Speaker 1: Hey, everybody, welcome to another episode of Eyes on A
Speaker 1: full full crew is back. So happy new year, guys,
Speaker 1: Ady Millburn, Jason Lyons mc mulroy and myself.
Speaker 2: Lock Cooking.
Speaker 1: We've had a bunch of episodes dropped the last week,
Speaker 1: or a couple episodes the last couple week, so check
Speaker 1: those out for sure. One thing I need to tell
Speaker 1: everybody up top is to like and subscribe. Don't forget
Speaker 1: to do that. And if you're listening to us on
Speaker 1: the audio platforms, you can subscribe and like it and
Speaker 1: rated five stars there. It really helps. And if you
Speaker 1: really want to go above and beyond, tell your friends,
Speaker 1: share it, send it out there so we can keep
Speaker 1: growing this thing.
Speaker 2: Busy.
Speaker 1: I mean, it kind of slowed down over the holiday
Speaker 1: break and then it's kind of picked up domestically. And also,
Speaker 1: you know, gearing up for the new administration, there was
Speaker 1: some word make you wanted to talk about, like what
Speaker 1: the China Plan is going to look like in the
Speaker 1: new administration, and if there's a little bit of a
Speaker 1: schism in the administration in terms of what side wants
Speaker 1: to do, wants to defend Taiwan, what side doesn't want
Speaker 1: to defend Taiwan if it were to come to that,
Speaker 1: and yeah, I'll let you rock and roll.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well yeah, Happy New Year's fellaws, Happy New Years
Speaker 3: to everybody in the audience. I think the biggest thing
Speaker 3: going on right now and the national security realm is
Speaker 3: trying to predict or at least, uh try to guess
Speaker 3: how policy will change. Foreign policy, in particular course with
Speaker 3: the transition between the Biden administration to the second Trump administration,
Speaker 3: so on the China front, Having got a call from
Speaker 3: somebody who remain nameless, but was okay with the discussion
Speaker 3: saying that you know, there is a he didn't call
Speaker 3: it a schism, so I will call it more of
Speaker 3: a debate already in the transition team on the national
Speaker 3: security side on how they're going to go about the
Speaker 3: strategic competition with China. You know, there's a pretty significant
Speaker 3: element within the Trump team that is what I would
Speaker 3: call chinahawks. So they are wanting to put maximum effort
Speaker 3: on the strategic competition with China, which means defending our
Speaker 3: allies in the region of course, Japan for example, the
Speaker 3: Philippines for example, and also the defensive Taiwan specifically. You know,
Speaker 3: beyond just the legal requirement under the Taiwan Support Act.
Speaker 3: So there's those that want to get more aggressive and
Speaker 3: spend more of our resources in attribute more of our
Speaker 3: resources to the End Pacific. And then there's an element
Speaker 3: in there that I would just call more on the
Speaker 3: business side, which could include you know, Elon Musk and
Speaker 3: others that have a substantial influence with the administration on
Speaker 3: not tweaking China too much. Now, I would imagine that
Speaker 3: there's it's not an either or. There's probably good arguments
Speaker 3: and good points on both sides of this. We're intimately
Speaker 3: tied to China when it comes to global economics, but
Speaker 3: it's apparently already become an issue with I think Senator
Speaker 3: Rubio likely the next Secretary of State, being more on
Speaker 3: the China hawks side, that's my characterization, and others that
Speaker 3: have direct influence on President Trump potentially not completely aligning
Speaker 3: with what they intend to do. So it's going to
Speaker 3: be interesting, I think on that front on just what
Speaker 3: we do.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think no.
Speaker 5: I was just going to ask, is there any indication
Speaker 5: on which way President that Trump is leaning?
Speaker 3: Good question, Jason, That's exactly what I asked him. Now,
Speaker 3: to be fair, he's biased he is a China Hawk,
Speaker 3: so he thinks that he that President Trump's firmly in
Speaker 3: their camp, but does have a much more pragmatic view
Speaker 3: of a strategy or a policy when it comes to this,
Speaker 3: that he won't like fully commit either way. He will
Speaker 3: make the decision as as it plays out, and he's
Speaker 3: going to listen to all sides. So I think they
Speaker 3: realize they be in the Chinahawks, that they're going to
Speaker 3: have to make their case continuously, which might make it
Speaker 3: a little bit difficult for a long term strategy. But
Speaker 3: that's just the way President Trump, you know, has done
Speaker 3: it in the past and likely is going to do
Speaker 3: it again. So it's going to be it's going to
Speaker 3: be something that might not be either or, and it
Speaker 3: might change as the circumstances change. Of course, all these
Speaker 3: tariffs that might come out could force this into a
Speaker 3: a significant competition, right, so a tense competition for.
Speaker 6: Sure, Thank you, Sorry, Andy Goohead.
Speaker 4: No, it's just saying that, you know, of all the
Speaker 4: of all the global threats that most threatened to pull
Speaker 4: the United States into, you know, out and out war
Speaker 4: pier on pier, it's certainly Taiwan, and it's it's kind
Speaker 4: of interesting. I mean, the Biden administration never really abandoned
Speaker 4: the policy of strategic ambiguity, right, but they you know,
Speaker 4: Biden kind of edged forward and some of the things
Speaker 4: that he was saying that coming bordering on the United
Speaker 4: States is committed to defend Taiwan, but he never actually
Speaker 4: came out and say that. But but Rubio and and
Speaker 4: and the other guy is Waltz, have been pushing for
Speaker 4: strategic clarity, you know, to to actually declare that the
Speaker 4: US will back Taiwan in the event of attempted Chinese invasion.
Speaker 4: And whether or not you believe, you know, the prognosis
Speaker 4: of the commander of Indo p who said recently that
Speaker 4: he expected that, you know, China would by the end
Speaker 4: of the decade try and invade Taiwan. Certainly there are
Speaker 4: indications that g is edging towards, if not out and
Speaker 4: out confrontation, certainly rampant, you know, up in the anti
Speaker 4: by you know, by declaring that that Taiwan is you know,
Speaker 4: renegade state that the you know, the premiere there has
Speaker 4: been has been intolerably belligerent in all of these things.
Speaker 4: It's not just the rhetoric, the fact that China's stepped
Speaker 4: up its patrols in the air see patrols that it's
Speaker 4: you know, it's old news that it's been building bases
Speaker 4: on reclaimed land, you know, along the nine dash line.
Speaker 4: I mean it, without being kind of chicken little, it
Speaker 4: does seem as though some really hard decisions are going
Speaker 4: to be made. I think central to those decisions are
Speaker 4: this question of whether the US is going to kind
Speaker 4: of go on pretending that or being a peaue about
Speaker 4: its intentions should China actually invade Taiwan, or whether they
Speaker 4: will kind of jump on whether Trump will jump on
Speaker 4: the platform of out and out saying out and out
Speaker 4: commitment to defend Taiwan, which honestly, I've got to say,
Speaker 4: it's just difficult to imagine, isn't it that any administration
Speaker 4: we talked about this before would commit US troops, US
Speaker 4: lives the defense of Taiwan. And I can't imagine, you know,
Speaker 4: I'm not coming down either way on this, but I
Speaker 4: can't imagine that the American public would support such a thing.
Speaker 4: And it seems to fly in the face of what
Speaker 4: Trump has been saying about not wanting to be involved
Speaker 4: in wars overseas.
Speaker 3: That's a good point. It's one thing to have these
Speaker 3: discussions in time inside the you know, the DC Beltway.
Speaker 3: It's another to try to convince the American people that
Speaker 3: they need to commit a substantial amount of force to
Speaker 3: be able to defend Taiwan. And all the war games,
Speaker 3: some of them I think have been reported in the media,
Speaker 3: they play this scenario out. It's not good. I mean,
Speaker 3: we win in these scenarios from one of a purric
Speaker 3: victory in the sense that we lose a lot of
Speaker 3: troops who use a lot of ships, a lot of aircraft.
Speaker 3: Taiwan gets decimated, Japan potentially as well. In China, of course,
Speaker 3: is the biggest loser in it, but I guess you
Speaker 3: could say everybody could be a loser in it. And
Speaker 3: then of course at risk and all out, which would
Speaker 3: be an all out war between two superpowers, nuclear superpowers,
Speaker 3: So it's a huge It's one thing to have a
Speaker 3: policy discussion in a think tank at DC. It's another
Speaker 3: one to see this actually play out. And I think
Speaker 3: and he makes a good point. I mean, when the
Speaker 3: American people start hearing discussions about the US going to war,
Speaker 3: I want they're gonna start looking at a map and say, what,
Speaker 3: what's this Taiwan right, because it's it's it's not it's
Speaker 3: not an easy decision, that's for sure.
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, it'll take something dramatic to happen and
Speaker 1: like you know, an aircraft carrier sinking or something like
Speaker 1: that to get the US, just like how nine to
Speaker 1: eleven happened to get the US electorate or populous to
Speaker 1: be like, yeah, let's go for it. Like it would
Speaker 1: have to be oh, yeah, we need to get some payback,
Speaker 1: because that's pretty sure. That's how it goes with the
Speaker 1: US for the most part. It's like, you know, if
Speaker 1: we look first seemed to have been attacked in any way,
Speaker 1: we're like, okay, it's time to let it rip.
Speaker 3: But they were that would be changed. I agree, indeed,
Speaker 3: all right, go ahead.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: The really tough part about the Taiwan question is the
Speaker 4: fact that we cannot prevent an invasion of Taiwan. We
Speaker 4: can on to one, but we you know, we we
Speaker 4: there's just no way that we can get forces in
Speaker 4: place to prevent crossing. You know that the Taiwan straight
Speaker 4: I mean, China will have I mean, it's it's going
Speaker 4: to be up to what is on the island. Now
Speaker 4: for that initial defense, I'm not saying it's going to
Speaker 4: be easy for China to gain a you know, a
Speaker 4: lodgment the beachhead, but nevertheless, it's likely to happen before
Speaker 4: we can get forces into the region. So you see
Speaker 4: what I'm saying. It's it's going to take a conscious
Speaker 4: decision to respond, rather than US to responding to a
Speaker 4: US attack on I mean to a Chinese attack on
Speaker 4: US forces, which would be easier to back with the
Speaker 4: American public. It's going to be you know, the Chinese
Speaker 4: are going to have be able to present us with
Speaker 4: facts on the ground. Yes, the fighting will be fierce
Speaker 4: or to be ongoing. The Chinese will take tremendous casualties
Speaker 4: crossing the strait, but nothing there now and nothing within
Speaker 4: range can prevent them from doing that from at least
Speaker 4: seizing a bridgehead. I mean, that's I'm not an expert
Speaker 4: on this, but that's what the war games suggest, and
Speaker 4: so it's going to be up to the US to
Speaker 4: respond and they to dislodge them. And that's really that's
Speaker 4: not only politically tough, it's a military tough proposition.
Speaker 3: Yeah. The second scenario is it wouldn't be an all
Speaker 3: out invasion. It could be some kind of attempt to
Speaker 3: isolate Taiwan blockade blockade, which then the US would have
Speaker 3: to make the determination of whether to you know, run
Speaker 3: that blockade.
Speaker 4: Yeah, in which case we would still have to to
Speaker 4: make an aggressive move or an offensive move.
Speaker 1: I got a question, uh, like, if the US comes
Speaker 1: out in a strong you know, set, comes out strong
Speaker 1: support of like we will do what it takes to
Speaker 1: defend Taiwan, whether it's blockade or actual invasion, does that
Speaker 1: do enough to deter China from doing it.
Speaker 2: It's a speculative question.
Speaker 3: But that's the question that Andy was been talking about
Speaker 3: strategic ambiguity or strategic clarity, right, It's been we often
Speaker 3: do the strategic ambiguity, just don't tell them and they
Speaker 3: can guess. But many argue, why would do that? Why
Speaker 3: not be, you know, clarify. I guess the question is
Speaker 3: if you clarify, you better be really willing to back
Speaker 3: it up, right, because you can't do that many too
Speaker 3: often before people just don't care whether you're what you're saying.
Speaker 3: You don't back up what you say.
Speaker 4: It's it is a tough question. I mean, arguably, do
Speaker 4: you remember the invasion of uh you know, I know
Speaker 4: d was not born then, but the invasion of Kuwait
Speaker 4: back in nineteen ninety.
Speaker 2: I was born then, and I mean I was five.
Speaker 4: They didn't, you know, in any case, So the argument
Speaker 4: was that, I mean, the strong argument was that the
Speaker 4: US was not clear enough about how it would react,
Speaker 4: you know. And the ambassador in Baghdad was actually blamed
Speaker 4: for being ambiguous when Saddam Hussein started ranting about what
Speaker 4: he intended to do and Kuwait. So you know, strategic
Speaker 4: ambiguity does not sometimes counts against this. But as Mick
Speaker 4: points out, this is such an enormous decision and if
Speaker 4: we commit to it, then we really have to commit
Speaker 4: to it and announcing it. I think one of the
Speaker 4: reasons why we haven't announced it isn't just because we
Speaker 4: don't want to be tied to it. It's it's the
Speaker 4: enormity of the announcement to the American public.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 4: I mean, as long as we're ambiguous, it doesn't become
Speaker 4: front and center as a domestic issue or i mean
Speaker 4: an issue for the electorate. But once we announce it,
Speaker 4: it certainly does very easy, very easy stance to attack.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and the and the reference you just made and
Speaker 3: I believe Saidda he stated that he thought that gave
Speaker 3: him tacit approval. Obviously that wasn't the case. But that's
Speaker 3: the risk of not being really clear with what you'll do.
Speaker 3: But it does kind of lock.
Speaker 1: Yet what other ways is can we kind of deter
Speaker 1: it without being like, yeah, well we'll straight up send
Speaker 1: five carrier groups and.
Speaker 2: Fuck you guys up.
Speaker 1: You know what I mean, Like, what are like the
Speaker 1: economic ways or diplomatic ways you can put pressure on
Speaker 1: China to like not invade Taiwan.
Speaker 4: You can make Taiwan very very tough to swallow. You know,
Speaker 4: that's probably I mean militarily, that's that's one of the things.
Speaker 4: The only things we can do is really you know,
Speaker 4: take a if it's still sticking to strategic and piguity.
Speaker 4: We nevertheless put facts on the ground helping Taiwan build
Speaker 4: its defenses, building a a militia. You know, Time's already
Speaker 4: working on this, but that that you know, prepared to
Speaker 4: go underground and make the seizure of any part of
Speaker 4: Taiwan extremely painful for China. You know, all of those
Speaker 4: efforts are kind of playing I mean, they're playing in
Speaker 4: the gray zone which is playing China's game, but they're
Speaker 4: sending they're sending a very clear message to China without
Speaker 4: coming out and saying anything, you know, putting us offt on,
Speaker 4: you know, on laughing because of all the media attention
Speaker 4: that this has already received. But us offt on the
Speaker 4: island now to to help train and and prepare, and
Speaker 4: of course you know what we are doing to an extent,
Speaker 4: which is giving Taiwan top end weapons systems specifically designed
Speaker 4: to repel an amphibious and airborne assault.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 5: I think they were calling it the porcupine strategy. You know,
Speaker 5: you're gonna get it, but you're gonna hurt, you know.
Speaker 3: Yeah. And that's the Taiwan Relations Act, and I'm looking
Speaker 3: at it here, nineteen seventy nine. It doesn't require that
Speaker 3: we come to their defense militarily, but it does require
Speaker 3: that we provide Taiwan with the military capacity to resist,
Speaker 3: you know, any attempt to remove them from power and
Speaker 3: take over Taiwan. So that is that is something we
Speaker 3: have legally required ourselves to do. And that's I think
Speaker 3: going to your point, Andy, is that we're going to
Speaker 3: make them so difficult to actually militarily dominate that China
Speaker 3: will hopefully not decide to do that.
Speaker 1: Make sure the who's the prick in the Trump transition
Speaker 1: team that doesn't want to go get tough on China?
Speaker 2: You could say it's no, I didn't.
Speaker 3: The person I was talking to.
Speaker 2: No, Yeah, I figured that.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean I think he's referred to as the
Speaker 3: business side of this, which is obviously important as well.
Speaker 3: It's not all military, right, there's an economic component. And
Speaker 3: he didn't reference him. I'm referencing you know that there's
Speaker 3: people that have significant influence with the president, that have
Speaker 3: significant interest interest in the China relationship. Yeah, Musk is
Speaker 3: one of them.
Speaker 4: That's yeah, become as secretary. It's his name.
Speaker 6: Could be.
Speaker 4: I mean, has has talked about striking a striking a
Speaker 4: deal approach to China. Yeah, I'm just guessing here.
Speaker 1: But the end this, I mean, of course it's us.
Speaker 1: He's got the biggest voice. I mean, the move is
Speaker 1: that definitely just put that rift there. It's going to
Speaker 1: happen at some point between Musk and Trump. You know,
Speaker 1: they're just two to two narcissists that can't will not
Speaker 1: get along over the long haul.
Speaker 2: And that's the move.
Speaker 1: If they're doing that they should be doing that internally,
Speaker 1: if I were them, doing whatever I can to make
Speaker 1: them break up. For lack of a better term, I mean, right,
Speaker 1: everyone's waiting for that explosion, that that you know, those
Speaker 1: fireworks when it when it eventually happens, I try to
Speaker 1: rush that as soon as possible if I were them,
Speaker 1: because he does have a significant interest in China.
Speaker 2: It's a huge market for ye.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, And I think that's that. I mean, it's
Speaker 3: it's going to be something that plays out. There's no
Speaker 3: I don't think there's gonna be a straight line. I
Speaker 3: think there's going to be multiple decision points and we'll
Speaker 3: see how it goes. But you know, the Chinahawks have.
Speaker 7: Been a big part of the right side of the
Speaker 7: political national security spectrum for a while, so they're they're
Speaker 7: pretty excited about this, and I guess they get they
Speaker 7: were surprised by the parent early pushback.
Speaker 6: Yeah uh uh.
Speaker 4: You know, before we are, if we leave the topic,
Speaker 4: one thing that hasn't been talked about, and I think
Speaker 4: maybe because it kind of flies in the face of
Speaker 4: trump sustensible distrust of alliances, of committing to alliances. But
Speaker 4: one thing that we haven't really done is focus on
Speaker 4: a network of bilateral relations in the Pacific. You know,
Speaker 4: there's no there's no organization that parallels NATO there and
Speaker 4: it would be hard to start one. But you know,
Speaker 4: we we're in a strong position to establish these bilateral
Speaker 4: relations and that is what China is working on right now.
Speaker 4: You know, China is simultaneously defending its position along the
Speaker 4: nine dash line, but at the same time working, you know,
Speaker 4: on appeasing some of the major players in the region Japan, Korea,
Speaker 4: South Korea. And so we need to play that game
Speaker 4: more and and we have to offer I'm just we
Speaker 4: you know, we owll this empty toolk about to pivot
Speaker 4: to Asia over a decade ago, but we really have
Speaker 4: done very little to back that up. Now would be
Speaker 4: the time.
Speaker 3: M yep, and you could do it both security wise
Speaker 3: and economic wise. To these alliances in the US. It
Speaker 3: was my former boss, uh used to say, maybe all
Speaker 3: are former bosses. Secretary of mattis is the US always
Speaker 3: fights with a coalition, right, So coalitions are built of alliances,
Speaker 3: and it's just part of It's always been part of warfare.
Speaker 3: It's not like it's a modern thing. So and uh, yeah,
Speaker 3: I think I think You're right that President Trump looks
Speaker 3: at a lot of these with some skepticism. Sometimes that's
Speaker 3: good because they wake up and realize that they got
Speaker 3: to start contributing more to the alliance itself, right uh.
Speaker 3: And you know, but hopefully the the traditionalist, I would say,
Speaker 3: and his administration can really highlight the importance of these
Speaker 3: alliances when it comes to competing with China, because China
Speaker 3: certainly realized Sowbourn they are and.
Speaker 4: The time is right, especially with the Philippines and Vietnam,
Speaker 4: you know, I mean Vietnam. Do you remember when we
Speaker 4: pulled out of a longer po I think it was
Speaker 4: way back in the in the early nineties. I mean,
Speaker 4: we pulled out of our clock and Subic Bay in
Speaker 4: the Philippines, and then under Due thirty we didn't have
Speaker 4: a great relationship with the Philippines. But now under Marcos
Speaker 4: Bongbong Marcos, with all the Chinese that are doing that,
Speaker 4: you know, they're reaching out to us again, and Vietnam
Speaker 4: has done for a long time. I mean, that would
Speaker 4: be a great place to establish a base, as ironic
Speaker 4: though it may seem, I mean, Camrade Bay no longer
Speaker 4: called that, I know, but would be a superb location
Speaker 4: to have a US Navy base, and that would send
Speaker 4: the Chinese up the wall if we established you know,
Speaker 4: we lodged the Pacific Fleet back in the Philippines and
Speaker 4: Vietnam right on their doorstep. And it would also help
Speaker 4: solve some of the distance time distance problems for a
Speaker 4: defensive Taiwan or the you know, counter attack of Taiwan.
Speaker 4: We're stacking, We're stacking all our eggs, you know, in
Speaker 4: South Korea and Japan, you know, in areas that are
Speaker 4: heavily targeted by the Chinese. And I think, you know,
Speaker 4: my feeling is we should diversify and take advantage of
Speaker 4: you know, particularly in the case of Vietnam, and I
Speaker 4: think that economically and everything, that would be just a
Speaker 4: great location. How ironic too, you know, I mean, they
Speaker 4: kick our ass, but in the end, you know, we get.
Speaker 4: I mean, yeah, fifty years, sixty years on, we we get.
Speaker 4: We get what we needed as a bulwark against communism
Speaker 4: in a communist country.
Speaker 2: Anything else you guys got on China.
Speaker 3: I mean, we'll have a lot more to say in
Speaker 3: China as we go.
Speaker 2: For Yeah, no, we covered it all.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah. The next big thing, of course, what's gonna
Speaker 3: happen with Iran?
Speaker 8: Hey guys, it's Jack. I just wanted to talk to
Speaker 8: you today about a way that you can help support
Speaker 8: the podcast if you're not already to support the channel,
Speaker 8: is to become a Patreon member. So we have Patreon
Speaker 8: memberships that started just five dollars a month, and when
Speaker 8: you sign up, you get access to all of our
Speaker 8: episodes add free. That's the big bonus for that. I mean,
Speaker 8: we also do some Patreon bonus episodes for our subscribers,
Speaker 8: but this is the biggest and best way that you
Speaker 8: can support the Teamhouse channel and podcast if you'd like to,
Speaker 8: and we really appreciate that, So go and check us
Speaker 8: out at patreon dot com slash the Teamhouse.
Speaker 2: Yeah's kind of.
Speaker 1: Like, yeah, it seems like the administration is a little
Speaker 1: bit more on lockstep in terms of being more hawkish
Speaker 1: on Iran. On Iran, at least from what like the
Speaker 1: reporting and like the messaging coming out of them. I mean,
Speaker 1: Iran is actually like it's seems to be on the
Speaker 1: back foot right as well as decimated Hamas is decimated,
Speaker 1: the Hoothy's. It looks like we're gonna like I think
Speaker 1: we just hit the Hoothi's again, We're gonna They're gonna
Speaker 1: be in our crossairs again. And I guess the big
Speaker 1: worry for that, Like, you know, if I'm if I'm
Speaker 1: the regime in Iran, I'm thinking about nuclear weapons too, right,
Speaker 1: Like what's going to secure my regime? And it seems
Speaker 1: like that might be the only move. But you know,
Speaker 1: so what are you guys seeing on that?
Speaker 3: Well, if you look at the actual House report, national
Speaker 3: Security Advisor sol Of and Breef President buying about a
Speaker 3: month ago, all the options to either eliminate or significantly
Speaker 3: reduce their nuclear capacity, because in the last four years
Speaker 3: they've really advanced it. I think they're a threshold nuclear
Speaker 3: state right now, is official talk. And I think the
Speaker 3: IEA said that they have enough enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.
Speaker 3: Now that's obviously a horrible thing. I do believe, and
Speaker 3: I'm only doing this based on reporting I've seen in
Speaker 3: the media that we think it would still take a
Speaker 3: year to make the nuclear detonating explosion device that would
Speaker 3: have to go with the uranium. So not a nuclear
Speaker 3: scientist here, but so we still have some time. But
Speaker 3: the concern, of course, you lay it up these they've
Speaker 3: lost their proxy forces, or at least they're significantly degraded.
Speaker 3: Why not go for a nuclear weapon. We have to
Speaker 3: be ready, I think, to be able to take that
Speaker 3: focused military action to deny about that if that's what
Speaker 3: the Intel says they're going to do, And I think
Speaker 3: there's a very real chance that they are going to
Speaker 3: try that. So this is more than theoretical. This could happen, Wow,
Speaker 3: in short order. If the Intel says they're racing to
Speaker 3: a deliverable nuclear weapon.
Speaker 4: Andy, Yeah, I mean, I don't, I don't know, it's already,
Speaker 4: don't It's it seems like a matter of time before
Speaker 4: Israel strikes against Iran's newclear capability. I mean, but there
Speaker 4: have been several points where the time seemed optimal Netna
Speaker 4: who was advised by his you know, his own generals
Speaker 4: to do so, and he didn't. And you know, there's
Speaker 4: a lot of there's a complexity with Netanyahu. I mean,
Speaker 4: he's become you know, we see him as the Hawk
Speaker 4: of Gaza. This is neither a defense or an attack
Speaker 4: on Netan. Yahoo. I'm just saying, you know, he's seen
Speaker 4: now it's the Hawk of Gaza. But traditionally he has
Speaker 4: opposed getting bogged down in major military strikes or wars
Speaker 4: because he's seen how that leads to the demise of
Speaker 4: politicians in Israel. But definitely there's a school of thought
Speaker 4: within the Israeli high command that no time is better
Speaker 4: than now to go after the Iranian nuclear program. We've
Speaker 4: talked about this before, and I think part of the
Speaker 4: question is perhaps, you know, they're waiting for the new
Speaker 4: administration to come in where they perhaps think that they're
Speaker 4: going to get a green light because President Trump has
Speaker 4: indicated that he will give them once. So I don't know,
Speaker 4: but it seems like that could be one of the
Speaker 4: preconditions that they are waiting for. In other words, this
Speaker 4: may not be a wholy US decision. This may be
Speaker 4: simply just giving them not to the Israelis. The second question,
Speaker 4: of course, is can they do it alone? And it
Speaker 4: used to be, you know, the the consensus used to
Speaker 4: be though they cannot. But they did execute a remarkably
Speaker 4: complex air strike air campaign, actually two of them in
Speaker 4: the last few months, one on Iran involving over one
Speaker 4: hundred planes to include f thirty fives, where they totally
Speaker 4: penetrated the Iranian IADS and supposedly knocked out all their
Speaker 4: S three hundred radar, in other words, blinding you know,
Speaker 4: blinding them. And the other was the recent one in Syria,
Speaker 4: which was actually the largest air campaign Israel has conducted
Speaker 4: since the seventy three war. It didn't exactly go under
Speaker 4: the radar, but it wasn't heavily reported here in the States,
Speaker 4: but that was a So what I'm saying is that they,
Speaker 4: you know, when you look at all their capabilities ground penetrating,
Speaker 4: you know, deep bunker penetrating bombs, aerial refueling, stealth technology,
Speaker 4: they have leapt far ahead, far ahead of where they
Speaker 4: were a decade ago.
Speaker 3: So that's a fair point, especially the fact that they've
Speaker 3: depleted the air and most of the defense of our own,
Speaker 3: which is the biggest factor when it comes to taking
Speaker 3: this right. And then the question is do they have
Speaker 3: the proper monitions you already referenced it to be able
Speaker 3: to do this right. That's why the US is going
Speaker 3: to have to make the determination of whether we get involved,
Speaker 3: because if we don't get involved, if we do get involved,
Speaker 3: the chances of success are high. And if Israel does
Speaker 3: it alone, don't we still have the same consequences. That's
Speaker 3: the question that the US is going to have to
Speaker 3: ask itself if Israel's going to do this alone.
Speaker 5: So, given their capability that they've proven they can they
Speaker 5: have and can use, is there a red line where
Speaker 5: they will not even wait for a decision from US,
Speaker 5: not not our permission, just a decision and say we're
Speaker 5: just going to do it, because I mean, obviously they're
Speaker 5: the closest geographically and they're probably the target.
Speaker 6: So I just wonder if there's a.
Speaker 5: Hey, Iran, is that our intel shows Iran is at
Speaker 5: this point in the process, we're not waiting anymore for
Speaker 5: US to give us a green light.
Speaker 3: I think so. I think that's right, Jason. I think
Speaker 3: they probably already relay that red line to US. I
Speaker 3: don't know that it's you know, I don't know what
Speaker 3: it is, but certainly where they think that they cannot
Speaker 3: control it and it's close to happening, and of course
Speaker 3: they could get an injection of from Russia or others
Speaker 3: in technology that can speed this up. So this is
Speaker 3: all going to I think the intel driven and there
Speaker 3: probably is a point where Israel would would do it
Speaker 3: regardless of our even even political support. But they wouldn't
Speaker 3: certainly hope. And then of course this leads to can
Speaker 3: we get a grand bargain? Can we get another agreement
Speaker 3: that deals not only with the nuclear weapons issue and
Speaker 3: iron but also their support for proxies like asthmlanomas the
Speaker 3: Houthis of which they could get full sanction and relief.
Speaker 3: You know, obviously have to be something in it for them.
Speaker 3: Could we get to a point now that they feel
Speaker 3: so vulnerable that they would be willing willing to do that?
Speaker 3: I think that's another factor that incoming administration is going
Speaker 3: to be looking at. Long we're going to have the negotiations,
Speaker 3: Are they willing to like really have these negotiations and
Speaker 3: verifiable proof that they're not going towards you know, a
Speaker 3: weapon system over at a covert? And then how we're
Speaker 3: willing to believe the sanctions because that's what they're going
Speaker 3: to want to do.
Speaker 1: I got a question for you guys, What do you guys?
Speaker 1: What was your take on the Obama administration's deal the
Speaker 1: nuclear deal they deal with them?
Speaker 2: Was that good?
Speaker 1: Not good? I mean, I'm sure to have his pros
Speaker 1: and cons, but would they be at this point right
Speaker 1: now where they're six months to a year away from
Speaker 1: a deliverable nuclear weapon if we stayed in it.
Speaker 3: That's a you know, it's a fair point. I think
Speaker 3: to look at both sides. The JCPOA was an agreement
Speaker 3: that focused on their nuclear intentions, and the critics would
Speaker 3: say did not address the malign activity use the proxy force,
Speaker 3: which made it, you know, not a perfect agreement. The
Speaker 3: supporters would say, yes, but it did curtail the nuclear
Speaker 3: ambitious so getting out of it, the argument would go
Speaker 3: is that you could have addressed the proxy malign activities separately,
Speaker 3: but we didn't. And obviously that's only gone up right
Speaker 3: the attacks from as Law Moss and since we got
Speaker 3: out gone up exponentially. But the question is, since that's
Speaker 3: water are under the bridge, if we do another agreement,
Speaker 3: I think everybody would agree it should include both, because
Speaker 3: that's what it failed at before. It's all depending on
Speaker 3: whether Orron wants to include both, and then they're willing to,
Speaker 3: and they might because they're super unpopular back home. They
Speaker 3: literally can't keep the lights on in a country that
Speaker 3: produces that substantial amunt of energy and their economies and
Speaker 3: some like reform, so it might be perfect opportunity. But
Speaker 3: I think everybody would agree, even the supporters of the
Speaker 3: JACPO agent. It should be a comprehensive agreement.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's a good, really good point Mit brought up
Speaker 4: about the the the regime sensitivity to its own citizenry
Speaker 4: is surprisingly high. In other words, they they are concerned
Speaker 4: about the you know, feeling of the population towards the
Speaker 4: administration and they were alarmed, you know, they had kind
Speaker 4: of these half sham elections that that and and there
Speaker 4: was a regional elections which were held last year and
Speaker 4: there was a really really low turnout and that concerned
Speaker 4: the regime. And there's a there's a bubbling discontent for
Speaker 4: some time against all this adventurism abroad, and a lot
Speaker 4: of it is mixedpointed out is driven by the economic
Speaker 4: freefall to the Uranian population. Know, it feels that they're
Speaker 4: in and and so sanctions relief will be a big one.
Speaker 4: It is a big incentive and we should certainly use it.
Speaker 4: And the other piece I agree with mec on Jake
Speaker 4: poa you know, pros and cons It was it was
Speaker 4: poorly framed and poorly enforced. But one thing it did
Speaker 4: do was it gave us access and a certain amount
Speaker 4: of visibility to Iran's nuclear program. Okay, yes, things can
Speaker 4: always be hidden it but since we pulled out, it's
Speaker 4: been we have no visibility at all. It's become absolutely opaque.
Speaker 4: And so you know, I mean, any any sort of
Speaker 4: engagement is I think is better than none to an extent.
Speaker 4: And it's concerning. I mean, it's like, you know, as
Speaker 4: much as I as much as I hate the Russia,
Speaker 4: I mean, I hate the Russians. You didn't say this right.
Speaker 4: As much as I'm distrustful of Russia or anything, you know,
Speaker 4: it was a big loss to us when we we
Speaker 4: we could no longer communicate with Russian military in Syria.
Speaker 4: You know all that any any any sort of open
Speaker 4: communication lines at whatever level with potential adversaries can only
Speaker 4: be positive.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I agree, all right.
Speaker 2: Plans for Ukraine? What's going on? There's a new push.
Speaker 1: That they just got into it to Kursk that supposed
Speaker 1: the Russians are retreating a bit. Is this a move
Speaker 1: because Trump's coming in and they're gonna try and freeze
Speaker 1: the line, So keep a little bit of Russia while
Speaker 1: Russia keeps a whole lot of Ukraine.
Speaker 2: Is that part of it?
Speaker 3: There's a lot of maneuvering right now. I think there's
Speaker 3: a lot of maneuvering to try to get ahead of
Speaker 3: what they think it's going to happen, which is negotiations
Speaker 3: based on General Kellin's plans. I'm sure he's obviously working
Speaker 3: with income President. The idea I think right now would
Speaker 3: be to freeze the lines at where they are. Doesn't
Speaker 3: mean that Ukraine concedes to twenty percent of Ukraine that
Speaker 3: they've taken, but it does essentially stop the fighting. What
Speaker 3: does it get does Ukraine get out of it? Well,
Speaker 3: they should get some kind of security guarantee. If that's
Speaker 3: not part of the DAL, I don't see them agreeing
Speaker 3: with it, But I do think President Zelenski realizes it's
Speaker 3: going to be extraordinarily difficult to militarily take back the
Speaker 3: twenty percent that you know that Russia is currently occupied.
Speaker 3: So what is it from his perspective that he loses
Speaker 3: by freezing the conflict, getting the security guarantee and then
Speaker 3: building up his defenses to ensure that no more in
Speaker 3: Ukraine could be taken by the Russians, again not conceding
Speaker 3: that part of Ukraine is currently being occupied by a
Speaker 3: lawful invasion of Russia. Now I don't know. I mean,
Speaker 3: it seems like President Zelensky is really talking about this
Speaker 3: as a viable option. I think the question is will Putin?
Speaker 3: Will Putin accept that as a viable option. Will he
Speaker 3: be able to sell that to whoever he thinks he
Speaker 3: needs to sell it to. This was all worth it
Speaker 3: to get that part of Ukraine, and now there's some
Speaker 3: kind of security guarantee for Ukraine, and and and will
Speaker 3: he be the one that actually hems and haws on
Speaker 3: doing this. I think the one thing that could really
Speaker 3: push him to not is for the US to say, Okay,
Speaker 3: if you don't, then we're going to double the seceritor assistance.
Speaker 3: You gotta have it. You got to have a stick, right.
Speaker 3: You can't just you can't just rely on Putin to
Speaker 3: be a fair broker of this ceasefire agreement. So we're
Speaker 3: going to have to be ready to tell him that
Speaker 3: we're going to open the flood gates of support if
Speaker 3: he doesn't. So it has to be some consequences to
Speaker 3: his his not participating in this agreement, if that's what.
Speaker 4: We're going Andy, Yeah, no, I mean, the risk of
Speaker 4: sounding like I'm echoing Meg I couldn't agree more that
Speaker 4: there has to be a part of the agreement has
Speaker 4: to be that we continuously reinforce Ukraine during a during
Speaker 4: this phase of Fruzen conflict of negotiation, because that's the
Speaker 4: only that's the only thing that Boutin is going to
Speaker 4: pay attention to. You know, right now, Ukraine does have
Speaker 4: an incentive to make peace. And despite the you know,
Speaker 4: the incredible fighting they've been doing for the last two
Speaker 4: and a half years, the biggest problem right now is manpower.
Speaker 4: They are really hurting at the front. Their units are
Speaker 4: way under capacity. They have problems with desertion, as you know,
Speaker 4: I mean, which is just not surprising when you think
Speaker 4: what a meat grind at the front is there. And
Speaker 4: it's becoming increasingly difficult to hold the line. And you know,
Speaker 4: while everyone applauds quite rightly what they're doing in Russia itself,
Speaker 4: both drone strike, sabotage assassinations and what they've done in Kursk,
Speaker 4: these things are kind of side shows. They're not going
Speaker 4: to have a strategic effect. And and in the theater
Speaker 4: that matters, or the you know, the battleground that matters,
Speaker 4: that is in Dombas, and that matters to to Russia
Speaker 4: and Russia's plans they are, they're still giving ground. Pok
Speaker 4: Ross is holding on, you know, by its fingernails.
Speaker 1: And the.
Speaker 4: Streets of Pokrofsk now are just empowered passable because of
Speaker 4: the Russian drones. You know, I don't know if you're
Speaker 4: tracking this, but the population are sheltering in cellars and
Speaker 4: have been doing doing so for weeks, those who haven't
Speaker 4: been able to evacuate, and the Russians are closing, you know,
Speaker 4: they're they're closing the noose on Pockwarfs. Pokrofsk is the
Speaker 4: large last major town and it's a very important one.
Speaker 4: I mean, I mean before Kremitosk, and it's a very
Speaker 4: important one. It's a railway up and it's been a
Speaker 4: mainstay of logistic and man palace supply for the for
Speaker 4: the Ukrainians so far in the wall. And if it falls,
Speaker 4: that is that's very serious for them, and that is
Speaker 4: no doubt about it. That that is the Russian plans
Speaker 4: to make it fall as soon as possible, certainly before
Speaker 4: talks begin for a possible cease fire.
Speaker 2: Jay anything.
Speaker 5: Now, when it comes to this kind of stuff, I'm
Speaker 5: just I'm learning from these gents. But I, as an outsider,
Speaker 5: you know, a neophyte, I agree that any kind of
Speaker 5: talk should include us continuously arming and supporting them because
Speaker 5: I feel like if we don't and whatever the talks
Speaker 5: break down, they're just going to be on the back foot.
Speaker 1: So so I got a question about in terms of that,
Speaker 1: what are the chances that that's part of it, that's
Speaker 1: something we could can admit in terms of like if
Speaker 1: you know, well we will support you militarily or you know,
Speaker 1: whether it's anything logistics, whatever you call name it, what
Speaker 1: are the changs? I mean, it barely got through Congress
Speaker 1: this time, this past time. With the new administration, I
Speaker 1: feel like it would be uphill, an uphill battle to
Speaker 1: get that guarantee in there from us on our side.
Speaker 3: Well, certainly if President Trump was pushing it, that would help, right,
Speaker 3: So of course, yeah, I'm sure somebody's gonna tell I'm like,
Speaker 3: mister president, this is on you now. So do you
Speaker 3: want to be the president that loses U grain to
Speaker 3: Russian I don't think he does. And if he supports
Speaker 3: this and it's poutin, that is the problem under the
Speaker 3: scenario I'm going out. Then if President Trump is telling
Speaker 3: the Republicans, who there's plenty of Russian hawks that are
Speaker 3: still Republicans. Sure, I think you'd have all the Democrats,
Speaker 3: You'd already have the traditional Republican. I'd just call him
Speaker 3: Reagan type national security types. And then President Trump's influence
Speaker 3: over the mega folks I think could push this over
Speaker 3: the line, especially if it's part of a strategy to
Speaker 3: push prudent to the table, right, because if he's not
Speaker 3: coming to the table because he doesn't believe, he believes
Speaker 3: that our support is gonna wane and potentially even go away.
Speaker 3: But obviously this, uh, this idea that he's gonna President
Speaker 3: Trump's gonna actually in the conflicts is not gonna happen.
Speaker 3: It's gonna it's gonna take his direct involvement. I think.
Speaker 1: So he's the guy they need to they need to convey.
Speaker 1: I mean, it makes sense. He's the president, right, he
Speaker 1: and he runs that party with an iron fist. Let's
Speaker 1: be real, they would all fall in line if he
Speaker 1: were to come out strongly in terms of like supporting
Speaker 1: Ukraine and whatever that number is, or in terms of
Speaker 1: material or whatever.
Speaker 2: Uh So there's one guy, Yeah.
Speaker 3: It'd be enough to put to get the security assistance
Speaker 3: approved through both the as.
Speaker 1: I think, Yeah, I agree, all right, just switching back
Speaker 1: towards like US domestically into you know, we've seen what's
Speaker 1: happened the last week with the New Year's Day attacks
Speaker 1: and stuff I inspired and another one was a both
Speaker 1: former US Army soldiers, both I guess radicalized in their
Speaker 1: own way, because for you to go to the point
Speaker 1: where you're blowing yourself up to send the message something's
Speaker 1: gone wrong.
Speaker 2: We just have this.
Speaker 1: Know, the overall terrorist threat in the US, has it?
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't think it's ever gone away really
Speaker 1: since nine to eleven. I think it probably has gone
Speaker 1: up since nine to eleven. If I'm being honest, what
Speaker 1: do you think? I mean, Nick Jay, you guys are
Speaker 1: the experts.
Speaker 5: I started, Yeah, I agree that I believe that the
Speaker 5: threat has gone up a little bit since nine to eleven.
Speaker 6: I mean, I.
Speaker 5: Guess it depends on where what you're talking about as
Speaker 5: far as going up. You know, some people would autumn
Speaker 5: actually say it's the border. But those are the same
Speaker 5: people who are believing that there's what one hundred thousand
Speaker 5: isis fighters in the United States waiting to attack US.
Speaker 5: You know, those sorts of things. So I think it's
Speaker 5: a combination of things. For me, I think the biggest
Speaker 5: issue is the threat has gone up, but not to
Speaker 5: me externally.
Speaker 6: I believe it's internally.
Speaker 5: Radicalization has gone up due to you know, social media
Speaker 5: and things like AI and all those sorts of things.
Speaker 5: So I think that's our biggest thing. Plus you have
Speaker 5: the the inherent divisiveness within our country anyway, so those
Speaker 5: sorts of things are causing people to look elsewhere and
Speaker 5: they're finding that inspiration. And I think in some cases
Speaker 5: I don't know yet, but I think even with this
Speaker 5: guy in New Orleans, what was it a year ago
Speaker 5: or so, you're supposed to have been radicalized. I think
Speaker 5: some people just throw on that ma ask that isis
Speaker 5: mask or whatever mask just to do whatever it is
Speaker 5: they're doing and aren't committed to it. So you have
Speaker 5: all that stuff that's all mixed in there.
Speaker 3: Yeah, for sure. I mean, if you say there are
Speaker 3: two separate incidents, and I don't think they're tied, one
Speaker 3: in the days appears to be a suicide essentially, you know,
Speaker 3: horrible event, horrible. The veteran suicide is a whole other issue.
Speaker 3: You can do a whole several episodes on that, and
Speaker 3: then to Jay's point on New Orleans. I mean, the
Speaker 3: guy was actually thinking like should I get my family
Speaker 3: all together and killhim or should I go do this?
Speaker 3: So it seems like he was just a completely disturbed
Speaker 3: individual who was looking for some kind of although it
Speaker 3: completely warped rationale for doing what he did. It's a
Speaker 3: big problem. It's you know, radicalization, self radicalization. I do
Speaker 3: think they'll look into his foreign travel, which seems to
Speaker 3: be verified by the FBI today that he travels to Egypt.
Speaker 3: Was there any kind of connectivity that kind of boosted
Speaker 3: them over the edge to do this. I don't know
Speaker 3: the answer to that, but certainly the FBI and CI
Speaker 3: are going to be looking into that in detail. And
Speaker 3: then I think you travel a long or day in Toronto, Canada,
Speaker 3: But those kind of things will be looked at. But
Speaker 3: I do think, you know, one of the things we
Speaker 3: tend to think that we can just calling into these
Speaker 3: the enemy. It's a won't right. The isis exists to
Speaker 3: attack us, So this is not going to go away.
Speaker 3: We have to accept that this is going to be
Speaker 3: It's almost like a bunch of cops that around going
Speaker 3: talking about the end of crime, right it's not going
Speaker 3: to end. Terrorism is not going to end. The ideology
Speaker 3: still exists. The isis is, you know, went from you know,
Speaker 3: one country or Rock Syrea two countries to I think
Speaker 3: twenty four twenty eight countries right now spread throughout the world.
Speaker 3: So this is going to be something that we're just
Speaker 3: going to have to accept. It's going to be you know,
Speaker 3: we're going to have to dedicate certain parts of our
Speaker 3: security apparatus to fight period. It's not going to end.
Speaker 3: I wish it would, but if we have that mentality,
Speaker 3: we'll constantly be surprised when they verly likely add an attack.
Speaker 3: And I think they are in many ways looking to
Speaker 3: attack the West because that's what they why they exist.
Speaker 3: Al Kaida isis right now, I just saw something today,
Speaker 3: whether the UN predict or not estimates, there's twenty different
Speaker 3: terrorist organizations in Afghanistan today and there's not a whole
Speaker 3: lot of checks on them, and there's not a whole
Speaker 3: lot of visibility on them. So we have to accept
Speaker 3: the fact that we're still at war with terrorism and
Speaker 3: that it's not going to be something we can just
Speaker 3: opt out of or just declare an end.
Speaker 5: To and also to something to think about is if
Speaker 5: this all the talk of the incoming administration is looking
Speaker 5: to designate cartels as terrorist organizations. Now we're adding that
Speaker 5: into the mix, you know. So it's not just Middle
Speaker 5: Eastern countries, it's not just Muslims, it's not you know,
Speaker 5: there's if this happened, If this they are designated and
Speaker 5: there is a direct action that's taken against them, that's
Speaker 5: something else we have to think about, because I mean,
Speaker 5: there are people who live in Brownsville, Texas or wherever
Speaker 5: who are looking right at what could possibly be you know, hey,
Speaker 5: you've designated those terrorists. Now we're coming right across to
Speaker 5: you know, hit these towns. So it's not just we
Speaker 5: we have to be able to look in more than
Speaker 5: one direction at once.
Speaker 4: I don't know, but I would guess that law enforcement
Speaker 4: is yes, concerned with you know, with all those things,
Speaker 4: but I would guess that they're very concerned about domestic
Speaker 4: extreme right wing terrorism too, you know.
Speaker 6: I mean, the.
Speaker 4: Of course, you know, anythink packed to the Oklahoma City
Speaker 4: bombings and I and there have been since then, there
Speaker 4: have been there's been near run off the near run
Speaker 4: that has been of the tacks that have been preempted
Speaker 4: by law enforcement. You know, nothing on the scale of Oklahoma,
Speaker 4: but you know, there's these groups exist, and they're active
Speaker 4: and and you know, as we've just seen, there are
Speaker 4: some pretty extreme attitudes out there from people who ostensibly
Speaker 4: seem to be normal. And I think that's that's definitely
Speaker 4: of concern.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and that goes back to keeping our eye on
Speaker 5: you know, many different things at one time, because they're going.
Speaker 6: To take full advantage of that.
Speaker 5: We designate cartels as terror organizations and at the same
Speaker 5: time we're looking at isis well, what's behind us these
Speaker 5: extremist group FARI groups that Andy's talking about, and they're
Speaker 5: going to take full advantage of that.
Speaker 3: Yeah. One of the populations we definitely need to protect,
Speaker 3: the lack of a better arn't is veterans. And I
Speaker 3: say that because you know, oftentimes we undercut just how
Speaker 3: much training somebody who's serving Afghanistan and Rock actually has
Speaker 3: when it comes to being able to carry out a
Speaker 3: terrorist attack. I mean just to rudimentary training, not even
Speaker 3: to get into the special operations type stuff. You know.
Speaker 3: One of those and one of our individuals I should
Speaker 3: say that's radicalized can do an extensive amount of damage,
Speaker 3: which just a knowledge they have and they're you know, capacity.
Speaker 3: So that's that's when it comes to the fact that
Speaker 3: both of these two individuals wore veterans. That's something the
Speaker 3: Pentagon is going to be looking at, how do we
Speaker 3: prevent radicalization to protect our force and to protect our
Speaker 3: population because you know, five veterans put together can exponentially
Speaker 3: do more damage than just a bunch of knuckle heads
Speaker 3: that happen to believe in the ideology but have no
Speaker 3: actual capacity to do anything. So that's that's something I
Speaker 3: think is going to be looked at very closely by
Speaker 3: Department of Defense and how to prevent this from happening.
Speaker 2: Boys anything, It's a good discussion.
Speaker 1: You guys have anything on the action terrorist attacks. I mean,
Speaker 1: like we touched on that a little bit in the
Speaker 1: last couple episodes, but we haven't had Andy or make
Speaker 1: on that. So if you guys have any thoughts, please
Speaker 1: feel free.
Speaker 3: I think we covered it. I do think they're gonna
Speaker 3: I mean this is you know, you do the immediate
Speaker 3: triage when it comes to the intel of whether there's
Speaker 3: an ongoing threat. And even though it started off saying
Speaker 3: that they thought this was multiple individuals, which would indicate
Speaker 3: a more planned isis main involvement. Now it looks like
Speaker 3: it was just him, But they do have to realize
Speaker 3: they do have to find out whether there was direct direction,
Speaker 3: not just inspiration to the New Orleans attacker. And I
Speaker 3: think we won't find that until they've completed their both
Speaker 3: law enforcement investigation and the intelligence gathering and analysis that's
Speaker 3: there to come.
Speaker 4: And jel Yeah, I really don't. I mean, I think
Speaker 4: you guys covered it very well and is in the
Speaker 4: UK enjoying myself when when you're having these serious discussions. Yeah,
Speaker 4: nothing nothing positive to it?
Speaker 1: All right, boys, Nick, what do you tell us about
Speaker 1: what you're working on with fog Won and Lobo?
Speaker 3: Yeah? I appreciate you guys. Let me bring this up.
Speaker 3: So this book's actually been out a while for those
Speaker 3: that are looking at it and holding up. It's called
Speaker 3: All the Glimmering Stars. It's by Mark Sullivan, is a
Speaker 3: great author here in Montana who met me and my
Speaker 3: business partner Eric Olrich. We had done a documentary on
Speaker 3: a child two child soldiers actually married right now, that
Speaker 3: were abducted into the l RA and forced to fight
Speaker 3: and eventually escaped together, started a family and went on
Speaker 3: to rescue many other former child soldiers. So I just
Speaker 3: wanted to highlight this book is out. You can get
Speaker 3: it just about anywhere you can buy a book, and
Speaker 3: a portion of the proceeds goes to Eric in my
Speaker 3: five to one c three in Child Soldiering, which is
Speaker 3: completely dedicated to the rehabilitation of children who were forced
Speaker 3: to fight against their will by adults, who, of course
Speaker 3: are the ones that start the war. But I appreciate
Speaker 3: you guys allowing me to kind of like this book
Speaker 3: because it really does do a lot of good when
Speaker 3: it comes to the NGO.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm gonna put a link in the description for
Speaker 1: the book as well. I can grab it there and
Speaker 1: I'm gonna put a link in the description for the NGO.
Speaker 1: Links are always in the description, so check it out.
Speaker 1: Incredibly good cause I feel like there's no real unless
Speaker 1: you're running the child soldiers. Who's against whose four child said?
Speaker 1: You know what I mean, It should be really easy And.
Speaker 3: A lot of the audience, I might I might add
Speaker 3: that were participants in Operation Observant Compass, which was the
Speaker 3: US effort to counter of the LRA, and I imagine
Speaker 3: there's a lot of folks in the audience that participated
Speaker 3: in that would know this individual. Anthony Oka, he worked
Speaker 3: with us very closely because of his knowledge of Joseph
Speaker 3: Coney and know him very well, so that are very
Speaker 3: familiar with this story. It is. It is an operation
Speaker 3: that I thought was very unique in that it really
Speaker 3: did focus on the influence aspect of special operations fights
Speaker 3: the kinetic part, because you know, there was no Green
Speaker 3: Bray that was with me on these this operation that
Speaker 3: really wanted to go fight kids, right, So it was
Speaker 3: really focused on the messaging of getting them out without
Speaker 3: the fight, and it was very successful in that regard,
Speaker 3: and much of it because of people Anthony and people
Speaker 3: like Anthony that knew how to talk to these flguers.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so check that out. The link is in the description.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna put the Lincoln description too for the documentary
Speaker 1: as well. Andy Milburn, how are you first off?
Speaker 6: Great book?
Speaker 1: When the Tempest Gathers? Check that out. That's in a
Speaker 1: description as well. Jason's links are in the description. Doesn't
Speaker 1: have a book yet, h He's gonna be coming out
Speaker 1: with some erotic fiction. I know he's been talking about
Speaker 1: it for a while NAOW loosely based on actual little events. Guys,
Speaker 1: this is great. I think I'm forgetting something. Oh we
Speaker 1: I'm gonna tease it a little bit because Nick gave
Speaker 1: us the green light about the work that he's doing
Speaker 1: in Sudan, so we will get into that with a
Speaker 1: bunch more of the people you work with at fog
Speaker 1: bow uh. Probably I think, probably making an episode by itself.
Speaker 2: And what else.
Speaker 1: The team Patreon dot com slash the team House is
Speaker 1: the best way to support and thanks guys.
Speaker 2: This is great.
Speaker 6: Thanks everybody awesome.
Speaker 2: See you next time.