All right, y'all, welcome to the Scott Horton Show.
I am the Director of the Libertarian Institute, Editorial Director of Antiwar.com, author of the book Fool's Errand, Time to End the War in Afghanistan, and I've recorded more than 5,000 interviews going back to 2003, all of which are available at scotthorton.org.
You can also sign up for the podcast feed.
The full archive is also available at youtube.com slash scotthortonshow.
You guys, on the line, I've got Mark Perry.
Man, is he my favorite Pentagon reporter.
You know what?
He might be the only Pentagon reporter I know.
But anyway, he does great stuff, and that's why I know him.
And he wrote this thing.
Where is it in my tabs here?
Oh, no, that's not it.
It's at Responsible Statecraft, the Quincy Institute site.
And it's, oh, I know, it's on antiwar.com's front page today.
It's called The Revenge of Colonel Douglas MacGregor.
I got to say, I like the sound of that.
Welcome back to the show, Mark.
How are you, sir?
It's been a while.
It's good to be here.
Good to be here.
Yes, sir.
I love talking to you.
And, you know, I think I interviewed you one time before about a piece that you wrote for, I'm going to say, Politico magazine about three or four years ago, which is, you know, I'd heard of MacGregor a few times before that.
But this is where I really learned the story the way you told it was MacGregor versus McMaster on a couple of things, but I think primarily concerning what would be the U.S. Army strategy for tank war against the Russians in Eastern Europe if it came down to it.
There was a major kind of doctrinal difference between this Colonel MacGregor and his former subordinate, now General McMaster.
And of course, I should say before I let you rip here that this is all very important and apropos of right now, because Donald Trump has just finally named Douglas MacGregor to be senior advisor to the new Secretary of Defense, Christopher Miller.
And so I am just brimming with questions, but if you could just give us a good background on this guy and let us know who he is, what we're dealing with here and why it matters so dang much.
Well, Doug MacGregor, Colonel Doug MacGregor, U.S. Army retired as one of the really brilliant Army strategists of our time, a real deep thinker and an innovator.
And he and H.R. McMaster go back to West Point, West Point classmates, and they served together in the first Gulf War in a very famous battle called the Battle of 73 Easting, where MacGregor was the squadron commander of an armored unit and McMaster was a tank commander.
And they just ripped through the Iraqi Republican Guard.
They lost a single soldier in the fight, but they destroyed upwards of 48 Iraqi tanks and armored personnel carriers.
And it was really a lopsided, but brilliantly conducted and commanded by MacGregor.
It's still studied in the Army War College and around the world as one of the great tank battles of the 20th century and the most lopsided tank battles of the 20th century.
Let me just interject right here that Daniel Davis's new book, America at the 11th Hour, has a great retelling of that story from a first person point of view, because he was a, I forget if he was a commander or not, but he was in one of those tanks during that battle under McMaster and MacGregor there.
Yeah, that's right.
And well, to make a really long, but I find a compelling story a little bit shorter, MacGregor was very outspoken after that battle about what the US Army needed to do to innovate and reform, get lighter, more maneuverable, but more lethal.
Where McMaster became kind of an acolyte of David Petraeus and went on to a much more high profile positions, including a stint as a commander in the second Gulf War in Anbar Province while MacGregor was kind of sidelined by the Army because he was so outspoken.
So we set up this real tension between the two of them, and they are not friendly.
They don't openly criticize each other, but they have different views of how the Army should be run and who should run it and what the Army should look like.
And they've been kind of going head to head very unofficially and under the radar for a long time, 20 years.
So McMaster got pushed up the chain of command.
As we know, he was National Security Advisor to President Trump.
MacGregor became a military historian, retired from the Army, was kind of pushed out.
And now the roles are reversed.
Trump has appointed Doug MacGregor to head into the Pentagon and be a special assistant, as you noted, to Christopher Miller while McMaster cools his heels, I think, at the Hoover Institution.
And so the competition between the two continues, and this is how many years after the first Gulf War?
30 years after the first Gulf War.
We still have McMaster versus MacGregor.
Yeah.
Well, there's so many things about all that history that I want to ask you about, but let's cut to the chase instead, which is that are we going to have two months of getting troops out of places now?
Because if anybody can do it, Doug MacGregor can or not?
Yes.
The short answer is yes.
And the longer answer is, well, we'll see.
You know, this- But that's what he's doing there.
That is what he's doing there.
I mean, I, you know, when I wrote this piece, I didn't know what he was doing there and he was not responding to my emails or my phone calls and or anyone's who knows him.
And he has a tendency to keep his own cards close to his chest.
So that's not a surprise.
But I heard just this morning that that's why he's there.
He's at the Pentagon to get us out of Afghanistan.
I think it's going to be a little bit more difficult than he had wished.
There's a lot of bureaucratic obstacles in the way, plus there is the Afghan government who really doesn't- that really doesn't want us to leave.
So you know, he's going to have to fight the powers that be to get this done.
You would think it would be easier than it is, but it is difficult when you've got, you know, people who've been in their position for a long time, very opinionated, who understand all the threads to pull to get things not done and to, you know, kind of stay the course as it were.
It's going to be a real challenge for Doug, but he's absolutely a dedicated, tough-minded, singularly focused former army officer who doesn't believe in these endless wars and thinks the U.S. ought to get out and he's going to try and get us out.
Can you elaborate a little bit about that?
What do you know about what he doesn't like about these Middle East wars, you can tell us here?
Well, what do we, you know, when we, when we fought the second Gulf War, he gave a briefing to Tommy Franks, General Tommy Franks and the army leadership down at U.S. Central Command.
And his presentation was pretty straightforward.
We take Baghdad with a division of maybe 15 to 20,000 troops and we get out.
Don't do phase four, don't do nation building.
If we're interested in really overthrowing Saddam's regime, and MacGregor was a little bit skeptical of the utility of that, then we do it as fast as we can and we don't stick around.
This isn't Europe in 1945 or Japan in 1945.
This is a very complicated and complex society.
And he was worried that we would get mired in an endless series of counterinsurgency operations that would bleed us dry and bankrupt the nation.
People dismissed that and here we are, how many years later, and that's exactly what happened.
He was right.
17.
That's how many years later, 17 years later.
And what Doug MacGregor foresaw happening to the United States is what happened.
And you know what?
Before we move on to even where we are current day here and his position on all of this, you know, the whole terror war and all that, just on this question right here, I found this part of your article just fascinating and just hearing you talk about it just now as well.
Because people in the audience remember back in that era, the critics, mostly the critical arguments were dominated by not even the leftists, but sort of liberals, anti-Bush liberals and stuff who oftentimes would sort of, well, get it wrong.
So one of the major criticisms of the Bush government was that the neocons had this harebrained idea that they could go in there with minimal force and do this regime change while the real professionals like General Shinseki, they knew that we would need 300,000 men to occupy the country.
And then it was so irresponsible of George Bush to fire Shinseki and all this.
But you see the giant question they're begging, which is staying and rebuilding the whole thing like this.
So now it casts that whole thing in the other light where I don't think that MacGregor's plan was the neocon plan.
I don't know if there's a real connection there or not, but I do know that Wolfowitz and them were proposing that we do this with minimal force.
Certainly, you know, Richard Perl and them wanted to use, you know, minimal force.
And then I don't know if they really want to get right out.
They wanted to install Chalabi and then get out, right?
Was that the same plan, by the way?
Was MacGregor piling around with Wolfowitz then and saying, yeah, you could do this on the cheap kind of deal?
Or that was a different thing altogether?
No, no.
He wasn't piling around with him, but, you know, his, you know, Doug, I think, was skeptical of the whole enterprise to begin with.
But he he calculated that if we were going to do it, then we had to you know, we had to do it, get it done and get out.
That if we sunk our up to our knees in Iraq, we would be slowly bled dry.
Wolfowitz thought we were going to be greeted by, you know, people throwing bouquets at us.
Yeah.
MacGregor knew otherwise.
He understood what was at stake here and he understood what was going to happen to us.
And he knew he was one of the few army officers I talked to at the time who knew that we were going to have we were going to be facing off against guys in flatbed trucks with, you know, chain machine guns and an insurgency that went on and on and on.
No one else was surprised by the insurgency.
Doug MacGregor was not surprised by the insurgency.
He calculated that would happen.
He was actually I mean, he's one of the real true visionaries in the military.
And he's been and he's been punished for that.
He's been sidelined for that when when McMaster and crew were headed up Highway One in Iraq or whatever the hell it was, Doug MacGregor was at the National Defense University giving lectures.
He was sidelined because of the bad news that he brought to the briefings.
And the bad news was, if we do this and we don't get out, we're going to be there year after year after year after year until we're bled dry.
Well, guess what?
He was absolutely right.
So now, years after he made that prediction, the current president, in his wisdom, and I'm not a fan of Donald Trump at all, but at least the current president has, you know, has calculated correctly.
It's time to get out of these wasteful wars.
They're bankrupting the country.
The one guy in the military who's been saying this year after year after year is Doug MacGregor.
So he's put him in the Pentagon.
It's a good move.
You know, it's it's a real puzzle, though, too, because he's got two months on the clock.
He's a lame duck president.
He just lost.
And now a massive purge of the Pentagon.
He puts his own guys in there and led by this guy who wants to undo, not start a bunch of crazy new projects, but undo some crazy projects with such a time crunch.
And then.
When the president has, you know, frankly, lost some legitimacy as a leader in the sense that he is a lame duck who just lost, not that he served his two terms, but that he just got unelected and.
You know, just what two weeks ago, General McMaster said that dealing with the Taliban when Trump dealt with the Taliban, that's like Neville Chamberlain capitulating to Hitler.
And that makes me think that the Pentagon might just say to Donald Trump, screw you.
We don't have to do what you say.
We got our Bagram Air Base and we're going to keep it.
And what are you going to do about it?
And will there be enough time for Trump and McGregor to somehow make them pack up C-130s and fly away?
You know.
Well, you have, you have, as usual, put your finger on it.
Two months, Doug McGregor and Donald Trump have two months.
And I think you understate, I think you understate the difficulty here.
Donald Trump is discredited and his writ is pretty weak right now.
And, you know, if you're Doug McGregor, despite all of your experience and knowing your way around Washington, you show up in the Pentagon suddenly with two months left, they can really give you the runaround.
And what I think that what puzzles me the most about this is I rarely talk to anyone in the military who is gung ho about Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria.
Everybody wants out.
And yet, when it comes time to do that, there's always put up all of these excuses.
Well, you know, we're dealing with the Taliban.
We have political issues.
We've got to protect people that we put in place.
You never know.
People might come back.
ISIS might return.
The Taliban is going to get tougher.
You know, Mark, come on.
I mean, we're not losing that many people there.
It's not costing us that much.
We can continue to do this.
There's all kinds of reasons that the military, but not just the military, diplomats give for continuing on and on in a losing proposition.
And that is difficult to overcome.
I remember the statement, and I'm sure I've used it on your show before, from the historian Barbara Tuchman, the hardest thing in Washington to change is a bad policy.
Well, here we are.
I mean, anybody can make a good policy bad, but to change a bad policy to actually get things right is a really difficult thing to do.
And it's a real challenge for Doug McGregor and the people that Donald Trump has put at the Pentagon to really turn this around.
It's going to be a very difficult task and a real challenge.
But I think come January 20th, it might well be that, you know, Donald Trump can say to the American people, well, I said four years ago, we're going to get out of these endless wars and we're out.
Yeah.
And if he does that, it'll be interesting to see how his legacy is treated, because you and I both remember in the South Carolina primary where Donald Trump turned to Jeb Bush and said, your brother did this and it was a mistake, talking about Iraq.
And everyone thought, well, that's the end of Donald Trump.
And it actually got him votes.
Yeah.
Oh, he creamed him.
And by the next day, he got two thirds and the other 17 candidates shared the other one third.
Yeah, that's right.
And, you know, so this was a real indication of just how fed up with these wars the American people have become.
And they're still fed up.
They're still fed up.
Hey, y'all, check it out.
The Libertarian Institute, that's me and my friends, have published three great books this year.
First is No Quarter, the ravings of William Norman Gregg.
He was the best one of us.
Now he's gone.
But this great collection is a truly fitting legacy for his fight for freedom.
I know you'll love it.
Then there's Coming to Palestine by the great Sheldon Richman.
It's a collection of 40 important essays he's written over the years about the truth behind the Israel-Palestine conflict.
You'll learn so much and highly value this definitive libertarian take on the dispossession of the Palestinians and the reality of their brutal occupation.
And last but not least is The Great Ron Paul, the Scott Horton Show Interviews, 2004-2019.
Interview transcripts of all of my interviews of the good doctor over the years on all the wars, money, taxes, the police state, and more.
So how do you like that?
Pretty good, right?
Find them all at libertarianinstitute.org slash books.
Hey, guys, here's how to support this show.
You can donate in various amounts at scotthorton.org slash donate.
We've got some great kickbacks for you there.
Shop amazon.com by way of my link at scotthorton.org.
Leave a good review for the show at iTunes and Stitcher.
Tell a friend.
I don't know.
Oh, yeah.
And buy my books, Fool's Errand, Time to End the War in Afghanistan, and The Great Ron Paul, the Scott Horton Show Interviews, 2004-2019.
And thanks.
Well, now, tell me about this.
Do you know, because I know he is an expert on Europe and all issues related to war with Russia even.
What is his position on the nuclear treaties, including New START, which isn't over yet, but it's on death's door right now, Mark?
Yeah, it is.
And I've had any number of conversations over the years with Doug MacGregor.
And he's, you know, Doug MacGregor speaks German better than the Germans.
He's a very good military thinker, but he's well known in Europe, served there, understands the militaries in Europe, understands European history, is very comfortable in those societies.
My sense from Doug is that we ought to do everything that we can to dampen any kind of confrontation with Russia.
And when you have military officers who say, well, you know, the Russians are, they're on their way back, they're a near-peer competitor, they've designed a new tank, the Armata, that is undefeatable in battle.
I think that Doug MacGregor's attitude is to dismiss that.
The Russians have a strong military, but it's not nearly as strong as ours.
And they have inherent economic problems that they're going to have to solve in their country.
They're not an expansionist power.
And you know, we're going to have to engage with them.
Engaging with them on the nuclear issue is absolutely vital.
We've got to re-up the START treaty.
We've got to go in with Putin and bring down the numbers of nuclear warheads, weapons, missiles that we have.
And if we did that, that would be A plus.
There's just no question in my mind that that is Doug MacGregor's position.
Frankly, it's a throwback position.
I'm showing my age here, but I can remember when the Berlin Wall came down and talking to military officers and they said, thank God the wall's down, now we can get on a NATO.
That was a previous generation of military officers who just did not like the idea of the United States being the guarantor of European security and stability.
That's changed somewhat.
People are now more convinced that NATO is essential.
But there's still throwbacks.
There are still military officers who say, listen, you know, we cannot expend our national treasure in propping up the Europeans.
They're going to have to take care of their own security.
They're going to have to be responsible for their own political stability.
And it is not smart for us to overemphasize Russian strength.
They are not a near-peer competitor.
They're a nation that's in trouble, losing population with real environmental and economic problems.
And let's not overemphasize their strength.
Yeah, but what about the Ayatollah?
He's Hitler and he's going to take over the world.
Yeah, there's the Ayatollah.
Well, you know, we're worried about, I mean, it just it brings a kind of a wry smile to my face every time I hear about Iran is going to do this, that and the other thing.
If we were so concerned with Iranian influence in Iraq, why did we invade Iraq to begin with?
You know, that was the last thing that we that we should have done.
And I, you know, I think, frankly, that, you know, again, the Iranians, you know, the Iranians are not, you know, they're not.
They're not innocent players in the Middle East.
They have their interests and they will act on them and they can be pretty rough about it.
But they're well known to their neighbors who've been around them for two thousand years and their neighbors know how to counter them.
And every time that we rattle our sabers at Iran, the Saudis and the Emiratis even go and talk to the Iranians.
We don't talk to them, but the people we're sent to protect, they go talk to them.
So I think that like Russia, this is, you know, Iran is a, you know, these aren't these aren't a bunch of ballerinas here.
You know, they're not they're not nice people, but we can deal with them politically.
And Barack Obama got this right with the JCPOA.
You know, we have to engage them on the nuclear issue.
We have to talk to them constantly instead of trying to starve their society.
We have to we have to pull them into political solutions.
Now, to be clear here, you're telling me this is McGregor's point of view is the same as yours on this.
I think so.
I think so.
You know, McGregor is not a naive person.
He understands that we have military challenges facing us in the world and that and that we need to be vigilant in responding to them.
But he's worried that there's you know, there's there's threats and then there's exaggerated threats.
And we need to understand that, you know, we need to create a military establishment that is light, lethal, maneuverable, smaller, but but more focused than we have.
That is not top heavy with a general for every platoon, as I think he would say.
And if we create that kind of a military and it's a credible military, that, you know, it acts as a real deterrent, unlike the top heavy military with 11 aircraft carriers that we have now.
Nobody's afraid of us.
And and if we do that, we're much better off than constantly rattling sabers and talking big and exaggerating threats that, you know, we we live in a complex, multipolar, as they say, world.
And there's there's ways to deal with it outside of just banging the table and talking about how we need more defense dollars.
That isn't going to solve the problem.
What's going to solve the problem here is a more creative and innovative foreign policy that is as focused on diplomacy as it is on building a military establishment.
So I saw a slam on McGregor.
I think they're really trying to pull out all the stops to find controversial statements he made that none of they can't seem to find anything like really worth slamming him for.
But the one I saw was in 2012, he proposed abolishing the Marine Corps.
And you know, in the article, they have to admit that he's not saying this is his top priority and that was and Donald Trump's not saying that's why he hired the guy was to abolish the Marines or anything.
And then they quote him and he's saying he explains himself and they bothered to quote him.
I'll give him credit for that, saying, well, look, the Marines are essentially light mobile infantry and we only need so much of that if we're fighting real enemies instead of just patrolling these third world countries and, you know, persecuting these peasants or whatever it was, however he said it.
If we're doing the actual work of war, we don't need that much of a Marine Corps.
And then even in the article, they admitted that, you know, Truman and Eisenhower tried to get rid of the Marine Corps, too.
So, well, I mean, this, you know, this is Doug McGregor, I you know, I sit across a coffee table from him and he comes out with these outlandish statements.
I kind of look at him and smile and I go, no, Colonel McGregor.
And he goes, well, Mark, you know, and then he he will go on to explain himself about how the Marines are built, how they're configured, how they're structured, how they're led, what kind of weapons they have and who could who could do the job as well or better.
Now, you know, he's not alone in this.
It's not like he's saying something that's outlandish, as you point out.
The Marine Corps themselves just last year came out with a new structural policy guidance that basically changed the Marine into a into a series of littoral, that is, across the beach landing regiments that reshaped the U.S. Marine Corps into what it should be, which is an amphibious branch of military service that does what the army doesn't do, which is put put soldiers on a shore with with amphibious vehicles, and that is designed to kind of counter what the military sees as a threat from China, whether you disagree or not.
We're going to have to have special units that know how to do that and the Marines can do that.
So it's not as if McGregor was really speaking out of turn here.
The Marines knew that they had to restructure themselves and they restructured themselves.
Lo and behold, in the way that McGregor thought that they should restructure themselves, light, lethal, maneuverable, across the beach, amphibious units that can fight and move and fight and move.
And he wasn't wrong.
He was absolutely right.
Yeah, it seems like they're trying to come up with something to controversialize them, but it's not going to work that well.
I mean, I think I don't know what percentage of the population has seen him on Tucker, but for those of us who have seen him on the Tucker Carlson show a few times, which that'll make me watch your show, dude, is keep having McGregor on.
But he's clearly, you know, it's easy to understand why the guy has so much respect from his peers and from everybody else.
The only thing they don't like about him is that he's an iconoclast, but all of his adversaries are the first ones to admit that, oh, he's brilliant and all of these things and a serious guy and a patriot and all this stuff.
So I don't know if they'll be able to controversialize him or not.
I mean, how can you, is McMaster, does he have the stones to call McGregor Neville Chamberlain compromising with Hitler?
Is he going to have to shut his trap now on that or what?
I think that there has been a truce between H.R. and Doug, you know, McMaster has, McMaster knows what he's talking about.
We can disagree with him on his military views, and I do.
But you know, he's been there in uniform for 30 years.
I certainly haven't.
And he knows the military inside out.
He's served as national security advisor.
And, you know, he's under fire in Anbar and came up with creative and good ways of dealing with that.
So, you know, we had to tip our hat to H.R. McMaster.
I got to tell you, man, I interviewed a guy who was an officer, served under him in Anbar and said he was guilty of human rights abuses at the prison that he ran there.
He wrote an essay all about it for, I'm sorry, I forgot the name of the network.
I'll send you the interview.
I interviewed him all about it.
And this guy's a war criminal like the rest of them.
I, you know, I wasn't in Anbar, I don't know.
But I have it on good authority.
I you know, when McMaster says something, I pay attention because he knows what he's talking about.
And and when he I think that he to to go back to the original question, I think he'd be the last person in the world to to go after Gregor as an appeaser.
I mean, the reason I brought that up is because that's the exact language McMaster used against Trump two weeks ago on the very same issue.
So I guess my point being that nobody's going to be able to really try to pull that stunt against this guy.
That's why I mean, really, Donald Trump should have hired him all along.
If you needed somebody to protect your right flank from accusations that you're compromising national security as you're ending some wars, you have Doug McGregor stand there.
He'll protect your right flank.
He's the tank battalion commander guy.
Right.
So nobody's going to get past him.
And so that's all you need, man, if he'd only done this in June.
Can you imagine how different if because it would have been such a controversy over the summer and with the Democrats forced to attack Trump from the right for ending wars?
That would have been something else to see, man.
You know, I don't I don't disagree with you.
But I and I I want to emphasize that I don't disagree with you.
But when you get Doug McGregor, you get a guy who appears on Tucker Carlson and says some pretty outlandish things.
And they're not.
It's not as if he's being politically incorrect.
These are truly outrageous, you know, pretty outlandish things to say.
And it and Doug is known for that.
He's he's a guy who kind of you're talking about where they quote him, saying to call it the military at the border and that kind of thing.
Yeah.
I mean, here's a guy who, you know, there's only a couple, though.
There's not really too many.
I saw their compilation.
It was like two or three and kind of, you know, it's two or three more than anybody else.
Here's a guy.
Yeah.
Who stands up and pees in his own mess kit every once in a while.
And you don't need that.
Right.
And there are people around Doug McGregor who said, Doug, Doug, got it.
You know, and he's but he's not a go along, get along guy.
He's not going to say things just to get along.
But that that comes with a price and he's paid the price.
Yeah.
Well, I'll tell you what.
I mean, if if Trump brought him in just to militarize the border and keep us in Afghanistan, I'm going to be mad as hell, Mark.
That's not going to happen.
But if it's the other way around, they just the border status quo remains.
And he's really there to get us out of Afghanistan.
And I read a thing that said maybe even Somalia, too, then.
Hell, yes, because as little covered as it is, that's one of America's most shameful terror wars of the last generation here.
If if Trump called McGregor or I and I don't know how it happened, it probably happened through Newt Gingrich, who's a good friend of Doug McGregor's.
But however it happened, I'd love to be on the other end of the line kind of listening in as someone somewhere said, Doug, we're sending you to the Pentagon and here's your mandate.
Get us out of Afghanistan.
You've got two months go.
And if that's if that's what happened, Doug will do everything that he can to meet that mandate and to keep that pledge.
But it's going to be a tough job for him to do it.
But my guess is that's exactly what happened.
Somebody somewhere, Trump administration, maybe the president himself said, Carl McGregor, get us out of Afghanistan.
I think that that must be what happened.
Right.
You're right.
I mean, again, I'm speculating, too, but that must be it, that that's how it went down, because otherwise he wouldn't have been there, you know.
That's right.
So and you know what?
That'll make him, you know, 10 times the hero he is from the great tank battle, you know.
I think that that's possible.
That could be his lasting legacy if he gets it done and will.
But, you know, sir, you and I are going to have to wait and see with the rest of the country.
Oh, man.
Well, either that or you start dialing up them sources of yours and give us a scoop, Mark.
Well, I'm trying.
I keep trying.
We'll see.
Maybe McGregor himself will decide to to talk to me.
But I think that he's he's being as careful now as he has not been in the past with what he says and who he says it to.
Yeah.
Yeah.
He probably shouldn't be talking to anybody right now.
Let his actions speak for themselves.
I agree.
But anyway.
So listen, thank you so much for coming on the show.
It's been great.
And everybody check out this article.
It's at the Quincy Institute, responsible state craft dot org.
Kelly Vallejos is now running the something over there.
They're just getting better there.
It's called The Revenge of Colonel Douglas McGregor.
Read all about it from the reporter who knows him best.
The great Mark Perry.
Thank you, sir.
Appreciate it.
My pleasure.
Always, always happy to do this.
Talk soon.
All right.
And by the way, guys, Mark's latest book is called The Pentagon's Wars, a great one.
The Scott Horton Show, Antiwar Radio, can be heard on KPFK 90.7 FM in L.A.
APS Radio dot com, Antiwar dot com, Scott Horton dot org, and Libertarian Institute dot org.
