First of all why did you decide to write the book quick. This is my eighth book and in 2000 and wrote a book called the china threat that was called the china threat theory it was amazing that it predicted the emergence of a major threat posed by communist china ever since i wrote the book i tried to do another china book in every publisher that i approached we wont write another single topic. Why was that quick. I dont know with their concerns if it was cell then i dug in my heels to say its time to do it. Another threat from china as it is becoming greater back when the china threat was published. Your book is very timely. Let me ask you about the title. Deceiving the sky. Talk about the second half is very clear and understandable but where does deceiving the sky quick. They are steeped in ancient strategy and many people know of the famous strategist who comes from the warring states air. Theres also a book called the 36 strategies whose author is not quite clear but a compendium o
Rapid pullout. The pakistanis came into view that america was not in the region for a long time. They continued backing thinking that india would fill up the void. You know i do think it lookslooked like we were not even going to have troops in afghanistan. We backed up a bit on that because we saw how bad it was. I think certainly if we continue to deescalate afghanistan is going to fall apart and also going to have tremendously damaging ramifications in pakistan where we have great interest now, critics would say it was a hopeless case and the start. We put in the wrong person president karzai who was hopelessly corrupt. The ama, Afghan National army was corrupt and incompetent like his iraqi counterpart. What were looking at them allmore we are really seeing is societies and countries which are in a state of extended collapse and failure and there is nothing the United States could have done to pass the situation out. Trying to establish democracy in afghanistan and iraq was a fools
And we remember the russians had this basketball sized entity, this button neck. Wonder putting something in space is surpassed by this. And we leave with an appreciation with an understanding of the difficulty of sustainable credibility and the fragility of stability. And it was not a happy place to be at that point. It was very big just before the election and completely disappeared after the election as well and it was a meth, in fact. So in the 1960s, and what you should be thinking about here or holding onto here is the importance of the revelers to the situation that we have in northeast asia, south korea, japan, and the middle east with israel and around and perhaps others. So in the 1960s, which might be called these years, we are dealing with the credibility and the concept of stability and vulnerability. This includes flexible response which is used in two ways are least. One is in conventional forces that we have a more flexible response and its also used to cover the topics
But the speaker greater pride up that some republicans were talking about but the republicans that act is there peis structure but not if they lower their space what they are paid . Guest the deficits but to spend more than you take in that is the spending sensibilities for the congress. Host for maryland goahead quickly. Good morning. They you but help will support it has been opposed by several members of congress. That was practical the to that perriers him as a state a subsidy but chinas benz for a bid dallas fed is the great benefit to and though but to get into the water supply is very large harmful. But it is cheaper than gas and brings down the price. I support it. Host so as we talk on capitol hill the congressmen are getting their orientation today. Guest one ofs and learn are the ethics the traps that surrounds you all the time. If yous normal behavior are a businessman or something as aet you in trouble member of congress. Oft is the first thing most these guys come out of
With this. We could claim they were a deterrent against the soviet union, but remember what i said about knowing whether a deterrent is working or not. It was a proposition that it was working. But we werent sure. There was also the realization as we understood sort of the texture of deterrence that our claims for extended deterrence, that we could actually extend the Nuclear Umbrella to nato, to the european states, to northeast asia, to japan and south korea. And, by the way, the philippines and australia eventually. That was the proposition. But that other word comes in here, whats the credibility of deterrent . Would we, as our allies said not literally but figuratively would we trade pittsburgh for paris . Thats just the alliteration, thats all im going for with that. We had somebody write about Tactical Nuclear weapons as a bridge, that would be henry kissinger, Nuclear Weapons in Foreign Policy, in order to reassure the allies that were worried that we would not engage in Strate