Hey guys, it's Jack. I just wanted to talk to you today about
a way that you can help support the podcast. If you're not already,
we would really appreciate it if you guys went and reviewed us on Apple or
Spotify. Those reviews really help people find the podcast and help it get recognized,
and you know, if you've been enjoying the show, we really appreciate
your support. Another thing that you can do to support the channel is to
become a Patreon member. So we have Patreon memberships that started just five dollars
a month, and when you sign up, you get access to all of
our episodes add free. That's the big bonus for that. I mean,
we also do some Patreon bonus episodes for our subscribers, But this is the
biggest and best way that you can support the Teamhouse channel and podcast if you'd
like to, and we really appreciate that, So go and check us out
at patreon dot com slash the Teamhouse. Hello everyone, Welcome to another episode
of Eyes on, a reasonably well informed discussion of geo political events and about
the time it takes you to pet, drive to work, or whatever else
it takes you to do. In thirty minutes or so. I'm Andy Milburn
for MA Marine Infantry and Special Operations officer now toiling for the team House d
Over to you. Thanks. Andy. Yeah, really excited about this one.
It's kind of a continuation from our last episodes, which I'd love for
everyone to check out if they haven't about our hits on, you know,
the IRGC and their proxies in Syria and Iraq, and we're gonna touch on
like the continued strikes on the Houthis and Yemen, and I think talk a
little bit more about a broader sense of like, you know, deterrence.
And because I've had this, I've been reading it like almost every day.
There are some folks on Twitter and Instagram who talk about deterrence and I don't
even know exactly what it means in terms of like deterring what's going on,
because it doesn't seem, you know, we got the strongest military in the
world by a lot, and it doesn't seem we don't seem to be deterring
much. No, that's a that's a great point and a great question.
Without making it a war college class, I've dive into and I'll give you
a you know, kind of a five minute answer on that and hopefully make
it entertaining. But backtrack. Yes, So the Department of Defense just released
the BDA, that's battle damage Assessment on Twitter for the attacks in let me
see, it was in Iraq. Actually it was all together attacks Iraq,
Syria and in Yemen. Okay, so they report eighty This must be just
Iraq and Syrious. Sorry about this because they're talking about eighty five targets.
Eighty of eighty five targets have suffered serious damage or were totally destroyed. Casualties
of militia members expected to be around fifty to sixty. Okay, We've got
to ask ourselves, right, how come those fifty to sixty dudes did not
get the word after a week of publicly telegraphing that we were coming. Less
surprising, no members of the IRGC or Iranian nationals were killed. Okay,
that was official DD release. Certainly not in the strikes. Interestingly enough,
though not not widely reported, but one of a senior Iran backed figure within
the MILITIASNR G L Kabi, was assassinated by unknown gunmen in Mason, Iraq.
Okay, coincidence, I don't know, totally don't I'm not right,
But it's kind of interesting that, Yeah, we didn't kill any guys in
the strikes, but this one dude did disappear, you know. But that's
kind of a distraction, I think, and he can I cut in.
What does I r g L mean? Sorry this for me because I'm a
dumb No, I I r g C. Right, he was an actual
I r GC guy. Okay, no, no, no, he was
uh actually no, good good point, he was not he was he was
a rocky, he was the but he was a senior PMC member. Noticed
in the strikes, no senior PMC members were killed. Yeah, you know,
so I think it was mostly kind of remember when we we bombed the
Chinese embassy in Belgrade and killed if you know, I mean killed essentially the
teening stuff. Yeah, I'm not saying that that's what happened here, but
certainly, you know, you wonder about these guys. Maybe they would provided
you know, maybe that was their resume line. B d A, that's
that's what that's your wrong anyway, Yeah, I digress. My point is
it's a distraction because we didn't kill any senior members of the Islamic Revolution srik
on core all right, I'm not saying, you know, I'm not you
know me. I mean, I'm not saying never, never, extolling killing
for the sake of killing. But but it's hard to know how we can
detract from capability without removing the guys who are stly involved in the transfer of
knowledge, you know, technical know how. So yeah, and yeah,
when you look at the list of stuff destroyed, there's that dramatic, dramatic
footage of the stuff cooking off in ourchime, you know. I mean that
whole area though, as is Yemen is just one giant ordinance dump, and
it's quite easy to have left some order AMMO in a warehouse to give some
some dramatic effect. So anyway, yeah, I mean I don't and I'm
getting somewhere on this day. I'm not just diminishing the strikes by any means
I am, but I'm saying that's my job. I'll do it. Yeah,
maybe that's a wider picture, but you know, there's it's a tremendously
difficult task. I mean, we're trying to reduce capability in an area where
there is just a massive amount of ordinate so they're only reliant on the Iranians
for certain key components, all right, for the missiles to come through,
and it's very and these are relatively small components and quite easy to smuggle.
So it's not the yes, we are destroying things, you know, and
it looks great on video, But as far as removing capability or even disabling
the Iranians ability or rather these properci's ability to act for even for a period
of time, it's not. You know, I don't think I don't think
we're achieving it. Okay, So anyway, to your so it doesn't look
like we're achieving deterrence, I'm going to come back to that specific question.
But an answer to yours, I can't remember the War College definition, and
I have an abhorrence of people who do read things out from doctrine. But
it's but deterrence is very simply, you know, it's a practice of discouraging
or restraining someone in world politics that's usually a nation state from taking unwanted actions,
okay, And it involves an effort to stop or prevent an action,
as opposed to making someone or trying to make a state do something, which
is compellants, all right, which is something different. Okay, this is
more than this is slightly more than semantics. Okay, and because they there's
really when we talk about deterrence, you may say, in fact, they
should have primed you to say this, Hey, Andy, how are we
deterring after the fact? Okay? And a lot of people get confused by
this. You know, something happens, we're really responding, and you'll see
the military comes up with terms like flexible deterrent option and flexible deterrent response,
but they essentially they come down to the same thing as far as objective.
Because if you are responding and the way that we are, our intent is
to threaten escalation. Right, We're not simply punishing. The implication is,
hey, we will do this and worse if you continue. All right,
So response to terrence all wrapped into one. It's meaningless to distinguish between the
two. And these packages that the military puts together involve various options for the
president to decide between. You know, it's just like a sushi menu.
All right. What's interesting now, like deterrence by punishment, the other de
terrence, but denial, that's when you put a force, you know,
you prevent you you make the enemy's objective less attainable, all right, and
it might be you know, sticking US troops in Poland or all the Baltic
states, you know, and so they would be in the path of a
Russian invading force, which makes it less likely that the Russians are going to
want to invade. Blah blah blah. The terrance by punishment historically is less
effective. And then when I say historically the last three decades, okay,
but we United States use the term to terrence all the time, and it
is deeply embedded in our national security strategy. You know, in Europe,
it's the basis of our containment of Russian adventurism, as well as actions in
the Gray Zone. You know. Of course, in Korea it's you know,
it's policy to de tear North Korea, not just from invading, but
just further provocations. And then throughout Asia, of course we're trying to deter
Chinese belligerents and Gray zone encroachment on areas subject to territorial disputes. So,
you know, de terrence is it when when it comes to US, I
would argue, I'll tell you what, you know, when the terrence fails,
it's because one of the key components is missing. This is not from
doctrine. But you know, one of the one of the things that I
think we United States miss, and it's perhaps the most important aspect of deterrence,
is this critical fact, and it is the perception of the potential aggressor.
In other words, it is how that guy views the world that matters,
not not the actual prospects of success I'm sorry, not yeah, not
actual prospects of victory, of his success or any other objective measurement. So
we've got to be careful not mirror imaging. Wow, this would really hurt
us. Imagine, it's really hurting the Iranian regime, you know. And
and we've seen the terreance go awhyd with Putin too, because we tend to
mirror image and we haven't tried to really understand our adversary. So, you
know, any any strategy to prevent aggression, you've got to understand your enemy.
You know, his interest, motives, his imperatives. Because because when
when an aggressor acts, it's not it's usually not war opportunism. He's answering
some other need. It may be domestic, but it's an immediate need.
We need to understand that need and maybe find in some other way of delivering
it to him, you know. And the last part so so yes,
you've got to you know, you've you've got to step back from your ego,
and you've got to look at things from from the enemy's perspective, and
you've got to take a combined arms approach. Okay, or you know,
a lot of our military guys will it will understand what I mean about by
this. What I mean is that when you engage the enemy with a weapon,
you don't want to just engage them with one weapon. You want to
engagement with a weapon that forces him to do something that makes him vulnerable to
another weapon. Classic cases, you know, direct fire weapons and indirect fire
weapons. Okay, same thing applies to economic sanctions, all right. By
imposing one sanction making them hurt there, you drive them in another area where
you can hurt him even more, which means that you can't compartmentalize dime or
PERMISSI. All right. Dime is diplomatic, information, military, economic.
You know, it's a way that we separate all the elements of national power.
I'm saying when we approach the terrence, we've got to act as who
all of this has to be fully integrated and that is actually why you hear
the term integrated de terrence as a buzzword. I would argue, yes,
we're very good at using that term. We're less effective than actually doing it.
You know, I'll give you that's a fair assessment. Yeah, okay,
So the other thing we do, you know what I mean? And
I guess another principle, I'm just making this stuff up. But you can't
forget the carrot, all right, you know, I mean we talk about
karts stick. You can't just totally forget about that. Preventing aggression, it's
not all about making threats. It's also about offering assurances. All right.
Can you believe that's a marine saying that? But it is. You know,
you've got to leave him an open door. You've got to leave him
a face saving exit that's going to make him look good to his domestic audience.
And if you can get it enable him to achieve his objectives otherwise,
but in a way that doesn't hurt your interest, then by all means,
go ahead and do so. This is what I mean about not standing on
ego. But it again, it involves very intensive strategic communication. That's another
aspect where we often fall short. With the terrence. Okay, it's everything
is about Owaii. Ask me WHATAI stands for? Already know? Do you
already know from the team house? What does it mean? Operations in the
information environment. I'm very careful about acronyms, so I now never try and
spell out acronyms more than three letters after my dreadful debacle with AOB But yeah,
so operations in the information environment, Okay, We've got to think about
kinetic actions relationship to information as supporting and supported, Okay, which means you
know, typically we say, yeah, information operations support kinetic actions. But
no, I mean we have to think of military actions supporting operations in the
information environment. Right, So you know, moving a US brigade to Estonia,
A brigade is not going to do anything against Russian advance, but it's
a it's a significant you know, military although military terily negligible, Uh,
it is a significant strategic right because like, why would the Russians wipe out
a brigade? Yeah and start a Yeah, it's a it's a trip line.
I mean, it's early morning, whatever you want to call it.
But the point is it's it's an escalatory. You're pushing you're you're pushing uh,
Russia can't can't threaten the Baltic States, for instance, without under war
with the United States. Yes, everyone may know that conceptually, but but
by putting your blood on the line, you are really you know, you're
literally putting skin in the game and demonstrating that. Okay, which no,
yeah, no worries in terms of like what's going on now if Iraq Iran
in their proxies and cuts force, basically running amok in the region, and
I would argue, asserting, uh a lot of dominance. What do we
docifically there to deter them from, like, are trying to get them to
reel their proxies in? Ah? Yeah, So persuade who do you because
we get into the crux of the problem here. I mean, I guess
it's Iran persuade wrong, Okay, what do I know? People don't want
to talk about like you know, people are like you know, even when
you when you hear everyone speaking, okay, it's always Iran back to It's
like a buzzword that people Well, let me say, let me wrap up,
let me wrap up very quickly, your excellent question about the terrence.
Okay, So because it leads into an answer to your next question. So,
so, successful deterrence typically involves combination of taking, uh, you know,
these combined arms actions, taking the aggressive motivations, seriously understanding them,
being clear clear about your intent what you want to you know, the the
aggressive to do. So all of those things, and it's you know,
think about the times it has worked. We've done all those things, and
it's really you know, worked most famously in the longest period of time in
Korea since nineteen fifty three and during the Cold War. All right, but
it's not working here. Okay, why isn't working here? One one answer?
Maybe And this is not me, you know, this is a US
intelligence officials. I thought I'd never use that term, but so so,
you know, it's semi official. They assessed that Iran does not exercise full
control over the proxy and part of militia groups that are attacking US personnel,
so that by that it you know, neither the huthis nor all the constellation
of Iranian backed militia groups in Iraq are taking their orders directly from the head
of Kotzwass. And there's probably a combination of factors. Okay, the kind
of the cult of personality of Sulimani was able to exert these leaders is gone
Ghan. He's a different type of individual. And you know, the kids
have grown up, they're ready to leave home. They have been armed to
a level of sophistication that was, you know, it just couldn't be imagined
five years ago. And I mean, look at the hoothis. The hoothis
for God's sake. I mean, are disabling oil refineries and bringing and you
know, taking action that have global reverberations far beyond the the Babe Mandebb and
Iran cannot control it anymore. That's that's pretty scary, right, you know.
And and and so the attacks continue, I mean twice into Syria at
Basis mission, you know, Mission support site Euphrates. Are you the picture
the picture of our militia attacks on US base is in the chat. I
always find it helpful to see a map, but you'll see there that the
attacks have been mostly focused on the Middle Euphrates Valley, certainly in this last
week to include an attack on on the Alma oil fields, well on a
I'm sorry, on a combat outpost and the oil fields which killed seven members
of the Syrian Democratic Forces. The SDF, who are our partners and fighting
the Islamic Islamic State. No US casualties in that, So it does appear
bottom line, as though the Iranians have lost control of their proxies in there.
But you know, there's a lot of bluster going on too. They're
not going to admit that, and they're issuing. You know, they issued
a warning yesterday, right, warning the States against attacking their two surveillance ships,
the Bashad and the Savies. So you know, they what makes it
worse is they're on the posturing platform two and I'm not going to admit that
that. They can't. You know, they can't lose the train, the
train. The train has left the station. Yeah, they can't lose face
at home, right, they still have to deal with their own internal politics
and stuff like that. Still about regime security at the end of the day
for them, Yeah, one hundred one hundred percent. And and while everything
continues. You know, we haven't we haven't talked about Gaza, and I'm
not going to you know, get into that topic today. But but as
you know, I've I've been quite I've got a contract to write a book
about about it. And in fact we're going to be doing a couple of
episodes from from there towards the end of this month, and so you know,
and and I'll i'll least be able to address the military campaign in more
detailed there but elsewhere, you know, in the Middle East. So while
all this is going on, our adversaries are certainly certainly exploiting our absence or
our weaknesses. I can't remember if I already talked to you about this,
d but it doesn't matter. We're talking with the audience now. But the
chairman, all right of the Popular Iraqi Popular Mobilization Committee, the PMC and
rock position. Remember I spoke about him on I spoke about him last week.
Yeah, he's he was involved allegedly in the US on the attack on
the US embassy in twenty nineteen. Well, he met this week with the
Russian Ambassador to Iraq Krusher chef and met this week in Bagdad, and they
talked about exchanging experiences, mutual yeah, and even mutual training. Okay,
so who knows. Yeah, you know, I mean how the Russians love
having these PMC literally PMCs. Now they've gone now I mean potential right there,
influence in in Iraq that's I thought that was fairly, fairly notable.
And at the same time, the Chinese visited as Beka Stan this week.
You know, we've we us have been courting as bekas Stan well, I
mean obviously since ninety eleven, but recently among the Stans, you know,
as Bekastan has been one that we've been working with most closely. Chinese we
can launch out of right well number of reasons. I mean it's politically,
yes, it's a I mean, it's a very it's a really viable position.
It became increasingly important after we pulled around Afghanistan. Ah, and you
know, we provide I've been there a few times. That ship's beautiful country,
and we provide soft support training their self military, which has become a
little dodgy at times ahead of their special operations. Guy's a guy we trained
left to join the Islamic State. So yeah, these things are always tough
to manage. And here we are now the Chinese have signed or signed an
agreement, a strategic agreement and all weather comprehensive strategic partnership. So I was
looking for exactly what it was all weather. Yeah, So the only other
country in the region who's part of this all weather agreement is Pakistan. Okay,
So I mean it's a separate bilateral agreement, but it's the only other
country that China has has called an all weather ally. So Bekistan all weather
ally to China, fair weather friend in the United States. So is that
that Pakistan they chose to do that, right, China aligning with Pakistan is
to like kind of give it to India a bit. I mean, it's
a little bit out of like what we're talking about, but that's my assumption,
you know, say it again. So the reason, the reasoning why
China has done that all weather strategic partnership with Pakistan is to deter or,
for lack of a better word, India's like power in the region. Yeah,
I mean China and Pakistan have always had close relationship is not quite the
term, but it's a it's kind of a mutually supportive relationship. Yes,
they've had you know, they've gone at it. I mean, they've had
a arguments over the various things over the years. But you know, is
your way of China and India have literally come to blows. Yeah, have
caused you know, I mean, have killed each other's soldiers several times.
In the last year, often in these extraordinary unarmed brawls, which which both
sides seem to agree doesn't doesn't cross any red lines. But yeah, I
mean, certainly Pakistan's within China's closer, within China's sphere of influence, and
yeah, they both have a lot of mutual a lot of interests in Afghanistan.
And those interests, of course are not necessarily ours. Sure of course.
Hey like hey, last thing though, the I like this from oddly
enough from a dude in Tel Aviv who you know, commented about the fact
that that most that most American, even US military officials privately saying that the
capabilities of who these have not been significantly degraded by the campaign. And this
this researcher, intel avised military researchers says, you taking on the hoofis is
like fighting fog, you know. Interesting. I mean the descriptions the same
thing about hamas in Gaza. So no, no new lessons here. But
what's what what will make progress like like, is it more of a covert
thing? Is it more I don't know, drones or you know, I
don't know what strikes. Strikes can be immensely effective, but they have to
be, you know, if you want them to have military effect, and
by that I mean take away capability. Obviously you can't telegraph them, okay,
absolutely, and uh and and they you know, although thank god we
got away from a traditional warfare and adding up a number of people killed.
But you do, you do have to take off the board the guys with
the expertise who cannot be replaced, right, not the fifty or sixty guys
who are too dumb to have forgot the word that the US were coming.
Right, And it's got to be combined with other things, to include working
with partners on the ground. You know, you can't you can't do all
this remotely. You've got to build relationships on the ground too. And there's
got to be a carrot. Remember that, you know, I mentioned that
we've got to start thinking how do we offer the who he's a carrot?
How do we provide them an incentive because we can't deter them? Yeah,
I mean what's going to deter them. They're not scared of particularly scared of
death. They've been fighting all their lives. I mean, they're going to
keep shooting stuff until they stopped having stuff the shoes, So let me ask
you something like in terms for like the talking heads are like the opinion makers
on Twitter, and no less of that. That's what we are leader right,
absolutely, but like the thought leaders, I mean it, I don't
think that's going to brief so well, like offering the hohothi's, well that
looks some kind Well that's the thing. Well that's the thing, you know,
But posturing and ego just don't belong into your politics. And yes,
of course we played to a domestic audience. But at the same time,
ultimately our criteria for success are that shipping is allowed to proceed unimpeded, you
know, and that stability is restored. And if the Houthi's get something in
that process that they wanted, yes, people can say oh, we gave
in, or it can just you know, it's it's just a sensible approach.
Otherwise we're going to be ten, fifteen, twenty years from now.
Think about the cost in terms of the US defense budget. You know,
just merchant ships cannot defend themselves against these missiles. There is no way you
cannot. You cannot design a system that is going to be economically viable.
The cost of these ships having to choose now between taking war insurance or going
the long way round. The Cape is driving global costs up, all right,
And it doesn't matter if your supply chain isn't directly affected by the Red
Sea. Other supply chains that are interrelated probably are. It affects every country
in the world tremendous. So, you know, do we want to salvage
our sense of being America that strong and just you know, keep keep dropping
bombs until literally we have flattened Yemen. Or do we take a little more
intelligent approach? Yeah, you would think, you know, taking the intelligence
and you know, I'm listen, I'm all about killing the enemy, you
know that. And I'm saying you've got a throwing You've got to put an
incentive in there too, by all means scare the crap out of it,
but do it by going after his capabilities, hurting him, not not we'll
be doing right now, which is kind of pinging. Yeah, absolutely,
thinking well the that's probably I lose track of time here, but I think
you're keeping us under there. I have a question. I have one question
about Okay, well, since you've asked the question in terms of the Red
Sea, we'll be enjoying talking to me. So that's a good sign.
No, I am yeah, this is the best. So in terms of
like the issues in the Red Sea with the Houthis and stuff like that,
does it make sense to bring in a more broader coalition not just the UK
because if it, I mean, it seems to affect the europe right away
in the short medium term and then the rest of the world in the long
term. Yeah, where's France, where's Italy? Where are the other NATO
countries? Well, where's Egypt too, Like, why is in Egypt doing
anything? Yeah? Well, there are a number of coalition countries involved in
fact that there's a coalition Task Force. And I can't tell you all the
countries that are involved in it, but I want to say that it it
it either falls under the direction of H under nabsent direction or but but at
least is coordinated with Nabsent And what's n I'm sorry, it's Naval Commands Central
so what naval forces and Middle least. But yes, there is a coalition
task force. It is it has largely and again you know, I know
I'll be torn up if I'm wrong on this, but it's largely too date
being focused on the Somali piracy problem. But the but the but there's there's
crossover membership or an interest obviously in the Red Sea. So yes, coalition
efforts are there are coalition coalition efforts underway. But you know, escorting ships
is it's it's an incredibly time intensive and expensive proposition, you know, escorting
ships. It's not like the sycon Moore wall where you're traveling along and conboy
you're covering them with your at offense assets, right, which don't come cheap.
Yeah, I mean, look at you know the so the US canne
is shot down fourteen drones, all right, right, an SM two missile
Okay, is you know I want to say two million dollars? I know
it's in the millions, all right, So you know, supposedly say it
just fired fourteen missiles. I mean we're talking twenty eight million dollars. Yeah,
it's not exactly cost effective, right term solution probably eight you know,
don't even add up to a million dollars. Yeah, So it's just not
the way we're doing things right now. Is neither is just not cost effective
and it's not militarily effective. Look I'm not pretending to be smart here.
Look I was part of the problem. I'm just saying, it's a hard
it's hard to find a solution. So please think I'm sitting here criticizing the
guys who are just like me, who are trying to figure out a way
to curb the thread and do all these things without bringing the United States into
war. It's a tremendously hard problem. Yeah, it's an impossible needle to
thread. You know, it's tough, but not impossible, but it's very
difficult. Okay, but you know that's always anyway, No, absolutely,
And I just want to mention, I know, like you know, you've
served that. You know, Jack and Dave have served. Everybody who's on
the show served, and like a lot of the folks that watch the show
are veterans. Having said that, I mean, and it's not their fault
at all. The escapade in Iraq is mainly to blame for Iran filling that
power vacuum in the region. Yeah, I mean, I can't imagine that
there's anyone out there who still thinks that invading Iraq was a good idea from
the point of view of Unite US interest. I mean, if there is,
we welcome of course, because we welcome alternate views, but it yeah,
I you know I would tend to agree. Hey, you know before
we sign off them when we talk about the effect that because sadly, because
of our intervention we've seen, you know, we've left a bad taste as
we leave for obvious reasons in Afghanistan and now in Iraq, for reasons that
are partly not our fault but partly are. To be fair, you know,
we've kind of said we kind of allowed those conditions to come to fruition
extremists or politicians and power in Iraq who do not like us, know,
and not talking about influencing elections. I'm just saying, turn we turned a
blind eye for a long time to kind of the way the sheer power base
was continuing to gather power there and ignoring our ignoring our advice. Hey,
So anyway, on the last thing, on a bright note, that picture
and chat and throw it up. That's as we talk about our adversaries and
non aligned country is all kind of making plans for a while in which United
States doesn't dominate quite the same way it has to date. And that photograph
is of an Iranian military delegation to read, yes, indeed, ladies,
and gentlemen and an Iranian military delegation to reacd unprecedented certainly in our lifetimes,
I believe, and went very nicely apparently, So that's probably not I mean,
that's not something that the Saudis made all that they did put that picture
out on Twitter. But you see what I'm saying. You know, there's
no one. There's no one. Very few countries aside from our traditional friends
and European friends, are saying, oh, yeah, you know, good
point. We we do. We should side with the United States because you
still do represent democracy and liberal Western values et cetera, et cetera. That
is so yeah, so he even said, yeah, sorry, even Saudi
Arabia buddying up with Iran. Let's say we did pull out of the Red
Sea in the Middle East, and the who he's keep going there. You
know, eventually that peace dealer, that cease fire with Saudi arab is going
to end. Let's say we stopped selling weapons like what happens when they're there's
no free maritime travel in the Red Seat because we're not there. No.
I mean I get it though, D because but everyone knows we're not going
to do that, because ultimately global trade is an orange. I mean,
the free free flow of commerce and global trade is definitely rock solid within our
interests. In fact, you know, we've we're the one country that has
so far not disappeared into a you know, even a moderate recession. I
mean, we're still an economic powerhouse. We dominate the world in that sense,
very much so. And so we more than anyone, stand again or
lose by what happens to global trade. And I think some people, the
isolationists, forget that. Yeah, not for sure. It's just interesting,
like, yeah, you know, the Saudi Arabia flirting with Iran, or
flirting with or Iraq flirting with the Russian delegation. It's like, at the
end of the day, it's like, oh, pay attention to us.
It's like, you know, they just it's like a cry for attention from
them. I don't know, I think this is. I think it's these
are deliberate, long term decisions based on an assessment of the of America's role
in in the world. You know, I don't I'm not hopefully sounding like
a you know, just banging extremists here, but yes, that is I
think that is clearly evident. I mean, there's many other factors in play
too, you know. But so even though we may think of the world
as been as as fitting into certain patterns post you know, post Cobal right
with you know, kind of the axis of whatever you want to call it,
the actually resistance on the access of of evil or of just you know,
the the angry men you know, North Korea, Russia, China,
Iran, but they yeah, I mean absolutely the threat that it's not that
any of them can supplant the United States, but they can certainly undermine the
US's ability to defend its own interests. And that's what's happening. Yeah,
I think we need to look at it like a market share of like any
kind of market like if as long as we have the dominating share of it,
like we're okay, first view. I think that's the way to look
at it. That's a that's a great that's a great comment. Hey be
for we Yeah, well, i mean we've got yes, absolutely, Hey,
we've got we've got to get we've got to get our email or something.
I mean, I'm sorry, I think for questions put up because someone
sent me some really cool comments from last Yeah, and it shows to calm
I'll aggregate some of the questions and we'll answer him at the tailor under Hey,
I got this all right. I thought it's by a drone drone dude
in in uh in Ukraine. I know him, in fact, he worked
for me, all right, so I know this sounds like a team audience,
but we don't have a you know, we have to use my contact
info until we get one. Anyway, he said, if we assume similar
employment in Ukraine as in Ukraine, all right, when we were we were
out there. It seems the the shah head is designed such that if even
with GPS, even with the jammer, it can still it can revert to
inertial navigation, which makes makes it jam resistant. So unless he operated,
this is this is my friend writing, So unless you operate, a mission
planner had access to US flight plans and knew where when to program the shah
heads so it would follow the US drone. It seems unlikely or was a
crazy coincidence and timing, or they employed a different type of drone with a
pilot fully in control during a flight and they had been observing US drone flights
from the base. And then you know on my comment about Stinger, Yeah,
correct, it hasn't shut down a drone. Neither has the Avenger and
neither has the Sea Ram. But this guy outing of his first name is
A he's a Stinger officer by background, so of course he's almost lost his
friendship over that comment. But he does says say Stinger and theory should actually
be very effective against shy Head type drones, although not cost effective for the
reason they just said. But it would require a Stinger team ready to stand
by receiving queuing from the sensor or at least doing their own visual searching and
scanning. And you know, those of you who are air defense bubs and
bore people at cocktail parties queuing as you know that they're being able to queue
to shoot or sort with man pads, setting setting that up at their tactical
level is always a challenge and so these things are difficult. Anyway, time
about time to sign out at not going on the world. Okay, everyone,
thanks again for listening to this episode of Eyes On. You can email
or text your questions and comments to do. You will provide something in the
chat and we will answer them, or depending on how many we get,
we'll answer a selection of them. So we're releasing a new episode now on
Wednesday and Sunday. Right there, yep, that's right. Yeah, And
it's these these conversations focused on whatever happens to be front and center and the
news scent the time. If you think we're talking too much about one particular
topic or not enough about another, please send in your comments and they will
be Julie noted and perhaps or ignored. And yeah, please feel free to
send me messages by Twitter or follow me on Twitter. He's gonna post my
address there, Okay, be over to you. I'll throw it up on
the Thanks and Andy, Yeah, I'll throw all of Andy's info into the
show notes and the descriptions of each show, whether it's video or audio,
whether you listen to us on video audio, don't forget to like, subscribe
or rate and review us five stars. It helps the channel big time.
Uh. You can check out the Patreon help support the show. You can
get ad free episodes of this show by going to the Patreon, so it's
a little bit more streamlined. And yeah, check out the team house.
Yeah, we read all your comments too, include yeah, and to include
the YouTube comments. And someone went on a drunken brant and people who gets
so drunk they can't even spell, but they there's quite a few anyway,
Yeah, most of our listeners anyway. All right everyone, so you see
you in a few days. Take care,