Speaker 1: I'm hey everybody, welcome to another episode of Eyes on Geopolitics.
Speaker 1: I'm here with Andy Milburn. Colonel Andy Milburn retired A right,
Speaker 1: you told me I gotta prefer to you as colonel,
Speaker 1: So yeah, I'm to meet you con tacos.
Speaker 2: Thanks for joining us. Do it's a favorite.
Speaker 1: Don't forget to like and subscribe if you're listening to
Speaker 1: an audio rated five stars, and check out our Patreon
Speaker 1: Patreon dot com. Slash the Team House all right, Plugs
Speaker 1: out of the Way, and Andy Milburn's book When the
Speaker 1: Tempest Gather. There's link is in the description. Uh Andy,
Speaker 1: how are you first and foremost?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm doing great good here and READD Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 2: Beautiful, Sonny. I think it's probably very sunny.
Speaker 3: READD honey, very healthy. It's no alcohol, oh good on
Speaker 3: a compound. There's no way to get into trouble here.
Speaker 3: So I'm doing very well.
Speaker 4: Thanks.
Speaker 1: Almost almost like prison, but nicer, far nicer. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: you're getting paid, so it could be it could actually
Speaker 1: be prison.
Speaker 2: All right. So a lot happened last night.
Speaker 1: Uh India hit back on Pakistan and retaliation for the
Speaker 1: attack in Kashmir that killed twenty six people Islamish India
Speaker 1: saying it was Islamis militants in Kashmir. India hit Pakistan
Speaker 1: controlled Kashmir, and they also hit like Pakistan proper. They
Speaker 1: say it's all like militant groups, infrastructure and stuff like that.
Speaker 2: As far as we know right now, nine people have died.
Speaker 1: I'm sure it's more Pakistan saying that they've shot down
Speaker 1: th read. It goes from three or five aircraft jets,
Speaker 1: you know, fourth generation plus fighters and drones. I don't
Speaker 1: know if that's been confirmed. They have been since their retaliation,
Speaker 1: been trading artillery. So what the fuck is gonna happen? Andy,
Speaker 1: I mean, is this gonna spiral out of control?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Put on my plate. Well, actually, I don't think
Speaker 3: it will. Dan. I'll get back to this. So just
Speaker 3: you know a little bit of background, and you know,
Speaker 3: I know, we we're not supposed to insert ourselves into
Speaker 3: the story. Dan, you want us about that all the time.
Speaker 2: I never warned you.
Speaker 3: But I'm actually very you know. I mean, I've been
Speaker 3: to Shrinika three or four times, so I'm probably one
Speaker 3: of the few Americans who has been there, and I'm
Speaker 3: old enough to have been there before it was blocked
Speaker 3: off to tourists, and when there is a as a
Speaker 3: teenager twice and just love the most beautiful area in
Speaker 3: the foothills of the Himalayas, it's just extraordinary. The people
Speaker 3: there are wonderful too, you know. And needless to say,
Speaker 3: of course, it's very sad that it has been such
Speaker 3: a bony contention between India and Pakistan, going back as
Speaker 3: we talked about to the nineteen forty nine partition. I'm sorry,
Speaker 3: forty seven partition. I was thinking of the birth of
Speaker 3: I was thinking of forty eight, forty nine birth of Israel,
Speaker 3: forty seven partition between the two countries. So his what
Speaker 3: I am seeing right now, Dean, I could be absolutely wrong,
Speaker 3: and there's a lot of speculation in twitter Land, But
Speaker 3: what I'm saying is this that both countries are actually,
Speaker 3: despite the usual Bellako statements, both countries are kind of
Speaker 3: playing according to unwritten rules. All right, Yes, to your point,
Speaker 3: the tit for tat, the strikes have straight out of
Speaker 3: Kashmire into areas of Pakistan. But if you look at
Speaker 3: what the targets are, and you look at some of
Speaker 3: the photographs from the media aerial photographs, it does seem
Speaker 3: as though India is making an effort to avoid collateral damage,
Speaker 3: and who knows whether the reports of civilians being killed
Speaker 3: or true or not, But when you look at the photographs,
Speaker 3: it is individual houses or compounds that have been struck.
Speaker 3: And I think probably most of our listeners are aware
Speaker 3: of the problems that India has had with homegrown Pakistan
Speaker 3: or Pakistan supporting terrorist organizations, allegedly supporting terrorist organizations like
Speaker 3: Lashka Our l T, Lashka Our Tayib. Right, hopefully I
Speaker 3: haven't mispronounced that l T and Jayshl Muhammat and those
Speaker 3: are two. And Lashka LT is the organization that launched
Speaker 3: the two thousand and eight Bomboy Mumbai raid that resulted
Speaker 3: in several hundred dead civilians. And that was there's actually
Speaker 3: a movie about that that I talked about. It was
Speaker 3: a very well planned raid and it was by all
Speaker 3: accounts commanded and controlled from led by lat in Pakistan.
Speaker 3: And then you know, India has there's been a number
Speaker 3: of attacks since then, and there have been a number
Speaker 3: of clashes since in twenty sixteen and in twenty nineteen
Speaker 3: and again now and you know, everyone is worried that
Speaker 3: here are two nuclear powers apparently on the verge of war.
Speaker 3: But let's look at a couple of things. Okay, So
Speaker 3: I talked about the fact that these strikes seemed to
Speaker 3: be quite limited, and Pakistan, for its part, has hit
Speaker 3: targets in Kashmir. Pakistan is talking about now is striking
Speaker 3: into India. Certainly has the capability to do that as
Speaker 3: quite a missile array, and India of course has the
Speaker 3: ability to return that. But so far the targeting has
Speaker 3: been quite specific. And the other thing is kind of interestingly,
Speaker 3: so the Pakistani's reported that they've shot down between three
Speaker 3: to five Indian jets and a Heron drone. The Indians
Speaker 3: are clearly, I mean not clearly they've they they're admitting
Speaker 3: they've lost aircraft. Although the photographs that are appearing on
Speaker 3: Twitter are from they're not recent, they're from last year
Speaker 3: or back in twenty nineteen. But you safe to say
Speaker 3: that the Indians lost aircraft. Those aircraft actually crashed in India,
Speaker 3: raising speculation that they were you know, these were accidents,
Speaker 3: but it's entirely possible that Pakistan shot them down. The
Speaker 3: Indians haven't actually been flying over Pakistani air base. And
Speaker 3: when I talk about their attempts to limit actions. They've
Speaker 3: been hoisting, launching, lofting missiles from the Indian side of
Speaker 3: the border towards Pakistan. And so they may have been
Speaker 3: you know, intercepted in the air over but certainly they
Speaker 3: crashed in Indian territory. So I will pause, Sarah case
Speaker 3: you have any questions. So maybe I'm just being overly optimistic,
Speaker 3: but I don't see this going down the path to war.
Speaker 3: You know, they're neither country stands to gain from this.
Speaker 3: It is true that Modi, who's the you know, the
Speaker 3: the Indian premiere, he stands to gain. He's got a
Speaker 3: tremendous he was in the past tremendously popular in India.
Speaker 3: But there has been some dissatisfaction, dissatisfaction recently with them,
Speaker 3: not just over ethnic tensions, over a plateauing economy, which
Speaker 3: may not be entirely his fault, that he's getting blamed
Speaker 3: for that. And so he does benefit by rattling sabers
Speaker 3: at Pakistan, which he's happy to do from time to time,
Speaker 3: but it certainly doesn't benefit him to go to war
Speaker 3: and night. And you know, certainly, although the populations of
Speaker 3: both countries have been brought up in this atmosphere of
Speaker 3: I would say hatred. That's a strong word, but near
Speaker 3: enough towards the other country. And although both countries went
Speaker 3: to war, you know, fifty years goinge a very bloody
Speaker 3: campaign over what became Bangladesh was then East Pakistan. Again,
Speaker 3: the you know, the undercarrent of the real undercurrent of feeling.
Speaker 3: If you're to look at reflections of India and Pakistan
Speaker 3: social media, it's not hey, let's go to war, let's
Speaker 3: bash him. It is a real concern that they will
Speaker 3: go to war. And I think that the leaders will
Speaker 3: we'll pay attention to that.
Speaker 5: Hey, guys, I want to take a moment to tell
Speaker 5: you about tonight's sponsor for the show, which is Ridge Wallets.
Speaker 5: I've been using this for about six months now, really
Speaker 5: enjoy it. This wallet is made out of carbon, fiber,
Speaker 5: titanium and steel and it really holds up and lasts.
Speaker 5: So you know, in the past, I carried a leather wallet.
Speaker 5: You know, it's made by you know professional has a
Speaker 5: small shop it makes does leather work. I mean, it
Speaker 5: was a nice wallet and I really loved it. But
Speaker 5: the problem with those wallets is they get thicker and
Speaker 5: thicker and thicker, and we end up carrying around something
Speaker 5: that's like, you know, a little phone book in the
Speaker 5: back of our pocket after a while, and that leads
Speaker 5: to problems with your posture and everything else. So what
Speaker 5: I like about the Ridge wallet it's really a minimalist design.
Speaker 5: So most of us are using cards these days, so
Speaker 5: it can hold all of your cards in here inside
Speaker 5: these elastic pieces that you can press out, and then
Speaker 5: there's a clip on the back you can I use
Speaker 5: it to clip money in when I do use a
Speaker 5: dollars can clip.
Speaker 4: Them in there.
Speaker 5: They have over fifty colors and styles, so it's not
Speaker 5: just functional. You can personalize it a bit as well.
Speaker 5: They have some that feature your favorite NFL teams and
Speaker 5: so forth. Losing your wallet is also pretty crappy. I've
Speaker 5: had that happen to me as well. Actually, that wallet,
Speaker 5: the leather wallet I was telling you about, I lost it.
Speaker 4: On the subway. So there's that.
Speaker 5: But Ridge has an answer for that, Ridge air tag attachment,
Speaker 5: and with that you'll always know exactly where your wallet
Speaker 5: is before panic mode kicks in.
Speaker 4: All right. Ridge isn't just about wallets.
Speaker 5: They create premium everyday carry essentials like key cases, suitcases,
Speaker 5: and rings, all built with the same sleek, durable design.
Speaker 5: So right now Ridge is having there once a year
Speaker 5: anniversary sale get up to forty percent off at Ridge
Speaker 5: dot com slash house. Just head to Ridge dot com
Speaker 5: slash house to see their biggest sale of the year.
Speaker 5: After you purchase, they will ask you where you heard
Speaker 5: about them. Please support our show and tell them our
Speaker 5: show sent you. So, guys, please go and check out
Speaker 5: Ridge Walt's. This also makes a great gift. My girlfriend
Speaker 5: has one of these, My stepfather has one of these,
Speaker 5: so I've given them away too, and our producer Dmitri
Speaker 5: has one.
Speaker 4: So please go and check out Ridge Watts.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, let's let's hope.
Speaker 3: So and then, you know, last we talked about Believe
Speaker 3: It's in nineteen ninety eight, there was perhaps that both
Speaker 3: countries came closest to the brank of fallout a full
Speaker 3: war since they had been since seventy one, and there
Speaker 3: was an open talk about nuclear preemption, both countries using
Speaker 3: nuclear weapons against the other. And apparently, you know, I
Speaker 3: only know this for sure on the Pakistani side, that
Speaker 3: there is a policy of preemptive strike. In other words,
Speaker 3: if they suspect that the other country is prepared to
Speaker 3: or threatening to then they are authorized within their own
Speaker 3: kind of strategic doctrine to strike first with nuclear weapons,
Speaker 3: which is obviously concerning sure.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and also giving command and control over to generals
Speaker 1: and stuff sounds a bit wiley coyote.
Speaker 2: It sounds a bit nuts to me.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's more of a danger really on on the
Speaker 3: Pakistani side. So, you know, one thing, and I would
Speaker 3: say US foreign policy has consistently falling short honestly when
Speaker 3: it's come to Pakistan. And I know there's a large
Speaker 3: audience out there who is going to be horrified by
Speaker 3: me saying this because we all remember that the pakistanis
Speaker 3: supported or the ISI at least supported the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Speaker 3: I mean, that is no secret. They supported the Taliban,
Speaker 3: but not necessarily, you know, not al Qaeda. And I
Speaker 3: think that's an important distinction. And needless to say, we
Speaker 3: created a lot of the problems in Afghanistan to my opinion,
Speaker 3: you know, with with the Taliban, and when when we
Speaker 3: were always trying to get Pakistan outside, we didn't we
Speaker 3: didn't recognize two things that the Pakistani security forces themselves
Speaker 3: were taking heavy casualties from UH from islamisists in in
Speaker 3: what they called the tribal provinces, you know, the border
Speaker 3: adjacent with Afghanistan. That was number one. Number two is
Speaker 3: that they supported the Taliban as a bulwark against India,
Speaker 3: and we the United States never really kind of recognized that.
Speaker 3: We during the Cold War, we wanted we courted both countries.
Speaker 3: And then of course when the Russians invaded Afghanistan, we
Speaker 3: were all in on in Afghanistan and we were we
Speaker 3: with the full collaboration with the ISI, with the Pakistani
Speaker 3: intelligence services, were supporting the Mujaheden. Of course, many of
Speaker 3: whom became most of whom, you know, it was the
Speaker 3: Pashtun fighters who subsequently became the Taliban, and of course
Speaker 3: the Arab fighters with the Summer ben Laden were a
Speaker 3: subset of that and became Al Qaeda. And there was
Speaker 3: a natural partnership that we that occurred under our noses,
Speaker 3: and in fact, arguably we helped forge We also were
Speaker 3: the ones who were supporting, you know, the Pakistanis on
Speaker 3: condition that they supported the muja Hiden. So we created
Speaker 3: that bond between the ISI and the Taliban, and then
Speaker 3: subsequently turned around and played Pakistan for having that bond,
Speaker 3: you know, I mean, look the Pakistan is not blameless,
Speaker 3: of course, but I'm just saying that our own strategy
Speaker 3: towards Pakistan has been has been at the very least confusing.
Speaker 3: And so one other thing that is I think really
Speaker 3: concerning that Pakistan is obviously the threat of nuclear wars
Speaker 3: is concerning both countries. But the question of water rights,
Speaker 3: the the I believe it's called the Indus Indus River Agreement.
Speaker 3: Someone will correct me, I'm sure in their comments, but
Speaker 3: the basically they they're you know, both countries were Pakistan
Speaker 3: is dependent on India to some extent for water supplies,
Speaker 3: and now India is threatening to dam up its reservoirs
Speaker 3: and create a huge amount of silt, making the water
Speaker 3: that reaches Pakistan problematic, difficult to drink, and that is
Speaker 3: going to be difficult to use. That that is going
Speaker 3: to be a significant issue too. So there are things
Speaker 3: that both countries or India can do in particular to
Speaker 3: herd Pakistan that don't necessarily involve firing missiles and just
Speaker 3: go on generating this tension between them and Yes, Pakistan,
Speaker 3: you know, I've may sound quite supportive at Pakistan, but
Speaker 3: there's no doubt about it that there are extremist groups
Speaker 3: who have safe haven in Pakistan, and I mentioned two
Speaker 3: of them, Led and On JSHL Muhammad, and both of
Speaker 3: those groups have conducted terrorist attacks, not just the Mumbai
Speaker 3: two thousand and eight attacks, but consistently conducted attacks not
Speaker 3: just an in Trinegar but in India too, killing Indian civilians.
Speaker 3: And so when India strikes into Pakistan, this was the
Speaker 3: same in twenty nineteen, it always claims, and I think
Speaker 3: with some justification, that it is going after these particular bases.
Speaker 1: Yeah, understandably, So I would think just bring it back
Speaker 1: to the ISI. Pakistan is SI, I mean because some
Speaker 1: you mean, the hot most high profile terrorist was found living,
Speaker 1: you know, in the west point of Pakistan. You don't
Speaker 1: think there was any I I help in terms of
Speaker 1: like getting uh Os bin Lan.
Speaker 3: I look, you know, I'm I'm sure that there was
Speaker 3: collaboration at that stage, but and and you've got to
Speaker 3: remember that by then there was again I'm not I
Speaker 3: know you're not.
Speaker 2: I know you're not yet. I'm just saying, like dummy
Speaker 2: would ask.
Speaker 3: That we, you know, we the United States, and take
Speaker 3: an ice from the Pakistani point of view, Okay, and
Speaker 3: I have uh you know, I had one friend. I
Speaker 3: actually went through the War College with Marinko War College
Speaker 3: as a Pakistani general, so I you know, I I
Speaker 3: I was able to see things a little bit from
Speaker 3: that side, and we had a very very transactional or
Speaker 3: hard relationship with the Pakistanis. There were times when we
Speaker 3: fired into Pakistan. Yeah, I mean you're probably aware of this.
Speaker 3: There were at times when Pakistani soldiers were held hit
Speaker 3: by US artsery fire, and I know, we're going to
Speaker 3: get people popping up saying well there was a reason
Speaker 3: for that, Yes, I know, but the way that it
Speaker 3: was projected in Pakistan was US aggression and the United
Speaker 3: States is very, very unpopular among the Pakistani population. A
Speaker 3: lot of that is due to propaganda. A lot of
Speaker 3: it is perception of US policy being anti Pakistani or
Speaker 3: anti Muslim. I understand that, and a lot of it
Speaker 3: is propagated not by necessarily by the government, but by
Speaker 3: organizations in the media within Pakistan. So yes, I have
Speaker 3: no doubt that. Of course Issama bin Laden couldn't have
Speaker 3: lived there for so long without some complicit help by
Speaker 3: the by the Pakistani government. I'm just saying that we,
Speaker 3: the US, are not blameless in creating that very fraud
Speaker 3: relationship with Pakistan.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I feel like we're not blameless in any fraud
Speaker 1: relationships we have all over the world, right like we
Speaker 1: always This takes to the tango, really, I mean, just
Speaker 1: a little bit more of what's going on, Like right
Speaker 1: now on the ground, they're tanks moving towards the Indian
Speaker 1: Pakistani tanks moving towards the Indian border. I'm sure that
Speaker 1: could be just more saber rattling, just Pakistan showing that
Speaker 1: they are, you know, serious about this and they're not
Speaker 1: backing down. Do you think Pakistan retaliates maybe a tick
Speaker 1: for table.
Speaker 3: So you're saying there's there's tanks moving towards the border
Speaker 3: on the Pakistani side.
Speaker 6: Correct, on the Pakistani side, Yeah, the Indian side, there
Speaker 6: is a state it's Rajastan, which is the the closest
Speaker 6: to Pakistan, and they gone on high alert there and
Speaker 6: closed the airports.
Speaker 3: But I don't know, you know that there hasn't been
Speaker 3: signed of movements unless I'm missing this large movement of
Speaker 3: ground forces towards that. But there has been fighting already
Speaker 3: along the line of control in Trinigar, which is the
Speaker 3: you know, the essentially the front line between the two countries,
Speaker 3: and you know, there's kind of an agreement that what
Speaker 3: happens in Trinigar stays in Trinigar. So I think that
Speaker 3: both countries are going to be quite eager to keep
Speaker 3: it there. But yeah, there's been exchanges of artillery. There
Speaker 3: have been casualties on both sides.
Speaker 2: Not you know, not.
Speaker 3: Yet direct infantry fighting, but certainly artillery rates.
Speaker 1: Do you see there being a chance where Pakistan like
Speaker 1: sounds like a couple dozen ballistic missiles into India.
Speaker 3: Ah, well that you know, that would be definitely an escalation.
Speaker 3: I mean, yeah, you know, so Pakistan could portray it
Speaker 3: as not being an escalation, having said, hey, look the
Speaker 3: Indians have already struck Pakistani soil, but the Indians are
Speaker 3: making it very clear that when we did that, it
Speaker 3: was going after these specific terrorist targets. Notice they haven't
Speaker 3: struck the Pakistani military in Pakistan, and that is an
Speaker 3: important distinction to both sides. So for Pakistan to go after, say,
Speaker 3: Indian military targets in India definitely an escalation. And that
Speaker 3: is when it's certainly going to be concerning deep because Modi,
Speaker 3: as you you know, you're probably aware is he's populist,
Speaker 3: he's a nationalist. Remember you know the problems the Canadians
Speaker 3: have had with him over assassinating Sikh activists in Canada,
Speaker 3: and the Indians just didn't back down on that. You know,
Speaker 3: it's basically hate. Who gives a shit whether you disagree
Speaker 3: with it or not. I mean, it was very clear
Speaker 3: that they did that, so you know, and it's he's
Speaker 3: not going to want to lose face. So a civical
Speaker 3: tell you know. The pakistanis though, will understand this too,
Speaker 3: and it's going to be you know that they're both
Speaker 3: playing brinksmanship because they're both playing to our home audience.
Speaker 3: And it may be. It may be and I'm not
Speaker 3: saying necessarily true that on the Pakistani side, you know
Speaker 3: where the military is concerned, because you know that what's
Speaker 3: what's the saying that Pakistan and in most countries, you know,
Speaker 3: most democratic countries you have, they'll have a military. But
Speaker 3: in Pakistan it's a case of the military having a country.
Speaker 3: And you know, there's some truth in that. I mean,
Speaker 3: no civilian government in Pakistan has survived without support of
Speaker 3: the military. But my point is the strength there may
Speaker 3: be that is they don't have to play to a
Speaker 3: civilian population to get re elected. And you know, I
Speaker 3: and Pakistani military is as aggressive as though maybe sounding
Speaker 3: certainly don't want to plunge their country into war. And
Speaker 3: just a reminder for everyone, India is far bigger than Pakistan, right, So,
Speaker 3: I mean it would be a tremendously bloody, costly, pointless
Speaker 3: war for both countries, but Pakistan would be liable to
Speaker 3: emerge from this the worst.
Speaker 1: So what are like, what's the international community in like
Speaker 1: the US, I guess more doing to like kind of
Speaker 1: pull these guys back and like, you know, talk a
Speaker 1: little bit more since and have everybody just relax a
Speaker 1: little bit.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's the other concerning thing. So normally, you know,
Speaker 3: previously and not always with a great deal of effectiveness,
Speaker 3: but the United States has stepped up to the plate
Speaker 3: to try and mediate and in nineteen seventy one it
Speaker 3: was Kissinger who did make a determined effort to try
Speaker 3: and prevent that war, but he was distracted obviously by
Speaker 3: other things such as Vietnam, the invasion of Cambodia, relations
Speaker 3: with China. But you know, in more recent years, yeah,
Speaker 3: it's been the United States. It's kind of led the
Speaker 3: the charge on trying to negotiate and calm things down.
Speaker 3: I haven't really seen that. You know, there's been a
Speaker 3: little bit of a you know, Rubio has he's he's
Speaker 3: commented about it. Yeah, and he's he India's briefed him,
Speaker 3: he said, But that doesn't seem to be a very
Speaker 3: concerted effort to try and diffuse the crisis. And it's
Speaker 3: really it's not clear whether the United States has he
Speaker 3: appetite or opacity to do so. And I know the
Speaker 3: President said it's a shame, you know, they've been fighting
Speaker 3: for many, many decades. But that's not quite the same
Speaker 3: as as reaching out to both leaders and saying, hey,
Speaker 3: knolk it off.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I know you're not a like, you know, you
Speaker 1: didn't work in the State Department, really, But what happens
Speaker 1: when there's no ambassadors.
Speaker 2: To both countries, Like who's who's.
Speaker 1: Kind of taking the lead on this, because yeah, right,
Speaker 1: you could talk to the Secretary of State blah blah blah,
Speaker 1: but like who's doing like the on the ground.
Speaker 3: Stuff, Well, no one's doing it right now, nobody. It's
Speaker 3: just not Yeah, I don't know where we stand with
Speaker 3: regard to ambassadors to India and Pakistan. I know you
Speaker 3: had Who's.
Speaker 2: Getting one last time? Louis Rita.
Speaker 3: Yeah, what what did he have to say on that?
Speaker 2: He said, I mean Lewis got a bless him. I
Speaker 2: love Lewis.
Speaker 1: He's got a bit of a pessimistic view on stuff.
Speaker 1: He says, no one's doing anything. Really, because I asked
Speaker 1: him about like what's this like? See what like look too,
Speaker 1: like what a CIA station or a state or an
Speaker 1: embassy is like doing. He's like, listen, they're talking to
Speaker 1: the context, but there really probably isn't much direction.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean I think he's I think he's absolutely right,
Speaker 3: but I honestly I think India and Pakistan I am
Speaker 3: going to sort this out. You know, India has said,
Speaker 3: again with some justification and I'm playing the straight down
Speaker 3: the middle, that it strikes were focused and measured and
Speaker 3: non escalatory, you know, pointing out that it hasn't struck
Speaker 3: the Pakistan military, economic, or civilian targets, but what it
Speaker 3: calls known terror camps. And I think that's a fair statement.
Speaker 3: And you know, Pakistan could respond whether a retaliatory strike
Speaker 3: with I mean, Pakistan's got a large diverse arsenal of
Speaker 3: cruise and ballistic missiles which you could fire into India
Speaker 3: without requiring jets to cross the border. It could do that,
Speaker 3: but it hasn't done that yet. And I think it's
Speaker 3: because despite all the heat rhetoric, Pakistan's likely to choose
Speaker 3: the scale and nature of its response with a lot
Speaker 3: of care and doing, you know, enough to applicate its
Speaker 3: own populace by saying, look what we're doing and restore
Speaker 3: a modicum of deterrence, but without escalating the crisis. I mean,
Speaker 3: I think beneath the rhetoric, that's what you see from
Speaker 3: both the countries.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I guess that's a good that's a
Speaker 2: great thing.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, you know, and just looking in Twitter land,
Speaker 3: the Indian armies already declaring kind of victories, saying justice
Speaker 3: is served.
Speaker 1: So that's the thing, Like how does it play that
Speaker 1: their populous right, like at least someone people have to
Speaker 1: save face. And I mean, I guess it does make
Speaker 1: sense that India it was more of a measured kind
Speaker 1: of retaliation.
Speaker 2: It took you know, three weeks.
Speaker 1: Right, they didn't start shooting missiles into Pakistan or Pakistan Kashmir,
Speaker 1: you know, a couple of days after So yeah, I
Speaker 1: hope it could just be like a you know, proportional
Speaker 1: on each side and like, you know, let's just go
Speaker 1: back to like really, actually we still hate each other,
Speaker 1: but let's not kill each other.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, I do believe that's what we're gonna see.
Speaker 3: And you know, I hope I'm not I'm not proven incorrect.
Speaker 1: What's funny is Lewis last last week actually said that
Speaker 1: he's read, he's had they've had weather models and reports
Speaker 1: done surveys that if Pakistan and India had a nuclear
Speaker 1: exchange of just twenty five percent of their arsenal it
Speaker 1: depending on the winds and stuff like that, it could
Speaker 1: have like seriously fuck up not only the world, but
Speaker 1: like the United States. I mean because we live here
Speaker 1: so we care about it more, I guess, but it
Speaker 1: could really like kill crops in the United States. Costs
Speaker 1: millions of people to die in the US because it'll
Speaker 1: get all the way to the West coast from from
Speaker 1: where India and Pakistan are, which is you know, insane
Speaker 1: to actually think about. Hopefully, like you said, and I'm
Speaker 1: trusting you, it doesn't go down and watch once we
Speaker 1: sign off here, it's going to be pacising, you know,
Speaker 1: shoots twenty fucking ballistic missiles into India knock out Wood.
Speaker 3: I hope it doesn't, but no, I mean I put
Speaker 3: money on it. I think we're going to see the
Speaker 3: escalation of the next few days, which is good because
Speaker 3: there's you know, that's what the world needs more of,
Speaker 3: right is the escalation?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Absolutely? When is your Andy?
Speaker 1: If you guys don't know, Andy's writing a new book
Speaker 1: about the conflict in the war going on in Gaza,
Speaker 1: When is that coming out?
Speaker 2: Do you have any idea?
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's going to come out towards the end of
Speaker 3: this year. I know that sounds a little bit vague,
Speaker 3: but okay, that's my publisher can can tell me. And
Speaker 3: it is, you know, honestly, I mean, it's been a
Speaker 3: tough book to write, as you can imagine. I spent
Speaker 3: considerable time in Israel, and I mean all over, and
Speaker 3: you know, I wanted to be you know, I paused
Speaker 3: because that fair doesn't seem quite the right term. But
Speaker 3: I wanted to I wanted to be absolutely accurate. I
Speaker 3: wanted to tell absolutely accurate story from both sides. You know,
Speaker 3: why why did this happen? Why was Hamas able to
Speaker 3: conduct these attacks? But why did Hamas plan the attacks?
Speaker 3: You know? What was some of the background to this
Speaker 3: and not not all of this has been in the papers,
Speaker 3: by the way, And you know, so I found I
Speaker 3: was very fortunate in that I had a number of
Speaker 3: contacts who are not trying to be mysterious, you know,
Speaker 3: who I can't name in the book, but who had
Speaker 3: a tremendous amount of knowledge about the background from from
Speaker 3: both you know, points of view, and so yes, you
Speaker 3: know what, how did Hamas plan the attacks? Was the
Speaker 3: detail that went into these planning? How did they prepare for?
Speaker 3: And some of this is astonishing material, it really is.
Speaker 3: And then you know why why was Israel lolled into
Speaker 3: the sense of complacency? And you know, we talked a
Speaker 3: lot about it being an intelligence failure, but it was
Speaker 3: really a failure of imagination, you know, because the intelligence
Speaker 3: was there. Admittedly a lot of the collection methods had
Speaker 3: been had been steadily shut down because of partly because
Speaker 3: of policy and partly because of complacency, but the you know,
Speaker 3: the science was certainly there. Why were they ignored? And
Speaker 3: perhaps more importantly, you know, as an operations guy, I'm
Speaker 3: not an intel guy, and so I know enough as
Speaker 3: an operations guy. You don't rely on intel to give
Speaker 3: you an early warning because very simply stated, all all
Speaker 3: successful attacks rely on surprise, right, So you're always you've
Speaker 3: always got to be on your guard. And there was
Speaker 3: an entire division, the guards, a division that was focused
Speaker 3: on containing Gaza, and a number of missteps both you know,
Speaker 3: again policy intelligence and the operational side, and then you know,
Speaker 3: the attacks themselves. The performance of the IDEA from responding
Speaker 3: to those attacks were quite I think the we're part
Speaker 3: of the most shocking, not the most shocking, but were
Speaker 3: part of the the impact of the story to the
Speaker 3: Israeli public, for whom the IDEF had always been this
Speaker 3: kind of iconic institution. To find out how seriously they failed,
Speaker 3: not just in the lead up to the attacks, but
Speaker 3: on the day of the attacks, and then subsequently in
Speaker 3: a number of ways, and really in a realization that
Speaker 3: they had kind of a two tier army. They had
Speaker 3: an army that was technologically very savvy, very good, considered
Speaker 3: itself very good at targeting, had some very good units,
Speaker 3: and yet the rank and file, the quality of the
Speaker 3: rank and file, the you know, the regular infantry units
Speaker 3: had plummeted considerably and that's you know, I'm jumping a
Speaker 3: little bit into the book here, but look at the
Speaker 3: huge number of casualties of civilian casualties in Gaza, and
Speaker 3: there are a number of complex reasons for that, but
Speaker 3: one of the reasons is simply that the you know,
Speaker 3: the IDEAF couldn't trust their infantry to go in and do,
Speaker 3: for instance, what we did in Fallujah. I mean, I
Speaker 3: was going to say, you probably remember Flujah. You were
Speaker 3: a kid then, but you know, having formed my way
Speaker 3: through Fallujah, we made mistakes. We made a lot of mistakes,
Speaker 3: but we didn't We didn't annihilate everything in our path.
Speaker 3: We had to go in and clear buildings time after
Speaker 3: time after time. And anyone who pushes back on that,
Speaker 3: I would challenge that is not the way that the
Speaker 3: IDEF approached you know, they, as you saw it was
Speaker 3: kind of a scorched dirt policy. They would flat places,
Speaker 3: very very heavy reliance on fire support. And that's kind
Speaker 3: of what you do when you have second rate infantry,
Speaker 3: is you have Yeah, I'm not saying they had to
Speaker 3: do that. I'm saying that's what you find yourself doing.
Speaker 3: The very few, you know, SECT for the special operations
Speaker 3: units who as I said, were very good. The very
Speaker 3: very few incidents where soldiers had to go into a
Speaker 3: building and clear rooms the way we did Influjah. And
Speaker 3: by the way, I don't advocate that at all, you know,
Speaker 3: I mean there are smarter ways to do that. You
Speaker 3: can do it now with drones, you can do it
Speaker 3: with unmanned vehicles. But it but certainly, you know, there's say,
Speaker 3: there's a lot of a lot of parts to this story,
Speaker 3: and that's been one of the hardest parts about about
Speaker 3: making this much more than just a narrative of massacre
Speaker 3: and reaction, you know, a story really about why it
Speaker 3: happened and why it happened the way that it did
Speaker 3: without becoming too analytical at the same time, keeping the
Speaker 3: narrative going, it's been it's been a Challenge's tested my
Speaker 3: limited writing skills too, it's really limits.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm looking forward to it. It sounds like it's
Speaker 1: going to be a very interesting story because we just
Speaker 1: it's just we're in un data with stuff. So it's
Speaker 1: really good to like kind of hone in and why
Speaker 1: why it happened and what was the reasoning behind it.
Speaker 1: Idf like in terms of like second second rate infantry
Speaker 1: is it just because they're all conscripts and not all
Speaker 1: professional soldiers.
Speaker 3: It's a number of number of reasons. So you know,
Speaker 3: you have to Matt, have to remember the that you
Speaker 3: know back in and I heard this time and time again.
Speaker 3: You know, the last time that Israel was surprised so
Speaker 3: badly was in nineteen seventy three, in fact, almost to
Speaker 3: the day, the years before, in the Omkepul War. But
Speaker 3: the triumph of that war from an Israeli standpoint was
Speaker 3: that the IDF recovered and did so incredibly quickly. I mean,
Speaker 3: the majority of their casualties in that war were in
Speaker 3: the first forty eight seventy two hours, and they mobilized
Speaker 3: a huge number of reservists through them into the line
Speaker 3: and they performed admirably. That was not the case in
Speaker 3: this case. As you were probably seeing a lot of
Speaker 3: the investigations now coming out, So this isn't just Andy
Speaker 3: Milburn talking about what happened on seven October. It's raally
Speaker 3: investigations are revealing it again and again that the IDEA
Speaker 3: failed to protect civilian communities for a number of reasons,
Speaker 3: you know, not having a quick reaction force, not you know,
Speaker 3: not being aggressive enough there were kibbutzers where the army
Speaker 3: waited outside while the inhabitants were being slaughtered. I mean,
Speaker 3: this is, this is almost incomprehensible. A beach as sold
Speaker 3: where Hamas fighters, a small group of them, by the way,
Speaker 3: eight of them stormed ashore and killed something like twenty
Speaker 3: civilians and sekeen beach. And there was a patrol and
Speaker 3: it's Raeli patrol who didn't even engage them, you know,
Speaker 3: I mean it's why not, well, who knows? Who knows?
Speaker 3: You know, lack of initiative, lack of aggression, lack of courage.
Speaker 3: I mean, I'm going to get villified to saying this.
Speaker 3: I don't know, I don't know the answer. But you
Speaker 3: can if you doubt what I'm saying, you can read
Speaker 3: the investigations in the Israeli papers about what happened. Now,
Speaker 3: don't get me wrong. There were lots of incidents of
Speaker 3: where individuals and units showed great courage on the day,
Speaker 3: but there was a total breakdown of command and control,
Speaker 3: you know. And this is and a lot of commanders
Speaker 3: who just seemed to lack the initiative or aggression to
Speaker 3: do what they were supposed to do. And that is
Speaker 3: why partly the story of why so many civilians died
Speaker 3: on the day, and it's, you know, to these really
Speaker 3: public it's it's a hugely shunking revelation.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, I mean I'm really looking forward to this book.
Speaker 2: I love an advanced copy. Please, thank you.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, we'll just get me on the get me
Speaker 3: on your show, the Team House.
Speaker 1: I'll try, I'll figure it. I'll talk to somebody. We
Speaker 1: could probably fit you in.
Speaker 3: I know, it's the kind of the second tier podcast
Speaker 3: in your repertoire.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, yeah, a little side project, the Team House. Okay,
Speaker 1: So Indian Pakistan are not going to trade nuclear weapons,
Speaker 1: which is always a plus. I feel like that's good hopefully.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So the only other things that I would talk about
Speaker 3: its just in passing, you know, while all this is
Speaker 3: going on, all right, and you know how I feel
Speaker 3: about Russia's peace ovituals. But Russia against stunked Kiev with
Speaker 3: four blasting missiles and one hundred and forty drones overnight
Speaker 3: is last night or the night before. I'm losing track
Speaker 3: on sminows ahead of you guys, So it must have
Speaker 3: been the night before, and you know, Zanitsky's called for
Speaker 3: the stronger sanctions on Russia to pave the wave to diplomacy,
Speaker 3: and I don't know if anyone's going to listen to him.
Speaker 3: And you know, there is going to be a supposedly
Speaker 3: three day ceasefire. The Russians have said in commemoration of
Speaker 3: what they call Victory Day, what we call Victory in
Speaker 3: Europe Day, which is nine May. And so we'll see
Speaker 3: you know where that goes.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no shit, because they don't want fucking some Ukrainian
Speaker 1: drone blowing up the fucking.
Speaker 3: Dais and in Furnas you know, Ukraine has attacked Moscow
Speaker 3: with drones for the third executive night, which is quite
Speaker 3: a you know, you.
Speaker 2: Know, bomb the SBU. That's what I'm aiming for.
Speaker 3: But in Firnas too when you look at yes, undoubtedly
Speaker 3: I am sure that somebody strikes in the Moscow have
Speaker 3: killed civilians. But at the same time, these Ukrainian strikes
Speaker 3: in the Moscow are very clearly deliberately aimed at at
Speaker 3: military or political command and control type targets. But certainly
Speaker 3: they must have a quite an effect on Russian morale,
Speaker 3: you know, hitting hitting the capitol, and they seem to
Speaker 3: enrage Putin, which is a good thing.
Speaker 1: There is some word that Putin was thinking about not
Speaker 1: going to the parade.
Speaker 3: Well, he has always been extremely paranoid about his personal safety,
Speaker 3: I mean incredibly so. You know, even during COVID he
Speaker 3: was terrified of capturing COVID and it resulting in his demise.
Speaker 3: And yes, he makes himself a very very hard target
Speaker 3: and doesn't announce his appearances and sometimes simply doesn't appear.
Speaker 3: Who knows.
Speaker 1: I mean, listen, that's gotta be a propaganda win for
Speaker 1: the Ukrainians if he's not even showing up, if he
Speaker 1: doesn't show up, even if he's contemplating it, they should
Speaker 1: be projecting this everywhere and everywhere and all.
Speaker 3: But I mean, but you're right, d But in the end,
Speaker 3: the one thing and then this is a very complex question.
Speaker 3: We'd have to get russianologists on to talk about it.
Speaker 3: But it's it's really difficult to determine how how shoddy
Speaker 3: or bad, you know, what effect it has on the
Speaker 3: war or policy or anything. To show the Russians what
Speaker 3: a shitty government they have. They I mean, they know it.
Speaker 3: You know, look at the slaughter in Ukraine. Look at
Speaker 3: how many soldiers they are losing every day. I mean,
Speaker 3: it's just phenomenal. They are, they are losing. They're losing
Speaker 3: as many soldiers just in Ukraine, and you can look
Speaker 3: this up. I know I keep saying that, but I'm
Speaker 3: very careful with my statistics. They're losing as many soldiers
Speaker 3: as the combined Allied armies lost in Normandy every day, right,
Speaker 3: much smaller force, and so it's just staggering. And yet
Speaker 3: you don't hear about things like fraggings, right, of soldiers
Speaker 3: rebelling or shooting their officers. It's just an extraordinary atmosphere.
Speaker 3: And I think it's partly cultural historical that they are
Speaker 3: just inured to suffering. And it's a very you know,
Speaker 3: it's a very sad comment, but it really the effect.
Speaker 3: So I guess what I'm saying is, whether you're talking
Speaker 3: soldiers or civilians, that doesn't seem to be a correlation
Speaker 3: between low morale and affecting policy. You know, it was
Speaker 3: even it was even better in Soviet days, arguably because
Speaker 3: you remember the end of the Afghan War in part
Speaker 3: was brought about by pressure on Gorbachov from within his
Speaker 3: party and notably by a group of or a political
Speaker 3: lobbying group formed by mothers of soldiers in Afghanistan, and
Speaker 3: the war was extremely unpopular, and yet the Russians suffered
Speaker 3: what fifteen thousand killed, you know, that's that's a few
Speaker 3: days in Ukraine. I mean, it's a couple of weeks
Speaker 3: in Ukraine, without exaggeration, and they but that made it,
Speaker 3: the afghan that made it. That put enough pressure on
Speaker 3: Gorbachev and of course he was dealing with a ton
Speaker 3: of other things by nineteen eighty nine. The leaders but
Speaker 3: to pull that up, and you just don't see that
Speaker 3: in modern day Russia.
Speaker 2: Not at all at all.
Speaker 3: So the only incredible as we you know, wrap up
Speaker 3: what's going on with the the Truman you know, another
Speaker 3: F eighteen overboard. Yeah, you know, I know that. I
Speaker 3: saw that meme on if that meme of the cat
Speaker 3: pushing the Oh no, the Chinese broadcasters saying, you know,
Speaker 3: the the Americans throw their aeroplanes in the water when
Speaker 3: they're done with So so what'sn't I think the CEO
Speaker 3: of the Truman was relieved, right, so that he's got
Speaker 3: he was relieved because they had.
Speaker 2: Wasn't he relieved? Yeah? Yeah?
Speaker 3: Yeah, So so this is a new CEO. I think
Speaker 3: his name is Hill, and I feel for him, because
Speaker 3: what seems to be going on. I mean, you can't
Speaker 3: point to necessarily a bad leadership. I mean they lost
Speaker 3: one f eighteen to it was shot down by another ship, right, yeah,
Speaker 3: and then they lost one the other day, which was yeah,
Speaker 3: which was clearly I don't know, I mean it was
Speaker 3: just with bad training bad I mean, it was just
Speaker 3: clearly incompetence right where they just pushed it overboard.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and well, you know there's also talk that it
Speaker 1: was avoiding trying to avoid a missile or a drone
Speaker 1: or something. When the second Yeah, the second one is
Speaker 1: supposedly it was swerving to miss on them.
Speaker 3: No, it's been toad.
Speaker 2: No, all right, whatever's when.
Speaker 3: The investigation comes out. I think that's a piece.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So the third one, but this seems to be a
Speaker 3: tangacle failure, right, I mean it was a catapult, Yeah
Speaker 3: it was. It wasn't catapult hit hard enough of the deck.
Speaker 3: I guess, which I get. I suppose does get back
Speaker 3: to procedures and maintenance and all those things. That gets
Speaker 3: back so certainly, yeah, but it's not it's not covering
Speaker 3: the Navy with glory out there.
Speaker 1: I mean, listen, ever since we've lost like how many
Speaker 1: drones since when we started hitting Hufie's in March fifteenth,
Speaker 1: you know, twenty drones twenty eight and Q.
Speaker 3: Nine's thirty million bucks apiece.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and three super hornets that are sixty million bucks
Speaker 1: apiece and yeah, and still the Houthis were able to
Speaker 1: hit Bengorian Airport and stuff like that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, not even not even a superpower, and they got right,
Speaker 3: they got one through one of the most sophisticated anti
Speaker 3: missile systems in the wall missile defense systems.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and there's some But it was funny because Trump
Speaker 1: announced that some kind of ceasefire between US and the Houthis,
Speaker 1: and uh literally once he announced it, about an hour later,
Speaker 1: they were still trying to hit ships and in the
Speaker 1: Red Sea, our ships in the Red Sea, like our
Speaker 1: military ships.
Speaker 2: So I don't know where we go from that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean hard to tell, he determined, and EF yes, supposedly.
Speaker 3: Actually it was a Truman, wasn't it that? They Yeah,
Speaker 3: so I guess the Truman has had some lock at least.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Also at the same pace, like how much does it cost?
Speaker 1: How much is an SM six fucking missile costs compared
Speaker 1: to you know, thirty thousand dollar drones. You know, fourth
Speaker 1: I think it's four and a half million dollars.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, so, I mean, you know, blisting missile defense.
Speaker 3: I mean, I'm sorry, drone defending against drones is a
Speaker 3: very une financially unequal fight. I mean, you just have
Speaker 3: to gain that. For instance, in Israel with the iron
Speaker 3: Dome system and you Patriots system in against you know,
Speaker 3: we've used Patriots, the Saudi's have used Patriots, and each
Speaker 3: one of those projectiles is what a million bucks? And
Speaker 3: again you're dealing with a drone that, at the most
Speaker 3: costs a few thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so there we go. What else you got, Andy, anything?
Speaker 3: No, that is all D and I and you. The
Speaker 3: audience will be very relieved to hear. Guys, don't don't
Speaker 3: back in a few days.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we'll be back over the weekend with the full crew. Guys,
Speaker 1: don't forget to check out Andy's book, When the Tempest
Speaker 1: Gathers incredible book, Andy's writings and everything. Links will be
Speaker 1: in the description if you want. Andy Milliburn links will
Speaker 1: be in a description. Mick Moulroy of course, Jason Lynes,
Speaker 1: any and all info of our hosts. The links are
Speaker 1: in the description. My links are not in the description.
Speaker 1: I want you to find me.
Speaker 3: Do us.
Speaker 1: What I do want, what I do need and would
Speaker 1: very much appreciate is going to patreon dot com slash
Speaker 1: the Teamhouse. You get ad free versions and early access
Speaker 1: to both eyes On and Team and the Teamhouse. If
Speaker 1: you join at our ten dollars level, we will send
Speaker 1: you a patch as well. You get all those other
Speaker 1: benefits plus the patch, and you just helped support the
Speaker 1: show and we appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Thanks you, Andy, this is great.
Speaker 3: Thank you Bye everyone, good night.
Speaker 4: Hey guys, it's Jack.
Speaker 5: I just want to talk to you for a moment
Speaker 5: about how you can support the show. If you've been
Speaker 5: watching it enjoying it, but you'd like to get a
Speaker 5: little bit more involved and help us continue to do this,
Speaker 5: you can check out our Patreon. It is patreon dot
Speaker 5: com slash the Teamhouse, and for five dollars a month
Speaker 5: you can get access to all of these episodes of
Speaker 5: The Teamhouse ad free. The same goes with our affiliated
Speaker 5: podcast eyes On with Andy Milburn, Jason Lyons mcmulroy. That
Speaker 5: one you will also get all of those episodes ad free,
Speaker 5: and you support the channel and the show and we
Speaker 5: really appreciate it. The Patreon members are literally what has
Speaker 5: helped this company, this small business survive, especially during our
Speaker 5: early years, and you are what continues to help this
Speaker 5: thing going even as we navigate the turbulent world of
Speaker 5: YouTube advertising.
Speaker 4: So we really appreciate all of you guys.
Speaker 5: There's going to be a link down in the description
Speaker 5: to that Patreon page, and there is also going to
Speaker 5: be a link to our new merch shop, so if
Speaker 5: you guys want to go and get some Teamhouse merchandise,
Speaker 5: we got stickers and we also have patches, and I
Speaker 5: should mention if you sign up for Patreon at ten
Speaker 5: dollars a month, we will mail you this patch as well,
Speaker 5: so we really appreciate that. But they're also for sale
Speaker 5: on the merch shop. And additionally, they got t shirts
Speaker 5: up there, water bottles, a tote bag, coffee mugs, all
Speaker 5: that good stuff, so please go and check them out
Speaker 5: and support the show.
Speaker 4: We really appreciate it, guys. Thank you.