tv Scott Horton Fools Errand CSPAN June 2, 2018 12:03am-12:51am EDT
>> -- is the number of antiwar.com where he makes the case for withdrawal of u.s. troops from afghanistan. he recently discussed the books of the pennsylvania libertarian party. his remarks are 45 minutes. >> good afternoon and welcome to the 2018 libertarian party state convention. [applause] my name is ken and i'm the libertarian party candidate. today i have the honor to introduce scott. he came to speak with us today
and is the host of --.org, you can catch them on the web at 11:30 a.m. on sundays. he start had 4600 interviews over the last 16 years. an impressive resume and editor, he is managing director of the libertarian institute along with chuck. he's here to talk about this book. he tells the book important and daniel ellsberg says it was excellent. let's give a warm welcome to scott. [applause]
>> thank you for having me. i appreciate it. so tell a funny joke, pause for laughter. did that work okay? >> i'm quite grateful for the fact that it has worked its way into popular culture, tv and has become another synonym for consequences, basically negative consequences. the real definition is more precise, the word was coined by the cia and 53 after -- and iran. the way it was defined in the paperwork is that back is the consequences of secret foreign policies over the long term that
could come back to haunt the american people and they don't understand context or have a way to explain what's going on. that leaves them susceptible to false conclusions about what is happening. when the revolution came it wasn't a clear part of the narrative that they are overthrowing a dictator that america had installed empower after overthrowing their elected government. doesn't mean that the ayatollah was great but it was the context that people didn't understand why the riots and hostages. it's because they hate us, you know how it is in history began that day. it's the same thing we face with al qaeda.
some tv news guys said that they had awakened the sleeping giant. and i thought that's perfect. this guy doesn't know that the japanese awakened the sleeping giant and 41 and it hasn't taken a nap since. it was american activity in the world the cause the terrorism problems in the first place. they just had a brand-new excuse for further action. another part of the false conclusion people came to is because it was blowback and they didn't have the context understand secret foreign policy that have been carried out. they're trying to scare us away and get us to retreat. were trying to get us to leave but there is more to it. the september 11 attack should
be obvious it was designed to provoke america into overreacting. there is zero chance that america would turn tail and bring everybody home. we would find new places to send them. that's what al qaeda was betting on. in the 1990s, the joint staff, the professional planning staff at the pentagon who prepare the real policy for the joint chief and a very important part of the government, in the '90s should terrorism was a small price to pay to be a superpower. not that it's moral, but you can understand what they met. a truck bomb goes off here and blows up them to see an apple somewhere there was an attempt
to knockdown or world trade center but only six people were killed. you gonna give up your empire? it's a small price to pay from that point of view. they succeeded in taking down the world trade center. were really lucky that only 3000 died. it could've been 20 or 30,000 people killed. but then form policy. circumstances surrounding the event. because it was the equivalent of pearl harbor and even worse. it was the same as prole harbor, catastrophe and going up in smoke. there is a hail mary pass by a small team of guys who tried to steal our planes to have a
weapon to crash into our target. the core group leadership in afghanistan is only 400 men. there was no islam caliphate. there was a tiny little group of former veterans of americans backed afghan war the 1980s who, have basically gotten one good lucky strike against the united states. after attempting to attack the united states in the 1990s and doing smaller attacks, they finally succeeded in provoking the united states into overreacting. you may be familiar with the cia analyst called michael shroyer, he's the guy who gave bill clinton chances to kill osama bin laden that were declined for various reasons.
he quit the cia to tell the troops and say they're not being straight with you about what's going on. quit your position, just to tell the american people, they hate us for what we do, not for who we are. and not because of who they are. that is what we do to them. islam does not make them hate freedom. our form policy, our government, he was a cia guy is speaking collectively. therefore policy provoke this conflict. he listed six reasons and he said ever since he declared war in 1996, it was never freedom, it was never liberalism. it always was, america is based in saudi arabia being used after the iraq to force the permanent blockade and sanctioned
embargoes against iraq. the no-fly zone bombings, and the sanctions and those counters reasons. then, american support for israel and the occupation of palestine and at that time, lebanon which had been going on 20 years. it was american support for all the kings, dictators, and presidents across the region's like the kings of saudi arabia, jordan, presidents, et cetera. the king of q8. the pressure to keep oil prices low to help subsidize the american economy at the expense of the arab people. also, turning a blind eye and say nothing in russia, china, and india's persecution of muslims. whenever they were clamped down, osama bin laden would say they
care about human rights that they don't care about it when we are the ones being killed. this is only partially true. in the book, bill clinton help support the jihad ease in bosnia, in chechnya, in kosovo in 1999 and also helped with the british to kill qaddafi in 1999 and 2000. in fact, after september 2011 they went on the record complaining that how come these guys don't like us? don't they know we did all of this stuff for them? yet, fighting for them in bosnia which is where the green leader earned his stripes, by the way, that did not cancel the sanctions regime against iraq.
so, bill clinton had use them and had failed to try to prevent their rice in war against the united states. but, he failed to buy them off. he tried and failed and only built up their power at our expense. america was still a target. the broader agenda, osama bin laden -- you probably remember at the time they worked so hard to inflate the taliban. they said the taliban had attacked us somehow. the idea was that just to make a target out of them. but the fact that you had an injection surgeon, osama bin laden had an engineering degree. the pilots who are the ring leave hijacker pilot of the plot, mohammed and his friends
were studying engineering in germany. they were grad students. they were not tell a bank caveman. they knew what they were doing and why. what they were counting on was the overreaction. i want to read to this quote. and bin laden said in 2000 for our plan was to lead you to bankruptcy just like we did with the russians. he had a couple of sons, one has a terrace right now. this one gave an interview to "rolling stone" magazine that they publish in 2010. omar bin laden said, my father's stream was to bring the americans to afghanistan. he would do the same thing he did to the russians, with america's help. i was surprised the americans took the bait.
i respected the mentality of president clinton. he was the one who is smart. when my father attacked his places he sent a few kurdish missiles. you think of my father, but after the war in afghanistan they still don't have my father. they have spent hundreds of billions. better for america to keep the money for its economy. in clinton's time america was smart, not like a bowl that runs after the red scarf. i was in afghanistan when bush was elected. my father was so happy. this is the kind of president he needs. one who will attack, spend money, and break the country. i'm sure my father wanted senator mccain rather than obama. mccain has the same mentality is bush. twenty-one his educated these are naïve takes on bill clinton and barack obama.
yet the point is the same. that he wasn't afraid, he saw guy who was dying to take advantage of a crisis to get away with murder. that's exactly what happened. that brings us to the inpatient. to not have to happen. there was no imperial japan we were at war with. they were not the taliban. they were the error of afghan and not even most of them. a very small group of men mostly from saudi arabia and egypt were exiled. they had organized the attack to degree. but most of it was organized inside the united states and
germany. you don't need a safe haven to make a phone call. there's an argument inside the bush administration about how to exploit the situation and how badly to complete the two groups together. they were determined to go to war. but could have negotiated. the taliban offered to negotiate and turn bin laden over. it's difficult under their system. it's a japanese type honor system. a degree of how seriously it has taken. there is still willing lean to negotiate to turn them over first to any muslim country. it could have been saudi, jordan, egypt, malaysia, or any
government which would've turned him over to the united states immediately. bush that i said no to negotiations. hand them over. and then they demanded evidence at first as well. then they said, we will turn them over to any third country. the second was pakistan and the pakistanis went on that one. and then they would turn them over to any third country in the world which could have been great britain or israel , not israel. we don't negotiate with terrorists, and then in early october the bomb started falling. then the taliban made one last offer.
the final offer was to turn him over to any country. and drop the demand for any evidence at all. bush said, too little too late. so, even if you say bring these guys to america for trial, trust in the taliban, no way, were too angry and we want blood. if that's your opinion is still then have to have a war against the taliban. if you look at the history, it was against the taliban, not al qaeda. in fact the cia officer said his orders was toys were against the taliban with al qaeda as a secondary target. they spent eight weeks or something in the war northern afghanistan taken -- from the
enemies. it had nothing to do with retribution for the man behind the september 11 attack as well. and then finally in the second week of december with the delta force on his troop that they unleashed b-52s and f-16s and they even rolled the dainty cutter bomb which is a 15000-pound bomb after a c-130. they really did blow a lot of guys to bits. yet, for three weeks straight,
the cia and the delta force were begging for ground reinforcements. our current secretary of defense had 4000 marines 100 miles away. the army rangers already controlled the air banks and had thousands of men there within a couple hour helicopter ride. the green berets had their presence established in the north where they were fighting against taliban forces. all they had to do is send them to hell. if you go back to the record you'll find that the cia, particularly gary who is quotable, they could not understand the refusal to send the marines the green berets to common health. it would've been as easy as sealing off 5 miles worth the border. their excuses is that they're supposed to seal the whole
border, the guys were trying to catch. i believe, although it speculation that they deliberately made this to let the mango. it would be better to have a permanent enemy out there. who cares if saddam hussein is friends with osama bin laden osama bin laden is already dead. mission accomplished. they needed the enemy. they deliberately let him g go. they waste war against the taliban. if you said they let osama bin laden live there so they have to pay for the, fine but we didn't have to create a new government in power there. even if you think for whatever reason you can come up with we did not need to go and make
enemies out of all of their enemies. what the american military didn't donald rumsfeld did was put the u.s. army at the beck and call of god knows who. from this side of the hill or that side of the mountain, all they have to do shout terrorists and the americans pick fights with people that did not need to be picked. is a famous documentary about -- valley. the entire thing began when someone convinced the army to attack his business competition and kill the paycheck of the valley and take out some of the timber guys. it was simply politics. it was a war that raged on for
years. the worst case, no good mental among the living is -- who hopefully you have heard of the -- network. is one of the cia's guys in the war against the soviet union. after the word, he had been a live with the taliban but was not one of them. he thought everything was going to be cool. the americans sided with pkc and convince the americans to attack and bomb them over and over again. try to make peace over and over again. when the cia accepted him. he said will make the militia
and use this but the military betrayed them and tortured his brother. only then did -- become an enemy of the united states of america. since then his network has been second to the taliban in casualties and flipped it on americans and the afghan people. another case of an enemy we did not have most people probably don't know this, the taliban completely surrender. they did not bow this would be the mother of all battles and say we will fight. it was from southern afghanistan and his father had been an important tribal leader. he had credibility. the taliban recognized it as legitimate. just don't attack us. some wanted to participate in
politics and many just retired. took about two and half years for the american escalation were able to provoke the taliban into fighting against us. once they do decided to the game was over. they picked an unnecessary fight and when they cannot win. the reason why, there is a few. show you this map. this is ethnic groups of afghanistan. in the light blue -- they are completely dominated by the tribes but it's a agriculture area. the east and south of the country. that's the poor plurality.
40%. the single biggest ethnic group. america's mission to boil it down all the ways to installing government to be. the overlords. they did put some into the government for a time but it never led to representation. just met more warlords closer to home to torture and abuse them. on top of that, this is a warrior culture. it was at the crossroads of a planet. they been in and out of there and not unlike the battle in
texas, these people identify themselves their very identity agriculture based around their long, ancient and proud existence of foreign invasion. that is who they are. defenders of invasions. at their very core. so, it's not working. it hasn't ten it will not work. so, another thing, afghanistan is landlocked. if is south-central asia there's about 400 miles between that. to get to afghanistan by land they have to drive through pakistan into afghanistan. incredibly long and expensive.
the country the size of texas which if you've ever driven across texas, you know it is that. that's how it became a cliché. also they have dozens like california and like colorado. >> so these are more things that make the mission incredibly difficult for the americans to be able to have their way. another problem, just to the east, that eastern border of afghanistan is drawn by an agent of the british empire in order to attempt to divide the tribes from themselves in the first
place in the 19th century. it has worked to a degree keeping factions apart and goes to show that there's an incredible kinship and much like in the vietnam war the afghan taliban have long had safe haven in pakistan, especially in southern afghanistan. so, you might wonder if the pakistanis are our friends and they promise we would bomb them back to the stone ages, they are our allies and we even help them
start the taliban and power in the bill clinton years. yet, the americans have been putting in power who are now close to india that is pakistan's enemy other border to the east and part of their infinite conflict over the region of kashmir. in the event of a nuclear war between pakistan and india, they consider afghanistan their strategic debt where they retreat to live another day. it is their highest priority. of their national security state in pakistan. it is therefore unacceptable that parties loyal to india would have a real monopoly. they have an incredible and undefeatable, irreversible interest in keeping the afghan
taliban at play, they have to do so from at least 2005. it's a book about how that helps with the afghan taliban all this time. when barack obama came into power everybody steamrolled him into this afghan escalation. he could've look like a real hero and dead just as well politically. instead, he gave into what he knew was wrong and escalated it up to hundred 40000 troops. and they accomplished nothing. their very first counterinsurgency was the little town which they lie and pretend
it was a giant city of 80000 people. there's a small agricultural district. the ratio number was two marines for every civilian. so many had fled. they were unable to tame it, the taliban ruled that night. they never won a single thing. was such a failure that the general called it a bleeding ulcer and said forget it, they abandoned counterinsurgency. patrice came in and took over the war and did not even try. the search amounted to an escalation of force but not a change in strategy. they're going to eat up on the taliban and then to what we say and then we can go. july 2011 came and went. the taliban said forget you.
the game was up and eventually they pulled the vast majority of the trip so and had not accomplished single thing. a lot of times there are getting smashed at anyway. soon as they left the taliban took back over other than the provincial capital anyway. they had accomplished nothing. the argument is that we have to stay because of the safe haven. that somehow we have to stay forever because if we ever leave something bad could happen. that things happen all the time. but if we leave, bad things will happen because we left. lesson was that we never should've left and then nothing bad would've happened. that's what all politicians have
concluded. they pretend afghanistan is a magic portal when it is exiled. it provides no special access to the united states. the taliban having a tremendous interest in preventing terrorists for getting into the mess that al qaeda got them into previously leading to this work. for years they have sworn that if we want to negotiate they will swear up front that they will never allow international groups to be based out of that again. that's the excuse to stay. it doesn't hold up. there's nothing to it. the taliban are back and forth. they rule about half of the country the daytime and 60% at night.
so, up until this point we spent over a trillion dollars just on reconstruction they spent more on what they spent on western europe after world war ii. i we rebuilt a couple of schools that nobody goes to print and it's all on the record. how little they have accomplished. they have provoked new terrorist attacks against the united states with the war. the orlando massacre shooters in the boston bombers cited the war in afghanistan. the guy on the train attacked with a hatchet. there are seven or eight attacks on the united states out of these lone wolf attacks. of course the big one at fort
hood who massacred 13 men who are about to deploy to afghanistan. so, were paying a price here. were fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. yet the more we fight them over there the more risk were bringing to the american people. so, donald trump spent years criticizing barack obama for escalating the afghan war. i think it was politics gives he hated obama and he was trying to build up the space. here's the thing, he was right. the afghan war was a disaster. the search was pointless. so donald trump talked himself into it it was easy. so much so, that when obama said were driving the numbers down,
trump tweeted that president obama is right in the general's are wrong. they better shut up and do it he says. when he came into office his db had been with him and he was horrible on a lot of things but he was good on afghanistan. his plan was to hire mercenari mercenaries, the real point was we had no business fighting this war. he was telling trump you're right. so, when donald trump came into power one thing that came in that he testified on tv that we need 3000 more troops at least. i don't know it but i believe that trump presented that. he felt just like rock obama did. they're trying to roll him into this and going to take a chance.
i know some great reporters and the word was they were going to have their proposals by march of last year. but trump told them no, don't like it go back and do it again. they thought about it and it really was a fight inside the administration. they kick the can down the road till august trump did order the new escalation. 4000 new troops. the strategy which they explained his pressure the pakistanis when we know we tried the and it never did good. just keep fighting. unlike david tracy screwed up we can have met the table doing what we say in a year and a half, mcmaster say give it four
years. maybe another four years of fighting then will be in a position to negotiate to do what we want. in the book, fire. there's a quote from tina powell who is now resigned trump referred to this as his speech that if we withdraw the troops, that means trump lost a war. and trump cannot lose a war. that's what they told him and he bought that. we all know that he's donald trump. he could've said this is all bush and obama's fault. it's [inaudible] me. the tribesmen were never enemy and they never are again. he could've called them some nicknames and ended the war. and have a parade.
[laughter] i thought i was going over time. so now we can talk about the importance of war to the libertarian movement party itself. mr. libertarian said in his essay that he's convinced that war is the key to this business. he meant government and he meant the libertarian movement. what are we doing here? a great part of the libertarian party and movement the legacy is that these were the right-wingers who oppose vietnam. they were young americans for freedom. a big part of it was about vietnam.
he was trying ten the war. that was the most important thing. course, if you are a regular american, we'll know so little about what else is going on in the world. this is the new world. for others in black and natives have left further from to come here so they can live free in have a good life and leave their troubles behind. we don't have a mindset of focusing on what's going on except america is the preeminent power in eurasia. the middle part of north america dominates the old world. they make it our business. it's really our business. america's world empire. soviet union is gone. we have that dominance for now.
although putin gave a speech to the data through that into question. even though we don't focus on it much, the libertarian to mystic agenda is hard money, free markets, decentralization, legalize relationship, business, personal and everything else. in hard money. we can't have that. you can have a limited temporary constitutional empire. and look, it is been 16 years and look what shambles our bill of rights is in. look at the executive in the commander-in-chief and the end of huge parts of the fourth amendment that people take for granted. in the 19 '90s they said know your customer regulations, the entire american right was up in
arms led by the wall street journal. that is section 121b. we passed this sends that. this was part of the strategy. not because he hated that we were free, he loved that we were. he said, i am going to make you give yourselves the choking life. your government is going to clampdown on your freedom so much to guarantee your security that you will tell your government, this is the cost of occupying the middle east, we want out. our government has falling for it and taking us with it. they discredited the democracy all over the world. they discredited free market as
the business of the military conflict and all the republicans and democrats bank it. they have taken our agenda of individual liberty for the future of mankind and they have dragged it through the mud in the name of this empire in the name of what was america, now the homeland. harry brown knew better. use the libertarian party president candidate and i asked him on my radio show, what would you have done. he said he would end it all support and september 11 wind of happened on my watch anyway. if it had he'd say don't be afraid. were going to get these guys. we are trespassing. were only trying to protect you from the soviets. that's ten years gone.
we will bring our troops home. then, he would have given his statue of liberty speech on to be everyday for eight years, evangelizing liberty to the whole world. you don't to it as good as us, your property rights are not as good as ours. but, he would have made sure that america was practicing what it was preaching instead of dragging our belief system through the mud. he would have made the greatest example. that was the average trinity george bush had and ruined. one more minute. the libertarian party, the national party blew the war on terror in the george bush years.
they could've been the greatest leaders of peace. they said we can't leave now just like the republicans. corey, whatever his name was was compromising on everything and refusing to take an antiwar position. there have been great heroes of the libertarian movement wet bed opposed the war. you cannot have freedom and a world empire at the same time. that should be the message and you could win or do much better with that message. let us make that our priority. [applause] >> watching book tv with top nonfiction books and authors
every weekend. television for serious readers. there's a debate on president trumps foreign and domestic policies. at 9:00 p.m. former u.s. attorney general eric holder at the politics and eggs event. as he spent two at nine eastern come the republican strategist spreads out on president trumps swing state voters somehow they could impact future elections. after 11:00 p.m. sam discusses his book, the flying tigers. on american history tv, saturday at 6:00 p.m. on the civil war
with clemson university professor. sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern and oral histories, dennis haynes talk about his experiences, injuries and recovery during the vietnam war. watch the c-span networks, this weekend. >> former secretary of state, condoleezza rice and stanford professor are co-authors of political risk, a business book of how companies can manage the risk of government actions. this is moderated by nbc news correspondent, andrea mitchell.