Sorry, I'm late.
I had to stop by the Whites 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 hacked.
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, he died.
We ain't killing their army, but we killing them.
We be on CNN like, say our name, bitch, 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 retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Daniel L. Davis, whistleblower from the Afghan surge in 2012.
You can read about him in my book, Fool's Aaron.
And he's now at Defense Priorities, which is a Koch-backed sort of conservative anti-war group there in D.C.
And here he is writing for The Hill.
Withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Syria, not a partial repositioning, should be American policy.
Welcome back to the show.
How are you doing, Danny?
I'm doing good.
Thanks for having me back.
Very happy to have you here.
So everybody's really mad that Trump is pulling the troops out of northeastern Syria there.
And just as far as that part goes, what do you think?
You know, it's really kind of bizarre, I'll tell you.
I mean, you have, you know, with all of this drama with the impeachment stuff going on up here and Lindsey Graham being one of the biggest defenders of Trump.
On this subject, he is like this, I mean, antithetical, just complete opposite and just haranguing Trump on this and telling him how horrible it is.
And he, of course, he's the biggest cheerleader, but far from the only one.
And it's really odd to see such a bipartisan agreement that, you know, that we shouldn't be doing this.
And it's frankly discouraging to me when it's clear from what they're saying.
And when you see, you know, their comments that they really have no earthly idea what's going on over there and why this is such a bad thing, you know, to continue staying over there.
And so it's just kind of discouraging to see so much opposition.
Yeah.
Now, but isn't there something to be said for him sort of springing this on everybody after backing down a year ago and now doing it again, rather than sort of laying the groundwork and trying to have, you know, say a prearranged solution between Damascus, Ankara, and the YPG where they could avoid the whole thing turning into a Turkish invasion, which it's now turned into?
Yeah, absolutely.
Absolutely.
The way it's been handled is unequivocally just terrible.
I mean, it could have been, this could have been solved with, you know, with no bloodshed, with no military intervention at all.
As a matter of fact, the Secretary of Defense had been working on the finalized portion of, you know, some coordination between the United States and Turkey around the border there that could have laid the groundwork for a complete diplomatic resolution of at least this portion of the conflict in Syria.
It wouldn't have solved the civil war, but it would have solved this part.
But instead, Trump just upended all of that and then just unilaterally announced we're leaving without, of course, coordinating with anyone.
So it could most assuredly have been done better.
And also to your point there, as I've been saying to anyone who listened here lately, you know, when he first said in March 2018 that we're going to get out from Syria, you know, I've been strongly advocating that we do that ever since.
And then again in December of that year, and we never did it.
And now then you see we have this crisis going on now, which could have been solved if he had just done it the first time.
Right.
Or if he had said, you know, and in fact, back then, you know, what, in December and January, the YPG went to Damascus and said, hey, let's work out a deal.
And then America got in the way of that and said, no, you guys don't work out a deal.
We're going to stay so you can count on us to be your shields to keep Turkey out.
When, of course, they couldn't.
And so but anyway, I don't want to dwell on that too much, because you're right that there's this bizarre piling on where, you know, everybody's got a key word to key their brain off here.
Betrayal.
Oh, we're betraying the Kurds.
When, as you said, nobody knows anything about it.
How about when Obama betrayed the Kurds by supporting the rise of al-Nusra and then its break off the Islamic State in the first place?
And after, you know, a year and a half after the DIA warned that these guys could try to create an Islamic State, not just in eastern Syria, but that they could even pose a danger to western Iraq, that even after a year and a half later, Obama was still deriding them as just the junior varsity team that nobody needed to pay any attention to whatsoever.
And continued to funnel billions and organize with all our allies to funnel billions and all these arms to the jihadist side of the war, which ended up creating the Islamic State that the poor Kurds had to deal with in the first place.
But nobody wants to talk about that because, geez, that was six, seven years ago.
Ancient history means nothing.
Yeah.
And let's just add a little bit onto that.
It's not just that Obama betrayed the Kurds for all the reasons you just mentioned there.
At least that's the way it practically worked out.
But he also betrayed us.
I mean, let's just be honest about it.
He took all of these actions unilaterally against the constitution without any authorization, without any international justification.
Everything that you're supposed to need for this so-called rules-based international order that we claimed to want to follow, he blew all of that off and set all of this in motion, which now is coming to a head at this point.
So, yeah, if we're going to talk about – let's take a look at what actually happened, then we need to see the genesis of this and see where, frankly, the American hands were dirty in this at the time and understand – and not because I want to be pointing fingers and saying it's Obama or Trump or anything else.
But man, Scott, at some point we have to finally start learning from our mistakes and seeing when these policies have such bad ramifications for our own situation as much as the other people in the region.
This keeps things stirred up and keeps anything from being resolved.
I mean if we really want to do something good, let's stop using military first and let's start using diplomacy and statesmanship and economic possibilities and looking for win-win solutions.
Not where it has to be my way or I'm going to kill you.
That's just never going to work.
All right.
But here's the problem.
Iran.
And if you read closely to any of these articles – I don't know too much about what they're saying on TV.
You read in these articles closely, you see that what they're really worried about is that Trump is going to pull the troops, as you recommend in this article, all the way out of Syria, meaning leave the Al-Tanf base and withdraw from the mission of supposedly checking Iran's presence in Syria or their ability to transfer large amounts of weapons to Hezbollah through there and this kind of thing.
Yeah, and let me just address that right now.
That's another component of not really understanding what's going on over there.
Look, 1,000 troops on the ground over there do absolutely nothing from a military tactical perspective.
We're not going to check Iran with these 1,000 troops.
We're not going to check Iran with 10,000 troops, frankly.
I mean we've got 10 or 15,000 on the Afghan side of Iran, and that's not checking anything.
And just a tiny fraction of troops over there didn't do anything either.
Here's the big important point that all the American people need to know who have concerns about what Iran may or may not do.
We have the ability with our global ISR strike capability where we can hit from thousands of miles away anything that Iran ever actually does.
If they take any action against us, if they attack anything that are against us or against our forces or so, we can strike from almost anywhere to respond to that.
We do not need 1,000 troops on the ground to do any of that.
So that does not help us, ergo, their departure won't hurt us.
Yeah, well, you know, something that you talk about in this article that I think is really important is that even at the height of the Islamic State in 2014, again, direct backdraft, not even blowback, but right in, you know, exploding right in your face consequences of the war in Syria, that even then America could have just called it off right then, which of course what I was saying at the time too, that as bad as the Islamic State is, they're surrounded by enemies, none of whom are willing to tolerate their existence in any way.
You know, look forward to a future of getting along with them in any way.
And that if we just got out of there, not only would the problem resolve itself anyway, but it would resolve itself in a way where we end up not on the hook for the next stage of the conflict where we find ourselves now.
Right, that's exactly right.
And, you know, again, going back to the, you know, where this started with the Obama administration, the fact is, Obama, all he had to do was keep maintaining our global ISR capability, keep all the- What's ISRs?
Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.
That's all of our, you know, personnel, electronic, you know, drones, all kinds of things that give you reconnaissance and intelligence of what's going on in a given place, so that if anything actually does start forming against America, then we can take it out at its source.
If there's ever a direct threat against us, no matter where in the world it originates, we have the capacity to defend our interest.
We never needed to send in any troops into Iraq or into Syria to take ISIS out of Raqqa and out of Mosul.
Baghdad and Damascus were the closest ones there that had everything to gain by defeating ISIS.
And if we had never done anything, they would have marshaled the resources, I guarantee you, to do that.
And in alliance with the Kurds, too.
Yeah, they would have done whatever it took to get rid of that, but that's what they would have done.
We didn't need to do that.
I mean, listen to this.
Now, this is a hard thing for some people to get, but here's a fact.
The biggest benefactor of our getting ISIS out of Raqqa is not the SDF.
It is Bashar al-Assad.
Imagine that.
They were allied against him, and we routed him out of his country so he didn't have to.
Can you believe that?
I mean, think about that for a minute.
Well, yeah, I mean, we know that in the worst part of the war, like say in the spring of 2015, where the Americans, the State Department, I mean, there are some of those follies where the AP reporter at the State Department would just bust their chops day in and day out over there.
And they would end up admitting that, yeah, we have our drone capability and the rest of this hovering right overhead as ISIS is rolling into Palmyra, but we didn't want to hit them because that would help take pressure off Assad.
So we went ahead and let the Islamic State make a massive gain against this ancient city where, of course, they committed all kinds of atrocities against antiquity and beheaded the curator of the local museum and all of this stuff.
So, yeah, you know, you talk about treason to the Constitution in terms of the process.
How about they were on the side of al-Qaeda in Iraq, in Syria?
Real treason against the only real enemies of the United States and ones that the U.S. government has been actually authorized to fight.
Even to this day, they talk about just last week, they said, well, we hit a small group of al-Qaeda in Iraq in the Idlib province.
What, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham?
No, no, no.
Those are still the moderate rebels.
This is some new brand name that they made up so that they could say, well, this is a part, essentially, a part of al-Nusra or Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, same thing, that was focused on trying to attack outside of Syria.
As long as they're just anti-Assad terrorists, they're still OK even to this day.
Yeah, and that just really underscores the futility of doing all this stuff.
Everything that the Obama administration did prior to Trump coming in there, I mean, we tried stuff with the CIA.
We tried stuff overtly, covertly.
We tried to train this group of, you know, it was all a folly because you can't, you can't go in there and make somebody do what you want, especially when our interests aren't even involved.
But the bigger point is you're never going to be able to be able to pick sides and to be able to have them do what you want them to do.
All you're going to do is just add more fuel to the fire.
And then, as we saw so many times, weapons that the Pentagon provided to their group and weapons that the CIA provided to their group ends up being used against the other group and against other people.
And so it was always futile and it should never have been done because it just can't work.
Hold on just one second.
Be right back.
So you're constantly buying things from Amazon.com.
Well, that makes sense.
They bring it right to your house.
So what you do, though, is click through from the link in the right hand margin at ScottHorton.org and I'll get a little bit of a kickback from Amazon's end of the sale.
Won't cost you a thing.
Nice little way to help support the show.
Again, that's right there in the margin at ScottHorton.org.
Announcing the latest book to be published by the Libertarian Institute, Coming to Palestine, by our heroic executive editor, Sheldon Richman.
In Coming to Palestine, Richman tells the truth about the creation of Israel, the Palestinian Nakba, or catastrophe, and the Israelis' continued oppression of the Palestinians since that time.
He also tells the stories of anti-Zionist Orthodox and Reform Jews who oppose the creation of Israel and those who fight for the Palestinians' freedom today.
Read Coming to Palestine by Sheldon Richman, available at LibertarianInstitute.org and Amazon.com.
Hey guys, you gotta check out TheBumperSticker.com.
You play in a band?
You need stickers?
You go to TheBumperSticker.com.
Maybe you have a business and you need stickers.
You go to TheBumperSticker.com, they'll take care of all this stuff.
I created the company back, I don't know, a generation ago.
I sold it to Rick McGinnis and he's done a great job with the company ever since.
They got what you need over there at TheBumperSticker.com.
Well, you know, Trump, he always does this.
It's just like with the Ukrainian server, where the side that says, Ukrainian server, quote unquote, according to him, the side that says that the DNC server was hacked by Russia has never demonstrated that that is so at all.
But then Trump conflates that correct observation with the idea that somehow the DNC server itself is in Ukraine.
And could Zelensky please find it for him or something?
He has no idea.
So now the news sounds credible, sort of, in saying that this is all just crazy conspiracy theory by a completely incompetent, illiterate boob, which makes a lot of sense on the surface of it.
And it's sort of the same thing here, which, you know, just where Obama gave them, in a sense, the talking point by backing the rise of these jihadist groups in Syria, which led to the rise of the Islamic State.
He provided the hawks with the talking point that, see, he never should have pulled the troops out of Iraq if only they had been in Iraq.
Instead of attacking him for backing the bad guys in Syria, they just attacked him for leaving the door open for them to reinvade Iraq from there.
And the same sort of thing here where another example of a president trying to remove troops from anywhere and instead of, as we talked about before, finding a reasonable way to, even if he has to shout down the rest of the hawks, to encourage the Kurds to make a deal with Assad and encourage the Turks to stay out and accept Assad's forces in Syrian Kurdistan as all the buffer zone he needs to keep the YPG at bay and have that kind of a deal, I think a pretty easy deal to have been reached.
Instead, he didn't just pull the troops out, he actually said to Erdogan, so go right ahead, we're not in your way anymore, and this kind of thing.
And it's just going to be another one of these talking points where Lindsey Graham and his ilk are going to use this forever.
Remember that time when we left the Iraqis high and dry?
Remember that time we left the Kurds high and dry?
We can never leave anywhere ever, or else wherever we leave, anything bad that happens there is our fault later.
Yeah, and of course what never gets discussed there is, does the bad thing that happened somewhere directly impact American security?
And of course the answer is no, but that's not even addressed.
It's just if something bad happened, that's evidence we shouldn't have left, as though our objective and our purpose is to keep stability everywhere for everyone.
We're supposed to continue to potentially risk, and as we have sacrificed, American lives on the behalf of Kurdish SDF forces inside the borders of Syria, and that still doesn't make any sense to me.
And why these people keep wanting to say let's keep American troops there and keep making, even if it's small sacrifices of lives, for something that doesn't even benefit our country, but it does benefit Damascus, it does benefit Baghdad, it does benefit the Kurds over there, and depending on how we do it, it could help other capitals as well.
No, I want our troops to help our country and let the other countries, their government, their military, worry about their security.
That's how it's supposed to work.
Yeah.
Well, who are you to say such things?
I'm an American.
Well, good.
No, seriously, you were in Iraq War I, Iraq War II, and Afghanistan, and then you finally got fed up and broke the chain of command to tell the truth about David Petraeus' war in Afghanistan, and that was years ago now.
That was back in 2012, seven years ago, and the war's still going on, and I'm sure you've seen the reports in recent days that the last year worth of airstrikes has been the highest level since the height of Obama's surge in 2010, that civilian casualties are at an all-time high.
Just last week they killed 40 innocent civilians trying to take out the drug industry in Afghanistan, and it keeps going on.
I don't know.
In fact, I'll try to come up with a good question for you in my rant.
How about what actually happened, what do you think happened when Trump called off the talks?
It looked like they were on the verge of a deal.
He invoked the death of one soldier in a suicide attack, which, you know what, it was bad PR for the Taliban to do that one last suicide attack on the eve of everybody signing the thing.
I agree, but do you think that that was really the reason, or did the Pentagon twist the president's arm and just tell him that, listen, we cannot sign a thing where we give up the Bagram base, and we are not going along, and you are not either, and that is it, or what?
Well, I don't have any secret sources here, but from what I can piece together from public statements that have been made, it does appear that Trump just got mad and didn't, number one, he didn't like the fact that the Taliban didn't want to play by his rules completely, which is he wanted them to come to Camp David along with the Afghan government to sign a deal, which, of course, they hadn't even talked at all at this point, and the Taliban was like, okay, we'll go there and we'll talk, but only after we make a deal.
We won't do it there to make the deal.
Well, Trump wanted the big PR moment that he brought everybody together, and when they said they wouldn't do that, then he got mad, and I think that this unfortunate death of our soldier there just was giving him the excuse of that's the reason I'm going to sign.
He just didn't get his PR moment, and so he scuttled the whole thing.
Which just goes to show, I mean, this guy and his staff, too.
Somebody, you know, here they worked for a year and a half on this deal between the U.S. and the Taliban, and what made it possible was that the fate of the relationship between the Taliban and the Afghan government in Kabul that America's built there is just going to have to wait to be resolved another day.
We're going to go ahead and resolve our differences now, and then as you're saying, he springs this on them at the last second.
You guys are going to sign a deal.
I guess he thought by bringing them at Camp David and just standing there with his arms crossed that they would just do whatever he said and sign a new thing, and I guess because he must have known that at that point he's giving up all leverage to dictate to either side to live up to their deal, so he just thought if he could bring them there, he could make them sign a new thing.
But like you're saying, they hadn't even had really much of preliminary talks for what is even to be resolved, and we know how all those things go.
And so, you know, I don't know.
That's why I suspect that it was some generals or somebody that got to him or something, that even that was still just a pretext, because that just makes no sense that he was really going to.
But then again, he is kind of a dingbat, so I don't know, man.
The thing that bothers me the most right now that you started off with in this section here is that we're throwing just tons upon tons of aerial munitions and blowing stuff up in Afghanistan, but we don't even have a strategy.
You can't even say we're firing these weapons in order to achieve what?
There is nothing.
We're just shooting a bunch of weapons off, killing a bunch of people, some maybe genuinely bad, some definitely not, some that probably are just kind of caught in the crossfire, but towards what end?
It's not even attempting, it's not even claiming it's going to end anything.
So all we're doing is just conducting tactical activity, killing a bunch of people, and towards no end, because it doesn't even contribute to the end.
And then that's the other part, is that we shouldn't negotiate anything with the Taliban.
I don't need them to agree to anything.
We need to leave on our terms and in a professional way and in a timeline that makes sense and in full coordination with the Afghan government, but a date certain that you have this much time to get your house in order, and then you are going to be responsible for everything that happens.
I assure you, Scott, that will focus the Afghan government's mind like it has never been focused because now they know their life depends on getting some serious negotiation with the Taliban.
Right, and that's right where we were, right?
That's exactly what should have happened, is Trump should have signed that deal with the Taliban and then said to the Afghan government, all right, you guys, that's it.
You know, Donald Rumsfeld, this is what got him fired in Iraq War II, was he said, we got to take the training wheels off, we got to kick the bums off welfare and make them stand on their own.
Right, he used kind of insulting, demeaning metaphors for, as long as we're doing all their dirty work for them, they don't have to do any of their own dirty work for themselves and they're going to continue to rely on us to pay all their bills, to fight all their battles, kill all their enemies and prop up their friends and all the rest of this.
That's why the Afghan government has been unwilling to negotiate with the Taliban all along because if they had to deal with the Taliban, then America could leave and they'd rather keep the war going and keep our money in their pockets because otherwise they'd lose the war and they'd know it.
Just think about what the logic of this from the Afghan side is.
What would be the logic of you saying, okay, we're going to start making some hard choices here, knowing that the Americans don't put any restrictions on you and that you now know that no matter what, they're going to have your back militarily so that you don't have to give anything you don't want to.
You can hold out for the best case scenario all the time and if the Taliban doesn't want to give in, you just keep holding out because you know you can.
You don't have to make a deal.
The minute that you take that away and now that they do have to make a deal, the whole calculation changes.
Yeah.
Well, and it's too bad too because I think that the Afghan government is going to end up dissolving and will not be able to stand in its current form or anything like it and who knows what will happen.
I mean, that's presuming that America cuts off the tens of billions of dollars a year in aid at the same time they pull the troops out, which hasn't really been discussed that much, honestly.
Yeah, and I'm all for it.
In fact, I'm an advocate of let's do this professionally.
Let's do this that makes sense.
Let's do it in a reasonable time frame so that we don't just like completely throw everybody under the bus and say, good luck next Tuesday.
I hope y'all don't get killed.
Just like in Syria right now.
I mean, there is, in fact, I think right now, isn't it the perfect place to call timeout where the Taliban essentially rule all of the Pashtun areas and very little of the areas outside the Pashtun areas.
And the areas outside of the Pashtun areas, well, they seem to be pretty happy in their Hazara, Tajik, Uzbek coalition there, such as it is with divided power within that northern alliance.
So how about everybody just call timeout right now?
It seems like America could urge them to, regardless of details, stop the major fighting over the lines.
We're going to have, quote, strong federalism and strong autonomy for the Taliban regions.
But why keep fighting over control of the capital, guys?
We could encourage them to work out something like that.
Well, the problem is, Scott, that you have to have a coherent strategy of your own and you have to have solid, wise leadership that has knowledge of the region and listens to experts.
And I'm afraid we have none of that in this town.
Yeah.
Well, it does seem like more than anything, as Robert Higgs calls it, truncating the antecedents, of course, because he's a brilliant genius and talks like that, but just means that nobody ever explains how anything ever got the way that it is.
Everybody just talks about, you know, history begins when Russia seizes Crimea or history begins when America withdraws from northeastern Syria or history begins when America leaves the Tajiks in Kabul high and dry or whatever the crisis is.
No one ever explains why, for example, leaving should create a crisis unless we've caused a distortion in power and influence among groups on the grounds in the country where they live.
That is so true.
Yeah.
But hey, anyways.
You know what, though?
I think here's something that we should talk about, too, to wrap up is defense priorities and your role in it and the role of conservatives, not necessarily pro-Trump forces, but just people on the right and particularly combat veterans.
Although, as you said, you're an American.
That ought to be good enough for anyone.
But you know what?
A combat veteran from three wars with a lieutenant colonel rank, you know, and not who has decided to drop out and grow his hair long or anything, but is, you know, still essentially a conservative voice as yours is.
Taking this, we can go ahead and bring our troops home, that that's the right and responsible thing to do.
Taking this narrative, putting it in the Hill and using the platform of defense priorities to write these opinions and appear on TV and get this stuff out, I think is really the most important thing of all.
If I could be a little bit dishonest, I would pretend to be a right winger, you know, but I'm really just not a conservative at all.
And I couldn't do that because that'd undermine all the rest of what I'm trying to put across here in terms of I'm only being honest.
It's all the best I have for you.
But the thing of it is that I think it really matters that you and people like you are out there speaking this way and, you know, showing by example, essentially, letting it be known that you don't have to be any species of liberal or Democrat or, you know, Michael Moore, you know, disgusting Hollywood liberal hypocrite goofball or any of this stuff to take these positions.
And, in fact, this is why, I'll let you talk about whatever you want here when I stop talking in a second, but this is why you came forward.
This is why you said you came forward back in 2012 was you were flying around Afghanistan meeting with all these enlisted guys out there risking their skin and killing people while they're doing it.
For what you could tell then, as you put it, and this became the title of my book, but you put it on my show this way years ago, they were on a fool's errand.
They were risking their life for nothing.
And so that was your interest as you explained it at the time as, you know, you're their commanding officer in a way or at least their ranking officer.
You're responsible for them and you're seeing their lives being wasted irresponsibly.
I don't know if you saw the Donald Trump kind of soliloquy yesterday, if you could call it that, where he talks about the hardest part of being president is writing letters home to these parents.
And I actually believed him.
He talked about going to Dover and everyone's trying to be stoic and hold it together.
And then the coffins come down out of the back of the plane and the wives and the mothers completely lose it and all of this stuff.
And you know what?
There's something there.
It's not enough, but it's more than a kernel.
You know what I mean?
It's not a movement yet, but it's certainly a sentiment on the right that is, you know, ripe for being led by people like you to really put an end to this policy.
Well, and that's why I am so emphatic and so often make a point of putting into my work, whether it's on television, radio, or stuff that I write, is that the cost to our troops is profound.
And every single one of those coffins that comes back, and there's been thousands of them, I mean, they destroy a whole intertwined network of lives that happen.
And, you know, and the people in America just don't seem to acknowledge that or even be aware of it consciously.
They just see a casket come in, they see somebody salute, and they unfortunately too often think, oh, that's so sweet, that's so patriotic, they, you know, sacrificed for their country.
No, they didn't sacrifice for their country.
They were sacrificed for nothing, and now then their family will pay this profound price.
You know, dozens and scores sometimes of individuals with all the surrounding family members.
And that pain doesn't go away, man.
I mean, the people who were dying in 2012 when I was still there, they're still suffering today.
And, you know, and how much more all the other ones that have died in between then, or the ones, you know, just a couple of weeks ago.
That needs to stop.
I mean, don't let it just say that it's unfortunate this happens.
Let's stop it from happening anymore.
Wasted American lives, wasted treasure is just no good for anybody in this country.
All right, you guys, that is Daniel L. Davis, Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army, writing for The Hill.
Withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Syria, not a partial repositioning, should be American policy, and you can find him at Defense Priorities.
Thank you very much again, sir.
Always my pleasure, Scott.
Thanks.
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.
