Speaker 1: Everybody, Welcome to a new episode of IZ on Geopolitics.
Speaker 1: I'm here with Mick Molroy, Mark poly Moropolis, and Jonathan Hackett.
Speaker 1: I fired Jack Murphy. He upstaged me last week and
Speaker 1: I'm not happy about it at all. Uh, So he's
Speaker 1: gone and we'll never see him again. He started sharing
Speaker 1: the screen and ship. I can't multitask like that for you.
Speaker 1: While yeah, yeah, I just let you guys go. So yeah,
Speaker 1: a lot going on. Thanks Jack for covering. I mean,
Speaker 1: Jack will always be on the show at some points.
Speaker 1: It was a good show. It's fun to actually listen
Speaker 1: to it rather than like worry about hosting it. Like
Speaker 1: it was good to just turn it on and listen. Uh,
Speaker 1: pretty good podcast, I have to say.
Speaker 2: So.
Speaker 1: A lot happening as usual. I mean, there's so many
Speaker 1: things happening all the time. It's ridiculous, to be honest.
Speaker 1: Some stuff I want to cover today definitely the USS
Speaker 1: Abraham Lincoln and the controversy happening there. There was reports
Speaker 1: early this week that up to six guys jumped off.
Speaker 1: I don't know how true that is. It wasn't confirmed.
Speaker 1: We know one guy jumped off for sure, right, and
Speaker 1: they scooped him up, so supposedly the conditions are terrible
Speaker 1: on there. Obviously it probably are because they've been out
Speaker 1: two hundred and fifty days. I haven't seen pour than
Speaker 1: two hundred. They're heading back or their way to get
Speaker 1: relieved by a new aircraft carrier that was already planned
Speaker 1: and coming in. This comes on the back of the
Speaker 1: Gerald rd Ford that was out there for like some
Speaker 1: three hundred days and that had a big fire in it,
Speaker 1: and it's probably like out of commission for like eighteen months.
Speaker 1: And that's like our new shiny one, which is interesting.
Speaker 1: A lot of aircraft carrier news. I wish Andy was
Speaker 1: here so I could trigger him a little bit, because
Speaker 1: I know it was hatred for aircraft carriers. But there
Speaker 1: was also a bit of news talking about how Trump
Speaker 1: wants to redesign the new catapult system to revert it
Speaker 1: back to the old one it's like, and that would
Speaker 1: cost probably tens of billions of dollars and probably take
Speaker 1: twenty years because we have no ship building capacity capacity.
Speaker 1: So a lot happened. Obviously, the Middle East a fucking disaster.
Speaker 1: We all know that. A little bit of like we're
Speaker 1: like kind of like a holding pattern when it comes
Speaker 1: to Iran straight O'Har moves is not open, despite what
Speaker 1: everyone's saying, like all like the Administrative Administration officials are saying.
Speaker 1: Lebanon seems to be getting really bad too. I mean
Speaker 1: there's just videos out there of them like basically controlled
Speaker 1: the demolishing an entire village and stuff like that. So
Speaker 1: there's so many places to go. Also, you know the
Speaker 1: CIA getting busy in the Galapagos. Uh, that story out
Speaker 1: of Washington Post. Let's start with John Hackett. Where do
Speaker 1: you want to take it? You pick whatever you like.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So there's two interesting things behind me here. One
Speaker 3: is my enlisted rank, which you can see on one shoulder,
Speaker 3: and then you can see it. There's an image up
Speaker 3: there of me standing on an aircraft carrier when I
Speaker 3: was working at the US Embassy and Jordan, and we
Speaker 3: were taking the US and bat and the Crown Prince
Speaker 3: to go visit the flag mess on a Nimitz class
Speaker 3: aircraft carrier, just like the Abraham Lincoln And I was
Speaker 3: there as a diplomat. But there was a problem. I
Speaker 3: was enlisted. And I think what a lot of people
Speaker 3: don't understand is on a navy ship, things are very
Speaker 3: different than the rest of the military for the officer
Speaker 3: enlisted divide. And I think that's what's kind of missing
Speaker 3: from all these stories about the conditions on the vessel
Speaker 3: is that it was already terrible for the enlisted. It's
Speaker 3: worse now, but it's not as bad for the officers.
Speaker 3: And a lot of times it's the officers who are
Speaker 3: the ones that get to talk. I mean, the spokesman
Speaker 3: for the Navy is an officer, right. The sec def
Speaker 3: is a retired or former officer, not retired, but former
Speaker 3: Reserve Army officer. Right. There's a lot of officers, hung Kou,
Speaker 3: the Secretary of the Navy officer. Where are the enlisted
Speaker 3: members being able to talk about what it's like on
Speaker 3: a vessel? And I mentioned that because that day when
Speaker 3: I took the ambassador to the flag mess I was
Speaker 3: stopped by a lieutenant who was about twenty years old,
Speaker 3: twenty two years old, and he pointed out a wooden
Speaker 3: sign on the wall and it said officer country, and
Speaker 3: he said, what are you doing here? You're a gunnery sergeant.
Speaker 1: You don't belong here.
Speaker 3: This is why I'm standing with the Crown Prince of
Speaker 3: Jordan and the US Ambassador there's no question that I
Speaker 3: should be there, but there was a problem. It's because
Speaker 3: I was enlisted. And if that is the culture on
Speaker 3: any navy ship, you can imagine how at two hundred
Speaker 3: and fifty days of that it gets to grind on people.
Speaker 3: So there's probably a cultural morale degradation going on here,
Speaker 3: regardless of how many days at sea or what the
Speaker 3: exterior conditions are. But you've got high humidity, high heat,
Speaker 3: high stress, high pressure. There's no male getting to the vessel.
Speaker 3: They're not getting Liberty. If you can see what the
Speaker 3: showers look like, they're terrible anyway. The beds are terrible anyway, right,
Speaker 3: even if it's day one underway, these guys went out
Speaker 3: on this vessel thinking they'd be back in six months.
Speaker 3: It's month nine now. So when you think about what
Speaker 3: can I pack in a small sea bag, which is
Speaker 3: what they're allowed to bring with them, a small green sack,
Speaker 3: what can I pack in there, they're only thinking about
Speaker 3: six months of packing.
Speaker 1: They're not thinking about nine months.
Speaker 3: They haven't gone into except in Oman and then in
Speaker 3: Southeast Asia wants to refuel, not to go on Liberty.
Speaker 3: So for nine months these guys have not actually been
Speaker 3: able to go out on liberty anywhere. You can imagine
Speaker 3: the kind of things going on for the lower ranking
Speaker 3: folks down there. There's probably some some would describe it
Speaker 3: as criminal activity, most likely going on on the vessel,
Speaker 3: just because of you know, things break down over time
Speaker 3: when you're at sea, right. I remember a few years
Speaker 3: ago when I was in Afghanistan, there was a story
Speaker 3: about a prostitution ring that someone was making a very
Speaker 3: high cash economy revenue off of this, just because people
Speaker 3: are out at sea, and like, what else are they
Speaker 3: going to do?
Speaker 1: They have nothing to do.
Speaker 3: They don't have Wi Fi, they don't have computers, they
Speaker 3: don't have telephones. This is the enlisted I'm talking about.
Speaker 3: Remember this's not the officers. So these enlisted people, some
Speaker 3: of them are having their kids, are being born while
Speaker 3: they're at sea. They haven't even seen an image of them,
Speaker 3: let alone talk to their wives. One of the sailors
Speaker 3: that jumped off, that was in the water for an hour,
Speaker 3: his wife is in San Diego and she gave birth
Speaker 3: on month six while they're at sea. They're at month
Speaker 3: nine now, he's not seen his child, not spoken to
Speaker 3: his wife. She shared her tech messages with a local
Speaker 3: newspaper in California, And that's how I know about this,
Speaker 3: where he was basically over a few months talking to her,
Speaker 3: and you could see the downward spiral and his communication
Speaker 3: with her over that time. There's only five people on
Speaker 3: that three thousand to five thousand person vessel that are
Speaker 3: qualified mental health professionals. Can you imagine how much how
Speaker 3: difficult it must be to get an appointed with one
Speaker 3: of those people, Not only that, they are also on
Speaker 3: the ship for nine months too. They haven't had to
Speaker 3: break either, right, So you're talking about every single person
Speaker 3: affected kind of in a global sense on that vessel,
Speaker 3: and I just want to put that context there because
Speaker 3: I think that's kind of missing from the understanding in
Speaker 3: you know, the general public about I saw some people saying, well,
Speaker 3: they're at war, isn't that what's you know, what they're
Speaker 3: supposed to deal with, and blah blah blah.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's true.
Speaker 3: But in places like Afghanistan, I was sharing a base
Speaker 3: X tent with my team leader, who was an officer.
Speaker 3: He and I slept on the same ground together, We
Speaker 3: had the same sleeping bags, we ate the same food,
Speaker 3: we suffered the same absolutely, and that's the maraqulets. Right,
Speaker 3: that's the entire right there, right exactly together, and leaders
Speaker 3: eat last. This is a really big thing. And on
Speaker 3: a navy vessel, the flag mess, they're eating steak, they're
Speaker 3: having juice, they have E seven but the equivalent of
Speaker 3: a Marine Corps gunnery sergeant, which is a chief in
Speaker 3: the Navy, pouring orange juice for them because the officers
Speaker 3: can't pour their own juice.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 3: And I witnessed this myself when I took the ambassador
Speaker 3: there right, Very different than the question of aren't they
Speaker 3: at war? Can't they suck it up? That's not what
Speaker 3: it's like on the ship. That's not how it's designed.
Speaker 3: It's a series of traditions that are unshakable for the
Speaker 3: navy at sea.
Speaker 1: Where did those traditions come from?
Speaker 3: Really, like the English, right, these are far hundreds and
Speaker 3: hundreds of years old, exactly. Yes, these are ancient traditions.
Speaker 3: And even some of the things we do, like crossing
Speaker 3: over certain lines of latitude and getting hazed while doing so.
Speaker 3: You don't call it hazing anymore, but you know, going
Speaker 3: through some ordeals. Those are all very very ancient traditions
Speaker 3: that are still part of that culture. On the vessel,
Speaker 3: and so is the criminal justice system on the vessel.
Speaker 3: There are separate laws for what a commander is able
Speaker 3: to do to another American citizen on that vessel that
Speaker 3: they cannot do while they're in the United States or
Speaker 3: even in a foreign country. There's a separate set of
Speaker 3: the Uniform Code of Military Justice that allows them to
Speaker 3: put certain extreme what we would describe as extreme punishments,
Speaker 3: for example, restriction to bread and water for a number
Speaker 3: of days that they're only allowed to eat bread and water.
Speaker 3: And the amount of evidence to prove that they should
Speaker 3: require that sentence is very low compared to what any
Speaker 3: sentencing would be in the United States. So it's a
Speaker 3: different world, literally on a vessel. And I think that's
Speaker 3: important to point out.
Speaker 4: Can I ask you guys something and this is really
Speaker 4: applicable line, you know, I did my kind of conflict
Speaker 4: zone time for you know, several years, and there was
Speaker 4: some certainly some hardships. But I think both of you
Speaker 4: guys are probably more qualified to respond to the notion
Speaker 4: of that you see in the media now, especially from
Speaker 4: the right. Just be honest, where people are saying, you know,
Speaker 4: you know, suck it up, this is war. This is
Speaker 4: what happens. And it goes back to just my thinking, like,
Speaker 4: just because let's say collectively we had it bad, does
Speaker 4: that mean that the next generation has to wouldn't it
Speaker 4: be smarter to have great conditions for the men and
Speaker 4: women who have to fight? I mean, that's the thing
Speaker 4: I don't understand. But you see this and it's playing
Speaker 4: NonStop on Fox News about their their trotting out veterans saying, hey,
Speaker 4: this sucked here, this suck there. Just these guys are
Speaker 4: a bunch of wine and pussies, And that seems to
Speaker 4: me to be missing the point that wouldn't we want
Speaker 4: to have our men and women in the armed forces
Speaker 4: have his best conditions possible to fight? Well, I mean,
Speaker 4: what do you you know? I mean when you see
Speaker 4: your your you know, veteran brethren kind of some of
Speaker 4: them coming out and saying that kind of stuff, Hey
Speaker 4: we had it bad, everyone else should like what is
Speaker 4: your response to that?
Speaker 2: Well? Unfortunately, I think a lot of this is politics, right,
Speaker 2: So if it was, you know, they'd be outraged if
Speaker 2: it was a political opposition to them, And they're sucking
Speaker 2: up buttercup if it's their guys. So I mean, I'm
Speaker 2: not saying that's everybody. I'm sure that there's plenty of
Speaker 2: vets that are saying, hey, you know, I MRI's for
Speaker 2: fucking six months. You know, try that, dude, And I
Speaker 2: slept in a ditch. But I think the truth is
Speaker 2: somewhere in the middle. So I agree with you, Mark.
Speaker 2: I mean, obviously you should try to you should try
Speaker 2: to make it the best scenario, best conditions for all
Speaker 2: the troops, Army, Air Force, maybe Marine Corps, Space Force, mostment,
Speaker 2: because that's what you do as leaders, right. It's the
Speaker 2: mission and the men and women that carry out the
Speaker 2: mission that should be the ethos. And I think it
Speaker 2: is of the military very large. I mean, I think
Speaker 2: Jonathan's right. There is a different differ, different culture of
Speaker 2: the Navy in say, the Marine Corps and the Army.
Speaker 2: And you know, I was both listed in you know,
Speaker 2: an officer, but I remember it was a lance corporal.
Speaker 2: Some captain was late for duty asked to get in
Speaker 2: front of me. I was like, yeah, of course, you
Speaker 2: know whatever, and some major had seen them but didn't
Speaker 2: see the end exchange and literally yanked amount of line
Speaker 2: and I don't know what happened to him, but he
Speaker 2: went outside with him, right, So that's the ethos of
Speaker 2: the Marine Corps, like you don't leaders eat last is anyway.
Speaker 1: That was the Marine Corps version of rendition.
Speaker 4: Yeah, to see you.
Speaker 2: But and there's probably a lot of the Marines that
Speaker 2: have a similar story. But that's that's kind of like like,
Speaker 2: you know, you're you're nothing as a Marine officer if
Speaker 2: it wasn't for your marines period.
Speaker 4: The logist, I mean, so then you do a deep
Speaker 4: dive and I think I've read in the Wall Street
Speaker 4: Journal like, so how has this happened? And happens logistics issues? Right,
Speaker 4: But I was gonna say, so let's let's just go
Speaker 4: to the nitty gritty, you know, they're they're running out
Speaker 4: of supplies because you know, you know, the Bahrain is
Speaker 4: all fucked up and the ny you know, you know,
Speaker 4: perhaps is it is not operating as effectively, and so
Speaker 4: there are legitimate logistics. It's not like the Navy wants
Speaker 4: to have this happen, of course.
Speaker 2: Yeah, to go back to the the issue and I'll
Speaker 2: make everything about the Marine Corps, but to go back
Speaker 2: to the first of all, this crew has done exceptional
Speaker 2: the see be can I try to bring it up
Speaker 2: on the ABC. They don't ask questions, but they're fine
Speaker 2: with the answer. But it's like they have done ten
Speaker 2: thousand sorties. They have been It's not just that they
Speaker 2: have like the longest sea deployment. It's in combat and
Speaker 2: they're like the main target. Let's just set the stage, like,
Speaker 2: how great would it be from the Uranian perspective if
Speaker 2: they actually hit even if they didn't necessarily take it
Speaker 2: out of commission, but hit an aircraft carrier, right, So
Speaker 2: the main target ten thousand sorties, they're part of the
Speaker 2: naval blockade there, certainly were a huge part of epic fury.
Speaker 2: So hats off to them for the effort they put in,
Speaker 2: and not just them, right, all the other sailors and
Speaker 2: marines that are board these ships that are doing this
Speaker 2: great workout there. So let's start with that secondary. I
Speaker 2: think there is a part of this, the fact that
Speaker 2: they are in combat. Right, they're having a hard time
Speaker 2: getting logistically resupplied because I think we still do most
Speaker 2: of our resupply the old fashioned conventional way, side by
Speaker 2: side ship shuttling stuff back and forth, right, So not
Speaker 2: what the Ukrainians are doing with multi drones. Different stages,
Speaker 2: park Hide not humans, right, that are delivering stuff to
Speaker 2: frontline troops in this case that happen to be on
Speaker 2: an aircraft carrier. So there's an element of this, and
Speaker 2: we need to get much smarter on how we do
Speaker 2: combat resupplies. We don't put people at risk, and it's
Speaker 2: continuous because every time you do, and I have I've
Speaker 2: seen it, so I actually don't know the operation to
Speaker 2: resupply an underway ship. I've seen it from a ship,
Speaker 2: but it looks super complicated to me. And if you're
Speaker 2: if you're under constant threat, it'd be even more complicated.
Speaker 2: So there is an element. I think that's fair that
Speaker 2: the officers on the ship could be doing everything they
Speaker 2: possibly can to make sure that their troops are getting,
Speaker 2: their sailors and marines are getting it's still having a
Speaker 2: hard time, so let's be fair about that. It's easy
Speaker 2: to sit in you know, Montana talking about what's going
Speaker 2: on in the Gulf of Amon.
Speaker 4: There's something good to say about about congressional oversight too.
Speaker 4: And this is the bipartisan issue because there was a
Speaker 4: whole bunch of Republican members of Congress saying this at right,
Speaker 4: is it deserves at some point is this is the
Speaker 4: congressional oversight finally working.
Speaker 2: Yes, and they in this need. So the other thing
Speaker 2: I would say, Mark to your first question, is it
Speaker 2: doesn't do the Pentagon any good to come out and
Speaker 2: declare that everything's fine. It just tells everybody, Okay, you
Speaker 2: don't really care, because there's no way you can actually
Speaker 2: have done an assessment already.
Speaker 1: Right. Isn't that exactly what the Secretary of Defense did.
Speaker 2: That's not helpful at all. It just tells all the
Speaker 2: troops like, okay, so he doesn't really care. I mean,
Speaker 2: some of the issues are probably going to be exaggerated,
Speaker 2: some might even be fabricating, not saying they are, but maybe,
Speaker 2: and some are going to be real and some of
Speaker 2: it are going to be real because it's a combat situation,
Speaker 2: and some maybe there is a logistical issue we need
Speaker 2: to change. But to do a real assessment shows that
Speaker 2: you care about the actual folks that are carry out
Speaker 2: the mission and if there's and it doesn't mean that
Speaker 2: necessarily anybody's done anything wrong. But the one thing that
Speaker 2: makes the US military the best, biased, but the best,
Speaker 2: is a continuous self assessment to get better. And AAR,
Speaker 2: for example, is yeah, yeah, and AAR is all about
Speaker 2: the negatives. Man. You don't go in there and say
Speaker 2: we're great next, right, you literally just focus on the negatives.
Speaker 2: Even if the mission was successful, right, the best units,
Speaker 2: if you're in their arre, you're like, wow, you guys
Speaker 2: aren't each other. It's like, that's the point for sure.
Speaker 2: So I think we need I think we need to
Speaker 2: do a full set. And I agree to Mark at
Speaker 2: least to the point of the question is it needs
Speaker 2: to be bipartisan. And that's what the oversight committees do.
Speaker 2: And we've all seen them out on the front lines,
Speaker 2: you know, to give them some credit. And I know
Speaker 2: mark As and I imagine Jonathan has too. But I
Speaker 2: know mark As, we've seen like people on the House
Speaker 2: of Armed Services Committee in forward operating bases during times
Speaker 2: of active conflict. I'm not saying that should be the ideal,
Speaker 2: but they can go out to ships that are underway
Speaker 2: currently a mission they can't. I mean, there's a CNN
Speaker 2: report that was on there, right.
Speaker 4: So you guys could be impressed with me.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 4: In a very rare occasion is that I actually did
Speaker 4: a trap landing on the on the in the GW
Speaker 4: you know, it was the cod so it was they're
Speaker 4: just their carry on board delivery. And I think I
Speaker 4: was brief in the air wing on some surface to
Speaker 4: air missile threat and we missed the arresting hook the
Speaker 4: first time. I really crapped my pants. We came around
Speaker 4: and landed again. I said, you guys did that for me.
Speaker 4: They're like, now we fucking missed. It's one of those
Speaker 4: times I spent overnight.
Speaker 1: It was.
Speaker 4: It was I spent a night there and brief they
Speaker 4: are winging the captain.
Speaker 1: I remember officers are enlisted though, well this was the
Speaker 1: f A teams A Marine. No, no, no, I'm saying,
Speaker 1: where you treated as an officer and an enlisted guy,
Speaker 1: you got to stay.
Speaker 4: I mean, look when you're if you're a civilian.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm just I'm being a prick.
Speaker 4: No, I mean it was ridiculous the treatment we got.
Speaker 4: But yeah, and then it was they were like, hey man,
Speaker 4: you're from the CI. You're pretty cool. I'm like, you're
Speaker 4: fucking FA teen pilot, You're cools. Went back and forth,
Speaker 4: and he's got the bigger cool factor was not me,
Speaker 4: but it's a but. But I think your guys input
Speaker 4: on this is huge too, because this now has gotten
Speaker 4: totally political, and and and I did the same thing
Speaker 4: on MS now just trying to have a nuanced conversation
Speaker 4: because the it's outrage and you're like, Okay, this is
Speaker 4: a little more complicated here.
Speaker 1: Sure, but when you have the sect def saying things
Speaker 1: like that, and then like literally like there was like
Speaker 1: a spin program, there are people going on on TV
Speaker 1: talking about spinning it, and then you have the president
Speaker 1: saying not long enough, it's very difficult for it not
Speaker 1: to be political unless you have if you have work
Speaker 1: in fucking brains themselves, you know what I mean, Like
Speaker 1: because if a Democratic guy said that, if Obama said that,
Speaker 1: they'd be articles of impeachment, and.
Speaker 4: If he's John under democratic administration, the Hill GP would
Speaker 4: be outraged. And this is just the way it is here,
Speaker 4: but I hope it things are I mean ultimate.
Speaker 1: Yeah, But the fact is, like most presidents when and
Speaker 1: their cabinet members would not be going out and spinning
Speaker 1: this as everything's fine in terms of like this specific part,
Speaker 1: and a president Republican or Democrat would not go out
Speaker 1: and be like, you know whatnot it's not long enough,
Speaker 1: and like what's the excuse for that kind of comment? Right?
Speaker 1: What he's old and dotty, like that's not a great
Speaker 1: excuse because he's the president.
Speaker 4: Jonathan, I was in the Characterism Center years ago. We
Speaker 4: used to we have detail Ease, as you know, and
Speaker 4: we had an NCIS Special Agent Detail and CTC. And
Speaker 4: he had just come from six months on board a
Speaker 4: carrier and he was the resident special agent for five
Speaker 4: thousand sailors. He said, it was I mean it was
Speaker 4: this is like an urban city. There was crime, like
Speaker 4: there was prostitution, drugs, crime, fights, assaults, rapes. He said
Speaker 4: it was nuts because I said, I said, were you
Speaker 4: bored out there? He said, are you kidding me? He said,
Speaker 4: there's a whole city underneath there, and there's a lot
Speaker 4: of crazy shit that happened and so and throw on
Speaker 4: top of that, you know, twenty hour days of as
Speaker 4: mixed that ten thousand stories of combat, you know, shit's
Speaker 4: going to go crazy sideways too.
Speaker 3: There are entire economies that develop on there. Like they'll
Speaker 3: have like little chits that they use for money because
Speaker 3: there's no cash sometimes so they use that to trade.
Speaker 3: They'll have gambling rings that I mean, there's a lot
Speaker 3: of creativity. It's actually very fascinating from an economics perspective
Speaker 3: to see like how do these things just organically develop
Speaker 3: and what actually has value and doesn't have value, and
Speaker 3: what can be traded for as currency.
Speaker 2: It's fascinating. Booty.
Speaker 5: Hey guys, I'm Jack Murphy here at the team House,
Speaker 5: and today I want to tell you about the sponsor
Speaker 5: for tonight's show, mars Men. This is a natural testosterone
Speaker 5: support supplement.
Speaker 4: I take it.
Speaker 5: I've been taking it for about the last five weeks now,
Speaker 5: and I'm starting to notice a difference. You take five
Speaker 5: of these pills each day, and each one of these
Speaker 5: cans last two a month. I think you need to
Speaker 5: use them for a couple months to get the full
Speaker 5: effect of them. But I'm about five weeks in and
Speaker 5: I'm starting to notice a difference. Already, increased energy, better
Speaker 5: performance in the gym, all of those things. I've you know,
Speaker 5: quite frankly, in the past, had a problem with testosterone,
Speaker 5: as a lot of military veterans do, as a lot
Speaker 5: of men who are going into their forties do. And
Speaker 5: this is actually something that seems to be helping me
Speaker 5: get my levels back up even higher. So I'd highly
Speaker 5: recommend checking them out. It has eight different substances in
Speaker 5: it that help boost your testosterone count. If you guys
Speaker 5: will go and check them out, we'd really appreciate it,
Speaker 5: so would the sponsor. For a limited time, our listeners
Speaker 5: get fifty percent off for life, plus free shipping and
Speaker 5: three free gifts at men go to Mars dot com.
Speaker 5: That's men, goo to Mars dot com for fifty percent
Speaker 5: off and three free gifts.
Speaker 4: When you check out.
Speaker 5: After you purchase, they will ask you where you heard
Speaker 5: about them. Please show support for the show and tell
Speaker 5: them that the team house sent you.
Speaker 4: Thank you everyone.
Speaker 1: It's almost like they're prisoners and.
Speaker 2: There's no end insight. I mean to kind of expand
Speaker 2: this and the policy thing is like the block eight
Speaker 2: ain't going anywhere. Yeah, that's right, I mean this this
Speaker 2: is we gotta fix it because it's not like, well
Speaker 2: that was bad. Let's let's hope that doesn't happen again.
Speaker 4: Well for you guys, is someone I can't remember her
Speaker 4: name from AI American unpresidents who studies naval warfare, and
Speaker 4: they said the Navy's about to break. They said, yeah,
Speaker 4: AI AI's product pay and I can find it and
Speaker 4: send it to d to put out on our on
Speaker 4: the site. Is that the Navy. This is not sustainable
Speaker 4: for the Navy to do this. They you know, when
Speaker 4: when Trump says, you know, great, we'll do this forever,
Speaker 4: Hexas said that you can't. The Navy will break. That's
Speaker 4: kind of interesting and pretty scary. Particularly we're not supposed
Speaker 4: to be in the Middle East's supposed to be doing
Speaker 4: you know right right rate, I mean a broken navy
Speaker 4: that doesn't help.
Speaker 1: And isn't it our side too, like the Western Hemisphere wasn't.
Speaker 2: Coming from Indo pecon.
Speaker 3: Right, that's the last one to leave into Pitcom. There
Speaker 3: are no longer any nuclear powered Limits class vessels in
Speaker 3: the seventh Fleet a R. So if China wanted to
Speaker 3: this would be the moment.
Speaker 2: So like take our national Security Strategy zero zero that's
Speaker 2: there in Vietnam. It's gonna be about nine days, that's
Speaker 2: what I'm told to get to get to the Gulf
Speaker 2: of the Moon and replace the babe.
Speaker 1: If China wanted to take Taiwan right now or nine
Speaker 1: days when we when the George Washington shows up in
Speaker 1: the Middle East, what would we be able to do?
Speaker 1: Nothing strong, not much.
Speaker 2: They know they're kind of on their own. I was
Speaker 2: just talking to somebody got back from Taiwan. They said
Speaker 2: their plan is to go from being able to produce
Speaker 2: ten thousand drones a month to one hundred thousand drones
Speaker 2: a month by twenty thirty. Their entire plan is to
Speaker 2: basically out Ukraine China.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I was gonna say, like, yeah, take something out
Speaker 1: of Ukraine's book page.
Speaker 2: Any man, and they got money. So how would you
Speaker 2: like to be the Chinese marine that's on the amphibious
Speaker 2: ship trying to make that journey one hundred miles two
Speaker 2: million drones coming your way from subsurface, surface and aerial.
Speaker 1: Jesus and Mark to talk a little bit about like
Speaker 1: where the Navy's at in terms of like its preparedness
Speaker 1: and stuff like that. Our ship building capacity is absolutely
Speaker 1: dog shit, especially compared to China's. Right, I saw somewhere
Speaker 1: it said China's ship building capacities two hundred and thirty
Speaker 1: two times hours.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, that is a big issue other day.
Speaker 4: I'm not just saying that, how you know, how like
Speaker 4: basically it's like, Okay, the Democrats are complaining about the
Speaker 4: state of the Navy, except that Democrats are blocking funding
Speaker 4: for increased yeah, consistently for increased ship But that's probably
Speaker 4: that's probably fair for the general to say. But but yeah,
Speaker 4: I mean, it's it's can you guys comment though, I mean,
Speaker 4: I'm not I'm I don't even want to pretend to
Speaker 4: do this, and I pretend to do a lot of
Speaker 4: shit on TV and even here. But this idea, like
Speaker 4: what is up with this catapult system that that Trump
Speaker 4: is now seized on? We're going to go back and
Speaker 4: Rutch is this gonna is this completely nonsense? I mean,
Speaker 4: you know it's going to cost us billions and this
Speaker 4: is ridiculous? Or where will has never happened after after
Speaker 4: twenty eight? I mean, what what is he talking about here?
Speaker 3: Well, the important thing is that he could say that,
Speaker 3: but it's a congressional involvement that would be required to
Speaker 3: actually do it, because this is a different appropriation from
Speaker 3: what the original appropriation was for those vessels over your lifetime. Logistically,
Speaker 3: it would have to happen at the midlife period, like
Speaker 3: the refitting period that these vessels have, which is every
Speaker 3: few years, So that also would push it.
Speaker 1: Down the line.
Speaker 3: So there are a lot of kind of spoilers that
Speaker 3: could jump in here to prevent this from ever coming
Speaker 3: to fruition. Or is it not Well, this is a
Speaker 3: person who said that their body was like a battery
Speaker 3: and that the battery runs out if you exercise, so
Speaker 3: he might have a different grasp of how things work.
Speaker 2: I'm no expert either. I've talked to plenty of Davia
Speaker 2: aviators who just shrug and say it's never gonna happen.
Speaker 2: So to your last point, I mean, it's it's if
Speaker 2: you if we had a podcast that responded to every statement,
Speaker 2: you know, like like that's all we do. We never
Speaker 2: talk about substance. I'm not saying this isn't substance, because
Speaker 2: you know if president says that it has, but you know,
Speaker 2: they just go, yeah, it ain't gonna happen. It's there's
Speaker 2: a zero percent chance. It's it's not even that's their opinion.
Speaker 2: It's not gonna happen. It's like wind Turgt. It's like
Speaker 2: the little wind nlogy. See ever, he hates those.
Speaker 4: I mean, someone's got something in his head that we
Speaker 4: have to go back to World War two era steam
Speaker 4: catapults in this and I think the doesn't the Ford
Speaker 4: have this new system which is actually working well.
Speaker 2: I understand it from talking to them. They're they're like
Speaker 2: the system's working.
Speaker 4: Fine, Yeah, it's weird.
Speaker 2: There's always going to be something that breaks on every system.
Speaker 1: Right, you guys want to talk about that plane switcher
Speaker 1: ru thing at all or no because it's kind of
Speaker 1: old news. But we didn't do a show until good.
Speaker 2: What perplexes me and maybe this is is Monday morning quarterback,
Speaker 2: and but why not have just switched the president to
Speaker 2: the d O D plane. Let the d D plane
Speaker 2: take off, just keep the Air Force one. I mean,
Speaker 2: how long would it take to be out of the
Speaker 2: threat area? Ten minutes? Right right, it's in Turkey, and
Speaker 2: then just say announce, hey, we have gotten the President
Speaker 2: out of Turkey by alternative means of Air Force one
Speaker 2: because of a threat. Because they know the threat's going
Speaker 2: to come out and they know it's going to be
Speaker 2: and then they could tell the people on Air Force one, hey,
Speaker 2: you can take off on Air Force one or you
Speaker 2: can get off. You know, it's up to you. But
Speaker 2: the threat isn't toward the plane anymore because the President's
Speaker 2: not on it. I see, maybe I'm being too over
Speaker 2: a supplistic, but they've created a scenario where they actually
Speaker 2: did use the plan as a decoy. They didn't seem
Speaker 2: like he was on the play.
Speaker 4: There's I think there's a couple of things on this.
Speaker 4: First is that I don't blame the Secret Service at all,
Speaker 4: you know, and because you know that there's threats that
Speaker 4: come in, they have to make a decision. They have
Speaker 4: a different criteria. You know, there's all this thing that
Speaker 4: was a low confidence CI assessment. Well, that just means
Speaker 4: it's uncorroborated. It means nothing else, probably second or third sourcing.
Speaker 4: And when this threat comes in the Secret Service and
Speaker 4: also the Secret Service, they will take input from from
Speaker 4: from the agency, from agency analysts, but they have their
Speaker 4: own analytics shop that has to make decisions on threat
Speaker 4: based on their unique role. And then it goes to
Speaker 4: the kind of the protective division there. So I mean,
Speaker 4: you know, I don't blame them for uh, for for
Speaker 4: what they did. I mean it's you know, it's a
Speaker 4: zero fail mission. The other part that that this is
Speaker 4: going to drive the crazy. Everyone is kind of shedding
Speaker 4: all over the Israelis on this. Well, if the Israelis
Speaker 4: collected information, let's just say, and they say they legitimately
Speaker 4: collected a threat report, they didn't. They didn't make it up.
Speaker 4: I don't think they would make it up either, because
Speaker 4: they would get caught doing it. But maybe it's sketchy.
Speaker 4: They have to pass it. Any liaison service that is
Speaker 4: a threat to the United States with with zero exception
Speaker 4: has to pass it to the US because if they
Speaker 4: don't and something happens, that's the end of the bilateral relationship.
Speaker 2: And so not just against the president, just period.
Speaker 4: It's just it's it's part. It's baked into the intelligence punit,
Speaker 4: baked into relationships. And then you know, and then you
Speaker 4: do go, you know, af forward with the process of
Speaker 4: assessing the validity of the threat. But you know, they
Speaker 4: they had to have passed this, uh, and so you know,
Speaker 4: I think it also there. Then you know, the the
Speaker 4: key part of this, of course, that we kind of
Speaker 4: forget is that stupid cuttery plane is totally incapable of
Speaker 4: transporting the president or anybody else safely, and so that
Speaker 4: that kind of massive. But I think this story is
Speaker 4: going to go away a little bit. It just certainly
Speaker 4: there's distrust, even more distrust between the White House and
Speaker 4: the press corps. And just to kind of bookend this all,
Speaker 4: you know, this has happened in the past, and then
Speaker 4: Clinton in a trip to Pakistan or the Clinton administration.
Speaker 4: They did switch planes. The press was told the press
Speaker 4: pool small things only there's less than fifteen or twenty
Speaker 4: members of the press, and they they are they can
Speaker 4: be trusted, and they have been in the past. But
Speaker 4: I think this is just a reflection of the complete
Speaker 4: lack of transparency and the kind of failure right now
Speaker 4: this administration and how they go.
Speaker 2: In that case, there wasn't a threat to the plane, right,
Speaker 2: it was just him trying to get into it.
Speaker 4: Wasn't Yeah, it was just it was just for for
Speaker 4: for general purposes of safety flying into Pakistan during the
Speaker 4: you know. But but you know, it's a what a
Speaker 4: I think this could have been handled in a much
Speaker 4: better fashion.
Speaker 2: But I don't.
Speaker 4: I don't blame the Secret Service, and I don't blame
Speaker 4: these I don't blame the always you know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yes, yeah, I don't either.
Speaker 1: I just think they do a very good job.
Speaker 2: But they could have done a slight modification and avoided.
Speaker 1: All this, right, I mean, yeah, he would have. He
Speaker 1: would have let Marco Rubio take the fucking hit. He
Speaker 1: didn't give a ship. He was still on Air Force one.
Speaker 4: There's so much good stuff like Saturday Night Laugh could
Speaker 4: do here or South Park. I mean, it's just so good.
Speaker 4: But hey, you know a lot of TV hits based
Speaker 4: on this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's switch gears a little bit to actually not
Speaker 1: really much. We're talking about Israel and what's going on
Speaker 1: in Lebanon specifically, a lot of images coming out of
Speaker 1: southern Lebanon Now they're like wholesale demolishing entire villages that
Speaker 1: are empty, and there seems to be no really end
Speaker 1: in sight in terms of like the Israeli occupation there.
Speaker 1: What are you guys tracking on that?
Speaker 3: John, you go first, But it's important to remember that
Speaker 3: Israel occupied South Lebanon for eighteen years previously. This is
Speaker 3: not the first time they've been there, and we've talked
Speaker 3: about this in the show before as well. There are
Speaker 3: symbolic locations there in South Lebanon where there were a
Speaker 3: lot of battles during that eighteen year period that soldiers
Speaker 3: now are returning to those positions up to the Latani River,
Speaker 3: and the Latani River has been that kind of last
Speaker 3: line of cover concealment for the Israelis back during the
Speaker 3: eighteen year period previously, and it seems to be again
Speaker 3: the kind of terrain feature that they're too using as
Speaker 3: the northern limit, although they are penetrating out through that occasionally.
Speaker 3: But to your point D about the villages being destroyed,
Speaker 3: these villages are empty because the people were told they
Speaker 3: had to depart the villages. The IDF told them, you
Speaker 3: have to leave or you will be killed. This is
Speaker 3: the message. So these people listened, I mean men, women
Speaker 3: and children. Some of them probably with Hesbula, some of
Speaker 3: them would not, with Hesbela, some of them Christian, some
Speaker 3: of them completely unaffiliated with any political party left right.
Speaker 3: They're displaced. There's over a million people displaced. Now those
Speaker 3: places are empty, like literally empty of humans. So that
Speaker 3: means the IDEF is going in there and destroying empty homes.
Speaker 3: The reason why would you destroy an empty home is
Speaker 3: so that people can't return to them. What they're trying
Speaker 3: to do is make a military zone in the south,
Speaker 3: that is a de facto border or buffer zone that
Speaker 3: was supposed to be created with UNSCR seventeen oh one,
Speaker 3: which was the Disengagement United Nations Security Council Resolution that
Speaker 3: had a component of Hesbola. With disarm the Lebanese arm
Speaker 3: forces would come in the blue line, which is the
Speaker 3: line that is the act border of Israel Lebanon now
Speaker 3: on the ground would go away eventually because the Lebanese
Speaker 3: military would have sovereignty down to that border area, which
Speaker 3: never occurred. Hesboula controlled that area. If you've ever been
Speaker 3: to South Lebanon in the last several years, you would
Speaker 3: see before Nosrola was assassinated, there was pictures of Nostril
Speaker 3: and Ayatola Kameni, thousands of pictures all up and down
Speaker 3: the highway and the Seacoast Highway up down into Nabatilla
Speaker 3: and these other areas, and it was absolutely one hundred
Speaker 3: percent controlled by Hesbola governance in addition to their militia wing.
Speaker 3: But it was not really Lebanon governing South Lebanon. And
Speaker 3: you had other groups like Amal, which is Nabi Berri
Speaker 3: leads Amal. He's a speaker of Parliament in Lebanon, but
Speaker 3: he was a war fighter back during the eighties and
Speaker 3: he also has a controlled area that Amal controls Amal
Speaker 3: was the parent organization of Hesbeula before Hesbula became a group.
Speaker 3: This is all going on in South Lebanon, and what
Speaker 3: Israel's trying to do is destroy or delete that truth
Speaker 3: that reality down there and create a new status quo.
Speaker 3: The problem is that the Lebanese got is not being
Speaker 3: allowed to participate in that change, So that means there
Speaker 3: will be new conflict in the future because the actual
Speaker 3: country that owns that land is not being brought into
Speaker 3: the consulting process. And you see a lot of diplomatic
Speaker 3: activity back between President Awn in Lebanon and the United
Speaker 3: States right now trying to get the Lebanese Armed forces
Speaker 3: somehow down there. There are these pilot areas and some
Speaker 3: other things being floated right now. They may work that
Speaker 3: we may not. It's hard to say because Lebanon has
Speaker 3: never actually had sovereignty it de facto in the south.
Speaker 3: It's always been a different armed group, whether that's the IDEF,
Speaker 3: has Bulla Amal, the Syrian Armed Forces which people forget.
Speaker 3: Syria was also down there during the eighties controlling a
Speaker 3: lot of this stuff. So what they're trying to do
Speaker 3: now is something new. And when I say they, I
Speaker 3: don't mean just the IDEF, I also mean the Lebanese
Speaker 3: government and the United States. So this is kind of
Speaker 3: a new moment, and it depends on who sustains longest
Speaker 3: and If Israel is the one that has the most
Speaker 3: sustained presence there, that's who's going to have the buffer zone.
Speaker 3: If the Lebanese Armed Forces can somehow convince the United
Speaker 3: States to help help, it will be the Lebanese arm Forces.
Speaker 3: And it should be the Lebanese arm Forces. It is Lebanon,
Speaker 3: it should be the country's military. And there's also the
Speaker 3: internal security forces. The Intervention Regiments are the IRS. The
Speaker 3: six Intervention Regiment is the one that's down in the south.
Speaker 3: I actually trained them when I was there. Their mission
Speaker 3: is to actually secure the border area and make it
Speaker 3: so that Hesbola doesn't have a place to operate. But
Speaker 3: these intervengent regiments have been kicked out by the IDF,
Speaker 3: so even those groups are not down there. So all
Speaker 3: you have is the IDF down there. So I'll leave
Speaker 3: it at that, so you guys can talk about it.
Speaker 3: But that's kind of the context leading up to what
Speaker 3: we're dealing with right now.
Speaker 1: Which is the annexation of Southern Lebanon. Okay, let's just
Speaker 1: make sure we get that headline up there.
Speaker 2: Yea, guys, So this is I mean from the Middle
Speaker 2: Eastern outlets that I do during the week Lebanon has
Speaker 2: been the biggest discussion, So you know, we're not talking
Speaker 2: about as much, but they are. And I don't know
Speaker 2: that I can add much what Jonathan just said it
Speaker 2: was excellent a description what's going on. I guess what
Speaker 2: I could add to that is so we're looking at
Speaker 2: an election in Israel. I think it's October twenty seventh.
Speaker 2: This obviously has a huge impact on what's going on
Speaker 2: now and what could go on in the future. So
Speaker 2: from talking to about Israeli friends, even if I wasn't
Speaker 2: asking him, they're telling me it's looking like Gotti Eisencott.
Speaker 2: And to be fair, the people I'm talking to are
Speaker 2: Gotti icing caught fans and actual friends. And if you're
Speaker 2: not familiar with Israel, everybody knows everybody, especially if you're
Speaker 2: in the military. He's very well respected. He has he
Speaker 2: is you know, obviously he was a chief of the IDEF,
Speaker 2: and he has a very practical view of things, although
Speaker 2: he certainly is hawkish as you would expect. But anyway,
Speaker 2: for their take on what's going on right now is
Speaker 2: that his coalition, yes, sah I think will get his coalitions,
Speaker 2: not just his party, which also includes Bennett and others
Speaker 2: would get fifty six, whereas net Yahoo's coalition to get
Speaker 2: fifty one seats in parliament. He needs sixty one to
Speaker 2: basically be controlling, and there's about eleven that the Arab
Speaker 2: political parties will get. So it's it's not determined yet
Speaker 2: what the outcome will be. But I think Eisencott's coalitions
Speaker 2: favored if you look at like the prediction markets, if
Speaker 2: those are valid, he's higher than nen Yagu. There's a
Speaker 2: lot of issues there. I don't know if we want
Speaker 2: to get in jilly politics about you know, ultra orthodox
Speaker 2: being required to serve, et cetera. But for what I'm
Speaker 2: being told by people I will use their name obviously,
Speaker 2: but people who know him, so what so for relevance
Speaker 2: for us, Well, what's going to be the difference, Well,
Speaker 2: he they think, is going to be much more inclined
Speaker 2: to do a faeas withdraw disarmament plan, both in Gaza
Speaker 2: and Insteud of Lebanon, because right now, basically then out
Speaker 2: who's like, I'm not just withdrawing anybody until they're completely disarmed,
Speaker 2: which is just a recipe for never happy and never happening.
Speaker 2: Right Like, obviously we don't like Hesbola, we don't like Amas,
Speaker 2: but we're here in their shoes. We're not going to
Speaker 2: completely disarm and then hope the IDEF withdraws. It's just illogical.
Speaker 2: So that's why in the in the Trump peace plan
Speaker 2: for Gaza, for example, it does have a faith like
Speaker 2: you partially disarmed, we partially withdraw. It's about trust, right,
Speaker 2: So according to them, he's much more inclined as long
Speaker 2: as it can be validated to do that. He's also
Speaker 2: much more inclined to have very specific, stated objectives for
Speaker 2: the war in Iran with a clear exit strategy. So
Speaker 2: maybe they're talking to me, so they're talking to their audience.
Speaker 2: But this is what I've had multiple conversations with people
Speaker 2: not in the same conversation. They think eisen Kott's stance
Speaker 2: would be definitely a hawk, but in my opinion, in
Speaker 2: a good way, but a very pragmatic one who would
Speaker 2: work hand in glove with the US to try to
Speaker 2: end these conflicts in a way that's obviously acceptable to
Speaker 2: Israel's national security, but not a maximalist and the far
Speaker 2: far right, the Smoltritz and ben ge Vere's would probably
Speaker 2: not be in that coalition. So that factor would be
Speaker 2: somewhat mitigated that just to.
Speaker 1: Add on it what Jonathan said, this other factor modicle.
Speaker 4: Yeah, no, I mean that these are great summaries. I'm
Speaker 4: not gonna I don't want to rehash any stuff in
Speaker 4: eisen Kott. You know, I think you can consider him
Speaker 4: as you know, it's a centrist security hawk. It certainly
Speaker 4: is going to be wildly more acceptable to the United States. Uh,
Speaker 4: most of you mus think, as well as Arab states
Speaker 4: as well as too, you know, and and you know,
Speaker 4: my only kind of look when I say concerned. You
Speaker 4: know net Ya who has pulled rabbits out of his
Speaker 4: hat for his whole career. You just never know survivor
Speaker 4: so so who the heck know is? But I think
Speaker 4: the polls mix right, The polls are looking like his
Speaker 4: coalition that his sure party is. You know, he's going
Speaker 4: to do well. I think to just to just to
Speaker 4: kind of a quick sum of his strategy, which is
Speaker 4: the right one again as a central security hawk is
Speaker 4: you know, fight hard, but don't fight without a political
Speaker 4: end state, don't fight without strategic goalsta who has none
Speaker 4: of those, And so you know in some ways that
Speaker 4: certainly would be would be welcome. You're not getting someone
Speaker 4: from peace now, You're not getting a you know, a
Speaker 4: peace nick here, because that person couldn't survive, you know,
Speaker 4: in an a political election. But I think this opens
Speaker 4: a lot more possibilities. The only thing I would add
Speaker 4: is on Lebanon in particular. It's got to be a
Speaker 4: political solution. It just can't be military only. And the
Speaker 4: final final piece on this is when you think about
Speaker 4: the missed opportunities with the Abraham Accords and any kind
Speaker 4: of expansion of it, it was simply because Netnahu couldn't
Speaker 4: get himself to say, yes, in the year two thousand
Speaker 4: and one billion, we'll have a Palestinian state. And he
Speaker 4: couldn't even do that because of the members of his coalition,
Speaker 4: the extreme right and so eisen Kond will not have that.
Speaker 4: And so you could make an argument there is more
Speaker 4: possibilities down the line of the Saudis joining something. If
Speaker 4: a knew Israeli government would at least say things that
Speaker 4: would be politically more palable. It's just going to make
Speaker 4: things a lot easier for everyone. So it'll be interesting
Speaker 4: to see. And yeah, October is it's a relatively big deal,
Speaker 4: but don't count in it. Yeah, who out and this
Speaker 4: guy is yeah, you're right, he's been. People have said
Speaker 4: he's dead politically so many times it's just unbelievable. And
Speaker 4: here's the other thing too, there's a big question on
Speaker 4: how much is Trump going to campaign for him. Donald
Speaker 4: Trump is wild.
Speaker 2: He hasn't weighed in yet. He hasn't weighed in at
Speaker 2: all yet.
Speaker 4: And so you know, and Trump, I think also knows
Speaker 4: this and is just kind of and likes fucking with
Speaker 4: BB a little bit too. But you haven't seen kind
Speaker 4: of the and you know Nana has taken you know,
Speaker 4: more than half a dozen trips here. You know, don't
Speaker 4: be surprised if he tries another does this again to
Speaker 4: come to the US to get this Trump endorsement, which
Speaker 4: Trump is not done. And one on that now you're
Speaker 4: getting me going on geeking out in Israeli politics, which
Speaker 4: interesting is the mess in the West Bank with these
Speaker 4: crazy settlers.
Speaker 1: Even even that are being protected by the idea, if
Speaker 1: not just a scud called them.
Speaker 4: Ambassador Huckaby, who is as right wing an American in
Speaker 4: terms of.
Speaker 1: That his fucking mind. Yeah, we could say.
Speaker 4: Kaby has called them, you know, terrorists. These are these
Speaker 4: settlers who are you know, going after the Palestinians there.
Speaker 1: And being protected by the idea.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and so even the US government done like this now,
Speaker 4: so interesting times.
Speaker 2: Well, settlers actually going against a lot of what the
Speaker 2: Idea is asking him to do too. This is is
Speaker 2: really complicated, liked like this is the plane. You're not
Speaker 2: supposed to be here and they're going have you yeah? Yeah?
Speaker 1: And then the protect them anyway.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean in places where they I guess they
Speaker 2: are authorizing settlers to be then yes, but there's also
Speaker 2: places where they are not that settlers are going and
Speaker 2: they're telling the Idea have to get.
Speaker 1: Them out of here, they're stealing houses, Yeah, I protecting them.
Speaker 4: And there's also units within the IDEF who are more
Speaker 4: ideologically you know, close to the settlers. So it gets
Speaker 4: really complicated. And I think that and I'm going to
Speaker 4: get the wrong. It's the central command, it's the Idea
Speaker 4: of general in charge of this was removed recently, so
Speaker 4: it's the whole thing is very it's very politically messy
Speaker 4: inside Israel. But poor Lebanon as usual.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and poor Palestinians as usual. All right, last bit,
Speaker 1: let's talk about uh Mark and mixed old firms. Uh,
Speaker 1: escapades in and around Ecuador and the Galapagos. There was
Speaker 1: a report article by Washington Posts saying that supposedly Cia
Speaker 1: or CIA contractors smoked a bunch of fishermen.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: John, give us more context. You're very smart.
Speaker 3: Well, one thing to point out about Ecuador, that's.
Speaker 4: Situation gets hard.
Speaker 2: Need somebody to say something smart.
Speaker 4: Let's turn to John Jonathan, we'll.
Speaker 3: Be distracted away from the covert action discussion and talk
Speaker 3: about the facts in the ground and Ecuador, which is
Speaker 3: that Iranians can get into Ecuador without a visa. There
Speaker 3: are very few countries on Earth where that's true.
Speaker 1: And if you think.
Speaker 3: About cocaine, yeah, if you can think about cocaine shipments.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I'm about to buy back at John, even
Speaker 1: though I love John. Yeah, Like, okay, gives a ship
Speaker 1: where this this connects in?
Speaker 3: Because please, this is a place where these guys can
Speaker 3: go without a visa. So there's obviously a reason for that.
Speaker 3: The cocaine going out of Latin America mostly goes to Dakar, Senegal,
Speaker 3: going into Europe and into Asia, which is a port
Speaker 3: controlled by Hezbola. This is just something to kind of
Speaker 3: think about globally about why is Ecuador important Why. Obviously
Speaker 3: the drug trade into the United States is a big issue,
Speaker 3: but there's an international drug trade and there are parts
Speaker 3: of Latin America that are not focused in the United States.
Speaker 3: They're focused on Asia, They're focused on Europe and Africa.
Speaker 3: And some of that a large amount of it goes
Speaker 3: out of Ecuador are over through the land or out
Speaker 3: of the water over eastward toward Africa so that it
Speaker 3: can be further sold or processed or moved to make
Speaker 3: more money, especially in the European Union, where these drugs
Speaker 3: are very expensive. So I just want to put that
Speaker 3: there because there's a lot more to it than just
Speaker 3: the US Latin America drug stuff we've been seeing with
Speaker 3: the current administration. This is a very deep economic, multi
Speaker 3: billion dollar economy that goes out of Ecuador in Brazil
Speaker 3: and Colombia, not just to the United States but to
Speaker 3: the world. And there are also a lot of precursors
Speaker 3: coming out of India and China for methamphetamine that come
Speaker 3: into Ecuador in other countries in the western part of
Speaker 3: Latin America. And during my time when I was working
Speaker 3: on this issue about more than a decade ago, there
Speaker 3: were three factories in the world that produced the precursor
Speaker 3: for methamphetamine. Two of them were in China and one
Speaker 3: was in India. The one in India agreed with the
Speaker 3: United States to not tranship it without certain requirements so
Speaker 3: that it wouldn't get put into the precursor process for
Speaker 3: meth but the two Chinese factories didn't agree to that,
Speaker 3: and they sent those precursors out to places like Ecuador
Speaker 3: and Mexico. And that's part of the reason we saw
Speaker 3: the increase in methampvetamine into the United States in the
Speaker 3: last fifteen years because of this route that we're describing
Speaker 3: here that you guys are about to talk about in
Speaker 3: great detail about why the US might be interested in
Speaker 3: covert action in that area.
Speaker 1: Thank you for bringing it back, Yeah, because I was
Speaker 1: going to ask. I was like thinking of a questions
Speaker 1: to like kind of like knock off, Like, Yeah, Europe
Speaker 1: and an Asia love drugs right just as much as
Speaker 1: America does. But we're definitely the lion's share in terms
Speaker 1: of market share from Central and South America in terms
Speaker 1: of where the drugs are coming from. And there's a
Speaker 1: reason why the CIA is operating and the US government
Speaker 1: is operating in the Pacific, in the in the Gulf,
Speaker 1: and in Mexico, as we've clearly seen reports. You know
Speaker 1: that ground branch guys have been on the ground there.
Speaker 1: Uh so, yeah, yeah, tell so guys, tell us about it, Mick,
Speaker 1: tell us about every you know, how do they plan
Speaker 1: these things?
Speaker 2: You know, you already know from what our privates discussion.
Speaker 2: When I think about talking about covert programs, even if
Speaker 2: they're he did not listen to you. He did not,
Speaker 2: So I'll repeat it for everybody else. I don't think
Speaker 2: we should be talking about covert operations that are current.
Speaker 2: I mean, I understand how the media does. I mean,
Speaker 2: that's the way the period does. But you know, and
Speaker 2: I'm not even blaming them. I'm just saying that here.
Speaker 2: And maybe I'm drawing an odd connection, but I just
Speaker 2: did a you know, our regular storic podcast. We did
Speaker 2: it on the Odyssey. Well, what kicks off the Odyssey?
Speaker 2: What makes the Odyssey the Odyssey? It's Odysseus's incapability of
Speaker 2: doing something without freaking taking credit for it, right, you
Speaker 2: guys know the story. He gets out of the cave,
Speaker 2: he wounds the monster, the Cyclops, the Cyclops sinks his
Speaker 2: name is nobody. Just substitute nobody for covert action. And
Speaker 2: then he's sailing away and he has to turn around
Speaker 2: and say, you know what, ef it? My name's Odysseus,
Speaker 2: the Saker of cities. And that is why it took
Speaker 2: them ten years to get back to Ithaca. Right. So,
Speaker 2: I know, maybe an odd connection, But what I'm saying
Speaker 2: is somebody who knows about this program. I'm sure it's
Speaker 2: not the actual people executing it that knows about this program,
Speaker 2: if it exists in all these programs, is talking during
Speaker 2: the program. Shouldn't do it. So I'll stop there. But
Speaker 2: I just think that needs to be reinforced with because
Speaker 2: I'm speaking primarily to policy people, because policy people, in
Speaker 2: my opinion, are the one to leak the most because
Speaker 2: they're not on the ground doing covert programs. They don't
Speaker 2: see the consequences. It's all about, and this is both sides.
Speaker 2: This isn't a partisan thing. It's about taking credit sometimes
Speaker 2: when when the whole point of covert action is not
Speaker 2: to take credit, it's to disassociate the US government from
Speaker 2: the action itself. Anyway, over there, brother.
Speaker 4: Love it, Okay, So I'm gonna throw just like Mick
Speaker 4: Woe all sorts of cool ship into here. I went
Speaker 4: to see in Philly. I went to see Cam New
Speaker 4: New Jersey Avenge sevenfold the other night. One of my
Speaker 4: this is my you know, my crazy love of heavy
Speaker 4: metal music. And the bartender at this little VIP thing,
Speaker 4: do I get very fancy boogie? I got the VIP
Speaker 4: and hold on, hold on, this is all going to
Speaker 4: be tied. And Marcus the really is tattooed. Okay, did
Speaker 4: your tattoo, dude? And he's former military love stoicism. So
Speaker 4: we're chatting about stuff, and Mick all this stuff you're
Speaker 4: doing and and and stuff like that. So that was
Speaker 4: that was pretty wild. So that's actually I had to
Speaker 4: throw that in there because we're doing Odyssey stuff. Plus
Speaker 4: actually I watched Troy last night. I went back to
Speaker 4: watch that rat movie Classics. It's certainly not as intellectual
Speaker 4: as the Odyssey, but still kind of.
Speaker 2: More of the Iliad.
Speaker 4: It's more of the story, kind of good stuff on
Speaker 4: this thing. So just d so that just have some
Speaker 4: fun with this. And I did this on a TV hit.
Speaker 4: You know, basically, if you said Cia Galopogus covid action
Speaker 4: in a sentence. You know that's not on anyone's BINGO card.
Speaker 4: And in fact, about a week ago, my wife and
Speaker 4: I were talking. She's like, hey, let's go with the Galopagus.
Speaker 4: We have, you know, we get all this ship from
Speaker 4: National Geographic. There's a trip there and.
Speaker 1: I'll check it out.
Speaker 4: And she's like, you think it's safe with all this
Speaker 4: stuff that's going on. I said sure, and then this happens.
Speaker 4: She's like, see, we're not going to glopicus. We're gonna
Speaker 4: drone by the old outfit's gonna fuck us up. No,
Speaker 4: but but so, but I think the way to do
Speaker 4: this safely in discussing this is it's not as crazy.
Speaker 4: US government interest in waters around the gl is not
Speaker 4: crazy because, as Jonathan mentioned, of all that the drug
Speaker 4: champ the drugs that move off the orders of Ecuador.
Speaker 4: But also and I went back and I did some
Speaker 4: research on this because I was curious. The only thing
Speaker 4: we'd have to talk about it is you know, and
Speaker 4: I think it was it was a British publication, might
Speaker 4: have been the Times of London. But basically, fishermen in
Speaker 4: Ecuador are paid a shitload of money to take gas
Speaker 4: canisters out to meet the drug boats and so the okay,
Speaker 4: so you know, is the US killing innocent fishermen if
Speaker 4: they are whatever it is, But okay, but the fishermen
Speaker 4: actually have a big part of this story, so.
Speaker 1: We should smoke them.
Speaker 4: Well, the article is unclear. Some fishermen seem to have
Speaker 4: been missing, others were captured and then released. So I'm
Speaker 4: not saying we should do it, but I'm just saying
Speaker 4: the substance of this is not as outlandish as you know.
Speaker 4: CIA COVID action programs in the galopagus, and I will
Speaker 4: say this goes back to just the overall theme. How
Speaker 4: in the world did all of us get stuck in
Speaker 4: the sandbox for twenty years when all the other people
Speaker 4: who conceivably could be having fun or doing it in
Speaker 4: the fricking Caribbean or of in these night war areas. Ships,
Speaker 4: I mean ship, whether it's Venezuela or Cuba or Mexico.
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, let's do drone. Let's have drone programs
Speaker 1: for everything.
Speaker 4: No, I was saying, let's do TD wise and nicer location.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, I know, but I'm talking about what actually
Speaker 1: is happening, And it's like people getting bombed on fishermen
Speaker 1: fish trying to be serious and I am, Yeah, I
Speaker 1: am trying to be serious a little bit. Yeah. I
Speaker 1: know you guys are trying to like, you know, misdirect
Speaker 1: and stuff, and I guess they teach you that at
Speaker 1: the farm and ship, but like, this is my ship. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is my show and I'm gonna bring it back.
Speaker 4: So I would say that probably there's there's a lot
Speaker 4: of you know, questions from Congress from the Oversight Committee
Speaker 4: is going on about this, and.
Speaker 1: I mean question from Congress are we serious? Congress doesn't
Speaker 1: question a fucking thing, Mark.
Speaker 2: I think the intelligence committees are going to be questioning
Speaker 2: a lot of this stuff.
Speaker 1: Have they been since we started drone striking? You know?
Speaker 1: Either even if there are narcos, even if they are
Speaker 1: narco boats, like have they been.
Speaker 3: Well, wouldn't be public if they were, because they would
Speaker 3: be classified briefings.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you don't think they're going to leak at least
Speaker 1: that it's happening, or that the Oversight Committee's given something
Speaker 1: to give them a little bit of guff.
Speaker 3: The thing is the gang of it, it's usually pretty close lipped.
Speaker 3: They're very disciplined, so at the higher level they wouldn't
Speaker 3: be leaking that stuff. They're pretty serious about it.
Speaker 1: Also, I want to ask a question. Two CIA guys
Speaker 1: here and another intelligence officer.
Speaker 4: Motter than the CIA guys, do you notice we're keeping.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's okay, it's it's we're being recorded. So you know,
Speaker 1: probably six months ago, sorry, I remember, we spoke about it.
Speaker 1: Where like the CIA General Council right before they designated
Speaker 1: or right after they designated Cartel's terrorist organizations resigned, right,
Speaker 1: and the deputy director took over the job as general counsel.
Speaker 1: So you're telling me a CIA general counsel, you know,
Speaker 1: the general counsel of the CIA, who you know usually
Speaker 1: you want to get blessing from your own internal lawyers
Speaker 1: about whether it's a covert operation or anything you're trying
Speaker 1: to do. Fucks off, resigns and then they don't pick
Speaker 1: a new guy, the guy that probably came up with
Speaker 1: the idea for doing this stuff takes over the position.
Speaker 1: That's you're you're flirting with things that are fucking possibly
Speaker 1: maybe illegal.
Speaker 4: A general counsel though, who has been.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, congratulations on him in the job, or but
Speaker 1: you know what's going on.
Speaker 4: That's when the house all of this is gonna be
Speaker 4: there's gonna be investigations on this, and there's legitimate questions.
Speaker 4: There's oversight that should be done on these kinds of things.
Speaker 4: It's not just the agency, it's also the US military strikes.
Speaker 1: I completely agree with you. I'm not saying.
Speaker 4: It's still be more kind of robust oversight. There's nothing
Speaker 4: wrong with that, you know, that's just And.
Speaker 2: Just remember when that happens, that the CI responds to
Speaker 2: hoarders as given by the president. That's great. So it
Speaker 2: for some reason we always end up with like it's
Speaker 2: our idea, rogue. Right. It's like no, so, I mean,
Speaker 2: it doesn't happen to the military.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: You don't blame the military for going to Vietnam, right,
Speaker 2: But somehow when they when they see tasked with something
Speaker 2: by the president, although it's brief to you know, both committees,
Speaker 2: it's somehow in up like it was our idea and
Speaker 2: that we were like exclusively responsible for it.
Speaker 1: But at some point the question's got to be asked
Speaker 1: or not right.
Speaker 4: Well, that's going to has been asked. I mean there's
Speaker 4: been there's a lot of congressional scrutiny, but the Democrats
Speaker 4: don't control the Senate. Or the House, and so I
Speaker 4: think if they do, they will have subpoena power. You'll
Speaker 4: see a lot more, uh, you know, oversight over over
Speaker 4: foreign policy. That's just the way it is. It's nothing
Speaker 4: wrong with that, it's just you know.
Speaker 3: But not to mention the White House General Council. One
Speaker 3: of the things they do is they write memos that
Speaker 3: justify these policy activities. Looking back to two thousand and eight,
Speaker 3: the torture memos and all this stuff that you know
Speaker 3: came out. That's what those documents were for was to
Speaker 3: cover the guys below the policy level so that they
Speaker 3: could go out and do those things, even if it
Speaker 3: was a veneer that was later taken down. It was
Speaker 3: so that those lower ranking guys would not be prosecuted
Speaker 3: as individuals committing crimes alone. Instead, it was that, hey,
Speaker 3: there was actually a policy cover for this.
Speaker 4: Got to get your PLI everyone, professional liability.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we got it. After that, most of that stuff
Speaker 2: was just school by the way design it was legal
Speaker 2: to do to us, right.
Speaker 1: Anything else, guys, I think we covered a lot. Yeah,
Speaker 1: did we Are we missing something? I feel like no,
Speaker 1: maybe not. I feel like I had something in my
Speaker 1: brain that I wanted to attack the CIA guys about
Speaker 1: but we'll leave it for next week.
Speaker 3: They distracted you successfully, boy.
Speaker 1: Such bullshit. I mean, I mean, I know, make love
Speaker 1: stoicism and I respect that. I know, I love it,
Speaker 1: and then mark with the other one. It's like, guys,
Speaker 1: it's so obvious that you do.
Speaker 2: I mean, I know it was.
Speaker 1: The analogy didn't sort of make sense. Like, I'm not
Speaker 1: disagreeing with you that that analogy for your app, right,
Speaker 1: it's supposed to be covert apps. I agree, I agree.
Speaker 3: With you, Silent professionals.
Speaker 4: Yeah, there's a point on this that actually it's a
Speaker 4: whole separate debate. But COVID action usually does get leaked
Speaker 4: in every hit, basically every one of our programs. And
Speaker 4: so that's when when people tell me there is the
Speaker 4: there's a ci O there that you don't know about.
Speaker 4: They're doing all sorts of ship and like, actually that's
Speaker 4: really not true. Everything that's should be wish it should
Speaker 4: be true.
Speaker 2: But this, you know, maybe covert action should be eventually
Speaker 2: because you know, people need to know, but not why
Speaker 2: it's happening.
Speaker 4: Well, remember what COVID action is, man. COVID action is
Speaker 4: the thing. I mean, it's it's it's not clandestine. It's
Speaker 4: it's covert in the sense of the event occurs and
Speaker 4: we don't take credit for it.
Speaker 2: Right, it can clan something happens, so it's harder to
Speaker 2: keep that secret.
Speaker 4: You just don't brag about it. But this is just
Speaker 4: don't say who didn't do that?
Speaker 1: Yeah, like a smoking fishermen in Ecuador.
Speaker 4: I just I don't even think they care. They're probably
Speaker 4: the movie.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: How many times have I seen I've seen The Odyssey twice?
Speaker 4: How many times have you seen it?
Speaker 1: Mick?
Speaker 4: I seen it once, just once.
Speaker 2: And my and my stoic buddy he went and saw
Speaker 2: it on the theater that Nolan watched it, just like
Speaker 2: the original theater with lasers and stuff up in Canada.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Jonathan, have you seen it?
Speaker 3: No, because I don't want to spoil my feelings about Troy,
Speaker 3: which I love.
Speaker 1: Okay, I'll watch it eventually.
Speaker 2: I'm a classicist and as so he's you know, there's
Speaker 2: even even the historical stuff to argue. I think is
Speaker 2: is cool like the boating, right or what you'll get
Speaker 2: all uptight about it. I'm like, no, that's cool.
Speaker 1: Man.
Speaker 2: If if you're a historian, then you want it to
Speaker 2: be historical doesn't.
Speaker 4: Mean controversy of this is so stud In fact, the
Speaker 4: Greek Prime minister actually call it krisonal and thank him.
Speaker 4: Because huge interest in the classics, there's obviously tourism is
Speaker 4: going to go up more.
Speaker 1: And but also it's a fake, it's a myth.
Speaker 2: Everybody's based on truth. It's it's based on truth.
Speaker 4: It's also a movie. Just go enjoy the movie. By
Speaker 4: the way, if you go and see Troy, Troy is
Speaker 4: historically incorrect as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but Gladiator is awesome, Yeah it is, but at
Speaker 2: least it gets you back interested in the classics. Yeah, totally.
Speaker 2: I thought it was very well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so if people watch The Odyssey, that's great. But
Speaker 1: also look up that uh that web that article about
Speaker 1: in Washington Post about the Ecuadorian fisherman.
Speaker 4: Why didn't you join the CIA? You can be cheapest
Speaker 4: station Galapagos.
Speaker 1: I would never pass the polygraph.
Speaker 3: They have the oldest tortoise that's alive there.
Speaker 1: It's one hundred and fifty year old tortoise. What do
Speaker 1: you say horror moves is part of the horn moves.
Speaker 4: Since we've declared horror moves part of the US territory.
Speaker 1: I'm excited to visit there in the summer, would you say, John,
Speaker 1: we talked spoken about.
Speaker 3: One hundred and fifty year old tortoise in the Galapagos.
Speaker 3: It's the oldest tortoise on the planet.
Speaker 4: I was seeing it. Now.
Speaker 1: My wife won't let me go, she said, has some
Speaker 1: CIA covert action program down there?
Speaker 4: Okay, and look up everywhere kind of looking around.
Speaker 1: All right, boys, A pleasure. I want everyone to check
Speaker 1: out Mixed Podcast Applied Stoicism, The Pub and the Porch
Speaker 1: Applied Stoicism. That link is in the description. Mark p
Speaker 1: He's got a book. He's got a Twitter account. Follow
Speaker 1: him there if you want to rage at him over
Speaker 1: there on Twitter. John Hacket has got two incredible books,
Speaker 1: A Ranch, Shadow Weapons in the Theory for Regular War.
Speaker 1: All those links are in the description. We got the
Speaker 1: white Fish Security Summit coming up in February of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty seven. Check it out. That link is in the
Speaker 1: description as well. Guys, a pleasure. As always, We'll see.
Speaker 2: You next week.
Speaker 4: It is a fun one.
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: Hello everyone. If you're hearing this you are not a
Speaker 1: member of the Patreon, you can get your hands on
Speaker 1: ad free episodes that come out early and you can
Speaker 1: ask us questions maybe we'll answer them. You can also
Speaker 1: watch the Team House podcast completely ad free and early,
Speaker 1: and you can also watch it live as we interview
Speaker 1: our guests, and it's the best way to support the channel,
Speaker 1: so if you can, if you're open to it, you
Speaker 1: can go to patreon dot com slash the Teamhouse. That
Speaker 1: link is in the description. We appreciate the supporters and
Speaker 1: we hope you would consider being one. So it's patreon
Speaker 1: dot com slash the Teamhouse. Thanks guys, Assa