With the Republicans now in control of the House, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), a former federal prosecutor with a specialty in anti-corruption and counterterrorism cases, is now chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. It was McCaul’s resolution condemning the Chinese Communist Party for their spy balloon that passed the House unanimously. But China was McCaul’s top concern well before Beijing’s brazen violation of U.S. sovereign airspace, as Washington Examiner senior writer for defense and national security Jamie McIntyre heard when he interviewed McCaul earlier this month.
[This interview has been edited for length and clarity]
'WE HAVE SUBPOENA POWER': MCCAUL HINTS AT SHOWDOWN WITH BIDEN ADMINISTRATION ON AFGHANISTAN
Washington Examiner: How has your experience as a deputy attorney general at Justice, then after 9/11, chief of counterterrorism and national security as a U.S. attorney in Texas, and finally ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, informed your role now that you’re chairman?
McCaul: I feel like I've got an interesting take on China. I've been a student of Communist China and how they operate, and now I feel it's really served me well in this position as chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. One of my biggest goals will be to stop exporting this technology that they then turn and put in their most advanced weapon systems.
Probably the best example of this is the hypersonic missile that was built on the backbone of American technology. We gave them a lot of this. They steal an enormous amount of intellectual property, but we don't have to sell it to them.
I've had very good discussions with Secretary [Antony] Blinken on this and Commerce Secretary [Gina] Raimondo. Unlike in the Clinton days, you're seeing a Commerce Department that I think is starting to wake up to the fact that we can't always lean toward industry alone. We have to have security built in so we're not selling to companies that are front stores for the Chinese military.
Washington Examiner: When 2024 comes to an end two years from now, what do you hope to have accomplished as the chairman?
McCaul: To stop the sales of our technology to China that go into their military's advanced weapon systems. I think that would make us safer. I think China is probably the biggest threat to our long-term national security in terms of a great power competition. What we're seeing now is an attempt by [Vladimir] Putin and Chairman Xi [Jinping] to redraw the maps that were drawn after World War II, the largest invasion in Europe since World War II with Ukraine. When I go to Poland, they compare it to 1939, Hitler invading. Had we stopped Hitler at that point, we would've saved a lot of blood and treasure.
Washington Examiner: What is the lesson from Ukraine when it comes to Taiwan?
McCaul: If China invades Taiwan, they will own or break 90% of the global advanced semiconductor capability, which would send us into a global depression. Their ambitions are very big. This is Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Iran's sending in the drones; North Korea is sending in artillery. They're all four together against freedom and democracy in the West. I go back to Reagan: What would Ronald Reagan do? What he did during the Cold War with the Soviet Union inspired me. I know we've had Iraq and Afghanistan, and there's war fatigue, but I call this the struggle for the global balance of power right now. What's happening, it's in my judgment very historic. What is happening, and what we do today, will impact tomorrow's next generations.
Washington Examiner: How long can the U.S. and its allies continue to pour billions into the war? How does it end?
McCaul: I've been very critical of the administration for the slow-walking of this. Why is this taking so long? Because when you give them everything they need, the Ukrainians have surprised the world in that they can actually beat the Russians. I mean, with less than 3% of our Department of Defense budget, they've annihilated the Russian military; they've humiliated them. But we're still not giving them everything they need, like this longer-range artillery called [Army Tactical Missile System] that can hit the Iranian drones in Crimea. It's also directly tied to Communist China. The better Ukraine does, the more deterrence. If Russia's successful, the deterrence may not be there.
When I first went to visit our 82nd Airborne in Poland, you had 50 miles of Russian tanks stuck in the mud. We could have easily taken out 50 miles of tanks, but we had one hand tied behind our back. I think if we give them everything they need, they could win this thing. So what is victory? That's a great question. It's stopping Russian aggression, and it's stopping it from going further.
Washington Examiner: Is that the argument you make to the folks within your own party, some of whom want to reduce or even end aid? [This month, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and 10 GOP co-sponsors introduced the "Ukraine Fatigue Resolution," calling for the United States to "end its military and financial aid to Ukraine” and urging all combatants to reach a peace agreement.]
McCaul: They all see China, the Chinese economy, as the threat. They don't understand that the economy of China is directly aligned with Russia, with Putin. They are providing components to them for weapons. They are buying their energy. They are providing satellite imagery to the Wagner Group. You can't dissect the two, and for that matter, you can't dissect Iran and North Korea.
Now, what I like to say is, "Look, they need to know where the money's gone." What I want to do is basically be able to tell the story of where has the money gone. A third of it's gone into replenishing our stockpile and modernizing our weapon systems, a third is going to our defense contractors to make new weapons, which we really need, and then a third's going into Ukraine.
If I can explain that to them, explain the accountability and the audits taking place, I think there's a greater level of confidence in terms of what we're doing. And then bring the Trump national security team in to say that this is the right foreign policy. I think those combined would go a long ways.
That's why I want these weapons in now because Putin's plan is to delay this as long as he can. He knows that the longer he drags it out, the more it plays to his benefit because the will of the American people will start to fade and therefore the will of Congress. When I talk to Secretary Blinken, I'm like, "You've got a window here, and you need to give them the weapons they need now."
Washington Examiner: The rationale for, as you say, “slow-rolling” the provision of advanced weapons, such as fighter planes and longer-range missiles, seems to be based on the fear of provoking Putin, who keeps making veiled threats about using nuclear weapons. Should Americans be worried about a nuclear war with Russia?
McCaul: Every briefing I've had on the nuclear threat assesses they're just saber-rattling. We've had no indication they've deployed any of their tactical nuke systems. We would most likely see that happening if and when that ever happened. I think the message that's being back-channeled to Putin, not only by the United States but NATO, is that if you cross that line, that's a line too far, and there will be grave consequences.
They said it was too provocative with [Stinger anti-aircraft missiles]. It wasn't. They said too provocative with [Javelin anti-tank missiles]. It wasn't. [HIMARS precision artillery rocket launchers], and they said the tanks would be too provocative. Now they're going in. Has that provoked nuclear? No.
Washington Examiner: Putin seems willing to sacrifice thousands of his own troops as cannon fodder in futile infantry assaults while killing as many Ukrainian civilians as he can in a desperate attempt to stave off defeat. Russian battlefield casualties are approaching 200,000 dead and wounded. Is it realistic to think Putin will ever back down given that it could very well mean his demise as well?
McCaul: When I was meeting with my counterparts from Ukraine, Poland, and Lithuania, they think his support in the country is starting to wane, and you see the people trying to leave the country. They're throwing prisoners on the front line, 75,000 of them. The way I look at the will of the Ukrainian fighter versus the will of the Russian fighter, the will of the Ukrainian fighter is far stronger. Again, the goal here is not to ever put an American soldier in the theater. We want to prevent that from happening. If we allow Putin to run roughshod through Ukraine and go into Moldova, into Georgia, and then the Baltic States, I mean, when does that end?
Washington Examiner: Recently, a four-star general, former Indo-Pacific deputy commander who now runs the Air Mobility Command, ruffled a few feathers with a memo to his troops in which he said his “gut” tells him the U.S will go to war with China in 2025. The Pentagon distanced itself from the general’s prediction, saying it was “not representative of the department’s view on China.” Your take?
McCaul: I hope he's wrong, but I fear he is right, in the sense that China has several options. Reunification of Taiwan is a stated goal, and they're very intent on reunifying Taiwan. I think their first step will be to do what they've done in the past, and that is to try to influence an election.
Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen’s party did not do well last election. China is using disinformation in Taiwan to say that President Tsai's party is a proxy of the United States that wants to go to war with China. That rhetoric is, I think, getting some traction, which concerns me. The election is a year from now, January of 2024, and if they can influence that election and take it over without a shot fired, that's going to be their first option. If that fails, then I think they're looking at the military option.
Washington Examiner: What would look like?
McCaul: It would involve either a blockade or an outright invasion of the island. That is going to be extremely complicated. If China invades Taiwan and we decide to go to war, it would be my committee that would have to either pass a declaration of war or an authorization for the use of military force. It would necessarily involve the United States, Japan, Australia, the United Kingdom, and possibly our NATO allies, and it would be intense. The first wave would be a major cyberattack on Taiwan to shut it down and a major cyberattack in the United States to hit our power grid to change the will of the American people to "Why do we care about this island off the coast of China?" I've been in several war games on this, and the escalation could get very severe.
Washington Examiner: So it would not be like the Ukraine model, where the U.S. and its allies supply the materiel and Taiwan supplies the manpower?
McCaul: If I can draw a distinction between Ukraine and Taiwan, two very, very different circumstances, the first being that Ukraine is capable of fighting on their own if we give them the weapons. Taiwan is not in that situation. Taiwan cannot fight this war alone, even if we gave them the weapons. By the way, the ones I signed off on — because I signed off on all four military weapons sales — have still not arrived in Taiwan. That's for deterrence.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Washington Examiner: Is the problem that we don’t have the weapons given the number of munitions shipped to Ukraine? I note a recent analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found it will take years to replenish U.S. inventories — seven years for some precision artillery rockets, 18 years for Stinger shoulder-fire anti-aircraft missiles.
McCaul: Well, first of all, some of the weapons are different for Taiwan and Ukraine. Secondly, there's no question that our defense industrial base — that there is a problem there. Remember that with the [$40 billion in supplemental appropriations passed by Congress last year,] countries on the eastern flank of NATO are throwing in their old Russian equipment, and we’re backfilling their stockpiles with more modern American weapon systems. Also, a third of that supplemental is going toward manufacturing more weapons systems.
Mike Rogers, the chairman of Armed Services, and I — because I sign off on the sales and Rogers is Armed Services — we're working with the Pentagon and State [Department] to fix what I think is broken, and that's our ability to be more agile and build weapon systems faster.