252 Comments

Andrew has notably shown bravery in his life and writing, but he speaks as someone with the luxury of never having to train, plan and otherwise prepare to take and risk lives in defense of home and country. As a result, he and those like him make war more terrible than it already is, prolonging the suffering and forcing half-measures that result in little to nothing except another set of hostilities. If you're going to war, there must be a purpose - an objective. There is no proportionality to bring to bear regarding Germany vs. Hamas - war is war, it is brutal, and it should be fought only when you are fully prepared to get to the objective as swiftly as possible - this means obscene violence. That does not mean that nothing is beyond the pale, but it does mean that terrible, seemingly intolerable things will result in the effort to end the terrible things. Andrew's seems to expect he can make it somehow tolerable, and to reason with the unreasonable.

Expand full comment

Part of waging war is to disabuse the other side that it would be a good idea to ever do this again.

Expand full comment
founding

Andrew was obviously drunk and very boring. What an embarrassing episode.

Expand full comment

Ahhhhh was that it? I wasn't sure. Definitely a lot of awkward talking over each other.

Expand full comment

I think there was also a problem with Andrew's audio. It seemed like he often cut out, making it hard to understand him. I think the other guys could hear more than what's in the recording.

Expand full comment

Yeah I was wondering if that was a software sync issue or something, very odd...

Expand full comment

The beginning kind of sucked, the end (when he couldn’t finish a sentences) was incredibly entertaining.

Expand full comment

Not the best episode. Is Kmele just phoning it in at this point?

Expand full comment

Only IF he remembers to phone in.

Expand full comment

I think Kmele takes a back seat when he is not sure of his facts or doesn't have an opinion.

Expand full comment
deletedApr 5
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Oh? that's what it was? For someone who admittedly did not know all the facts or do all the research, he sure had a lot of conclusions and armchair-general strategy proposals.

Expand full comment

Well said. I would point people to the work of John Spencer to inject some reality into the actual laws of war and urban combat. https://thedispatch.com/podcast/dispatch-podcast/gaza-changed-urban-warfare/

Expand full comment

I’m actually quite skeptical of this guy. He habitually strawmans his opponents’ arguments, which I find quite suspect

Expand full comment

I was having this almost exact same thought listening. I don’t know if peoples vocabulary is just entirely fucked up by modernities “war on drugs” and “war on poverty”, etc. where they don’t know what war is anymore. But, there is no nice war. There is no clean war. There is no war with manners. Once you get to “WAR” it is a complete mess and always and forever has been and will be. That is what the word war means. If you’re doing anything else, it shouldn’t be called a war.

And broadly, there have been two types of war. There were wars of conquest and wars to neutralize a threat (distinction historically not always clear).

Wars of conquest ended when conquerers knew or thought they knew they had control of the area.

Wars to neutralize a threat ended when there was no more threat or one side thought there was no more threat.

There is no war without those ending conditions. And war will always drive to those end goals. It will stampede through whatever is in front of it. That’s why any smart person, group, country, civilization doesn’t take up war lightly.

Hamas is still a threat. They’re still clearly a threat. You do not just end your war without anything changed. That would make the entire endeavor useless.

War in its essence is meant to be a solution to a problem (or a perceived problem). It is a tool. The West has forgotten this. And instead of making war better, it has made war infinitely worse. Because now it is a tool that serves no purpose. It is a hammer that destroys a building, and leaves it in pieces, never rebuilding the structure. Afghanistan, Vietnam, starting to be Gaza. We keep gutting a room to the studs and going “damn, this is a lot of work and hardship” and then walking out of the room unfinished. Yes, war will always be terrible. That is the nature of war. However, for it to serve any purpose, you have to follow it to the end. You have to make it worthwhile and solve the problem you were initially confronted with.

Also, as a side note that no one questioned. The most casualties during “The Blitz” on a single day was I believe 240, in a much much larger country. “The Battle of Britain” is still a day we remember to modernity due to its impact and like 70 people died. Yes, there is still the point that Germany was a foe equal (or more) in strength so them being more of an existential threat is valid. Also, Germany was able to attack for I believe 8 months and Britain ended up with 40k casualties. All true. However, you cannot just disregard where Israel is at with that comparison. Israel’s day was 100X worse than “The Battle of Britain”. To just say “but they’re more powerful so they shouldn’t be worried or overreact” is not only immoral, it has the facade of reason while being totally and completely inane. They’re more powerful because they can exert their power. If they do not, they’re not more powerful. This is not an argument for zero moderation from Israel, it is a recognition of fact. A Buffalo is 20x the strength of a wolf. But, if a buffalo stands there and let’s wolves chew away at its ankles, start ripping apart it’s belly, and start gnawing on its throat, the wolves are stronger. It’s the buffalos job to make sure that threat never manifests. Not sit there getting bloodied for some idiotic higher moral conjured in our heads. Kicking a wolf and restarting the entire routine tomorrow is no solution.

Expand full comment

yeh I am a little bit perplexed by Andrew here. It genuinely felt like the man has been neutered, I mean no disrespect but an individual like Andrew with his history and his ability to argue and convey arguments in the past has been replaced by a bubbling old man.

Expand full comment

I wonder if though the combination of modern media and modern warfare we have sown the problem. Since WW2 the wars we have become used to fighting are not the total wars where we are trying to bring an enemy to its knees at all costs, but picking a side in an intra-state battle where we are simultaneously trying to defeat an enemy and preserve the land and economy.

Yet even these wars have been brought into our living rooms in living color in a way they weren't before making people uncomfortable with the sire of mass casualties, especially our own. I wonder how much support there would have been for either of the world wars had people had that on their TV every night. And given the fact that the specific Palestinian atrocities on October 7th are images one has had to seek out, whereas the general war footage of the Israeli's campaign is safe for cable news viewing you can see why people are squeamish about Israel's military action.

Expand full comment

At the risk of just rephrasing what you already said...

I was going to say something similar. Warfare *requires* morally reprehensible actions. I don't think it makes sense to even try to justify war on moral grounds.

The question is whether the strategic goals and tactical decisions made in pursuit of those goals are *necessary* to achieve a morally justified endpoint. I think that's a much better lens through which to view things.

I don't know enough to say which of Israel's actions have been necessary vs not. I do think the end goal of eliminating the threat posed by Hamas is justified.

But Israel and her supporters have to realize the limits of their own power to shape the narrative. That's just the reality "on the ground" that they have to operate within.

Expand full comment

How does that make sense? What does it mean to *require* a morally reprehensible action? If it's required, how is it morally repressible? And if you're not justifying it on moral grounds, what other grounds are you justifying it on? How is something both necessary but not morally justified?

Expand full comment

"Necessary evil"

Expand full comment

What exactly is evil about what Israel is doing?

Expand full comment

Killing innocent civilians.

I'm not singling Israel out here. This is war. War isn't good. It never has been and never will be. Let's not pretend otherwise.

If you think "evil" is too strong in this context, then OK. I was using a common phrase to make a point. You can amend my comment to "Necessary <insert your preferred term for morally bad thing here>".

Expand full comment

I just disagree it's morally bad if it's necessary. Something being necessary implies that there is a good reason to do so and is justifiable on moral grounds. Either the collateral damage is justifiable for a greater goal or it isn't.

Expand full comment
founding

I thought asking him about using Afghanistan as a better analogy would work? Small terrorist group attacked a much larger/more militarily advanced country (I'm conflating Afghanistan with Alqaida, I know.)

Expand full comment
deletedApr 4
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

It’s ridiculous to me that the rules are different for Israel for some reason. Essentially “hey you need to stop now, even though your goal of eliminating Hamas has not been accomplished” and “[stopping now will only allow Hamas to regroup] But it’s time for a ceasefire” Oh and “you have to care more about Gazan civilians than the actual people in charge of Gaza” Fucking bonkers. It must suck being an Israeli and feel like the entire world has gone insane.

Expand full comment
deletedApr 5
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Yeah I agree but I’m also referencing the fact that the IDF is trying to accomplish a military objective (eliminate Hamas) and everyone keeps talking about a cease fire (and so early on!) which would only benefit Hamas and give them time to regroup. No where else does this happen

Expand full comment
deletedApr 6
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Could just be my bias but it seems like it’s more concerted against Israel

Expand full comment
founding

I get where people like Andrew are coming from, because from the outside looking in, it appears like the amount of civilian death and destruction in Gaza just isn’t worth it. And for Americans or outsiders that may be true, but for us Israelis the moral calculation is a lot harder. If my neighbor is firing at me from his house, I’m destroying the house to the extent where I am no longer in the range of fire. It doesn’t feel good. It’s not done for revenge, nor is it indiscriminate like most people tend to believe. Warfare is calculated, targets are selected carefully, cost benefit analysis is run and yes, mistakes are made. Apologies if this sounds cold, I see the scenes from Gaza like everyone else and my heart breaks that it’s happening, and that we did this. But any country faced with a choice between the safety of its civilians and the safety of the enemy’s civilians has the duty to protect its people. I heard a military guy today on NPR critiquing the IDF, talking about how the US did not operate like the IDF in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how the threshold for fire was much higher. This is the case when war is 6,000 miles away, not a 20 minute walk over. I can’t think of any western country that has faced what we are facing and having to make those decisions, and I pray they never do. It’s fun to talk about trolley problems in classrooms, less so when you’re actually operating the trolley in real life.

One last thing - Hamas didn’t retreat. It was stopped. Terrorists never retreat, they reorganize.

Expand full comment
founding

Sorry to Columbo in here, but one thing that’s never mentioned when people talk about US aid to Israel is that about 80% of that goes back into the American economy and specifically the defense industry. So cutting it comes at a cost internally, it’s not just Israel’s magic spell that keeps it going.

Anyway, I’m glad you boys had this conversation and back and forth ❤️

Expand full comment
author

I mentioned the 75-80% military procurement thing!

Expand full comment
founding

Just re-listend because I found the comments mostly inconsistent with my first pass. By far this was the most troubling thing. We are taking 80% W on amputee children? Libertarian Mass absolution must be a thing.

Expand full comment
author

I brought it up as a factual statement, not a value judgment.

Expand full comment
founding

Thanks Matt, Tone in podcast plus exclamation point in post equals otherwise. Nonetheless, a fact like that warrants more than notation imo. If we are rent seeking ghouls to pretend otherwise makes us no better than Putin. If we really have progress in mind then the past 75 years, land for peace, money for guns is not working. I won't fein confusion as to why the annual unqualified aid rarely comes up in conversations about Israel. It's ugly and complicated (as a whole), and political suicide. A forum like yours might do the world good if these side effects were explored. Thanks for all you do, I know it ain't easy

Expand full comment

Kudus for using “Columbo” as a verb.

Expand full comment

100% agree.

Sullivan was embarrassing in my opinion. He paraded ignorance and self righteous indignation like virtues and he admitted to lack of knowledge and lack of an ability to get information, but stated his opinions with the stubborn conviction of inherently believing he was right regardless of facts, nuance, or context and with immunity to any new piece of information shifting his position one iota. It was a frankly a sad performance not enhanced by him being obviously high. Perhaps a tiny bit of humility from this very, very comfortable person should learn a great deal more about what he’s talking about complaining about things he has no concept of.

I appreciate you talking to a wide range of people, but I wouldn’t be sorry not to hear from Sullivan again, maybe ever.

Expand full comment

Weird. I didn’t get that at all. He seemed to struggle with it. Maybe I was listening wrong.

Expand full comment

Yeh, thats how I heard it. Actually, Sullivan sounded a lot more like most of the people I talk to about this issue.

Expand full comment
founding

I agree with the assessment of Andrew's performance. Yet, I'll disagree that he ought to be barred. His previous appearances are gems.

My suspicion is he is indicative of much of the public's position vis-a-vis Israel's urban warfare in Gaza. It's rationalizing one's gut feeling and trying to make it sound intelligent.

Expand full comment

Barred? Of course not. Just expressing that voting with my own feet, I wouldn’t choose to listen to him again. I don’t listen to his podcast and if he comes back, feeling as I do now, I would skip it. I pay and I can decide what to listen to, just like everyone else. Moynihan, Welch and Foster aren’t going to take my advice as to guests. I know that. Personally, I just don’t want to hear him. But I would never seek to prevent others from hearing him.

I’m just exceptionally disappointed in his utter failure as a thinker when it comes to Israel. His enthusiastic ignorance offends me and I need not hear from him again.

But I know he has a broad range of skills and talents and others may find him helpful. That’s great. Just not for me. I’ll seek insight elsewhere.

Expand full comment

I think Sullivan's problem with Netanyahu specifically and Israel in general is that they didn't like Obama at all, and Andrew thinks he was great. He was a big supporter of Israel in the past but I remember ( as a reader of his Daily Dish way back when) that he changed during the Obama administration.

And Yael, you are absolutely right.

I would love to hear TFC interview Haviv Rettig Gur. His weekly podcast with Dan Senor is the best analysis of the Gaza war there is. Even better than Ask A Jew, hard as that is to believe.

Expand full comment

+1 for having Haviv Rettig Gur on the podcast

Expand full comment

Obama started it…

Expand full comment

I don't think you should concede the point that "the US was more careful in Iraq and Afghanistan." As far as I can tell, from listening to the Commentary guys, John Spencer, Dan Senor, and others, is that it just isn't true. Normal casualty rates in urban warfare are 9 civilians for each combatant. If we take Hamas' made up numbers at face value, the ratio is 1.5 civilians to each combatant, which is an insane amount of care in an area that is meant to be a civilian death trap. I just don't know how to make other Americans aware of that when mainstream and social media are willingly being useful idiots for Hamas and Iran

Expand full comment

This is simply not true. Mosul had a casualty ratio far below 9:1, and that casualty ratio was viewed as too high by the US.

Expand full comment

Of course the civilian casualty ratio looks worse if you include actors like Syria and Russia. But the IDF holds itself to higher standards, as it should

Expand full comment

re: taking Hamas numbers at face value, have they put out an official statement on how many Hamas members have been killed?

Expand full comment

No. Hamas claims 32,000 have been killed, although there is a great article in Tablet as to why that's fake, and the IDF claims that they have killed 13000 Hamas terrorists. So the ratio is probably less than 1.5

Expand full comment

Yes, although we should also note that Israel has found Hamas’s numbers to be relatively accurate in the past. Hamas is certainly lying about the number of women and children killed, though.

Expand full comment
Apr 5·edited Apr 5

I also wish that the guys had pointed out that there have already been several negotiations regarding the possibility of ceasefire, and every single time Hamas has turned it down and refused to return the hostages. This could’ve been over a long time ago if Hamas had freed the hostages and surrendered. A governing body that cares about its citizens doesn’t invade and attack a more powerful neighboring country for funsies. It doesn’t refuse to negotiate or give in when the ensuing conflict causes great suffering.

Hamas has the power to effectively end this at any moment by returning the hostages and backing down, but they aren’t doing so because their priority has never been the wellbeing of Gazans. The unfortunate truth is that Hamas is vastly more invested in damaging Israel than in improving Gaza. If there were no war, Hamas had vowed to repeat the events of 10/7 over and over again, and Israel had no reason not to take that threat seriously.

Expand full comment

Thumbs up for the last part of your comment. I don't think that aspect gets enough attention.

Expand full comment

Not disagreeing with the specifics of your point, but just throwing in a general philosophical comment. I think this highlights the near impossibility of reconciling an inside of war ethical theory with an outside of war ethical theory. We generally view murder as the most serious of crimes because by definition murder involves the taking of a random, innocent life. Yet in any and all modern warfare, no matter how just, many innocent lives will die. Do we then become pacifists, an unworkable philosophy from a practical standpoint, or do we expand the circumstances where it is ok to take someone's life which carried its own set of problems?

Expand full comment

This episode is so annoying. Andrew, who I usually enjoy, doesn't know what he is talking about here. If you don't know how Israel is using those bombs you should shut up and look it up. Don't just go OMG 2000lbs! https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/ben-rhodes-gives-away-the-game/

The rules of engagement and the precautions Israel are taking are far beyond what anyone else does

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/federal-judges-examine-the-israel-hamas-war/id1490993194?i=1000651156484

Also, no force has been responsible for fighting a war and feeding the population at the same time. We didn't feed the German population until the Nazi party was destroyed. It's a remarkable thing to ask them to do. Accidents, mistakes, and even negligence happen even with extreme precautions. The World Central Kitchen fuck up is fucked up but unfortunately it happens.

Finally, if this works if Hamas is successful at surviving using this strategy of hiding behind civilians and using human shields the moral hazard is going to be so much worse.

PS there are still hostages including US citizens.

Expand full comment

Also would recommend the recent dispatch episode with John Spencer who's an urban war specialist

Expand full comment

Yeah that was also excellent. IIRC they reference him in the AO episode too but that Dispatch pod is worth the time as well

Expand full comment

I am only 15 minutes in and really getting frustrated by this episode as well. Which is very rare for me. But with big family connections to military and the Jews I have no patience for this ignorance

Expand full comment

Wait until you get to the Taiwan part where Andrew goes full Chamberlain. Like how can people not think past the present. He sounds like Michael Brendan Dougherty. It's not like when America stops policing the seas the oceans become a libertarian paradise. Team China World Police may not be the darkest timeline but it's certainly darker than this one.

Expand full comment

Glad I didn't finish it. For fuck sake

Expand full comment

Even worse, Andrew said that the Taiwan situation is easy to solve because it's always been part of China. Never mind that Taiwan has never been ruled by the Chinese Communist Party and hadn't even been under a Chinese government since 1895. Andrew might be right that it is not ultimately in the US interest to defend Taiwan, but that's not excuse for promoting CCP propaganda. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-59900139

Expand full comment

It's worse than that. Taiwan wasn't part of China even in most of the Qing. It's not like China is going to do this through soft power.

Expand full comment
founding

I appreciate MBD's perspective on some issues, but he's atrocious on foreign policy. I'm not trying to level an ad hominum attack on him and others, but their opinions seem to almost boil down to cowardice. Just give Putin/Xi/Hamas what they want because otherwise we'll have WW3.

Expand full comment

I appreciate MBD and I am glad his voice is represented at National Review but I have come to the same conclusion as you in regards to his foreign policy positions.

Expand full comment

I gave up after the first 10 minutes. This episode was unlistenable for me.

Expand full comment

Thanks for sharing that article - good to know! This AO episode is in my queue.

Expand full comment

Might have started crying listening....

Expand full comment

Fucksticks like Ben Rhodes, who I'm quite certain never once seriously considered serving in the military, much less understanding it or it's use, are the root of the problem. Too many of these DC commandos in positions of influence, and they know so little they don't even know enough to shut up, listen and let the grown ups sort things out. They have zero skin in the game, besides insider politics. They think listening to analysts on TV and reading Sun Tzu gives them an edge. I could give not a shit what that pogue thinks about foreign policy. He's an imbecilic amateur that somehow found a seat at the table. Shame on Obama, shame on DC, and shame on any media figure who keeps his number in their phone.

Expand full comment

That ep of AO was fantastic. The boys should listen to it and then have David back. Or Sarah for a more fun convo imo

Expand full comment

Andrew said the US only dropped one 2000lb bomb in the Iraq War… where in the actual fuck did he get that number from? According to the US Air Force we dropped over 5,000 GBU-31’s in the initial invasion from March to April 2003 alone. GBU-31’s are 2000lb bombs. I’m sure they’ve got reports detailing how many they dropped from 2003-2011 out there too.

Expand full comment
Apr 5·edited Apr 5

That was a legit insane comment. I backed up the episode to make sure I didn't mishear him.

Expand full comment
founding

I remember thinking soon after the October attacks that the most likely motive for Hamas was to provoke Israel into a counter-attack that would be vicious enough that the international reaction would be horror.

I think that's why Hamas hides in hospitals, schools, and old folks' homes.

They want to force Israel to fight in a manner that makes them look monstrous to other nations.

Expand full comment

It’s also so blatantly obvious that this is Hamas’ strategy that those who fall for it are either really dumb or simply looking for an excuse to hate Israel/the Jews.

Expand full comment
Apr 5·edited Apr 5

I keep on bringing it up, but it remains relevant. To paraphrase the late, great Norm Macdonald (best known for the sitcom A Minute with Stan Hooper) The worst thing about the death of Jews at the hands of Hamas is that it could lead to the death of Gazans.

Expand full comment

1500 likes from me just for bringing up Norm. Another 1500 for Stan Hooper

Expand full comment

Which reminds me of the time I met a fellow by the name of Jacques De Gauthier...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3LMSflEN54

Expand full comment

And his old pal, Jacques De Gatineau.

Expand full comment

To say nothing of the advances in modern medicine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF7kHrNNKVk

Expand full comment

Is it just me or is the audio a bit strange on this recording. Andrew sounds like his voice reduction is cutting off his voice in parts.

Expand full comment

I came here to see if anyone else was observing this. Maybe it's my podcast app or my bad streaming at work, but I feel like I'm missing most of whatever Andrew is saying.

Expand full comment

Almost unlistenable. Not picking nits. I'm not sure what he said.

Expand full comment

Not just you.

Expand full comment

Agreed. A professional podcast shouldn't have issues like this. I don't expect perfection, but Sullivan's comments cut in and out a great deal. It didn't seem like The Boys were aware of this, so perhaps only on the recording, but issues like this should be known and mitigated before recording. They should definitely be known before releasing the audio and either a warning, or some corrective action should be part of the episode pre-roll.

In case this sounds too harsh, I would much prefer having the episode in this imperfect format versus not having it at all, but I worried the problem was with my podcast player, so took the time to download it on another one, and once I confirmed it was on two players, muddled along with the missing audio.

I mean, c'mon - how great would the episode have been had Moynihan done his best Sullivan impression (or Melania, for that matter...or...Finklestein!!) and filled in the missing dialog? A lot of work, perhaps, but how many Never Fly Coach memberships would have been earned? :-)

Expand full comment

In the year of our Lord 2024, no one, not even technically neophytes, should have as many problems with producing a podcast as TFC does. And Kmele is some kind of tech bro? GTFOH...

Expand full comment
founding

It was sounding a bit RFK.

Expand full comment

He sounded stoned.

Expand full comment

Noticed the same, but for me the most distracting audio issue seemed to be the voices being out of sync. That would seem to explain the awkward pauses and talking over each other. I remember hearing the same issue when Katherine Mangu-Ward was on… I wonder if it’s an issue with the recording software?

Expand full comment

He was alternating between talking and eating pussy. Or maybe I misunderstood that part.

Expand full comment

From the beginning of the recording, it seemed like there were frequent, short cutouts that made Andrew hard to understand. Toward the end, there were longer cutouts and several times I had no idea what he said, but the other guys seemed to be able to hear him.

Expand full comment
founding

The noise gate on his microphone sounds like it was too aggressive

Expand full comment

Not just you. I caught that too. Weird.

Expand full comment

Sully missed the point of why JKR deliberately drew complaints about her comments on April 1: her purpose was to protect everyone in Scotland from abuse of the silly law by calling the government’s bluff and forcing them to back down. If they decline to prosecute her, they cannot easily go after anyone else for stating similar opinions.

"I hope every woman in Scotland who wishes to speak up for the reality and importance of biological sex will be reassured by this announcement, and I trust that all women - irrespective of profile or financial means - will be treated equally under the law.

"If they go after any woman for simply calling a man a man, I'll repeat that woman's words and they can charge us both at once."

Expand full comment

Couldn't finish the episode. You should get John Spencer on to correct a lot of the crap in here. Or anyone at Commentary. Andrew just believes all of the Hamas propaganda apparently? Assuming that Israel is doing nothing to avoid civilian casualties? Also going with the just asking questions frame of accusing Israel of deliberate war crimes? Fuck that. Also, why the fuck would Israel immediately apologize for hitting the aid workers if they are deliberately targeting aid workers? Why would they be sending hundreds of trucks of aid in if they were trying to stop aid and cause a famine. Jesus Christ.

Expand full comment
Apr 5·edited Apr 7

On the famine thing, the widely circulated report from the UN was produced by a Lebanese born professor at a College in Oregon who has a history of anti Israel bias on Twitter and in his scholarship (not that there is anything wrong with that). It is hardly disinterested reporting.

Expand full comment

I have no doubt that food is hard to come by and that people are hungry and desperate for food, but when there’s famine we see images of children with ribs sticking out and distended bellies.

If that was happening in Gaza it would take about 2 minutes for those images to be everywhere, and yet, I haven’t seen any

Expand full comment

I saw this quote that really hit home after listening to the podcast yesterday- from Dan Crenshaw, a retired Navy seal and U.S. Congressman (the one with the eye patch): "In the real world, the enemy is evil, and won’t ever stop trying to kill you. I’m glad so many people in modern times are ignorant of that fact. It means your life is easy. It means others have done the fighting for you so that you can stand atop their sacrifices and signal your perfect moral character with meaningless calls for “peace.” What a privilege that must be.

It’s the same attitude that caused the abysmal withdrawal from Afghanistan. The same stupid and naive thinking. You don’t get peace by surrendering. You just end up strengthening your enemy and at best delay a much bigger fight. The Israelis know this because it’s right in front of them, all the time."

Expand full comment

Tucker Carlson shits on Dan C constantly and gosh darn it if that doesn’t make me love Dan even though he should be a mortal enemy

Expand full comment

I think of Dan Crenshaw as one of the sane and somewhat principled republicans and usually can articulate his position well (even if I disagree), and he’s got more honor in his pinky than Tucker Carlson.

Expand full comment

How does one adhere to “rules of war” in a strife like this? These are not armies meeting on a field.

Expand full comment

Andrew doesn't know what the rules of war are. For that you go to John Spencer or David French.

Expand full comment

Rules of war still apply. They're not meant to only protect civilians in certain circumstances; the principles are more broadly applicable

Expand full comment

Soooooo Andrew was drunk, high, or both, right?

Expand full comment

I felt so much second-hand embarrassment, I almost had to quit around the 30-minutes mark. Wtf happened to him?

Edit: the second half was better, but still: Drugs apparently only work as performance enhancers for three of the four esteemed gentlemen.

Expand full comment

I just think he was inebriated in some form. Audio issues didn’t help. Listened to recent stuff on Dishcast and he sounds perfectly fine. Unlike Moynihan who somehow gets more lucid and talks faster when he’s in his cups.

Expand full comment

He never was that interesting or smart in the first place has been my theory for the last 5 years.

Expand full comment

Or he was, but has hit 60 and his intellectual prowess is in decline (combined with an overconfidence that prevents him from sticking to what he knows well and to STFU about things he doesn't). Most people start to lose cognitive capacity long before it becomes a noticeable or functional issue.

Expand full comment
founding

He had a quote mid way through that said "I got high for this and we got straight into war crimes?" which, to be fair, is a pretty great quote.

Expand full comment

57:09

Expand full comment

Yeah the lads mentioned up top that he was doing the marijuanas.

Expand full comment

Oh I missed that.

Expand full comment

Hey you try and keep up with Moynihan 🍹

Expand full comment

He said, during the episode and pretty early, that “I got high for this and now we are talking about atrocities”.

Expand full comment

I didn't realise Sullivan was such a Red China simp.

Expand full comment

I’m surprised he thinks the sanctions against Russia aren’t working at all. Maybe they’re not working as good as we had hoped but it’s one of those things (I suspect) is working better than we are seeing on the surface. I mean, look at the tank situation, they’re bringing out old mothballed tanks from the 1950s, as well as cobbling tanks together with various parts. Getting nonfunctional weapons from North Korea, recruiting nepalis for soldiers, the gradual devaluation of the ruble against the dollar, high inflation, etc. Sanctions are definitely having an effect.

Expand full comment

These kinds of thoughts go through my head too when there's talk of "if we don't defeat Russia, we'll meet them soon out on the battlefield of Europe." Will we? They're having a hell of a time getting people to fight in what is practically a border skirmish. Even if they "win" in Ukraine, they're going to be mired in a guerilla war there for at least a generation. The invasion has done immense damage to Russia's reputation in all kinds of respects.

Expand full comment

Disappointed in Andrew, who latest column also claims Israel bombs first ask questions later. This is a war. Mistakes, including friendly fire happen. It’s astounding to me that Biden condemns Israel, calls for a ceasefire but doesn’t bother to call for the release of hostages including American hostages, or mention that Hamas hasn’t accepted a deal for a ceasefire and certainly hasn’t surrendered to save civilians. And why should they. Only winning the PR war seems to matter.

Expand full comment

Should've left this one in the can and get Andrew back in when he's sober.

Expand full comment

Much of the hysteria about Donald Trump, for whom I’ve never voted and never would, has been the result of dishonest reporting, distortions and outright lies. I do not believe he is a “threat to democracy.” I do believe his conduct following the 2020 election makes him unfit for office.

But Joe Biden, for whom I’ve never voted and never would, has made no attempt to reach beyond his base, no effort toward building a coalition. A rusty weathervane that points in any direction the politically beneficial winds are blowing, Biden has moved as far to the left as he can without toppling over (again). He’s all-in on race essentialism and the trans movement, regardless of its excesses.

Whereas Trump says outrageous things that people interpret as sowing division, Biden willfully engages in demagoguery and always has. We’re no more unified as a country after three years of a Biden administration than we were after four years of a Trump presidency. Andrew can’t possibly think otherwise.

Expand full comment

Trump was always unfit for office. He was a troll vote that republicans have to keep convincing themselves totally wasn’t them trolling democrats. Even though it blatantly was.

Expand full comment

Who? Good ol Uncle Joe? That sweet, slightly goofy fella? Harmless! :D

Expand full comment

I appreciate hearing guests I disagree with—it helps me confront my beliefs and clarify them. The audio was weird at times but it was listenable to me.

Expand full comment