In The East Wing

Abdullah Najjar 0:00
All right, so in this episode of In the East Wing, I am joined by Michael Patrick Mulroy, also known as Mick. Mulroy, Mick is the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East. He's also a retired CIA paramilitary Operations Officer in the special activity center and a retired US Marine. Currently, he is the president of fogbo, I think I'm pronouncing it correctly here, which is a company that enables international humanitarian efforts. He's also a senior fellow for Middle East Institute and ABC News national security analyst, a co founder of the Lobo Institute, the CO president of end child soldiering, and he's also on the board of advisors for Plato's Academy Center and the Aurelius foundation. Marcus Aurelius, in this conversation, we delved into a variety of topics. We talked about the Middle East, we talked about stoicism and few other things here and there. So without further ado, let's hear it from the man himself. Mick, Leroy. Mick, it's been Gosh. I don't remember last time we had a conversation together. But I think, you know, this is the third time you're on my show, so I want to welcome you again. Thank you for joining me.

Mick Mulroy 1:29
Great to be with you, Abdullah, and I think even since yesterday, a lot has happened. So I'm sure we have a lot to talk about. Oh yeah, happening fast in the world.

Abdullah Najjar 1:39
Yeah, things are, things are changing. I mean, I think, you know, obviously Middle East, you know, we're just, that's the core, that's the main focus. And I do also want to say that we'll try, you know, as much as we can, to go over a couple of things pertaining to the Middle East, and we'll delve into a little bit of stoicism here and there. So, for the for those listening, right? Yeah, they're gonna, they're gonna get a couple of gift to me. So, so, Mick, you know you were for a while. You were involved. You worked under Secretary Mattis right at the pardon defense. And you were involved. You were the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East, and I'm sure at the time, things were very different than what we're seeing today. So with, with, with a with a a regional war, perhaps breaking up soon, hopefully not. And with the situation in Middle East that's very, very intense, what would you say things would sort of look like if you were still involved with the Pentagon? How different would it be? What you would be doing, and you know, terms of pressure and workload, say you're still involved like it would probably be very different than you know, since the last time you were in the inside.

Mick Mulroy 3:07
Sure. I mean that that is an interesting question. I haven't had that question asked yet. I did work. I had the privilege to work for both Secretary Mattis and and Secretary Asper, both great Americans and really cool to work with, to be honest. And and you know, as far as what the difference would be, and I think one thing that people would find a bit surprising, at least from my perspective, is us, foreign policy does change, but doesn't change as much as you think it does, right? And obviously the news is going to highlight the changes, the differences, and not so much, what stays the same and remains the same. And I think partly because when, when people get into power, you know, new president, for example, oftentimes they don't know what. They don't know when they get in there, they think something, they have a preconceived notion of what should change. And then the first Intel briefing they get from the CIA, they go, Oh, wait, didn't know that. Of course, you didn't know that. Because, like, especially now, we get a lot of people that come from outside of government, and we have some people that come from outside of government. So I think the first thing I'd say is a lot of us, foreign policy stays consistent. People just don't talk about it, because what's to talk about, it doesn't make news if you don't change, right? But it's very consistent. And the other part of that is because there is a group of professional policymakers. I was in a I'm not a political person. I don't support a party, you know, middle of the road, ideologically, if you will. I did it. I essentially took the policy position because, you know, I'm a former Marine, and when General Mattis asked you to do something, you do it right? My son said, Dad, he was a Marine as well. He's like, Well, Dad, you don't really have a choice, so you. Going to have to put your Montana plans on hold for two years. But there is politically appointed policymakers, and then there's policymakers that are consistent across administrations, both at the NSC, at the State Department and at the Pentagon, and also a treasury, I imagine an energy and all that, but I'm more focused on national security type stuff, and they are consistent. And now they ultimately are told, you know, policy changes, this is but if policy doesn't change, then the consistency is right there with them, and the history and the knowledge and how everything's transferred from administration to administration, even if it's a republican or democrat or democrat to republican, stays consistent unless there's a need to change it. So that's the first part of my answer. Second part is, although I was in a senior Pentagon policy making position, and you know, I had my say, and certainly both secretaries allowed their deputies, assistant secretaries, to have a say in policy. Ultimately, if that wasn't the ultimate decision over the White House, guess whose opinion doesn't matter? Yeah, mine, right, or anybody in my position, right? So it oftentimes, that's how it happened, even to the secretary, right? I mean, I'm not telling any secrets. I mean, the Secretary resigned in protest to Secretary Mattis would sign in protest, to the abrupt decision to essentially abandon our partners in the SDF and depart. Uh, although that didn't actually happen. Uh, we still have people with the SDF, but Secretary Mattis felt that that type of disloyalty to partners, and I agree with him, was unacceptable. So that shows you that even up to the secretary level, so the cabinet level, ultimately, the President's making the decision. So what would be the difference? I think, I think, you know, I would what I would have agreed with and disagreed with from this administration, is I agreed with the US leading the charge on support for Ukraine, totally, if anything, I would have pushed to that I wasn't in that part of the geo spectrum. But if they were asking me, I would have said, look, there's no reason to drag out giving them F 16 and m1 Abrams, especially since we all know we're going to do it. So we're not going to have this public debate. Let's just do it all at once. So these guys cannot just survive. They can succeed. But ultimately, when looking at it in total, I think the US, President Biden, his secretaries, have led the international community in the support that Ukraine deserves. And this, this odd anti Ukrainian sentiment on the far right is just baffling to me, how that party of Reagan can now be, in many ways, a pro Russian element in the political political spectrum. Where I would disagree would be the withdrawal from Afghanistan, both from the perspective that we didn't have to fully withdraw. We were essentially not in combat roles anymore. And then, of course, how we withdrew was a national embarrassment. And then I have mixed feelings on the Middle East, current Middle East issue, with Gaza and stuff, but I'll stop there and see if you have any specifics on that, because it's a it's a broad topic, right?

Abdullah Najjar 8:41
It is, it is, yeah, ramble,

Mick Mulroy 8:43
yeah.

Abdullah Najjar 8:45
There's just earlier you mentioned the SDF. I just maybe for our viewers to know Syrian Democratic Forces. That's referring to SDF, yeah, yeah. So you mentioned Afghanistan, and I think there's earlier. I think this morning I was looking into, I realized there was an article published in 2010 by Professor Georgetown. And they were talking about how, essentially, it was trying to say that the model of clear, hold, build, transfer might not be successful. That was, you know, back in 2010 she was writing about the Obama administration's decision to, you know, it's sort of to mitigate, I guess, American presence, and to trans, you know, after you're done with the insurgency, just transferred to, you know, the Afghans let them handle it. You see, maybe a sort of a parallel, maybe with, uh, perhaps the tactics that are being, maybe being used by the IDF and Gaza, right? Maybe that, that would that be considered a counterinsurgency model, and if, if it would be, what, what is? What are they? Maybe, perhaps. Overlooking or can they fall into a similar situation to that, where you find yourself on the ground for almost 20 years and then you realize this is not going anywhere?

Mick Mulroy 10:16
Well, to start with Abdel. I mean, hopefully all countries have the capacity to learn from other countries experiences, right? That's what that's the definition of intelligence for many, is the ability to learn from other people's mistakes by, I think, the US, if the US, and it's easy to be an armchair quarterback looking back. So I'll start with that. I spent two and a half years on the ground in Afghanistan, looking back, I'd say going forward, the US, the US, definitely had a reason to go into Afghanistan. Obviously, the terrorist group al Qaeda was was essentially housed there and protected by the Taliban that did 911 I think the US, and I did think this at the time, should have focused primarily on a mission that brought us there, which was counter terrorism. We should have built the capacity of very Afghans to fight their own terrorist component, to have their own elections, and then we should have just been part of the international community when it comes to building up the country, right? Nation building, but not the sole country in basically take 90% of our international aid and put it into one country, right? I think the international community should have led that. We should have participated. We should have contributed our fair share, but we essentially went all in and now we and then turned it over to the very group that housed the town, the al Qaeda terrorist group that attacked us, and they are worse than they ever were, and their humanity human rights record to date is abyss. In fact, it was. It's probably worse than it was before we got there after the attacks. So I think, I think what the US should learn is we have to realize the reason why we go into a country, and we have to be hesitant to do so only when necessary. Iraq would be a good example of what not to do, right? Try to attach it to 911 and then just decide to invade a country. But Afghan I think, was valid, but then have a realistic goals of what can be done. Because if you leave and it collapse because they can't, for example, this is a logistic thing. So if you build all these places that have to be continuously resupplied by aerial delivery. And you know that's not going to last past the United States like it's a virtual certainty. That's a simple example. But if, if you're thinking like I'm trying to build a nation, but I'm building it off of my model, including the military, and then when we're not here, that model can't sustain itself. It's a waste of time unless you intend to be there, which we don't. So I would say, from that perspective, we should have very much refined our goals. We should have participated in the international community's effort to, you know, to have a elected government and that promotes human rights, but not be the primary, because we should be doing that everywhere, and we can't do it everywhere for folks. But on your question, Abdel, on whether the Israelis, you know, they're not going to build anything, it's, you know, from my experience, and I'm involved with the humanitarian efforts, enabling humanitarian efforts on the ground there and in other countries. And it does look like their their plan right now is, you know, clear for sure, hold somewhat. They're having to re clear a lot of places build. I haven't seen any of that, and then turn over. That's the other issue. They're unlikely to do because they haven't. They, from their perspective, they don't see any form of government that's worth handing anything over to. They're certainly not going to do it to a remnant of Hamas' rule. So the build part, I mean, the clear part is clearly going on the hold to a lesser extent, and then the and then the other two build and turn over. There's no plan to my knowledge, and I haven't seen it coming from anybody to do the latter too. And

Abdullah Najjar 14:37
you said you were involved in the humanitarian effort, and knowing that there might not be you know, past phase two of holding, which is sort of you know, not. It's not a you know concrete yet the plans to hold, knowing that past that phase the. Just nothing, just sort of nothing, no positive indications. How does that sort of translate when you're involved in this humanitarian effort that is, that will remain ongoing without perhaps an end goal, right? Like, how did you know? What do you Yeah, that's a good question.

Mick Mulroy 15:20
Yeah, that's it. It is like so from the humanitarian where we enable humanitarian groups to do what they do in Gaza, and proud to do so, but from that perspective, it does mean that there is essentially no end in sight, but the need in Gaza, right? The 80 plus percent of the buildings in dwellings have been destroyed to the point of they can't be occupied. There is no real means to produce food internally. The hospitals are non functioning, so there is this is going to be a permanent humanitarian at the basic level effort in Gaza for the foreseeable future. What could change that? Well, I know people say it, some people don't want to hear it, but there has to be a diplomatic path toward a solution that ends with two nation states that live peacefully beside each other, of which both the governments are responsive to their people, not a foreign entity like Iran, and are driven to provide a better future, economically, security, educationally to their people. That needs to be the case. And if that's going to require an international effort, right? If we're all expecting this to be done by the Israelis, it's not going to happen when they don't even have the capacity to make it happen. It really does require all the nations in the region to to either become actively involved, or, in the case of a React, Iran, actively uninvolved, unless they're going to do something positive, which is doubtful, but you know, led by the Gulf states, us playing a part, obviously, the European partners playing a part. And in really looking at how to get to a place where this isn't just a repetitive recycling conflict, where the goal of the political entities is to simply destroy the other entity or country in the region, Israel. It's easy. I mean, it's easier said than done. I'll start with that, but if you're not even saying it, then we're going nowhere, right? Like we're not going anywhere. And there's too many entities outside of Gaza or the West Bank for that matter, who are perfectly fine for using this as their own political and they don't really care about the lot of the Palestinian people going forward. They would just like the proxy forces in general, Iran would be fully willing to fight to the last proxy force, right? And we're seeing that Hezbollah right now. I mean, I don't think you could see any more of an example of that anyway. So that's all that's that's. You got to start by setting out what we're at the end state. And then there needs to be an all hands international effort to get to that once degree

Abdullah Najjar 18:25
there's a now here. I don't know if it's it's right or accurate to have maybe the US experience as a point of reference, but I'll try here to maybe paint a rough sketch, and you tell me where you would perhaps agree or maybe disagree. So the Israeli operation started in Gaza after October 7, and then now it is sort of shifting to Lebanon, and you hear the rhetoric, obviously for many officials in the Israeli government saying that the shift is now toward Lebanon, right? There's a fair bit of, I guess, I guess the focus is no longer, even though their operation in Gaza still ongoing. There's, there's, you know, more more attention being paid to Lebanon and Hezbollah. And this is sort of reminiscent of, I don't know if you would agree with this or not, but sort of Afghanistan and Iraq, right? You have, you start off with Afghanistan, and then you, you know, you got 2003 invasion of Iraq, and you have a surge, and then the focus sort of shifts, and you're sort of torn between these different, I guess, fronts, and you don't it's like you're managing two wars at once, and that's that would be. It's like you're stretching yourself too thin, and it's very difficult. And so here I want to. See if you sort of maybe agree with that assessment, or you see it differently, as in, like the US point of reference might not be accurate, as this is perhaps a unique case and should be treated on its own. So I don't know, I don't know where you stand on

Mick Mulroy 20:18
that, so I could see the the connections that you're making. But I think from the differences would be this, the the US tried to connect them, right? The US tried to say, oh, you know, Saddam houses, some al Qaeda guys. So yeah, because of 911 we're gonna that came out of Afghanistan, supported by al Qaeda, housed by the Taliban, were going to go to Iraq and invade and take down Saddam, who was a secular dictator, right, who actually hated al Qaeda because he was a threat to him, right? They were a threat to him. Now, I was involved in operation Viking hammer, where there was a a, a al Qaeda linked group called on sarl Islam in northern, Northeastern Iraq, but that was outside of the control of Sudan, of Sudan, right? So the US attempted to attach the two. And I think history looked at that and said, yeah, now that you guys wanted to use 911 to build a coalition to do something you want to do separately, you know, because we didn't finish the job in the 90s or whatever the new conservatives were were thinking there. But I think his story history will say they weren't linked. You essentially started a war. And, I mean, we could go down that rabbit hole of how it's left Iraq, you know, vis a vis Iran and all that. But to state on your point of your question, with Israel's perspective, there is a link. So who is the link? Iran? Iran started Hezbollah. It wasn't just a proxy force. The IRGC cuts Force started Hezbollah. They were the original founding fathers of Hezbollah. They supported Hamas. 90% of their military support came from Iran. They support the Houthis, right? And then you could go on to some of the lushes in Syria and Iraq, but those three main groups, as you can see right now, are in coordination against Israel. So that's not a coincidence. And I've been going to Israel quite a bit because a lot of our human humanitarian efforts, as you probably know, Jerusalem is a big help. NGOs the Israelis have been telling us since November that they expecting Lebanon to happen because the Hezbollah has been launching attacks against Israel since October 8. October 8, right? So 9000 rockets and missiles. 60,000 Israelis displaced their perspective, if the if anybody was listening to them, and it was from, you know, generals I know, down to the bartender who was a reservist that just got back from Gaza, right? And I know a lot of bartenders I have done but and I usually get my info for them. And they usually have better used to be straight up. They were telling me in November, look, as soon as we get Gaza to a place there where it's, you know, we think we can, we're going to have to address the northern border, and we're going to have to go in if they don't stop, because it's politically impossible to accept that 1/3 of your country is now off limits to your citizens, right, right? And so, I mean, you could certainly see it coming. And I think the US has a bit of a different perspective on Hezbollah. One, they've killed more Americans than any other terrorist group other than al Qaeda. Two, although they had a have an issue, they US. The US government has an issue, you know, with how the war has been executed in Gaza, there's considerable civilian casualties, and humanitarian aid has had its issues. It's very difficult for the US to say, Well, don't invade southern Lebanon, right? Because, let's face it, any American would say like you can see, there's Canada over that now. Oh yeah, 40 minutes away, right? So right behind me. Now, I don't think Canada is going to start setting rockets and missiles into Montana, yeah, but just hypothetically say they did on October 8. The US would probably invade on October 9, right, right. Let's face it, we all know that to be true, no matter what side of the political aisle you're on, the US would put up with being right. Rocketed from a foreign terrorist group from a neighboring country for like 24 hours, and you know, the HUD and first airborne would be flying over that border. So I, and I'm being tongue in cheek, right? But it's true, yeah, like the US to say, Oh no, just let 9000 rockets and missiles land on your settlements in the northern part of your country and just suck it up, because we don't want to expand the war. I mean, we could say that, but, you know, it can turn around and say, you're full of it. You would. You would do that. No country would, yeah. So it's difficult. It's difficult for the US to they can certainly critique how were these conflicts are being executed, particularly in Gaza, 41,000 maybe 42,000 now, if you, if you're tracking the numbers, and you believe the, I mean, the Hamas control, it's got to be close to that. I think the US just believes it's close to that. Yeah, you could have the issue there, but to have the issue of them defending themselves is just nonsensical, and it's not believable, right? We wouldn't put up with it for

Abdullah Najjar 26:05
a day. Yeah, and I think there's a good point you make earlier about how, you know, the US might have issues with how the Israelis are executing their operation, and they might have reservations about, might have reservations about, you know, Israelis going into Lebanon, but because it's Hezbollah that triggers historical memory, you know, starting from the 80s, right? 1882, you know, the Marine Baroque explosion, and then over the years, these different terror stacks that makes it, that puts the US in a very tough spot, you know, it's, it's sort of, maybe not the best time to carry out an operation against Hezbollah. But at the same time, the US might feel like, well, you know, at the end of the day, this, this, this terrorist entity has done a lot against us, and if this is the opportunity to maybe go after them, I mean, that that would probably be the US sort of perspective, and one can can understand why that is, you know, it's like you can it's a rational or logical sort of reaction, I would say,

Mick Mulroy 27:21
Yeah, I think that's fair. I mean, Foad Shakur was believed to be one of the main architects behind the Marine barracks bombings that you just referenced, when, when the Israelis killed them, the first thing most of my friends said, Wait a minute, he was in Beirut. We've had a $7 million bounty for this guy for how many years that was 1980 isn't that early 1980 Yeah. So, you know, for, you know, a lot of you know former Marine, but you don't have to be a former rain to as you just be an American. You want to see, like, why was that guy still wandering around in Beirut? Isn't our Embassy in Beirut? I mean, it's, it's a little shocking, to be honest. So I think, I think Americans in general, which includes senior policy makers from both sides of the aisle, are a little more hesitant to say, okay, they attacked. I mean, maybe they attacked on October 8. So wasn't they? You know, nothing would ever be really justified. But let's, I mean, let's look at that. So it wasn't that Israel went in was heavy handed, and that they disagreed with how Israel was prosecuting the war against Hezbollah, because it's failing casuals. They start attacking my hog Rafe, like they haven't even recovered from the terrorist attack on October 7, really, nothing to do with how Israel was prosecuting war. Yeah, it was like, we're part of the attack on Israel. Essentially, it's the same terrorist attack. So, you know, I thought, and I have friends on both sides of the island. I have friends that were on, I'm not on either side, but we're in the Biden administration, in my position, good friends, and most of them, I think, are very consistent in a position I was in, but very consistent with what I'm saying right now. Right? I think, I think that is when it comes to Hezbollah. And then, of course, there, of course, there's the bit of envy from being a former CI person who've seen just the level of decompa de decapitation strikes in sequence. Is astonishing. Yeah, like somebody who is, who has been involved in this, from the US side, their ability to find, locate, fix and finish senior leaders is just, oh yeah, astonishing. Oh yeah. It's, it is astonishing. It's got to be very worrisome, of course, to Hezbollah or Iran. But anyway, yeah, with, with, there's a multi facet, yeah.

Abdullah Najjar 29:40
No, that's one thing I was really, like all of the prominent hispala figures, like the Up, up the chain of command. I mean, all of those were practically eliminated. I mean, that's, I mean that, yes, yeah, no, that's a very major. I. That's, I honestly, yeah, I'm astonished as well. I'm like, Man, this is, so this is, you know, fascinating, the level of, you know, the targeting, you know, the level of targeted, sophisticated targeting, I surely call it. That's, that's very, yeah, that's very interesting. And that'd be, I'd be interested to know how you see, you know, you know, the long term, or maybe short term, impact of these different, you know, targeted operations against these, you know, figures of the chain of command, like, where would you see the impact of that short term and long term with, obviously, you know, Nasrallah, also, you know, being assassinated. I mean, that's a big deal. You know, that's, it's also huge deal. So where do you see, sort of, what are some of the long term, short term effects of that?

Mick Mulroy 30:57
Another good question. I've seen this play out with a lot of policy folks on the discussions of whether decapitation strikes are as effective, as some would say. So first of all, I'd say they never really solve the issue. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, right? So there's several things, one, leadership of any group, even a terrorist group, is important. People follow them. People take their lead. They make the decisions on whether to stop attacking. They make a decision whether to to attack. They make a decision on who to attack. You know, whether it's let's go after the military targets, or let's actually go after civilians so they're important to remove from the battle space, just like any military commander. I mean, you wouldn't go into war and say, let's leave all the generals, because that would be dumb as hell. No person. Yeah, right. I mean, like, no, let's just kill the privates. Let's just kill the privates in the fight positions that have nothing to do with making, you know, the decisions, or whether they're at war. I mean, nobody would say that, yeah, so, I mean, just put that in the same context, not taking up the leaders, it's just not smart. The other part is like Safadi, right? So Nasrallah is a cousin who, according to reports, Iran has designated as his replacements, is 2006 he has a uncanny resemblance, even speaks like them and all that stuff. Apparently, he was killed yesterday.

Abdullah Najjar 32:32
Oh yeah, they lost contact. There were reports that they lost contact.

Mick Mulroy 32:38
Great. So how many other people are going to be put, you know, shoving their hands up in the air to be the next nazron, right? There is a deterrent effect. Yeah, right. It's like, hey, you know, I'm pretty happy being number four. Number four still on the list. But when you go to number one, you're on the number one, you're on the list exactly as number one. Yeah, right. So there's also so one. It's like, a no brainer. When it comes to tactical is to take a leader out to it. There is a hesitation, and you can see it, I'm sure, when they're like looking around the room, and nobody's holding their hand up if there's anybody left in the room, in the other part is it is important to show progress militarily to push diplomacy. You know, people often say, Well, only diplomacy matters. Well, I'm here to tell you, if you have no force behind yourself, your diplomacy, you have no diplomacy. Nobody cares about the country that has no force to to actually impose its policy, its foreign policy, and just shows up to talk diplomacy. I mean, just think about it in history, right? I do think diplomacy should leave I lead. I do think the military should be there to support diplomacy, but if you don't have the military, I mean, just think about the United States without the United States military.

Abdullah Najjar 34:03
It's just economy,

Mick Mulroy 34:06
just an economy, right? So that's plus. That is a good point. But how many you know are gonna really care what we have to say when it comes to war and peace, right? They're gonna be like, Man, whatever you know, go be Switzerland. So I would say that the that that falls into it, if we're making strikes, we've got, we are not we at all. Actually, Israel has Hezbollah taking their boots right now. Even, even some of the people I talk about that are close to them and are more inclined to their position, are acknowledging it on foreign media, yeah, like this is they don't know, you know, to pick up a radio, a pager, a cell phone. You know, there they, because of the military and the covert operations of massage, they have them seriously rattled, right? So it is, it is never going to be, be all, end all. It should never lead. We should always try to lead with diplomacy. But the military is. There to back up diplomacy and give it some some actual clout. And I think most diplomats would acknowledge that, if not actually promote it. And

Abdullah Najjar 35:08
you would, you think that also applies to ownership or possession of nuclear weapons and its impact or leverage it has over say negotiations and diplomacy,

Mick Mulroy 35:19
you have good questions. That is, that is a, that is kind of a, I don't know if Gordian NOD is actually the right. It's a dilemma, right? So I was talking to somebody yesterday, reporter, and I just, you know, they're like, well, will Iran seek a nuclear weapon. And you know, it's always good to put yourself in their position, even if you don't want to. Yeah, you know, if you were Iran right now, and you're looking at the Libyan model and the North Korean model, one dude ended up dead in a ditch, right? That was the dude that decided, yeah, I'll give up my nuclear program because the United States asked me to right, which I I'm happy he did, and I think the United States should have asked me. And the other guy is still trouncing around with military parades and fancy trains, right? So, Rocket Man, you know, living the life of luxury. Rocket Man, right? Get love letters from the president united states. So, you know, I wish that wasn't the case, but if, just from a purely regimes regime survival perspective, if I was, you know, I wouldn't even put me there. But if I, you know, I'm sure that the Supreme Leader and the leader of the IRGC is saying, Look, if we want to make sure we survive, we got to get to a nuclear weapon, period. It's going to be a totally different dynamic. When it comes to, should we take out the entire energy, you know, system in Iran? Should we take out the, you know, all that stuff is a different calculation. When Iran's proven their ability to have a nuclear weapon and deliver it, it's a horrible thing. The world should not want a nuclear armed Iran, but Iran probably wants a nuclear armed Iran. Yeah, especially stage. There you go.

Abdullah Najjar 37:11
Yeah, yep, yeah. You know there's no, I don't think there's ever any way to transition to stoicism. Or how does one start a conversation? There's no perfect way to transition. Yeah,

Mick Mulroy 37:28
the world needs more stoics. That's my that's my

Abdullah Najjar 37:31
gosh, yeah, I was, when was let me ask you this before I start, you know, we can start talking about services. And when's the last time you were in Greece? I were

Mick Mulroy 37:44
in Greece? So I was there because we did a lot hubbed out of there in Cyprus. By the way, that the port that we hubbed out of in Cyprus is called larnica. Its historic name is citium ditium was where the founder of stoicism was actually from. It's unclear whether he was Phoenician, which is modern day, I suppose London one or Greek, but he was, you know, not to go, not, you know, start me, wind me up on socialism. He came there. That's where I stayed to help our efforts into Gaza, yeah. But that was where I'm from. He got a shipwreck off the coast of Piraeus, which is the port city of Athens swam to shore with nothing. He was a rich guy. Then all of a sudden, all of his stuff went to the bottom of the sea. And that's where stoicism started from, a wealthy person who went to nothing and decided that maybe there was more to life than material. Well,

Abdullah Najjar 38:43
my goodness, yes. So

Mick Mulroy 38:44
I was in Greece recently. Oh,

Abdullah Najjar 38:46
yeah. And cyclists, right for, well, it had to do with, with the floating pier operation. I think Jay lots,

Mick Mulroy 38:55
that's right, that's right. We supported. We didn't ask for it, but God bless them. They sent it, and the military did Hercule an effort to make it successful, and we helped by making sure that it was safely back and forth, I mean, literally, physically, with our maritime assets, getting it back in port to Ashdod to avoid the weather, and then getting it back in place, right? That's what we did, and we put 1100 tons of food across it ourselves are the food that we acquired.

Abdullah Najjar 39:28
Oh, 1100 tons from Cyprus.

Mick Mulroy 39:32
From Cyprus. Yes, we actually had our logistics officer Roger, convinced the Cypriot millers, those that make flour to work on the weekends, because they only created enough flour for ZIP rigs, like, why would they make? Yeah, so we could, they could not feed their own people, so they had to work on all the weekends. And they did. That's how they it was 1100 tons, primarily, of enriched,

Abdullah Najjar 39:58
rich flour. Yeah. Well, that's Yeah, so I was, I was reading about what was his name, Epicurus. No, not Epicurus. Epicurus would be big one, yeah. But he wasn't a stoic and sheridian. No, no. He

Mick Mulroy 40:17
was a stoic, sure. Oh, Epicurus epicuru. Oh, Epicurus, Epictetus, Epictetus, yeah, Epictetus was a famous stoic, yes,

Abdullah Najjar 40:26
he was born a slap curious, right? He's,

Mick Mulroy 40:29
he was an Epictetus was absolute. In fact, his name really means slave. They don't know his name. Oh, yeah, that's, that's, it means one that's owned, or something that means slave. So Epictetus is a, is a stalwart of Stoics, yeah, for sure, he wrote angeridian Handbook. But you said Epictetus, so I just, I just heard Epicure Epicurus, yeah, epicurean started another philosophy. All of it comes from the Socratic philosophy, right? So stoicism does, obviously, Aristotle does, Plato and then the Epicureans, the cynics, for example. And the cynics were kind of between Socratic philosophy and stoicism, because Zeno started as a cynic, and then he, he basically took that and he offshoot it into the Yeah, and I'll start with, I've been a lifelong stoic. I know it's really popular now, but I have been since I was a kid. But I'm not a, you know, a professional, you know, PhD in philosophy, right? I come at it from the the the average dude, but for the average dude, I would say I know a lot about stoicism, because I've been studying my own life.

Abdullah Najjar 41:52
Well, here's one thing that I really, I think the fascinated me about Epictetus. He one of his core beliefs is that you don't have sort of control over maybe external events, and you have to accept whatever happens for what it is like, you know, just accept it, be patient and essentially maintain, I guess, level of self imposure, whatever happens. And he was born into, you know, slavery, but you compare that to the original figure you told me about, who founded stoicism. He was born rich, but then he became poor. And the contrast is that this guy, Epictetus, was born poor, but he accepted it. You know, he was a slave. Obviously, he wouldn't have a lot of, you know, he's not, doesn't come for a family of means or background that's affluent, but he accepted it for what it is, and that it's, it's interesting that you see a different strand here, right? I mean, a different, I wouldn't say entirely different perspective, but people coming at it from different lifestyles or backgrounds, and still sort of, you know, finding a level of connection to the concept. I mean, what do you think of that?

Mick Mulroy 43:11
So I think this is to many why stoicism is so attractive. You have Marcus Aurelius, you know. So quite arguably, not only was the most powerful man in the world, but might have been the most powerful man that ever will live, because we don't have Roman emperors, right anymore, and yet he spent most of his time not only being a good leader from the front, but us actually like troubling himself with being a better person. So when you read the meditations, it was just his notes to himself. It's not a book. He never intended it to be published. He actually told his staff burn it. They just didn't. So you have the potentially the most powerful man that ever lived next and he's and who does he study? He said he's Epictetus, the slave. Wow, right. Who does he revere the slate? Gosh, right. So that's, that's, you know, that's why a lot of people and then another part of this is Zeno, who, as you references, was a really wealthy person who then became a really not wealthy person. I'm not sure. They didn't have insurance back then, he started a cynic. Cynics. They don't just not value wealth. They just don't like it or at the time. So they're the guys that lived in, you know, lived with nothing. They just had a bowl. And then I think he started with that, and then said, hey, you know, this only works if other people are willing to, like, give you food, right? So the stoics aren't against material things. They realize that's important. They realize that, like working is a sense of purpose, having things is fine, but it's not who you are, right? That's why you go to a lot of these stoic conferences, and you'll see, you know. The average guy who you know, blue collar guy, but you also see a millionaires, even billionaires, you see across the spectrum. And it's not that they are opposed to people who you know do really well economically for themselves. But the question then is the only thing necessary for a good life is to do, is to be a good person and do good things. So what is the billionaire doing? Right? If they're just, like, buying up the next, you know, whatever they're buying, then they're not. They're not really. It's called eudaimonia. Kind of a good life is. It's just a Greek term for it, similar to Nirvana, pure. You have ever studied Buddhism, similar?

Abdullah Najjar 45:40
I've heard some people saying, Yeah, my professor used to say, your diamonia. I was like, how does that? How's that even?

Mick Mulroy 45:46
He's probably saying it right, right? Because I the most is from reading. It's all right, it's from reading. And actually, I've talked to a lot of Greeks about this, and they pronounce it different than both, right? Because it's Greek and they're speaking Greek, right? But the point being, it is, there's nothing wrong with wealth, but it really is, you know, whether you have $1 in your bank account or a billion dollars to a stoic, one isn't a better person than the other, just isn't. You know, it depends on what you're doing, yeah, you know, in which you and so that's now stoicism really started with multifaceted, you know, propositional logic, virtue ethics, you know, the the stoic ethics, you know, all the cargo virtues and such, and this strong belief that you should live in compliance, if you will, with nature. That's right, yeah, today mostly focused on the virtue ethics part, which is fine, but it always has been in concert with nature, also includes this really strong belief that you should lead with science. You know, the natural sciences, right? Not everybody should be a scientist, necessarily and interesting off. My dad was a scientist. I think that's one of the reasons why he taught me virtue ethics through stoicism. Oh, wow. But anyway, yeah, that's that was what stoicism was usually start founded much broader in terms of what they were interested in. Now it's mostly virtue ethics, but I think, I think that's important too.

Abdullah Najjar 47:28
You know, one of the interesting things I read was that when Constantine emperor, Constantine converted to Christianity, and then obviously became sort of like the state religion, right? The stoic philosophy, or stoics in general, started sort of fizzling away with the emergence of Christianity and it being a state religion. So you have people sort of betting on or switching, well, maybe they still remain stoic, but they're, but they're, you know, essentially Christian, and they believe in, you know, in their salvation through Christ, and that is what they've dedicated their lives toward, um, and you see how, I guess today there's a resurgence of stoicism, and you wonder sometimes why that is right in the beginning, you know, you know, back in the fourth century, right, third century, I think that's what Constantine was, was, that's when it sort of started fizzling away a little bit. But then today, see a resurgence and, and I wonder, wonder what you would attribute the reasons to that for, you know, for such resurgence,

Mick Mulroy 48:41
you know your stuff. You really do know your stuff. I think most of Yeah, you did, you know a lot of preparation. So if you think about Paul and he went around all these Greek settlements, most of them are stoics that he was preaching Christianity right now, there's nothing in stoicism to my knowledge. And again, I'm a, you know, Princeton professor of philosophy or anything. There's nothing in stoicism that you can be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and be a stoic. In fact, if we back up a bit, the early Stoics believed in God, you don't have to to be a stoic. You be atheist, to go by the way, or agnostic, or whatever. But the the early stoics definitely believed in God, but they believed in a God that I think most people would say is a more modern interpretation, the one my dad described it, who, by the way, was a Jesuit priest before he became a scientist, where my dad described it. You know, most religions view God as the watchmaker, whereas stoics viewed God as the watch. View. Can get the example like, in other words, God is the composition of everything that's a sense. Actually what Stoics, early Stoics believed in, right? It was God was the the sum of all parts, the all parts was everything in the universe interesting, right? So, rather than some separate entity that created that's the watchmaker, least, what my dad used to explain, it worked for me. But when Paul in other apostles were preaching, they were preaching a lot of stories, but the stoicism was primarily not a religion. It's not a religion, and it's not necessarily an opposition. But I do think you're right. I think a lot of them, they're like, oh, like eternal salvation, heaven, all these things that's, I mean stoicism, don't really promise anything. So I can see why that would be a draw, of course, and still is. And I know plenty of especially Catholics, but I know plenty of Christian stoics. It's very it's very much in line in early Christianity's philosophy was heavily influenced by stoicism. In fact, it was Christians who even pretended to be Zeno and to be Epictetus, and wrote all these treaties under their name that they now have, and they call the false Zeno and all. I don't think it was done maliciously, but it was a way to kind of bring the two together, because they're very conducive. You know Jesus, whether you are Christian or just look at him as historical figures, was all about doing good deeds and being good person, right, right? That's stoicism too, right? So I think that that. And then, of course, during the Renaissance, part of the or really the Renaissance, was bringing back a lot of these ancient philosophical Greek doctrines, Socrates to all that, and then merging it into law. At that time, modern Christian thought that was, I mean, that's, that's a renaissance. So there's always, and, you know, I mean, Gilbert Murray said, the historian said, essentially, after Alexander, everybody, every one of his successors, consider himself a stoic. So there was a time when he was like, of course, on the stoic. I mean, that's Western philosophy, that's what that's what we do, right anyway. But now it's making a resurgence, which is really good. And I know a lot of the guys and gals you know, from Ryan Holiday, and then on his podcast, daily stoic to, you know, Donald Robertson, who writes often about Marcus, Aurelius and Socrates, stoic. And then Nancy Sherman, you know, that Georgetown professor who wrote stoic warrior. And there's a there's people like that leading the charge. And I think it's a great thing, you know, people like, Oh, now it's becoming trendy. It's like, Look, man, there's a lot of things to become trendy that are worse than stoicism, you know, like, oh, it's trendy to be, you know, to hold wisdom and justice and courage and self discipline. I mean, that kids are doing nowadays, like, let's, let's promote it, you know. So anyway, yeah, I think it's a good thing that modern stoicism has taken off. One

Abdullah Najjar 53:09
thing you mentioned earlier, and I'd love to maybe highlight, is you said that some early Christians would perhaps write something in the name of, I don't know, famous stoic. I think that's something called, I think, a pseudepigraphy, right? When you write something and you try to impersonate a famous figure, you try to do that, because people will probably believe this more, since it was written by, you know, famous figure, but obviously it wasn't. And that's that happens a lot in the ancient world, I think. But another thing you mentioned, yeah, and something else I love you brought up is the influence, right on, on Christianity, stoicism, or maybe even the ancient, you know, the ancient Greek world might have had a little bit of an influence. And I think one element, and I think maybe that's something you can speak through, is the idea of the Separation of the soul and the body. Because I think in the early, earlier before the emergence of Christianity, I think Jewish people, who, also some of them, converted after the emergence of Jesus, believed in in the union of the body and the soul, like they're these two are not separate, but then afterward, and obviously they believe in the idea of a resurrection where, you know, the body rises up, rises back up. And so with the influence of the ancient Greeks on the, you know, Christianity, there's, there's the idea of the separation of the body and soul. So the soul is independent or a different entity than the body. And I don't know if that's something you notice or something you can speak to, like this level of influence.

Mick Mulroy 54:54
Sure. And to start with, one of your points on your first is about historical. Documents not being written by the actual person. That's most of the Gospels. Make sure my wife can hear me on that. Keep it down. But it's true. I mean, you look at most historians, just google, google the, you know, the key gospels, and you'll see that historically that they were written long after the actual listed apostle was no longer with us, but that doesn't mean they didn't carry down the stories. But anyway, to your point, I think, I think there's always been an evolution of religion and science, right? So the more we know, the more we adapt our beliefs as a group, not just, you know, one particular sect or anything like that. I mean, think about it. There was a time when religious figures, figure said the earth was the center of the Earth had to be, right. I mean, it was us, just us, everything, everything else didn't matter, that evolved. You know, Copernicus, all. I mean, we could just go down the list, and eventually, you know, science figures it out. And the current church finally goes, Okay, you're right. We're not center years, okay, we're not center this. You're not even selling the solar system. Okay, you know. And then we and then, you know, Hubble, I mean, why doesn't name the the scope? It's because he figured out we're not even, I mean, one galaxy, there's billions of galaxies so, you know. And the reason why I bring that up is you eventually learn, look, you know, the body decays. It's a natural process. It doesn't, it doesn't, you know, the question then becomes about the soul separate. And if the soul is separate, then you can still see how it could eventually join something else or be everlasting. You know, it's up to people to make a decision, but I think it's pretty clear, just from science, if you dug up, you know, grave, that you could see what actually happens to the body. It's a natural process that's in a way you could look at it, regenerative, right? Everything's regenerative. You want to look at it that way. But if a far as a soul, it doesn't necessarily answer the question of what happens in the soul, yeah. But I think it's, I think, I think early Stoics, for that matter, would have, would have claimed that it became part of the bigger entity that was, in their terms, God, yeah. But I don't want to get too far into that, because I had somebody who studied, studied, you know, stoicism at its very roots, yeah, and not just the guys that it's a hobby, right?

Abdullah Najjar 57:35
But I think for the most part, I think it's all you know. With ancient Greek philosophy, there's a heavy emphasis on sort of feeding the soul or the mind, right? You love of love of wisdom, I mean, or seeking wisdom, or trying to, essentially, not necessarily, seek gratification, but you're trying to feed something else, something intrinsic or something metaphysical, in a way. It's not, it's not necessarily the body, it's something else. So there's, there's also that heavy emphasis, and so it seems to be important

Mick Mulroy 58:16
steal that next time.

Abdullah Najjar 58:20
Yeah, I'm learning from you, I

Mick Mulroy 58:25
was well played, yeah.

Abdullah Najjar 58:26
But essentially, I think there's a great deal of emphasis on the soul as well back then, you know, because they seem to think that, sure, you know, it's more than just your body. It's something else you know, which I think even today, it's a prevalent, common theme, wanting to seek something more that transcends instant gratification in a way,

Mick Mulroy 58:49
yeah, I think, while you're here on Earth, and hopefully, you know, for most people, a lot of people, the idea that something comes out, yeah, and, and for that person, for you, not just you know, for existence, which obviously no someone comes after. That's the question. That's the eternal I don't know that any philosophy answers the question or religion. I guess for some people in the religion it does, but the philosophy is more about the question than necessarily the answer. It is, like you already said, a lover of wisdom, that's literally what philosophy means, right? So it's, it's a person who continuously seeks the answer, but maybe would be, also be the person that accepts that there isn't a definitive answer, at least not for people here on Earth. Yeah,

Abdullah Najjar 59:35
what do you we're Have you reached that limit of words for the day, or,

Mick Mulroy 59:44
yeah, Abdullah. I told I told people listen. I told Abdullah that as you get to be an older man, I think probably it might be gender related, you get a word count, and when you hit the word count, you just kind of stop talking. I. I

Abdullah Najjar 1:00:01
wouldn't want you to reach me.

Mick Mulroy 1:00:03
I don't know, like, put a comment in the thing, whether it's just me, but I've heard other older men refer to these or you just run out. No, I'm not there yet. I could keep talking. Yeah,

Abdullah Najjar 1:00:15
no, I figured ask a couple more questions and see where, and then we can, you know, wrap up this great conversation. Is there a way where you see, maybe this goes back earlier to our I guess the beginning of our conversation. Is there hope that you have for the escalation in the region at this stage, obviously, you know, Israel is involved with Iran. Iran is also there's, there's a back and forth between the two countries. Israel is involved in Lebanon and Gaza. It seems to be, I don't want to say, getting out of hand, but, you know, it's, it's somewhere in that realm of, yeah, yeah. So I don't know who, what sort of Hope you have for de escalation.

Mick Mulroy 1:01:10
So that's a, certainly a fair question. The issue is, I see it is tied to the discussion we had early on, what's the plan for the next step? Because if there's no pathway to that, then I think a lot of the groups involved, whether it's obviously Israel, Hezbollah, Hamas Houthis, view it as like this is what we do. We just fight. We just fight. I don't think Israel thinks that way, but the other groups their existence. I mean, there. I mean, look at the Houthis Death to Israel. That's the US. I mean, that's the whole point of their existence. So I don't know if we can get them off of that, but certainly if you create a political situation where, in this case, Palestinians feel like they have a future, that they can safely exist that they can educate their children and have an economic path forward, then I think the idea that they would be resisting would be resisting what just, you know, abrational future, the groups that you know basically benefit by Keeping them in this perpetual state of conflict, will never agree, but maybe ultimately, there's more regular people than there are abilities or territory. That's one way to get it is for the the and if this isn't just philosophical, like political, like people have to actually throw in money, like it's going to take $50 billion I heard at one of the conferences I was at to rebuild Gaza in 10 to 15 years, if that maybe 20. So it's going to be more than rhetoric. It's going to be more than tweets, harsh tweets from the UN it's going to be like a all out concerted effort to change the current situation and to ensure that Israel feels safe, which they don't, with a lot of the rhetoric coming from countries and, quite frankly, the UN so there's a lot of people that are really comfortable being on a political side, one or the other, but are doing almost nothing. Yeah, I mean, really almost nothing. Tweets don't count. I mean, for example, and I, and I, you know, for I mean, this is an example. It's a small one, but I'll throw it out there. There's a lot of people that are very rightfully concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. And then when the US pushed a pier from Virginia to Gaza, cost them two $30 million all they did was criticize. My question is, what the hell are you doing? Right? So there's plenty of things to be critical of the peer, but you're sitting on the sidelines and having conferences about how terrible the situation is, tweeting about how terrible is passing resolutions about how terrible is nothing. Yeah, right. So, I mean, we could tie this into stoicism, right? It isn't just saying you're You know, one of Aurelius is most famous quotes is, you know enough about talking about what it is to be a good man. Be one. You know enough talking about what it is to be a good country, v1 I'm going to say so there's a lot, there's a lot of rhetoric and very little action by countries around the world. And I think, you know, I mean, I, I'm getting on a soapbox here, but I think that's part of the solution is okay. So how much you're willing to throw in to reconstruct us, how much you willing to put in your political capital, capital to push all sides of the conflict to get to a political, diplomatic solution? Because the answer is nothing, and you're, you know, not the critic of the council. You know country and the arena. To use another quote from a stoic, right? So Teddy Roosevelt, see, I can always go back to those 1000 Teddy Roosevelt used to carry around copies of the notebook Handbook by Epictetus. In fact, they brought it on his famous trip down. Up. Oh, but, right, so, but that's a quote that's also relevant. Yeah, you know, it's not the critic that counts. It's the in his case, he said, The Man in the Arena. I like that. It win or lose, like, there's a lot of lot of groups, countries, people around the world, talking about their political opinion, but don't do much to actually change the situation. So I think the biggest thing is it's going to be an international effort, effort on multiple facets of this to change the situation so that this isn't a recurring cycle of violence and conflict. And

Abdullah Najjar 1:05:36
one other thing you mentioned, also in the beginning, is the deacons you mentioned, there's, I don't know if I'm phrasing it right, but for most of the time, you know, policies don't change, and we don't really talk about them, because there's nothing to talk about this policy and change. And here, I mean, in your in your opinion, do you see that as a as a good thing or a bad thing? And is it even, like, you know, accurate to say that it's, it's, it's binary, it's either good or bad, you know, or is there sort of middle ground, yeah,

Mick Mulroy 1:06:15
so it's another good question. So, I mean, I do think it's wide in the chain. So if it is reviewed and says, Well, that's still an interesting United States, don't change. Don't change it just because you're a Democrat that came in and before guy was a Republican, or vice versa, which happened, right? Like, Well, I disagree. Why? Because he because Obama agreed with, you know, or Trump agreed, or whatever, right? So, I mean, if that's the case, that's a bad reason to change the policy. Obviously it's not. It's about politics and not policy. If it is not. I mean, things do change circumstances. Do change allies becoming adversaries, not much, but adversaries certainly become allies, right? I mean, think of Japan and Germany, right? There some of our closest allies. So we have to change our policies when they when the circumstances changes, but if it doesn't, it's still under interest lead it. That's one of the things that it's important to point out, is if you change things just because it's the other guy, then nobody wants to enter in agreements with us. Yeah, because, I mean, let me think about it. I mean, I rarely look at things from Iran's perspective, but they're like, Hey, we entered the JCPOA. You know, you had all these other countries that did. You just, you know, I only withdrew from it primarily because it was a different political party in your own system that agreed with it, not saying it was a perfect agreement. But if you don't try to, like, make it better, and maintain our pledge as a country to Then why the hell would they enter in? Again, exactly. I mean, I mean, they just like, look, you're going to change it for years. What's the point of spending two years negotiating it could have so and again, I'm no fan at all of Iran, and I'm pretty hawkish on Iran. But whether it's Iran or not, if we don't have some consistency in a foreign policy, unless it's a treaty which is really hard to break, but also really hard to get it rarely happens if there isn't a agreement collectively among Republicans and Democrats and independents for that matter. Like, Hey, man, you got to really have a reason to break out an agreement of the or, like, nobody's going to come to any agreements with us. Yeah, they just not, because they just don't trust us. Because, anyway, I won't belabor that. But that's one reason why I think this concept of us, foreign policy, our political, politics, US politics, ending at the water's edge. A famous quote by Senator Vandenberg, should be the policy going forward, but it seems like we're going away from it. It's like politics is infused in every aspect of everything that we do now, and that is not healthy, and it's not in our own national security

Abdullah Najjar 1:08:59
on that note. Mick, thank you for joining me today. I really enjoyed the conversation. Why we did it. Thanks.

Mick Mulroy 1:09:06
That was a great conversation, absolutely, man. Yeah, great talking to you. I'm glad we got to touch on this fellow system. Yeah,

Abdullah Najjar 1:09:12
absolutely. And for those that didn't, some of us, some videos not gonna be published. But for those who couldn't see it, your cute little dog approached us and you know, or approached you and decided to sleep next to you. So,

Mick Mulroy 1:09:30
yeah, yes, not everybody calls her cute little she is a half German Shepherd and elder Malinois, so like the ultimate military dog. But yeah, she will. She's a sweetheart, but she'll also go against the bear for you so here in the backyard, wow, yeah. Finley. Finley, it actually is

Abdullah Najjar 1:09:52
Irish for courageous one. Finley, I like, yeah. Well, thanks again. Mick, that was wonderful. You got a trip going on, so I don't want to keep you in here for, you know, long time. Yeah, great

Mick Mulroy 1:10:06
questions. Man, you did great prep work. Man, seriously, I do a lot of these, and I get interviewed a lot. You well done. Thank you.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai