Speaker 1: A thirty on a Tuesday.
Speaker 2: It is that time a week I always look forward
Speaker 2: to having a nice, in depth conversation about some of
Speaker 2: the more problematic topics in the world. It's time for
Speaker 2: the Daniel Davis Deep Dive with retired Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis.
Speaker 2: Welcome back, my friend. Always a pleasure. I always look
Speaker 2: forward to this segment.
Speaker 3: You know, so in a while, I really do. Can't
Speaker 3: wait to see what we do today. I know, and
Speaker 3: you know, I was looking down at the topic lists.
Speaker 3: I'm going, oh, jeez, you know, I mean, the world's
Speaker 3: fallen apart, and that's what you and I talk about
Speaker 3: from a military standpoint, and I certainly appreciate your insight
Speaker 3: in this regard. But it was just yesterday my son
Speaker 3: brought over a video of this intense explosion in the
Speaker 3: Tartis region. Apparently the Israelies dropped a bunch of bombs
Speaker 3: and it looked like and my son and the immediate
Speaker 3: rumors on the Internet were swirling that looked like maybe
Speaker 3: a small nuke had gone off. And when you're talking
Speaker 3: about World War three starting now, the Russians, of course
Speaker 3: have nukes. We know the Israelies do we know the
Speaker 3: Iran probably do or in any event, then I see
Speaker 3: your headline with this Putin the West pushing us to
Speaker 3: our red lines, and when you're dealing with a nuclear power,
Speaker 3: that red line certainly could potentially involve nuclear weapons. So
Speaker 3: I am very interested in hearing what you have to
Speaker 3: say about this one. Yeah, there was interesting because there
Speaker 3: was almost dueling statements made by Trump and Putin at
Speaker 3: nearly the same time yesterday, both kind of laying out
Speaker 3: their positions, and you know, Putin is for his side,
Speaker 3: was saying, hey, you know, I just don't get why
Speaker 3: you guys don't believe us and you keep pushing towards
Speaker 3: our red lines. He's talking about the continued use by
Speaker 3: the Body Administration of these long range weapons inside of
Speaker 3: Russia two hundred kilometers deep inside.
Speaker 1: Trump, for his side, also made.
Speaker 3: Reference to the same thing, and he said, I don't
Speaker 3: think it's a good idea, and I think.
Speaker 1: We need to stop.
Speaker 3: And it's it's actually encouraging from a certain perspective that
Speaker 3: you have both leaders talking about the same thing, because
Speaker 3: they both want to get this thing over with three
Speaker 3: different reasons. And honestly, I don't care what their reasons are.
Speaker 3: As long as we end this war and return to
Speaker 3: some sort of stability in Europe, that's good for America.
Speaker 2: All right, let me tap your sort of political analysis
Speaker 2: on this, which seems to be what this is. You
Speaker 2: and I have been over this before. Those whatever those
Speaker 2: missiles are called atcams or the longer range ones, which
Speaker 2: you and I agree and everybody in the NO agrees,
Speaker 2: requires some United States military high level Sir authority approval
Speaker 2: to help use or otherwise operate and fire them. So
Speaker 2: we've got boots on the ground inside Ukraine launching missiles
Speaker 2: into Russia. That all sounds bad. We know they're not
Speaker 2: going to accomplish much. You've already talked about how they
Speaker 2: can be shot down by Russia's you know, version of
Speaker 2: the drone system, and they have. They come at an
Speaker 2: amazing They're millions and millions of dollars of pop. This
Speaker 2: isn't like throwing a drone at something. So with all
Speaker 2: that in mind, what in the hell is Biden trying
Speaker 2: to accomplish by even allowing them to be used or
Speaker 2: having our people operate them.
Speaker 3: You know, honestly, it's all we're left with his speculation
Speaker 3: because the Biden administration officially just says this is to
Speaker 3: help Ukraine defend itself. You know that blanket they've been
Speaker 3: using on stuff forever, which means nothing. It doesn't really
Speaker 3: answer the question. Okay, ye'all get it, they'd want to
Speaker 3: defend themselves, but why this particular and why this particular
Speaker 3: time win? It doesn't gonna it will not cannot change
Speaker 3: the outcome of the war itself, but can possibly expanded
Speaker 3: and escalate it.
Speaker 1: I there's no good answer.
Speaker 3: I mean, some of the things are that they want
Speaker 3: to maybe tie, they want it to escalate, They want
Speaker 3: Russia to react in a strong way so that the
Speaker 3: war expands, and then Trump can't come in on twenty January,
Speaker 3: and it seeks some kind of negotiated settlement to end
Speaker 3: the content.
Speaker 1: Uh. You know, I think that there's.
Speaker 3: Still some people and this is hard to believe in
Speaker 3: the Body administration, and I know this for a fact,
Speaker 3: actually still have a fantasy that the war can be
Speaker 3: won if only they get more time, a little bit
Speaker 3: more money, some more ammunition, et cetera. And I can
Speaker 3: assure you from a military perspective, there is exactly zero
Speaker 3: chance of that happening. And all it's going to do
Speaker 3: is increase the cost in personnel, blood and treasure for
Speaker 3: the Ukraine side to lose because it's already baked in
Speaker 3: the war.
Speaker 2: His concluded, Well, and I just the pivotal way still,
Speaker 2: same war, same conflict that the I don't know if
Speaker 2: you had seamless whether there's any credibility to it, because
Speaker 2: we talked before about North Korea sending some troops there,
Speaker 2: and in your estimation, they were there to get some
Speaker 2: you know, on the ground, real training, to the extent
Speaker 2: they end up with a shooting war, uh with with
Speaker 2: South Korea or something because most of their military has
Speaker 2: not been engaged and engaged in actual combat. But that
Speaker 2: the North Koreans that were there actually ended up firing
Speaker 2: upon and taking out some of the Russian troops. I
Speaker 2: hate to have to laugh at that, but I don't
Speaker 2: know if you saw that or whether there's any credibility
Speaker 2: to that reporting.
Speaker 3: You know, you just have to take everything with a
Speaker 3: grain of salt, because especially in this war, there's so
Speaker 3: much intentional misinformation where various sides change things, they publish
Speaker 3: one video and claim it's something different, or even some
Speaker 3: things are doctored and manufactured in ai.
Speaker 1: Type of deal. Whatever I'll just tell you that it's
Speaker 1: very conceivable. It could be absolutely.
Speaker 3: True as talked about that it could also be misinformation
Speaker 3: by somebody on the Ukraine side who wants to just
Speaker 3: cast dispersions whatever.
Speaker 1: Honestly, either way, it makes no difference.
Speaker 3: Because there's such small numbers we're talking about here, it's
Speaker 3: not going to be either help Russia or hurt Russia.
Speaker 3: That's why I think that the most likely scenario is
Speaker 3: that the North Korea wants to gain experience for inst troops.
Speaker 1: Because it's not. In fact, it's actually.
Speaker 3: Being inconvenient for Russia because they have this language problem.
Speaker 3: They have somebody who doesn't have combat experience. It's difficult
Speaker 3: to do command and control. So it's a headache for
Speaker 3: the Russian side. It's not a help.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's not a good opportunity for a journeyman apprentice
Speaker 2: program basically.
Speaker 1: No, right, yeah, yeah, you might want to rethink that program. Now.
Speaker 2: Is this use of these missiles and our provision of
Speaker 2: these missiles and our operation of these missiles in Russia
Speaker 2: and the concern we have is that these self defeating
Speaker 2: arrogance that you wanted to talk about, or is this
Speaker 2: are we pivoting over to something else.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that was something else.
Speaker 3: That was that was because of a magazine, Foreign Affairs,
Speaker 3: what has been the premier foreign policy magazine in America
Speaker 3: for decades. Mitch McConnell published this piece in there that said,
Speaker 3: basically that all of the world's problems are we don't
Speaker 3: have anything to do with them. They are all these
Speaker 3: bad guys in China, in North Korea, in Iran, and
Speaker 3: certainly in Russia, and and you know, in the Middle East,
Speaker 3: a bunch of.
Speaker 1: Bunch of pizza.
Speaker 3: All these bad things that are happening are all just
Speaker 3: because we're too weak.
Speaker 1: We need to spend.
Speaker 3: Not just a lot more on defense when you spend
Speaker 3: a lot more, and we need to forget about diplomacy,
Speaker 3: we need to go with.
Speaker 1: Hard power, etc.
Speaker 3: And I just just took that apart and said, this
Speaker 3: promisey first, and this diplomacy free foreign policy has.
Speaker 1: Been an absolute disaster for America.
Speaker 3: That has cost us in Iraq, Afghanistan, in Syria. It's
Speaker 3: been a disaster in Syria and Libya, et cetera, Africa,
Speaker 3: you name it.
Speaker 1: Everywhere we've tried this, it.
Speaker 3: Has been disastrous results and it is time to jettison that.
Speaker 3: But these guys want to double down on it, and
Speaker 3: I think it's a terrible idea.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, if they want to double down on it,
Speaker 2: As we've talked many times before and others have observed,
Speaker 2: you better damn well have an endgame. You better, dan
Speaker 2: will have a strategy. Why would you want to enter
Speaker 2: any given situation in conflict or war? You better know
Speaker 2: how to get from point A to points and what
Speaker 2: point Z is, and that point Z is a good
Speaker 2: place to be, and that you've got an effective strategy
Speaker 2: to get there. It always seems to me we're in
Speaker 2: these ready fire aim situations or it's just like will
Speaker 2: we go in and we're like, wait a second, why
Speaker 2: are we here again?
Speaker 3: Well, listen, I'll tell you what worries me is that
Speaker 3: there may be an objective and it may be cash.
Speaker 3: Because that is the one thing that you're right. It
Speaker 3: is strategy free. It doesn't say here will be the outcome,
Speaker 3: here is the method to get there, here's here's the
Speaker 3: means of getting it done.
Speaker 1: So you have an in state, a means, and a
Speaker 1: path to get there.
Speaker 3: None of that except that it all goes down to
Speaker 3: we need more defense money and a lot more I mean,
Speaker 3: he emphasized a lot more, nine hundred billion dollars, way
Speaker 3: more than what is it like the next ten nations
Speaker 3: in a row, and he's saying that's not enough.
Speaker 1: And I'm saying, look, don't be stupid, because.
Speaker 3: You're saying, we want to do things that have been
Speaker 3: demonstrably failed more. And then somehow he thinks that's gonna
Speaker 3: end up with which he doesn't explain how it's gonna
Speaker 3: end up better for the United States, but that's what
Speaker 3: he's claiming. And that's that's why I'm so aggravated about it,
Speaker 3: because guys who serve in uniform like I did, are
Speaker 3: the bill payers for this. And that's one of the
Speaker 3: things I pointed out in that show there that there
Speaker 3: have been tens of thousands of Americans killed and wounded
Speaker 3: in these absurd wars that most of which didn't even
Speaker 3: need to be fought. Hundreds of thousands more killed in
Speaker 3: Moody six trillion that we fought in all of these
Speaker 3: insurgent wars, you know, since the mid two thousands, and
Speaker 3: no talk about any of the cost to us for
Speaker 3: these failed policies.
Speaker 2: But I am, well, I'm glad you do, and I
Speaker 2: share your concern on that. And I tell you what,
Speaker 2: as a starting point, if we're gonna go down Mitch
Speaker 2: McConnell's path, how about we start with a pentagon and
Speaker 2: a defense spending that can pass an audit? Can we
Speaker 2: can we just start there?
Speaker 1: Can I give you an amen on that one? Yes,
Speaker 1: Daniel did. That's a good place to start.
Speaker 3: If you can't even tell me how you're using nine
Speaker 3: hundred billion and now you want another one hundred billion,
Speaker 3: I mean, come.
Speaker 2: On, man, As my dad used to say, I got
Speaker 2: two words for you, and they eate. Happy birthday, Daniel Davis,
Speaker 2: deep dive always a pleasure, my friend. We'll talk to Actually,
Speaker 2: we will se you next time. Yeah, next time. It'll
Speaker 2: be next year. I'm off after Friday, the balance of
Speaker 2: the year, God bless you. Merry Christmas, I'm hoping, or
Speaker 2: a Happy New Year or hippie Honeger, whatever the hell
Speaker 2: you celebrate, Daniel, I hope it's a great celebration. A
Speaker 2: wish in early happy New Year, and we'll hit the
Speaker 2: ground running after the first same to you. My friend,
Speaker 2: looks a forty fifty five car. See the talk station
Speaker 2: stick around. We're gonna be talking Gastro health doctor Kevin
Speaker 2: Cronley on colon cancer. That'll be next to be right
Speaker 2: back