Trump's Impact: Europe Rattled By A Trump Return

Send us a text

What if Donald Trump's re-election could redefine global politics? Join us for a conversation that explores this provocative question with Sir Mark Lyle Grant, a distinguished former British diplomat and National Security Advisor, as we dissect the political shockwaves reverberating through Europe and beyond.  

The Back Story examines the potential implications for Ukraine, the dance between President-elect Trump and US intelligence agencies, and the broader rise of extremism with insights from Colin Clark of the Soufan Group.  

And Former Lt General Ben Hodges on concerns Trump could use the U.S. military domestically.  It's a huge concern for the officer core, which swears an oath to the constitution not to a commander in chief.

Support the show

Episode Transcript

Dana Lewis (00:00):
The last thing Ukraine would agree to is any
kind of demilitarization.
I mean they fear Russia so muchthat why would they ever agree
to put down the weapons thatthey have?

Lt Gen Ben Hodges (00:12):
Of course.
Why would they agree to forego20 years that they want to ask
to come into NATO?
I mean, that's what a I thinkshort-sighted vision by whoever
thinks this is a good idea.

Dana Lewis (00:30):
How do you see the relationship between agencies
like the FBI and President-electTrump in the future, and is
that a serious concern?

Colin Clarke, Soufan Center (00:43):
I think it is a serious concern.
You know, I keep grappling withthis notion of how similar will
the second Trump term be to thefirst, you know, because that's
what we have to go off of, thatand the things that he said,
and he has attacked theintelligence agencies quite
vigorously before.

Dana Lewis (01:04):
Europe is rattled, would you agree?

Sir Mark Lyle Grant (01:08):
And why?
Yeah, I think Europe is rattled.
I think they'll be poppingchampagne corks in Moscow,
probably less so in Beijing, andthere's a deep concern
obviously in Kyiv.

Dana Lewis (01:27):
Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of
Backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis.
Donald Trump's re-election willreverberate around the globe.
Europe is rattled by his returnto the global stage, largely
because he is thought of asbeing unprincipled, self-serving
, transactional.
Because he is thought of asbeing unprincipled, self-serving
, transactional, with almost noallegiance or loyalty to many of

(01:48):
the principles that have guideddemocracies and alliances since
World War II.
Will Trump pull America out ofNATO?
Will he start a war with Iran?
Is Ukraine going to beabandoned?
And Trump's presence may fuelextremism, not only overseas but
at home in the US.
We talk Ukraine and Trump andthe US military with Lieutenant

(02:12):
General Ben Hodges, terror andextremist threats with the
Soufans' Colin Clark.
But first Europe and Trump withformer National Security
Advisor to the UK Ambassador,sir Mark Lyle Grant.
Sir Mark Lyle Grant is a formerBritish diplomat who served
previously in the UnitedKingdom's National Security

(02:35):
Advisor role with theConservative government and then
he was also permanentrepresentative to the United
Kingdom in the United Nations.
Hi, mr Ambassador, always goodto see you, sir.

Sir Mark Lyle Grant (02:46):
Hi Dana, Good to speak to you.

Dana Lewis (02:48):
Can you tell me, first of all, your reaction to
the Trump victory?
I mean, the world appears tohave the potential to be a very
different place with him back inthe White House next year.

Sir Mark Lyle Grant (02:59):
Sure, and it's certainly a very remarkable
comeback.
I mean, you know, the firstpresident to be reelected, as it
were, for over 100 years, theoldest president elected, and he
ran an amazing campaign usingpodcasts and social media rather
than normal news channels, andthat has proved to be

(03:20):
exceptionally effective in thecampaign.
So it was always going to betight, but I think I certainly
am surprised by the extent ofthe landslide win that he's got.
I mean, in American terms it isa landslide, and the fact that
it looks as though theRepublicans are going to win
both the Senate and the House ofRepresentatives, that gives him

(03:40):
quite a strong platform toimplement his policies both
domestically and internationally.

Dana Lewis (03:47):
Let's talk about it .
I mean, it's a blank check.
People say to have both houses,you know, until there's an
election two years from now.
It looks like you know he's ona long leash.

Sir Mark Lyle Grant (04:02):
It's not quite a blank check, though,
dana.
I mean, in the Senate, for muchlegislation you need 60 votes,
and he's not got 60 votes on theRepublican side, so there were
some things he wouldn't be ableto do, but certainly, like he
had at the first time, he hadall the trifecta, as they call
it, first time around, as didObama for the first two years,

(04:26):
as they call it first timearound, as did Obama for the
first two years, as you say.
It's most unusual that thatsurvives the midterms, but it
gives him a strong platform.
There's no question about that.

Dana Lewis (04:32):
Europe is rattled.
Would you agree, and why?

Sir Mark Lyle Grant (04:36):
Yeah, I think Europe is rattled.
I think there'll be poppingchampagne corks in Moscow,
probably less so in Beijing, andthere's a deep concern
obviously in Kiev.
But in Paris and Berlin theyare deeply worried because
President Biden was a knownquantity.
He was enthusiastic aboutEurope and the European Union

(05:12):
and Donald Trump I rememberbecause I was there
congratulated Theresa May on thefact that Brexit had happened
and that Britain was no longerin the European Union.
He hasn't a great love ofalliances of any sorts, both
about the trade implications forEurope but also obviously the
security implications, given hissort of lukewarm enthusiasm

(05:32):
about NATO.

Dana Lewis (05:32):
Okay, first of all, you and I are of the same
generation.
I believe we were both born inthe 50s.
I hate to admit it.
We were born in the late 50s,so let's just try to.
I mean, if you can just wrapyour head around this a little
bit for me, because I havetrouble navigating and figuring
it out.
I mean, this is a guy in anyother campaign Ambassador who

(05:56):
spoke about you know eatingpeople's immigrants, eating
people's animals, shootingthrough the media.
You know comedians who talkedabout different islands of
garbage.
I mean, these were reallypolitical faux pas that would
put a lot of campaignsunderwater.
What in the world happened thatpeople just seem to want to

(06:18):
vote for him more, and does thatbode well for Europe?

Sir Mark Lyle Grant (06:23):
I mean, european politics tend to follow
these kind of things yeah, Idon't think people voted for
donald trump because of the someof the wild things he said.
I think it's probably more uh.
In spite of that, I think therewas a lot of uh, nostalgia
about the good times of theearly Trump years where the

(06:46):
economy went well, people notfeeling good about the economy
under Joe Biden Probably not hisfault, I mean, that was the
sort of hangover of COVID.
As much as anything else, thatwas a big factor.
Migration was obviously amassive factor, as it was in the
UK elections as well, and Ithink they feel that his slogans

(07:10):
of America first end all thewars, stop the migrants those
sort of slogans cut through in away that Kamala Harris didn't
really cut through with hermessages.
She didn't have as much time,obviously, to prepare as she
might have done, given the waythe campaign went.

(07:30):
But I think those are some ofthe key factors and there are
parallels in Europe.
We've seen populist partiesthroughout Europe in the UK with
the Reform Party, but inGermany with the Alternative for
Deutschland, obviously inFrance as well.
You know these populistright-wing parties are doing
extremely well.

(07:50):
It only translates into a hugevictory in the United States
because they have a two-partysystem.
In Europe we have multi-partysystems and that obviously
complicates the election results.

Dana Lewis (08:02):
Mark, do you see this as an evolution of politics
or do you just see it as waves?
Do you see, is liberalism,liberal democracies, you know,
is their head in a noose, or youjust see this as kind of, you
know, political change thatcomes and goes and liberal
democracies will surge, you know, like waves on the beach or the

(08:27):
tide will go out again.

Sir Mark Lyle Grant (08:29):
It's probably something in between
those two things, dana.
You know it is a wave, but Ithink it's quite a substantial
and potentially long-lived wave.
You know, really for the firsttime since the Second World War
so sort of 80 years, I think,the ultimate triumph, if you
like, of liberal democracy andliberal economics can no longer

(08:52):
be taken for granted.
You know, it wasn't that longago where Francis Fukuyama was
saying the end of history wasthe end of communism and the
victory of democracy.
I don't think you can say thatanymore.
The victory of democracy.
I don't think you can say thatanymore.
75% of the world's populationnow live in countries that are
not democracies and that rise ofnationalism and populism is on

(09:13):
the increase, and certainlyDonald Trump has been not just a
beneficiary of it but a driverof it.
But we've seen it in many othercountries around the world,
including in Europe, in placeslike Turkey and Hungary in
particular.
So I don't think it's a sort ofshort-lived wave.
I think it's a longer move awayfrom that Washington consensus

(09:36):
that has governed internationalrelations since the Second World
War and that is of greatconcern, I think, to liberal
democracies in Europe inparticular.

Dana Lewis (09:47):
Autocracies, incorporated as the title of one
of the new books I'm readingright now.
Let's talk about NATO.
What do you think is going tohappen?
Here I mean Trump, the art ofthe deal.
He has threatened to pull outof NATO in the past.
But you know, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, spend your 2% of GDP.

(10:07):
But he sees it transactional.
He sees it transactional, youknow, you spend your money and
America will protect you.
It's kind of like a mafia dawn.

Sir Mark Lyle Grant (10:19):
Yeah, there's an element of that.
There's no question that he isdriven by some of these
principles of America, first ofa sort of more transactional
approach to foreign policy.
But I don't think that he willpull the United States out of
NATO.
I don't think he willdiscontinue the commitment to

(10:40):
the Article 5 guarantee todefend other NATO countries.
And he can point to a verysignificant success, because
when he was first president itwas only, after all, eight years
ago he took over only four NATOcountries spent 2% of their GDP
on defense.
Now 23 of the NATO countries do, and that is partly due to

(11:03):
Donald Trump.
He can take some credit forhaving cajoled duress to
whatever you know other NATOmembers to spend more money.
So that lesson has been learnedand I therefore I'm not too
concerned about the long termfuture of NATO.

Dana Lewis (11:19):
I think there are some short term concerns about
Ukraine, but I think the NATOalliance is pretty strong some

(11:40):
800 miles long a line ofceasefire, demilitarization and
a promise from Ukraine that theywouldn't.
This is floated by JD Vance,trump's pick for vice president.
20 years Ukraine would not joinNATO.
Do you think that has anychance of flying?
And if not, who's going toshoot it down?

Sir Mark Lyle Grant (12:03):
No, I don't think it has any chance of
flying.
I think we have reached a stageprobably of the Ukraine
conflict where PresidentZelensky, most unfortunately,
will have to consider exchangingland for peace.
But a key corollary of that issome sort of security guarantees
for the rest of sovereignUkraine, and that means you

(12:26):
can't wait 20 years for Ukraineto be able to join the European
Union or NATO.
I think if, on the one hand,you did give up some of the land
that Russia now occupies,including Crimea and Donbass,
but you gave those securityguarantees, then there might be

(12:46):
some scope for a deal.
And of course, that is whathappened with Korea, because
America did give South Koreathat security guarantee and I
think Zelensky, at an absoluteminimum, would require that.
So I don't think the JD Vanceideas will fly, certainly not in
Europe and 100% not in Kyiv.

Dana Lewis (13:07):
If Trump cuts off funding to Ukraine, what will
Europe do?
Because a lot of countries theyhave a lot at stake.
I mean they're on the border orclose to Russia.
So what are they going to say,and can they go it alone in
terms of supporting Ukraine andkeeping that war going?

Sir Mark Lyle Grant (13:25):
And can they go it alone in terms of
supporting Ukraine and keepingthat war going?
Well, they can certainly go italone up to a point, but not to
the extent of allowing Ukraineto win this conflict or even to
delay it very significantly,because the numbers that the
Americans have provided in termsof military equipment is very,
very significant and, with thebest will in the world, the
Europeans can't backfill forthat.

(13:46):
They simply don't have themilitary hardware available to
be able to give to Ukraine.
But we shouldn't forget thatPresident Biden still has two
and a half months to go of hispresidency.
Not all the $60 billion worthof military aid that's been
endorsed by Congress has yetbeen delivered, and it is at
least technically possible forJoe Biden to release some of the

(14:07):
shackles that he has actuallyput on President Zelensky in
prosecuting this war over thenext two and a half months, in
order to put Ukraine in a betterposition to face a negotiation
when Donald Trump takes over inJanuary.

Dana Lewis (14:21):
I find it pretty hard to believe that Biden would
suddenly step up and say goahead and use long range weapons
inside Russia.

Sir Mark Lyle Grant (14:29):
I think it's unlikely.
I think he should and this isan important point on Ukraine is
that you know, it's not asthough the President Biden
administration has beenfantastic for Ukraine.
It's provided Ukraine withenough ammunition and weaponry
to avoid losing, but not enoughto win, and with huge suffering

(14:49):
that they've undergone as aresult.
So I agree with you it'sunlikely, but all I'm saying is
that it is possible and I thinkthe British and other European
governments would love that tohappen.

Dana Lewis (15:00):
Last question to you and it's going to be the
most complicated and the mostdifficult to answer.
In a way, Putin spoke yesterday.
It was a long, long, you knowdiatribe at the Volodya Club
which he does annually in Russia.
Events of a truly historicalscale before our eyes.
A completely new world order isbeing formed, unlike what we

(15:34):
know from the past, for example,the Westphalian or Yalta system
.
New powers are rising, peoplesare becoming more and more aware
of their interests, theirself-worth, identity and
increasingly insisting onachieving goals of development
and justice.
Insisting on achieving goals ofdevelopment and justice.
This coming from a guy who hasinvaded another country and
wants to turn the clock back.
He talks about going forward,new era, new world, but he wants

(15:58):
to take Russia back todominating.
You know, the near afar, thenear abroad.
Is this KGB doublespeak?

Sir Mark Lyle Grant (16:07):
or what is this all about?
Yeah, I know it's definitelydoublespeak.
I mean, Putin sees himself asPeter the Great, reuniting
Russian lands after years ofchaos inside Russia.
So he's absolutely looking backto what he would consider the
golden era of the sort of Soviettimes.
Why doesn't he just say that?

Dana Lewis (16:28):
Because why doesn't he just say that we want to
dominate all you guys, we wantyou back and we're going to take
over your land?
Why does he can't say that?

Sir Mark Lyle Grant (16:37):
I'll tell you why Because he doesn't have
natural friends and alliesaround the world, in contrast to
that China does, and so he'strying to talk the language that
China has been talking.
Because President Xi isprecisely saying we need to get
away from this unipax, you know,the unipolar Pax Americana

(16:59):
we've had since the Second WorldWar.
We need a new world order withjustice and fairness and more
Chinese characteristics.
Now Putin is trying to tap intothat because China and Russia,
despite all the tensions betweenthe two countries, have a joint
interest in upsetting Americanleadership around the world.

(17:23):
So they are coming together ina marriage of convenience and
Putin is beginning to use someof that language that Xi would
resonate with and resonates morewidely, let's be honest, in
places like India and Brazil andSouth Africa and some of these
developing countries who feelthat they haven't had a fair
share of the pie in this globalconstruct that was built up

(17:47):
after the Second World War.
So he's talking that language,but in his heart he's absolutely
a revisionist, trying to takeRussia back to the glory days
when it was a falling population.
Its economy is only 12% of theeconomy of China and about 60%

(18:12):
the economy of the UnitedKingdom very narrowly based.
So it's not a great poweranymore, but he harks back to
the times when it was one of thegreat powers.

Dana Lewis (18:26):
So, mark Lyle Grant , always good to talk to you,
mark.
Thank you so much, mrAmbassador.
Have a great weekend.

Sir Mark Lyle Grant (18:31):
Thank you, Dono.

Dana Lewis (18:32):
Thank you.
Colin Clark is with the SoufanCenter and he's been a regular
on this program.
Soufan Center is a think tank.
It's a security advisory firmand analysis and Colin is well
acquainted with doing analysison terrorism and he's an expert

(18:52):
on that.
Hi, colin, thanks for having me.
Dana, so much of what we hear,first of all very broadly, on
threats, whether they be inAmerica or in Europe, is based
on intelligence analysis.
Right, yeah, a hundred percent.
So those very agencies which dothe analysis the FBI, the CIA,

(19:16):
independent firms likeyourselves that then take some
of that analysis and write aboutit more broadly, analysis, and,
and, uh, and, and and writeabout it more broadly Um,
they've come under tremendousattack from your president elect
, donald Trump in the past.
Well, how do you see therelationship between agencies
like the FBI, um, and, andpresident elect Trump, uh, in

(19:40):
the future, and, and?
Is that a serious concern?

Colin Clarke, Soufan Center (19:45):
I think it is a serious concern.
I keep grappling with thisnotion of how similar will the
second Trump term be to thefirst, because that's what we
have to go off of that and thethings that he's said, and he
has attacked the intelligenceagencies quite vigorously before

(20:05):
you know, there's part of me asan American that wants to
remain optimistic that thisisn't going to be a revenge tour
and that Trump will reallyconsider his legacy with how he
deals not only with our alliesabroad but also with, you know,

(20:26):
the institutions we have herethat function as the pillars of
our democracy.
I think it will be telling thefirst six months of his
administration and how he dealswith these agencies agencies,
you know, one glimmer of hope isa lot of people have focused on

(20:47):
project 2025, um, which hasthreatened to kind of hollow out
large parts of the U?
S government.
He backed away from that quitea bit.
Um, after the backlash and andand I think maybe cooler heads
have prevailed, uh, and so youknow whether or not that was a
campaign stunt.
Here's the thing about Trump,and I'm not saying this in a
pejorative way or in a criticalway, although there's plenty to

(21:08):
criticize.
I think one advantage of havinghim be largely unmoored from
any principles is that he's notan ideologue he kind of and you
can see that in the way heapproaches his foreign policy.
One day he threatens to bombNorth Korea, the next day he's
inviting Kim Jong-un to a summit.
There's no real kind offramework that guides him.

(21:29):
It's very erratic, but in asense that's good, because if,
if he has a team around him, youknow of kind of very sober, you
know fairly war worldly.
If no, and and that's a, it's ahuge yeah, no question, um,
he's malleable enough where theycan help, try to guide him to

(21:53):
to do the right thing.
You know, and I also think thatagain, with his second and
final term, he will be focusedon his legacy.
You've heard him talk aboutmaking peace deals, um, and so
I'm hoping that, uh, we have afar less erratic administration
than we did the first timearound.

Dana Lewis (22:12):
Take Russia, for example, so people can
understand this.
I mean, he has rejected some ofthe intelligence analysis over
Russian interference inelections.
For, for instance, if you startrejecting your own intelligence
agency's analysis and warningsand you side with President
Putin in the Kremlin, it's apretty significant danger, isn't

(22:36):
it?
Because then you're acting inRussia's interest, you're not
acting in your own nation'sinterest, and the next warning
may be about something much moreserious than not that I'm
minimizing election interferenceor something that's not serious
, but it could be about apotential nuclear launch, or you
know, I don't want to beridiculous about it, but I mean

(22:59):
it can be about pending militaryactivity et cetera.

Colin Clarke, Soufan Cente (23:03):
Look , I just read Bob Woodward's
book War and he went into greatdetail about how close we were
or how close the intelligencecommunity thought we were to the
Russians using the tacticalnuke in Ukraine.
And thankfully folks in theBiden administration Jake
Sullivan, secretary of Defense,lloyd Austin were very clear

(23:24):
about what the consequenceswould be.
But you're right.
I mean, when you side with adictator like Putin over your
own intelligence community, notonly is that just unwise from a
foreign policy perspective, themorale blow that that deals to
the intelligence community hasgot to be tremendous.
I mean, even as a civilian, asan American citizen, I was

(23:47):
disgusted by it.
I couldn't imagine what it wouldfeel like if I worked in the
intelligence community and hadthe Russia portfolio.
I mean, getting your legs cutout from under you.
So you know it'll be thingslike that that will be very
telling, if we start seeingsimilar behaviors going forward,
that we're going to be in for avery rough ride these next four
years.
Again, coming into this withit's not necessarily a blank

(24:10):
slate, but maybe a reset withinhis own administration.
I'm really, really hoping thatthings go differently this time.
Maybe I'm being naive, maybethis is wishful thinking, but
we'll see.

Dana Lewis (24:22):
We'll see You've written.
The election in the US washeavily marred by foreign
interference.
In what way?
And I saw some of those bombthreats being reported at
various polling stations.
I mean, how big was it and wasit significant in the result?
Or you think it didn't change?

Colin Clarke, Soufan Center (24:43):
the result Did not change the
result or you think it didn'tchange the result Did not change
the result.
I mean, it was an overwhelmingmandate for Trump, if you look
at the map, and no amount ofRussian interference would have
tilted the election that far forhim.
I think the American peoplespoke and they spoke loudly.
You know there was bomb threats, there was massive
disinformation, ai generatedfake videos, um, you know the

(25:12):
usual that we see, uh from theRussians, but no, I I.
The interesting part to me isfor an administration that cried
foul and and fraud for the lastelection.
Now that they won, there wasmagically none Right, um, which
just kind of goes to show youhow valid the initial claims
were, but no, I mean the, the.
If you look at how dominant,you know, trump performed in

(25:33):
this election, you really haveto kind of discount in some ways
, the impact of foreigninterference.
Now, what we can't discount isthe impunity with which the
Russians and, to lesser, theIranians and the Chinese- I mean
there's got to be.

Dana Lewis (25:49):
I don't want to overstate it, but if you said,
like 10 years ago, interferingin democratic elections would
almost be an act of war, I mean,no way, that was a red line.
Now it's commonplace.
In every single election we'rehearing Iran, China, Russia
setting up you know, you wroteabout so-called how did you put
it?
Doppelganger networks ofwebsites imitating real media.

Colin Clarke, Soufan Center (26:13):
I mean, so part of it is the
lowering of barriers to entry.
That technology allows anybodyto kind of muck around in this
space and I think that's why theresponse hasn't been as severe
is because this is just par forthe course now across the board,
Um, and every democraticelection we see.

(26:34):
But I do think it's a mistakethat we've kind of internalized
this and just kind of shruggedof like, ah well, kind of what
can you do?
Right, this is, this is the waythings go.
What do you do?
I think you start looking intosanctions to begin with.
You start looking into turningthe tables.
Here's where the intelligencecommunity could get creative and

(26:56):
giving the Russians a dose oftheir own medicine, perhaps.
But sitting back passively andallowing countries to meddle in
your elections is absolutely notthe answer.
But you know again, I do havefaith and confidence in CISA,
the Cyber InfrastructureSecurity Agency, and some of the
leadership there, and thatthey're doing everything they

(27:18):
can to maintain the integrity ofour elections.

Dana Lewis (27:22):
You've also written .
Four more years of Trump couldsee a resurgence of domestic
terror, neo-Nazis, whitesupremacists.
And then, as I was waiting todo this interview with you, I
see the breaking news in the USthat the FBI now is
investigating a spate of emailsthat were sent to brown and

(27:44):
black Americans telling themthey should report to the cotton
fields even children, tellingthem they should report to the
cotton fields even children.
So why does a new Trumpadministration equate with the

(28:05):
sense from these groups thatthey can act with impunity?

Colin Clarke, Soufan Center (28:07):
I think it emboldens people.
I think you know, uh, you know,a slice of the maga movement.
Um is variantly racist.
You know, I'm not saying it's aanywhere close to a majority,
but there are people that revelum in, uh, you know, some of the
kind of you know, racistrhetoric.

(28:28):
Frankly, uh, the greatreplacement theory, all these
other things.
There are true believers thatreally fundamentally believe
that there is a conspiracy or acabal of Democrats, jews and
folks in Hollywood that areactively trying to replace white
people with immigrants, andsome of the things that Trump

(28:49):
has said may very well be thewink, wink, nod, nod that these
people need to go forth andunleash acts of violence.
We saw it in my own city, inPittsburgh, in 2018, with Robert
Bowers.
You know, where he almostthought that he was doing
something for a greater good.
Screw your optics.
I'm going in.
Right is what he said inresponse to this migrant caravan

(29:12):
.
We saw it in El Paso, withPatrick Crucius, when he
attacked a Walmart because ofelements of the rate replacement
, and so my concern is thatpeople feel emboldened, to quote
unquote finish the job andtarget what he's called the
enemies within right.
They're poisoning our blood andeven though it's not the
government that's condoningthese things.

(29:32):
It's people taking matters intotheir own hands, and in a
country like the United States,where everybody has access to
high-powered weaponry, it looksa lot different than it would in
Europe or Australia orsomewhere else.

Dana Lewis (29:47):
If you're concerned about domestic terror, you know
internationally, what do yousee in kind of the short term
that you've written about?
The resurgence of ISIS, ISIS-K?
It seems like we're veryfocused on state to state
conflict right now.

(30:08):
Everything's about to rise.
While things are are there,there's a lot happening with
with terror groups that have notgone away no doubt you know if
you go down to the beltway inwashington.

Colin Clarke, Soufan Center (30:18):
Um , there's three things people
want to talk about china, chinaand china, maybe a little bit of
ai.
Uh, nobody wants to talk aboutcounterterrorism.
There's a significant sense ofcounterterrorism fatigue, I
think, um, after 20 years of theso-called global war on
terrorism that's permeated thelarger part of the body politic.

Dana Lewis (30:38):
But that's a luxury right, Because until the next
bomb goes off, you have thatpeople might be fatigued until
that moment I'd go further, I Iwouldn't even use luxury, I'd
say it's complacency.

Colin Clarke, Soufan Center (30:49):
I think it's very dangerous.
In fact, um, because thesegroups have not gone away, we're
out of afghanistan.
That's helped lead to theresurgence of isis-k, which has
also set its sights on countriesglobally, and not just the west
, mind you.
Uh, they attacked iran injanuary and russia in March, but
certainly they would love topull off some kind of major

(31:13):
terrorist attack in Europe orthe United States, and if that
does happen, then we can getinto these kind of second and
third order outcomes.
This is where Trump'sunpredictable nature might
surprise some people.
Largely, he's seen as wantingto draw down US presence
overseas.
Largely he's seen as wanting todraw down um us presence
overseas.
But if there's a majorterrorist attack on us soil, on
his watch, depending on howserious and severe it is, maybe

(31:37):
he deploys the military tosomewhere we haven't been prior.

Dana Lewis (31:46):
Uh, you know, it may be faulted for a lot of
things in his first term, a lotof things on foreign policy, but
the one thing he did do was goafter ISIS.

Colin Clarke, Soufan Center (31:56):
He did, and we have to give credit
where credit's due.
Look, this is where I think weget in a lot of trouble in this
country.
The level of hatred for Trumphas blinded analysts from doing
their job objectively.
Analysts from doing their jobobjectively, and no doubt it's a
challenge to assess him likeyou would assess any other
president or any otheradministration, but I look at

(32:19):
that as our job.
You can't take into accountyour personal feelings, your
ideology, if you want to be acredible analyst.
I think, without question, hedid a very good job going after
the Islamic State.
Now there's some hyperbolethere.
Right, I defeated ISIS.
Well, we all know that ISISisn't dead.
Look at ISIS-K and even lookback in Iraq and Syria.

(32:42):
The US conducted airstrikes inSyria against ISIS targets just
last week.
We still have the camps inAl-Hol in northeastern Syria
where we've had a policy of kindof kick the can down the road.
The ISIS threat is percolating,it's very much there and it
could revive.
There's different geopoliticalfactors that could influence the
reinvigoration of this groupand you're 100% right, we can't

(33:05):
afford to be complacent there.

Dana Lewis (33:08):
And there's been certainly attacks that have been
carried out by Iran, evenwithin Europe itself
assassinations, assassinationattempts.
We might see President Trumpget very, very tough with Iran,
much tougher than the Bidenadministration was he could, and
I think that's anotherchallenge.

Colin Clarke, Soufan Center (33:30):
We did a project a couple of years
ago, and as part of the projectwe were doing interviews with
high-ranking current and retiredsecurity, intelligence and
defense officials in the UK, andone in particular had a comment
that's really stuck with me andit's quite resonant.
He said nothing ever falls offthe plate, and what he meant by

(33:53):
that was we have these oldthreats Al-Qaeda is still there,
ISIS is still there but we havethese new threats too.
Right Now we have far rightextremism, we have the axis of
resistance.
We're now kind of going to seea regrowth of Shia extremism and
terrorism, but the old threatshaven't gone away, and so the
picture at one point was fairlynarrowly focused on, you know,
Sunni jihadists, Salafijihadists.

(34:15):
It's now this kind ofkaleidoscope of threats, and I
do think you know the threatfrom Lebanese Hezbollah, from
other, from the Houthis, fromHamas.
We don't know what shape thoseare going to take in the near
future.
The Israelis have dismantledthese organizations in some ways
, but I warn people, the secondorder effect of that could be

(34:38):
more terrorism worldwide.
Think back to 1992, afterHassan Nasrallah's predecessor
was killed.
Hezbollah responded byattacking Jewish and Israeli
targets in Latin America and inArgentina.
So you know, do we enter aperiod or a phase where US
embassies in sub-Saharan Africaor Southeast Asia are being

(35:00):
attacked?
Because Hezbollah is a globalnetwork and if the United States
is in the kind of crosshairs ofthat group, that's certainly a
possibility.

Dana Lewis (35:10):
With capabilities increased by Iranian sponsorship
.

Colin Clarke, Soufan Center (35:14):
No question, I mean largely
undergirded by, you know,iranian and Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps, qudsForce training.

Dana Lewis (35:21):
So state-sponsored terrorism.
Would you comment, Colin, onwhat kind of has been spinning
around for the last week thatRussia was behind sending
explosive packages to Europethat could have downed aircraft,
but they were, you know,detected on the ground and in

(35:42):
places like sorting facilitiesbefore they exploded?

Colin Clarke, Soufan Cente (35:46):
Look , I wrote a piece for the LA
Times back in February 2022,shortly after the Russian
reinvasion of Ukraine where Iwarned, if we start to see
Russian battlefield losses inUkraine, one byproduct could be
terrorism in the West, becausethe West has rallied, because
NATO has rallied to support theUkrainians and you know it

(36:10):
wasn't that revolutionary of astatement.
We've seen Russian terrorism inthe West before that.
Let's look at the Litvinenko's,let's look at some of the
things that the Russians havedone blowing up arms depots in
parts of Bulgaria and the CzechRepublic, an assassination of a
Chechen dissident in Berlin inbroad daylight so the Russians

(36:31):
are not afraid to conduct actsof terrorism.
They've also now they're goingto be dealing with the return of
these Wagner folks or whateveryou want to call them now back
into regular Russian society,who maybe are heavily battle
scarred, have maybe beenconscripted from prisons.
What becomes of these people?

(36:52):
Russians aren't going to wantthem running around on Russian
soil, so maybe they're kind ofdispatched or deployed in
different ways.
I think we're in for a reallyturbulent time with the Russians
, particularly with the posturetoward Europe.
And that's, you know, putUkraine, you know how that
conflict ends aside.
You know this is a clear signalto the West that the Russians

(37:14):
are not afraid to uh, to takethat next step.
I mean taking out a plane withan explosive, pretty, pretty
drastic Uh.
This isn't kind of uh, what wecall salami slicing or
incremental terrorism.
This is a very blatant, clearsign of what the Russians are
prepared to do.

Dana Lewis (37:34):
And you have a president who, uh, a, a, a, a
second term president, donaldTrump, who wants to end the war
in Ukraine in 24 hours and havea great relationship with
president Putin.
Um, it's, it's not really seen,seemingly based in any kind of
reality right now it's not.

Colin Clarke, Soufan Center (37:54):
And you know, again, my hopes are
that his advisors can kind of uh, you know, convince him that
putin is not our friend.
Um, and again, you have tothink of some of the drastic
kind of 180s trump did duringhis first administration.
What's to say that Trumpdoesn't hate Putin six months
into this?
I know it's implausible or it'shard to fathom, given the kind

(38:17):
of bromance that they've had,for lack of a better term, but
you know, geopolitics makes forstrange bedfellows.
If Trump feels that Putin iskind of uh, you know,
embarrassing him or trying toshow him up in some ways, we
don't know how he'll react.

Dana Lewis (38:34):
Colin Clark with the Cefan Center.
Colin, great to talk to youagain.
Thank you so much.
Thanks, dana.
All right, joining me now fromWashington is Lieutenant General
Ben Hodges, who was the formerUS Army commander in Europe and
is now retired.
Ben, you've been on the programmany times and I've known you

(38:54):
for decades now.
You were among dozens of formerUS military commanders,
diplomats, former members ofTrump's administration including
his national security advisor,john Bolton, and it goes on and
on that long list who warned ofdangers if Trump was to be
elected.
Here we are.
What are those dangers, and doyou believe that they are

(39:23):
possible, or do you really fearthat we're heading into a very
dark period?

Lt Gen Ben Hodges (39:32):
fear that we're heading into a very dark
period.
Well, I think it's firstimportant to be very clear that
the election is over.
American people have voted and,while I may not have wanted
this outcome, I respect theelection.
I can't say that I'm fordemocracy and that I care about
the Constitution only when myguy or woman wins the election.
So I just say that I'm fordemocracy and that I care about
the Constitution only when myguy or woman wins the election.

(39:53):
So I just want to be very clearabout that.
I accept the outcome of theelection and, for the good of
our country, I hope that the newadministration will be
successful.
Having said that, of course,I'm going to remain engaged on
policy issues, which is what weshould all be doing where I
think the policy is wrong orright or needs to be adjusted,

(40:15):
particularly on the areas whereI have some expertise, like
security, working with ourallies in NATO and in the
Indo-Pacific region.

Dana Lewis (40:24):
I'm not going to let you get off the hook this
easy.

Lt Gen Ben Hodges (40:28):
Well, I finish, but it's important to be
very clear that I acknowledgeand accept the outcome of the
election.
The dangers are as follows.
Number one our leadershipwithin NATO.
The president based on what hesaid and did in the past

(40:49):
president-elect.
What he said and did in thepast president-elect, what he
said and did in the past uh,both when he was president
before and in the last fouryears on the campaign trail, you
know, makes people wonder willhe remain committed to, to nato?
I mean, that's that never hasbeen a question before,
regardless of who the presidentwas.
So that's do you?

Dana Lewis (41:07):
want me to let you go through your list, or should
we chip away at these as, as you, as they were like let me do it
.

Lt Gen Ben Hodges (41:13):
I'll do quickly headline and then we
come back to it.
So that's the first thingamerican commitment to nato.
The second thing, of course, isum interaction with russia.
Uh, what's what's going to bethe attitude in dealing with
russia?
In eight years he's never saida negative thing about Vladimir

(41:33):
Putin, in fact praised how smartPutin was.
So this gives people pause,especially our allies in Eastern
Europe.
And then the third thing is ourofficer corps.
I think the fact that theformer chairman of the Joint
Chiefs is on their retributionlist talking about General

(41:53):
Millig and I haven't seen a lotof people speaking out about
this, you know former military Imean people should be outraged.
A professional officer corpsthat will give their best
professional advice and thencarry out the orders when they

(42:15):
carry out legal orders.
I mean this is a problem, andso I worry that this will have
the effect of future seniorofficers who are being
considered for leadershippositions under this
administration, that they mighthave to pass some additional
litmus tests other thanprofessional competence and
their oath to the constitutionlet's start with the last one,

(42:36):
because you've raised it and alot of people don't recall.

Dana Lewis (42:39):
I mean, there's just such a whirlwind of
outrageous statements that havecome from trump during the
campaign period.
I think people just forget someof them and I, on millie, I had
to go look it up because I knewI would be talking to you today
.
So on this revenge list, if youwant to call it that, that
Trump has is former chairman ofthe Joint Chiefs of Staff, mark

(43:00):
Milley, who Trump has ravedagainst because Milley had been
in contact with a Chineseofficial during a tense
transition period four years agoand Trump suddenly says that
amounted to treason, quote thisis an act so gregarious in times

(43:23):
gone by.
The punishment would have beendeath, said Trump, would have
been death, said Trump.
And this was reignited afterMilley said that Trump is a
fascist to his core.
I mean, it's been prettycombative, but I mean, do you
really expect that thepresident-elect to become the
president would actually goafter his former chairman of the

(43:47):
Joint Chiefs of Staff?

Lt Gen Ben Hodges (43:49):
No, number one, of course that's a
possibility, but you know othersmay do it with or without
direct guidance.
So I think you know a nobody,nobody of either party, uniform
or not, should live in fear,that of retribution if they were

(44:11):
performing their duty.
And this is where I think thepresident-elect and his team, if
they're serious about movingforward, then they would say hey
look, we're moving forward.
I disagree with General Milleyor whatever, but we're moving

(44:31):
forward.
That would be presidential.
I don't know that everybodyagrees with that.

Dana Lewis (44:41):
That would be presidential, which kind of goes
against Trump's grain at times.
The officer corps in the UnitedStates.
When Trump has talked aboutdeploying the military inside of
the United States, why doesthat trouble the officer corps?
What is constitutionally theobjection, and would they answer

(45:04):
that call?

Lt Gen Ben Hodges (45:07):
I think that you know we work so hard in our
in the culture and the educationand the training of the officer
corps and our non-commissionedofficers, constantly reinforcing
the oath to support and defendthe Constitution of the United
States.
That and always highlightingthat in our, that which, by the

(45:29):
way, was created after the civilwar.

Dana Lewis (45:32):
You know, or what?

Lt Gen Ben Hodges (45:33):
Because you're glad you'll cut out there
, I'm sorry.
The oath that we use today wascreated after the American civil
war.
Uh, because you had officersfrom the U?
S army, including West Pointgraduates like Robert E Lee,
that violated their oath andjoined the Confederacy.
So this oath was to make surethat, to remind officers that

(45:57):
their oath is to support anddefend the Constitution of the
United States.
So we reinforce that.
Every time there's are-enlistment, a promotion, a
retirement, whatever, we alwaysreinforce that oath.
So it's in the culture.
And then we also have obedienceto civilian or that the military
is under civilian leadership.
That's in the Constitution, thepresident's commander in chief.

(46:20):
But that's Article 2 of theConstitution.
Article 1 lays out roles andresponsibilities of the Congress
with regards to the military.
Is the Congress with regards tothe military, so the uh, the
idea that, um, loyalty of theofficer corps, that they will,
they will perform their duty?
Of course they will.
If it's a legal order, becausewe also train and educate people

(46:43):
, it is your responsibility tobe able to tell the difference
If you get an illegal order andto have the courage to say no
sir, no, ma'am, I can't do that,that's illegal.
So, uh, that removes what wealways referred to as the
Nuremberg defense, that you know, I was only following orders Um
, that's, that's, that's, that'sserious stuff, and and I think,

(47:06):
um, uh, the officer corps willhopefully continue to emphasize
that.

Dana Lewis (47:13):
NATO.
You raised that as number oneon your list, I guess, or the
first one that you raised.
I mean, a journalist asked me ajournalist, friend of mine in
Washington actually also todayasked me what Europe's reaction
is to the Trump election.
And I wrote back um, europewants to puke.

(47:34):
And now that that's prettycrass on my part, but I think
you know you, you might, youmight find some common ground in
that that.
The fear is that you know Trumpum, just isn't playing the art
of the deal on NATO.
Then in fact, he may just wantto get out.
He doesn't have a view thatNATO's collective security

(47:59):
protects America.
Trump tends to see NATO assomething as this kind of an
army for hire arrangement whereyou know, we'll protect European
countries if they pay, and ifthey don't pay, and if they're
not hitting that 2% of GDP orwhatever, um, you know they,

(48:22):
they Putin, can have Adam.
What fundamentally is theproblem with that thinking?
What fundamentally is theproblem with that thinking, that
transactional thinking, asagain I'll mention John Bolton,
his former.
What was his title?
Again, national Security.

Lt Gen Ben Hodges (48:41):
Advisor.

Dana Lewis (48:41):
National Security Advisor.
Excuse me, john, the NationalSecurity John Bolton says it's
just transactional.
He has no idea of the historyof NATO and what it's all about,
and post-World War II securityin Europe.

Lt Gen Ben Hodges (48:55):
So I have thought about this a lot over
the last few months, of course,but especially in the last
couple of days, trying to thinkokay, now it's a fact, so the
fact that there is going to be aTrump administration, so what
does that mean for our allianceand for our relationships in
Europe and our adversaries inEurope, such as Russia?

(49:17):
Fortunately, there are severalmembers of Congress on the
Republican side, people likeChairman Mike Turner of Ohio or
Senator Lindsey Graham orSenator Lindsey Graham who are
very, very longstandingtransatlanticists that they

(49:37):
value and understand the valueof NATO and American leadership
in the alliance.
Why that's for our advantage.
It's good for America to beable to do that, for America to
be able to do that, and so Ithink that they will prevail
upon the President Trump to makesure that we don't lose this
huge advantage that we have ofbeing able to lead inside the

(50:01):
alliance.
Now, of course, president-electTrump, like every other
president, is correct to putpressure on allies to do more.
Like every other president,that's correct to put pressure
on allies to do more.
But, um, that doesn't mean thatnato is not the kind of thing
where you just want to say, okay, screw you guys, we're leaving,
because who really gets hurt isus.
So that's, that's the firstpart, and I think that congress

(50:23):
will play a role.

Dana Lewis (50:24):
Secondly, see understand that the first people
who get hurt is us beingAmerica, that it's not just
America providing protection.
America gets back security fromthat arrangement.

Lt Gen Ben Hodges (50:37):
Yes, well, that's.
I think that's going to be partof the compelling argument from
people like Senator Graham andMike Turner to explain why this
is good for America.

Dana Lewis (50:48):
But by the way, ben , one more time I just adding to
what you say, rather thaninterrupt you and I know you
don't like it, but I have to putit in there.
Because you mentioned NATO,secretary General Mark Rutt came
out today and he's prettydiplomatic and he knows Trump.
He said the strengthening ofties between Russia and North
Korea are not only a threat toEuropean security, but also for
the United States.

(51:08):
What we're talking about,russia is delivering the latest
technology to North Korea inreturn for North Korean help in
the war against Ukraine.
So he's already laying thatkind of groundwork where he's
saying to the Trumpadministration understand that
this is not just about Europe inisolation or Ukraine and Russia

(51:30):
in isolation.
This comes back to our security, the collective security and
America's security.

Lt Gen Ben Hodges (51:39):
So this has been my point for a long time.
I just haven't been verycompelling is that helping
Ukraine defeat Russia isolatesIran, isolates North Korea and
deters China, that all of thesethings are linked.
So having a strong alliancewhere we actually have a very

(52:00):
small American footprint inEurope, I mean it's very small.
The number of Americans inEurope could not fill up the
University of Michigan footballstadium.
I mean we're not talking abouta lot of people, what's?

Dana Lewis (52:13):
the number how many , how many about a hundred
thousand okay about 100 000.

Lt Gen Ben Hodges (52:25):
That's how many people sit in the big house
in university of michiganfootball stadium and over half
of those are rotational.
So and and there's very fewtroops or capabilities that are
in europe that are needed in theend of pacific region.
So this is this is a verysustainable contribution by the
United States.
That is good for us.

(52:46):
But look, I think that thesecond reason that he can be
persuaded not to turn his backon Europe is because he will be
very concerned.
He will not want to be seen asthe loser, the guy that lost
Ukraine to Russia, and I thinkUkrainians and Europeans and
people inside the administrationcan be effective in saying that

(53:13):
he will be blamed for a failurein Europe.
I think, like all of us, hewould not want to be seen as
having lost Ukraine.
So there will be a test Ipredict a test very early in the
administration, when Russiawill trot out one of their
nuclear red lines, whether it'sLavrov or Medvedev or Putin

(53:37):
himself that will say we'rerelooking or we're updating our
nuclear doctrine or we're goingto do a nuclear test somewhere.
You know, just a reminder thatif you know Ukraine uses
American weapons inside Russia,we may have to revise our
nuclear doctrine.
That worked consistently tostop the Biden administration

(53:59):
from from doing what needed tobe done.
So I wonder what will happen.
When will that first littlenuclear test come out after
President Trump is in office?
And that will be an importantindicator of direction of travel
.

Dana Lewis (54:16):
You just reminded me that former US Ambassador
Mike McFaul, the former USAmbassador to Moscow, said in a
social media posting today thathe said now is the time that
Biden should step up and givethose long-range weapons to
Ukraine, give permission forUkraine to use long-range

(54:37):
weapons against Russia, becausePutin wouldn't dare do anything
when he knows that the Trumpteam is in transition.
Now is the time to step it uprather than throttle back.
Any thoughts?

Lt Gen Ben Hodges (54:54):
Well, of course I would not be against
that, but that would also justhighlight the fact that the
administration failed for thelast years to act decisively.
And that would almost soundlike a gimmick kind of thing
after thousands of Ukrain, butit would just remind everybody
of the failure of theadministration to act

(55:15):
strategically and decisively.
And I don't know that Putinwould understand the game here

(55:37):
and would say OK, I'd see what'sgoing on, don't worry about it.
I mean, I'm as far as I know,he is still not called up to
congratulate president electTrump yet.
I mean, so this is not going tobe, you know, bouquets.
This is not going to.
This is not going to be bouquet.
Well, no, don't, this is not.
This is not funny.
You know, zelensky calledimmediately.

(55:57):
Other leaders from around theworld have been calling in.
It's noticeable to me thatPutin has not done that, and so
I would not assume as muchrespect as I have for Ambassador
McFaul I would not assume thatthe Biden administration could
okay, let's empty the locker,give them everything ASAP, and

(56:23):
that Putin will just kind of letit go.
And plus, there's a practicalaspect it's very difficult
moving all this stuff and it'sshameful that we have been so
slow with actually deliveringwhat was already committed.

Dana Lewis (56:38):
Let me ask you this report in the Wall Street
Journal today that Trump's teamis reportedly crafting a peace
plan for Ukraine.
It would delay NATO, ukraine'smembership to NATO for at least
a decade, for sorry, for 20years, for two decades.
It would establish a1,200-kilometer demilitarized

(57:00):
zone along the front line soundslike north of South Korea and
leave 20% of occupied Ukrainianterritory under Russian control.
What are your thoughts?
Is that going to pass themustard with Ukraine?
First of all, because they'rethe ones that are going to have

(57:21):
to agree with it, and uh, and Iguess Russia, russia also has to
sign off on something like that.

Lt Gen Ben Hodges (57:28):
Well, this sounds like something that you
know happened back in the 18thcentury, when the three big
powers would kind of divide upsmaller countries amongst
themselves.
Uh, that's not, that's notgoing to pass mustard.
Um, that's not.
That's not going to pass musterin the in the 21st century.
I think you're you're you'recorrect that Ukrainians are not

(57:48):
going to go along with that.
I mean, they know what happens.
Number one, when the Red Armyshows up somewhere.
Number two nobody, nobody,believes that Russia will
actually live up to anyagreement unless you've got
blue-helmeted or NATO troops orsomebody there actually
enforcing it, and that's notgoing to happen.
So I have zero confidence thatRussia would live up to that and

(58:11):
, frankly, none of the EasternEuropean countries would have
any confidence in that.
Nor, I think, will they besatisfied with the, with
something that rewards Russianaggression like that, because
that means that you're going tosee millions more Ukrainian
refugees pouring into uh,Central and Western Europe as a

(58:32):
result of this.
So, okay, I of course they'reprobably working on a plan.
That's normal, but each of thetenants of that plan that you
just laid out are, I think,infeasible, uh, unsupportable
and undesirable seems to me now,uh, more than ever, the last
thing ukraine would agree to isany kind of demilitarization.

Dana Lewis (58:56):
I mean, they fear russia so much that why would
they ever agree to put down theweapons that they have?

Lt Gen Ben Hodges (59:04):
Of course.
Why would they agree to forego20 years that they want to ask
to come into NATO?
I mean, that's what I think ashort-sighted vision by whoever
thinks this is a good idea.
Um, and the real question iswhy?

(59:24):
Why do nations want to joinNATO?
Why did every country that usedto be under the Soviet thumb or
the Russian thumb seek to joinNATO as soon as they could?
Because, uh, they know whatit's like to be under that the
thumb of Moscow.
Uh, and they also know thatNATO represents, with all its

(59:44):
imperfections, represents thebest possible hope for security
against the historical adversary, Russia.
So why would we, the UnitedStates, assume that we can make
a decision for another countrylike that?
I think it's terrible that wehave failed to live up to our

(01:00:07):
agreements with the BudapestMemorandum from 1994, when
Ukraine gave up their nuclearweapons.
The US, UK and Russia allfailed to live up to that, and
so nobody's going to trustRussia and, frankly, I worry
that, um, nations don't trust us.

Dana Lewis (01:00:25):
Would you agree in, in closing here, that the, um,
that the world is a far moredangerous, far more complicated
place than when Trump was inoffice, during his first term,
and that the, the, the threatsthat you have from North Korea,

(01:00:46):
the, from Iran, it's?
It's far more complicatedbecause it's a web now of those
nations China and Iran andRussia all cooperating and
working together?
Um, so so he is going to have ahell of a challenge in front of
him and he may not be the guy,he may not be the president, for

(01:01:06):
that.

Lt Gen Ben Hodges (01:01:07):
Well, he is the president, and what I'm
looking forward to seeing is whodoes he bring in?
You know the old adage thatpeople is policy.
So who he brings in to fillpositions at Secretary of
Defense, secretary of State,national Security Advisor, not
just the top level, but the twolevels down.
You know who will be theundersecretary for policy, for

(01:01:29):
example.
Those will be strong indicatorsof direction.

Dana Lewis (01:01:35):
Do you think he's up for the job?
Foreign policy and foreignthreats when you think about
America's security, I mean whathe's going to be in the job
foreign policy and foreignthreats.
When you think about America'ssecurity, I mean he's going to
be in the job.

Lt Gen Ben Hodges (01:01:43):
I mean whether or not I think he's up
for it.
You know the election has beencompleted.
He's going to be the presidentand we all have to hope that the
president is successful inprotecting us, protecting our
allies and defending theinternational rules-based order
that has made America and ourallies incredibly prosperous and

(01:02:06):
safe.

Dana Lewis (01:02:07):
But you still think he's dangerous because that's
what you said and I believeyou're a lifelong Republican who
voted against him.
You just can't walk away and Idon't say you are, but I'm sure
you cannot walk away in goodconscience after delivering that
repeated message and thinkanything different the day after

(01:02:28):
.

Lt Gen Ben Hodges (01:02:29):
Daniel, you're putting words in my mouth
, and I was a lifelongRepublican until I left the
party after January the 6th andI did not want to be associated
with the GOP anymore because Ididn't recognize it.
I'm an independent now and, yes,of course, the election is
complete, so I'm no longercampaigning against him.
I am concerned about thosethings that I mentioned earlier.

(01:02:51):
You know, impact on ouralliance, that American security
has been guaranteed because ofNATO, as has the security of
over a billion other peoplebecause of NATO, the most
successful alliance in thehistory of the world.
So I am, of course, I'm goingto be concerned about that, just
like I was concerned by theBiden administration's failure

(01:03:14):
to do certain things in Europe.
Yes, I'm going to be concernedabout impact on the officer
corps.
If there is a politicization ofthe serving officers where they
have to pass some sort oflitmus test that's beyond
professional competence and oathto the support and defend the
Constitution of the UnitedStates, I'll be concerned about

(01:03:36):
that because that will have adamp negative effect on the
quality of the professionalmilitary advice that senior
leaders are expected to provideto the president, to the
secretary.

Dana Lewis (01:03:54):
Oh, to the constitution, not to the man,
not to the president, that'scorrect.
What was the word I put in yourmouth just before I let you go
Danger?

Lt Gen Ben Hodges (01:04:03):
You said.
I'm not going to let you walkaway from what you said.
I'm not walking away from whatI said, but when I said those
things, of course it was thecampaign.
The election has been had iscomplete, he is the president,
and so, like any other patrioticAmerican, I'm going to do
everything I can to help makesure our country, um is, is

(01:04:24):
successful and it's strategicinterest.
Um, and the beauty of oursystem is that, you know, people
can talk about policy in public, should talk about policy in
public.

Dana Lewis (01:04:38):
Lieutenant general Hodges, always a great pleasure,
sir.

Lt Gen Ben Hodges (01:04:42):
All right Dan .

Dana Lewis (01:04:43):
Thanks for the privilege.
Thank you, and that's ourbackstory.
This week, president Putin hassaid he's open to talk to Trump.
Of course he is.
He's talked to Trump more thanhalf a dozen times, seven times
since Trump left the White House.
Their close and suspectrelationship has been the stuff

(01:05:04):
of wild speculation for years,as in.
Does Putin have something onTrump?
What does he have?
Putin will attempt to play thepresident-elect, that's for
certain.
What may save the day are thepeople that Trump appoints to
cabinet, if he appoints aqualified and sober inner circle
and if he's up to listening tothem.

(01:05:25):
I'm Dana Lewis.
Thanks for listening toBackstory.
No-transcript.