LOU DOBBS: Fox News national security analyst K.T. McFarland. K.T. holding national security posts under Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan; former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Fox News contributor John Bolton; Bill Gertz, senior editor for the Washington Free Beacon. Good to have you all here. K.T., let’s turn to North Korea. What in the world is going on with North Korea?
K.T. MCFARLAND: Well it’s not a propaganda exercise. If the North Koreans successfully test a long-range missile that’s capable of reaching the United States, and then they successfully test a nuclear weapon, that means North Korea joins China and Russia being the third country that has the ability to take a nuclear weapon and deliver it to the United States, for which we have no defense.
DOBBS: And do they have such a missile?
MCFARLAND: I think they’re getting their ways towards such a missile. I don’t think they—they’ve had two tests so far, they’ve not been successful. But each one’s gotten a little better. They will at some point have it. But, frankly, the worry for me is not so much North Korea as it is Iran. Iran has engineers on the ground; Iran is looking to see what North Korea gets away with, because if we don’t stop North Korea, nobody’s going to stop Iran.
DOBBS: Seeking to emulate whatever they can, presumably the successful part of the North Korean effort. Bill Gertz, your view?
BILL GERTZ: Well, clearly, I think the real implication here is that you have the Obama administration making concessions to North Korea, repeatedly, offering food assistance, and what’s the response? They’re getting ready to launch a long-range missile disguised as a space launcher. I think it’s a real problem. The lesson’s there for Iran, as well—if somebody makes concessions, you pocket them and move ahead with your own program.
DOBBS: I want to first get your reaction to the North Korean potential launch, potential nuclear task, and why in the world this administration hasn’t better managed its foreign policy with North Korea.
JOHN BOLTON: I think it’s succumbed to the same blandishments that the Bush administration did and the Clinton administration did. The notion that you can negotiate with North Korea to get them to end their nuclear ballistic missile programs, that you can trust commitments that North Korea makes, and the blind faith that this sort of deal making is going to solve the problem—obviously it’s not. One thing I will say, given the way North Korea set this up: I would hate to be a North Korean rocket scientist if that thing blows up on the launch pad.
DOBBS: Let’s turn to the fact that [unclear] leaked a few weeks ago, the story of Israel its relationship to Azerbaijan and succeeding in winning use of—putting together the plans to strike Iran with the approval of Azerbaijan. We’re now hearing more stories that this administration is leaking more details that are not helpful to the Israelis.
BOLTON: No, I think the administration had concluded long ago that their private pressure had failed, and therefore they were going to go public. I think the first measure of that was Defense Sec. Panetta predicting that if Israel struck Iran it would be in the April-May-June period. More has since come out designed to put pressure on Israel not to take military action.
DOBBS: I’m going to turn, if I may now, K.T., to China. One of its lead generals making at the very least bellicose statements to the Philippines over disputed territory in the South China Sea, specifically the Spratly Islands. How serious is this, and is there any sign of response by the Obama administration?
MCFARLAND: No, and there should be a response. Why? China’s trying to do three things with this. One, it’s trying to say, we’ve got first dibs on whatever oil you find in this region because it’s ours. Secondly, they’re saying, "This is an area that we want to control. We want to decide who goes through the South China Sea." The third thing they’ve done is their whole military build-up has been anti-access. In other words, their military is designed to do one thing: Keep everybody out of the South China Sea. And by threatening the Philippines, guess who they’re really threatening—us, because we have a mutual defense treaty with the Philippines.
DOBBS: The lettering on your blouse—on your top—"Navy," because your daughter serves in the Navy. This Navy is downsizing.
MCFARLAND: Right, which is exactly the wrong direction. The president’s talked about pivoting—he wants to get out of the Middle East and focus on Asia and the Pacific. What does that mean? That means an increased need for Air Force and Naval assets. What’s he doing about it? He’s cutting the number of ships we’ve got. Even if ships get better and more qualified, the problem is, the oceans are just as big as they ever were. So if you have fewer ships, even if they’re more capable ships, you can’t do what the president wants to do.
DOBBS: How reliable an ally, Bill Gertz, would the United States be if it came to a conflict between the Philippines and China over these islands, other disputed territories in that region?
GERTZ: Well, it’s already a cause for concern. There’s concerns about how reliable an ally the U.S. would be even in helping Taiwan, even though we have a law that would protect them. There is this shift to Asia; the Pentagon is moving ahead with a new Air-C Battle Concept. The Philippines wants the U.S. to return there in a bigger way—
DOBBS: Let me interject there very quickly, and I apologize for interrupting, but I should be clear: When we’re talking about what we believe to be vast oil reserves throughout the area, vast mineral deposits that would be helpful to Western or Asian powers. So you’re saying the Philippines would welcome U.S. military presence?
GERTZ: Yes.
DOBBS: That would be a marked change from what has been the past 30 year history.
GERTZ: Sure. All the nations of that region are scared to death of the Chinese. They’re telling the U.S. that if you don’t come here in a bigger way, all of us are going to be speaking Chinese in 10 years or less, so they want a bigger U.S. presence. The Vietnamese are the same way. The Chinese have been referring to the South China Sea as, in private discussions, as their driveway. The U.S. is trying to push back and trying to develop a greater military presence and alliance structure in the region to counteract that.
DOBBS: Professor Bolton, you get the last word on China.
BOLTON: This Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea and elsewhere is the exact opposite of the narrative China wants America to believe—that it’s undergoing a peaceful rise, will be a responsible stakeholder in world affairs. This could be the face of the real China. It is a true potential threat to the United States, and we are doing next to nothing to get ready for it.
DOBBS: And with the contest within the Communist Party in China at this very moment, the face of China is very difficult to discern accurately.