Scott Horton Show - Just the Interviews - 8/27/21 Daniel Davis on the Kabul Airport Bombing
Episode Date: August 31, 2021Scott speaks with Daniel Davis about the suicide bombing at the entrance to the Kabul Airport. Davis considers this an especially devastating attack because the soldiers killed were only days away fro...m being withdrawn from the country. He also believes that these withdrawal issues could have been prevented if U.S. troops had left a decade ago instead of flooding the country as they did under Obama’s surge. Davis goes on to explain why he has no respect for those who lie to the families of dead soldiers about what they died fighting for, all while sending new soldiers off to the same pointless mission. Finally, Davis takes on the argument that we should never have given up Bagram Air Base, and he explains why taking it back now would be disastrous. Discussed on the show: “Looser rules, more civilian deaths, a Taliban takeover: Inside America’s failed Afghan drone campaign” (Audacy) Daniel Davis did multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan during his time in the army. He writes a weekly column for National Interest 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: The War State and Why The Vietnam War?, by Mike Swanson; Tom Woods’ Liberty Classroom; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott; EasyShip; Thc Hemp Spot; Green Mill Supercritical; Bug-A-Salt; Lorenzotti Coffee and Listen and Think Audio. Shop Libertarian Institute merch or donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal or Bitcoin: 1DZBZNJrxUhQhEzgDh7k8JXHXRjYu5tZiG. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcript
Discussion (0)
All right, y'all, welcome to the Scott Horton Show.
I'm the director of the Libertarian Institute, editorial director of anti-war.com, author
of the book, Fool's Aaron, Time to End the War in Afghanistan, and the brand new, enough already.
Time to end the war on terrorism.
And I've recorded more the 5,500 interviews since 2000.
almost all on foreign policy and all available for you at scothorton dot four you can sign up the podcast feed there and the full interview archive is also available at youtube.com slash scott horton show all right hey you guys check it out it's dandy davis a former lieutenant colonel in the u.s army and again a famous whistleblower from the afghan war from 2012 decorated veteran of iraq war one
and to, and Afghanistan.
And he blew the whistle on how Petraeus was lying that his surge had accomplished anything on the way out in 2012 and said, don't you believe it, America.
And he was sure right about that.
And so welcome back to the show.
Great to have you on.
Thank you for joining us again.
You always know it's my pleasure.
And defense priorities.
That's your home now, right?
Yeah.
Yeah, I should have said that earlier in the introduction.
All right. Anyway, so it's like this.
Top headline on anti-war.com.
Kabul attacks kill 73, including 13 U.S. troops.
And that's Marines and a Navy corpsman, I believe, was one of them was the last I saw there.
So I guess just tell us what's on your mind, your reaction to the attack and your understanding of what happened with this attack at the Kabul airport yesterday.
It's just such an egregious, you know, CODA to end this catastrophic 20-year war.
I mean, just as a, you know, a brother in arms of anyone who's ever served, we all feel part of that brotherhood, you know.
And when anybody loses their life in combat, it's just you feel it personally.
And I certainly do.
But this one has got to be even more egregious because, I mean, what can you say to the family members that you're,
loved ones lost their lives literally days, just a handful of days before the end of this
pointless 20-year war. And that's been what's driving me really from the beginning, ever
since I've really back in 2009 when I first started publishing on this stuff, but especially
in 2012 after I got back from my second combat tour and new people who were killed in
combat. That's what's been driving me relentlessly over the years. Maybe not quite as much
as you, but I've been giving you a run for your money on the relentless drive.
part, but that's why. Because, you know, this is not just a policy issue. This is not just a
good idea or bad idea. This is catastrophic life and death issues. Men are dead that shouldn't be
dead. Women are dead that shouldn't be dead. And that goes for both the United States and the Afghan side
because this could have been capped off at least a decade ago. And maybe the same outcome would
have happened. Maybe the Afghan government would have been able to stand on their own if we had
withdrawing when we had a chance and when they would have had a chance but we didn't take any
of those opportunities we just continued to lie every year about how things were making progress
even though we knew for sure behind the scenes that they weren't everybody's like y'all i'm only there
for a year so i'll just continue the fiction until it's handed off to the next gun it'll be somebody else's
problem well the problem with that is that eventually the catastrophe and the metastasis of the
cancer gets so big. You can't spin it anymore. And finally, reality imposes itself over the
spin, which is precisely what we had with the collapse of the Afghan government, the rise of
the Taliban. Now no one can hide from the truth anymore. And now at the very end, we have one more
big casualty list. And it's just such a tragedy because it could have been avoided.
Yeah. All right. Now, to zoom in on what actually happened there,
who done it? And do we need to reinvade the country now?
There's certainly plenty of people called for that.
I was on a few TV shows last night where there was some of the other guests were arguing exactly that thing.
And there's been no shortage of heroic congressmen trying to argue for that's what we should do right now.
But that is just insane and idiotic to be putting it politely.
What we know is that it was high probability that was what's called ISIS K,
which is, it's an acronym for basically the same ISIS group that originated in Syria and Iraq,
a splinter group has formed in Afghanistan, which basically has drawn itself from the most radical
elements of the Afghan and the Taliban and the Pakistan Taliban, the two separate organizations.
Those Taliban were not violent enough for these people.
So they formed their own offshoot and called themselves ISIS-K.
The thing is that they're relatively small.
There's estimates anywhere between 1 and 2,000 total in the country.
And just to give you a means of comparison, there's somewhere between 75 and 100,000 Taliban.
So, you know, it's just a minuscule number in comparison.
But what you see is when somebody's intent on doing violence and evil and murder, it's not that hard because of all the chaos in Kabul, you know, it's an impossibility to suggest that the Taliban had the ability to provide.
perfect security for the area around the Kabul airport. And look, they have self-interest
to want to do so because they hate the ISIS and they've been a battle with them for a long,
long time. And by the way, 28 people who were killing that blast were Taliban. So this idea that
they may have been secretly colluding to try to kill us is absurd because they're not going to
sacrifice 28 of their own guys. I mean, that's absurd. But this idea that we need to either keep troops
there or send more over there to fight them is absurd because look this just highlights what one of
the things we've been saying forever and on your show too the only reason they kill these
americans is because they're there if we withdrew earlier if we had withdrawn on may first like
we were supposed to have originally they wouldn't be there they wouldn't have been there
to be attacked and after we leave they again won't be able to go anywhere they are a national
organization, they may have fantasies about international terrorism, but they've got to leave there
in order to do anything anywhere else. And we have great mechanisms to track all of that kind of
stuff. And it's been very effective over the years and improved dramatically, which also
underscores why we don't need troops on the ground there. And we will continue to keep ourselves
safe. But I'm arguing that it'll actually be better because now that we won't have those
targets just sitting there waiting to find out if somebody's going to attack them or not. And of course,
the same reason why we need to withdraw from Iraq and Syria, but that's an argument for a
separate day, but this logic remains valid. Yeah. Boy, yeah, there's a whole other set of
arguments for there. But now, so this is the thing, right? The knee jerks that, look, if 13 of our
guys just got killed, well, of course, then we have to put more of our guys in harm's way.
We have to continue the war, because otherwise, essentially, we're letting the other guys get the
last word, something like that. Yeah, and look, and let me be, let me make sure I'm clear on this.
I in no way suggest that there shouldn't be retribution for what happened, and I'm a strong
proponent that there should. But that also underscores how effective we can be, because
the same mechanisms that we used to take out Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, Al-Baghdadi
in Syria, Soleimenei, when he was in Baghdad that time, all of the organization and the troops
and the assets that actually took out those threats to America,
none of them were on the ground in those places, none of them,
not even the one in Iraq, even though we had troops there,
the strike team came from elsewhere.
And we will do the same thing here.
In fact, I would be surprised if Biden does anything before we get out.
I would strongly suggest and hopefully does wait until after Tuesday,
so it'll lessen the chance of any more American targets getting shot while we're, you know,
we're still there.
once we're out and the risk is lower,
then I'm sure he'll use that same capability
to make direct strikes on targeted ISIS people
and will exact a revenge and a justice
for the murderous attack.
Yeah.
But you don't need troops on the ground for that.
I wouldn't be too surprised if the Taliban beat him to it
and just lynched some guys and said, we got them.
And I wouldn't be surprised they got the right guys, actually, at this point, you know?
It's entirely possible because they have interest,
They have reason to do that.
Well, and they've been, you know, fighting more than we did.
Really bloody, horrible battles against ISIS for a very long time.
And, I mean, that's the thing that, you know, I'm not sure.
I've really got to start watching cable TV news again, I guess, because it is important.
It's hard.
I know, man.
You know.
But that's, you know, there's a lot of things missing from the narrative, such as the Taliban have a real interest in killing these guys.
Aside from just sucking up to us, they hate them anyway.
Yeah.
Man, you know, I saw the most disappointing thing.
Let me go ahead and complain about this in another interview already.
Reed, Coverdale, sent me a video of Tulsi Gabbard saying that the presumed ISIS guys,
and she just throws in Al-Qaeda, like, oh, yeah, no, we have to believe Al-Qaeda's in Afghanistan, too,
just as long as you're making up stuff.
And then she says, yeah, no, they did this because we,
won't convert to their religion and so that's you know and I'm thinking wow what a permanent war
we're going to have to fight forever Danny that's interesting Tulsi used to be pretty good on some of
this stuff I'm really surprised about that yeah no she's always got the core premises of the terror war
wrong and as wrong as she can I'm not really sure why she used to pile around with the Christians
United for Israel you know hardcore Christian Zionist crazies movement and stuff like that
But it seems like that was a while back.
Seems like they have less influence over her.
But she sounds like Frank Gaffney on this stuff.
It's just absolutely ridiculous.
At one point during the campaign,
she put out a video on Twitter
where she said there are hundreds of these groups.
She goes, look, there's al-Qaeda in the Idlib province.
There's al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula,
which America backs in both those circumstances, as she knows.
But anyway, there's al-Shabaab in Somalia.
I'm like, okay, well, you, all right.
And then next, after that, there are hundreds of these groups.
Oh, really?
Is that why you can name three?
And on the third one, you're already stretching it?
Okay.
You know, hundreds of these groups.
So anywhere there's a SUNY with a rifle, America has to stay a war forever.
Come on.
Yeah.
That's really one of the fundamental flaws that, number one,
that putting troops even does or can help prevent terrorist,
attacks against our people, but number two, that you can, that there's even a need for it,
because unless they can get out of wherever they are, it doesn't matter how angry they are
with a collision of cough rifle. They can't do anything to America or Americans. But if they
start traveling and start doing things and making plans, now that they can be identified
and interdicted. So unless they do something, there's no point in wasting a lot of resources
that aren't going to be successful anyway, and they aren't necessary, because they can rail and
scream all they want in the empty desert
and it's not going to make any difference to us.
So just leave them alone.
Yeah.
All right.
Now here's the thing.
And it's legitimate in its own little
way anyway, right?
Is, and I actually
hadn't seen this myself, but I heard about it
and sounds right.
That they've got dead
soldiers' families on TV,
especially on Fox, I guess.
Saying that, you know,
by backing out of the war,
that's what means that everybody who fought and it died for nothing.
And that's what's the disgrace to their family.
They've been proud that their son had paid the ultimate sacrifice for the right reason.
And then now the Democrats completely blow it.
And that's certainly how they feel about it.
But so what would you say to them?
Yeah.
You know, you've got to tread careful on that because I have such extremely high respect.
and empathy for all of the family members who've lost.
It's been, as I said earlier, it's been one of my driving factors
and why I've been so relentless over, you know, a decade and a half on that this stuff
needs to be ending because of the consequence and the cost to us.
So I wouldn't really directly say anything to them because, I mean, any family member
who loses a loved one in a combat zone, especially, are desperate for anything to show
that the sacrifice was not in vain, that something positive was actually accomplished.
And to be deprived of that is to, in some ways, increase the pain.
But what I consider a, you know, almost far more egregious, if not outright, vindictive
policy is to tread with that and to apply with that anger and that emotion and say, no, no,
They were all heroes and allowed them because then that perpetuates the thing.
Like there's some laudatory philosophy or idea that, yeah, let's keep doing this because that's good on them.
No, no, it's not because the bloody, hard, cold fact is that these lives have almost all been sacrificed for no gain to our country.
They shouldn't have been put in harm's way.
They shouldn't have had to sacrifice their lives.
and our country is not better for it.
In fact, it's worse for it because our security has been lessened by all of these
price and costs that we keep paying, both financially and blood and limbs.
So my focus would be on the people who sent them there and who keep sending them there
and all these people who want to recommend that we keep going or that we go back in.
Look, you go talk to and explain to the mothers and the wives and the kids of the soldiers
who haven't died yet and explain to them why it's cool for,
their son or daughter to die, for their husband or their father or their mother to sacrifice
their life for no gain to our country. It's self-evident that this is not a successful.
Now, when you do that, then I might have a little bit more respect for you. You'll still be
wrong. But that's what I want to see. And I'm so tired of seeing people, you know, hold up their
sacrifices, though it's something intrinsically valuable by itself that, you know, in spite of what
the war has done. Hey, y'all, check out my new book, Enough Already. Time to
and the war on terrorism at enough already book.net.
Early reviews are that people either think it's hilarious
or they get so angry that they put it down.
But it's the Iranian Revolution, the 80s Afghan War,
the Iran-Iraq War I, Iraq War I, Iraq War I half,
and then Afghanistan, Iraq War II, Somalia, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Iraq War III, Yemen,
and all the special operations wars throughout Africa
in the aftermath of the war in Libya.
It's all there for you.
It might change your friend's mind.
Enough already.
Time to end the war on terrorism at enough already book.net.
Hey guys, Scott Horton here for Expanddesigns.com.
Harley Abbott and his crew do an outstanding job designing, building, and maintaining my sites,
and they'll do great work for you.
You need a new website?
Go to expanddesigns.com slash Scott and say 500 bucks.
hey guys check out listen and think audio books they're at listen and think dot com and of course on audible.com
and they feature my book fools errand time to end the war in afghanistan as well as brand new out inside
syria by our friend reese airlock and a lot of other great books mostly by libertarians there
uh reese might be one exception but essentially they're all libertarian audiobooks and here's how you can
get a lifetime subscription to listen and think audio books
just donate $100 to the Scott Horton show at Scotthorton.org slash donate.
And, you know, the thing of it is, is it's almost all people who have not been over there who talk that way.
It's not really, I mean, I'm sure there are veterans families who've got really hurt feelings going on right now.
But mostly this kind of thing is invoked by people who probably hadn't actually met a soldier in 10 years or something, you know?
Yeah.
Living in New York City in their fancy glass tower.
And look, and I think a lot of the people, it's not true of everybody, but a lot of these people who were so quick to traffic on the emotional, these people, they don't even know what you or don't even care.
They just think it's an effective tool.
And I just, it just rugs me the wrong way.
Yeah.
Yeah, you know, I hate the partisanship of it all.
I mean, I know you lean a little bit right, but it doesn't seem like you're much of a party guy.
I'm an American guy
I don't really care much about either party
just to be honest with you
But it's just
You can see where for the people who do put party first
How it just dumps down every single thing
Out of their mouth in such a horrible way
Just destroys any semblance of real debate
About what's happening or why
Yeah that is that is so true
And you know I mean really
This is one of the best examples of that right
Where Trump and Biden's people are blaming each other
when they should both be blaming George W. Bush and Barack Obama and congratulating each other.
And, you know, I mean, that should be the thing of it. You know, Trump negotiated this deal and Biden saw it through.
And even in his statement yesterday, he said, look, if McKenzie asked me for more soldiers for the implementation of the evacuation, he can have them.
But I asked him, do you have what you want and need? And he said, yes. So that's where.
it stands, and no, we're not re-escalating the war. And you can tell everybody who's hawking
it up on this, or I don't know everybody. I should be reading the National Review, I guess,
but everybody who I see hawking it up on the war, they're not saying it. If we send troops back,
then that means, you realize that means war, and that means another regime change in Kabul,
and that means we're going to have to send, what, 50, 75,000 guys and massive air power to now
reinforce the Taliban out of all the capital cities and get right back to where we were a year ago
supposedly somehow and call that progress toward what because anything less than that what are
you going to do you're going to start the war all over again but with your last few guys right
there in their hands better not do that but nobody's even talking about the consequences of that
where we have a ceasefire right now we have a handshake and they're living up to it so that would
be a pretty big deal to break that at this late date, wouldn't it?
You know, this, one of the things I've seen floated around by a bunch of people,
so somebody even asked it in the, in Biden's press conference yesterday.
In fact, one of the generals I was on with the overnight, again, said, you know,
one of the most catastrophic decisions was the decision to give up Bogram Air Base earlier
in the process, and, you know, we should, we should just go back and reoccupy it.
And I'm like, you got to be kidding me.
Number one, when the, when the bargram was handed over in early July, July 2nd, I believe was the date, at that time, we were operating or we were conducting a withdrawal of 2,500 soldiers with the expectation to leave 600 of them and the embassy compound to continue operating. There was no evacuation. It was just a military withdrawal and a sequenced collapse of all of our facilities, which made perfect sense. It wasn't until you had the almost simultaneous collapse of the political and military.
infrastructure in total in Masari Sharif, Kandahar city, and Harat City, the three largest cities
outside of Kabul simultaneously. And instead of the Taliban having to fight their way, you know,
to win in those cities and then come to Kabul, they literally just drove in their cars to Kabul.
So everything was over. And suddenly, and as of April or August 13th, that's when the last city
fell, now all of a sudden you have a massive scramble and now it's an evacuation. Instead of
2,500, now it's like well over 100,000. And the idea that to go back and change what actually
happened and say, oh, we shouldn't have given away Bogram then, because it wasn't an evacuation
then. Otherwise, of course, that's what we would have done. It made perfect sense. But it didn't
make any sense the way if it had just been a withdrawal where the Afghan government and military
just continued to function and exist, then everything would have been actually pretty smooth
the way it's gone down. But to go back in, are you kidding?
me because that would, number one, that airfield is occupied by Taliban.
You would have to seize it with a combat operation, kill all those guys, and that by itself
is going to be an expensive endeavor, both in blood and treasure.
And then just to your point, this makes all of a sudden the Taliban is now an active enemy.
And look, all of our guys in that little compound in Kabul in the airport, they are just like
in a fishbow.
The Taliban have everything around it to include all the high ground.
all they got to do is start lobbing in rockets, some missiles they have, mortars, some sniper fire.
I mean, we would be sitting ducks and all of that because we turned the Taliban from what right now is a cooperative partner.
I know people hate to even hear that term in association with Taliban, but that's a fact.
They are helping us.
They are helping to provide some security from ISIS.
They've actually interdicted some of the attacks.
They haven't all succeeded already because they've been helping.
and they haven't been attacking us.
Now you go and you change any of those
and all of a sudden it's not 13 casualties.
Now it's potentially in the hundreds
and that's absurd and then everything gets destroyed.
But that's so obvious or it should be
but people aren't thinking anything through us
to your point again.
They're just thinking emotionally and yeah, we should do this.
No, we shouldn't because that's absurd.
That's why we're not doing it.
We want to get out.
So no more Americans die.
That's the objective.
Yeah.
Well, you know, one of the,
the talking points too is that even if they're helping people or allowing people to get out
and not standing in the way and trying to preserve the peace in Kabul that still that amounts to
them holding all of our people as hostages and bargaining chips and that at any time they could
seize them all at any time of course they could. Huh? Of course they could. I mean that's the whole
point. As long as we just do what we've agreed to, we're going to get out in a day and a half or by Tuesday
And everybody's going to be out, at least certainly the last majority of them.
No one else needs to die if we can just keep, you know, basically 72 more hours clear from ISIS K
because we apparently don't have to worry about Taliban because they're keeping their word and they want us out.
And that's to our benefit because we don't want anyone else killed.
And I mean, look, as far as counterfactuals about how they could have done this otherwise,
and the two major problems are first all the weapons they left with the ANA.
that then the Taliban ended up just seasoned, right?
And then secondly, the evacuation.
But the alternative there, it seems like the only alternative,
would have been for Biden to say outright,
like in a speech immediately upon taking office,
that I know you guys are all going to throw rotten tomatoes at me.
However, the ANA and the Kabul government
are absolutely ridiculously bankrupt in every way, you know,
in terms of legitimacy and money and every other thing.
And they're a farce and they cannot last.
And so therefore, we're not leaving the ANA with any weapons.
And I know you're going to say, yeah, but that's going to undermine the ANA.
And I'm just telling you, they're not going to last anyway.
And it's way too big of a risk that the Taliban will just get them all.
So we're taking all of the trucks and all of the light arms
and all of the everything, all the helicopters,
and everything that we've given them, screw it.
And if you say that we're drawing all of our civilians from Kabul
will help, you know, undermine confidence in the government there.
That's just tough.
It was going to fall anyway.
And so, you know, Republicans cry about it if you want to,
but that's it.
And yes, we're getting out by May 1st.
In fact, we're going to try to get out by April 1st.
And just, you know, maybe 15, so it doesn't sound so foolish.
um and and and and then just yeah tax day that would be more fitting right um and then and then um
and then that would be it right just like tough the whole truth and nothing but the truth
that's the only way to do it and you know sorry i know it's going to be tough for the people of
afghanistan but it was going to be anyway etc but then you know when you put the counterfactual
like that there's no way they could do that they're democrats you know i can't be that honest about
anything. And so, in fact, I don't even know why they really kicked the can down the road.
I know the generals were begging them to give them more time. But he should told them to go to
hell then. May 1st is the deadline. That was the deal. My predecessor shook hands, signed the thing
on paper. And so sorry, we got to do it. And instead, maybe it was for political reasons that he wanted
for this to be Biden's withdrawal and not Trump's withdrawal, that he was just the junior partner in
or something like that.
But what a mistake, right?
Because we could have been gone and then have the Taliban take of the country after
nobody cares because all of our people are already out, you know?
And that goes for people who are Quisling's too, you know, translators and so forth.
They should get a ride home or, you know, out of there.
Go ahead.
Yeah, as you said, that's an important point.
It wouldn't have changed the outcome.
It would have just changed the cost to us.
The same outcome, the Taliban and control of Afghanistan would have happened no matter which way you went,
whether we got it on May 1st as a schedule or whether we did it the way we did.
That's important to point out.
And that's what should have happened.
And we argued that defense priorities, I mean, relentlessly, that that's what we should have done on May 1st for the very reasons you pointed out.
And, you know, we see how it worked out.
Yeah.
All right.
So what's the time here?
Oh, man, we got to hurry.
Did you see this important thing at Odyssey, A-U-D-A-C-Y-O-O-D-C-com?
and it's by Jack Murphy,
the former Special Operations Officer.
I forgot if he's a Green Beret.
I think he's a Green Beret.
Anyway, he writes this,
Lusa rules, more civilian deaths,
a Taliban takeover,
inside America's failed Afghan drone campaign.
And this is based on new whistleblowers,
new sources,
talking to Jack Murphy
about the drone war in the Trump
era and how
loose the rules of engagement
from Iraq War III
against the Islamic
state there were then
brought back over to the Hellman
province in the war in Afghanistan
where man they're just killing people
essentially at random
if you touch a radio
that's a death sentence, this
kind of thing and
anyway had you seen that?
I have not but I have seen a lot
of things here recently
you know, about whistleblowers, specifically about the drone program,
exposing what we've all known to be true that it's been grossly ineffective
and kills as many innocent civilian peoples as it ever did, you know,
alleged bad guys.
And even the bad guys you took off, it didn't have any strategic impact.
So all we were doing was killing a lot of people, a lot of people by mistake,
and getting nothing for it.
It was absurd.
It was obscene.
And it was immoral.
And it should almost be shut.
down, or at least dramatically scale back.
Yeah, this is just one more piece of it.
And I think we knew already, of course, that the number of strikes in Afghanistan had
gone way up.
And we knew that Trump had loosened the rules of engagement and not just the rules of
engagement, but the command authority.
Is that how they call it?
Is that the correct lingo for who gets to choose to pull the trigger?
Yep.
Yeah.
So, and they had devolved the command authority all the way down the chain to, like,
captain level or whatever it was to call in any strike whereas you know under obama they had
eventually come with stricter rules of engagement there um but this is just a whole new uh point of
view into that war there i'm sorry i said which was obama's rules were also he is egregiously bad
so absolutely put that in context right yeah exactly and that's what you know daniel just went to
prison for liberating the drone papers for us don't remind me that that's so painful for me
even consider it is it yeah it's really it's really bad and people should look at the drone papers
or the assassination complex is the book um and then again this is at uh odyssey dot com inside
america's failed drone campaign against the taliban and it's like yeah check you know five or
eight thousand words or some kind of thing of of in-depth reporting here really great stuff um and then
so lastly i wanted to ask you real quick if you could give us a comment about the possibility of uh the
CIA and or whoever else, I guess Jasek, getting in bed with the resistance fighters under
Massoud's son in the Panshir Valley?
Oh, my Lord.
That is just the, if we are looking for one more thing to just completely botch on the way
out, it would be that.
I mean, it doesn't look like Biden's even going to give it the time of day for an even
consideration, so good on him for that.
But man, there has been a lot of people, Lindsay Graham has been shouting about that just
this morning and that is the most absurd idea that we've ever seen i mean dude you just had every
advantage and every money and every support for 20 years and they disintegrated with the first
pressure and you want to now go and support a little fraction of that i mean that's insane no absolutely
not a hundred percent no get out of it stay out of it leave it to them to do whatever they're going
to do yeah all right with that i'll let you go thank you so much for coming on the show again
Again, really appreciate it.
Always my pleasure, Scott. Thank you.
All right, you guys.
That is retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Daniel L. Davis, famous whistleblower from the Afghan surge in 2012 and fellow at defense priorities.
The Scott Horton Show, Anti-War Radio, can be heard on KPFK, 90.7 FM in L.A.
APSRadio.com.
Anti-war.com.
Scott Horton.org and Libertarian Institute.org.