Scott Horton Show - Just the Interviews - 7/11/23 Daniel Davis on the Counteroffensive and Cluster Bombs

Episode Date: July 15, 2023

Scott was joined by Daniel Davis on Antiwar Radio this week to talk about Ukraine. In this interview, Davis gives an update on where things stand with the counter-offensive. They then refute some common arguments about how antiwar folks are responsible for Ukraine’s trouble breaching Russian lines. They then talk about some of the latest ideas drummed up by beltway “experts” to bring about an end to the war, including cluster bombs. Scott and Davis unpack what’s being presented and think through the likeliest consequences if these ideas are adopted.  Discussed on the show: Eleventh Hour in 2020 America by Daniel Davis Daniel Davis did multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan during his time in the army. He is a Senior Fellow at Defense Priorities and is the author of the reports “Dereliction of Duty II: Senior Military Leaders’ Loss of Integrity Wounds Afghan War Effort” and “Go Big or Go Deep: An Analysis of Strategy Options on Afghanistan.” Find him on Twitter @DanielLDavis1. This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Tom Woods’ Liberty Classroom; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott. Get Scott’s interviews before anyone else! Subscribe to the Substack. Shop Libertarian Institute merch or donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal or Bitcoin: 1DZBZNJrxUhQhEzgDh7k8JXHXRjY Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For Pacifica Radio, July 13th, 2020. I'm Scott Horton. This is Anti-War Radio. All right, y'all welcome the show. It is Anti-War Radio. I'm your host, Scott Horton. I'm the editorial director of Anti-War.com, and author of the book, hotter than the sun time to abolish nuclear weapons you can find my full interview archive almost 6,000 of them now going back to 2003 at scott horton.org and at youtube.com slash

scott horton show and all the other podcast and video sites and so forth and you can follow me on twitter if you dare at scott horton show all right y'all welcoming back to the show the great daniel l davis uh he's a lieutenant colonel in the u.s army retired now but he was was a combat veteran of Iraq War I, Iraq War II, and Afghanistan. And, of course, Matthew Hoek, gets all the great credit for blowing the whistle in 2009, warning Obama not to do the surge. But then three years later, Danny came out and said, Matthew was right, you shouldn't have done that, and it didn't work.

And Petraeus is lying, saying that it did. And it was really huge and important, and he's been telling the truth all about war ever since then. and he wrote a great book that's called The Eleventh Hour in 2020 America. And he writes for, well, he's a senior fellow with defense priorities and writes for 1945.com, most of all, I believe. Welcome back. How you doing, Day? I'm doing good, Scott. Always good. Pleasure to be here.

Happy to have you here. So it's been a few weeks. Can we just start with catching us up about what's going on on the ground in Ukraine as far as the summer offensive? the attempt by the Ukrainians to sever that land bridge. Yeah, yeah, that was the objective. They wanted to go from their current line of contact all the way down to the Azov coast near Malita Pole and some other places down there. That was the objective. But the effort now over four weeks later has been complete disaster for the Ukraine side.

They have completely failed. The Russian defenses, which had taken more than six months, and all once a year in certain locations to build up. So they had more than enough time to get just really elaborate defenses established over that time. The Ukraine side knew that to get to the coast, they would have to go through at least three major lines. And in some areas, five in the most critical parts of these belts of defense, which are each composed of dragon's teeth, razor wire, tank ditches,

and tank traps, and any number of other. entanglements to include dug in concrete pillboxes, etc., really elaborate, multi- echelon kind of defenses. That's going to be hard for any country to do in the world, and that includes us. If NATO countries tried to go through that, it would be an extremely difficult situation to get into for trained troops. Ukraine has not had the level of training necessary or skills sets even necessary, but far more than that, they haven't had the absolute prerequisite.

requisite for going into a defensive position of this sort. And that is air superiority or at least air parity. So at least you had an equal chance. They don't. They have hardly any air power. They have far too little air defense. They don't have as much artillery by like one to four ratio in the downside. And they need to be at least parity on that too. And maybe most critically of all right now, they don't have mind clearing equipment enough anywhere close to being enough. And without that, you can't breach minefields. And without breaching minefields, you can't use your armor without losing it in large numbers. And from the outset of this to include in the last 12 hours, it was another big push in the main area in the Zaporizia area where they lost a large number of Bradley's and German Leopard tanks, as they did in the opening phases of it in the first few days in the first of June. And it just shows that all Ukraine can do, the only way they can move forward at all is by having infiltration with infantry, where they basically leave their armor. vehicles behind and go around the anti-tank mines. And while that can get them a few kilometers, you can't get to the Azov Coast, which is 80 kilometers away without being able to breach the minefields with armor. And they haven't done that to date.

So far, and now closing in on five weeks since this thing started, they have lost tens of thousands of troops and hundreds of armored vehicles, and they still have not penetrated the first line of these three Russian defenses. And yet, every day they keep trying more and more with these infantry assaults and just taking horrific losses. And I just don't know how much longer they can keep doing this and still have the manpower behind it. It's egregious to watch. Hmm, man. So I guess I've read a couple of things pushing the Kiev line that say that, yeah, but we still have a bunch of divisions in reserve that we haven't broken out yet.

We're just testing the lines for weak points and stuff like that. So you don't know yet. Yeah, yeah, that's complete hogwash. that's nonsensical. They were doing that. That's called shaping operations, which is valid and legitimate before you'd launch into that.

But those things were being done in April and May. They did the shaping operations. It did the probing attacks, which is all necessary. And then they launched full on on probably the fourth or fifth of June, depending on how you want to count it when they actually began full scale.

But you don't do shaping operations a month after you start. And furthermore, as you've seen in the New York Times, Washington Post, Street Journal. They've all had extensive detail from aerial photographs, from satellite photographs. We know exactly where the Russian positions are. And I mean, to the detail that's, I think, unprecedented military history that just common people have access to precise, you know,

geolocated positions of wherever pillboxes, et cetera. You don't need to do very many probing attached to know where it is. It's right there. So that's just nonsense on Everdouble. They're just trying to cover over for the complete lack of success. And while part of me gets that, they don't want to admit failure, but the consequence to not admitting failure is to continue to reinforcing negative outcomes and just sending their troops into slaughter. And that is unconscionable to me. It's anti-war radio, Scott Horton here talking with Daniel Davis. Now, the war party says, and I know you see this even at 1945, were you right? And, of course, all over Twitter and whatever they say

well yeah that's because of the stab in the back. A bunch of liberal nambi pambis like you said that it's not okay to give them the tanks and the F-16s and the long range rocket artillery that they need and we've been piecemealing it out and taking way too long and

if only we had quadrupled down on our support for Ukraine a year ago they would have won this war Danny well there's a they have a partial agreement or criticism is valid with that in that we did just just dribble stuff out left and right look if we were going to not do something we should have just not done it but if we're going to do it then why wait six 12 months you know into this thing

15 to 18 months whatever things keep dribbling out but the fact is that any analysis would have shown that if you had done all the stuff up front immediately Ukraine didn't have the army to be able to handle this on the first day of the war Ukraine had about 250,000 activity troops. You couldn't have given them, you know, multiple brigades worth of equipment because they wouldn't have even known how to use it. So it wouldn't have worked if you gave it to them right away. Trying to give it to them later in some sense was necessary because you had to train people up. But of course, all the time you're doing this train up, you're also losing people by the hundreds every single day. Now, these people that you trained, a lot of these Western trained

in NATO countries that they put in there have already died. And they died really quickly, especially in the 47th and 33rd brigades, they were the spearhead of this offensive, and they just ran into an absolute bus saw on the first days, and again, last night. And so you see everywhere that we have used these trained NATO equipment, trained NATO troops, they go in there. What happens? They just get chewed up in a bus cell. So it didn't matter if you had an early, late, or medium. It's not going to change the outcome because of the capacity of the Russian side, which is on graphic display, especially in their defensive. Now, whether Russia can convert that into an offensive here in this summer is still an open question. But their defensive capacity and their

skill set and their industrial capacity and their ability to build defenses is absolutely beyond question. Well, so there's so many things there. But first of all, to go back to the first part of your answer there, my first book, Fool's Errant, is named after our discussion of Afghanistan. And I said, yeah, but what if instead of Petraeus you had had a competent general? And would if instead of, you know, the, what, 70,000 that Obama sent in the surge? They always say it was 30. It was 70. But would if instead of 70, they'd sent 500,000? We're just going to deploy our army there and we're going to pacify these posh tunes and remake this country and win it. Would that have worked? And your answer was, nope, still a fool's

errand. Can't be done. And so that's sort of the same question here. How much support could we have given them and would it have worked or it would have just proverbially ended up in the hands of the Taliban? No, yeah, yeah, that one was the case because of the fundamentals that existed there in that the more you put, the more resistance you would have generated, because that's where most of it came from. The more you see over time, the more troops we put in Afghanistan, the more violence there was because we went into areas where we weren't before, and all it does is

engender expected and predictable resistance. And then we saw how that worked out for the very reason. that we suggested back in those years ago. The same thing exists here for somewhat different reasons there. Like I said, if you had given all those troops and all those weapons and everything that they wanted on day one, number one, they didn't have a capacity to use it, so it was not even possible back then.

You can't just give them F-16s when they don't have any training for that. For example, you can't give them a bunch of tanks when they have no training on it. All those things take months of time in the very least to do. They didn't have months of time. So that wouldn't have worked. And you couldn't have done it before. You could just say, okay, well, we're going to give it to them in like 2021.

That would have sparked war itself. Russia would have invaded earlier recognizing the obvious threat. In the event that you triple down now and you say, okay, we're going to give them F-16s, long-range weapons systems, maybe send, you know, some, what do they call them, you know, some volunteers from a bunch of, you know, tens of thousands. And suddenly there's thousands of other troops that are going in there from Western countries, so-called volunteers, even that's not going to work because the worst-case scenario that it succeeds or the best case in some view people's minds. And let's say that they actually get to the Azov Coast

and they cut the Lange Bridge off to Crimea and all that stuff. What do you think is going to happen? Is Russia going to go darn it? Dang it. You finally got it. It's all right. We're going home. Of course not. Before they ever get to the coast, if it was clear they were going to make that smooth, nuclear weapons come out. There is zero chance. In my view, Scott, not even a unlikely, but zero chance that Putin would ever allow his forces to be driven out of Ukraine and not resort to the tactical nuclear weapons. They've been very clear about that all the way through that if their territory integrity is threatened, that their viability is threatened, they will use them unambiguously. And we would do the same in the reverse, which is why

that has held that mutual deterrence has held. But if they succeeded in what these people say they want to do and win on the battlefield, all you're going to do is. spark nuclear escalation, and everything is on the table then. It could be disaster for mankind. All right. Now, reassure me a little bit there because they still have millions more fighting age males they could conscript there in Russia before they have to resort to that. But you're just saying, in the event, for hypotheticals sake, they lose the Azov Coast

and they cannot take it back conventionally. Well, if they'll do what they've got to do. That issue comes to Pat. The rush is, and that's one of the reasons why I say that it just can't be won by Ukraine conventionally because Russia has too much capacity that they could bring up that Ukraine can never match. Well, of course, if Ukraine... If they started having success...

Dan, if the Ukrainians, as you say in the hypothetical there, they sever the land bridge, well, now they're surrounded. You know, it's like you part the Red Sea, but how long can you hold it back? It's going to come crashing back anyway, you know? Well, yeah, I mean, that's a separate tactical issue there. If you made a corridor down to the Azov coast and all of your flanks are exposed and you don't have the troops to hold all that. So even the hypothetical almost certainly could not be matched. But my point being that if people got their way and the Azov Coast was cut, then the chances

of nuclear war go through the roof. And how's that in anybody's benefit in the West or in the world? It's not. So every way you look at it, we don't benefit by this war continuing on. Ukraine is not going to win it because if they start to, Russia brings out their Trump card. And I don't understand why people don't get that. Hang on just one second for me. You guys know that I consider the Defend the Guard movement, led by the combat vets at Bring Our Troops Home.us and Defendtheguard.us, to be the most important thing happening in American politics today.

Simply put, this law would nullify the empire by preventing the state governors from handing their national guard troops over to the president for foreign combat without an official declaration of war from the Congress. We've made great progress getting it out. of committee, and even past the state senate in Arizona. Help support Bring Our Troops Home and Defend the Guard at Bring Our Troops Home.us and Defend the Guard.us.

And their director of field operations, Diego Rivera, teaches a political leadership class that is the most effective training like it anywhere. He's still a soldier, only now his mission is peace. So heads up all you anti-war vets, we've got a mission for you. Find out all about their upcoming training sessions and help support at Bring Our Troopsome.us and defend the guard.us. Hey, y'all, Scott Horton here for the Libertarian Institute at Libertarian Institute.org. I'm the director.

Then we've got Sheldon Richman, Kyle Anzalone, Keith Knight, Lori Calhoun, Jim Beauvard, Connor, Conner Freeman, Will Porter, Patrick Murfarlane, and Tommy Salman's on our staff, writing and podcasting. And we've also got a ton of other great writers, too, like Walter Block, Richard Booth, Boss Spleat, Kim Robinson, and William Van Wagonin. We've published eight books so far, including my latest, Hotter Than the Sun, Time to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, and Keith Knight's new Voluntarius Handbook. And we've got quite a few more great ones coming soon.

Check out Libertarian Institute.org slash books. It's a whole new era. We libertarians don't have the power, but we do have enough influence to try to lead the left and the right to make things right. us at Libertarian Institute.org. Man, you know what? I mean, all right, it's anti-war radio. I'm Scott Horton.

I'm talking with Daniel L. Davis. And doesn't it come down to, Danny, the counterpoint that is the consensus in Washington, D.C., is not because Chamberlain and Hitler at Munich. You are getting me riled up here. That is one of the things I jump on the most because it is absolute and complete nonsense to even suggest that Russia has the capacity to move one inch beyond the Ukraine into any NATO territory. Look, we've had 17 months of all that warfare by Russia, and they are still stuck at 17 or 18 percent of the one country on their border that has no mutual defense alliances with anyone. The idea that they could go one inch into a 31 and almost 32 member NATO alliance with conventional power is absurd. They physically,

the Russians cannot move into NATO territory. They don't have the capacity to project power that far. They are limited right now, Scott, here's the Achilles heel. Russia is limited to about 180 kilometers beyond their forward lines at any time to project power. That's all they can do.

Their system is physically incapable of doing more than that. So that means they can't push into Western Europe because they don't have the capacity. They physically don't have the ability to do it. So it doesn't matter what they want to do, what people think they want to do what they're afraid. They can't make good on that threat. So that is a straw man that doesn't even exist. All right. So on the argument of, well, we just didn't give them enough fast enough would include, and I've seen a couple of tweets along these lines saying we should have given

them the cluster bombs. That's what they need. These anti-personnel cluster bombs are just great for killing Russians with, and finally Biden's doing it, but too late. What do you say to that? And by the way, you were, I guess, a tank commander, but that's, you know, Army infantry, essentially, right? So you know this level of warfare very well. I do. I literally just published something on this a couple of days ago on 1945, that you mentioned earlier. And I was a fire support officer, an artillery officer in Desert Storm, that was my first combat operation and I actually called for fire using these cluster munitions both from MLRS rockets and 155 millimeter howitzers and I can tell you that they are devastatingly effective I've

personally observed it when I called for fire saw it and hit the target saw what happened to the target afterwards and they are significantly more capable than their standard 155 high explosive rounds which is what we've been given but as I painstakingly pointed out they are not game changers just like the high mars weren't game changers or the the 155 millimeter towers before were not game changes or the patriots weren't game change. Everybody wants to make everything we've given a game changer. None of them have been, neither is this because war is a combined arms operation. It's not an individual tactical or technical piece of gear. It's all about how the thing is used.

It's how it coordinates and cooperates with other arms. You have to have everything together to make all of them work in an evening. end that can help you be successful in the battlefield. This will be more effective. If they get a cluster ammunition 155 shell instead of a high explosive 155 shell, it'll be more effective. But that's it. It'll just be somewhat more effective, but marginally so.

And it's not going to change the outcome of anything. Yeah. All right. Now, here's the thing about that, though, too. Collateral damage. It's not exactly Laos and Cambodia deep rainforest jungle, but it is a lot of forested land and even on the step it's very muddy

and so you have a dud rate here and the and the duds last decades and so this is what we're talking about these things are going to be in the mud right so farmers and their children are going to be dying for decades over this

how can we be you know all this morality based foreign policy when we're delivering cluster bombs to the battlefield Danny Yeah, and the thing is Ukraine's using them too already. They have been for a while because they've gotten some from other Western countries.

Yeah, and from Turkey. But the issue is that Ukraine doesn't care. And they even said so. They said, hey, look, the places being mined already backwards and forward. So this is just a little bit more. And we'll figure that out later. That's what they're saying. Because when you're under fire, you don't care about that stuff about 10, 15, 50 years later.

You just care about what's happening now. Of course, now I'm arguing that you're going to care 5, 10, 15, 50 years later, and you're going to care now because it's not going to provide the outcome that you expect. So all you're doing is condemning future generations of your countrymen and something that's not going to make a difference now. And that's just the hard reality of it. And the whole thing about the minefields that Russia has set up in here and that Ukraine on their side has set up these extensive minefields. These are in the choicest agricultural areas of the country. I don't know how they're going to get, how are you going to plow a field to get it ready, knowing that there's some number of equipment is going to get blown up indefinitely.

I don't know how they recover from this. And the more they do, the more long-range damage is going to this country. It's just catastrophic. Yeah, it's really terrible. Okay, so let's see. It's anti-war radio. I'm Scott Horton, checking the clock here, talking with Daniel Davis. A couple more issues here.

you know when I spoke to you a couple months back about the battle for Bachmute you were pointing out you were essentially had a take on this that was quite different than everyone else's the I don't know everyone but certainly the mainstream narrative was the Russians have to resort to using these mercenaries to take this town that's how pathetic and lowly and weak they are and we can take them and what you said to me about it was they're not even using their military they're just sending these prisoners to go and take this his town of the whole army's just sitting back.

And then I had read a thing that said that this is what kind of led to the coup was that when the offensive came, the Russian army had no problem handling it without the Wagner Group's help. And so then that, you know, put them in the position of power that they were able to read the Ryan Act to Progozen and his people and try to force them to join the army, which is what made him do his mutiny and try to get Putin to take his side over theirs and all this. But I just wonder what's your take on all that if you could. Yeah.

And the Bachmoot thing played out just like we expected it would. I mean, they methodically, the Russians did move through and eventually take it. And it didn't have any particular, you know, really tactical or even moral vacuum. Everybody was worried about if it failed, it would cause all these problems. Well, it did fall. and who even remembers it today already and the Wagner group had withdrawn from that even prior to their uprising

so they were no longer even in the fight. They had been completely withdrawn to try and recuperate for future operations. I think they were at the earliest going to come back in August and who knows that may still happen at least in some degree. But the bottom line is that the Russians

were spending all this time while everybody was focused on Bakhmut to just deepen and expand these defensive belts that they're in now because they knew because everybody in the world in the Ukraine government told them that they were going to do this offensive operation. So they took all this time that was necessary to spend minute detail in preparing this defensive lines. And you see the results of it right now. So far, they haven't even

penetrated the security zone, much less the first main belt of this defensive situation. And they're getting mauled in the process. The chance that they could ever make it through all three as close to impossible as you can get. So you see that Russia benefited greatly from the time that it took those nine months to get Bakhmud. They benefited by being able to defend this stuff here. What remains to be seen is has Russia also been building an offensive capacity in the wings while this has been going on so that they can take advantage? Russian doctrine calls for the defense to weaken the enemy to the extent that then the Russians can go

on these operational offensive and large-scale maneuver. That's what their doctrine calls for. So far, their doctrine has been carried out to the T in the defensive part. So I expect them also to be following that and having prepared this offensive. Later this summer, we'll find out whether that's the case or not. And I don't have any independent means to know that they have that force or not, so I have to wait and watch. But what I can tell you is that they have followed their current doctrine in tremendous detail

on the defensive side and the expectation is they also are. are following that. And once Ukraine burns themselves out on these defensive belts, I would expect you to see Russia then launch a counteroffensive on large scale somewhere else where they're weaker. And that may be the fatal flaw of it all for the Ukraine side. And then, although we've seen that both sides have done a pretty good job defending, right? I mean, it did take the Russians, what, three quarters of a year just to take Bokhmut. Not that, well, again, it was just Wagner doing it, but I understand that. Russia spent all those nine months building defensive fortifications.

Ukraine has spent these nine months trying to build this offensive force. They don't have these multiple belts on the other side of the Russia. They have some defensive belts in many areas, but not as extensive as this. So if you break through one of those, you don't have two more weight behind it. And that remains to be seen. And some areas don't have hardly anything. And that's where they're at greatest risk. So I guess my assumption just based on the recent history here is that we have between these two mostly defensive armies, we have the unstoppable force and the immovable object on both sides.

And because the Russians have already carved out so much territory, as you've described, they can certainly defend it. And I guess even though they don't have that many defenses, it's still their home territory, even if they haven't been digging trenches and. laying all the razor wire and everything, it's still their home country and it's still the size of Texas, and there's still control, the national government still controls something like 80% of it. So

that's a hell of a lot for the Russians to still try to break off. It is, but Russia doesn't have any interest in getting the other 80%. At the most, they want probably Odessa and Kharkief. That's all they want, because if they get those, they completely control the rest of the country, and

they don't desire to hold the rest. So what their objectives are are still attainable, at least theoretically so. And so what about that territory between the Neeper and the Donbass there? Yeah, that's all open to, I mean, that's open to being potentially taken as well. But the real issue is those two major cities I just mentioned, because they control everything in the north and in the south and would completely cut off any kind of trade going on in the south and give Russia. to almost complete control over everything else that they don't have physical control over. That's why it's so important. All right.

And to finish up here, it's anti-war radio talking with Daniel L. Davis from 1945.com. And can you talk to us a little bit about your new piece about all this talk about bringing Ukraine into NATO? I mean, thankfully, Biden told CNN he's not going to do it. So that's good. Although, I don't know if we can believe him, but it sounds like at least. least it's not going to happen right now. But the odd thing is that just hours ago, Zelensky tweeted out a pretty bold in-your-face challenge to NATO. And then he's saying, hey, it's immoral to keep dangling this hope of eventual NATO membership without giving us an actual date, you know, and something that we can put our fingers on.

And I'm going to be talking about this when I give my speech. And at least from what I've been reading behind the scenes is that everybody in the NATO Alliance has been telling him, don't come and make ways for this. We're going to give you a bunch of stuff and we're going to continue to give you support, but don't embarrass this by making some kind of statement, you know, like demanding admission now because you're not going to get it. Well, if he comes and does that anyway, he sets up one of two problems. Either he's going to be weakened at home because people are going to see that he has no influence. and he makes a big bold statement, he gets ignored, or he's going to embarrass the NATO countries and leaders are going to embarrass him by saying, yeah, no, I don't care. You're still not going to get it, both of which would be bad for Ukraine.

Now, obviously, I've just spent this whole show arguing that they don't have a path to military victory and they should do something, negotiate some kind of a settlement as soon as they can for the sake of what they still possess. But to try and go this route could make that even more untenable, because if you put a, issue here in UVM weakened at home, you actually increase the chance that Russia would succeed more on the battlefield because if your troops think that you have lost credibility, they may not fight as hard as they do now. So that moral implication, there's a lot at riding on this. And I'll be real interested to see what he says in his speech, I think, tomorrow.

So, Danny, I keep reading that. You know, there's all these joint letters by experts, so called, you know, over there at Politico and all these things where sounds like at least a substantial plurality, if not the majority consensus in D.C. is no, we should be doing this. We should be bringing Ukraine into NATO right now. And then Putin wouldn't dare be such a bully knowing he's up against us. That just mystifies me, Scott. I am shocked and troubled that so many of these people who do have expert badges on their names and credibility are making those kind of statements because it's just patently inaccurate. I mean, the actual, the exact opposite would happen if they did. It's not going to make Putin back down. It's going to make him triple down. I mean, he's going to push

even harder because that's the whole reason they went to war in the first place. They don't want NATO in Ukraine on their, you know, their shared border, which was huge. They want some kind of security on their border, and they will do anything it takes to keep it that way. If you press that to put the NATO alliance on there, he's going to push even harder to make it in, of course, then you have the potential for nuclear weapons. Everything

they're saying puts the United States at greater risk than it is now, and we need to ignore them wholesale. Yeah, it's just amazing the way that they can see this. It's like, what's he going to do, Newk, D.C.? Well, yeah, maybe. Yeah. Yeah, maybe Houston and Denver and L.A.

That's exactly possible. And it mystifies me how people are so cavalier with such catastrophic risk, which is not unreasonable to believe. Aren't you guys, that is Daniel L. Davis, senior fellow at Defense Priorities, Retired Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army, writes the most for 1945.com and wrote the book The Eleventh Hour in 2020 America. He's on Twitter at Daniel L. Davis One. Thank you very much for your time against her. Appreciate it. Always my pleasure, Scott. Thanks for having me. All right, y'all. And that's it for Anti-War Radio for today. I'm your host, Scott Horton. I'm at anti-war.com and at Scott Horton.org.

You follow me on Twitter at Scott Horton's show. And I am here every Thursday from 2.30 to 3 on KPFK, 90.7 FM in L.A. See you next week. Thank you.