Everybody, Welcome to another episode of Eyes on Jill Politics from joint Ay with Mick Molroy and his shot as always, I think he goes to sleep in that suit.

Jason Lyons and myself.

Next week, we're all wearing blazers.

I'm wearing a blazer no matter what, even if mixing is regular, regular, like you know, running outfit lot going on as usual.

So we're gonna lead off with Venezuela and what's going on there.

Over the last week, we've parked a slew of destroyers, twenty two hundred marines and an m e U around or near the coast of Venezuela, probably just patrolling the Caribbean.

It escalated a bit.

We bombed a drug trafficking boat, an alleged drug trafficking boat that I think has been proven that it was killing eleven people.

I saw the video of that.

It didn't look like there was eleven people there, but I don't know, maybe somebody was underneath.

In response, Venezuela use two F sixteens to buzz our destroyers, so things are heating up and ramping up.

They've we've also designated the what's the cartel's name?

I have it, hold on, thank you.

The other one is yeah.

Just everybody knows it's not Lobo Institute.

No, of course.

Yeah, Los Solis Cartel a terrorist group.

And it kind of seems like the war on terror and the war on drugs is kind of like getting together and making a baby.

And this is what it looks like.

Uh, where are you guys at with this?

What are you guys tracking?

Well, first of all, I'm wearing this because I was on ABC.

Most people don't roll around Montana and a sports jacket, so you know.

So to start with, they designated the two drug cartels, trendy Aragua and Souls Yeah, as terrorist organizations back in February.

So once that happened, I imagine there was a surgeon intelligence capabilities and efforts, both on the overt and covert side, and this was the result.

So they've probably been collecting information on who's who in the zoo, who's in charge, how they're getting their drugs to the United States.

And of course drug trade has always been a bad thing to be the United States, but now with fentanyl it's even worse and generally put them on notice publicly that this was going to happen.

So from my.

Perspective, although one could question the immediate threat of that vessel, but one could also say, well, if they would let it it to the United States with drugs in it, that would have killed you Americans.

So I think that's what they're going to hang their hat on.

I'll leave the legal scholars to say which one's accurate, but I think I think this was something we saw coming.

And I also would point out that the military and the CIA would go through their own intelligence review of whether this was a drug trafficking boat, who was in the boat, et cetera, before it even got up to the point of getting approval from, you know, the commander in chief.

So I don't think they you know, they just randomly pointed at a boat and said, just make a statement here.

So I would say that there is fidelity.

I don't know for sure because I don't have access, but there is fidelity on who was on that boat, what they were doing.

The response, of course, is concerning Maduro both said one, it's AI, so it didn't happen, and then with outraged by it, which in a plant way is very inconsistent, and then buzzed And I think that done it twice.

The USS Jason Dunham, named after Marine middle Varner recipient twice with F sixteen's and the Venezuelans have anti ship missiles that are air launched, sea launched, and land launched.

So that's very risky because they could have shot at these aircraft and shot them down.

That I think is within their rules of engagement.

And now President Trump has said from the over.

Office they do it again.

That could happen.

Now that would have to be transmitted down the chain of command for it to be a direct order.

But I think it's fair to say that when you're flying directly at a ship, when we know you have anti ship missiles, that the rules of engagement say you could engage.

So that's where we are now.

There's a lot of stuff on social media.

There's about eight vessels right eight through guided missile destroyers, a guided missile cruiser, a nuclear submarine.

You've already mentioned the Marine Expeditionary Unit which has been when training off the coast of Puerto Rico.

They've moved ten F three five to Puerto Rico.

They've apparently moved reapers to Puerto Rico.

So this doesn't seem to be over unclear what we intend how we intend is to go, but of course some of that's up to Maduro and it'll also and I know we're getting into it later.

It is in line with what is being leaked as the next National security and National Defense strategy, which is a whole other topic.

But I think this is going towards something that could escalate.

Pretty I mean, there's not much more to add.

I think that, like you said, it's in line with what's being leaked for our national security natural defense strategy.

But I'm curious that's to know where this shift came from, where it happened, especially given the fact that at which you know, I guess it's nitpicking, but it's like we just renamed the NASA or the partner the Defense Department of War, but now we've seem to be turning inward more towards defense.

So again, this might be nitpicking, but it's just kind of strange to me also too, And I do first right off the bat, will hardly believe that drug dealers get what they deserve, and in the case of that boat, absolutely you get what you deserve.

And I agree that there had to have been or I'm assuming there was some sort of fixed intelligence that pinpointed this particular vessel as you know, having fentanyls something on it that was a threat to the homeland.

But I guess the other part of the questions, what is the use of the Coastguard.

If this is what we're going to do, then that's.

What they do.

And we've seen the amazing videos of their interdiction crews, you know, hopping on submarines, you know, on a cartel submarines.

So I believe this is me personally, that this was just a you know, hey, we've got the toys, let's use them kind of thing.

So yeah, that's where I'm at.

Andy, you got anything.

Andy Meilbourne's joining us?

Hi, Andy, what are your thoughts on this?

All right?

So, actually I've got you know, I wish we had a It's the only time I've ever said this, I wish we had a jag on the show because I would love to know what the legal ramifications are of that particular strike.

You know, I'm I'm I'm with Jay in the sense that, look, you know, we've all been involved in so many strikes overseas and it I'm pausing before saying this because I'm I'm basically on legal rather as well as ethical grounds.

But you know, so we we the point the rational.

I understand thee We have struck targets that have far more nebulous, far more of a nebulous threat in the United States than an inbound boat carrying drugs.

But my concerns are simply that, you know, intelligence, we can always get the intelligence wrong and the ramifications and making the wrong decision so close to our shores.

While it may seem as though there is no ethical or legal difference between that and Afghanistan and Iraq, there's a world of difference because we are operating under an AUMF in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we're not where we're in my mind, in uncharted waters when we're doing strikes off shore now.

From a purely ethical standpoint, yeah, with JA I mean, if there is, if I'm convinced, if I could be convinced that everyone on that boat was a bad actor, and they were indeed smuggling fat and old in the United States, no crocodile tears for them.

But I just feel as though legally we may be on a slippery slope and I'd up to hit the opinion of the of the jack on that.

So that's a good point, Andy, I mean, I think I don't know if you're on When I was talking, I didn't have a problem with the strike for reasons both of you and Jay said.

But when it comes to, at least from the title ten, the military doing strikes overseas on al Qaida and Al Kaida linked organization, it does come from the authorized used to military force or was passed by Congress.

There's no similar authorization to go after drug cartels.

So maybe that's why they're wealthy.

Designated a terrorist organization.

The question is does that just designate any anything, even if you're not connected to al Qaeda connected back to the statutory authorized use of military force to strike terrorists, you see what I'm saying.

So if you're just designated a criminal organization as a terrorist, that does that count?

So and it goes to a much broader question on you know, the War Powers Act, and you know the legality and constitutionality of that.

I don't know, but nobody's crying.

Nobody's crying about you know, tear drug smugglers.

But that is going to be an issue, and it's something that's never resolved, right, So we have a War Powers Act that no president has agreed actually is constitutional.

They abide by some of it, right, and sometimes they decide not to write.

They didn't brief, for example, the alleged operation off of North Korea.

But they did brief this because while they published the video, right, so they obviously had to.

But it is a broader question.

But I don't think it's going to keep them from driving on with this.

I think they're gonna they're gonna look to continue these type of strikes.

They can do stuff under Title fifty, right that they don't have to report.

And I'm sure I don't know, but I'm sure that there's something going on there too.

But and this could get worse, and by all the reports, reporters to talk to me, some that's already out there is there's talks about taking strikes inside Venezuela.

So then it would be you know, an active war, I suppose, And then we're going to see this escalade.

And then of course, although Venezuela's military can't.

Match the United States and no country.

Really can, they do have some things that could be problematic to US, which include these anti ship missiles.

Right, So we've put in a sizeable amount of naval vessels, rains and sailors out there.

They have a threat and if we did something like land the Marines.

Their military isn't that big, but they have a militia that's apparently like four million people.

So we all know how that goes, right.

I mean, I don't think that's where we're going.

I can't imagine we would try to actually invade in Venezuela.

Returned to them the thirties.

The Banana Wars, and completely contrary to the concept that we're getting out of wars, right, we just plunge ourselves into I don't think that's where it's going.

So, you know, we should give them some credit.

Maybe this is just an amping up a military interaction with trying to stem the drug flow in the United States.

Hey guys, it's Jack.

I just want to talk to you for a moment about how you can support the show.

If you've been watching it, enjoying it, but you'd like to get a little bit more involved and help us continue to do this, you can check out our Patreon.

It is patreon dot com, slash the Teamhouse, and for five dollars a month you can get access to all of these episodes of the Teamhouse ad free.

The same goes with our affiliated podcast Eyes On with Andy Milburn, Jason Lyons mcmulroy that one you will also get all of those episodes ad free, and you support the channel and the show, and we really appreciate it.

The Patreon members are literally what has helped this company and this small business survive, especially during our early years, and you are what continues to help this thing going even as we navigate the turbulent world of YouTube advertising.

So we really appreciate all of you guys.

There's going to be a link down in the description to that Patreon page, and there is also going to be a link to our new merch shop, so if you guys want to go and get some Team House merchandise, we got stickers and we also have patches, and I should mention if you sign up for Patreon at ten dollars a month, we will mail you this patch as well, so we really appreciate that.

But they're also for sale on the merch shop and additionally, they got t shirts up there, water bottles, a tote bag, coffee mugs, all that good stuff, So please go and check them out and support the show.

We really appreciate it, guys, thank you.

I think those setting element is Showman's ship.

It was kind of the demonstration, Hey, this is what we can do drug traffic is Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how this develops.

We had that conversation back in January on going after the cartels, and you know, our consensus was, I think looking back that you know, there was certainly some sympathy for a policy like that because we've all been involved in operations overseas where the connection with direct connection with US national interest was pretty nebulous.

Let's be honest, and we're we're all victims in a sense or unhappy observers of what happened in Afghanistan.

So using the military with the direct correlation to preventing bad things come into the United States ostensibly does not seem like a bad thing.

I'm not wringing my hands about it, but that again, the legal ramifications are tough.

Hey, I've got a question for you though, mick On.

You know you talked we're talking about what needs to be declared to Congress.

So something like what happened in nor Korea.

So I understand the title fifty.

There are things of course that that don't have to be the cleared.

But then the Church Commission.

The outcome of the Church Commission was that intelligence operations have to be brief to Congress.

Right.

Where is the cutoff point at least a gang of eight?

Right?

Yes, So the question the issue really comes to complete deniability.

Right.

So if the military operation happens in our Title ten and the report in the New York Times, guy asked the spokesman the Pentagon, did that happen?

They can say no comment.

If the presidents ask about a CI operation, he or she or anybody else in his government can say it did not happen, never happened.

It's they can deny it.

Both have to be briefed to Congress.

So the intelligence community have our own the House Permitent Select Committee on Intelligence, in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

If this was a Title fifty operation, for example, and it could have been I think, and I'm not validating that's happened, I have no idea.

This is what the New York Times reported, they still would have to brief it to their oversight committee.

They might be able to make the argument that it's only the chairman and deputy chairman right because of the sensitivity of it.

But that counts for both as briefing, and like D said, maybe the gang aid, but there isn't a requirement of who necessarily just has to be brief So that's that's problematic.

If they didn't brief, especially a Title ten operation.

I don't know that you know right now, that's going to be made an issue because of the unwillingness to buck anything the president.

Does now or did then.

And it's not approval by the way, it's just it's just informing.

They can say this was a terrible idea, is a great idea, and they do that often with you know, cis, but it's just it's just an actual informing so they know what happened and they can be part of the dialogue potentially in the future on similar operations.

But they don't have the ability necessarily to block operations just.

The funding they're informed beforehand.

They don't necessarily have to be informed beforehand.

It can come after right because they don't have a veto so being informed now oftentimes we do what it's going to be a big overt strike, right like when we did the strikes in Syria, or when they use chemical weapons the Assada rechime.

Did we briefed?

That was part of my job, not only the key members of the Senate and House, but also key allies.

Just say no, what's going to happen, because once it happens, I mean you can brief them afterwards, but I mean they can just turn on ABC News.

Yeah, and this is what we didn't hear anything about the seals in North Korea.

Right, yes, yeah, Well it just seems like robber a powerless obligation.

I mean, you know, so you breathe.

The Church Commission requires that brief but if the people briefed have no power of veto and they can't talk about it, then it's you know, it's almost it's almost worthless.

The only thing that I've seen that they have the ability to do is if it's an ongoing thing, they can cut funding for it, like say we're gonna over our By the way, the CIA doesn't come up with this stuff by itself, like this rogue elevant stuff hasn't been the case since.

As as Andy mentioned, the Church Commission, like the President says do this to the CIA, and the CIA you know, does its best to carry out the mission, just like the military.

But it's not it's not a CI coming up with like we're going to overthrow a regime or something.

It's done by the president.

If I'm just using that the hypothetical, the CEI's tasks overthrow country acts, it would be brief to the Hipsie and the city.

They could disagree with it, right, and then they could essentially cut off funding for it.

So if it's a long campaign, they have ability then to effect.

Yeah, it was there anything like like the thought process of not informing at least the top the chairman's of the of the committees that were supposed to be informed.

Because there's twenty nineteen right when this went down, the at least the seal mission in North Korea, it was it must have been Title fifty, right.

I mean, if it's title.

Necessarily they could do it under Title ten.

So I don't want again, I don't know that it's true.

I have no idea.

I didn't have anything to do with North Korea, by the way, So I just want to put that out there.

So my point that I was trying to make was like the reason why they didn't inform anybody in Congress, you know, even one or two people was because some of the at twenty nineteen, at that point, you know, Democrats controlled the House and the chairman's were Democrats.

Were they worried about a leak or something like that, Like was it more political in nature for not telling them, because yeah, even if it doesn't have any effect where they can't veto it, you know, we're still a democracy, right, we should inform the people's representatives about what we're doing, and like whether it's covert operations or overt operations at least I think so.

I don't know that it wasn't briefed.

We're just going on with the report says sure, But if that's accurate, I don't see the excuse for not briefing it.

It was either if you're concerned about leaks, that's when you only brief it to certain people, and obviously if it comes out, you know, but it did come out, right, they didn't even brief it.

It seems to me a lot of.

People jumped on the idea that it was And yes I'm biased.

You know, my business partners from that unit and I have a ton of friends from that unit.

They're like, oh, it must have been nobody was on the operation.

No, not necessarily unnecessarily.

I mean, those those guys have a a very good reason not to leak any of those type of things because you know, I mean, think about it, if they're tasked to do it again, right, you don't think that, you know, the Hermit Kingdom, the totalitarian state of North Korea isn't going to do something based on this report.

So I wouldn't be I would I would push back people just assume it was somebody on that operation.

It could have been somebody for political reasons that found out later, but I don't I can't think of the reason why it wouldn't have been.

Reading the article, it seemed like they got their hands on like an AAR And I could be wrong because I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, but it really does seem like somebody got their hands on that, and like.

Well, there was an investigation conducted by three A three style channel, so it could it could well have been that.

Then somebody getting bigger and bigger.

I mean, listen, it would have been pretty cool shit if they got it done.

Yeah.

I think it's also going to have relooking at how we do sensor replacement, right, I mean, we've got unmanned everything, now just.

Throw it out there.

I was gonna say it just seems a crazy way to do that.

I can't.

I just can't think of the rationale.

I mean, you know, Mick and Jason, you know more about this than I do.

But from a technical standpoint, I just can't imagine a situation where you have to put people in in that way in order to unplace it.

And I'm wondering, I'm wondering how much of this was an argument from say it, but from j Sockle, the Seal community, from within Seal Team six, that they were the guys to do this.

Well, certainly, if this was needed humans to do it, they are the guys to do it.

I don't.

I don't know the debate, I don't or the specifics of why they had to use this level of force.

But that's, you know, in the broader picture, it should have been briefed.

I can't think of a reason why I wouldn't.

It me speculating again a little bit reading the article, it seemed like the STV team and the Seal Team six team, we're kind of like pointing at each other like it was your fault, No, it was your fault at least how the article reads.

Right, that's all I'm saying.

I'm not saying that's the case.

Obviously, it could just be what they've read on, like the investigation that was done and stuff.

But that's what it felt like, red like anyway, And I don't know anything about about anything, so I only know what Mick tells me offline.

Well, you know, I'm on the macro level.

Yeah, apparently we're not interested in North Korea anymore.

If the leaks on.

The National Security Strategy and National Events strategy are accurate, that we're shifting from looking at China and Russia and of course as the first tier concern for the national security United States, Iran and North Korea as the second tier, and now we're focused on domestic which is kind of crazy considering the US military is not supposed to have much of a role in domestic you know, operations, nor is the agency for that matter, and in Latin America.

Right, So that's that's if that would be an entire seat change from every administration past, including the first Trump administration.

If it's accurate they were, and and against a lot of people that would be I think writing this right now, would have had to completely change their position since when I was involved, you know, in my role before the National Security strategy, the defense strategy, and the regular warfare annex, which all focused on what we call at the time near perier competitors now strategic competitors or whatever you call.

Maybe we don't call them that more than sweed don't seem to put them highest on the list.

Now, we got to wait till it actually comes out.

There will be a public version.

So if this is just inaccurate, then I withdraw my.

Previous be interesting to see a predator is up there.

I mean, in my opinion, they're enemy number one.

Let's be honest, I should say that they're just there.

They're right there.

How dare they with their maple syrup and their free healthcare?

Like, how dare they.

Rushing down China from a national security strategy in national military strategy?

Andy, can you get a little bit closer to the camera.

Saying thinking China down a notch on those strategies has potential implications for Taiwan.

Yeah, I mean they having having China up there, whether I mean, we've always played this ambiguity right on whether or not we would go to the defense of Taiwan, because honestly, I don't think any administration can really answer that question, although I think it a sensibly seems unlikely that we would because of the nature such a conflict would almost be a fader complete and it would be us trying to dislodge China after an amphibious landing.

Hard thing to justify to the American public, but as a deterrent.

We always had China up there as a threat, and we always a sensibly talked I mean, we trained and talked about the defense of Taiwan.

But if it's no longer in our national military strategy, what message are we sending to China?

I mean, is that is that going to be a green light across the Straits?

Yeah?

I mean, and it's not just Taiwan either, But I mean, look at Japan.

There chaos right now.

Their prime minster are just resigned.

You know, he's only been I think it's less than a year he's been in and they're going through all that turmoil and trying to figure out who's next.

And then now we now this happens.

If it's true, you know, we kind of do an about face of the Pacific, you know, everybody, the Philippines, everybody.

They're all going to be wondering, you know, what's next?

Two do we turn to for this?

So it's going to be interesting, absolutely.

And this comes at the same time we just saw this Shanghai Cooperation Organization's summit at China, right, which should have scared the Jesus out of all the policymakers in war fires.

Quite frankly in in Washington, d C.

They should be saying, oh, okay, So now they are openly conspiring to dethrone the United States world order, the one we created which is advantageous to ourselfs No surprise there.

And they're doing so not just with the normal bad actors the China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, but they have what should be, could be and should be one of the most important strategic partners of the US in the twenty first century, India, right, And here they're laughing it up, humming it up.

They're agreeing to do things like this SCO Development Bank, which is going to do what it's going to replace the vacuum that we left right certainly with USAI, d IMF, the World Bank.

And they're not doing it for benevolent reasons.

They're trying to basically get their sphere of insru's broader and our sphere of insruists influenced lesser.

Right, So they're doing that.

They're doing things together at AI security, the development of new technologies, you name it, they're doing it, and they're doing it with about twenty countries.

It started as a very regional thing and now has gotten significant in the President recognized it literally said that they're conspiring against the United States in a you know, on a social media post.

So we have apparently a national security strategy that it totally pivots internally to the domestic and to the south of US, at the same time that our adversaries are building their sphere of influence all around the world to include Europe, the Middle East, Europe, at least close to Europe, Turkey was there support to point out a NATO ally was at this conference, and of course all throughout the Middle East, Africa and Dando Pacific.

Big problem.

Put it together and we've got a significant shift in worldwide influence.

Make riddle me this.

I mean, so the President tweets about, you know, China trying to curry influence with the seo right, presidential actual it's a statement right from the president, the chief guy in terms of our foreign policy and the national defense strategy is going to start pivoting through regional and domestic How does that, How does what the presidents say and what they're doing with the national defense strategy even jive even seem like a coherent strategy in any way, shape or form.

Well, if it comes out and again there's a public national security and national defense strategy, usually there's also you know, classified persons.

I think China and the rest of the SCO is going to say, perfect, this is exactly what we wanted them to do.

Have them and of course are This isn't just military, right, we're talking about defense strategy, but the national security strategy is diplomatic, economic, it's everything.

It's everything around the world and how it affects US.

It's how we trade with other countries.

So it's how it's how they decide who they're going to have the most favored trading partners with, who they're going to partner with if there's a conflict and we need to have partner countries to you know, to actually hope it doesn't happen, but go to Oregon.

Right, this is all this plays into everything.

It's it's it's the dime, right, it's everything, and they're looking at it for a way to seize control, turn it to what they call a multipolar world.

And of course what.

They mean is when they dominate together, you know, the especially a big two and and and have control over over us.

And so I think there's going to be a lot of talk there.

Already is a lot of talk from both sides of the aisle on the SEO summit, and if this comes out the way it's being reported, that's just going to add to the I think loudness of conversation in Washington, d C.

On just where we're going with our foreign policy.

I'm trying to figure out if our foreign policy now is focused.

I mean, this sounds like an anomaly.

If it's now focused more than me stickle, what does that look like.

As far as appointment of the military.

I don't know, national guard in the streets of major cities.

I mean, are we talking domestic domestic?

And Mick mentioned you know, the border and beyond the border.

But I'm just trying to think what there is.

Yeah, you know, I get it.

Aside from the problem of the legal immigration, aside from the problem with drugs.

But it just doesn't seem to me as though those problems require How big is a military three million, three and a half million, not counting reserves, No, I mean counting reserves.

Sorry, I think it's like.

One to three active, one point three active.

Counting reserves.

Right, And this, of course, the national security strategy is certain defense strategies is written for the national Guard.

National Guard's part of it, right, But you think about the rest of the active forces, which generally don't have a role inside the United States, you know, posscomatatis and all sorts of restricts.

So I don't Again, it hasn't been published yet, so maybe we should wait before we criticize something that and it might not be accurate as reported, but certainly if that is the case, it's going to cause big issues.

We're going to focus all of our military efforts on Venezuela.

Right, right.

You know, I often wonder I retired six years ago now, and you know when I retired, oir was still going on.

But I wonder now what it is like in the military, because you know, for most of us, all our memories in the military were of war, right.

I mean, there was a fallow period in the nineties when we weren't at war, but even then there were pop up things.

But now it's been I mean, you know, essentially conventional troops withdrew from in Afghanistan in twenty fourteen, right, So it's been a long period where people have gone in and out, and now people laid in their careers have never experienced combat.

And I'm wondering how that has affected morale.

I know it hasn't affected recruiting that much, right, I mean, recruiting seems certainly the Marine Corps meeting recruiting goals.

I don't know how, but it's and now they're just I mean, at least at least Look, I'm not getting nostalgic about this, but you know, at least during the wars, right, the War on Terror whatever we're calling it now, Iraq and Afghanistan, there was approximate purpose to what we were doing.

We were training up, we were deploying, and.

And and you know, I get it.

I just can't imagine being in the military now, year after year where you are just training to do nothing.

That makes me some warmongo bit.

Yeah, Well, I mean that's why we have a military is to be ready.

Right, we don't want to be in a cost war.

But I hear you, most of our careers were in the state of war, right, the global War on Terror.

I would point out, as you know, people are talking about the military and you know, get back to you know, this war ethos.

I don't think the military left the war or ethos.

So just because you know, political people weren't charge at the time.

I'd like to do a little sticking up for the military.

Right, we took down the Taliban and top of Damn in Afghanistan in about six weeks.

We took down a very sizable military and modern in Iraq in twenty six days, right to the US military, with the help of the agency, but the US military predominantly.

And you know, whether we should have done Iraq, whether we how we left Afghanistan or should have left Afghanistan, that wasn't up to the military man.

That was that was political decisions, policy decisions.

So the idea that we've lost our warrior ethos and our ability to fight wars is just I think factually incorrect, and it's it's disrespectful for the people who fought those wars anyway, I want to point that out because this idea that you know, until certain political entity gets in charge, whether it's right or left or whatever, that that's all of a sudden the military becomes competent or not.

It's just, yeah, it defies logic, and.

It's disrespectful for the people who you know, serve a politically, which is he should be the entire military under any administration and they're always preparing for the defense in our country.

Yeah, I mean, I think the Marine Corps was a far better organization when I got out than when I came in.

Know that had nothing to do with me but my period of service, but it just, you know, it was Marines were better trained.

I mean, a lot of factors came into play there.

There's natural progression, the fact that waves do false improvement and adaptation, and I you know, I think the Marine Corps adapted very well and very quickly to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at that tactical level very well.

And you know, I'm generally very proud of having been a marine and seeing performance there.

And that isn't me just chest beating, because I can also be very critical.

But I think the way that we in a short period of time trained and deployed individuals and units to go to an Iraq, and the way that they behave responded to a very difficult situation a counter insurgency says a lot for the US military.

And yeah, I agree with you, Mick.

I don't buy the fact that we lost lethality along the way at all.

I really don't, you know.

I think that's I didn't see it during my time there, you know, I just saw in fact, marines were tougher, they were fitter, they were tougher, and CEO's were better, you know, across the board.

Say, and I'm sure it's continued to the Marine Corps continue to progress in that regard in the last few years.

I just hope that we're not now facing a period where the military is going to be misused.

Yeah, I think that's the big one.

Second, Ja, the segment is brought to you by the United States Marine Corps.

Go to UMC USMC dot com.

Go ahead, Jay, Sorry, No, it's all good.

Now.

I was going to say, I think probably and this is just me mind reading the biggest question in the mind of these young kids.

And it's crazy that I can call them kids in the military today.

It's probably like you just said, well you just finished with UH, Andy, is what are we going to be used for next?

You know, it's like they're trained up.

And I do believe I agree with both of you that they've stayed lethal throughout despite everything else external that's going on, you know, politics or whatever.

By the way, I do too, but you know what, I had to use it.

I believe that they're Yes, they're they're warrior ethos has always.

Been there in the men and women of the armed forces.

I don't know it at all, yes, but I think a coffee company, yeah, it does.

There's an idea write that down.

I think it's more a question of where are we going to be used, especially now if and going back to what mixed that we don't know, but if it is published and becomes public that yes, we are turning inward towards UH and our focus is domestic there.

You know, it's like, am I going to Los Angeles?

Am I going to get that Los Angeles deployment ribbon?

Am I going to Birmingham, Alabama?

What's going to happen with me?

You know, this is not what I signed up for.

And I'm not saying that that's what they're saying, because some of them probably wouldn't care.

It's like you tell me where to go, and I'm going to go.

But from the outside looking in, I think that that's probably our biggest concern is going to be where we're training these kids to fight and be you know, to use that warrior.

But if you're talking and when you start using that word domestic, now you're starting two things are starting to butt up against one another.

You know, lethality, sorry I had to use it again, and domestic and we know how that turns out, you know, Kent State, you know, things like that.

So I think that's probably what's on their mind.

I should say, the the leader leadership, whereas the young lance corporal and the corporal probably and you know lince corporal's PFCs stuff like that, they're probably like, just send us wherever you need us to go.

You know, they're ready to do their jobs.

Well, if they change, if the national military strategy does downplay China, that's a huge that that's a that's a big deal for the Marine call because yeah, the last year is the Marine.

Corps design is all about that, right, Yeah, and uh.

And so you know there's a lot of a lot of planets in the Marine Corps.

You're going to be scratching the heads and figuring out, Okay, what do we do now?

Yeah.

I belonged to a group called the Vandenburg Coalition, right, and Vandenberger was a senator who said that, you know, politics should stop at the water's edge.

I think that's the motto of the group.

And it's got people that were in it, like Senator McCain obviously passed away and.

Who's the.

Sorry his name skied me now, but he was almost his running mate.

He's a Democrats, really close to Lieberman.

So it has both sides.

It's a bipartisan group.

Uh.

And the point being that there's a reason why we want our foreign policy to be non partisan, because if you have a strategy that doesn't last beyond four years, it's not a strategy, right, it's it's wild shifting back and forth, and it's it's inconsistent and essentially ineffective to even have a strategy.

So having a combined one where you invite both sides to actually discuss what's best for the US in foreign policy, to push back against China and Russian and obviously the priorities himself is what's best for.

The US.

And that and that was that was certainly that was the way things were.

Obviously during the Cold War, the strategy was a single strategy.

It was containment.

That and that continued, you know, regardless of which party was in power, and it continued.

It really did continue through the I hate use the term war on Terror because it doesn't make sense, but it continued during that period, right there was, but it was more a kind of it was more kind of a disinterest.

It was it was a hands off view of the War on terror.

No one really questioned what the policy goals there or whether we were achieving them.

So it kind of had a negative aspect.

But yes, now it seems as though we're in the potential era of whiplash.

And that's why this with China is a great example.

And the Marine Corps all in pursuit of Force Design twenty thirty, which, by the way, for those of our listeners watchers who are not familiar with it, basically about twenty years ago right started looking at China as what was called the piecing threat, and how China was, how the Marine Corps was going to count at China in the Pacific.

And I'm making this very very simple, but it came down to that Marines were there to enable surveillance, right and to enable long range precision strike using anti ship missiles, to set up kill zones using the island chains, and in doing so pursuing a very distributed mode of warfare.

All right, both you know, in the terms of how the Marine Corps is a raid and how it was going to supply itself.

And that's why we got rid of our tanks, and I believe we got rid of a number of our artillery units, and we went all in on what we call the Marine Littoral Regiments that whose purpose would be to enable long range surveillance and also long range precisions strike.

I think, if the guys correct me, if I'm off target, dre And it created a great deal of controversy in the Marine Corps, especially among the retirees senior officers, and it was one of the only times that I have seen former Marine senior marines go after each other publicly in the media and on social media.

The commandant at the time, General Berger, came it was the subject of a good deal of a good deal of criticism to include from former commandants in public and the current commandant too for their support for design Force Design twenty thirty.

So now I mean everything shifted towards that particular strategy, from the Marine Corps to include the acquisition programs, training organization, everything across dot MP left.

And so if China is no longer the piecing threat, it's very it's going to be very interesting.

I mean, are we going to get our tanks back?

What's gonna what's going to happen?

And that's going to be a good deal of chest beating in the media from those who've been who've been getting very emotional and critical of Force Design twenty thirty.

And just so, I mean some of the audience might know, but the National Defense strategy is like the overall policy for the DUD and then out of it, the national military strategy is how the military meets that strategy right and the policy that put out.

So if this comes out again we keep saying if, because we're just reading reports, but it's all over the place now that we're focusing on domestic and you know, this hemisphere, then the national military strategy is going to react to it, they're going to shift resources.

To Andy's point, if.

You're following the strategy right, domestic in this western hemisphere.

So they're going to shift forces out of the Endo Pacific and I assume the Middle East and Europe to match the priorities to stated by the President of the White House.

So's it's going to do a big number on force design and the entire plan for a whole branch of service.

That's going to be a pretty big ship.

Taking it down to the micro view, what does that do to that lance corporal corporal sergeant who have been u training to fight the Chinese or fight in the Pacific.

You know, now mentally they have to shift focus and use that same I would assume those same strategies tools uh TTPs to now focus on a domestic and a regional.

Stage.

You know, that's got to have some kind of psychological effect on that.

I'm not saying it's gonna drive them crazy, but it's got to be confusing to them, you know, to you know, have that zero six formation and say hey, we're changing tactics.

You can throw those Mandarin or you know whatever books away on you know, phrases.

Now we're going to give you some Spanish phrases to learn stuff like that.

It's it's got to be, you know, pretty frustrating for them.

Again, if.

I think fortunately, the slow the reluctance of the Marine Rifle Squad platoon to adapt in that sense is going to be a huge advantage.

And my direct experience is a little bit dated.

It's few years off.

And until I left for Ukraine in twenty twenty two, I was covering the Marines war fighting exercises in twenty nine Palms where they were supposed to be training for peer and peer engagement.

Are you going against the Chinese?

And I will say that the way that the Marine call Rifle Squad operated had changed not at all, and you know better and for worse.

I mean, the tactics that they were training too close with and destroy the enemy by foreign maneuver remained exactly the same.

Their organic weapons to remain the same.

The way they used them remain the same as say we did when I was saying lance corporal so and they were slow to adapt.

I mean they were slow number reasons.

It just seemed culturally difficult to get them to use drones in the way For instance, that that Marine in Marstoc that we used drones and you know, partly because the drones that they were issued were kind of pieces of ship.

But but but also, I mean, it was just so embedded in the culture for our marines to do what they've always done.

So I don't think there'll be so much of a change there, but but there were at you know, the planner level.

And uh and again you know, we've already got the Marine Corps, the Doraal regimen, and we've we no longer have artillery.

We know long, I mean we do have artillery.

I'm sorry, but we I believe we scaled down on our artillery, and we got rid of our tanks, which was a very emotional issue for a lot of marines, not as tankers.

It's so to be interesting to see how that, how that changes.

What else did we got something rid of?

We got rid of something else that that I hadn't realized the other day.

Do you guys the ability wise thringing a bell with you guys marines?

Yeah?

Do we get rid of stay platoons?

Are they going?

We got rid of snipers?

Yeah?

Snipers?

Got rid of snipers?

Talk about which makes no sense to me.

Why would they do that, and then they're gonna probably renamed somebody that gets additional training and how to be a long range marksman and then they'll.

Yeah, that's one of the armies.

It's like, so, you just got rid of one of the most you know, storied m o s's in the US bridgrps, and you're going to recreate them.

You are, I mean, it's gonna happen.

Intangible benefit stamping snipers.

I mean, there was the ethos, but but the thing is that snipe that shooting was about ten percent of what they did, you know.

You So, so the guys that did well and and became snipers and got through snipers school, Yes, they had the skills of shooting and stalking and all that other stuff that me c m archaic, but but they had observation skills, they were savvy, they were good technically, and all of those things mean that they could have adapted very well to operating drones and using drones to both for strikeing and so they led to the greatest effect.

I think, yeah, that that to me made getting rid of them made most sense.

And it didn't save the rink or a ton of money.

I'm sure either.

Army didn't get rid of them, didn't get rid of them.

Jason didn't get rid of them.

But I think no one's really aware that the army ever had snipers in the first place.

It was easy just but the skill set a sniper and the Army just passed their qualification course.

Means are just going to light up.

This is brought to you by the United States Marine Corps.

That was his long way of saying that the maybe should have gotten rid of carriers.

If we're if we're shifting to domestic and regional, see you later carriers.

No, no, is this.

Going to last three years and then the next administration, be it Republican or Democrat, goes back to what I would say is the traditional view carriers.

Carriers are you know, the justification was not in conflict against China.

In fact, the greatest criticism of the carrier groups was that they were so vulnerable in a war against China.

But they're great for force protection.

I mean, you want to put a carrier off, I don't know Venezuela or Latin America.

I mean, it's the modern version of gunboat diplomacy, right, That's why that's why you always read in the papers you know, the United States has now sent three carriers to the Middle East.

I mean, it's really kind of a statement, isn't it.

I mean, and and in the War on Terror, they were a great platform for closeds support because they were relatively invulnerable.

So I'm afraid that shipped away from China will see a resurgence of those who love carriers.

Twelve million bucks a pop.

Billion.

Yeah, but we didn't get rid of snipers, right.

Yeah, well we saw we saw that China's five dollars.

We saw China's parade, right.

So there's a lot of new weapon systems rolled out there, laser weapon systems from space, from from ship, I believe, a lot of hypersonic missiles, nude rones, land sea air probably all of it's stolen from US defence contractors that make Yeah, but that's a concern, right, I Mean, they're gearing up to fight us, and we're gearing down to fight them.

So think about if we're not there, we're not studying the enemy, we're not preparing for a conflict with them.

And as we've seen in history, it's not always up to us whether we enter a war or not.

A La Pearl Harbor, So our most considerable adversaries.

One is building up their forces substantially and building up their alliances.

The other is actively at war with the European country.

It's showing zero interest in stopping and has and we're having zero effect on their calculation to enter negotiations.

So shifting away from those could seriously be at the US peril.

And I think you're gonna hear a lot about it if this is the way we're going with our national security strategy.

Yeah, putting all these terriffs on China is going to do no good if China takes Taiwan, right, I mean, we're going to see We're gonna see a an ex I don't want to say a tsunami effect against our economy if that happens, but it is.

You know, there's as far as companies like Taiwan Stemic Conductor, I mean they provide the chips, or they provide technology that fuels in the video, and so many other US companies that the that there's bound to be a tremendous effect on the US economy if China takes Taiwan.

And aside from just if for those who care anymore, our credibility in the world but it's difficult to imagine now if we if we are indeed pivoting away from the Pacific to US providing a deterrent, certainly no means of forcing our way back in without taking high casualties that would be unacceptable to the US public if China, and you know g has said that that is his goal.

I mean, he's been out quite up up front with it.

Right when it's going to happen, who knows that it's still a possibility that.

In that direction, right, So, forty percent of the world's population was represented by the twenty countries that went to the the summit in China.

Forty percent of the world's population only twenty countries, right, So the more they get them under their influence, the more we show an indifference to Ukraine's and supporting them, and the strategic shift away from putting China as a priority is only to Eddy's point, bold in China to do something in Taiwan as long as they feel they can do it and that we're not going to do anything or nobody else is because nobody's going to do anything if we don't, Right, So it's either also to build an alliance that.

Would do it.

Then we know where this is headed.

God.

Yes, God, I want to feel good, story good.

God, give us some Irish propaganda something for God's sakes, feel good again.

Yeah, that might be a tall order, all right.

So just to button up the Venezuela thing, a couple of like facts, just for folks to understand.

Two thirds of the drugs that come into the United States are from the Pacific Coast.

Venezuela doesn't like produce cocaine or heroin.

They are drains at point, much like Mexico is.

For the most part.

Mexico also does produce their own stuff, but most of the cocaine that comes into the country is from like Columbia, Peru.

So it's not exactly like in the terms of like really affecting the war on drugs.

I don't think going after these like cartels in Venezuela really is gonna put a dent in money things.

So I think that needs to just be understood by everybody too, because it's like, you know, kind of missing the forest for the trees.

Here.

There'll be empirical statistics to show if this works.

Yeah, yeah, I think the hope, the wishful thinking, the hope is that like, you know, uh, stepping up to Venezuela, like this is gonna embolden their military to overthrow Maduro, which Maduro is obviously a piece of shit, like he's not a good guy, you know, stole his election essentially.

Yeah, so he's a straight up autocrat who's definitely making money from like the narco trade.

But I feel like it's wishful thinking hoping that somehow, some way the military is gonna step up.

And there are Venezuelan opposition parties all giddy about this, and I get it why but you know, let's be a little pragmatic here.

Also, we made a deal with Venezuela recently about Chevron selling US oil, and now we're bombing stuff and bombing their narco traffickers and calling them a terrorist state.

So go ahead.

I'm sorry, Andy, Yeah, I was just going to say, we don't have a good track record when it comes to overthrowing auto craps.

I mean we can, we can do it, but what we can't control what happens next.

I say, we got to let loose the c I A not even saying that because mix here, like you know, do some covert stuff, try to get a cool going back with that's what we're that's like perennially what we're good at, or.

You knowing back to what Andy just said.

It doesn't always work.

Yeah, well that's what it's always worked out, But we have some experience in that.

Uh wrong, really, sometimes the coup works out.

It just the results aren't the Yeah, it turns out to be you know, that's part of the consequences.

But it should be part of the foreign policy strategy, you know, incorporate the concern in the past the agency is when they go, oh, we can't figure out how to do whatever it is they want to do.

Diplomacy has failed.

I'm not gonna use the military, toss it over the agency.

Well, that's not what you want to You want to start with, you know, the dumpster fire and say good luck to you.

It needs to be like incorporated at the beginning.

As a topic for another.

Also with Venezuela, I mean clearly China and Russia Wan who is a certain influence there, right, Uh, because Venezuela is selling their oil to China.

Yeah, so you know, how do they react.

China's coming to their at least rhetorical defense.

All right, anything else boys, at.

The very least that you need to know more about what's going on in Venezuela.

Maybe sending Seal Team six to plant some senses.

I had to get that last one.

Na.

Yeah, So you're saying what you're saying, Andy, is that like Marine should flood buds and take over.

Is that what you're saying?

No, no, no, no, okay, I wouldn't.

I wouldn't.

Or if you want to become a seal, you need to go to Marine Bouquem instead.

Of every It has its place.

Man, you don't know what's going to be the most important, right Yeah?

All right, So guys, this show is brought to you by the USMC.

Uh simplify.

Check them out at USMC dot gov or whatever their website is.

I'm sending them a fucking invoice.

I'm not gonna think I'm kidding.

Uh.

As they say, the Army and the Navy or traditional military organizations, the Air Force is a corporation, but the Marine Corps is a religion.

It's we can't help it, we can't help it.

I think that was meant as a criticism, actually.

But of course Marines took that Marines took that as a compliment.

Yes, course, all right, boys, this is great as usual, awesome talk.

Don't forget to hit up all the guys.

Links are in the description.

Check them out there and his book of course, Mix Organizations, Jason Socials.

Everything's down to the description and of course Patreon dot com, Slash, the Teamhouse, be able to team ass and Izon at free and early and you help sports show so we really appreciate that.

Thanks again, guys, Byeeme Lessens's take you Care every buddy.

Hey, guys, I want to tell all of you today about a new newsletter that we're launching that encompasses both the Teamhouse podcast, the eyes On podcast, and the high Side news outlet which I run with Sean Naylor.

H.

The newsletter is gonna be once a week.

It's going to come into your inbox and you're gonna get the most current podcasts on eyes On and the Teamhouse and whatever's topical or current on the high Side.

So it's another way for us to get the information out to you as social media algorithms are pretty iffy and you never really know.

What you're gonna get.

So this is a once a week email.

It'll slide into your inbox and it will have you know the greatest hits of that week.

It's really good man.

Checking it out.

The website for it is teamhouse Podcast dot kit dot com.

Should join Teamhouse Podcast dot kit dot com.

Slash Join.

You go there and you enter into your email list or you enter your email into the little thing on the website and you're good to go.

And that'll be it.

So we really appreciate your support and I hope you'll consider signing up.

Where's the link.

The link will also be down the description if you're looking for it there and that's Teamhouse Podcast, dot Kit, k I, t Kilo India, Tango dot com backslash Join