The Team House - Humanitarian Aid To Gaza w/ Former CIA Paramilitary Officer Mick Mulroy | EYES ON | Ep. 11

Episode Date: March 13, 2024

Michael “Mick” Patrick Mulroy is the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (DASD) for the Middle East. As the DASD, he was responsible for defense policy for 15 countries and represented the Department of Defense of national policy in that area. He is also a retired CIA Paramilitary Operations Officer in the Special Activities Center and a United States Marine. He is a Senior Fellow for the Middle East Institute, an ABC News National Security Analyst, and a Co-founder of Lobo Institute. We talk about the recent news of  the US starting the process of building a port in Gaza to provide humanitarian aid.Find Mick here:https://www.loboinstitute.org/Support the show here:https://www.patreon.com/TheTeamHouseFind Andy here:Twitterhttps://twitter.com/i/flow/login?redirect_after_login=%2Fandymilburn8LinkedInhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewmilburn2023Substackhttps://amilburn.substack.com/Andy's bookhttps://www.amazon.com/When-Tempest-Gathers-Mogadishu-Operations/dp/1526750554#gaza #cia #paramilitaryBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-team-house--5960890/support.

Hey guys, it's Jack. I just wanted to talk to you today about a way that you can help support the podcast if you're not already. We would really appreciate it if you guys went and reviewed us on Apple or Spotify. Those reviews really help people find the podcast and help it get recognized. And, you know, if you've been enjoying the show, we really appreciate your support. Another thing that you can do to support the channel is to become a Patreon member. So we have Patreon memberships that start at just $5 a month. And when you sign up, you get access to all of our episodes ad free. That's the big bonus for that.

I mean, we also do some Patreon bonus episodes for our subscribers. But this is the biggest and best way that you can support the Teamhouse channel and podcast if you'd like to. And we really appreciate that. So go in and check us out at patreon.com slash the team house. Hello everyone. Welcome to another episode of Aizan. And, I mean, Dee, I'm going to introduce you very quickly, not because you are less important than our guest. But of course, we have Dee. That's a fair assessment. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. But most importantly, we have as our guest, someone who has been on Tim House before, Mick Mulroy. Also, importantly, someone like Camry is a friend. That's not why he's here. He's here because he is the former, I'm going to mess this up, I always do DASNY, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, but... Oh, for the Middle East, for the Middle East. Oh, I'm for the Middle East, I'm sorry. Yeah, and former CIA paramilitary officer and perhaps most importantly, former Marine, which is why, which is why Jason's not here today, because, Jack has a very strict policy of no no three Marines on air at the same time. Two is the cap. If I had more than

one, if I had more than two I'd get my ass shoot from Jack's off. No, seriously, we did have complaints. We had one. Oh, Alex, Alex Hollings. We had three Marines here and yeah, we were criticized for not being sufficiently joint. Can you believe that? Anyway,

Mick Mick also runs the Lobo Institute. I'm going to let him talk about that and he's involved in something very important right now that he can't talk about it we can discuss obliquely without jeopardizing the operation itself but you heard it first here on eyes on Mick welcome and you are absolutely in stream of consciousness mode as far as I am concerned so please far away so great to be here with you guys from Montana and usually if people are watching if I get out of their way you can see that it is in fact

back Montana. So super happy to be on with you guys. You mentioned Lobo Institute. That is the company that myself and Eric Ulrich, a former squadron commander, retired seal from Dev Group, founded around five years ago. The principle behind it is it brings former military folks, intelligence folks together, along with former humanitarian, whether it's UN, USAID, or private NGOs. So it's a mixture, of course, Andy is part of it. But it's a mixture of groups that can take the skills that they've learned and experience that they've had in their past life, kind of fuse them together to do good in conflict areas today. And that is exactly what we're doing. And we've done in Afghanistan, Yemen. Can you get some examples of the work that you've done? Mick, I'm, of course,

familiar with it. But it's, you know, it's a lot of kind of good stuff. in my view under the radar, which, you know, but, but please, and it goes to redress the balance, perhaps the perception of guys like, you know, us as being unconcerned with, you know, with the, with social issues, right? International, I'm stumbling here, but, you know, what I'm trying to say is that we are indeed warm-hearted human beings with empathy that extends beyond the borders of the United States. And you and your peers are proving that. I agree. And I think we're seeing a lot more than just the Lovo Institute do this. Like if you look at the fall of Afghanistan, just how many FETs stepped up to do what was essentially purely humanitarian effort to get our partners out of

harm's way. Some people, I mean, literally, and you know, I was part of it, you were part of it. you know, basically throw away their whatever job they were doing to make that happen. And I think we're seeing that continue. So that is true. There is a lot of former military folks, former soft folks that are getting into

that and they're quite frankly really good at it because that is the environment they spent their whole career in. Very dynamic environments of which you have to figure things out. There's not a lot of answers. There's not a lot of books written about it and you have to do it with personality. You have to do it with tenacity. And I think we're seeing a lot more of our brethren get into that. It's a good thing.

So what we've done specifically, we have worked long term on Afghanistan. So we just finished the program. It went on since the essentially withdrawal that we had until recently, working with the State Department on people that did not have the ability to get out because they didn't meet the immigration requirements for special limited visas. but as far as the Taliban was concerned, they were on the chopping block. So the worst case scenario, they can't come out because they don't have the qualifications, the time, et cetera, but the Taliban still knows they work directly with the U.S.

government. Some, you know, straight with the military or the agency, some just with the State Department or even the Agriculture Department. So people that were far removed from anything the Taliban should have cared about, they were still on the chopping block literally for that. So we work with them both from a security side to make sure. Which wasn't well covered at the time, right? I mean, there was a lot of media attention on what was the category that we put,

you know, the special sensitive individuals that we wanted to get out. But the Taliban. Yeah. Yeah. The commandos and the CTPTs of the zero units got a lot of attention as they should. They were certainly the highest on the list of the Taliban. But this is even like doctors or agricultural engineers and people who, worked with the U.S. agriculture department to make Afghanistan a better place,

you know, just, but they were still on the list. So we took our security skills and our humanitarian, so got them food, medicine and everything they needed, but also kept them one step ahead of the Taliban. And we did that for quite a long time. How do you, how do you do fundraising, Nick? Because I, you know, you guys do these things, but I, but I don't see a lot of kind of visible fundraising. I've got very raw memories of the Mozart group where that consumed, you know, maybe 80% of my time, you know, that wasn't in operations. Right.

So we worked for the state department on that project, so we didn't have to fundraise. We've worked in Yemen for the United Nations for working for whom now is a good friend of mine, Martin Griffith, who is the overall humanitarian, undersecretary general for the United Nations. but at the time he was the UN special envoy. In general. And so that's, we worked for them. It was a, it was a direct, you know, business, not business, but a, you know, an advisory relationship with the UN. And now we're doing stuff specifically with Gaza.

But that's, that's, it's not sensitive in a sense, like it's not some covert operates, none of that. It's just pure humanitarian, but it's in the middle of setting up and that's why I really can't get into the details with that. like that. But I can't talk more about the issue. Do you want me to just kind of frame it and then, you know, you can, we can talk away through it without you being on thin ice? Is that makes sense? Yeah. Or you can just talk about, you know, I'm an analyst for ABC, so I'm happy to talk about all the issues that you guys want. Yeah, yeah, please. If I could just say one more thing about Lobo Institute. We also run an NGO called In Child Soldiering, which is a 501C3.

And it is exactly what it says. You know, it's an NGO dedicated to stop the use of children in armed conflict, which is a horrible problem that's growing every day, quite frankly, because these conflicts continue and the people fighting them keep getting younger and younger. And we've gone far away from, you know, old men starting wars and old men fighting wars. It's now not just old men starting wars and young men fighting wars. It's kids fighting wars who have absolutely no. choice and are used essentially as fodder. So we have an NGO. We did a documentary on two

former LRA soldiers. A documentary is called My Star in the Sky. It's going to be made into, it is made into a book called All the Glimbering Stars, which will come out by Amazon in May. So who's the awesome plug up. It's Mark Sullivan, Mark Sullivan, a great friend who's a Montana author and a New York Times best selling author heard about the story came to us, went to Uganda with us, met everybody, and I can be happy to send you a book. I've got the advanced copies. That'll get you a launch segment on this podcast. Seriously, no way. That's what we need. We'll bring Mark. Yeah, we'll bring, I mean, because it's a fascinating story. Yeah, and I'll put all the links and everything into the description to the Lobo Institute and to the,

I don't know if the docks out yet, but for like the pre-order for the book and everything like that. I'll put it all in the description. Yep. It's in, it's out for pre-order. And a portion of the book is going to our 501C3. And our 501C3 only, uh, contributes to groups that are out in the field doing, you know, the work with the kids to rehabilitate them.

There's no, there's no salaried employee in it. It's just so you're not. But this. Straight volunteers. Yeah. Yeah. It's a straight volunteers. And it goes.

straight to the groups that are actually out there teaching a former children how to fix a truck or how to plant a garden or you know raised sheep or what have you it's directly to the rehabilitation alternate means of living

yeah yeah exactly yet so the the situation now in in Gaza I of course I'm one of your many fans on ABC you know I'm not

just saying that to be sycophantic actually Mick Mick mix one of those welcome faces you to use you're not the sycophantic type no no no I mean we no mix one of those welcome the welcome faces on TV you know because there are some guys who get dragged out to talk you know military expert former lieutenant colonel blah blah blah and you know this guy either talks dross or he's reading from the cover of the new york times but but but mick really gives it a um i i think i think in the short segment that you're allowed uh you really do do uh have the knack of breaking down complicated things for the american public so congrats on that but yeah having built up the pressure on you please yeah talk about uh talk about gaza yes that big topic obviously and it's been all consuming for much of us for the last

several months. I think the stage we're at now is we have a dire humanitarian crisis going up. Before the war started, there's around 500 trucks of food aid coming in, plus about the same amount of commercial for sale material coming in, and about 60% of the population relied on it. Now there's about 30 trucks coming in a day of food aid. Sometimes it gets to 100, and 100, percent of the 2.3 million person population relies on it. So we're seeing how many how many should that be make in order to sustain the local population do we know if you can break that into daily truckloads yes so if if we were now because we have 100 percent of the population before 60 you could you could add to about 900 truckloads of direct humanitarian aid is needed uh to come into Gaza and not just into the

southern part because the infrastructure, and we can get into the conflict itself, but the infrastructure is so damaged that they can't get up into the northern part of the country. We're around, it's hard to estimate, but from talking directly to the IDF, they estimate around 400,000 people are still up in the north, essentially living in the rubble, and they have a very difficult time getting aid to them. So that's why I think a lot of these countries started the airdrops. They are, I think, everybody would acknowledge a drop in the bucket. Even with the U.S., who is the, you know, I'm biased, but the most effective at doing this, every drops around two to three truckloads, right?

So that's why there is this big push to open a maritime corridor in which you can deliver aid in bulk, basically doubling, if not tripling, the aid that's coming in now, and then as it develops, quadrupling, and whatever comes after quadruple, aid into parts of Gaza, which can't be reached right now. So that is something that the president referenced in the state of the union and something that needs to happen. And so that's a really, that's, you know,

that's part of one of the hardest parts of distribution, right? One is, you know, one is entry point into Gaza getting through that bottleneck, but the other is distribution within Gaza to these areas, right? Yeah. I mean, that's absolutely right. That's going to be a tough knot that as yet is unsolved, but you are working on solving. That is, that's a good point, Annie. So the answer isn't whether it should be air, ground, or maritime.

The answer is all the above, right? Yeah. Yeah. So lots of people create these, you know, these kind of false. choices here. We need to have entry points, ground, we need to have air drops until we have stabilized the situation and we need to obviously have a maritime corridor. But to your point on distribution, that has gotten very difficult. We saw the rushing of the trucks in which people were either run over or were shot by IDF troops that thought they had a, they posed a threat.

I don't know the answer to that, but that's generally what happened. So it's going to be difficult. I think the way to deal with this is to try to flood the zone with humanitarian aid. And that means substantial amounts of airdrops done by competent people. You know, the U.S. should be leading that effort. We saw, unfortunately, that a non-U.S. airdrop yesterday had multiple failures of parachutes that crushed six kids. I know that happens, but it was also, when I looked at it, dropped right over the city. And as you are well known, you don't want to be under one of these pallets, even if it does have a fully deployed parachute.

So the U.S. is going to do it in a manner that drops it close enough to people who can get to it, but not directly, you know, over their current, you know, where they reside. That needs to happen, but it needs to also be pointed out that it will never meet the demand. So it needs to be supplemental to. And again, needs to, in order to work or integrate needs. someone on the ground, frankly, to help with distribution, otherwise you get kind of a survival of the fittest thing, right, with air drops. That's part of the problem is that, you know, the groups hold people who are most able to get hold of those supplies on the ones who get

hold of those supplies. That's right. That's right. And to the distribution, it should be under the UN, under the international aid organizations that are there, and it probably should be Palestinians, to be, to be frank. But of course, that also needs to be done completely in line with Israeli security concerns. I mean, it isn't, you know, a secret that Hamas was armed to the teeth. And a lot of that came in, smuggled. Some of them potentially with humanitarian assistance. And we saw what happened on October 7.

So this needs to be a balance with a critical need for innocent Palestinian civilians to be able to you know, get food, medicine, and clean water, and Israeli's security concerns that they don't see another October 7th. So that is the balance. And then, of course, this is all happening at a time when Hamas finds it completely acceptable to not only hide amongst its civilian population, but to exploit the conditions that they're in for their own political gain. In my opinion, they actually don't mind that there is all these horrible things going on. They use it for their own political benefit. They often steal food from civilians that otherwise can't depend themselves to be able to get it and then they just hoard it from themselves. So all those things

are a balance. But ultimately, a little kid is a little kid, no matter or an innocent civilian is an innocent civilian and they should not have to, you know, be on the brink of starvation because of Hamas's actions against Israel. Mick, is anything being done then to, to, and I know this is a very tough question, to coordinate or raise a, and I use the term with small, you know, a Palestinian authority in Gaza, UNRWA has been discredited in the sense that it's been discredited. I mean, trying to work through UNRWA with the Israelis is all kinds of reasons, probably not a good idea at this stage. But is there any alternative as far as local humanitarian organizations that the IDF will let function.

So that is a very complex, but good question. So UNRWA was created literally in 1949. There's about 13,000 employees in Gaza. All of them are Palestinians. A handful took part in the October 7th attacks, which is completely unacceptable. But more, I think, concerned, is essentially the Hamas headquarters was right under the UNRWA headquarters with tied in for

for electricity and everything so in my opinion that was known to those who ran UNRWA so it is it is understandably not an organization of which Israel will work with but unfortunately that was the infrastructure the complex overtime infrastructure to to distribute aid so I hope there is a compromise that can be where we can utilize individuals that are in that network to distribute aid and then vet them for their connections to terrorist organizations like Hamas. And if they are, they need to be out of any group that's funded by the United Nations, which, of course, 22% of the funding comes from the United States. But the United States and the United Nations itself should just find that unacceptable.

But the problem is there is innocent civilians that need to have, aid distributed. So there's no easy answer, but I think working together with the Israelis and the UN and the international community, there needs to be a way to get this aid distributed time now. Hey, guys, it's Jack. I just wanted to talk to you today about a way that you can help support the podcast if you're not already. We would really appreciate it if you guys went and reviewed us on Apple or Spotify. Those reviews really help people find the podcast and help it get recognized. and you know if you've been enjoying the show we really appreciate your support another thing that you can do to support the channel is to become a patreon member so we have patreon memberships that start at just five dollars a month and when you sign up you get access to all of our episodes ad free that's the big bonus for that i mean we also do some patreon bonus episodes for our subscribers uh but this is the the biggest and best way that you can support the team house channel and podcast if you'd like to, and we really appreciate that.

So go and check us out at patreon.com slash the team house. So right now, I mean, I know U.S. efforts that are under discussion now about setting up a, you know, a port offshore, maybe J-LOTS, with joint logistics over the shore, capability. I feel compelled to spell that out. Bees, thank you. But there's things that, yes, the U.S. military can put in place. We can talk about security later.

But it takes time, you know, it takes to get through the, you know, get everyone in place, probably weeks and the need now is immediate. So, you know, news yesterday in reliable media about kids, you know, starving, as you point out. And literally, I mean, I think five kids yesterday starved to death. in central Gaza. So the need is immediate. The EU is talking about now opening a maritime corridor, right?

Is that, I mean, what are the prospects of that working well? And obviously, what are the plans going ahead to integrate that with your efforts? I mean, do you think that's going to be something that helps? Or do you think it's just impractical? I think it will absolutely help in a manner that is much more effective than any other current option, whether that option is tied to mechanics like airdrops not being sufficient or tied to politics, like opening other entry points from Israel into Gaza.

Essentially, the families of the hostages, understandably, you know, you have to put yourself in their shoes, are blocking because they want their loved one out, whoever should have been taken hostage. So there's a political aspect to that that makes it very difficult. And the maritime corridor can bring more aid in than either of the other two. So I do think it's something that is going to happen. The president mentioned it in the state of the union. I do think it would be a public-private partnership. So the U.S. military will do things like create this peer, which commercial entities can use.

But there's other options to create temporary birthing sites that can offload aid into God. right now. So I think that will be very complimentary and in unison. And it can happen in relatively short time if the international aid community does more than just talk, that they start contributing to plans that they believe are very effective and can be done. If they do that, this can, the desperation currently in Gaza, especially in the north, can be alleviated within weeks, I think, potentially a month. We could have it stabilized. And then, of course, there will be the other discussions on how the war is going to end,

whether Ruffis should happen, the assault down there, and then how we're going to go forward on any kind of diplomatic solution where this doesn't become a continuous cycle. Mike, I have a question. You mentioned like, you know, it needs to be a multi-pronged attack, right? like air, lands, whatever. I mean, what role does Egypt play? I mean, they share a border with Gaza, sure it's southern.

The majority of the aid needs to go to the north. What do they, like, where's, what's their role? Do they do anything? Yeah, so they're a significant partner both in aid coming into Egypt and then coming through the Rafa Gate, which is where a majority of the age coming from that, even though it's been shut down. several times, and of course, we're looking at a potential assault on the Rafa area, which could completely shut down the Rava crossing, to no fault, of course, to the Egyptians.

But that is something that could happen. They're also playing a significant part in the ceasefire negotiations, Egypt, the United States, and obviously Israel and Hamas and Qatar are playing to try to come up with a currently right now, a temporary six-week truce, if you will, so that aid can flow in more readily. The hostages can be released and that we can start a long-term discussion on how this war will end, including potentially for Hamas leaders to depart Gaza. There's a lot of different aspects. In the same way, same way I guess.

Arafat left Beirut for Tunis, right, back in 82, similar. Mick, do these plans depend on a ceasefire? So the humanitarian plan does not necessarily need to depend on a ceasefire. And I think that's where the U.S. government has been very forceful. We can't use the deprivation of civilians from food as a negotiation point. And I'm not saying Israel's doing that. But that was a comment by the president actually yesterday. Right.

So very pointed. Right. you know right you know we have uh as you would guess in lobo a lot of connections to the idea a lot of very good friends so i'm not saying that they're doing that but if it's perceived to be we will let aid into people uh civilians women and children who are starving if you do that that is not i think an effective uh way of uh bargaining from the international communities including the united states perspective uh so i do think this should go ahead regardless of uh an agreement on the C Spire.

Yeah, that's, thanks. That was a key question that has not been covered in the media. I think probably because a lot of people don't know. You know, they're speculating. That's right. Anything more on as possible? So the other thing I wanted to talk about was the security. I know, you know, security plan.

It hasn't even been worked out. But, you know, for the benefit of the audience. And we've all got memories of Afghanistan, right, fresh in mind about the fact that if you have, yes, I'm not comparing the IDF to the Taliban, but if you have someone providing security in an outer zone like that, you're taking a risk if it's not your people, bottom line, right? And so we're kind of potentially as US in that position again, whereby we don't put boots on the ground, right?

You know, I know where, you know, there's going to be some, some exceptions to that, particularly capabilities, but nevertheless, for the most part, you know, so doing this offshore, but still very much a target, reliant on the Israelis to, to provide security onshore. Again, not a hit on any other part of the nation force, but just doctrinally, that always feels, I mean, you know, even in soft, you try to avoid. that as much as you can where you're totally dependent on an unknown unknown quantity right that's right so and that's going to be a hard part yes and as you know the idf is a very capable uh military force right they have some really good units and overall

they're they're uh you know really really an effective uh military so i think there is going to have to be a component where the idf does secure any of these landing sites is aid delivery sites on the beach. But the UN also has certain requirements that they're not essentially in complete cooperation. So they're not on top of each other. So that's going to have to be worked out. There'll have to be some effective way that it's the president said there's not going to be

U.S. military on the ground. And that's not going to happen. And that's, you know, I think we don't want to see something like Somali happen, where, you know, we get there and everybody greets the U.S. military. The Marine Corps is, you know, saviors. And then, you know, three weeks later, they decide that we're not, right? And then they're shooting at us. And then there's a war.

And then there's, you know, what happened with Black Hawk down. So I think that makes sense. But it does, and they don't need to be. They don't need to be. There's effective ways to distribute aid. Because this is not a military effort. So in using the Palestinians, right? It's, as you well known for all your time, as in counterinsurgency type warfare,

It's more, it's difficult and different when it's your uncle's distributing the aid on behalf, right? You tend not to want to shoot at your uncle or your nephew or your brother. So it needs to be Palestinians ultimately that are distributing the aids to Palestinians because that is different, that is viewed differently. So that kind of interface between what entity that's coming to the beach is and then what entity is distributing it to the Palestinian people, that needs to be worked out. But ultimately, it needs to be the Palestinian people under the umbrella of the United Nations invalidated international aid organizations. So those that are there for the right reasons distributing and under the principles of humanitarian aid, not for political reasons, not to, you know, that needs to happen.

And I think that is essentially where this will be going. With the IDF, of course, overwatching just in case it turns into a, you know, a simple disruption situation that becomes dangerous, not only for the people that are distributing it, but the people that are there to get it, of course, because ultimately they end up being just as much as the victims as anybody else. Yeah, I mean, the, you know, the administration has said, look, we're not waiting on the Israelis to execute this, but of course, the reality is that we do need their own. complicity, if not. I mean, we need that collaboration. And what's going to be interesting to see, though, is whether the, you know, the operation still goes ahead,

even if Hamas overtly opposes it, which seems unlikely that, you know, that would be just a really bad PR call for Hamas, which is a card in our favor, right? I say, yeah, I agree. I mean, that's, I mean, they have showed, a callous disregard for the people of Palestine, right? I mean, the atrocities on October 7th,

and we don't have to repeat them here, but if your audience isn't familiar with them, they're so atrocious, I don't even know that there's a word for it. So I think they did so, knowing that that would cause a reaction. Of course, yeah. That would bring this onto gospel.

I mean, you don't have to be a plodical scientist. Deliberly designed, deliberately designed to do that. Absolutely. And ever since then, they've hit right under, you know, not just their civilian population, but the most significant part, like schools and hospitals, right? So people that are the most vulnerable and who the military or any security force should be designed to protect the most. I think they used them in the consequences of our actions, trying to politically and unfortunately,

effectively in some cases. But yes, I do think to your point, they would be hard pressed to attack humanity. distributing aid Palestinians to Palestinian people who are on the verge of starvation. I agree. Yeah, which means we hope that that is not a precondition. You know, Hamas explicitly approving is not a precondition of the all. That's right. That's right.

It shouldn't be. Do you think there's any chance that IDF or the Israeli government in general will drag their feet with especially if they're providing the security? So I don't think so. I mean, there's different political wins, if you will, in Israel, just like there is in the United States. I'm not a political analyst. But essentially, this won't happen unless they agree. So those that are concerned that this would have a negative impact on the Israeli security,

I would simply say it's not going to happen unless the Israelis agree with it. So if they're okay with it, they're the people that are most, I think, concerned about their own security. I think that should be an indicator to anybody else that they believe it does not harm their security. So if it goes ahead, that would be my position to people who are concerned about whether this would jeopardize Israeli security is they don't think so. I think, you know, just a quick opinion on this, that I think you can overstate the threat. When you have an ongoing operation like this, you can overstate the threat of having weapons come in. The real thing that you're concerned about are fighters escaping and being able to return or coming into areas where you've already cleared, you know, I'm talking about from experience in Fallujah.

You know, it didn't make any difference to us at this stage where the weapons or munitions were coming in, because as a process, they have to be integrated. You know, it takes time and they're very vulnerable while they're doing that. But the other point is that that's been overlooked on this, and this isn't a hit on the Israelis. You know, I suppose it is, but it could equally be a hit on us, too, that New York Times did, you know, one of their investigative reports, which are generally pretty good and came out with the conclusion

that most of the munitions used in the rocket attacks on 7 October, actually, or a lot of it, significant proportion came from the IDF themselves, from all the ordinance they dropped on Gaza. My point is that if you are fighting in, if you're in Hamas, fighting in Gaza right now, you want food, you want water, you want shelter, you want freedom of movement. You're probably not that low on ammunition, I would guess. You know, I mean, so you can overstate the threat of weapons coming in. That's what I'm saying.

And I'm not saying the Israelis are. I'm saying you can overstate it. And that and that causes problems as we've seen when it's a humanitarian commoys. There's a broader like talk to this. Like you talk about like, you know, they're concerned about Israel Israel. Israel is concerned about their security. It kind of seems like October 6th, they really weren't or they were asleep at the job. I mean, I know.

That's a longer, longer. I know it is. I know. It's more of a broader topic in that. Like similar to us, you know, pre 9-11, I guess. I mean, I mean, I guess we understood what was going to happen. We had a good idea of it, but we dropped the ball. There are a lot of parallels here to that, you know.

And I'm not saying going into Afghanistan was a mistake. I don't think it was. But what happened over the last 20 years after that were probably there were some miscues. I think Israel's running the risk of doing the same thing. Because what's the end game in reality? And yeah, it is a longer conversation. But can they really destroy Hamas? Is Hamas going to go and go to Qatar and live in like our luxury condos and not worry about Musad coming to like put two in the back of their heads?

Like we got to be realistic with this, right? Like I don't know. What's the actual end game for Hamas and for Israel? I don't see it. Sure. To both your points. And you're right. It is a longer discussion.

But at first it was clear was an intelligence failure we thought. Right. And that's, they have an exceptional intelligence service. But so do we. and to your point D, we had 9-11, right? So it's more of a critique with an attempt to improve than just, you know, criticism. But then we found out that a lot of the intelligence was already known, right? That came out clearly in the media.

They almost had their op-order. I mean, they even knew what they were going to do, when they were going to do it. If you talked to, you know, obviously I spent a lot of time in Israel recently, if you talked to them, they consider it, and I'm speaking for all of them, at least people I talked to, particularly in the IDF in leadership failure, and that they had a lot of the information and it wasn't acting on it. So I think the... Because it didn't fit at preconceptions.

Right. They just said that's impossible. They wouldn't do that. They don't have the capabilities. But they essentially had somebody that was very close to the operational planning because, you know, from the press reports, it laid out what was going to happen. So if you talk to and none of them, of course, we'll talk on the record. but IDF and intelligence folks,

they obviously take a lot of the responsibility of himself, but they'll also say this was fairly well known and it wasn't taking serious. So that needs to be. Yeah, sorry, go ahead. We did. Yeah, I'll be saying it needs to be viewed it just like we did. They need to adjust accordingly. So it isn't just criticism for criticism's sake.

It's, you know, we want our partners to, you know, improve their own security. Dee, that's a really, you know, great, I mean, it's a great question. And I wasn't, yeah, absolutely, we should put a whole podcast on this. Specifically, when I was in Israel this time, I asked that question of two former national security advisors, a former deputy of Shinbet. I mean, you know, I'm not just trolling this on in an effort to impress. But, you know, I wasn't just getting speculation from dudes on the ground. Here's some very quick points, okay?

the night before the attack, something between 40 and 80 new SIM cards, Israeli SIM cards, popped up on the network within Gaza, okay? The ability now, the Israeli ability to pick up signals intelligence within Gaza was awesome. You know, there's only two phone carriers within Gaza. So they could pick up as just a question as Mick knows of data, I'd like anything in signals intelligence, how many people you assign to it.

But this triggered interest, more than interest. So the head of Shimbab, got up in the middle of the night, drove into the office, called the chief of staff of the army. To put this in context, I was talking to a former commander of the Gaza division, all right? And he said, hey, look, within the midst of the fighting in 2014, he called the chief of staff maybe two times. But here, you know, here you have the head of Shindberg waking up the head of the army, the head of the IDF essentially, and they're talking about what these SIM cards mean.

Now, who recommended what will come out in the investigation, but the bottom line was they agreed together that this was probably just a periodic exercise because this happens from time to time. But as Mick points out, what they didn't do necessarily was synthesize this latest indicator with a whole bunch of things that were being officially reported. Most famously, perhaps, by the spotters, right? The Israelis have a whole battalion of women, just women, who are called spotters, right?

That's not like in the old-fashioned sense of peering with binos. They are, they stare at screens, surveillance camera screens. in the in a half a dozen IDF posts around Gaza. Now there's a lot of questions that came about this, one of which was why were they unarmed? And, but they had been reporting, these spotters, it's a very interesting. I don't mean to this is why it could be a separate episode.

But, you know, the training for these spotters, they get each one of them learns a part of Gaza, all right? And they just, they have that part of Gaza under, surveillance and they know it so well that they recognize it faces people and that's what they do nine hours a day in shifts throughout the day right so they were picking up a ton of stuff to include full rehearsals right with with pickup trucks even the paraglider part right um and and they were sending in these reports and we're ignored and um there are you know i think when as we pull this apart and the same has happened, as I'd point out, in every single military in the world, or, I mean,

national security apparatus will find that the problems are not intelligence, they are cultural. And, you know, this deeply seated belief that Hamas could not pull it off. But it's a fascinating topic. And there's, you know, there's many more, sadly, many more stories here of indications being brought to people in. in position of authority to make decisions and those decisions were not made. Last piece is I have a lot of controversy in Israel right now. I mean, Netanyahu perhaps not the most popular point person there, but he is the prime minister, wartime prime minister,

and the country has rallied around him. But controversy over whether Netanyahu was informed, all right? The head of Shindat, kind of unusual. You notice, you know, Netanyahu is kind of saying, hey, man, I didn't know any of this shit. My intel guys didn't tell me. And now the head of Shinbad, at least, is kicking, is pushing back a little bit and saying, nope, we told you about this publicly. So this isn't healthy, but it's, you know, we're learning a lot more about, no, it was not an intelligence failure. It was a failure of people.

Yeah, that was, so I did parts of that. I was really fascinating. So I'm not shining you on. I really look forward to read your book because that whole thing. I'll give you a copy. I mean, it's not just for, and I will gladly take it. That whole thing is not just for the Israelis to review. I think that will be a lot of lessons learned for, you know, Intel services,

militaries and police forces around the world, right? Even as effective as they are, as impressive that they have in the past, they can make mistakes. we can make mistakes. That is something I think seriously. Putting that out together would be really good for a lot of intelligence services, militaries, and law enforcement through it. Mick, on that point, there's two other points, you know, very quickly, right?

But the Israelis had a really good central open intelligence unit. I forget what it was. But the problem was, and I believe, I currently, remember if it fell under the IDF, under the military intelligence, or under Shinbad. But the point is, it was disbanded several months ago. All right, I checked on this. Someone, the former, you know, one of the former national security advisor told me that, I confirmed it was. It was shut down. Because they felt that, you know, it was better for each unit to have their own open source intelligent, blah, blah. In other words, not believing that it was a, it was useful. And yet,

tons of open source intelligence was coming in indicating an attack. You know, a lot of people, Arab speaking, Israelis were blogging about this. And the, you know, the other point, which is also concerning is the Israelis have a unit called 8200, which is their signals intelligence unit. It is, you know, I'm no expert, but people will tell you who are that it is every, bit as good as far as sophisticated training equipment as NSA. But it's a question of scale. It's much smaller than NSA. But they shut down their subunit that was focused exclusively on Hamas and Gaza, again, a few months ago. So you see it's just a perfect storm. But as McPoints out, there's one

kind of cause for all of this, and it runs deeper than any of the individual proximate causes and that is this underlying belief that they didn't have to worry about Hamas. Hamas was caged in Gaza. Hamas was preoccupied now with running Gaza itself and making money and had no interest in attacking Israel, even though Hamas was saying the destruction of Israel was still its first task. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, that's, I didn't know the other parts about, so those are those are other things that I think would be really helpful to come out in a manner that sets out, the kind of domino effect of how this ended up in such a catastrophic event. So both the Israelis can avoid it.

And then we and our allies and partners can as well. And whether it's the importance of open source. And I remember when all the intelligence services just poo-pooed open source because it was, you know, it's already out there. It's not secret. So it's not really intelligence. Well, if it's important, it's important. If they choose to do it openly, then we need to, you know, focus on it and not just, dismiss it.

That's another example. In the Siege of Sotom, we had an open source Intel cell, and that wasn't my initiative. Someone brilliant guy, Seale, as a matter of fact. So those two terms do go together sometimes. Recommended that we do. I agree. I agree.

And business worker. And it was, and honestly, we got most of our BDA battle damage assessment through open source intelligence. Every time we did an op. You know, we would get the reports and they would even, the Islamic State was even posting like a list of they're dead, you know, every time after. Right.

So it was tremendously helpful. More so, I mean, not more so in a different way than more exquisite COVID intelligence, like signals. Exactly. Signals intelligence. Yeah, signals intelligence is like, you know, it's like the beam of a flashlight. And open source intelligence helps you focus.

that beam. Yep. Agreed. It should, again, it should be one of those arguments that it's either or it's all the above. Yeah. Totally. Yeah, it's totally. Yeah, it's totally. Dee, do you want to, I know you had another question for Mick before you let him. I wanted to bash Netanyahu, but. Oh, I thought you were going to ask about Ukraine, but go ahead. Oh, yeah. Well, I mean, no, not bashed Yahoo. I mean, it just talks to like the kind of leadership, I mean, lack thereof, like where he's blaming his guys and, you know, his, the Shimbak guys are kind of coming back and saying, no, this was like kind of known. He knew about it.

And he makes, you know, he ran on the whole thing of his like, Mr. National Security for Israel, right? And just to pass the buck, I know he's a politician at the end of the day. It's kind of gross, especially when it pertains to something this, you know, catastrophic for Israel, which is now leading to something massively catastrophic for Palestine. I don't know. I for one cannot comment on this because I want to go in and out of this round. Sure, yeah.

I mean, I'm not. So I could pop off, I guess. It's okay. Yeah. And I know you guys have friends in the IDF and Musad or Jim Bet and stuff and I get it. Hey, well, we'll slow down on that. We already got, don't you remember, we already got all that hate mail for being. We'll always get hate mail.

It doesn't matter what side we pick. I mean, I don't, I don't have a dog in this fight. I want people to not die at a grand scale. That's what I want, right? Like, that's what I choose. and I want humanitarian aid to go there on a, you know, unabated, basically. But at bottom line is, yeah, no, I mean, at 30,000 plus civilian deaths, we can quote those numbers and we're not. But it's just, it's just staggering.

Yeah, and I'm saying that not as a hand-wringing civilian, but as a guy who's conducted urban operations at the top end, you know. Yeah. So, you know, all this will be sorted out. In six months, where are we, Mick, in your opinion? Well, I certainly would hope that the major combat operations would be concluded that Hamas would be to a point where they don't pose a military threat. I think the idea that they'll be destroying Hamas is just not the case, as Andy will tell you, no, D. You can't destroy a philosophy, but you can bring them down to a point where they can't use that philosophy to wage war against their neighbor in this case, is really. And that I do think, and I understand it's easier to say this than to get into the weeds.

But the only real solution is a two-state solution of which the Palestinians have autonomy. They have a future. They have a identity, a national identity. And they're focused on building the capacity of their country, economically, politically, educational, all the things that a society focuses on. And they're essentially not a threat to Israel. and that they have agreed to live in peace and coexist. Again, way easier to send than done.

People have been saying that for decades. But that I still think is the answer, and it obviously is still the policy of the United States. Things that need to happen to make that happen. One, there needs to be a willingness on the side of Israel. So that's something for them to decide who should lead their country, but that has to be a willingness. And there has to be security guarantees on the side of Israel.

Like, for example, can they develop a military? Can that military be supported by, let's say, Iran? Can they join a security pack? Iran? Things like that. Those are real questions that from the Israeli perspective, somebody has to answer. From the Palestinian perspective, the Palestinian Authority has almost zero credibility with the Palestinian people. They are considered widely as corrupt and ineffective.

So there has to be what the U.S. keeps calling a revitalized Palestinian authority, which most people say would be composed of technocrats. People are good at their sector of the government, education, agriculture, urban development, whatever it is, and not just people who are tied to somebody politically. So there's got to be a lot, and they have to be responsive to the people and not just some political ideology, which is largely just reinforced from Iran. right so there's all sorts of things that go into the concept of a two-state solution but i do think that is where we ultimately need to head to and that's where the international community should come together and enhance that happening not just stay talking points but are they willing to contribute to an international fund to rehabilitate Gaza are they willing to ensure that um no proxy of iran is allowed to govern any part of a future Palestinian state.

So there's all sorts of things at the international community. But to your question, D, I think that's where we want to head within six months. And into the combat operation, stabilization, reconstruction, and then this diplomatic path toward a peaceful two-state solution. Does that look like elections in Gaza or the West Bank? Because, like, I don't think what's going on right now with the war is exactly pacifying a lot of folks. I feel like it's probably breeding some extremism. So what happens if it's just a Hamas that's rebranded that gets elected?

That's a great point. And it is possible. That's why I'm saying it's easier. Yeah. So there's now Hamas is more popular in the West Bank than it is in Gaza. Oh, wow. So it is breeding some extremist views. And although I don't understand that, because I think their Hamas brought this all

the Palestinian people, but it's not up for me to understand it's still happening. So that is, if there was an election today and they were put into place, then I think Israel would rightfully say, well, we're not going to have a two-state solution where Hamas, the group that attacked us on October 7 is in charge. And I think most reasonable person would see like neither would we if we were in that position. So again, easier said than done, but I think ultimately, unless we want to see this cycle of violence with an occupation of Gaza permanent, I think that the path that the United States, which can only be a facilitator, is not a dictator in a sense that we can't tell people what to do. The United States can only be as effective as the two parties that ultimately have the decision, which is Israel and the Palestinian people.

but I think the United States should be a part of that, regardless of, you know, I don't do politics, whatever political parties in power, because that is the role we can play because we have more influence on Israel than any other country in the world. Yeah. I think they trust us.

Yeah, I mean, would the U.S. actually go to the extent of, like, turning the spigot off, you know, the cash machine off? I don't see a political willingness to do that on either party right now. the longer it goes on, you know, that could change. But I don't think we'll get there. I think we need to be a partner for Israel. But I also think we need to be, you know, an honest broker. So we're calling low blows and, you know, good hits, if you will,

want to use a boxing analogy, which I usually do. We got to be square with that. I don't think we need to do that. I mean, I don't, you know, I think, I mean, that's already, that's in the background behind everyone's mind. is the knowledge that the United States gives Israel $3.4 billion. It's certainly there in the media in the Middle East every day. Israel is very aware of that it's not something that diplomatically we would ever have to even hint at

because, you know, as Mick points out, it's not something we'd follow through. It would be an empty bluff. But I think more subtly, there are things that are underway to pair as in divide perhaps the Prime Minister from his cabinet, that hence the invitation to Benny Gantz to come to the United States that for many was kind of poetic justice because we've seen Israeli prime ministers before

appealed to Congress above the president's head. And so here was kind of a tip for tat, not in that way, but, you know, so there are ways of doing this that don't come down to straight threats with a country that is an ally and whose national interests, to some extent, overlap our own. And that is why Israel is an ally, right? I mean, it's not because of the crazy right-wing cuckoo evangelists.

I don't know. I'll probably get in trouble for that. It's not because of that. It's because it is in the interest of the United States to have a stable partner, a stable and powerful partner in that part of the Middle East. But that doesn't mean that all our own. national interest overlap. And in the end, I used to remind my guys that says U.S. above your pocket. And that's what we all have to remember. And you did see President Biden at the end of

the state of the union when he spoke to that congressman. He was on a hot mic and he said, you know, I spoke to BB and we're going to have a come to Jesus moment. I mean, that's got to be like, I mean, I don't know if it's him being doddy or is that him actually like, you know, I don't know, sending signals. I think what he, I think perhaps what he sees has come to Jesus and what BBC's being brought to Jesus are two separate things. And I don't want to get into the tangled web of, a theological discussions here.

What I simply mean is that they definitely have a different perception of who's leveraging who. All right. And the domestic audience is the key in both cases. So it's not. And it, I obviously don't do. politics, as I said, but Beny Gantz is very well known and very well liked in the United States. He was the defense attache from Israel to the United States.

And that's always a significant position, but it's really a significant position. And the IDF, it's usually the feeder into the chief of staff, so the most senior uniform military. And obviously, Benny Gans was a general on the IDF. So very, very much respected and very well known. But it's up to the Israeli people to decide who they want to be. you know, their leadership and their prime minister. Yeah, I'm happy.

Good. That's all that. You're happy, Andy. That's all. That was terrific. Dee, you did have, before we let Micko, you had one more question, right? About Ukraine. About Ukraine?

I mean, yeah, you saw the New York Times, quote, unquote, report, breaking news about the special relationship between the Ukrainian intelligence and the CIA. And, you know, NATO, other NATO intelligence services for sure. which I mean I'm biased obviously because Jack Murphy or the leader wrote a pretty in-depth article about over like a year and a half ago and like just magically because the New York Times got the okay sorry Mick from the agency to write this

it's like news now magically you know while at the same time elements from the agency at the time Jack was writing his article were actively trying to kill it and did. Basically, I mean, they did their job. They, you know, shook a big major publication off the story. I mean, by the way, they're permitted, not only permitted, make friends if I'm wrong, but obliged to lie when.

No, that's their job and they did it well. I respect it. You know what I mean? Like, they made it work. But, you know, this, like, this intelligence relationship's probably been building up since 2014, I'm assuming, right? Like, since Crimea got invaded. annexed. Just speak to it a little bit.

And confirm Jack's story. I can't confirm Jack's story. I'm obviously obligated in perpetuity to protect all covert and operations as a retired CIA person. I obviously know Jackie's

a friend. Him and Dave, brother Dave, came to business right here in Whitefish. He's a great reporter. But you kill them in a heartbeat if they came between you and national security. Now. No, I'm not saying that. They both have served the national security interest in their country with great esteem, I would say.

As you all know. Right. But what I would say is the agency, the paramilitary community in particular, and the soft community inside the U.S. military does have key relationships that they build over time that you never know when they're going to be critically important to our national security. So whether it's in Ukraine or whether it's, you know, the Kurds, for example, before the Iraq War, or which then leveraged into our efforts in Syria with the SDF, you never know where it starts. And when you have that young Green Beret or Raider or a paramilitary officer that's out there building these relationships that they don't know where it'll lead, oftentimes it leads to some of the most significant cooperative events we've had, whether it's building an entity inside Syria, they can defeat ISIS, right?

They can actually win without the loss of many U.S. servicemen and women. That's incredibly important. Whether it was in Iraq where we could not get the fourth infantry division and essentially it turned into a UW effort against 11 infantry divisions that was successful, or Republican Guard divisions in the north. So another example. whether it was Ukraine, when every analyst I know gave them, you know, less than a week once the Russian came across the border. And here we are where we are today, wondering why they're not being more effective on their counteroffensive,

ignoring the fact that most analysts didn't think they would, that Kiev would last three days. A lot of that, I want to give 100% really of the credit to the Ukrainians. But I think they were enhanced by our partner operations. that both the U.S. military and the Central Intelligence Agency does, that brings that core skill, that brings that confidence, that brings that small unit leadership to function in a way that I think is exponentially more powerful than their numbers would suggest. And I think we do that a lot, and that needs to keep happening. Just because the global war and terror might be something we put in the rear view mirror, that can change overnight, as you well know. But it's also just as effective

against near-peer competitors in Ukraine is a great example of what they're doing to the Russian military, who is, by almost every analysis perspective, been degraded substantially, like 50% or more, which is why it's so important to keep supporting our partners in their most critical time of need, not just for, you know, the moral right thing to do, but it's on our own interests, right? Our power is relative to our enemies. Our enemies power is going down substantially because of the efforts of Ukraine and our support to them. So I would hope that everybody would see that through the lens of U.S. national security interests rather than any kind of political filter that might be to the contrary. What he said, that was brilliant.

I'm glad we got that recorded. So you are confirming Jack's story. Just want to get that on record. No. I'll get a call tomorrow. No. I'm saying that it's well known that these partnerships, which can start, you know, before a conflict, can have a profound effect. Reveal untold benefits.

Yeah. And actually, Mickey, you know, we're winding up now, but you brought up a great point. That would be a good, another good discussion. being able to reinforce success with a light footprint. So Chabani with the SDF, right, was kind of that. It was, hey, let's drop these guys' supplies and see what happens. And then Chabani held on. You know, and we sort of realized, who are these dudes, these SDF guys?

And it became one of the most fruitful partnerships. In fact, maybe the Northern Alliance was the other. but I've lost three decades of self-operations. Yep, I would go with that. I would say the Northern Alliance, then the Kurdish element in Iraq, and then the SDF in the, yeah, the Peshmerga in Iraq. And then the SDF, I think, is like a culmination of what really these type of operations can do. With a very competent partner, of which we make more competent,

enhanced by intelligence that we can provide, we can provide an on-the-ground advisors. the other part I'd say to that is if we want this to be something that can use in the future, we have to be good partners. They can't just be disposable. You can't just decide one day that you don't meet them anymore and throw them to the wolves. Not only is that a moral, unethical, and not what the United States to stand for. People will remember that in the future.

And they'll be like, I'm not jumping in with you guys. You abandon every partner in the past. So, again, it's not just the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do for us in the future. future to have partners that consider us reliable. 100%. That's right. Yeah, Syria and, okay, yeah, we can carry this on for everybody.

But what people don't realize is that, you know, as we talked about here before, having that presence in Syria is not token. It lies in an area that is dearly sought after by our enemies, you know. So we are, again, leveraging small amount of people along within. indigenous troops to achieve strategic effect. Syria is a success story in that sense for us. Syria is a horrible abomination, but what I'm saying is that we could be. I agree.

And it's not only a success in the CP front, but because we're there, it has an effect on countering Iran, right? Iran would dominate if it wasn't for us being there. The only legal reason we can be there is to counter ISIS, which is part of the, you know. We have to be in Syria because we fucked out the rock. Right. If we hadn't.

I mean, we can tell you. There's another episode, but there's. I love when Andy gets honest. I fucking love it. Yeah, we could do another episode. Hey, Mick, you, uh, you've been an awesome guest, predictably. Dee, you've been an awesome producer too. Thank you.

And, um, you know, watch, watch the space. We've got a couple of things. and Mick and his cohorts are going to appear down the line to talk more about this, hopefully in execution. And then Dee has promised us a blowout eyes on weekend, long weekend, at Mick's, I don't know how to put it, bunker there in a very luxurious bunker in Whitefish, Montana. We'll get the team house private jet fueled up and we'll all head out there. Yeah, come on.

Our satellite office. We'll do an episode from there so you can all enjoy it vicariously with lots of weapons, porn, and you name it. Yeah. All right. Well, I love that. Thank you. I want to remind everybody to check out all of mixed stuff. Check out the Lobo Institute.

The links will be in the description. Andy, check out Andy's substack and Andy's Twitter. Don't forget to like, subscribe if you're listening to us on Apple or Spotify, rate and review at five stars. And yeah, thank you. And buy my book. before at least before the next comes out all right everyone thanks thanks very much see you again in a few days bye