← Rational Security
Rational Security
The “Inadequate Chicken Moved to Inferior Location” Special End-of-Year Edition
01:04:05
Loading summary
Transcript127 lines
- [00:00]
Podcast Advertiser
When you think of skyrocketing brands like Aloe Allbirds or Skims, it's easy to credit their success to great products, sleek branding and brilliant marketing. But here's the overlooked secret. The real magic lies in the engine behind the scenes, the business powering their business. For millions of brands, that engine is Shopify, making selling seamless for them and shopping effortless for us. Upgrade your business and get the same checkout Alo Yoga uses. Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.comretail all lowercase go to shopify.comretail to upgrade your selling today. Shopify.comretail.
- [00:45]
Scott Anderson
Anna, I think you feel like you're the only one who brought the Christmas spirit to this end of your holidays episode. With your beautiful tree behind you, just, just gorgeous. Where are you?
- [00:53]
Benjamin Wittes
Thanks.
- [00:54]
Anna Bauer
I'm in Georgia at my family's house and we, yeah, we're, we've got the tree up and we're ready for Christmas or kind of. I did some really last minute shopping yesterday and I, my nephew has Covid and strep. So that whole side of the family is kind of like quarantined. But otherwise we are ready for the holidays. And there is a huge like internal kind of scandal that's going on in the Gainesville chicken capital of the world. Well, I feel is worth telling, although I think I've already on rational security told about how my hometown is the chicken capital of the world. And every year we have the great chicken lighting where this chicken that is made out of chicken wire that sits on top of the town square is, you know, lit up in festive lights and everyone goes out and has a countdown for the great chicken being lit. It's like a huge, you know, festive experience in the town. And everyone.
- [02:01]
Scott Anderson
This has a little bit of a Wicker man vibe.
- [02:02]
Benjamin Wittes
Is anybody stuck inside this video of this? It's a thing of beauty.
- [02:07]
Anna Bauer
It is a real thing of beauty. It's incredible. We have so much fun with it and it's a real point of pride in the town. But we have like a real life holiday movie in the making this year because someone new bought the building where this chicken sits on the roof. Rumor has it around town that he's kind of a grinch about the chicken and decided that he didn't want the chicken on the roof. So he took it down without like telling anyone.
- [02:41]
Scott Anderson
They flew the coop. That's a disaster.
- [02:43]
Anna Bauer
Chicken was all of a sudden gone and so the town council had to, you know, speed order a new chicken for this festive experience that we have in the town square every year. And people hate the new chicken because it looks very corporate. It's like, it's not ugly and dorky and kind of charming like the other chicken that we all loved. And they moved it to a different building.
- [03:12]
Tyler McBrien
Like, every chicken day has gone corporate. Is nothing sacred?
- [03:16]
Benjamin Wittes
Right.
- [03:16]
Anna Bauer
I know. It's like, who? And we're probably going to find out that the chicken was sponsored by private equity or something like it's.
- [03:24]
Scott Anderson
It is wearing a BlackRock T shirt. That's weird.
- [03:27]
Benjamin Wittes
Yeah, but where is it? Is it on that same building or is it somewhere else?
- [03:32]
Anna Bauer
No, they put it on a different building that is in not a great location. It's not even on the square anymore. It's like, in this, like, little side area on the city council city hall building.
- [03:43]
Benjamin Wittes
Inadequate chicken move to inferior location.
- [03:54]
Scott Anderson
Hello, everyone, and welcome back to Rational Security for the final time in the year 2025. That's right. This is our traditional end of year episode where we take the topics that you've submitted to us to talk about the object lessons you've asked for us to share.
- [04:09]
Benjamin Wittes
Share.
- [04:09]
Scott Anderson
And we do our best to tackle them and share them on this episode, whether we know anything about them or not. Because, yes, this is the podcast where members of the Law Fair team try and make sense of the year's headlines, or in this case, whatever you guys want us to try and make sense of. And for this annual exercise, I am thrilled to be joined once again by my very, very seasonally appropriate, celebratory colleagues, Tyler McBrien, managing editor of Lawfare. Tyler, thank you for coming back on the podcast.
- [04:34]
Tyler McBrien
Thank you for having me.
- [04:35]
Scott Anderson
I don't see any. I don't see any Christmas cheer on your shelf behind you. You need, like, one little reindeer or, you know, one little menorah or Christmas tree or something. But you're so. Just perfectly manicured as always. But I don't see any seasonal accoutrement just off screen.
- [04:51]
Tyler McBrien
It's just. It looks like Santa's workshop. Trust me.
- [04:53]
Scott Anderson
It's just all Christmas lights. Christmas lights. There are elves hard at work all around you in a way that can't be legal in the city of New York. Fair enough. Fair enough. Also joining us as well is lawfare senior editor Anna Bauer. Anna, thank you for coming back on the podcast.
- [05:06]
Anna Bauer
Thanks for having me. I'm happy to be here.
- [05:09]
Scott Anderson
You are much more seasonally accoutred. Thank you very much for giving up to it. I am, of course, in my office where there is nothing of any particular seasonal nature whatsoever, as I've been booted out of my house unceremoniously. But that's okay. I brought the cheer in my heart, if nothing else, as did, I'm sure, Lawfare Editor in Chief and co host emeritus Benjamin Wittes, who is in the most seasonal locale at all. Tell us where you are, Ben.
- [05:31]
Benjamin Wittes
I am in Miami beach, where I have been booted out of my hotel room and where they are playing loud music in the lobby. So I am sitting out on a pool deck in the wind and therefore apologize for any problems with audio that might create.
- [05:48]
Scott Anderson
Ben is living the dream of the Corona commercial, which is with the Christmas I always wanted to have, where you're just slowly listening to slow Jingle Bells. All of a sudden the palm tree lights up with some Christmas lights. That's great. That's exactly what I'm looking for.
- [05:59]
Benjamin Wittes
Every Jewish boy's dream.
- [06:01]
Scott Anderson
There you go. There you go. Well, I am thrilled to have you guys with us as we talk through a couple of topics We've gotten submitted from our listener a lot to get through this episode, so let's get right into it. Our first question today, which Ben I'm going to direct to you to take our initial crack at it, is from Sean. Sean, I hope I am pronouncing your name correctly. I think I am. Who asked, essentially writing from Europe, asks what sphere of influence is Western Europe in today, noting that it seems like we've got China and Russia and the United States potentially dividing a sphere of influence. He says he doesn't necessarily buy into that perspective, but it seems one way to view things. I think I put that forward, that perspective in regard to the national security strategy. On the podcast recently, I was wondering, how does Europe fit into one of these spheres of influence, if it should? And how should we be thinking of Europe if we are accepting, or at least taking as a hypothetical worldview this sort of spheres of influence perspective the Trump administration may be bringing to bear? Ben, what do you think?
- [06:55]
Benjamin Wittes
Yeah, so I would start by saying sort of traditionally, Western Europe is solidly within an American sphere of influence. As much as I don't love that terminology, the Trump administration is doing everything in its power to push it out. And this is not usually the way countries behave. But the United States right now is extremely hostile to Western Europe, to Western European security interests, and frankly, to their own vision of their own statehood. So we are menacing Denmark with the annexation of their overseas territory, Greenland. We are actively intervening in countries to make them more tolerant of Neo Nazi parties. We are, of course, being very non committal with respect to what the scope of our security obligations are with respect to any of these countries. And then we've declared war on them from a trade perspective. And so all of this has the effect of communicating to Western Europe that we are a highly unreliable guarantor of their security. And that gives them really three options. And all of these options are very much in play in Western Europe. One of them is to close your eyes, pretend it isn't happening, and do the, you know, see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil monkey thing and pretend that nothing has changed in the transatlantic relationship. And there are definitely Europeans who are playing that version. The second is triangulate, that is try to have a different relationship with either Russia or China or both. This is particularly germane in far right circles in Europe, but it has particularly the China option on the trade front has a much broader resonance than that. And the third, and I think the conceptually dominant one, but the hardest one to execute is to try to establish Europe as a really independent policy engine. And that's easiest in the regulatory space and hardest in the defense space, where their reliance on the United States is really extreme. So those are the options. I would say right now Europe is very much Western Europe is very much still in the United States sphere of influence, so to speak, but very uncomfortably so. And the future of that relationship is very much in doubt.
- [09:54]
Scott Anderson
Yeah, I don't disagree with that, but I would put a slightly different frame on this, which maybe I think gets at some of your reservations about this kind of framing, Sean, that the Trump administration seems to be leaning into a little bit, which is that it really just understates European agency and the European relative parity of power. Europeans are powerful. They're a massive economy like the world's together, the world's second biggest economy, I think, certainly high up there. They're a huge force multiplier for the United States. They're very beneficial to us when we use sanctions, when we use trade measures, when we're trying to wield economic power and other types of power. They're incredibly valuable to us. We saw that in the aftermath of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. There is a lot of it more of a two way relationship here than the sphere of influence perspective likes to take. And if you all sudden say, well, this is our sphere of influence, Russia and China, they're the only other major powers out there. And Russia, by the way, Russia, European parody, I think is more true than people acknowledge. It's been shown to be reveal that Russia is not quite as big a power as people thought it was five years ago. But the key problem is, if you really embrace this view of spheres of influence and you start asserting your spheres of influence, you lose your allies, which is actually what they are, because they have a lot more autonomy to break out of this three way thing. They're not stuck in our sphere of orbit, as Ben's articulated. And when you stop being sensitive to that, you're going to lose them, and then you lose influence. And all of a sudden, your quote unquote sphere of influence isn't quite the sphere you think it is. There's no guarantee of it. And there's other ways Europe can go about its security, a lot of which the Trump administration is pushing them towards with more autonomy. If the Trump administration gets what it wants, 10 years from now, they're going to be much less in our sphere of influence, not more. And so how is that compatible with this effort to dictate their cultural values and influence our domestic politics? The answer is it's not. It's one of the big incoherencies in the national security strategy the Trump administration recently released, among other parts of its policy. Tyler, Anna, anything from you guys you want to add to this?
- [11:42]
Tyler McBrien
Yeah, I was thinking I was just going to do the annoying thing of taking issue with the premise of the question, which spheres of influence need, at the very least, regional hegemons. And I think we're in at least this. We're far past the unipolar moment. I think we're in this multipolar moment where it's not so clean to say, you can't just cut up the map and say, I think that Europe has reason to play ball with China and us at different times. And so I think spheres of influence are much more fluid in this moment than, let's say, the height of the Cold War.
- [12:14]
Scott Anderson
Yeah, fair enough. All right, Ben, why don't you take on our next question and present that to us? It's coming in from Chris, it looks like.
- [12:21]
Benjamin Wittes
All right, let's direct this to Tyler first. Tyler, what should we make of President Trump's lawsuit against the BBC?
- [12:29]
Tyler McBrien
I think we should make of it that it's just part of a greater trend and campaign on the Trump administration's part against the media. And just because the BBC is a foreign outlet doesn't mean it's necessarily immune from these lawsuits, which I think we're seeing. Just to remind everyone, this suit was about a speech that Trump gave on January 6, the BBC ran a segment on its show, I think, called Panorama, in which it took two parts of speech that were an hour apart from each other and sort of spliced them together, for which the BBC has already apologized publicly. But Trump went further to sue them, I believe $5 billion with a B for defamation and another 5 for unfair trade practices. The kicker here is that this never actually aired in the United States and therefore in Florida, where the suit was filed. There's no evidence that anyone in Florida actually even saw it, I think. But the actual merit of the case is, I think, immaterial here. If you look at, for example, the case against the Times, which a Florida court also just threw out as completely frivolous and undue burden, that kind of thing. But I think there's a good chance that the BBC settles here. This also comes at a time when the BBC is up for its, once a decade, I think, charter review, where a lot of questions are being asked about its funding and about its relationship with the government. And it may just calculate that it's easier to settle than continue on this knockdown, drag out fight with the President of the United States at such a high pressure time. So I think if you're Trump, it makes sense to just keep filing these lawsuits because either you win by settling, you get money and you get a victory over the corrupt media, you fight it out in court and you. So I don't know, I think there's like, there's not much downside right now for Trump to just keep filing these suits, even if it's against a broadcaster that's not even hearing about a show that wasn't even broadcast here.
- [14:35]
Scott Anderson
I don't disagree with that, Tyler. The one thing I'll say is I'm less confident they're going to settle because I think they may have grounds for a motion to dismiss for a lot of the jurisdictional reasons you just noted. But I think you're right. The answer is when you write a lawsuit like this, especially when you are making a claim of damages that is beyond the point of credible, like not even trying to be credible, you essentially just chose a big sounding number, as big a sounding number as one can imagine, it's much more about optics. And we have to remember that BBC leadership's also been under a lot of pressure because of coverage of the Gaza conflict from various corners in the uk it's got kind of a rising competition from Nigel Farage's network, which I can't remember, which is kind of the One America News Network of The UK which has been growing and building an audience. There's a lot of reasons why the BBC is a little bit of a weak moment. And this is, I think, an effort to pile on and wield influence in terms of trying to hammer them in a direction that they see as more politically amenable to them. I don't know if it'll work or not. That's a lot more about domestic, internal UK politics than I know. But I don't think the lawsuit seriously on a legal matter, but it matters, I think, in the broader political context in which the BBC operates.
- [15:35]
Anna Bauer
Can I ask who is representing Trump in this lawsuit? Do we know?
- [15:40]
Scott Anderson
Not off the top of my head, but I want to know.
- [15:44]
Tyler McBrien
And while you search that, I assume there's a reason why these keep getting filed in Florida having to do with a lack of anti slap statutes or presumably yes. Which is especially, it's especially funny also to file it in Florida. Much harder to claim that you were at your campaign, was hurt by, by this TV show in a state like Florida where. Which you overwhelmingly won.
- [16:09]
Scott Anderson
Yeah, yeah, exactly. Again, there's a lot of different ways to go about the lawsuit if your goal is to win the lawsuit.
- [16:14]
Tyler McBrien
Okay, the next question is submitted by, asks, after nearly a year of the Trump administration, how do you view the record of Attorney General Merrick Garland?
- [16:27]
Anna Bauer
Yeah, Sam, thanks for the question. We often have in the past received questions about the record of Attorney General Merrick Garland. And I gotta be honest with you, I never have a good response to it. One reason is that I spend very little time thinking about the record of Attorney General Merrick Garland. I think for me, it was always going to come down to the question of what the Supreme Court would decide to do. Like that is the ultimate endpoint that any of these cases that were being built against Trump were going towards. And so it, it almost kind of didn't matter. I think how slow or how methodical or how fast or whatever Merrick Garland decided to go, because it always was going to come down to the timeline would be tight considering when the election would be and that the Supreme Court would have to weigh in on the immunity issue. And so for that reason, that's kind of why I just have not really spent a whole lot of time thinking about Merrick Garland's legacy. I will say that there's a lot of reasons why when you're building this massive case, you'd have to be slow, you'd have to be methodical. And I also think that people often forget that there were a lot of behind the scenes legal battles that were going on before things got handed over to Jack Smith that involved things, you know, battles over subpoenas for phone records, things that, you know, were playing out behind the scenes that a lot of the general public just kind of forgets about or wasn't aware about at the time that those things delayed, as I understand it, a number of the investigative steps that AG Garland was taking in this Trump case. That said, you know, I think that there's a lot of reporting that I still need to dive into over the holidays. Carol Linnig has a new book out that goes into a lot of these issues regarding the pace of Merrick Garland's investigation. I think that I need to read some of that reporting in more depth to really come to an informed and educated opinion about Merrick Garland's legacy. But, you know, those are my initial thoughts. I'll also mention that this question includes a number of follow ups about, you know, would it have made any difference were too Many low level January 6th participants caught up in prosecution such that it was easier for Trump to issue a pardon for all participants as opposed to a focus on the worst offenders? As to that part of the question, I think that this question of whether there are too many low level offenders who were charged related to Jan.6, I don't think that had anything to do with the motivation behind the pardons. I think that even if the some of those folks were not charged, like even accepting the premise of the question, right, that there were people who were charged who were low level offenders involved in Jan.6, I think that the pardons would have happened anyway. I think that Trump's motivations really were wholly kind of isolated and separate from this narrative that's been spun about, oh, all these people got caught up in the day and they shouldn't have been charged. What do you guys think? You have opinions on any of these subjects?
- [20:16]
Benjamin Wittes
I think that there are legitimate questions as to the pace of the investigation, but there is no reason to think, in my view, that this would have made any difference. You know, the public had all kinds of access to all kinds of information with respect to both cases by the time the case was thrown into the deep freeze by the Supreme Court and dismissed by Eileen Cannon. And I just think that there's not a lot of reason to believe that the Justice Department proceeding faster would have made a big difference here. That's my instinct.
- [21:06]
Anna Bauer
Okay. Our next question comes from Matthew and he asks the overwhelming bulk of the external analysis of the counter narcotic, supposedly counter terrorist boat strikes suggests they are extremely legally dubious, and yet they continue. What should we infer about the state of checks and balances both within and external to the US Military? And how much should this concern allies and partners? Scott, what do you make of that?
- [21:34]
Scott Anderson
Yeah, this is a question that really cuts right to the heart of questions about war powers that the United States has been wrestling with really, for most of the 20th century into the 21st century, which is essentially that while there are a number of legal checks in place on the executive branch, although frankly, fairly far out, the executive branch has a wide discretion to use military force in a lot of different contexts. Those legal peripheries, those legal limits are debated, and courts haven't ruled in on them, and courts generally haven't been willing to rule on them. And so because of that, it really comes down to, well, what are the countervailing factors that can persuade the executive branch to not push their potential legal arguments to the hilt, to not go absolutely as far as they can go from a legal, institutional perspective, that's pretty underwhelming, to say the very least. There's just not that easy a way in our system for people to bring a lawsuit to say, Mr. President, you're doing something illegal in regards to use of force, even where it's killing people. We've seen some avenues open up where people are detained, but then the executive branch stops detaining people. Right? That's why the Trump administration repatriated the two survivors of that submarine attack that happened in October instead of detaining them for any meaningful amount of time, because they knew it probably would give rise to litigation that's actually been reported on at this point, that that was a big part of their motivation, as we suspect at the time. In theory, you might have service members be able to pursue a lawsuit, but there's a lot of ways to moot that out. We saw litigation over Syria last years and years. Courts weren't willing to take it up. Eventually it got mooted out when the soldier who was the plaintiff in that lawsuit, his term of service ended, if I recall correctly, or at least that assignment ended. And of course, that comes with career repercussions potentially for that soldier. It comes at a personal cost. That's hard. And when you're talking about small elite units like special forces groups that are executing a lot of the boat strikes, at least it's a small community of people, it's not guarantee you're going to get a plaintiff there. Although, frankly, if it expands to a conquering Venezuela A lot higher probability, you'll actually get somebody willing to pursue that lawsuit and put their military career potentially on the line. So there's not any of these great avenues. What I will say, though, is that a. I don't think it's zero risk. And particularly when the Trump administration does things, as I've argued in Lawfare, which it's pushing the limits of statutory limits, Congress has put in place, specifically murder statutes. I think that means that if this were to find its way before a court, the Trump administration should be actually nervous how that court is going to approach this, because that's the exact scenario where they've said, well, the president's authority, when it's acting contradictory to Congress. Actually, that's a real question where we're supposed to give it extreme scrutiny. Even this Supreme Court has said that. So the real question is, well, is there an avenue by which somebody will eventually get to sue this? And for small military campaigns, those are extremely limited, but the campaigns get bigger and bigger. That becomes more real. And I think eventually, if you see a large military campaign premised on the same theory against Venezuela, maybe you will get there and you will get some plaintiffs are able to bring something that looks like a credible lawsuit. I don't know what exactly the avenue is going to be, but I don't think you can rule it out. I don't think the Trump administration can either. And then, perhaps more importantly, you have real political pressure on the other side. Like, we have seen Congress very actively raise a lot of questions and up the political heat on the Trump administration. And frankly, I think that is a big reason why they haven't been more aggressive in going after Venezuela. When you see Susie Wiles say in an interview, oh, yeah, we can't go into Venezuela without Congress because that would be a war, I don't think that's as much a legal assessment of the president's legal authority, because the executive branch has waffled on that a little bit a few times to say whether that is required, not as a legal matter. I think she's reflecting more a political reality, which is that, look, we're not going to take on the risk of doing something that dramatic all on ourselves without support from Congress and buy in from at least the other branch of government and other political actors, if not members of the other party, or at least they understand that's a risky proposition and something that they're not excited about doing off the bat. And in that sense, I think those political checks are still there, but the checks are most effective on Larger enduring ground campaigns. I mean, that's what the War Powers Resolution was focused on. Although arguably, I think it applies more broadly than that. And that's just not the type of wars we have anymore. So when you're talking about these smaller conflicts and that use things like air power, the restraints are much more limited. I still think they're there, but it's not about legal checks as much as broader political checks.
- [25:33]
Benjamin Wittes
I think I would just answer that. That like, ever since the early 70s, people have been trying to think about how to get the courts involved in war powers. And the courts in one way or another have always said, count us out. And that check and balance I don't think is likely to materialize. And there are a lot of doctrines that the courts have access to to stay out of these things, and they will. The relevant check and balance here is Congress. Congress could stop this tomorrow if it cared enough about it to do it. The model legislation looks something like nice White House helicopter you got there. It'd be a shame if we cut off all the funds for it to take off or conditioned them on your stopping strikes in Venezuela. Congress has to want to do that. And so I agree with everything Scott said, but I think the important body here is Congress. As long as Congress doesn't care and Congress wants to shift all the responsibility to the executive branch, there will be no check. The moment Congress cares, they can stop it or change the terms of it.
- [26:52]
Scott Anderson
So I don't agree with that. I just want to put out there. I think the narrative that Congress can stop anytime they want actually really understates the actual really difficult institutional and political barriers for Congress doing stuff like that. You're right that they could. They could cut off funding to the military generally. Right. That has huge ramifications US national security in a lot of different dimensions. You could attach a specific rider to something, but unless you can get over 2/3 of both chambers, the President can veto it, or you can attach it to omnibus legislation, which is the best potential vehicle you get there. But that's a really, really tight barrier around which we only really have two pieces of ombuds legislation, every or appropriations bills, and the NDAA that do a ton that are really necessary. That comes with a lot of bargaining. So I don't disagree, I guess, fundamentally with the premise that like, yeah, Congress can weigh in on this, but I think insofar as we accept their institutional advantages for the executive branch being able to do this, it really understates that that's actually a much harder thing Institutionally, I think for Congress to actually pull off in these sorts of contexts, you know, that doesn't mean they shouldn't, they should debate.
- [27:52]
Benjamin Wittes
And yet the last time Congress really cared about, which was about detainee treatment issues, you know, they forced down the.
- [28:00]
Scott Anderson
You know, that's their problem.
- [28:02]
Benjamin Wittes
No detainee treatment act down the, down the Bush administration's throat. And you know, they radically changed the way the United States handles. They shut down the secret prisons program. I mean, you know, when Congress really chooses to care about something, its views actually matter. And it's not merely that they could cut off funds to the military, they could cut off funds to some presidential priority, completely unrelated, they could not confirm nominees. I mean, when, when Congress gets upset about something, it has a lot of leverage to work with.
- [28:39]
Scott Anderson
Yeah, I agree with that. I agree with that. I think the, the problem is you often need a super majority to actually rely on it. And so the threshold isn't just Congress, a simple majority that you might act to enact legislation. You got to have all these other institutional checks overcome and come through, including the veto, most prominently here. So, Ben, this leads to our next question, actually, which I'll direct to you because it's got a little bit of a historical perspective that you are most situated to do here. I can help a little bit.
- [29:03]
Benjamin Wittes
That's a nice way in saying I'm old.
- [29:06]
Scott Anderson
I'm also, I'm putting myself in the same bucket. Keenan asks, with the escalating rhetoric in the Caribbean, especially the recent use of terms like terrorism and wm, what lessons should we be keeping in mind from a lead up to the Iraq war? Ben, you're the only one, I think, who's a full fledged adult during the lead up to the Iraq war. I was a high school senior freshman. Tyler and Anna, you may have been loosely aware of it, but I suspect you were quite young at that point. So, Ben, why don't you kick us off? What is similar to you, what lessons to take away from that era? How might this be different enough that lessons don't apply?
- [29:35]
Benjamin Wittes
Well, so I think that there's, I mean, let's start with an important difference, which is, I know this is an unpopular thing to say, but the Bush administration with respect to Iraq was actually operating in good faith. That is, they genuinely believed there was an important security threat from Iraq. They genuinely believed that there were WMD in Iraq. They genuinely believed that there was some axis of evil between Iraq and important terrorist groups. They were wrong about a bunch of things, but they did really believe It. And here I think there is not actually a lot of evidence that anybody in government that I can identify actually believes that the Maduro regime is. The cartels is a bunch of narco terrorists waging war on the United States through fentanyl and illegal immigration. I mean, even to say that is to laugh at it a little bit. And so I think I want to start with the fact that I don't, like. I do think the differences are more important than the similarities. Look, that said, there are some similarities, and the similarities is the most important one, and I take this very personally, is that people like me who argued against the slippery slope arguments that the civil libertarians of the world were saying, if you allow this, the next it'll be domestic stuff about drugs. And my view was they're crazy. And it turns out they weren't crazy. They were right. And so I take much more seriously than I did 10 years ago or 15 years ago the degree to which the same arguments that can be used in good faith by one administration that can turn out to be wrong, can then be used by a subsequent administration in bad faith to justify things that are completely impossible to reconcile with the good faith of the original argument. And so, look, I. I don't know how I would evaluate some of those arguments now if made behind the veil of ignorance, but I do think that they should all be mindful of the way they were hijacked by this administration.
- [32:24]
Scott Anderson
Yeah, I think that's a good observation thing to bear in mind. The only other thing I would note about this, from what I can remember of this era, being relatively young but politically engaged enough that I was aware of it, is that there was just everyone was persuaded that the war in Iraq would work. Not everyone literally, but huge swaths of people across the political spectrum. Every op ed page, every major periodical, people were talking about the need for war and the transformative ability of American military intervention and the potential of knocking down tyrannies and setting up democracies in corners of the world. It was a fever everybody had, was delusional and come from a real moment of American hegemony, American superiority that assumed a lot more about the effectiveness of the use of military force and what that can accomplish in American power that had never been proven. It was a moment of immense, immense American hubris. That's something that is not with us anymore for the better. I think, net sometimes that has negative consequences. I think sometimes we're in a moment now where skepticism of the use of military force or skepticism of the ability to accomplish Anything will lead to things like maybe a willingness to cut losses in Afghanistan in a way that maybe was not the best way to go about withdrawal and exit, or it can lead to other sort of negative consequences, like people being so hesitant to get involved in military campaign. They're not going to detain people. They're going to either repatriate them like in Venezuela, or hand lots of detainees over to be managed by local Syrian forces in really challenging ways in Syria. Right. There's negative externality of it, but net, it's a lot better that the American public is much more skeptical about what American military power can accomplish than it was at that point. We haven't gone back to that hubristic moment. And I think that that's actually a positive development net. And I think we're seeing it in Venezuela now. The fact that you do not have much buy in from a lot of corners into this military campaign the Trump administration, or at least some people in it want to pursue, I think is really telling because it's just a very, very different attitude than I remember looking back at that historical moment you can see in the historical record around 2002, 2003. Tyler, Anna, do you guys remember this at all? Do you have thoughts at all?
- [34:31]
Tyler McBrien
Yeah, Well, I guess I'll just say I don't know if this is so much a lesson as another difference that gives me a bit of hope. From what I understand, during the beginning of the Iraq War, it was easy to wage a war on a population when there. I think it was easier to vilify people in the Middle east after the US had been attacked on its homeland. And I think Islamophobia is more prevalent than prejudices perhaps against people in Latin America. So I think people also right now in the US don't seem to be buying that Venezuela and its government are chock full of narco terrorists. They're all drug dealers. I don't think people are buying that. They know that. I mean, some of these people who have been killed are just fishermen. And so I'm hopeful in that it doesn't seem like there's this same prejudice against Venezuelans or it just doesn't seem like it's a much harder sell if we were to invade or go to war against these people.
- [35:32]
Podcast Advertiser
When you think of skyrocketing brands like Aloe Allbirds or Skims, you it's easy to credit their success to great products, sleek branding and brilliant marketing. But here's the overlooked secret. The real magic lies in the engine behind the scenes. The business powering their business for millions of brands. That engine is Shopify, making selling seamless for them and shopping effortless for us. Upgrade your business and get the same checkout Alo Yoga uses. Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.comretail all lowercase go to shopify.comretail to upgrade your selling today. Shopify.comretail.
- [36:17]
Scott Anderson
So that brings me another question. This is from Justin. I'll direct it to you. Tyler. Justin asked. He has a long preface, long question, a lot of context. So Justin, Sorry, I'm not going to read it all out here for time reasons, but essentially he's asked what can be done to reverse Americans tolerance for the slide towards a liberal democracy. We're in this moment where a lot of things that seemed pretty shocking from an institutional basis would have seemed shocking certainly in 2016 and earlier, maybe as recently as 2024, don't shock us to the same degree and don't have the political repercussions a lot of people always assume they would. How big a problem is that and what can you do to put the brakes on that? Big question.
- [36:56]
Tyler McBrien
Yeah, thanks for the easy one. Yeah, I guess I'm I am worried about a tolerance toward this slide, but I'm even more worried about what seems to be an embrace, a more enthusiastic embrace of a liberal democracy by the current administration and its supporters, and an outright disdain for the constitutional democracy that we have enjoyed for so long. What worries me is holding up models of a liberal democracy abroad as allies or as something to aspire to. I'm thinking, of course, of Orban or Israel's current government, but I think there's a few things to do here. And then I am really curious what other people think. One is to insist that things like the rule of law matter and to just not really like count them out before it's actually dead. So we were talking about these flimsy legal arguments that the administration was giving toward the boat strikes, for example. At least right now they feel compelled to make some legal argument. It's not like we are completely past any even fig leaf of the law. And then I think lastly, I'll just say there's so much literature out there of democratic reforms, of ways to shore up democratic institutions against a fascist threat or an authoritarian threat. So the last thing I'll say here is the the person who asked the question, Justin also included in some of the context this quote from from Timothy Snyder in which he defines fascism as I'll just read the first sentence. Fascism is the idea that it is not rationality, that's the basis on which we build politics. It is will and imagination. And so I think if people are enter the thrall of fascism based on these promises of will and imagination, I think the reaction to it and the political project to fight it should also have a sense of imagination to it. It can't just be a promise of return to normalcy. It can't just be we're gonna survive. It has to also offer something for people to not just survive, but thrive. And it also has to strengthen itself against future fascistic threats. I'll leave it there because I don't want to go into any specifics and I'm not sure what to say beyond that. But you know, certainly this past year, if you're not worried about it, then you should be.
- [39:19]
Benjamin Wittes
I have a couple things to add. Since the name Timothy Snyder has been invoked, I feel obliged to say don't abandon your country, particularly if you have tenure at Yale. That's thing number one. Thing number two, you know, the most important things that have happened last this past year in the protection of democracy space have not happened in any of the halls of universities or in courts or in intellectual discussions. They've happened when people put on inflatable frog costumes and when people. I'm not urging anybody to throw a sandwich, but when people took matters into their own hands in grand juries, when people turned out in 7 million people to protest under the no Kings banner. And you know, if you're not getting involved in things that are active, things that you can do that feel right, that is the missing piece right now. Everybody should be getting involved in things. And I don't want to. You know, I have my own prejudice in this regard. I see very few problems that can't be solved with a projector. But that's me. You know, you have your own ways into these conversations, whoever you are. And you know, people should be being very experimental. And again, I'm not urging anybody to throw sandwiches. I am saying that, you know, a certain amount of non cooperation, a certain amount of loud protesting is a good thing. And it has changed the course of the last three or four months in a very dramatic way, in my opinion.
- [41:27]
Scott Anderson
Yeah, I'll just add just one other thing, as I think the institutional optimist, maybe more on the podcast than a lot of people, certainly in my life than a lot of people. American democracy is designed to be a perfectly efficient system by any stretch of the imagination. It's got a lot of flexing, gave And a lot of bad directions. Some of that's by necessity, some of it's by design. But there are real mechanisms in place, political ones, democratic checks that still have a lot of force. We've seen the Trump administration be at its greatest powers for the last nine months. I think that's a line I've used, used over and over again on this podcast, another podcast, or 11 months, I should say. That's how presidencies work. The first few months when they're in office, the president feels like. And his followers feel like they own the world. And this president, particularly, not shy about claiming a mandate that he never, frankly, really had from the results of a crumbly, narrow election. That is where we're at. And they're beginning to face the reality that that's actually not the case, and that when you start acting like you have the mandate to do whatever you want in the world, real pushback does come. It takes time. It's painful. It's a difficult process. It's not easy to live through those interesting times. But threats are still there. And I think the only way to really stay engaged is to stay engaged and keep engaging democratically. Pursuing litigation, protesting politely disagreeing, writing articles for Lawfare and other places about why things are bad and why things aren't going the way they should be going. Because that's all you really can do, is stay an active part of the political process, and that guides the process that does have institutional outcomes. And then when you get those institutional outcomes and you get power, then you can start shoring up the institutions and make them stronger, make them better. That, if anything, was the big mistake that people made after 2020 is not doing enough to shore up those institutions and focus on other agenda items instead. More can definitely be done there, but there's still a democracy in process flourishing in the United States, and it's way too early to give up on American democracy as a whole. So hopefully, for our friends overseas, bear with us a little bit longer. But, you know, the pendulum, pendulum swing. And this one is swinging back.
- [43:22]
Benjamin Wittes
Yeah. Timothy Snyder.
- [43:25]
Scott Anderson
All right, Anna, we have one last question here. Why don't you bring us home with this one for Ben, a very personal and important question that we all have been wondering. Ben, from. From Angie.
- [43:33]
Anna Bauer
Okay, Ben, we all need to know from Angie. Thank you for asking this question, Angie, because I've been dying to know, too. Is the martial arts fight challenge that Ben issued to Putin still valid?
- [43:50]
Benjamin Wittes
Oh, what a good question. So there's a few aspects of the answer to this Question one is, if you watch Putin recently, I don't think he's up to fighting me anymore. He hasn't been making great videos of himself with a lot of martial arts prowess recently.
- [44:09]
Scott Anderson
There haven't been shirtless on livestock.
- [44:11]
Benjamin Wittes
We haven't seen any shirtless on livestockless livestock videos. There's been all kinds of rumors about his health, by the way. There are no rumors about my health. And so there will be now. You know, I think the first thing is he may have passed the point where it's a fair fight. And, you know, he's quite a bit older than I am. And so, number one, I'm not sure it would be sportsmanlike of me to fight him anymore. That said, I'm not a sportsmanlike guy. The offer still stands. Here are the rules. Number one, I will meet him anytime, any place. He can't have me arrested after he's taken an independent drug test. And that's it. So Estonia has offered to host the fight, and I'm still waiting.
- [45:13]
Anna Bauer
Wait, and it's gotta be hand to hand combat, right? Just the two of you?
- [45:17]
Scott Anderson
Ooh, katana swords.
- [45:19]
Benjamin Wittes
I mean, I would. If he wants to meet with staffs, I would fight him with staffs.
- [45:26]
Scott Anderson
You are gonna have to be dressed like Little John and Robin Hood. I think that's the rule.
- [45:30]
Benjamin Wittes
Hand to hand combat. But here's the important rule. It can't be just grappling. I have to be able to strike.
- [45:39]
Scott Anderson
All right, all right. There you go. The terms have been articulated still one decade in. I think at this point, they're still good.
- [45:45]
Anna Bauer
Maybe I should challenge the real administrator of Doge to hand to hand.
- [45:51]
Tyler McBrien
That would be shadow boxing.
- [45:53]
Scott Anderson
That is one of the possible administrators of Doge, not the real one, has done this before. So you may want to be careful around that one. We'll have to see. Well, folks, that is all the time we have for topics today. Thank you to everyone who submitted topics for us to talk about. Apologies to those who we could not get to your topic. We ran a little short on time today. But this would not be Rational Security if we didn't leave you with the object lesson this time. It's object lesson that you yourselves have sent our way to share with the broader audience here at Rational Security. So let me start with our first one from Blake. Blake has a couple of coffee table book recommendations. Photography book recommendations. The first one, which I'll share is from. From Alistair Philip Wipers. Apologies if I'm mispronouncing that. Building stories, which is a really Wonderful looking architecture book. It has photography of places most people will never see, including National Labs, which actually is pretty phenomenal. I am a big architecture photography person. I don't know, I'm just a 40 year old dad, so I have all the 40 year old dad hobbies. So I like pretty pictures of pretty buildings and that's fine.
- [46:50]
Tyler McBrien
Similar to my object lesson a couple weeks ago, the.
- [46:53]
Scott Anderson
Oh, that's right.
- [46:54]
Tyler McBrien
Yeah. The coffee table book of photos of buildings that have been demolished in America. So good companion piece right there.
- [47:00]
Scott Anderson
There you go. Absolutely, absolutely. And Tyler, why don't you take this next one for us?
- [47:04]
Tyler McBrien
The next one we have is also from Blake, so the second is for the bike people in the office. Now I'm understanding a bit why I've been chosen to read this one. Thank you, Scott. Thank you, Blake. It's called the Final Days of the Waterford Bicycle Factory by Tucker and Anna Schwinn. Real bikeheads out there will recognize that name.
- [47:24]
Scott Anderson
It looks great.
- [47:25]
Tyler McBrien
Both are wonderful photo books I've enjoyed recently. And I think you will too. I think I will too, Blake. Thank you.
- [47:30]
Scott Anderson
Yeah, I'm not quite at the point of biking where I like pictures of bikes yet, but maybe I'll get there. We'll see. We'll see at a certain point, Anna, when you take our next one from Keenan.
- [47:38]
Anna Bauer
Yeah, this is from Keenan and Keenan says Sources and methods, NPR's new weekly national security podcast has an interesting variety of coverage. Analysis from the State Department, the IC and now outside the Pentagon. It's been a good weekly companion. Listen to Rational Security. We love a weekly companion. Listen to Rational Security and also NPR is fantastic. So everyone check it out. This sounds like a great recommendation. I'll give it a listen.
- [48:07]
Benjamin Wittes
Yeah. And just, just for those who want other national security podcasts on a regular basis, Secrets and Spies is very good as is, I am told, although I have never listened to it. The Rest is Classified, which is a companion podcast to the Rest Is History and but focuses on the national security space. I have never actually spent time with that one yet, but people keep telling me I should.
- [48:39]
Scott Anderson
Oh, I've never heard of that. I'm excited. I like the Rest of History a great deal. I'll have to check that out.
- [48:44]
Anna Bauer
I don't have good companion Rational Security companion recommendations, but if anyone needs like pop culture commentary or celebrity gossip podcast recommendations, let me know because I've got you.
- [48:58]
Tyler McBrien
I love being on podcasts, talking about podcasts.
- [49:01]
Scott Anderson
There you go.
- [49:01]
Anna Bauer
Hey, hey.
- [49:02]
Scott Anderson
That's what you do. That's how you it's called cross promotion, Tyler. It's part of the industry. It's a big part of the game. But we have our next object lesson here. Ben, I'm gonna read this one off for you. Just kind of. We're having a little technical problem pulling this up on your end, but I'm curious if you've heard of this. Do you know who. Danilo. I wish I had let you read this now because I don't have to pronounce this last name. Danilo Yevhushin, AKA Aki is. Have you heard of this, Ben?
- [49:24]
Benjamin Wittes
Between the audio problems I'm having and your pronunciation, I cannot make head or tail of that, but so take that as a no.
- [49:33]
Scott Anderson
Well, Ao Nishiki is a Ukrainian born wrestler, I think specifically sumo wrestler, who fled the Russian invasion as a refugee and moved to Japan to pursue sumo wrestling. Oh, he's a wrestler and then pursue. Moved to Japan to pursue sumo wrestling.
- [49:44]
Benjamin Wittes
Yes. Okay. Yeah, he's. He's now quite a celebrity in Japan.
- [49:49]
Scott Anderson
Yeah.
- [49:50]
Benjamin Wittes
Yes. I was aware that there was a Japanese sumo. A Ukrainian sumo wrestler who had made it big in Japan. I had forgotten his name. And by the way, he's super funny looking because you associate those giant sumo wrestler types with a very Japanese look. And imagine it with only he kind of looks like an Eastern European.
- [50:17]
Scott Anderson
It is something to behold, I have to say. It's really quite impressive. So I checked out this footage when I was putting this list together. I highly recommend that we'll have a link in the show notes. So definitely check that out, folks. And that is from Liz, by the way.
- [50:28]
Benjamin Wittes
If Putin wants to fight in sumo wrestling form, neither he nor I has the build for it and nor do I relish putting on a loincloth for the battle. But I will do it. You know, whatever rules he wants, it's fine with me.
- [50:47]
Anna Bauer
Hey, hey.
- [50:48]
Scott Anderson
There you go. Slap down. There's another challenge right there. I like this. Although with the loincloth, we may have to keep this as a private activity for various workplace rules reasons. Anna, we have another object lesson from Liz, who sent an absolute cavalcade. Why don't you share this one for us?
- [51:02]
Anna Bauer
Oh, man. So I am the opposite of a gamer. I don't know anything about games, but. So thank you, Liz.
- [51:11]
Scott Anderson
This is why I'm having you do this. I'm shocked.
- [51:14]
Anna Bauer
I know. Who would have thought that? I know nothing about video games. But Liz, thank you for giving me a recommendation if I ever decide to make that my new hobby. Because now I know that Claire obscure expedition 33 is Liz's game of the year, and she says, recognizing that I don't have nearly enough time to play other competitors like Kingdom Come, Deliverance 2, and of Claire Obscure, she says it's a good example of how something can feel fresh without reinventing the wheel. All right, fantastic. It sounds like it's kind of like an experience that she says feels closer to stepping inside a moody art film or illustrated novel than playing a video game. That sounds like my kind of video game, so.
- [52:07]
Scott Anderson
Yeah, exactly. I have enough nerd adjacent hobbies that I have heard. I get occasional updates on video games, and I've heard of this, and people say it's quite excellent. And visually it's quite stunning. I've seen some of the commercials pop up on my Instagrams or whatever.
- [52:19]
Tyler McBrien
Nerd adjacent or just nerdy?
- [52:21]
Scott Anderson
Just nerdy. Nerdy, I should say, but. But an adjacent sort of nerd, I should say, because I'm not a video game person, but I enjoy other things. Well, wonderful. Thank you, Liz, for that recommendation as well. We have another recommendation from Liz in the book department. Tyler, this isn't. This one's for you.
- [52:33]
Tyler McBrien
Yeah, I just started over and first of all, let me say, Liz, this is very well written. You should consider writing books of your own, if you don't already. This is a book series recommendation from Liz, who says the Sun Eater series starts out feeling almost comfortably recognizable. A space opera that wears its Dune influence openly with empires, lineage, and a chosen one gravity. But at least as far as Liz has gotten, it subtly peels away into something much darker. What begins as political maneuvering in space turns into a Lovecraftian cosmic scale existential crisis, where the horror isn't just monsters, but the implications of power, time, and choice. Like some of the best modern genre work, it uses familiarity as an entry point, then expands the scope until you realize you're no longer reading about heroes and so much as survival inside an uncaring universe. And that will be my very belated holiday gift to my sister, because that sounds right up her alley.
- [53:21]
Scott Anderson
There you go. Yeah, I'm very intrigued by this one. I like it. I like it when you. When you take a genre, you just kind of spin it a little bit. I'm into that. Well, Liz. And one final object lesson from Liz. This one is more personal. And Liz, you didn't actually tell us exactly what it is, so I'm inferring this, but I believe it. Right. She mentioned that as part of her work, she got the opportunity to build out a collection card game based off Final Fantasy, which had an awesome reception. You notice the fan bases for both groups were getting very excited and overlapped with real joy, which is a great thing to see. I think it was nice when you see these sort of cross collaborations have that sort of impact with different audiences. So really cool that you got to be a part of that. And this is, I'm assuming the Final Fantasy trading card game I saw something about Gunslinger from the Abyss is one name, but I think that's just one sort of like subset. I don't know enough about it, but I'm assuming that's what it is, but hopefully I'm right. But seems very cool. Congratulations on that. And folks should check that out for the holidays as well. If you're looking for gifts for any collectible card game players out there for our next object lesson, I will read this one off. This is from Lisa, who threw us a collection to a very interesting exhibition happening right now at UT Austin's Communication School. Specifically, that is from the collection of Lorne Michaels and it's a whole exhibit of Saturday Night Live and adjacent paraphernalia from Lorne Michaels. It looks like some papers. It looks like there's at least some wild and crazy guy costumes and other props from the show. It looks awesome. If I were in Texas, I would have 100% check this out, which is really cool because I think SNL is an awesome cultural artifact, particularly the early seasons. I think I've said this on the podcast before, it's worth checking out because it really was an actual variety show for the last first two seasons. So it was basically like hip New York music and dance scenes interspliced with occasional only kind of funny skits, but like genuinely very absurd. It was less a comedy show, much more of a variety, variety cultural show, which I think was really cool, but definitely worth checking this out. I would highly recommend that it looks really neat. It looks like they actually have some online component media as well for folks who cannot make it all the way to Texas. And that brings us to our last object lesson request for you all from Riley. Riley says, I am a longtime listener, have always enjoyed the show's coverage as well as the object lesson at the end. Riley doesn't have an object lesson to share, but asked if we might be willing to share some interesting fiction books we've read that listeners should know about to share at the end of the year. Because we always give good book recommendations on this podcast. And I'm glad to hear people think we give good Book recommendations. I've gotten a lot of recommendations for this podcast that I've enjoyed, so I'll throw it out there to you all. Anna, Tyler, Ben, what do you recommend in the fiction department as we exit into the holiday season? What will you be hopefully spending some time with over the next few weeks when we are taking a lighter load at work? Tyler, I'll start with you, Tyler. What recommendations do you have? Do you have any recommendations for fiction books you've been digging into lately?
- [55:58]
Tyler McBrien
Yeah, well, actually, I've yet to dig into the sequel to the book the Idiot by Elif Batuman. If I'm pronouncing her name correctly. It's a pretty iconic cover, if people recognize. It's like hot pink with a big boulder on the front, which is really funny with the words the Idiot emblazoned over it. I've always been a fan. I've really loved that novel. It's about a young Turkish college student who falls in love with, I think he was a Hungarian guy and then goes and studies abroad in Hungary. And she. It's, it's sometimes laugh out loud funny and it has all these very fun, like, rabbit holes. That's very typical of like a postmodern kind of book, but it's much more readable, so I'm excited to read the sequel. She also wrote a series of essays about people who are obsessed with Russian literature and Dostoevsky and it's called the Possessed, which is also really a fun read. But she. Yeah. So I'm excited to read the sequel that is on my holiday reading nightstand.
- [56:54]
Scott Anderson
Wonderful. Wonderful. And are you, are you up for it or should we.
- [56:57]
Anna Bauer
Yes. No, no, no. I'm. I'm fine. So I am back home for the holidays and I was actually going through some books that were on my bookshelf from, you know, that I read in high school or college because I wanted to reread some things I love reading around the holidays, especially a mystery or something that's kind of like a little bit. I don't know what it is, but it's not like Halloween. I don't really want to read something spooky. But around Christmas time, for some reason, there's something about the season that just like makes me want to read something as spooky or mysterious. So the one that I have my eye on right now that would be a reread is Donna Tartt's the Secret History. I think a lot of people know Donna Tartt from the Goldfinch, which was like her, like, really big kind of bestseller. But the Secret History is, I believe, her first novel. And it's. It's really good and kind of spooky and weird. And especially also if you like books that are set like, at a college or like a boarding school type of situation, then. Then I think you'll like the Secret History. I also think that it's now a very good time to reread some Kurt Vonnegut. So if you've never, I don't know why I just, like, have. I just have an urge to reread some Kurt Vonnegut.
- [58:18]
Scott Anderson
Not always a good sign, Anna, but that's a good sign.
- [58:20]
Anna Bauer
Yeah, I know of Slaughterhouse 5 and Cat's Cradle fame, but also has just a ton of great books and writing. So I think that's what's on my fiction list right now for the holidays. And if you've never read Kurt Vonnegut or Donna Tartt's the Secret History, I suggest that you check it out.
- [58:40]
Benjamin Wittes
Out.
- [58:41]
Scott Anderson
Excellent. Excellent. Ben, do you have any recommendations for this season?
- [58:44]
Benjamin Wittes
I do. So, as some of you may know, in one of my other lives, I have a book club. This is connected to my Dog Shirt Daily Persona. But we do a monthly book club in which we invite an author of a piece of nonfiction, a new piece of nonfiction on the show, to discuss their book. And we asked them to come up with a fiction wine pairing to go with their new book. And our February guest is the great Corey Shockey, who is coming on to talk about her new book, the Soldier and the State. And I asked her for a fiction wine pairing for it. And she recommended Phil Kaye's book of short stories entitled Redeployment, which she says is the best book about the best fiction she has ever read about civil military relations in the United States in the modern era. And so I am passing that along. And if you read it and enjoy it and want to discuss it with Corey Schake, come join the Make America Read Again book club on Dog Shirt tv. And she will be on in February. I can't remember the exact date to discuss both her book and Phil Kay's book.
- [60:10]
Scott Anderson
Wonderful. What a wonderful suggestion. That's great. I was not aware of this book club. I got to get on this. The timing of Dog Shirt Daily is always really hard for those of us with young children. But the timing, trying to get an.
- [60:20]
Benjamin Wittes
Exception for this club is different because it's an evening. We do the book clubs in the evening.
- [60:25]
Scott Anderson
Oh, I may have to join up for this one. That's exciting. So I definitely want to read Cory's new book. Wonderful. Well, for my recommendation, I will do a sophisticated recommendation. The less sophisticated one. I am very excited. Actually not read this yet, but I'm excited because we have a new Pynchon novel coming out, Shadow Ticket, that I know is on my Christmas list, and I am pretty sure I got it. I think I saw it in the bottom of my wife's side of the closet with her other gifts that she hasn't gotten to wrap yet, which I am excited about. I am. I can't say I've read. I don't think I've read most of Pynchon's books, but I've read a number of them. Gravity's Rainbow, Inherent Vice, Vineland, opec, and Days. I always enjoy it. This one is a kind of a, you know, postmodern absurdist version of a noir mystery, as far as I can tell, which I'm excited about. Seems like a cool genre. And we get. Obviously, we're getting a double dose of Pynchon if you're gonna see One Battle After Another, which is based on violin. So it's exciting year, if you're of the inclination. Might not be a good sign if you're interested in reading Pynchon either.
- [61:16]
Anna Bauer
What were your One Battle After Another Thoughts?
- [61:19]
Scott Anderson
I have young children, so I haven't seen a movie in about three years, but one day I will. What is. What is the release at home theater is a streaming. I will probably watch it after the holiday season are over. I, like, can't watch heavy things during the holiday season. I can only watch Netflix holiday specials and Muppet movies. So I save all the heavy stuff for after I go.
- [61:37]
Anna Bauer
I will say I did not find one, but, I mean, maybe my brain is just so addled that, like, I have a high tolerance for disturbing things now. But, like, I did not find it to be like. It's. It's. It's lighter than I thought.
- [61:54]
Scott Anderson
Oh, interesting.
- [61:55]
Anna Bauer
I was also concerned about, like, watching it and what mind space it would put me in, but I did not find it to be particularly, you know, disturbing.
- [62:05]
Scott Anderson
Oh, good. Well, I'll have to check it out. I'm. I'm very excited about the movie. I'm generally like a PTA fan and I'm excited to see it, so. But I haven't made it that way yet. But I'm curious. I'll share thoughts once I get back. Maybe we can have you back on. We can. We can compare notes in January, but my actual book that I've actually read that I'm going to recommend which is not original, but I do have to recommend it because I've been having a wonderful experience with it is I'm for the first. I've read these books maybe 10 times each. But I just finished rereading the Hobbit and I'm now reading to my son who's about to turn five and I'm now reading him Lord of the Rings at his insistence. I thought Lord of the Rings little too advanced, but he's insisted on getting the story. He is super, super into it. It is so rewarding to read it and it's actually an amazing book to read out loud because really I like I'm going to sound like, you know, completely in the sack for Tolkien, which I am kind of. I'm a big Tolkien head. It really actually is phenomenally written and a phenomenally voiced book. Like you read it out loud, you get. He's got actually a spoken word kind of like which makes sense for a linguist way of writing that really comes across when you're reading it out loud. I listened to them on Books on Tape and I really enjoyed it, but I didn't wasn't struck by it. I think maybe because I'm doing it so much more slower and deliberately when you're reading it yourself, which is great. The only problem is I can only read so much at night because my son needs to go to sleep at a certain point. I've already been ruining his bedtime by doing this and reading further than I should. So what I started doing at night instead of reading ahead, there's a reader's companion I got as part of the Lord of the Rings box set a couple years ago by a bunch of academics that contextualizes every chapter of Lord of the Rings as you go through and talks about the influences Tolkien has, ways he changed it, the process of reading it. And it's actually a great companion piece if you're reading it slowly and deliberately chapter by chapter. So I've been reading that as I go along with my son. It's a really special experience. It's been great. It's been an absolute highlight of this fall and this winter and probably, let's be honest, like the next year and a half of my life because these books are really long are going to take forever, but I'm really enjoying it. So if you have a young kid who's into fantastic stories, check out some of those old classics because I have found it to be really rewarding. And that is all we have for this year from Rational Security. Rational Security is, I will say, a wonderful, wonderful product. It's been a wonderful part of my work life. It is a pleasure to get to come with so many of my talented colleagues and talk about the weird, sometimes terrible, sometimes absurd, but always interesting to discuss things happening in the world in our little corner of it in the National Security Law space, broadly construed. And I really appreciate everyone out there tuning in, listening, joining with us, saying hi, dropping us a line, dropping us, not notes. Please keep up with us. Don't hesitate to reach out. Send us an email about things you want to hear. Would you like us to talk about in the New Year? I'd love to have it, but until then, I hope everyone has a wonderful holiday, gets a wonderful end to 2025 and helps usher in what is hopefully going to be a brighter 2026 ahead for everybody. Until then, of course, remember that Rational Security is a production of Lawfare, so be sure to visit lawfairmedia.org for our show page with links to past episodes for written work and the written work about the Lawfare can contributors and for information on lawfair's other phenomenal podcast series, be sure to follow Lawfair on social media wherever you socialize your media, be sure to leave a rating or review wherever you might be listening and sign up to become a material supporter of Lawfare on Patreon for an ad free version of this podcast, among other special benefits. For more information, visit lawfaremedia.org support and of course, maybe keep us in mind for your end of year giving this year. If you're thinking about it, we are a nonprofit after all. Our audio engineer and producer this week was Noam Osband of Go Rodeo. Our music, as always, was performed by Sophia Yan and we were once again edited by the wonderful Jen Pacha. On behalf of my guests Ben and Tyler and Anna, I am Scott Anderson. We will talk to you next year. Until then, goodbye.
- [65:38]
Podcast Advertiser
When you think of skyrocketing brands like Aloe, Allbirds or Skims, it's easy to credit their success to great products, sleek branding and brilliant marketing. But here's the overlooked secret. The real magic lies in the engine behind the scenes, the business powering their business. For millions of brands, that engine is Shopify, making selling seamless for them and shopping effortless for us. Upgrade your business and get the same checkout Alo Yoga uses. Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.comretail all lowercase go to shopify.comretail to upgrade your selling today. Shopify. Com Retail.