of evolution of warfare in Ukraine? Obviously, the technology of drones has transformed the battlefield. So you've got these very inexpensive but lethal capabilities which are dominating how that war is being fought. But on the other hand, we're still building very expensive, super sophisticated manned air platforms. I mean, how do you see this evolving? We have a strategic defense review here in The UK, and, of course, they've decided how much to spend. The question now is how you spend it.
Bacon: Air superiority's always been needed in these fights. And the problem is Russia and Ukraine don't have air superiority. Now drones have grown in importance because they can't extend the fight in the other person's airspace without getting shot down. But the drones are cheap, and they can swarm. The Russians are nearing a million casualties. And the Ukrainians are using drones like artillery and sniper fire. They're using drones to hit these soldiers, doing very effective. But I would point out that Israel used F-35, F-16, F-15Es, air refueling tankers to be able to bomb Iran. And drones played a very small role. So let's not get rid of the big air force. But there is a role for these drones. I think in a China fight, we need B-21s, we're gonna need F-47s down the road. But there's a role for these drones, particularly underwater drones, sea drones, air drones, to help stop any kind of amphibious invasion. So I guess my answer would be you need both right now. I think you gotta have a blend of these capabilities, but I wouldn't trade away air superiority.
Dearlove: Can I just ask you briefly about the state of The US intelligence and security community? Some of us were, let's say, worried by some of Trump's appointments or key appointments. We won't personalize this. But some of the messages I get now, actually, the institutional strength of the community in The United States, its relationships, for example, with allies like The UK, is in pretty good shape and is functioning reasonably well. And some of our anxieties about inappropriate appointments haven't really been realized, and the weight of the institution has really influenced and affected the people appointed to be a senior representative. So it's in reasonably good health. Now I am an optimist, and I hope you're gonna confirm that my optimistic view of this crucial facility and capability for the Western world is in reasonably good health.
Bacon: I think it is too. And I've had a great relationship with the RAF. The RAF flies the RC-135s as well. So the Americans have a fleet of RC-135s, signals intelligence aircraft, and the British squadron. And I was the commander at this time. So I had the honor of training the British aircrews and maintenance at Offutt. And I got to fly with the British. We built a system that all the data goes on one database. We get to share that database. And we have Americans on RAF and the British on The US airplanes. And now we're coordinating our scheduling so that if the British are somewhere, we can go somewhere else so that we're maximizing. I mean, that's the benefit of a close relationship with a great ally. And if I could, hopefully the British listeners, when I was in Iraq with General Petraeus, we had a three-star British general there, flag officer. And I remember him saying, hey, we don't have to kill everybody. That's bad. Some of these guys we can win over. And some of these guys are persuadable. Let's work on that. Some of these guys are bad, you got to kill them. Some of these guys are in the middle, let's test it. Maybe we can win them over, maybe not. We'll make a decision. And I think the American view was we're going to target all these guys. And that's always our mindset in Iraq. I would just point out the British shaped our strategy there a lot. The Sunni Awakening probably would not have happened without the British influence of, okay, what bad guys can we make into good guys? And I just thought it was a unique British perspective, and I think it influenced Americans in a good way.
Dearlove: Well, the Sunni Awakening, I would claim a little bit of credit having meetings in the Pentagon with Rumsfeld during that whole crucial period of trying to adjust a policy inside Iraq when we were trying to build constructively after the invasion based on, let's say, The UK's historical experience of having had tough times in Iraq in the past. Anyway, this is very interesting intelligence. It's not quite history. It's almost contemporary, but it's still very appropriate.
Raffini: We've talked about what you think about the administration's Russia policy, but in a kind of connected way, I was talking to a diplomatic source about how apparently a Chinese ambassador let it slip to a European ambassador that the reason they are supporting Russia in Ukraine is not because they have strong feelings about supporting Moscow or getting rid of Ukraine or any kind of allyship. It is more because if Russia fails in Ukraine, they will no longer be seen as a superpower. And China will be the only competing superpower left for The US, and they don't want The US to turn all of its ire and focus onto China. So they're propping up Russia just so they have someone else that The US can kind of beat up on, target, I guess, which I don't know how much we've been doing that. But I'm wondering what your take on that is and where you think the nexus between America's Russia strategy and Chinese strategy, if there is one, kind of lies.
Bacon: This dispute with Russia and Ukraine involving us sending out resources there, it's probably a positive thing for China because otherwise, we'd be sending more resources to Taiwan so they could deter any kind of Chinese invasion. I think we should be clear eyed about this. Russia is being propped up by China. China's buying their energy. They're sending hard currency into Russia, so Russia can use that money to buy weapons. Iran is selling lots of military stuff to Russia, particularly those drones that they're using to bomb Ukrainian cities. We know North Korea is sending artillery shells to Russia. Plus, now they're gonna send another 30,000 North Korean troops to help in this fight. America often says, why are we in this fight? Well, if we're not in this fight, North Korea, Iran, China, they're in this fight, and they're helping out Russia. Ukraine needs to have allies as well to counterbalance this. China's gonna watch how we handle this. And it's gonna inform them on how they should proceed with Taiwan.
Dearlove: Can we touch on the strike in Iran, on particularly the main one where they used these large bunker buster bombs, the big ones that have never been used operationally before. Up until that point, I would have said Trump's almost a classic isolationist, but that seems to mitigate that judgment at least, if not to disprove it. Knowing what the capability is like, where do you think we stand at the moment strategically with relation to the Iranian nuclear program?
Bacon: I think it has been set back a lot, but Iran has not been very cooperative in their negotiations. So I think they're asking for Israel to go in again. There were a lot more targets that Israel could have hit and America could have hit. Like for example, the Iranian Navy. That would have been a good target. Probably smart to sink that navy in the Persian Gulf so that they don't threaten our ships anymore as we move oil in and out of the Straits Of Hormuz. It looks to me like Iran hasn't learned a lesson. I think if they look like they're trying to reconstitute their nuclear program, Israel will go back in and do it again. I try to understand the difference for President Trump's perspective on Israel versus Iran versus Ukraine and Russia and Taiwan and China. I really don't know how he differentiates because to me, all three of our national security interests were dealing with allies. I don't know why he highlights one more than the other, frankly. I do think he sees a lot of benefits of a strong relationship with Israel. It's probably part of it. And maybe he doesn't necessarily see the positive impacts of a Ukraine relationship, but that's why I think maybe there's some benefit of this minerals deal with Ukraine. The more US invests in Ukraine, I think that may be a good thing from the perspective of President Trump, to keep him involved.
Dearlove: Don, can I ask you another sort of warfare question, which is the dimension of space and the amount of effort maybe the Chinese and the Russians are putting in to the importance of space as a strategic dimension in any future conflict? Are you confident in terms of your understanding of what American research and capability is that you still lead the world as a superpower in preparing for conflict in that dimension? Because it seems to some of us that it's very worrying if we allow, for example, the Chinese to progress seriously their capability.
Bacon: For a while there, The United States, I thought, was falling behind Russia and China in the space realm. I think SpaceX with Elon Musk, say what you will about Mr. Musk, what he has brought to the space capabilities for America is tremendous. Now we lead the world again in space launches, satellite placement. And so I think we have really grown significantly because of the private industry coming in and just transforming the space industry for America. I'm bullish about where we're at on the space side. There are concerns that Russia and China are investing significantly in the anti-satellite capabilities. There's reporting that China and Russia are looking at putting nuclear weapons into space. That's alarming because that gives us zero warning time of any attack. So there are some concerning areas on the space front. I really think America's made a giant leap forward in the last five years in this area, and it's the private industry that's transformed us.
Raffini: You've also been really critical of America's nuclear launch detection system. You've said it's outdated, it's not up to snuff, it may not protect us when we need it. Can you explain a little bit what you mean and what you think needs to be done there?
Bacon: Yeah, this is something that I was for a while the lone voice on. And I know what I'm talking about here. I used to be the guy that had the nuclear codes. For twenty-nine years, we had an airplane called the Looking Glass that flew twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. They did eight hour shifts. We had approximately 50 aircraft. Every minute of the day, we had an airplane airborne with a general on board and a battle staff so that if Russia or the Soviet Union at the time attacked Omaha with Strategic Air Command or the Pentagon or the White House, that if our command authorities were destroyed on the ground, there would always be a general airborne that could take over our ICBMs, our subs and our bombers, and command them and do a deterrence and do a counterstrike. In 1990, we stopped doing that because the Berlin Wall fell. We thought there wasn't really a threat. But what we did is we put these airplanes on a fifteen minute alert. And that's what we've been doing ever since 1990. And I'm all right with the fifteen minute alert for a while. But now we have weapons that can hit us in fifteen minutes, hypersonics. And also we're talking space capabilities with no warning time. I believe we've got to go back to a capability of a 24/7 airborne capability. So the Russians and Chinese know that no matter what they do, if they hit the White House with no warning, Pentagon and Stratcom, that the US military has the ability to command its ICBMs, subs, and bombers, and we can do a counterstrike. So there's nothing they can do to stop us from doing a counterstrike. That's what we gotta communicate. But I would put this as a priority one for the military to get done.
Dearlove: Is the Trump policy of building a dome along the lines, you know, Israel's tiny geographically, you can build a dome over it. Is it practical to have that objective for The United States?
Bacon: Well, it'll look a lot different than Israel's. Obviously, the Israelis have the Arrow missile with our radar and our satellite support. They have the David's Sling, which is a more intermediate range interceptor, and they have Iron Dome, which is short range. We will have to have some long range stuff that's focused on Russia and China. We have some that's focused on North Korea right now. I imagine we'll have to have a layered defense as well. They probably can't cover the entire country, but we could cover important targets within our country. And maybe some of our major cities and things like that. But I imagine it'll take a while to get there. It'll have to be incremental. Right now, the main thing we got to do is build the sensors that can track these capabilities. Right now, we don't have the right kinds of sensors in place even. So let's do it incrementally. Let's get the sensors in place, maybe putting in defenses for key target areas, and just keep building on it until you have a more complete defense.
Raffini: You mentioned Elon Musk. I think he was a pretty big donor to one of your last campaign cycle. So I'm wondering what you think about his rift with the president that just seems to be expanding, and now he's launched this third party. He says he's gonna support candidates and try to get influence, gonna try to flip a couple house seats, couple senate seats. Do you think that's at all realistic?
Bacon: Well, I mean, I think it's a problem for the Republican party. And I thought it was a little embarrassing to see the two of them. It's like a child or junior high fight going on, calling each other names and things like that. And I think we could be better than that. Even though I think Elon did help us out significantly last election.
Raffini: I know that you're in Nebraska. And, Sir Richard, you have actually been to Nebraska. Why were you there? And did you two overlap? Like, what's going on here?
Dearlove: Well, I went to Offutt on a really official visit, and they had some course which they were running for all sorts of military attachés who were based in DC. So they had people from various embassies, and they asked me to go partly on a visit, partly to give a keynote address as the other half of the special relationship, let's say. So I really enjoyed it. I was quite surprised. I've never, you know, I know The States quite well, but I know the West Coast and the East Coast. That part of The States, I had no familiarity with. So it was quite a shock to get there and realize the distances and, to an extent, the sort of rural isolation. But it was fascinating. I really enjoyed it. And, of course, Offutt is so massive. It has a circumference of I don't know how many miles.
Bacon: Well, it's about 10,000 people work on base. I was the commander of Offutt in 2011 and '12, and so I was the base commander there, best job I ever had.
Dearlove: The hospitality was phenomenal. Even on the base, the distances were huge. I was quite taken aback by the scale of everything.
Bacon: When did you visit?
Dearlove: Oh, god. Well, it must have been towards the end of my time as head of service. So this is in the early 2000s, somewhere back there.
Bacon: I was at Offutt in 1998, 2001. I was a major at Offutt. When I came back in 2011, it was as a one-star. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Well, I love Offutt. I've lived all over the world, four continents, 16 places in the air force. My family enjoyed Omaha the best. So it's good home.
Raffini: We also like to ask, we talk a lot about decision making and how that works and how that influences leadership. And if there's a decision either from your military career or your political career that really kind of exemplifies those tough decisions and how you navigated it and how it impacted the events?
Bacon: I just believe you try to do the right thing. There is a saying, a four-star general told me once, if you're falling on your sword every day, there's something wrong. But if you've never fallen on your sword, there's something wrong. I think but in the end, you want to do what's right. And I think if you could lay out a moral case for what's right for the country, what's right for the unit, normally good things happen if you treat people respectfully. You've got to have a moral compass. And you got to work hard and you got to treat people right. I think those are the ingredients for success anywhere for that matter. You know, I was a five-time commander. And I inherited units that were broken. I've also inherited units that were very good. And in the end, stand for what's right, have a vision for where you wanna go and treat people well, work hard. And I just found no matter where I was at, good things happened with that philosophy.
Raffini: Do you think your fellow members of Congress are suffering a little bit from a lack of courage? There's so many people, as we were just discussing, who disagree with the president, with their bosses, with whomever in private, but then won't say that when it really matters. Is that something we're suffering from as a culture? And how do we fix that?
Bacon: Leaders who only want yes men around them, I think they fail. They're not giving good feedback. They don't correct bad decisions. And so I think a good president or good leaders don't want someone, and a congress in this case, that makes the president's policies better. And I'm hoping my voice on Ukraine will have that effect over time. And it can't just be me, obviously. I need some others to speak it up too. I also feel the same way about Canada. I really have not figured out why the president has treated Canada so badly. The Canadians are our friends. They're abiding by the trade agreements. They are pulling their businesses out of America right now. They're costing American companies a lot of money. They're not vacationing here because we were stepping on their toes. And I get it. I would have felt the same way. What purpose did it serve to humiliate the Canadians? It served no purpose. I wish I could have been there with the president in the White House, the Oval Office, and saying, why, Mr. President, why are you doing this? Because it doesn't serve our interest. It doesn't serve our interest to humiliate Denmark. Denmark lost more people per capita in Afghanistan than any other European country, I'm told. They've been good allies. Why treat them like they're mediocre or poor allies? They've tried to do their best to be great allies. So I don't really understand some of this, and I hope my job is to be an independent Republican in this case and offer what I think is criticisms to help point us the right way.
Raffini: Congressman, thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate it. To everybody listening, thank you so much, and we'll catch you next time. Congressman, thank you very much. Great discussion. That's it for this week's episode of One Decision. A special thank you once again to Congressman Don Bacon. And for exclusive content with world leaders, visit 1decision.com and our YouTube page. I'm Christina Raffini. Thanks for listening.
