Speaker 1: When you're ready to ride Metro, we want you to
Speaker 1: know we're ready for you. Here are just a few
Speaker 1: of the people at Metro to tell you how we're
Speaker 1: doing our part to keep riders safe. We're cleaning like
Speaker 1: novel before, hospited greatly. You've found hassant of the station,
Speaker 1: no mask, no Metro need one. We have a few
Speaker 1: extras at Metro. We're doing our part to keep the
Speaker 1: DC area moving. Find out more at well Mata dot
Speaker 1: com slash doing our part. So we talked to Matt
Speaker 1: Rosenberg a while back on the Armstrong and Getting radio show,
Speaker 1: and we thought he was really, really damned interesting. I
Speaker 1: thought we needed a longer conversation with him. Ye pulitzurprise
Speaker 1: winning journalist covers national security currently for The New York Times,
Speaker 1: spent fifteen years, is foreign correspondent in Asia, Africa, the
Speaker 1: Middle East. He was actually booted out of Afghanistan on
Speaker 1: the orders of President Hamid kars I. Has said a
Speaker 1: lot of really interesting experiences around the world, and it's
Speaker 1: a pleasure to talk to Matt Rosenberg. So I got
Speaker 1: a really broad question right off the bat, and then
Speaker 1: we can just you know, follow different lines based on
Speaker 1: the answer. We the United States have tried all these
Speaker 1: different things, and a lot of countries that you've reported
Speaker 1: on over the years. We've We've tried killing a dictator
Speaker 1: and then leaving it to the people. We've tried overthrowing
Speaker 1: a country and trying to build a democracy. We've tried
Speaker 1: leaving it alone and letting them have elections. We've tried
Speaker 1: all these different things, none of which seem to have
Speaker 1: worked out that well for us. What do you think
Speaker 1: we ought to do? Yeah, that's a tough one. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean different countries that we want to
Speaker 1: follow up exactly specifically. Sure, there are PhD is being
Speaker 1: written about this right now. I mean, I'm gonna just
Speaker 1: I'm gonna stay away from from from projections what we
Speaker 1: should do, and and just tell a little story about
Speaker 1: when I was in Afghanistan right before I got tossed
Speaker 1: in the place, you know, the an election. It was
Speaker 1: gonna be the first election in Whichhammad cars I had
Speaker 1: been the press events since you know, since the US
Speaker 1: had kind of overthrowned the Taliban, in which he was
Speaker 1: not gonna be running, and so who's gonna going to
Speaker 1: run Afghanistan? And I remember talking to a few of
Speaker 1: our Afghan reporters who worked in the bureau with us,
Speaker 1: and they were like, oh, the U s s a stay.
Speaker 1: They have to help us pick who's gonna be the
Speaker 1: new leader. And I said at them, I said, guys,
Speaker 1: look around. You know, y'all hate cars. Eye at this point,
Speaker 1: y'all hate the people who were kind of brought into
Speaker 1: power by the US. Like why in the world when
Speaker 1: you want us pick in more people? We seem to
Speaker 1: not be very good at this, and we seem to
Speaker 1: be you know, we're not naked colonialists like the British
Speaker 1: and French were in the nineteenth century. So we're not
Speaker 1: just appointing finding leaders who will who do whatever we
Speaker 1: want and and kind of rob their countries blind on
Speaker 1: behalf of us we don't. But we don't really know
Speaker 1: these countries very well. I mean, I think, you know,
Speaker 1: take Afghanistan for example, probably a housewife who speak to
Speaker 1: English and in Afghanistan probably doesn't read. The literacy rate
Speaker 1: among women are so lo she probably knows more about
Speaker 1: Afghans than we ever will most of us ever will,
Speaker 1: And so we end up selecting leaders that tend to
Speaker 1: serve their own personal self interest very well. And not
Speaker 1: much else. They don't serve their people that well, they
Speaker 1: don't serve us very well. Um, I don't know how
Speaker 1: we kind of get around that. I just know that
Speaker 1: you know, between South Asia and Africa and elsewhere in
Speaker 1: the world, the countries that seem to thrive are the
Speaker 1: ones that build themselves and then have a sense of themselves.
Speaker 1: You look at India. India is a great example that
Speaker 1: India seven. India becomes independent and it says it's not
Speaker 1: gonna be a client state of the West, It's not
Speaker 1: gonna be a client state of the Soviet Union. And
Speaker 1: you know, India today is a thriving country. Pakistan, on
Speaker 1: the other hand, you know, right next door, they were
Speaker 1: the same independent state, Um became a client state of
Speaker 1: the West. Pakistan is not a thriving country. I mean,
Speaker 1: there are a lot of variables in there, but there
Speaker 1: is some truth to that too that the Indians decided
Speaker 1: we are going to be our own country. We're gonna
Speaker 1: be nobody's kind of uh client I us, nobody's gonna
Speaker 1: tell us what to do. We're not gonna have a
Speaker 1: master here. And it's worked out very well for them. Well,
Speaker 1: I think I get what you're saying that, with very
Speaker 1: very few exceptions, countries have to go through the very
Speaker 1: difficult decades of finding themselves, sorting out who they are
Speaker 1: and how they're going to hand out power, and there's
Speaker 1: just no no imposing it from above. And I don't
Speaker 1: know how how we kind of like, you know, how
Speaker 1: we do that in a large person of the world.
Speaker 1: I mean, Africa never got that chance because of European colonialism.
Speaker 1: Let's be honest about this. The the West Europe, mostly
Speaker 1: through the borders of Africa. There is never any kind
Speaker 1: of sorting out of countries the way you had in
Speaker 1: Europe and Asia. Um, Europe spent a thousand years, two
Speaker 1: thousand years killing each other to get to where they
Speaker 1: are today. So you know, I don't know, not optimistic
Speaker 1: for countries that are struggling. It's it's it's a really
Speaker 1: long and bloody road. Well, should our bet just be
Speaker 1: whatever is best to try to counter Iran? As Iran
Speaker 1: wants to take over you know, the whole Middle East,
Speaker 1: and there they have been an enemy of the United States.
Speaker 1: I mean, we're counting on MBS to be on our
Speaker 1: side with that. Things have gone a little sideways there,
Speaker 1: but maybe he's still the horse to stick with. I
Speaker 1: don't know, yeah, I mean, the other question is between
Speaker 1: does Iran need to be our enemy? I mean, I
Speaker 1: don't know. You know, Um, there are a lot of
Speaker 1: countries that we kind of put into one camp or
Speaker 1: the other that could probably be a little more negotiable
Speaker 1: with UM, you know, and and it's a tough call
Speaker 1: because countries are not going to do what we say. UM.
Speaker 1: And Iran certainly does a lot of things in the
Speaker 1: Middle East that that are that are definitely not in
Speaker 1: the US interest. But you know, the Staudies aren't exactly
Speaker 1: doing great right now either. And you know, killing the
Speaker 1: journals in a foreign conflict of theirs is It's just
Speaker 1: one of of many different things that Staudia's have done
Speaker 1: that are making them into not a great bet right now.
Speaker 1: They've waged a brutal, terrible war in Yemen that even
Speaker 1: even the Secretary of Defense the US has has got
Speaker 1: to end. You know, we keep relying on these kind
Speaker 1: of actors that are far from positive right although within
Speaker 1: the region, I mean you're presented with a series of
Speaker 1: unpalatable choices and MBS, you know, well, let's talk about
Speaker 1: him a little bit. He has absolutely instituted a few
Speaker 1: uh pleasant some might say cosmetic reforms. You can take
Speaker 1: your best Gald of the movies tonight if you want. Um.
Speaker 1: But he he's snuffs journalists and consulates. Uh what direction
Speaker 1: do you think he is planning to move Saudi Arabia?
Speaker 1: What's it? What's his act? You know, it's it's so
Speaker 1: hard to tell right now. Look, he clearly has a
Speaker 1: modernizing streak, and he clearly has a very deep Aubetarian streak. Um,
Speaker 1: it wasn't just the killing of Tamaka Showy. You know,
Speaker 1: he locked up a big chunk of the country's elite
Speaker 1: torture from them when he took power. He has consolidated
Speaker 1: power ruthlessly. Um. He is young, he's in his thirties,
Speaker 1: and you know, there are a lot of people in
Speaker 1: their thirties who who might not make the most mature
Speaker 1: and best leaders of any country. And I don't know
Speaker 1: the guy, I've never met him. But you know, it's
Speaker 1: it's great lusening restrictions on women. But there have been
Speaker 1: a lot of other things that should give everyone pause.
Speaker 1: Do you think uh, uh, MBS I want to I
Speaker 1: always want to call him MSB. Then I start thinking
Speaker 1: of what's on the Chinese food MSG and then I
Speaker 1: get confused. I'm sorry, I don't get enough sleep. But
Speaker 1: do you think msb Admires, Thomas Jefferson, more Es and
Speaker 1: Ping Oh guy, I would have to go with the
Speaker 1: ladder on that one. Um, the man is clearly not
Speaker 1: a big advocate of democracy. Well, yeah, the the modernized
Speaker 1: totalitarian state, you don't have to look very hard to
Speaker 1: find examples of that. That's kind of hot. Yeah, No,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's it's obvious days look over and over again.
Speaker 1: There are in many different countries these people come to
Speaker 1: power who kind of supplant brutal dictators, and are these
Speaker 1: kind of seen as benevolent death bolts of sorts. You know,
Speaker 1: in Uganda you had Yarry miss Avny, who we had
Speaker 1: eating a mean and you had all kinds of violence
Speaker 1: and terrible rule. Then you get this guy who's kind
Speaker 1: of stabilized at the place in the place, does well
Speaker 1: economically and things you're going up, but that eventually does
Speaker 1: not kind of last, and the benevolent despot eventually just
Speaker 1: becomes a despot because you got to hold onto power
Speaker 1: if you are an authoritarian or totel talent totalitarian state.
Speaker 1: At some point, your whole claim to power is coercive
Speaker 1: over your own people. You're not gonna allow descent. You're
Speaker 1: not gonna allow um any kind of wiggle room because
Speaker 1: you can't. And so it's very easy to go from being,
Speaker 1: you know, the good guy who's kind of fixing the
Speaker 1: country informing it, to the person who now is holding
Speaker 1: onto power at all costs and oppressing their people. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's interesting. I always think about it. Right after nine eleven,
Speaker 1: I remember John McCain saying, what we have here is
Speaker 1: the the the the the end of time when it's
Speaker 1: a good idea for the United States to make deals
Speaker 1: with dictators, those days are gone. And I thought at
Speaker 1: the time, I thought, yea, so it's gonna be the
Speaker 1: end of all these evil dictators in the Middle East.
Speaker 1: But then you see Mabarick go and the people vote
Speaker 1: for the Muslim Brotherhood or Kaddafi falls, and then you
Speaker 1: just have Mayhem or what's going on in Syrious. So
Speaker 1: I don't know what the right answer is now, No,
Speaker 1: d um. I mean, I'm kind of for many many
Speaker 1: years overseas, I I'm not quite sure we do as
Speaker 1: much good as we think we do a lot of places. Um.
Speaker 1: I don't know how we do it better. Um, but
Speaker 1: we can either often bring a heavy hand, or when
Speaker 1: we decide to back sturtain people we don't know particularly
Speaker 1: well who they are, and we end up backing people.
Speaker 1: It turned it out to beat nasty, nasty people. Um.
Speaker 1: And you know, there are realists who would say we
Speaker 1: should just do it in ourselves interest and because those
Speaker 1: other people. So if we need to support a dictator,
Speaker 1: we should support them. I don't know if that doesn't
Speaker 1: come back to the bite in the ass sometimes um
Speaker 1: or often Well, yeah, I think it's pretty clear, and
Speaker 1: I consider myself a real realist in terms of foreign policy. See.
Speaker 1: But yeah, if you nakedly and without subtlety pursue your
Speaker 1: own interest in the long term, that will go against
Speaker 1: your interests because everybody will hate you. Um. And and
Speaker 1: on that note, let's go back to Afghanistan, where you
Speaker 1: spent a great deal of time. How long were you there? God,
Speaker 1: I was so, I was there a little bit in
Speaker 1: like two thousand two. Um I was based in East
Speaker 1: Africa time, just kind of helping out. And um I
Speaker 1: was a young reporter at the Associated Press and then
Speaker 1: between like two to two thousand and eight and kind
Speaker 1: of a big chunk of my time I've spent in
Speaker 1: Afghanistan in the last three years of that about okay,
Speaker 1: so true or no? How do you see it? We
Speaker 1: are engaged in a permanent, um semi occupation of Afghanistan
Speaker 1: for the purpose of ensuring it doesn't fall into an
Speaker 1: islam ast hellhole, to have a balance against Iran in
Speaker 1: the region, to keep an eye on Pakistan. This isn't
Speaker 1: a war, it's an keep patient. Um. I would say
Speaker 1: true in the sense that after seven seen years. I
Speaker 1: don't know what else you call it. I don't think
Speaker 1: you know, it's it's endless because it's we're not winning um.
Speaker 1: And I don't think anybody envisions Afghanistan being particularly good
Speaker 1: counterbalanced to anyone. It's a pretty weak country. Well yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean our presence there being a remember we're here,
Speaker 1: and it's definitely to keep the Taliban out of power. Um.
Speaker 1: You know. Uh. The thing is, though, is that we,
Speaker 1: like I said, we're not winning and nobody believes we are.
Speaker 1: It's it's a death by a thousand cut situation at
Speaker 1: this point. But it is something that we are slowly
Speaker 1: kind of being chipped away at, and it's unclear, you
Speaker 1: know what the endgame here is what we believe the
Speaker 1: final result is going to be is look, the Trump
Speaker 1: administration will say, now, well, you know, we hold on.
Speaker 1: We provide assistance and support to the to the to
Speaker 1: the Afghan Army and the Afghan police, and eventually the
Speaker 1: Taliban will come to the table. That has been a
Speaker 1: strategy for seven or eight years now and it has
Speaker 1: yet to yield anything, um except some very very very
Speaker 1: beginnings of peace talks that have been beginning now for
Speaker 1: about six years so, so not really clear on how
Speaker 1: this is a new strategy or where this one's going.
Speaker 1: Was a crook from the beginning or did he just
Speaker 1: become a realist or what went on there? No, I
Speaker 1: mean he I'm not even clear if he personally was
Speaker 1: a crook ever, and people around him definitely were though
Speaker 1: what cars I was with somebody who needed to stay
Speaker 1: in power. So when he came to power, a whole
Speaker 1: network of kind of war lords and kind of big
Speaker 1: men and others came to power with him. His entire
Speaker 1: support network. A lot of those people were supported initially
Speaker 1: by us, by the CIA, and others. And you know
Speaker 1: early on the cars by presidency, that money that that
Speaker 1: we were using to pay off different warlords than various
Speaker 1: actors was then started to be routed through cars I.
Speaker 1: And then it just quickly became a situation where if
Speaker 1: you wanted to get any business out of the country,
Speaker 1: you know, any of easy you have to oath to
Speaker 1: the government, you have to go through somebody in power.
Speaker 1: You needed those connections. I think that's like the classic
Speaker 1: mark of kleptocracy is you look, you know, we always
Speaker 1: had a deal in the US, like you do your
Speaker 1: time in government, public service or asn't like an official
Speaker 1: and um, and after you get out you want to
Speaker 1: cash in, that's up to you. But in a cryptocracy
Speaker 1: is you are in power and you use your office
Speaker 1: to either rich yourself or your friends and family and
Speaker 1: framed to get any business done, they need your blessing
Speaker 1: because you control the kind of years, kind of getting
Speaker 1: the permits you need or whatever, you know, And that
Speaker 1: was what Afghanistan quickly became. Where I remember a guy
Speaker 1: a d a guy who was leading this big, this
Speaker 1: big task force to go after Taliban finances. You know,
Speaker 1: they started thinking like two thousand nine when the kind
Speaker 1: of the surgery starting the war was kind of becoming
Speaker 1: our focus again. So they fire up this this big
Speaker 1: task force and the idea they're gonna go after like
Speaker 1: Taliban opium smuggling in other ways that Talaban make money.
Speaker 1: So these guys they start, they start listening phone calls
Speaker 1: over the country and it's they quickly realize like, oh, like,
Speaker 1: everybody's in business together. It's not just the Taliban, it's
Speaker 1: the government, it's people in the whole wallows, which are
Speaker 1: these kind of informal money transfer networks that made up
Speaker 1: most of the financial network. It's it's the kind of
Speaker 1: financial system that works in the banks in Afghanistan. Um
Speaker 1: that everybody is interlinked. It's all kind of a giant
Speaker 1: criminal enterprise, and here we are in the middle of it,
Speaker 1: kind of financing the whole thing. Um, you know, we
Speaker 1: built that. So whatever cars that became, we do bear
Speaker 1: some responsibility for that. Every regular person on planet Earth
Speaker 1: is always one of the same thing. For the most part.
Speaker 1: You wanta you wanna raise your kids in a in
Speaker 1: a safe place, and and that's pretty much it. But
Speaker 1: where of all the places you've been was the closest
Speaker 1: thing to like the the pure hobbsy and nightmare of
Speaker 1: life is violent, brutish, short, that whole thing where there
Speaker 1: just was no law in order. Oh, that had to
Speaker 1: have been like parts of Eastern Congo, parts of of Sudan,
Speaker 1: you know, parts of Somalia where you know they're either
Speaker 1: in Smala, you had no effective central government. There just
Speaker 1: wasn't one. And then in the Eastern Congo and parts
Speaker 1: of Sudan there just was. The government had no authority
Speaker 1: over these places. There was so distant that it could
Speaker 1: exercise the authority, and that if your neighbor or the
Speaker 1: neighboring village wanted to come up and kill everyone in
Speaker 1: your village and they were stronger, there was no real
Speaker 1: way to stop them. Um, you know, well that's some
Speaker 1: stuff right there. Yeah, yeah, I mean Africa was filled
Speaker 1: with incredibly weak states, countries that that can barely control
Speaker 1: their own borders. Um, that are terribly corrupt that you
Speaker 1: know that they're like I said at the beginning of this,
Speaker 1: Like like I said, you know, these are countries that
Speaker 1: never got a chance to build themselves. Their borders were
Speaker 1: drawn by colonial powers. Some of them make absolutely no sense.
Speaker 1: Why they exist is simply because the dictats of of
Speaker 1: of European bureaucrats in the nineteenth century, and as a result,
Speaker 1: you know, they're they're there, you know, hobbled from the beginning,
Speaker 1: and probably not get any better anytime soon. You know,
Speaker 1: it's interesting as long as we're in Africa and talking
Speaker 1: about that, and as all of us are engaged in
Speaker 1: observing and discussing the growing tribalism in America and the
Speaker 1: partisanship the rest of it. What what does an American
Speaker 1: make of the fragility of civilization and the way people
Speaker 1: who look and sound and worship virtually the same, like
Speaker 1: the Hutus and the hoot season Rwanda, suddenly begin getting well,
Speaker 1: not suddenly, but begin killing each other by the hundreds
Speaker 1: of thousands. What what lesson do we take as humanity
Speaker 1: from that? I mean, so leadership counts. You know, people
Speaker 1: people I don't think. I mean, you know, you don't
Speaker 1: blindly follow people. But if if the messages you hear
Speaker 1: are frequent enough and loud enough to tell you that
Speaker 1: this other person is there, who to or their Muslim
Speaker 1: doers or whatever they are not who do um are
Speaker 1: are somehow bad and need to go um, that will
Speaker 1: become something that will people will being to act on,
Speaker 1: you know, and I think you see that here in
Speaker 1: the US, when you know, when you've got fringe elements
Speaker 1: moving to the mainstream and saying things about their rivals
Speaker 1: that are you know, put them far beyond the pale
Speaker 1: of political rivals, that these people are enemies, that they're
Speaker 1: going to destroy our country, that they want to get
Speaker 1: elected to destroy your life. I mean, that's the kind
Speaker 1: of intense to get people fired up, you know. And
Speaker 1: then you get the combination of of the idea that
Speaker 1: you meet one day when they prosecute your political enemies,
Speaker 1: or that if you get to power, you can get rich.
Speaker 1: You know, that's the kind of recipe you get where
Speaker 1: you start getting real election violence. Because the states get
Speaker 1: very high, very quickly. Cad. You look at these places
Speaker 1: that are dysfunctional, like you're just talking about, and you
Speaker 1: wonder how they ever get organized. Uh, we ever got
Speaker 1: organized as a as a species ever into into nation
Speaker 1: states that can govern ourselves and have some sort of
Speaker 1: security and decent life. We geeus, god, dang it, We're
Speaker 1: so lucky that we've got it going here. We don't
Speaker 1: blow it. It's pretty it's pretty cray I mean, it's
Speaker 1: one of the things where I think, you know, we
Speaker 1: are so we are so lucky, like so many things
Speaker 1: broke right over the last two plus years of the
Speaker 1: United States, but none of this is inevitable, Like this
Speaker 1: can all go away. Um, this doesn't have to exist
Speaker 1: the way it does. I think we all kind of
Speaker 1: assume like, hey, it's great, you know, um, but it's
Speaker 1: very easy to remember that, you know, people aren't totally
Speaker 1: rational actors that you know, people have predices, people have
Speaker 1: um hang ups, some people are prone to violence, and
Speaker 1: that if you get leadership that's willing to kind of
Speaker 1: indulge that, you start getting down a pretty dark path
Speaker 1: pretty quickly. All right, let's head over to Russia. Vlad
Speaker 1: Putin is gathering together is brain trust this afternoon, and
Speaker 1: and he's saying, all right, the America file. What is
Speaker 1: our purpose there? What is what is Vlad Putin thinking
Speaker 1: about when he thinks about the US. So I had
Speaker 1: a really really interesting conversation with a person in the
Speaker 1: intelligence world. They just retired, like this would have been
Speaker 1: the last few months, and they were a very senior
Speaker 1: person deal with Russia, and so we were talking and
Speaker 1: apparently there's this big debate in American kind of spy circles.
Speaker 1: Everybody has figured out that that Putin has hung on
Speaker 1: to Trump and is into Trump as he thinks Trump
Speaker 1: can produce some kind of grand bargain that while the
Speaker 1: rest of the Russian government looks at what the US
Speaker 1: is doing and sees actual policies out of the Trump
Speaker 1: administration that are pretty hostile to Russia and says we're not.
Speaker 1: When you're ready to ride Metro, we want you to
Speaker 1: know we're ready for you. Here are just a few
Speaker 1: of the people at Metro to tell you how we're
Speaker 1: doing our part to keep riders safe. We're cleaning like
Speaker 1: noble before half build it greatly. You've found hand stand
Speaker 1: of no mask, no Metro need one. We have a
Speaker 1: few extras at Metro. We're doing our part to keep
Speaker 1: the DC area moving. Find out more at will Matta
Speaker 1: dot com slash doing our part. What is the Fisher House?
Speaker 1: If I had a chance to talk to the Fisher family,
Speaker 1: I would start crying because I can't articulate how much
Speaker 1: it meant to us. The Fisher House is to comfort
Speaker 1: home for military and veteran families to staying at no charge,
Speaker 1: allowing the family to be together to support their loved
Speaker 1: one during a medical crisis. It's enough to help you
Speaker 1: thrive through these hard situations. Go to Fisher House dot
Speaker 1: org for more info and how you might help. That's
Speaker 1: Fisher House dot org. Any done in the US, Putin
Speaker 1: still believed Trump can deliver some kind of grand bargain.
Speaker 1: But the big debate is what is this grand bargain
Speaker 1: he wants, you know, and that they can't figure out.
Speaker 1: Is it over CRIMEA? Isn't like spears of influenced CRIMEA
Speaker 1: plus the Middle East, Ukraine. Nobody's entirely shure as they
Speaker 1: just respect they don't really know, and until they can
Speaker 1: figure that one out, it's hard to say. The other
Speaker 1: problem the U s s right now and figuring us
Speaker 1: all out is that a lot of human intelligence sources
Speaker 1: at least have have dried up. Because look, if you're
Speaker 1: looking at the news in the last two years and
Speaker 1: you were somehow providing intelligence to the Americans CIA, to
Speaker 1: think you'd keep doing it, I mean you'd probably shut
Speaker 1: out real quick start avoiding it, because you know, you've
Speaker 1: got congressional committees talking about recently releasing the names of
Speaker 1: actual sources from the FBI, and maybe even even even
Speaker 1: the CIA. You've got just the news. I mean, if
Speaker 1: I were like sitting in the Kremlin as somebody who
Speaker 1: was being paid off by a CIA, got a slip
Speaker 1: occasional secrets, I take the money I had and probably quit.
Speaker 1: Why I was ahead? Why why don't play well? Right?
Speaker 1: Can you describe for folks who are not as hip
Speaker 1: to it as you are the whole program of just
Speaker 1: weakening your adversary by stoking internal rifts and that sort
Speaker 1: of thing that's got quite a history, doesn't it, going
Speaker 1: back to the Soviet Union, it really does. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, the Soviet Union used to always try this
Speaker 1: kind of supporting different groups in America they thought were divisive,
Speaker 1: whether it's like civil rights groups that they thought, well
Speaker 1: if we if we try and clin definitely support them,
Speaker 1: they'll divide America, or right wing groups, you know, whenever
Speaker 1: they saw any kind of movement that had the ability
Speaker 1: to potentially divide the place that it's important. But you know,
Speaker 1: and like the sixties, a little bit of cash here
Speaker 1: and there, and obviously the print a pamphlet is not
Speaker 1: exactly gonna kind of gonna create a total amount of upheaval.
Speaker 1: We now live in a world where, um, fake news
Speaker 1: and disinformation kind of moves a lot faster than we
Speaker 1: can keep up with it, and so the tools are
Speaker 1: now there to kind of do that with The Soviets
Speaker 1: would have called active measures. I guess, um, Look, the
Speaker 1: other thing is Russia. Is that a climbing power. This
Speaker 1: is a country Its economy is peg mostly the oil
Speaker 1: it is, it is population is shrinking fast. This is
Speaker 1: a country that is not going to be a major power,
Speaker 1: probably in the next century, will fall off. And so
Speaker 1: they're doing what they can. They've modernized our military. But
Speaker 1: another thing they've picked up is like this information warfare.
Speaker 1: This helps, you know, you can weaken the US. But
Speaker 1: you know, there is one important thing here, which is
Speaker 1: none of this works if we're not divided ourselves. You know,
Speaker 1: if we were at a from spot and we weren't
Speaker 1: so divided amongst each other, a bunch of secret Russian
Speaker 1: propaganda making it worse wouldn't have a lot of effect
Speaker 1: with it. Only it only works because we're already kind
Speaker 1: of halfway there. Um, So that's that's somebody to keep
Speaker 1: in mind. They got a lot of nuclear missiles, so
Speaker 1: Russia's worth paying attention to on some level. And obviously
Speaker 1: we've got China coming up to challenges as a global power.
Speaker 1: Do we spend way too much time worried about little
Speaker 1: sand countries in the Middle East? I certainly feels like
Speaker 1: it sometimes, So I always, I always have the sinking feeling.
Speaker 1: So I went from you know, I was based in
Speaker 1: Delhi and covered kind of all of South Asia, and
Speaker 1: then I kind of became our and this, and I
Speaker 1: told the Law Street Journal or Afghanistan, Pakistan Kai, and
Speaker 1: then I joined the Times, and and I always have
Speaker 1: the sinking feeling that I've gone from kind of covering
Speaker 1: like India and then in China of course, like their
Speaker 1: reassertion of their place in the global economic order, as
Speaker 1: these enormous wealthy countries. Kind of like it was like
Speaker 1: the rise of maritime Europe in the fift d You know,
Speaker 1: this this reshapes the arc of history, and this is
Speaker 1: the kind of thing there will be the whole textbooks
Speaker 1: written about and kids will learn about in grade school.
Speaker 1: Whereas the war in Afghanistans felt like the Boer War
Speaker 1: was to the British Empire, you know, um, a little
Speaker 1: war in southern Africa that kind of sorted itself out
Speaker 1: and that's that. Um, I guess that's how we ended
Speaker 1: up with South Africa. But you know, it didn't feel like,
Speaker 1: you know, something that was momentous, and so yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I think there's certainly a case made un good Bomb
Speaker 1: administration tried to do it, or at least they made
Speaker 1: lip service about doing it, about their pivot to Asia,
Speaker 1: that we were spending way too much time on countries
Speaker 1: that ultimately, you know, weren't hugely important to us. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, one other important distinction I think between Russia
Speaker 1: and China, because there's it's easy to conflate what the
Speaker 1: two are doing, um, but there's there's a few intelligence
Speaker 1: people and other kind of stratgist types. People will point
Speaker 1: it out to me, like the Chinese are scene is
Speaker 1: playing the game, so if they're listening to the president's
Speaker 1: phone calls, it's raspion of purposes. It's kind of thing
Speaker 1: we do too, you know, and that's it's all in
Speaker 1: the game. You gotta live with it. What the Russians
Speaker 1: are seen doing is trying to kind of do that
Speaker 1: espionage and then use what they're learning to kind of
Speaker 1: screw with the actual institutions, our democracy and undermine them.
Speaker 1: And and that scene is kind of a step much
Speaker 1: further and aggressive steps. So if the Chinese are using
Speaker 1: the information and then trying to hear and say they
Speaker 1: hear the president talk on the phone call, and then
Speaker 1: they go to somebody and who knows somebody who's on
Speaker 1: that phone with the president and try and get them
Speaker 1: to kind of suggest pro China policies, that's using our
Speaker 1: system for their own good. And the US is kind
Speaker 1: of okay with that. They don't love it, but you
Speaker 1: gotta live with it. Whereas you know, the Russians coming
Speaker 1: in and trying to undermine the actual elections, that scene
Speaker 1: is as trying to break the system, you know. To that,
Speaker 1: you mentioned the phone call thing, which you wrote about
Speaker 1: in the New York Times. By the way, I heard
Speaker 1: the President mentioned that the New York Times is failing.
Speaker 1: I'm so sorry to hear that. It's got to be
Speaker 1: very differently, does that we get more subscribers, So I
Speaker 1: would really encourage it, Please please keep doing it. But
Speaker 1: so um you you as a journalist these days working
Speaker 1: for the New York Times, Um, you have a lot
Speaker 1: of people who want your ear. I would imagine, and
Speaker 1: a lot of people within the administration, maybe within well
Speaker 1: the administration broadly say, within the State Department. I was
Speaker 1: asking who wrote the anonymous column? Are you kidding? That
Speaker 1: seems like fifty years ago? I don't care for you,
Speaker 1: but that i'd have to kill you. Yeah, that's fine.
Speaker 1: Some days I'd welcome no. But anyway, So, how this
Speaker 1: is a journalism question. How difficult is it when you
Speaker 1: get a pretty well placed source you get the sense
Speaker 1: they got an ex to grind. It sounds juicy, but
Speaker 1: it sounds kind of off this gossipy what's that process like?
Speaker 1: Working through that deciding whether to print it? Alright, First
Speaker 1: of all, when you when you get a well placed
Speaker 1: source of an act to grind, it's like, thank god,
Speaker 1: it's great number one. They're going to talk. That's always
Speaker 1: a good star, right, And then you know, you look
Speaker 1: at what they say, and there are some things people
Speaker 1: say you're like this, this is highly improbable, or you
Speaker 1: ask yourself, well, would they know this? And if the
Speaker 1: answers yes, they okay, we gotta find some other people
Speaker 1: who know it too, and you will find people who
Speaker 1: are then probably have less of an act to grind
Speaker 1: or no act to grind who know it and will
Speaker 1: help confirm it. So you get the friend of a
Speaker 1: friend so pretty frequently. Huh yeah. And you know it's
Speaker 1: why when we use it, when we use anonymous sources,
Speaker 1: which look, I hate it, and I think for readers
Speaker 1: think most of them don't like it either. Unfortunately, in
Speaker 1: national security reporting, you've got to do it. There's almost
Speaker 1: no way not to do it because so much stuff
Speaker 1: is either classified or restricted and people either lose their
Speaker 1: jobs to go to prison for talking to you, so
Speaker 1: you you just can't get around it. Um. And So,
Speaker 1: but when we do that, we don't rely on single
Speaker 1: sources for stories. You know, somebody comes to me that
Speaker 1: actor ryand and tells me something that they absolutely have
Speaker 1: access to and absolutely sounds accurate. That's not good enough,
Speaker 1: you know, because it's one source and it's anonymous. We're
Speaker 1: gonna do a hodtest sourcing a lot of multiple sources
Speaker 1: on that, especially if it's a truly incendiary story. You know,
Speaker 1: that's just going to raise the bar even higher. Interesting, Um,
Speaker 1: how much damage does that? Said, that's what I like
Speaker 1: to say a message to anybody in the government, Um,
Speaker 1: don't be intimidated. We always want more sources. Don't think
Speaker 1: what you've got as to minor. Please give us a call.
Speaker 1: You ever get stuff you think people shouldn't know this,
Speaker 1: people don't need to know this. Um are you all
Speaker 1: the information we deserve, all the information into democracy. So
Speaker 1: I'm I'm gon kind of. I think I'll start with
Speaker 1: the benefit of the doubt, like it all should be public,
Speaker 1: and work backwards in there. And we have definitely held stories,
Speaker 1: were held information out of the paper, either at the
Speaker 1: request of the government, which has made a very good
Speaker 1: case that was not political about why this was important
Speaker 1: to keep to maintain a secret, or you know, it's
Speaker 1: an identity of somebody is going to get them killed
Speaker 1: and something like that. You know, that's something that we
Speaker 1: don't want to do. And so we know the name
Speaker 1: of somebody putting in the newspaper is going to lead
Speaker 1: to their death, then we're not going to do that.
Speaker 1: You know, we're gonna a conversation about that. And on
Speaker 1: the other hand, like look, I just said to think
Speaker 1: about keeping information out of the paper. You know, more
Speaker 1: often than not we will have the CIA or the
Speaker 1: White House whatever try and tell us, well, the thing
Speaker 1: is really secret. If you do this it's gonna ruin
Speaker 1: national security. And those arguments are usually overatly political and ignored,
Speaker 1: but there have been moments where they have commented, look,
Speaker 1: you know this is an active program. If you do this,
Speaker 1: it's going to undermine it. And we don't like you
Speaker 1: know that kind of thing outweighs the news value of
Speaker 1: it well, and there are some hints as to who
Speaker 1: a source might be or how a program operates. That
Speaker 1: to the untrained I wouldn't mean much. But if you are,
Speaker 1: for instance, in the you know Russian uh, the modern
Speaker 1: equivalent of the KGB, and you're trying to figure out
Speaker 1: who's spelling secrets, man, a tiny little clue might be enough.
Speaker 1: So you do have to be careful with that stuff
Speaker 1: we do. I mean, I think we also have to
Speaker 1: be realistic, Like, if we have figured it out, there
Speaker 1: aren't that many of us who cover this stuff at
Speaker 1: the times. So if we have figured out, let's assume
Speaker 1: that fall and spy services with lots of people probably
Speaker 1: figure it out too. Yeah, okay, fair enough. So who
Speaker 1: did you really admire as a journalist, writer, opinion writer,
Speaker 1: any any heroes as a young lad? As a young lad,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, I know now I look
Speaker 1: at some of the people I've even worked with or
Speaker 1: seeing their work. You know, Um, my former colleague gem
Speaker 1: Rising was amazing as an amazing journalist. Um uh Sy Hirst,
Speaker 1: you know, despite his more recent issues. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is a guy who dug up information that that led
Speaker 1: to a huge amount of reform, Like there's actual congressional
Speaker 1: oversight of the CIA and saying others the work that
Speaker 1: this one guy did, and that's pretty amazing, and that's
Speaker 1: an amazing impact. Um, you know, and I think part
Speaker 1: of me I just appreciate people who, as they get older,
Speaker 1: don't decide whong going to be part of the establishment
Speaker 1: now who keep throwing bombs because I mean, like, look,
Speaker 1: if I wanted to be part of the government, would
Speaker 1: have joined the government, you know, if I one of
Speaker 1: those at balls, I became a journalist. So I don't
Speaker 1: see why that should be different. At fifty five. Um,
Speaker 1: you mentioned that you mentioned the c I and and
Speaker 1: you know they push back against if you want to
Speaker 1: print a story and all that sort of stuff. Do um,
Speaker 1: do those kind of institutions change much administration to administration
Speaker 1: or do they Does the c I a tend be
Speaker 1: the CIA, whether it's under Bush or Obama. We'll leave
Speaker 1: Trump out of it because people get so worked up
Speaker 1: any time you talk about Trump. But like Bush, is
Speaker 1: Bush of CIA going to be the same as Obama CIA,
Speaker 1: and that they're going to protect the CIA. Yeah, they're
Speaker 1: gonna protect the CIA. I mean the difference is is like, look,
Speaker 1: they're gonna work for the guy who's the president, so um,
Speaker 1: whoever that is, they may changement, but they don't. I mean,
Speaker 1: the institutions are are set up like, look, we have
Speaker 1: set up a trementisfied institution to be kind of perpetual
Speaker 1: as a as as somewhat a stafeguard. You know, we
Speaker 1: see power to them away from representatives and provide continuity
Speaker 1: or the CIA is not gonna go out and start
Speaker 1: doing crazy differ and things as becas Trump as presidents
Speaker 1: are going to start suplying on Americans, for instance, they
Speaker 1: can't do that. The laws against that. Um. I think,
Speaker 1: you know, they might be pretty happy over the CIA
Speaker 1: that Trump is has loosened some of the restrictions on
Speaker 1: what they can do. I mean, there are certainly people
Speaker 1: who there who are very happy. There are plenty of
Speaker 1: other people who are totally unhappy that they think he
Speaker 1: he is has you know, come in and said terrible
Speaker 1: things and under mine American position the world to made
Speaker 1: their jobs harder. Um. But it remains the CIA. I
Speaker 1: always ask people like you, that's my final question that
Speaker 1: that have you know, a proving the information that now
Speaker 1: the not all the rest of us are plus you
Speaker 1: stared at every single day. Is the average American citizen
Speaker 1: got a pretty good idea how scary the world is
Speaker 1: or we way off base based on what you know?
Speaker 1: You know, I don't know, um, And so I think
Speaker 1: the average American probably has is more afraid of the
Speaker 1: world than they should be and doesn't realize what they
Speaker 1: should be afraid of all. And that's not it's not
Speaker 1: it's off because um, it's not because you're innerstupid. It's
Speaker 1: just because, like you know, you live in this very
Speaker 1: big country. You don't have to interact with the rest
Speaker 1: of the world very often. If you're the average American
Speaker 1: and you're pretty secure, you know, you know, you can
Speaker 1: go to bed at night without to be coming to
Speaker 1: kick down your door. It's still your stuff or whatever.
Speaker 1: And that's a great thing. Like I think it's it's
Speaker 1: we under that we really do. Hell yeah, most of
Speaker 1: the world, most of human history, everywhere on the planet,
Speaker 1: has that to go to bed every night worried somebody's
Speaker 1: gonna come in and kill them and their kids. Huh No,
Speaker 1: it's great and we we and it's I actually think
Speaker 1: it's a good thing. Like our ignorance is a sign
Speaker 1: of our prosperity and success in some ways. Um. I mean,
Speaker 1: we should all strive to be lastic right all the time.
Speaker 1: And I even know that. You know, the one thing
Speaker 1: I learned that spend fifteen years living around the world
Speaker 1: is how little I know about that. You know, I
Speaker 1: go to these places and I think I know something.
Speaker 1: But it's like I said, you know, a housewife in
Speaker 1: Congo or Afghanistan or wherever knows more about her own
Speaker 1: kind of part of the world than I ever will,
Speaker 1: or any foreigner probably will. Um. But you know so yeah.
Speaker 1: But because but because we know so little, we're very
Speaker 1: easy to scare about the rest of the world. You know,
Speaker 1: whether it's a migrant caravan of a few thousand people
Speaker 1: who are a thousand miles away, and you know, there's
Speaker 1: a big chunk of country believes these guys are coming
Speaker 1: to kind of overrun the country. Or you know, it's
Speaker 1: a small small group of militants in the mountains of
Speaker 1: Pakistan and Afghanistan who did launch a very successful attack
Speaker 1: September levenoth and have launched other attacks. But but really
Speaker 1: do not pose any kind of existential threat to us,
Speaker 1: you know, mostly afraid of shark attacks and killer clowns
Speaker 1: that do. I have it about right? Yeah, I mean too,
Speaker 1: Um and I'm I'm afraid of airplanes too. I can't
Speaker 1: stand him, but I always figured the most dangerous thing
Speaker 1: we all did with drive, you know, every day time
Speaker 1: or just crossing the street. I mean, that's how you
Speaker 1: get killed. You know, it's not it's not in a
Speaker 1: terrorist attack attack because of a lot of our listeners
Speaker 1: swing conservative, and I can hear him yelling at the podcast.
Speaker 1: I've also got to point out the idea that Trump
Speaker 1: is the new Hitler, or women are going to be
Speaker 1: forced to breed, or he'll be an autocrat is ridiculous.
Speaker 1: It's laughable. He couldn't get a quarter of the way
Speaker 1: to first base, um and become an autocrat. Look, I
Speaker 1: mean there's a Trump arrangement syndrome is definitely a thing.
Speaker 1: Um And I think, you know, you've seen it the
Speaker 1: last two years. Here, it's it's on the right and left.
Speaker 1: You've got a kind of fringe ideas. Move into the middle,
Speaker 1: you know, and making that space where everybody can kind
Speaker 1: of chat and disagree but kind of agree to, kind
Speaker 1: of work together among your disagreements has made that much smaller.
Speaker 1: But I mean, Trump is what he is. You know,
Speaker 1: he's got his many flaws. But New Hitler is a
Speaker 1: pretty big stretch. We talked to p J O'Rourke a
Speaker 1: couple of weeks ago and he said, whose idea was it?
Speaker 1: To make it so all the stupid people could talk
Speaker 1: to each other? He was talking about the Internet. I mean, look,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's definitely not a good thing. You know.
Speaker 1: I would prefer a president who after a tragedy gets
Speaker 1: up and talks about the tragedy. And I would include Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan,
Speaker 1: all of them in that group, you know, over a
Speaker 1: president who doesn't um. And so you know, there's definitely
Speaker 1: things you want different. But I mean new Hitler is
Speaker 1: nobody's a New Hitler until they're New Hitler. And we're
Speaker 1: far from that point. Yeah, amen to that Matthew Rosenberg.
Speaker 1: Hey Matt, it's great to talk to you. I hope
Speaker 1: it won't be the last time. And and let's stay
Speaker 1: in touch. Well done, excellent, thanks has our pleasure, Thank
Speaker 1: you good stuff. Um God, dang it. If you want
Speaker 1: to be thankful for anything on a on a daily basis,
Speaker 1: or thank your blessings, if you were born in the
Speaker 1: United States or you now live in the United States,
Speaker 1: that that that should be at the top of your
Speaker 1: Let you be one through ten at the top of
Speaker 1: your list. Well, and as we've discussed that, if you
Speaker 1: are safe and prosperous, you invent things to be worried about,
Speaker 1: because your brain has that big heart of it that's
Speaker 1: dedicated to warning you about stuff. And if there's little
Speaker 1: to warn you about other than you know, the guy
Speaker 1: looking at his cell phone in the next lane if
Speaker 1: you're driving, Um, I'm worried about clowns writing sharks toward me.
Speaker 1: Imagine the horror of that coming out of the edge
Speaker 1: of the woods. But some of those African places he's
Speaker 1: talking about, where there's just no law, you'd be fighting
Speaker 1: for your life every single day, trying to keep you
Speaker 1: and your family protected. Oh my god, being fully aware
Speaker 1: that much of Africa is desert and or savannah. It
Speaker 1: is the law of the jungle in that the strong
Speaker 1: will win the day period. There's no such thing as
Speaker 1: as that's not good for justice, sir, I'm weedy. Yeah, Well,
Speaker 1: run for cover, find some strong friends, or maybe I
Speaker 1: could amuse people like a court Jester type. Well, I
Speaker 1: would amuse them for firearms and accumulate as many firearms
Speaker 1: and as much ammunation. He's a tough guy with the machete.
Speaker 1: He keeps me around because I amuse him. It's good
Speaker 1: work if you can get it. Court Jester. Hey, you
Speaker 1: know one thing I did want to point out again
Speaker 1: are our listeners of a more conservative stripe. Matthew Rosenberg.
Speaker 1: He works for the New York Times. He's written some stories.
Speaker 1: I'm fairly critical of um and or the White House
Speaker 1: denied outright and I don't know what to think and
Speaker 1: all and a lot of you want us to argue
Speaker 1: with a guy like Matt about you know, the New
Speaker 1: York Times and bias and the rest of it. And
Speaker 1: we could, but I think that would be so predictable
Speaker 1: and it would go nowhere. I'm much more interested in
Speaker 1: hearing what he has seen and learned in his years
Speaker 1: around um, you know, Asia, Africa, the Middle East as
Speaker 1: a foreign correspondent. I really think that's a more interesting conversation.
Speaker 1: Really want to trade my life with anybody, but i'd
Speaker 1: i'd like to have, you know, done a little of
Speaker 1: what he's done, be in some of these places around
Speaker 1: the world. Yes, see it, instead of just read about it. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I would agree. Wouldn't be always, wouldn't always be pleasant,
Speaker 1: I'm sure no. Plenty of sacrifices in that line of work,
Speaker 1: and you'd see some god awful things you'd never forget. Yes, yes,
Speaker 1: you would. Anyway, next time, we'll talk to Next time,
Speaker 1: let's talk to Phoebe from friends. That's what I keep saying. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we tried that once. That's right, didn't work out very well.
Speaker 1: Well maybe if we had a longer time to stretch
Speaker 1: out and really talk to him. You get into so
Speaker 1: it was he stupid or Joe was stupid? Yes, anyways,
Speaker 1: see you next time when you're ready to ride Metro.
Speaker 1: We want you to know we're ready for you. Here
Speaker 1: are just a few of the people at Metro to
Speaker 1: tell you how we're doing our part to keep riders safe.
Speaker 1: We're cleaning like Neville before, half built it greatly. You've
Speaker 1: found hair stands the station, no mask, no Metro need one.
Speaker 1: We have a few extras at Metro. We're doing our
Speaker 1: part to keep the DC area moving. Find out more
Speaker 1: at well mata dot com slash doing our part.