Hey guys, check it out.
Donations of $50 or more to the Libertarian Institute or to scotthorton.org and you get a signed copy of the paperback book.
Sign up for the podcast feeds at scotthorton.org, iTunes, Stitcher and all of that, especially for the interview feed.
I need to do a new Q&A show for you guys, I know.
But anyway, all that is there.
Patreon.com if you want to support at patreon.com.
Any new supporter at $1 or more at patreon.com/scotthorton show, you get two free audio books.
Shop amazon.com by way of my link at scotthorton.org.
Leave a good review for me at iTunes or Stitcher or amazon.com if you read Fool's Errand and like it, I appreciate it.
And help share these shows on Facebook and Twitter.
Sorry, I'm late.
I had to stop by the wax museum again and give the finger to FDR.
We know Al Qaeda, Zawahiri is supporting the opposition in Syria.
Are we supporting Al Qaeda in Syria?
It's a proud day for America.
And by God, we've kicked Vietnam syndrome once and for all.
Thank you very, very much.
I say it, I say it again.
You've been had.
You've been took.
You've been hoodwinked.
These witnesses are trying to simply deny things that just about everybody else accepts as a fact.
He came, he saw, he died.
We ain't killing they army, but we killing them.
We be on CNN like say our name, been saying, say it three times.
The meeting of the largest armies in the history of the world.
Then there's going to be an invasion.
All right, you guys introducing Trevor Thrall.
He is one of the heroes in the foreign relations department over there at the Cato Institute.
And he is also an associate professor at George Mason University's Schar School of Policy and Government.
And he's co-authored this incredible piece with Eric Gopner, Gopner, something like that, who is also at Cato.
And this is published at War on the Rocks, warontherocks.com.
Time to step back from the war on terror.
Welcome to the show.
How are you doing, Trevor?
Hey, I'm great, Scott.
Thanks for having me on the show.
Man, I'm really happy to have you on the show here.
And well, what a great piece that you've put together here.
It's very thoughtful, very professional, well put together, and it's utilitarian, right?
There's no emotional anything, this or that.
It's simply a foreign policy professional's measure of what is working and what is not working, assuming the premise that the mission is ending anti-American terrorism in the world.
Is that right?
Absolutely.
You know, this is the kind of thing that a president and his advisors should be basing their decisions on, dispassionate analysis of the facts and whether policies are doing what we want them to do.
I think it's pretty clear to me, and I hope a growing number of other people, that the last 16 years' worth of evidence suggests that the war on terror is not doing us any favors.
All right.
Well, so I got to say when I was reading this, it was funny.
You make so many of the same points.
And by the way, I have your book right here.
I'm going to send it out this afternoon.
But you make so many exact same points of me, only you use almost like a parallel exact quote that I use too, but just a different one that says the same thing a different way or whatever.
So many times in here, I just think it's great.
You know, it's like, well, it's like what I would have written if I had a real education.
No, this is the point.
I mean, this is not rocket science, and we should not be the only people saying it.
I'm glad you're saying it too.
I hope many other people say it from their points of view.
The facts are there for everyone to see.
And what always staggers me is how uncommon this point of view is, despite how obvious I think it is.
All right.
Now, well, geez, I'm going to go ahead and fast forward to the end, because that's what's on my mind.
What if we abolish the war on terrorism and we just call the whole thing off?
And then, yeah, but what about still all those incorrigible, horrible enemies that Bush and Obama and Trump have already made for us?
And we still have all this blowback coming?
And won't it be in some of their interest to keep attacking us in order to bait us into reacting against them?
After all, taking on the Americans is the highest badge of honor on their side of the fight, right?
You know, they're certainly a little bit a kernel of insight in that argument.
There are a lot of bad guys out there.
Many of them really hate the United States with their soul and being.
But if you look at the bulk of Americans who have died from their hand, it's Americans who are in theater, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Syria and other places actually fighting them.
If we were not there, they would have a lot harder time killing Americans.
I think the second piece is that, you know, as we talk about in our post, the fact that our continued intervention just creates more of these guys.
So the first thing you need to do to stop the flow is to stop intervening.
And then, you know, will there be maybe sort of a half-life to this thing where maybe you get sporadic anti-American attacks?
Sure, maybe.
But you got to stop at some point in order for that to work itself through the system, seems to me.
All right.
Now, well, so I don't know.
I mean, it seems like part of the problem here is that the American national security state apparently continues to think by and large that terrorism is a small price to pay for being a superpower.
That even after the September 11th attacks and all the attacks of the 1990s before that, that was when they were saying it back then.
But then September 11th, and then, of course, we had 4,500 or probably 4,000 out of the 4,500 Americans who died in Iraq War II died fighting the Sunni-based insurgency, which included a lot of al-Qaeda guys.
And yet, hey, if the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and Ansar al-Sharia and all of the Libyan veterans of Iraq War II want to go home and take on Qaddafi, America's got their back.
And we support their war there and creating chaos there that has now led to, you know, different Islamic State and al-Qaeda factions spreading their power.
Then we do the same thing in Syria, where they all said all along, well, gee, there's just not enough moderates to back.
There's too many terrorists.
If we back the moderates, the terrorists gain.
And then they kept doing it anyway, to the point where it grew up into the entire Islamic State.
And then they said, oh, now we have to have a whole new war against the Islamic State.
But so what exactly is a priority?
It doesn't seem to be preventing those sworn loyal to Ayman al-Zawahiri, you know, preventing them from existing and threatening the American people.
In fact, the Council on Foreign Relations just put out a thing right now in Foreign Affairs about how moderate and decent Syrian al-Qaeda is.
And the fact that they're sworn loyal to Ayman al-Zawahiri, I mean, yeah, you know, but still we like them.
We like them better than Assad, even now.
Yeah.
You know, it's funny you bring up the latest issue of Foreign Affairs.
Just got it at my house a few days ago.
And the cover is called America's Forgotten Wars.
And I, you know, grabbed for it and thinking, hey, optimistically, they're going to talk about how many different fronts we're fighting on and how maybe, you know, we should rethink some of those or something like that.
No, what it really is, is a couple of articles arguing that we should spend forever in the Middle East continuing to fight these things.
So it wasn't really a debate of them.
It was just like a propaganda effort.
And I think what that shows is that how deeply embedded this paradigm is.
America needs to influence and control everything, everywhere.
That's the kind of massive project that can justify, you know, a little bit of terrorism, right?
I mean, otherwise, what are you doing it for?
And I think that's what, if you peel it all away, there's just this deep-seated desire to control outcomes all over the world.
And I, you know, people, academics who believe this put a pretty picture together where they say, well, we're providing regional stability and we're preventing arms races and we're preventing wars and that helps the global economy do better because, you know, blah, blah, blah.
And frankly, I just don't buy any of that.
Yeah.
Well, good.
So let's talk about the war in Afghanistan.
We're just restarting it sort of all over again.
I mean, maybe not the whole war, but at least we're restarting the Obama years all over again, it looks like on a little bit smaller scale, but so what do you think is going to happen there?
Absolutely nothing different is my first guess.
And, you know, maybe you have a different thought, but my feeling is, you know, Obama surged, he surged much bigger than Trump is about to surge.
And that did nothing.
Trump is now going to surge a little bit.
He's going to, he's going to stop calling it nation building, but he's going to continue doing exactly the same kind of nation building that Obama was doing.
And he's going to hope for a different outcome, even though he's not doing anything different.
You know, the only thing that smells remotely different just in terms of, you know, maybe it could be different is, you know, another approach to squeeze Pakistan, although that's not really new.
It's just more public about it.
And then, and then sort of the weird one is talking about India, because, you know, and I think that's a weird sort of billiard shot attempt to, if you get India engaged, that makes Pakistan more worried.
So maybe Pakistan will pay attention better when we say do stuff.
And so to me, those things are, are tiny tidbits and not very important.
I think in the main, there's nothing new to see here and we should expect nothing different.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, if anything, that's just going to provoke the Taliban.
I mean, the Pakistanis into doubling down their support for the insurgents.
If you know, I don't know how they think.
I mean, unless they're saying, look, Pakistan, if you stop backing the insurgents, then we'll stop asking the Indians to help us.
And they make it that explicit, then that would be one thing.
But if they're supposed to back off, but we're still helping advance Indian interests in Afghanistan at their expense, then how long do we expect them to sit there and take that?
I mean, I don't know.
Exactly.
It's crazy.
But, but let me tell you two, two even crazier things that I just heard.
At a Cato, we had a Cato policy forum a couple weeks ago on Afghanistan.
We sort of set up as a debate and we had a couple of guys, you know, got from Brookings, we got from George Washington University come in and they argued for the, you know, sort of stay and here's why and how we should stay, what we should be trying to do.
You know, our Cato folks argued, kind of, let's get out.
And what I heard from the two external guys were two new reasons for staying in Afghanistan that I thought were horrible.
One was, you know, yeah, forget all the other stuff about winning in Afghanistan, but it would be useful to have Afghanistan as our Eastern flank in the war on terror, because we're going to be fighting that forever, you know, more or less.
And so we're going to need an Eastern flank.
So that was the first argument that I heard that horrified me.
And the second was, and this is really a stretch to me, but the argument for staying in Afghanistan has sort of evolved now, this guy argued, it's important to keep up in Afghanistan in order to prevent Pakistan from collapsing.
And if you can figure out the A to Z on how us helping in Afghanistan keeps Pakistan from collapsing, more power to you.
But these are not, these guys did not come up with these ideas on their own.
These are now ideas that are floating around the Pentagon and other places in DC.
And I think it's a very bad sign that no matter what happens in Afghanistan, these guys are going to figure out new reasons why we should stay there.
Yeah, well, I'm sure some public choice economists could come up with an algorithm to explain why these few interested horrible people get their way.
And the rest of us are unorganized and, and cannot prioritize these same issues.
And so we lose and they win.
And here we are in 2017, having this conversation.
And, and, you know, just at the we're in the first year of the Trump era of the Afghan war.
And you know, here's the thing about it, too.
This really bothers me, Trump in the campaign used to get it right.
He used to say, Islamist state is all Obama's fault, because he backed the war, he backed the jihadis in Libya, and in Syria, and he pulled the troops out of Iraq.
So when they rolled into Iraq, there weren't any American troops there to stop him.
And he said that a bunch of times, and then he dropped the first two.
And then it ended up just, you know, the Lindsey Graham script, the rise of ISIS is Obama's fault, not for anything he did in Libya or Syria, but only because he pulled the troops out of Iraq.
And then of course, anything that happens bad in a country after you pull troops out of it is your fault for pulling troops out of it.
Now bad things happen in a country while your troops are in it.
Well, that's just despite your very best efforts, and that's okay.
But so Trump repeated that in his Afghan war speech and said, Well, look at what happened when Obama pulled out of Iraq, bad things.
Therefore, I can't leave Afghanistan.
That's it's a DC political calculation.
And how does he get over that?
I mean, it sounds like actually, the false kind of conclusion that Hillary Clinton would make that everybody wants me to be a real tough hawk, right?
It's like, No, Robert Kagan is not everyone.
Actually, everyone is tired of that.
And they don't want that.
But in DC, inside that bubble, that's definitely what they want to hear, certainly in the White House on the National Security Council, and, and the Chief of Staff and the Defense Secretary, that's what they want to hear.
But the American people, I don't think want to hear that, you know, I don't think they care.
Honestly, who rules Kandahar, show me Kandahar, and then we'll argue about whether you care who rules it or not, you know?
Oh, absolutely.
I couldn't agree more.
I mean, I think there's no question that Trump has, I think there's, you know, always a couple of things going on.
Politics is always one of them.
And I think, unfortunately, since 9-11, especially, but this was always true during the Cold War, Democrats are always weak on national security.
So even if there's no basis in reality for the attack, attacking a Democratic president for being weak on national security is always a win for Republicans.
So Donald Trump has, I think, kind of started to be able to benefit from that as president, where he couldn't as a candidate running against other Republicans, mostly.
And the second thing is that I think he has, because he doesn't have any ideology, he doesn't have any worldviews that sort of organize, like he doesn't think about international affairs very much.
I think he has defaulted a lot.
And I don't know if you agree with this, but I think he's defaulted a lot to basically, if Obama did it, it's good for me to be against it, at least visibly.
And so even though I'm going to do the same thing as he did, I'm going to attack it.
And so a lot of the stuff he does just seems like I'm going to kill whatever Obama did.
And the reason I think you can tell this isn't real on his part is that Bannon is still out there saying all the things that Trump used to say.
And I hate Bannon with a mad passion, but he was at an event recently here in D.C.
I think it was the Hudson Institute had a forum on this, and I agreed with everything he said about Afghanistan.
It's kind of horrifying, but he was right.
And that's what Trump used to say, and now he doesn't say anymore.
And that's what happens.
It's a cycle that we don't seem to be able to break.
Yeah.
Well, we had our chance to vote for Ron Paul, didn't we?
Well, some of us tried, but you know, there's not enough of us yet, man, so we've got to keep up the good fight.
Yep.
Yeah, this thing would have been over eight years ago there.
Yeah, I like that eastern flank thing where, in other words, I mean, in their own language, right, it's a self-licking ice cream cone.
All he's really saying is as long as we have the Bagram Air Base there, then we have to have the Bagram Air Base there.
And then if we didn't, then we'd have less of a war to fight.
It's just the obviousness of that is so clear that it's hard to imagine anyone could argue with you on this.
And yet, you know, we have to be there.
We just have to be there.
You're not allowed to question that somehow.
All right.
Hang on just one second.
Hey, guys, buy this book.
It's by Hussain Barakchani.
It's on Amazon.com.
It's called No Dev, No Ops, No IT.
It's about the praxeology of informed IT decision-making.
No dev, no ops, no IT.
Also, The War State by Mike Swanson.
Great history of the rise of the military-industrial complex after World War II.
Also, Swanson does Wall Street window investment advice.
Then when you take his advice and you buy Precious Metals, you do it at Roberts and Roberts Brokerage, Inc., rrbi.co, rrbi.co.
And there's no premium if you pay with Bitcoin.rrbi.co for all your Precious Metal needs.
Anti-government propaganda at libertystickers.com.
Get your book edited well at 3tediting.com.
That's 3tediting.com.
And get your website looking nice for the new year at expanddesigns.com.
That's the guy that did the great website for Fool's Errand at foolserrand.us.
Check that out and then go to expanddesigns.com.
All right, so there's a guy I like.
I know you're familiar too.
You probably know him in person living there in Morador on the Potomac, as they say.
Daniel Davis, Afghan war whistleblower.
I don't know him personally, but I do know his stuff, yeah.
Oh, well, you will come to know him.
He's getting better.
And man, I'm sorry I just completely spaced out and lost my train of thought what I was going to say about Danny Davis.
I'm sure it was insightful.
Oh, well, yeah.
No, well, it probably wasn't.
No, it probably was.
But the relative importance is the direct inverse ratio to how easy it is to remember, I guess.
Did I say that right?
Okay, well, anyway.
Oh, I know.
Now I remember.
It was insightful.
So there's this guy, Danny Davis, and he's the Afghan war whistleblower.
And he's really an anti-war guy there now.
But he's a combat veteran from Iraq War I, Iraq War II, and Afghanistan.
And even though he's anti-war, he goes, listen, I got to tell you, every single one of my peers, they might hear your entire anti-war argument and agree with it, right?
But then at the end of the day, the question still remains, yeah, but who's in charge of security?
And who's going to keep us safe and how then?
If not this way, then what?
And it's so easy to imagine, Trevor, right, that Ron Paul becomes president because I used my magic wish or something like that.
And then, so he pulls the American empire.
He abolishes the empire entirely.
And he tells every Middle Eastern and European state and Asian state and all the rest of them, you guys are on your own.
Get along and be nice.
Let's all trade.
But no more alliances, no more UN, no more NATO, no more empire.
And then Saudi Arabia and Iran go to war.
And Iraq gets in it too.
And a million people died.
It's just like what happened in the 1980s, something like this.
And then people die, just like what happened in the 1980s, whatever.
So then what?
Then that'd be all your fault for taking your finger out of the dike, right?
Yeah, sure.
But you know what?
Millions of people have died all over the world in every century.
And most of those things didn't affect American security even a little bit, right?
I mean, there's been what's been called World War III around the Democratic Republic of Congo and Africa.
I mean, five to 10 million people have died there in the last 30 years.
So what?
Fighting over land that isn't next to the United States doesn't matter to me.
The people who own the oil are going to sell the oil.
We don't even need the oil as much as we used to anyway.
So what does it matter if Iraq owns the oil or Iran owns the oil or Saudi Arabia owns the oil?
That's up to them.
I don't see our part in that.
And I think the problem is we have a habit now of assuming it matters.
We have interests in the region.
I always ask people, what interest do you mean?
And they look at me like I've just been rude, because they're like, no, no, you don't get it.
We have interests there.
And I'm like, yeah, I still don't know.
I still need to see your list of why it matters to me what happened there.
And I don't mean this to be inhumane.
I mean, of course, I care that people or rather they didn't die, but we can't solve all the problems of the world.
And so, you know, I think what you're choosing to do is living in a way, behaving as the United States in a way that is the best for your country and does the least harm to the rest of the world.
You can't stop other people from being nasty, but you know, it's not all the time.
Anyway, I think the Ron Paul approach is the right one.
Well, and it seems like, of course, it's all begging the question about whether America's really putting their finger in the dike and holding back chaos, or whether we're the primary sower of instability around there.
Yeah, and I agree with you there.
I think it's increasingly obvious to me that in many of the places where we thought we were the stabilizer, we are in fact, at this, and you know, I think under different global conditions, you might argue differently.
But, you know, like during the Cold War, I think, you know, was it probably wise to be in NATO holding back the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact?
Yeah, I think so.
But today, is NATO's presence, you know, in the Baltics, stabilizing or destabilizing?
I would say it's destabilizing.
You know, after World War Two, you know, did maybe US presence in the Pacific help tone down arms races?
Maybe it's, probably it did.
But is the US close alliance with Taiwan now stabilizing or destabilizing?
I think it's kind of destabilizing.
And then I don't think there's any question in the Middle East, we have, we have absolutely wrecked that place.
I mean, all the numbers you want to look at any kind of index you want, you know, fragile state indices, corruption indices, you know, the amount of like, arms dispersion and theft and all that sort of stuff, misuse, you know, obviously casualties, obviously terrorism, all that's just exploded since we intervened in all these places.
So I don't think there's even a small case to be made that the United States is causing stability in the Middle East.
Well, the case has been made, and I've done a couple of interviews on this, but not nearly enough, especially compared to the level of crisis.
But the case has been made that it's American intervention, and, and choosing sides in the Congo that has led to so much violence there, too.
It's hard to even find a place where it really isn't America's fault, to one degree or another.
In fact, you look at all the worst crises in Africa, in Mali, in Libya, in Somalia, in South Sudan, and apparently in the Congo, too.
This is all USA fingerprints everywhere.
Yeah.
Not that everything would be paradise in the Garden of Eden without us, but at least all this mess wouldn't be our fault.
Absolutely.
I'm just finishing up a Cato policy analysis right now on US arms sales.
And at one point, excuse me, the snapshot year was like 1995 or something like that.
The United States was, was busy.
Of the 50 active conflicts in the world at that point, the United States had sold weapons to at least one side, sometimes both, in 45 of those 50 conflicts.
And not just arms, but of course, you know, sometimes it was being on somebody's side.
And, you know, what that's doing is pouring gas on the fire in most of these places.
You know, people have conflicts, but it usually doesn't end up with, you know, hundreds of thousands or millions of people being killed.
That only happens when you really arm them to the teeth.
And who did that?
Well, that was mostly us.
Yeah.
Well, so yeah, now, so back to sort of that public choice, this or that thing, which, you know, for people not familiar, it's this sort of, it's the economics of incentives and how people behave, right?
I don't know exactly how to characterize it, but you can see the example in the discrepancy between what you paraphrase others, they're calling our interests and what could actually ever rationally be considered the national interest of the American people as a whole or at large by any vast supermajority or any other thing.
I mean, what does, what do the American people have to lose if our government is forced to abandon the empire?
And I guess, you know what, maybe I sort of say that just as a rhetorical question, but maybe, maybe the right-wingers are right that, hey, this is your way of life depends on this kind of thing.
And they say, oh, my freedom or whatever, but maybe they do mean I'm getting cheap oil and my government is exporting inflationary currency.
And there are other things that are, you know, trade balances and kicked open doors for exports and for imports and all kinds of things that do benefit me, the regular American Joe at the expense of the rest of the world.
So maybe I really would be worse off.
Apparently I'm not supposed to worry about the morality of killing people just for my own gain or whatever, but, but apparently that's, that's the argument and a lot of people believe it and maybe that's right.
What do you think?
No, I think, I think it's, I think it's wrong.
I mean, I think that a lot of people, you know, it's clear to, I think Joe American, that Joe American does not really understand the connection between US foreign policy and what's good for their wallet.
I think that was one of the reasons Trump was so successful with so many people, because he made the point that most of what the US does overseas costs you money.
And I think that makes sense.
That resonates for a lot of people.
Yeah, wait a minute, nation building in Afghanistan.
That sounds like the stuff we're supposed to be doing in my County or in my state.
Why are we doing it over there?
And so I think, you know, that was, that was part of his sort of marketing genius was to point out the fact that a lot of US foreign policy is sort of opaque.
Why do you do that?
Now I think academics and policymakers tend to believe this, but I think they believe it, but a lot of them, because they're motivated to, because it benefits big companies, big donors, you know, that sort of thing.
Sure.
You know, over time, over history, I mean, there's been documentaries and stuff written about this for decades, how big multinational corporations in the United States benefit from US foreign policies that help knock down doors and control outcomes in other countries.
You know, that's, that's the hard ball of international politics.
But I think most Americans aren't aware that that stuff happens.
I don't think most Americans are down with killing people for to make money.
I mean, if you think back to the first Gulf War, I mean, no blood for oil.
When the Bush administration tried to make the case that this is to make sure oil is cheap, no one was having that.
Like, nope, no American sons are going to die for that.
That's a terrible idea.
But I think most Americans would reject that notion entirely.
I remember at the start of the Iraq war, I met this doctor who was a right winger, a friend of a friend of mine, and he was a big supporter of the Iraq war.
And I said, well, but why?
He said, well, we need that oil.
And I just said, yeah, but stealing is wrong.
And he was like, I don't know.
What's my argument against that?
I guess I don't have one, do I?
Right.
And stealing is armed robbery, man.
It's not even like, yeah, it's not just petty theft at that point.
I think there are a few people who are cold hearted about the rest of the world, but I don't think that's very many people.
Yeah.
Only about 50,000 people have been killed by that point.
You know, I don't know.
Yeah.
Yeah.
No, it's sad, sad stuff.
All right.
Well, listen, so I never practice what I preach about this because, you know, if I'm anything, I'm honest.
So but what I think is really important, though, is that the anti-war movement attacked the right from the right.
And I'm not calling you a right winger, but I'm just saying, you know, compared to me, you are in a in a professional and cultural sense and attacking these positions in the way that you do.
I think, you know, we talked about Ron Paul, what was so important about him was that he was not Michael Moore, that he was, you know, a white guy, Protestant Republican congressman, a conservative and still married to his first wife and all these things that and then but he took this radically anti-war position.
And and it wasn't that he was anti-war in spite of all of these things about his character.
It was he was anti-war because of all of the rest of these things about his character.
And that if you like your identity, you can keep it.
You don't have to identify with Susan Sarandon to be against the American empire.
This thing is wrong.
And so I think, you know, the kind of work you do in the the article that you've written here is just one example.
I know, in fact, I meant to say it's an introduction really to this larger study, Step Back at Cato, Step Back Lessons for U.S. Foreign Policy from the Failed War on Terror.
It came out earlier this year, which we ran at antiwar.com and everything, but I didn't get a chance to talk to you about.
Anyway, I think this kind of thing is so important and especially coming from Cato and from, you know, professors of economics and history and what have you like yourself who know this story and can tell it right in that in a Doug Bandowian fashion.
So kudos to you and thank you very much, sir.
Thanks, Scott.
I appreciate it.
It was great talking with you.
All right, you guys, that is Trevor Thrall.
You can find him at the Cato Institute.
First of all, look at warontherocks.com for time to step back from the war on terror.
Send this one to your right wing uncle, you know.
And then also here it is at Cato, the full study, Step Back Lessons for U.S. Foreign Policy from the Failed War on Terror.
I'm Scott Horton.
Check out all the stuff like this. foolsaron.us for the book, scotthorton.org for the archives, sign up for the RSS feed for all the interviews and all that kind of stuff.
Follow me on Twitter at Scott Horton Show.
Check out my Libertarian Institute at libertarianinstitute.org.
And hey, why don't you do me a favor and leave a nice review for Fool's Aaron on amazon.com if you've read it and liked it.
Thanks, guys.
See ya.
