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 fact.
He came, he saw us, he died.
We ain't killing they army, but we killing them.
We be on CNN like, say our names, man, say it, 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 Lieutenant Colonel Daniel L. Davis, retired former U.S. Army and combat veteran from Iraq War I, Iraq War II, and Afghanistan.
And you'll remember that he was the whistleblower at the end of the Obama surge in 2012, who contradicted General Petraeus and said that the whole surge had accomplished nothing and had been for nothing and had failed.
And you can read all about that in contemporary press reports.
But now he's at Defense Priorities and is a great anti-terror war activist.
And this one is called Americans Killed in Syria Show Cost in Blood of Delaying President Trump's Directive to Withdraw.
And this is in USA Today.
Welcome back to the show, Danny.
How are you doing?
I'm doing good and always grateful to be on your show, man.
All right.
Well, listen, I'm really happy to have you here and I'm really happy to see you writing for wide and varied publications out there and invoking your status as a combat veteran from three different wars and an army officer.
And it puts you in a very good position to say, now listen here about what's worth it and what's not when it comes to deploying American troops in other people's countries.
And it looks here like you want America out of Syria, American forces out of Syria sooner, not later.
Do tell.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
I mean, it's and I think I'm on record.
I might have been in that article saying, hey, whether we're talking about Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan, the same fundamentals apply in all three.
And the sooner we get them out of there, the better it is for our interests.
All right.
Well, but what about Iran?
Aren't they the greatest threat to American power and influence in the Middle East?
And so don't we have to stay everywhere in the Middle East to check their power?
That's like saying, hey, isn't that Chihuahua over there a big threat to a Doberman Pinscher?
No, actually, it's not the it's that's one of the biggest head scratchers.
I just am puzzled by so many in Washington, especially among the so-called Washington establishment elite.
When they talk about Iran as though they're like, you know, the second coming of the German Wehrmacht or something, you know, during World War Two.
And the fact is that these guys, they have some ability to cause trouble in the Straits of Hormuz.
And they can cause nuisance, you know, elsewhere with some issues like in Lebanon, for example, and a little bit of stirring up trouble in Syria.
But it's it rarely rises above the level of nuisance and never does it rise to the level where we can't absolutely handle anything, should they ever cross any lines and do anything to to threaten American security, which they aren't.
They don't like us.
And for you know, you can understand part of the reason why part of their ideology is just contrary to ours.
But then, you know, the other stuff is that, you know, we do things they don't like.
And so like anyone, they're going to try to push back as much as they can.
But the fact is, and it's a fact, their total defense budget is about one fortieth, one fortieth of ours.
And if we talk about this vaunted military that we have, the United States, and it's accurate, we do.
Then why would we be afraid of like a political equivalent of a chihuahua?
And we shouldn't be.
So we don't need to be worried about talking about going into war or that there's this big risk we face because we don't.
Well, I said, I mean, you're kind of arguing from the premise of America as a republic or a normal country in a normal time or some kind of thing like that.
But that's not really the question, right?
The question is about America's dominance in the Middle East.
And the Americans can't stand it that, you know, as you say, Iran is no threat to the United States of America here in North America.
But they're powerful enough to defend themselves and they're powerful enough to have maintained their independence from American influence since 1979.
And of course, because of American policies, especially in Iraq and Syria, they now have increased power and influence in Iraq and Syria.
And so this is driving the hawks mad.
Everything they've done in this century to try to hurt the Iranians have made them more and more powerful.
And yet no closer allies to the United States.
And so you're asking them to quit now while they're way behind.
And so that's why this is, you know, your message is just intolerable to them.
Islamic State.
Who said anything about the Islamic State?
Why did America back the rise of the Islamic State in the first place?
America and its allies to check Iranian power in Syria.
And now that they're more powerful in Syria than they've ever been and have more influence and more men on the ground there than ever before.
Now you want to quit.
Well, and see what I'm saying is that even at this height, because there is unquestioned that they have more influence than they had because we first of all took out Saddam Hussein.
And then second of all, we keep to keep driving them in the direction of, you know, basically in the direction of Israel and to that direction.
But even with all of their grain gained power, it still doesn't rise anything higher than a nuisance to our interests and our security interests.
And you are so right about two big points you just mentioned there.
Number one is that we're a republic.
And so completely missing from this entire conversation is if we're going to follow American law and American constitutional obligations, then if we're going to keep troops in the middle of a civil war, by the way, let's not lose sight of that, to which we're allegedly not a participant.
Then we have to have the U.S. Congress has to weigh in and say whether it is in our interest or not, and they have to authorize anything that's going to stay.
This is not a decision that John Bolton can make on his own that even Donald Trump can make on his own.
If we're going to keep troops in a foreign country without their invitation, then we have to have congressional authorization and we don't have it.
So that by itself should shut off any discussion of that and should prompt their withdrawal.
But then there's also just the practical aspects that those handful of troops over there don't accomplish anything of strategic importance for the United States.
Ergo, their withdrawal won't cause any security problems for the United States because they're not helping us in the first place.
But as we saw like less than two weeks ago, it does paint a target on their backs and now cause American deaths that don't need to happen.
And that's one of the things that really, really drives me crazy is that we're sacrificing American men and women for missions that don't even help our security.
And we gain nothing for it.
And that's that should never be allowed.
Sorry, hold on just one second.
Hey, you guys, check out Kesslin Runs.
It's a great new dystopian novel about the very near future by our friend Charles Featherstone.
I think you'll really like it.
Check it out.
It's on Amazon.com right now.
Kesslin Runs.
And now, of course, I'm just playing devil's advocate here.
I'm for withdrawing from everywhere all along and never going anywhere either.
But so here's one practical or at least sort of specific case that they make as weak a read as this may be.
But they say that if America leaves, then Iran will be able to create what they call a land bridge, otherwise known as a road.
Right.
They call it the Bush Obama Expressway from Tehran through Baghdad through presumably, I guess, Mosul and then into Syria all the way across eastern Syria through Damascus and to Beirut.
And then Iran will be able to transport even more missiles to Hezbollah or something like that.
And they say that the Americans now are squatting right on that spot, that Al-Tanf base right there on the Iraqi border and Jordanian border or almost Iraqi border, I guess, the Jordanian border in southeast Syria.
That if we leave there, we're giving up our strategic advantage.
In fact, I think one or two stories even said that when they withdraw, yeah, they don't mean the Al-Tanf base.
They're still keeping that, something like that.
I don't know if that's really true or not.
That was at least one of the stories about the plan for withdrawal there.
So, assuming, let me put it this way.
Assuming that you care just for the sake of argument about Iranian influence in Syria, is this highway that big of a deal?
Are you really, you know, arguing much of a strategic sacrifice here?
OK, so first of all, for those who haven't been in the Middle East, let me explain how roads work.
Roads are basically just a path in the desert so that you don't get lost.
But if you have a navigation device, everything is a road.
So if there was somebody, if there was Americans sitting on Al-Tanf, this is not like, you know, one of those, you know, images where there's a big chasm and there's only one bridge across.
And if you block the bridge, then they can't get past.
They just drive south or north or go around it.
I mean, you wouldn't even see them.
They would be so far away from that checkpoint that it would be pointless.
So you can drive anywhere pretty much in the Middle East.
So you don't need this, quote, road.
You don't need to go through that certain location.
That's completely meaningless in terms of actually getting from one place to another.
But the other thing that is very much relevant is that the Iranian economy is so bad, in such bad shape, and their political situation within their country is really roiling and dynamic in that people are complaining to their government of like, wait, why are you spending limited resources that we have?
And we already have like 30-something percent unemployment, some crazy number.
Why are you sending money over here?
Why are you under pressure domestically to stop doing this?
And the little bit they have is – that's why I keep using this word nuisance.
It's little more than nuisance to anything that we have here.
It's little more than nuisance to Israel.
You know, the other thing that everybody always talks about, we want to prevent war.
Israel can handle anything that Iran could ever do because should they do so – and the third point on this alleged bridge is that you would be so spread out over so many hundreds of miles that they couldn't – that Iran could not maintain logistically anything that's going to cause any serious damage that Israel hasn't and doesn't on a frequent basis interdict.
So any way you want to look at this, this is not an American issue that we need to have any concern about.
We definitely don't need to have a military presence in Syria to stop.
All right, now, it's funny.
The way you mention it, it's not your fault.
It's the way it really is, is that the law, the constitution, is completely beside the point here.
Even the treaty authorizing the UN charter and all of that, that says that you can't just start wars unless you have a UN Security Council resolution.
You can't start wars unless you have a congressional declaration of war or at least some form of authorization here.
You can't put troops in somebody else's country unless their sovereign government invites you in.
Otherwise, you've invaded, and that's illegal without a declaration.
And we saw this, of course, when Obama attacked Libya, that they didn't pass a resolution to support it.
And they tried to pass one after it already started, and it failed.
And they tried to pass one to cancel it, and it failed, too.
So they just ghosted on as though it was legal for Obama to just start a war if he wants to, wage one for a year.
And then, of course, they took this twisted, obviously, I think already, possibly even laughed-out-of-court-type invocation of the resolution after September 11th to fight the Islamic State, which had broken off from al-Qaeda, which was al-Qaeda in Iraq, really.
And it had broken off from al-Qaeda.
And they tried to invoke the authorization to start Iraq War II from 2002 and say that that was authorization to fight the Islamic State.
And even in Syria, not even in Iraq, but even in Syria, too, which they're obviously bluffing legally.
And yet that's sort of just an asterisk.
That's just besides the point.
Hardly anybody would even mention that or really care that.
Everybody just knows that this thing is on autopilot.
These guys can go where they want, CIA and the military and Special Operations Command or whatever.
They can go what they want, as Rumsfeld says, grab whom you must, do what you want, blow up what you want.
And there's no accountability at all.
You know what I wonder, though, is we've seen a lot of anti-war sentiment from soldiers.
And I know soldiers, especially young and new ones, want to get in a fight somewhere.
That's what they're for.
And I hear them say things like that.
I didn't join the Marine Corps to not fight.
But then again, at the same time, I hear a lot of recognition from within the ranks, enlisted and officers, that nobody really believes in these missions anymore, that their morale is really suffering for that.
And they're looking for someone to really tell them what Donald Trump is telling them, which is, congratulations, you won.
Now let's call this thing off.
Yeah.
And I'll tell you, Scott, there's two issues here.
One is that I got to say it's really kind of troubling to me because we make so much noise internationally about international norms.
And we want to follow the liberal democratic order in the world and all this kind of thing.
And yet, without even a question about it, we don't even—as you say, we don't even blink about deploying combat troops within the territory of a sovereign country.
Whether we like them or not is not even on the table.
It doesn't even matter.
If you're going to say we believe in the liberal order and the rule of law, then how can we just absolutely just blow it off because we don't want to follow it and keep combat troops deployed there?
So that's the first point that should trouble all Americans.
If we want to follow the liberal order and we want others to follow it, which is the key part, then we have to lead by example and we have to follow it even when we don't want to.
That's the first one.
But the second one, to your point there on the troops, so I was on a military panel at the American Conservative held in one of the Senate buildings about a month or so ago.
And one of the—the panel I was on was all military.
There was five of us up there, and all five of us very strongly conveyed the same points that you do, that, look, in terms of military exigency and operations, there is no attainable outcome.
We're conducting tactical actions, and they can say move to point B, conduct operation X, and then return to base.
OK, sure, we can do that until the cows come home.
There's never any problem with that.
But the question is towards what end?
What are you supposed to accomplish with these tactical operations?
And the answer is nothing.
There's not even anything listed other than some nebulous improved security, which, of course, you can't measure, and it doesn't have an actual military attainable outcome.
So then all you're doing is sacrificing your life, killing other people, and you're not accomplishing anything that's going to last beyond the day that you move, and at some point you are going to withdraw.
And that does trouble American soldiers.
Hey, guys, check out TheBumperSticker.com and LibertyStickers.com.
I created the company way back when, but I sold it to Rick McGinnis, and he's done such a great job keeping it going since then.
They do great custom work for your band or your business at TheBumperSticker.com.
And get anti-government propaganda for the back of your truck at LibertyStickers.com.
Well, and, you know, I don't know how obvious this is to them, but you could see a situation in 2014 where, you know, someone who's not a non-interventionist, but just maybe a hawk or just a regular American might say, well, now that Obama, Turkey, Israel, and Saudi and Qatar have built up the Islamic State to the point where it's an actual state, oops, and it conquered all of Western Iraq, too, oh no, I guess now we have to launch Iraq War III in order to help the Iraqi Shiite militias, also Iranian-backed, those same ones, to help drive the Islamic State out of predominantly Sunni Western Iraq and to try to fix that mistake.
But the Islamic State has been destroyed now, and there's still a few fighters left on the ground in southeastern Syria somewhere, but very few.
Patrick Coburn talks about that in his new piece.
Very few left there.
And they're already rousted out of Mosul, Ramadi, Fallujah, and everything in Western Iraq, and they're fighting, our special operations groups and whatever are still in Iraq fighting, I guess, Iraq War III and a half now against the Sunni insurgency there.
But it seems like if we're looking at this from a purely objective, you know, fight against the bin Laden-ite type groups in the Middle East type of perspective, now is a perfect time to leave.
Because obviously, and I think this is already happening in Iraq, the longer we stay, the more people join up with these groups simply in reaction to the fact that there's U.S. forces on the ground there.
And there was, you know, Scott Ritter argued in The American Conservative that when those American troops got killed, that very well could have been the Islamic State trying to get us to stay.
That they need America, first of all, to keep the Syrian Arab Army from finishing them off, but secondly, to help them recruit, that they are still resisting the white Christian American crusaders from the other side of the world who are coming to destroy everything they believe in and all this stuff, which is necessary for recruitment into the most radical bin Laden-ite type sects here.
Isn't that right?
Like even from an army perspective, we beat ISIS in Iraq, we beat them in Syria as much as we can without eliminating every last man.
But if we stay one minute longer, we're going to be on the other side of the bell curve and be recruiting for them again.
Well, yeah, and I'm going to have to bug out after this, but there's two, again, points to that.
Number one is exactly the one that you mentioned there, is that, yeah, if we're, I made that point recently on another interview, is that if we had withdrawn when President Trump first said that we're going to get out of Syria in the, whatever it was, around the middle of December, then those four Americans would not have been killed because they wouldn't have been there.
The only reason they're dead is because they were where they could have been attacked.
That person who did the suicide bombing, if it hadn't been for Americans there, he would never have been able to get to Americans.
And so just our presence there is the only thing that makes us a target because they don't have the ability to get to the United States to threaten our country because we have many other multiple layers of defense to prevent that from happening, and we do on a daily basis, no matter where the threat comes from.
But the second part is also just as important, is that those people live to attack us in that area, because just think, also, as you mentioned there, if we leave, and God willing, when we leave, they're still going to have the Russians, the Syrians, the Iranians, like probably a dozen other rebel groups, and the Syrian Democratic Forces are all still going to be going after them.
So they don't get a breather with us, but it's a lot harder to recruit people from around the world to say, hey, you want to go over to the Middle East and fight Iran or Turkey even, or some of these others, and they're like, yeah, no.
They want to come to fight the great Satan America as they view it, but you take us out of there, now that they lose all kinds of motivation to bring people from anywhere, they're still under siege, and then the thing can actually peter out and die over time.
All right, you guys, that is Daniel L. Davis, Senior Fellow at Defense Priorities and retired Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army.
Thank you very much, sir, appreciate it.
Always my pleasure, Scott.
All right, you guys, and again, this one is at USA Today, Americans killed in Syria show cost of delaying Trump's directive.
All right, y'all, thanks.
Find me at libertarianinstitute.org, at scotthorton.org, antiwar.com, and reddit.com slash scotthortonshow.
Oh, yeah, and read my book, Fool's Errand, Timed and the War in Afghanistan at foolserrand.us.
