Speaker 1: Hey guys, welcome to another episode of Eyes on Geopolitics.
Speaker 1: I'm Dmitia con Tacos. I'm here with Mick Molroy Andy
Speaker 1: Milburn going on as usual. Start off with, we had
Speaker 1: that shooting incident that happened in d C where two
Speaker 1: National guardsmen were shot. I believe one has passed away
Speaker 1: over the weekend. The other one is in critical condition.
Speaker 1: You know, it was a former Afghany He wasn't he
Speaker 1: wasn't a command though. He was a translator, right that
Speaker 1: worked for like the zero units that were connected with
Speaker 1: the CIA. With the CIA, Mick, you obviously have you know,
Speaker 1: pretty intimate knowledge about what you know, what the units
Speaker 1: were doing there and stuff like that. I saw a
Speaker 1: lot going on in terms of not I guess politically
Speaker 1: where like you know, the administration pulled away like Eddie
Speaker 1: and all immigration and versus for like any pending visas
Speaker 1: for folks coming from Afghanistan to the United States. So
Speaker 1: there's it's become kind of this like back and forth.
Speaker 1: You see it in the veteran community and people who
Speaker 1: have worked with you know, indigenous folks that helped us,
Speaker 1: you know tremendously. You probably wouldn't have been able to
Speaker 1: do any of the things we did there without them.
Speaker 1: They're kind of being demonized and stuff. And obviously what
Speaker 1: this guy did was abhorrent and fucking horrible and he
Speaker 1: should rot in jail. But I don't think that, you know,
Speaker 1: labels the entire community, right, So, Nick, what are you
Speaker 1: thinking about like that? I know you have You're pretty
Speaker 1: tight with you know, you know these a lot of
Speaker 1: these people and stuff like.
Speaker 2: That, so you have intimate knowledge.
Speaker 3: Okay, So I don't know this individual specifically, and I
Speaker 3: agree that this was a deplorable, cowardly act and the
Speaker 3: person that did it should be prosecuted to the full
Speaker 3: extent of the law. And now that this young soldier
Speaker 3: has pass who is simply doing her duty, the fullest
Speaker 3: ex center of the law is going to include potential
Speaker 3: for the death. So my thoughts are with the surviving soldier,
Speaker 3: the staff startant, and obviously the family of both.
Speaker 2: It's just.
Speaker 3: Horrible. I do agree that don't condemn the entirety of
Speaker 3: the group based on the depraved actions of one individual.
Speaker 3: If you look at this year alone, we've had a
Speaker 3: service member run a car through people in New Orleans.
Speaker 3: We had been killed, fourteen people we had another one.
Speaker 3: So the first one was the soldier. Second one that
Speaker 3: I am just off the top of my head to
Speaker 3: attact the church in Michigan Marine. The third one that
Speaker 3: I can think up the top of my head shut
Speaker 3: people on a pier in North Carolina. Another marine. So
Speaker 3: obviously marble on all fronts, but we don't condemn the
Speaker 3: army in the Marine Corps, and it's entirety for the
Speaker 3: actions of those individuals. So that's where i'd start, And yes,
Speaker 3: I'm very familiar. There's a certain restrictions on what I
Speaker 3: can say the person. To my knowledge, and this isn't
Speaker 3: from my bitten knowledge from being in the service, in
Speaker 3: the in the agencies, just from the press releases he was.
Speaker 3: He was an assaulter with one of the one of
Speaker 3: the main units that we had over there, and he
Speaker 3: according to the media, ten years he was in service.
Speaker 3: And I can tell you that that unit saw some
Speaker 3: of the hardest fighting in Afghanistan. It was almost NonStop, right,
Speaker 3: So even if you look at folks that went over
Speaker 3: there and came back when over then came back on
Speaker 3: our side, these guys never left. So it was it
Speaker 3: was operations every night. I would like to point out,
Speaker 3: although it's not really relevant to this, is this idea
Speaker 3: that they were like a walking human rights violation is
Speaker 3: patently untrue. And if it was the case, then there's
Speaker 3: a whole generation of CIA officers and military officers that
Speaker 3: condoned it, and essentially we're okay with it because we
Speaker 3: were completely embedded in charge. So I just find that
Speaker 3: to be It's one of those things each as you
Speaker 3: can't defend itself because we can't really talk. But it's
Speaker 3: just untrue, whether it's you know, a foreign journalist writing
Speaker 3: it or a US And if it is the case,
Speaker 3: then they should have a they should have had a
Speaker 3: DJ investigation, and the oversight committee should be going crazy.
Speaker 3: But you know why they're not because it's not true.
Speaker 2: That's it.
Speaker 3: So on on, and I don't know the exact process.
Speaker 3: I was involved with the TF Dunkirk and this is
Speaker 3: long after I got out of the government of helping
Speaker 3: get Afghans that worked with US out and in this
Speaker 3: special visa process, which is a law that was passed,
Speaker 3: and I think the two thousand and nine NDA which
Speaker 3: gave the criteria, and I do believe that we had
Speaker 3: an obligation to get the ones out that met that
Speaker 3: with the strong caveat that they still have to be vetted,
Speaker 3: and if they're a threat to the United States, then
Speaker 3: that would avoid the obligation, right. I think inherent any
Speaker 3: obligation to bring you in and make you a potential
Speaker 3: citizen is that you're not a threat to our fellow citizens.
Speaker 3: So I do think what should happen here is they
Speaker 3: should follow the facts. This could it's probably a PTSD thing.
Speaker 3: I don't know that, but if I'm looking at what
Speaker 3: happened a revolver driving across the country, the ambush style thing.
Speaker 3: But again, the fact should lead, or the facts lead,
Speaker 3: not speculation by me or anybody else. I don't think
Speaker 3: there's a problem with, uh, you know, reviewing our vetting process.
Speaker 3: But I think we should accept that any vetting process
Speaker 3: is mitigation of a threat. It's never going to be
Speaker 3: elimination of a threat. And that includes us like going
Speaker 3: into the military or the CIA, or you know, vetting
Speaker 3: to be a doctor or a lawyer or whatever it's
Speaker 3: it is. I think we have a very effective system.
Speaker 3: There's nothing wrong with reviewing it to determine whether we
Speaker 3: actually do That's one side of this. I also would
Speaker 3: strongly urge not condemning an entire population of people based
Speaker 3: on the actions of one. Obviously that's a American, but
Speaker 3: some of the you know, the flip side not of that,
Speaker 3: but the flip side of relooking at who we're letting
Speaker 3: in is a lot of these countries don't have records.
Speaker 3: They don't actually have what we need to do vetting.
Speaker 3: Not not this SIV because we kept those records, but
Speaker 3: a lot of people coming in from some countries like
Speaker 3: there isn't anything there there, they can't really inspect it.
Speaker 3: It's might understand. If if that's not true, then then
Speaker 3: I don't know why we would have a band on them.
Speaker 3: If it is true, then we're going to need to
Speaker 3: review that. But that because this expanded from this individual
Speaker 3: in this program to like everybody coming from you know,
Speaker 3: is it thirty countries, I would just caution that that
Speaker 3: should be reviewed. But ultimately, if we can do solid vetting,
Speaker 3: I don't think they should be restricted, but we should
Speaker 3: really look at our processes. I think that's very fair.
Speaker 3: But hopefully and I saw several people who have been
Speaker 3: champions start coming out of these groups, and I, you know,
Speaker 3: on behalf of them. I appreciate that, because it's not
Speaker 3: easy to be talking about this right now. From that perspective.
Speaker 3: It's way easier just to be the one saying them
Speaker 3: all out and all that, and that's just not I
Speaker 3: think fair, just like it wouldn't be fair.
Speaker 4: To veterans to base the base are a value and
Speaker 4: worth on individuals that might have had a psychological event.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I you know it. Whenever anything like this happens,
Speaker 2: there is always a surge of kind of a desire
Speaker 2: understandable in the public for vengeance. Right It's kind of
Speaker 2: closing the door, the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Speaker 2: And yes, the you know, the crimes are horrific, and
Speaker 2: so everyone feels compelled, of course to say to express
Speaker 2: rightfully sympathy for the victims. But these are such complex issues,
Speaker 2: right you know, make you mention that PTSD was likely involved,
Speaker 2: It was likely involved. You know, you mentioned to the
Speaker 2: scale of combat that these units were in, and you know,
Speaker 2: I wish you could talk a little bit more about
Speaker 2: about the you know, in general terms about these units,
Speaker 2: because yes, indeed they were and a degree of combat
Speaker 2: and for a period far longer than most American troops
Speaker 2: could even imagine you know, Americans rotated in and out,
Speaker 2: but the Afghans and the Iraqis, for that matter, they
Speaker 2: lived these wars. There was no escape from them. Again,
Speaker 2: you know, every time we start talking about this, we
Speaker 2: feel compelled to say, but what they did was horrible.
Speaker 2: But you know, PTSD is an awful thing too, you know,
Speaker 2: And that sounds like such a vapid, facile thing to say,
Speaker 2: But it it changes people traumatically, all right, I mean,
Speaker 2: doesn't it? You know, I mean it it makes good
Speaker 2: people do bad things.
Speaker 3: We know that.
Speaker 2: We have seen that, there's no denying it. We've been
Speaker 2: you know, on a on a on a on a
Speaker 2: different scale. We've all known guys who've come back and
Speaker 2: taken their own lives as a as a result of PTSD.
Speaker 2: And and in every case that I've known of, in
Speaker 2: the months, sometimes years before they have taken their lives,
Speaker 2: they were no longer the individuals that they used to be.
Speaker 2: So again, I mean, this isn't this isn't just an
Speaker 2: empty rant about the tragedy of life. It's it's it's
Speaker 2: a fact that we cannot you know, we want to
Speaker 2: feel this desire for vengeance. We want to strike back,
Speaker 2: We want to now say, okay, ban every Afgham from
Speaker 2: ever coming in. But that's not the solution, you know,
Speaker 2: because the problems that course, what the things that have happened,
Speaker 2: are infinitely more complex. It's the same thing with the
Speaker 2: Marines you mentioned making the discussions that we had leading
Speaker 2: up to to the you know this podcast. The two
Speaker 2: Marines who did horrific things and murdered innocent people, right
Speaker 2: and you look back though at their create, they weren't
Speaker 2: always like that. So what changed them? You know? Again?
Speaker 2: And okay, so what you know, what's the solution. What
Speaker 2: the solution obviously isn't to let these people off. And
Speaker 2: there's a solution perhaps is to look, I mean, there's
Speaker 2: multiple things, but it's a social issue, deeply buried social issue,
Speaker 2: and the answer is not simply to cut off immigration.
Speaker 2: And last thing I was saying this, Mick, I'm sure
Speaker 2: you agree. I like saying that anyway because it gives
Speaker 2: me some sense of authority. But you know, this country's
Speaker 2: made it hard enough for Afghan veterans, the friends of
Speaker 2: the United States to come in. The last thing that
Speaker 2: we need to do is make it even more difficult.
Speaker 2: That's that's my opinion. You know, we've deserted our allies
Speaker 2: in many ways. We've we've raised barriers, we've left them,
Speaker 2: you know, not just Afghans, you name it. I mean
Speaker 2: before them to some extent, the Rockies, uh, and and
Speaker 2: of course you know the Vietnamese. I mean, we haven't
Speaker 2: been good about about enabling people who have helped us
Speaker 2: in these wars to come to the United States. We
Speaker 2: don't need to raise even more barriers. That's just my thought,
Speaker 2: good point.
Speaker 3: And we have a long history of unfortunately leaving our
Speaker 3: allies behind, and and and then the community, you know,
Speaker 3: military Intel, Special operations community stepping up. Right. So I'm
Speaker 3: in Montana. If you go down to Missoula, and you know,
Speaker 3: on a Saturday during the summer right now, now, there's
Speaker 3: a farmer's market and you get there and you'll see
Speaker 3: a bunch of moms, a lot of mark and they
Speaker 3: have most beautiful vesteras by the way, and you're like,
Speaker 3: how did you guys get here? Well, how did they
Speaker 3: get here? Because a bunch of CI paramilitary and UH
Speaker 3: military Special operations vets brought them from Laos when we
Speaker 3: decided we didn't want to do that anymore. And all
Speaker 3: those people were going to get slaughtered a lot, brought them,
Speaker 3: brought them over and Vietnam. Right, So there's now there's
Speaker 3: a memorial UH in Arlington. Not a lot of people
Speaker 3: know it, but you can. You can google it and
Speaker 3: find it to our indigenous partners from Lewes and Vietnam
Speaker 3: and their service to the United States turned that conflict.
Speaker 3: That's not any different with the Afghans who put it
Speaker 3: all on the line, and quite frankly they've been annihilated
Speaker 3: by the Taliban for working with us. So I'm all
Speaker 3: about making sure that they are sound and not a threat.
Speaker 3: I think if they're going to review things now, they
Speaker 3: should also review who is helping them, right. So lots
Speaker 3: sometimes you get into a status where you can be
Speaker 3: here but you can't work. Think of the problem with that,
Speaker 3: right So, if there's something keeping somebody from going get
Speaker 3: gainfully employment and then we're complaining about them not being employed,
Speaker 3: you can see the problem there, right. So, And I
Speaker 3: understand there's a lot of bureaucracy and there's only so
Speaker 3: much folks can do. But I think if we're going
Speaker 3: to do a review, if we see here, we ought
Speaker 3: to also do a review to how to help people
Speaker 3: essentially help themselves. So if they're in some status that
Speaker 3: doesn't allow them to work, let's change that. Let's change
Speaker 3: that and let them work and basically make a living
Speaker 3: and not be you know, a burden to others, either
Speaker 3: taxpayers or other folks. It's a big part. It's a
Speaker 3: big issue of self worth. I think we all know that.
Speaker 3: So let's let's review it for everything, both suitability to
Speaker 3: be here and what are we doing to make them successful,
Speaker 3: because that's I think in all of our interests in
Speaker 3: society at large. But again, absolutely horrible event, and I
Speaker 3: certainly understand and sharing the.
Speaker 2: Outage big What can you tell us about the program
Speaker 2: that he was involved in?
Speaker 3: So it's it's you know, obviously I don't I usually
Speaker 3: just talk analytical stuff. But there's a lot out there
Speaker 3: on this program. And already it's a sensitive issue, you know,
Speaker 3: because it's easy to write about CI stuff and then
Speaker 3: write all this bad stuff and the CIA doesn't generally
Speaker 3: doesn't answer. So I want to take the opportunity to
Speaker 3: point out that that's not the case. And I can
Speaker 3: tell you there's there's people in the US military Special Operations,
Speaker 3: you know, SOCOLM all the way to the top and
Speaker 3: the HC all the way to the top that have
Speaker 3: worked on these programs and spent a lot of time
Speaker 3: years like myself, with these programs. They I think, to
Speaker 3: put it bluntly, we would have lost thousands of more soldiers, sailors, airmen,
Speaker 3: and marines if it wasn't for these units, not just
Speaker 3: what they're referring to is the zero units, but also
Speaker 3: the commandos and the other units that worked directly with
Speaker 3: the US military exclusively. If it wasn't for them, we
Speaker 3: would have lost Meek and google how many casualties they had.
Speaker 3: Those would have been Americans, right And by the time
Speaker 3: we left in that really disaster withdrawal, very few Americans
Speaker 3: were on the front lines. We were losing, y had
Speaker 3: very few casualties, which is why I was so opposed
Speaker 3: to just the way we left, rather than leaving a
Speaker 3: residual force. We largely got to that position because of
Speaker 3: these other units stepped up to the fight and they
Speaker 3: did so without hesitation, and I think that has to
Speaker 3: be remembered. Another interesting point for these particular units is
Speaker 3: there was never a friendly fraticide ever, and that was,
Speaker 3: you know, a unfortunate occurrence in other units but we
Speaker 3: never had one, we never won attempted one. In fact,
Speaker 3: when I was at the Pentagon, I would be asked
Speaker 3: as they did a review of the whole Green on
Speaker 3: Blue fratriccide in Afghanistan, and I was pulled in, not
Speaker 3: as you know, the policy guy, but the guy who
Speaker 3: spent a lot of time with these units. And the
Speaker 3: question was why. I think it is because we were
Speaker 3: completely embedded with them. We had folks that went back
Speaker 3: continuously to the same area. And you know, I'm not
Speaker 3: saying that wasn't done. It just wasn't really done but
Speaker 3: by the military. And I don't really know the answer,
Speaker 3: but that it's important point and it's actually been studied.
Speaker 3: So the idea that this person would come here and
Speaker 3: then do this is just it's it's an anathema to me,
Speaker 3: and it's just horrible obviously for the individuals, but also
Speaker 3: for the community and everything that's been done by so
Speaker 3: many people to try to help these folks get into
Speaker 3: the United States. I just hope we review that and
Speaker 3: do the right thing going forward, and that's both the
Speaker 3: security of our citizens and also carrying out our obligations
Speaker 3: to those that should be here.
Speaker 2: You know, picking up on something that you just kind
Speaker 2: of mentioned, Mick, that perhaps people don't realize now because
Speaker 2: it's been a long time, but it's been eleven years
Speaker 2: since really the conventional war in Afghanistan ended. I know
Speaker 2: people are going to critique me for that, but that's true.
Speaker 2: Conventional troops pulled out basically in twenty fourteen, and from
Speaker 2: then on the war was being fought by units like
Speaker 2: the Agency and by special operations forces I with them
Speaker 2: through Afghan forces. You know, obviously in the end the
Speaker 2: war was not successful, but by and large those efforts
Speaker 2: were more successful I'm generalizing here than than our conventional
Speaker 2: type operations. And that's kind of that's kind of a trend,
Speaker 2: right wouldn't you agreement? See how I do that? But
Speaker 2: you know, the the lighter touch that we have with
Speaker 2: more specialist troops, the better we do. Know, you think
Speaker 2: about El Salvador, you think about Columbia, you think about
Speaker 2: the Afghanistan after twenty fourteen, as you put it, that
Speaker 2: we were continuing the war. You know, we we were
Speaker 2: holding ground, We were doing relatively well with very with
Speaker 2: relatively low casualties because of our use of indigenous troops
Speaker 2: and special operations troops. It's a really it's kind of
Speaker 2: an interesting comment. And yet when we go in large
Speaker 2: scale conventional forces, we kind of make ourselves a target,
Speaker 2: and operating that sort of environment insurgency does require, it
Speaker 2: requires specialist troops. People are going to disagree with me
Speaker 2: for that, but it does. You know, I think about
Speaker 2: our time and I was with a conventional infantry unit.
Speaker 2: I was commander of a conventional infantry battalion before I
Speaker 2: went over to special operations, and yeah, we did you know,
Speaker 2: of course we I'd like to say we did a
Speaker 2: great job, and but we paid heavily for it. And
Speaker 2: the average battalion going through Ambar back then was losing.
Speaker 2: You know, this is no exaggeration, between twenty five and
Speaker 2: forty five sometimes higher than that dead and several hundred wounded,
Speaker 2: and our gains were very temporary. But then going back
Speaker 2: as a commander of a Siegure SODIF where we took
Speaker 2: very few casualties, we you know, we were able to
Speaker 2: have a tremendous effect on the Islamic state. Yes, different environment,
Speaker 2: but my point is simply this that that that is
Speaker 2: I think an important thing to learn about going ahead,
Speaker 2: that that the light touch you know, is maybe we
Speaker 2: consider going into Venezuela now that it's that that the
Speaker 2: big invasions just don't work so well for us, right,
Speaker 2: But the influence, the putting in of highly trained teams
Speaker 2: to work with indigenous forces, that's worked pretty well over
Speaker 2: the years, even.
Speaker 3: In campaigns things did not I agree. In fact, I mean,
Speaker 3: we obviously have the best, most powerful military in the world.
Speaker 3: Conventional forces are what's going to be necessary to fight
Speaker 3: win wars, right, But the long term irregular warfare type
Speaker 3: scenarios of counterinsurgency, Uh, it's it's in many ways counterproductive.
Speaker 3: It's counterproductive as it tends to build more insurgents. It's
Speaker 3: kind of inductive because it's very i mean politically sensitive,
Speaker 3: which matters in the democracy when you see you know,
Speaker 3: young men and women be coming back and wars that
Speaker 3: don't have an end date. So it's it's absolutely that
Speaker 3: we have the ability to do partner force operations in
Speaker 3: these long term low intensity conflict although they don't look
Speaker 3: so low intensity to the people that are in them,
Speaker 3: but you know what I mean, it's imperative. So and
Speaker 3: this is now you can see how this is coming
Speaker 3: back around on each other in order to have the
Speaker 3: ability to do this, you have to have trust. You
Speaker 3: don't have if you don't maintain your obligations. If it's
Speaker 3: simply everything's temporary and no commitment is valid, it's going
Speaker 3: to make it very difficult for the US to do
Speaker 3: significant partner force operations in the future. And not that
Speaker 3: I'm running to get into the next one at all,
Speaker 3: but if it happens, we have to have the ability
Speaker 3: to do that. And it really is a combination of
Speaker 3: the advisors for lack of a better description, and the
Speaker 3: force itself. It's a combination of the two. You can't
Speaker 3: choose to have like some remote proxy force like Iran
Speaker 3: doesn't expect it to be that effective. It has to
Speaker 3: be the combination which fuses experience, operational place planning, intelligence, support,
Speaker 3: all these things in with a unit that's willing and
Speaker 3: able to have this joint mission and of course about
Speaker 3: by human rights, just like it was a US unit.
Speaker 3: But that's going to be necessary going forward. You never
Speaker 3: know what's going to happen, and we tend to find
Speaker 3: ourselves in more regular wars than we do conventional wars,
Speaker 3: but we have to be ready for both. And I
Speaker 3: think I think this kind of ties the two together.
Speaker 3: And I know, I think we're talking about Venezuela next,
Speaker 3: hopefully we're talking about a long term counter insurgency operation there.
Speaker 3: We need to have the capacity in our in our
Speaker 3: in our quiver, if you will, going forward. You know,
Speaker 3: I was I was there when we did the irregular
Speaker 3: war formatics. That was a big part of it. You know,
Speaker 3: we got to understand that the history of warfare is primarily,
Speaker 3: if you look at the majority of them, irregular, right,
Speaker 3: So we have to be able to do both, and
Speaker 3: one's not better than the other or anything like that.
Speaker 3: Conventional forces, you know, if there's you know, if there's
Speaker 3: a Third World War, you know, the special operations folks
Speaker 3: like myself and Andy are going to be I think participants.
Speaker 3: But aside THEO compared to you know, the major efforts
Speaker 3: are going to be conventional, but the irregular wars, we've
Speaker 3: got to be ready to to fight it. Part of
Speaker 3: it is having a h a word that you could
Speaker 3: trust from other groups around the world.
Speaker 2: You know. The the other thing that that I thought
Speaker 2: was very interesting that you said about the low number
Speaker 2: of incidents of green on blue and by the way,
Speaker 2: for everyone green on blue is when we refer to
Speaker 2: that as intentional fratricite right from our partner nation indigenous forces,
Speaker 2: and that became a prevalent trend in Afghanistan sadly for
Speaker 2: a period of time towards the end of conventional force involvement.
Speaker 2: Is with these these advisor teams were taking casualties not
Speaker 2: from the Taliban, well from hidden Taliban, as it were
Speaker 2: among Afghan troops, and yet among the special operations forces
Speaker 2: those incidents were far lower. And I think you know
Speaker 2: what is different. I think part of it is, and
Speaker 2: again you hit on this, Mick, was just the nature
Speaker 2: of how we operate. Those Special operations forces operate deeply
Speaker 2: embedded in indigenous forces. They don't go home in the
Speaker 2: evening to a separate camp. You know, the contrast was
Speaker 2: clearly there in Afghanistan. You can look at the you
Speaker 2: can look at the numbers and the fact that yes,
Speaker 2: fratricide where it did occur on the special abrations side,
Speaker 2: but it was at a lower level rate. And in
Speaker 2: Iraq it was almost unheard of among special oberations forces.
Speaker 2: And yet it did occur amongst somebody advised sin sutly
Speaker 2: against conventional forces. I mean in Mosall two thousand and five,
Speaker 2: for Mares, one of the worst suicide bombings in Iraq
Speaker 2: against US troops occurred and was and you know, sadly,
Speaker 2: an Iraqi soldier blew himself up in the in the
Speaker 2: mess hall on Farb Mares killed fourteen soldiers, number of
Speaker 2: contractors and some locals. And yet you know, I was
Speaker 2: in Mosall at the time, living in a ruined hospital
Speaker 2: with Iraqi in Iraqi company, with you know, six other
Speaker 2: gringos and same you know, literally living in the same
Speaker 2: room as these guys, and it never it just never
Speaker 2: occurred to us, you know, even after that incident. And
Speaker 2: I think it gets to you know, why why am
Speaker 2: I talking about this, because it gets into the nature
Speaker 2: of what special operations do.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: Our security is that that trust, that that sense of
Speaker 2: shared danger with people. And I know, for instance, serving
Speaker 2: in Iraqi with an Iraqi battalion as advisor, I know
Speaker 2: some of those dudes were bad dudes, but for some
Speaker 2: reason they didn't try and kill us, you know, because
Speaker 2: we were maybe just too close to them, I don't know,
Speaker 2: but it didn't happen. But again, it gets back to
Speaker 2: this mentality of what is security right, security is not
Speaker 2: is not, and the Israelis are learning this, will learn this,
Speaker 2: have learned this. Security isn't putting yourself behind layers of
Speaker 2: security fences and high tech automated weapons, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 2: Security comes from really understanding not just your adversary, but
Speaker 2: but you know the population, the people you're working with,
Speaker 2: what motivates them. And as hoky though it may sound,
Speaker 2: it comes with sharing their experiences and the danger with them.
Speaker 2: And the last thing I'll say on that is so
Speaker 2: returning as Sugere Sot of command to Iraq in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 2: when there was this policy of remote advice and assists.
Speaker 2: I don't know if you remember that. You know where
Speaker 2: you virtual advice and assists, right, You had this virtual
Speaker 2: kit that that you could give your partner and they
Speaker 2: went on and fort the enemy, the Islamic state, and
Speaker 2: you've stayed on the fob and you could track them
Speaker 2: like it was a game, right, and you knew whether
Speaker 2: lead trace were so you could call in air support.
Speaker 2: And there were people who really thought that was going
Speaker 2: to work just as well as having soft teams. Moving
Speaker 2: with living with Iraqi, you know Iraqi and Kurdish security
Speaker 2: forces and of course we learned that, No, it doesn't.
Speaker 2: In the end, we ended up having to accompany them,
Speaker 2: and of course you do. And there's always going to
Speaker 2: be that human element. It's never going to be replaced
Speaker 2: by technology, and that is you know, that's your security,
Speaker 2: and that's your that's your path to successfully in those environments.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and if I could, I'll throw in some for
Speaker 3: d here. There's a pretty famous episode in Greek history
Speaker 3: during the Peloponnese and war in Sicily. Right. So, Sicily
Speaker 3: was aligned with Sparta, Uh, and the Athenians had decided
Speaker 3: to go take out basically a proxy partner with Sparta.
Speaker 3: Sparta could you know, obviously was out numbered during the
Speaker 3: whole Peloponnesian War, couldn't send too many, so they send
Speaker 3: what would be what work we would call advisors, like
Speaker 3: six of them.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: And if there's a it's actually written about as the
Speaker 3: Athenians were coming up Uh and they were trying to
Speaker 3: take the last last elevated area that the Sicilians were
Speaker 3: in control of, and then they saw the scarlet capes, right,
Speaker 3: they saw the Spartans standing there, uh. And part of
Speaker 3: it was just already the Spartans had the reputation of
Speaker 3: you know, the ultimate warrior, and part of it they
Speaker 3: didn't know how much, how many more Spartans would be coming,
Speaker 3: but it completely changed the bat It inspired the Sicilians,
Speaker 3: It challenged the fortitude of the Athenians who were slaughtering
Speaker 3: the Sicilians until then. And so I use that often
Speaker 3: because it really does, I think, show what advisors, which
Speaker 3: special operation forces, green Berets, Seals, Marsac raiders, paramilitary folks
Speaker 3: can do with a willing and capable indigenous partner force.
Speaker 3: And it's not new obviously, that was Melbany's war, but
Speaker 3: it has that effect, and I think we could do
Speaker 3: a lot more which would save a lot of American
Speaker 3: lives if we embrace that as one of our main
Speaker 3: models in a regular warfare. And it can play a
Speaker 3: part obviously in a substantial conventional fight too, right because
Speaker 3: that as we saw in the last twenty years, we
Speaker 3: had both going on at the same time. So it's
Speaker 3: almost always relevant. And I know this is we've gotten
Speaker 3: now talking about partner forces, but it does have relevance
Speaker 3: to what we started, which is this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this isn't that well hugely, you know, and I
Speaker 2: think I think conventional forces understand that. But but they
Speaker 2: but I don't think that, for instance, Army Marine call
Speaker 2: leadership has struck the right turn in how do you
Speaker 2: select and train these guys? Right, it's not any soldier
Speaker 2: marine can do this type of stuff. That's why Special
Speaker 2: operations guys tend to be so good at it. But
Speaker 2: they're so but they're low density, high demands. So you know,
Speaker 2: there are being efforts like building these s FAB brigades
Speaker 2: which have now been you know that that plan has
Speaker 2: been abandoned. And in the Marine Corps, I know we
Speaker 2: what does s FAB mean? Security force assistance? Right brigades?
Speaker 2: So they were brigades whose sole mission was to do
Speaker 2: what we were talking about, working with indigenous forces. The
Speaker 2: British had formed a radar regiment, a ranger regiment right
Speaker 2: out of you know, it's not it's mission not the
Speaker 2: same as US radar regiment. Sorry ranger, I keep defaulting to.
Speaker 3: The real well too, wept included them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but you know, but they formed a ranger regiment
Speaker 2: out of three infantry battalions. In their purpose was security
Speaker 2: force assistance, which is, you know, working with foreign militaries.
Speaker 2: Because everyone realizes that, yeah, that's that is one of
Speaker 2: the aspects, liking aspects future war. And we could talk
Speaker 2: on this show about the rise of private military companies too,
Speaker 2: and the the resurgence of private military companies across the
Speaker 2: battlefield where you're talking Ukraine from our experience, you know,
Speaker 2: most recently in Israel, because they fulfill a lot of
Speaker 2: you know, a lot of functions of course, using soldiers
Speaker 2: to do the same things a little bit different the
Speaker 2: government's and more skin in the game. But nevertheless, the
Speaker 2: principles are saying that you're you're leveraging foreign forces to
Speaker 2: do frankly, your dirty work, right to take the casualties
Speaker 2: through the brunt of the fighting. And it's it's it's
Speaker 2: a good idea, but striking that right formula of using
Speaker 2: the right guys, because again not every soldier or marine
Speaker 2: makes a good advisor. So you have to have some
Speaker 2: kind of selection process. Maybe it doesn't have to be
Speaker 2: as tight as the Special Operations selection process, but you
Speaker 2: need something.
Speaker 1: There is a unit called the what's it seesaw in Canada,
Speaker 1: I think they do it and also like direct action.
Speaker 2: There, it's Canadian Special Aberations Regiment. Yeah, very very similar
Speaker 2: actually in makeup to the Marine Raider Regiment. We I
Speaker 2: had conting of those guys in the seat is so
Speaker 2: deaf and a rock. They're very very good for Canadians.
Speaker 1: We just had a guy onto a few weeks back
Speaker 1: on the team house that was in Seesaw.
Speaker 2: Who was in?
Speaker 1: Yeah, who's there? Also, if you guys are interested in
Speaker 1: learning more about uh, the zero units or the Omega
Speaker 1: teams or whatever, Jack Murphy and Sean Naylor wrote a
Speaker 1: pretty in depth article about them on the High Side,
Speaker 1: so you could check that out. No comment from Mick.
Speaker 1: I think Mick was commented in it, but you didn't.
Speaker 1: It was like you didn't do anything. It was like
Speaker 1: a normal regular comment. You didn't confirm or deny anything.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So let's push on to Venezuela and what's going on there.
Speaker 1: It seems like, you know, every week where we're hearing
Speaker 1: more and more that it's gonna happen, more staging happening.
Speaker 1: There were some pictures that came out today, have some
Speaker 1: f thirty fives and stuff like that. In Puerto Rico,
Speaker 1: President Trump tweeted out something that like like but it
Speaker 1: was it was like an unofficial note am basically like
Speaker 1: no one should be flying or doing anything nearer around
Speaker 1: the area of Venezuela. Where are we at with that?
Speaker 1: What's it looked like? Is there any diplomatic talks? Why
Speaker 1: are we even doing this? But I mean we've asked
Speaker 1: that question a million times.
Speaker 2: Yeah, have you noticed before Mika says something that's insightful
Speaker 2: and serious? Have you noticed though? Then when we talk
Speaker 2: about Venezuela, a numbers plummet, like no one gives us ship.
Speaker 2: I mean we could be think.
Speaker 1: The national security like people who are interested in this world,
Speaker 1: do you give a shit? But I think for the
Speaker 1: vast majority of American citizens they can give to fucks.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it doesn't affect that lives.
Speaker 3: No, only thirty percent support any military action in Venezuela.
Speaker 3: But the build up is there, right, We've talked about
Speaker 3: it a lot, so I reiterate everything set for some
Speaker 3: kind of action, and when you're making statements like closing
Speaker 3: the airspace over an entire country, one can expect that
Speaker 3: that means something unless this is some giant bluff. We
Speaker 3: have also talked about how worly run Venezuela is and
Speaker 3: how a boring Maduro is, which is ultrue. Just to
Speaker 3: give you an idea, it should be one of the
Speaker 3: wealthiest countries in Latin Ameria. Oka has been said of that,
Speaker 3: and eight million people how to leave the country because
Speaker 3: they couldn't find food, right, So it is terribly run
Speaker 3: and Maduro's illegitimate. So if they were to uprise and
Speaker 3: install some like the the recent Nobel Peace Prize recipient
Speaker 3: Ria Machada, that'd be great. I just don't know how
Speaker 3: we can necessarily orchestrate that unless that's what's going on
Speaker 3: right now behind the scenes with you know, the clandestine
Speaker 3: diplomacy if you want to call it. That probably led
Speaker 3: by the agency. If he leaves, then I think he
Speaker 3: will get credit. He'd be in the president will get
Speaker 3: credit for like okay, and that would be good for
Speaker 3: the people of Venezuela. If it doesn't work, and you know,
Speaker 3: there's stuff on the internet saying that he is scared
Speaker 3: to try to leave because there's Cuban intelligence officers around
Speaker 3: him that won't let him, I don't know if that's true.
Speaker 3: Then it's either a big bluff or we do something,
Speaker 3: And I think that something is probably going to be
Speaker 3: limited to air strikes. But it's important to note that
Speaker 3: if we start, you know, attacking them. Even if it's
Speaker 3: the drug infrastructure, which can include ports, airports, they might
Speaker 3: attack us, right, So conventionally it's not even a match.
Speaker 3: But it's important to point out they do have anti
Speaker 3: ship missiles air launch from the s thirties. I think
Speaker 3: they have Cage thirty one Alphas, which are Russian made
Speaker 3: supersonic launch from an aircraft. I think there's like one
Speaker 3: hundred and forty kilometer range, and they do this weird
Speaker 3: deal where they it's kind of like nap the earth
Speaker 3: of the ocean. It stays very close, so it makes
Speaker 3: it very difficult to intercept, and then it is to
Speaker 3: get closer. It gets closer and closer to the water. Right,
Speaker 3: they are effective against destroyers, which we have destroyers. I'm
Speaker 3: not an expert in that. If we have listeners that
Speaker 3: are they should hopefully they'll chime in and say, yes,
Speaker 3: it's a threat, but it's not that big of a threat.
Speaker 3: I think from people I talk to that they're like, yes,
Speaker 3: it is a threat, and if they launch them at
Speaker 3: the same time, it could be problematic, but we have
Speaker 3: a lot of ways to mitigate it. But my point
Speaker 3: being is we blow up a drug factory. They launched
Speaker 3: these anti ship missiles and there's also sea based ones
Speaker 3: that they have Iranians versions. One destroyer's hit casualties Americans.
Speaker 3: That's how this escalates. We all know us. If we
Speaker 3: take casualties, we're not going to stop. We're not going
Speaker 3: to say okay, let's turn around and go. That's not
Speaker 3: the way America rolls. That's how this could escalate. So
Speaker 3: I would just highlight that that is a potential and
Speaker 3: if we are actually going to do any kind of
Speaker 3: ground based operations with troops, potentially like special operations to
Speaker 3: apprehend Maduro, that brings a lot of risks to a
Speaker 3: lot of risks. You know there is the place is
Speaker 3: completely apparently submersed in surface to air missiles thanks to Russia.
Speaker 3: So that's also with significant issue. We dealt with that before.
Speaker 3: I'm not saying that means we don't go, but these
Speaker 3: are the risks that the administration is taking, especially with
Speaker 3: the level of sport that you pointed out of the
Speaker 3: American people and no authorization of Congress that I can see.
Speaker 3: So that looks like where we're headed.
Speaker 2: Uh ah.
Speaker 3: You know, your guests as good as mine, but we
Speaker 3: see all the indicators this is either a big bluff
Speaker 3: and hopefully it works or they're going to have to
Speaker 3: transition into an actual error missile campaign or something to
Speaker 3: that effect in Venezuela, and that brings risk with it.
Speaker 3: I would, I think, you know, not that anybody's asking
Speaker 3: me if this is where we were headed, I would
Speaker 3: seriously talk about the consequences, the worst case scenarios, and
Speaker 3: try to bring the US population on board rather than
Speaker 3: this tract toward it.
Speaker 2: Listen it. Yeah, it kind of gets back to the
Speaker 2: end of the day, what do we get out of it?
Speaker 2: Really are and and it's a I'm not arguing either way.
Speaker 2: I'm just I don't see I suppose I am. I mean,
Speaker 2: I don't see I don't see solid American interests being forwarded.
Speaker 2: And as you pointed out, there's a significant risk. I mean,
Speaker 2: we've all we've all been at the point the end
Speaker 2: of American foreign policy before and and sometimes you know,
Speaker 2: sometimes when it's for a coherent purpose, of course, that's
Speaker 2: that's the way it goes. And when you when they're
Speaker 2: a discernible American interests, that that justify that risk. But
Speaker 2: it's hard to it's hard to discern what those interests
Speaker 2: are right now. Not connected to the drug trade. Are
Speaker 2: we going to overturn an unpopular and tyrannical despot. Maybe,
Speaker 2: but we don't have a good history in doing that either.
Speaker 2: I mean we can, we can overturn them, but we're
Speaker 2: not good at dealing what comes afterwards, and we just
Speaker 2: don't seem to be collectively learning that lesson.
Speaker 1: Right, there's no guarantee that a child is going to
Speaker 1: be like on a ticker tape parade and they're going
Speaker 1: to crown or queen and everything is going to be
Speaker 1: perfect and democratic, right.
Speaker 3: Like, there'd probably be his henchmen the takeover. So that's
Speaker 3: a that's a very good point. The other thing, of course,
Speaker 3: if if we go to a full conflict, our adversaries
Speaker 3: are going to.
Speaker 2: Make hay of it.
Speaker 3: So Russia are on all of them, and the issues
Speaker 3: that we're concerned about Venezuela could likely intensify. Right, So
Speaker 3: they already have a significant humanitarian issue thanks to the
Speaker 3: incompetence of the government, right forty percent at least or
Speaker 3: on humanitarian assistance of the country, that could go up
Speaker 3: to eighty. Right, if there's an actual conflict, and what
Speaker 3: are they going to do? They're going to leave where
Speaker 3: are they going to try to come here? That's an
Speaker 3: issue that's caused the consternation against Maduro. Potentially a large
Speaker 3: scale conflict could enhance it and give our adversaries an
Speaker 3: opportunity to try to further embed themselves in a country
Speaker 3: in our end sphere. So these are all I mean,
Speaker 3: there's never going to be a right or a perfect
Speaker 3: decision in this complicated manner, but hopefully all these factors
Speaker 3: are being considered when it comes to because this could
Speaker 3: go in the wrong way and right. And even at
Speaker 3: the start, there doesn't seem to be a US interest
Speaker 3: from the population, from the Poles and doing anything because
Speaker 3: the poll question is simply military action, which could include
Speaker 3: just air strikes for one day, right, So h this
Speaker 3: should probably be talked through and they should either gain
Speaker 3: some support or rethink what they're doing. Obviously, I think
Speaker 3: stopping the drug flow is important, but this is well
Speaker 3: beyond that. Colombia, Peru, even Mexico or bigger contributors to
Speaker 3: the drug and I don't think aybody's talking about going
Speaker 3: to war and all three of those countries.
Speaker 1: And yeah, you could just keep double tapping narco boats,
Speaker 1: you know, to stop the drug flow.
Speaker 3: That's good to say, we have to see what the
Speaker 3: true facts of that. That's serious, serious situation. I think
Speaker 3: that that should basically let the facts and it shouldn't
Speaker 3: be condemning folks because that would be kindeming folks up
Speaker 3: and now the military chain of command, and I don't
Speaker 3: think that's fair to them just based on it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, because you know, and I don't need we
Speaker 2: don't need to go down this path five minutes from
Speaker 2: the end of the show. But this whole thing about
Speaker 2: following orders illegal illegal, it's one of the hardest parts
Speaker 2: about this topic is there isn't always a clear distinction
Speaker 2: between legal and in illegal order. I mean, they just
Speaker 2: isn't you know what I mean, we've there is when
Speaker 2: you look historically, right, because the victor decides what legal
Speaker 2: and what is not illegal. So quite rightly, and Mick,
Speaker 2: I know you saw this movie. I want to see it.
Speaker 2: You know, quite rightly, we held in Nuremberg trials and
Speaker 2: that was and that was that was good, right, not
Speaker 2: just because we're the victors, but those were in accordance
Speaker 2: with international norms. And there are such a thing, it's
Speaker 2: international norms of behavior, and and you know, murdering people
Speaker 2: killing unarmed civilians, killing innocence, killing prisoners, let alone. You
Speaker 2: know what happened during the Holocaust. All those things are
Speaker 2: clearly on the dark side of good and bad, right,
Speaker 2: But there is definitely a gray area. And when you're
Speaker 2: working for when you're serving the military of the United
Speaker 2: States of America, and your automatic default is that what
Speaker 2: you're going to be ordered to do is legal, it's
Speaker 2: not always easy to tell what is legal and what
Speaker 2: is not. We've dealt with this ourselves in our own
Speaker 2: recent history with enhanced interrogation, Okay, and I'm not you know,
Speaker 2: I'm not taking sides on on that. I'm saying that
Speaker 2: Supreme Court came out and said subsequently that a whole
Speaker 2: bunch of stuff was illegal that at the time people
Speaker 2: some people thought was legal and were ordered to do.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: So it's not easy and people need to be aware
Speaker 2: of that. It's not you know, I think a lot
Speaker 2: of our senior military leaders, I hope, are knowledgeable enough
Speaker 2: and think enough about that profession that they know that
Speaker 2: there is that gap. There's that space where we are
Speaker 2: supposed to not be automatons and simply follow orders. There's
Speaker 2: supposed to be a space where we make that decision,
Speaker 2: deliberate decision, is this illegal ethical order?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 2: And that is why we're the United States of America,
Speaker 2: and that is why those of us who held commissions
Speaker 2: held commissions because we're not automatons. We don't simply we're
Speaker 2: not something you press the button, we do it, and
Speaker 2: if we don't do it, we disloyal fox and we
Speaker 2: get charged with treason. That's not the way the United
Speaker 2: States litertary works. It's an immensely it is a complex issue.
Speaker 2: So I just want to throw that out there, without
Speaker 2: without jumping on either side, just to say that in
Speaker 2: this debate right now about illegal and legal orders, it's
Speaker 2: clear to me that many people do not understand the issue.
Speaker 3: And they're going to do an inquiry into this from
Speaker 3: the Senate Armed Services Committee. I mean that was said
Speaker 3: by both the chairman and vice chairman. So that should
Speaker 3: be what leads this, not just in my opinion speculation
Speaker 3: based on one.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Agree, and it is good to see the Senate
Speaker 1: actually doing its fucking job for once.
Speaker 3: Oversight is supposed to be done over every element really,
Speaker 3: especially in national security. You know this Oversight Committee on
Speaker 3: Foreign Relations, Military Intel, and that's their job bipartisan review
Speaker 3: and yeah, right, they need to do that, not just
Speaker 3: because there was an article written now, but's just in general.
Speaker 1: That's their job. Yeah right, it's what they're paid to do.
Speaker 1: A part of why they get why they're on those committees.
Speaker 2: And yeah, Congress is supposed to do many things constitutionally, right,
Speaker 2: I mean they they they don't always, but I mean
Speaker 2: I agree with you. The Senate is generally the more
Speaker 2: mature obviously the more mature chamber, but they you hope
Speaker 2: that Senate can be counted upon to carry out their
Speaker 2: constitutional duties regardless of regardless of political affiliation.
Speaker 1: Sure, I mean yeah, I brought it up because of
Speaker 1: I brought it up because of like the vote that
Speaker 1: they did to not have a vote.
Speaker 2: About Yeah, I mean we talked about that. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's why.
Speaker 2: And and that's concerning because their role is overside. The
Speaker 2: role is absolutely supposed to be a check on their
Speaker 2: power of the executive. I mean, that's part of that's
Speaker 2: all part of our constitution, right, It's supposed to be
Speaker 2: messy and at times a sea soul. That that was
Speaker 2: the intent of the founding fathers. I know that's an
Speaker 2: overused dogument. But it's absolutely the case. We should be
Speaker 2: we should be frightened by the prospect of the weak Congress,
Speaker 2: of the Congress that does not ever want to challenge
Speaker 2: the executive, regardless of who's in power.
Speaker 1: On anything else.
Speaker 3: Guys. That's it.
Speaker 1: I want everyone listening in Washington do us a favor.
Speaker 1: I want you to like and subscribe. I want you
Speaker 1: to rate it five stars on Apple or or Spotify.
Speaker 1: I want you to check out mixed new podcast, the
Speaker 1: pub and the Porch Applied Stoicism. Those links are in
Speaker 1: the description as well. Andy Milburn's got a great book,
Speaker 1: When the Tempest Gathers. That link is also in the description.
Speaker 1: And you two are working on something new that should
Speaker 1: be coming out soon, and I'm excited about that. So
Speaker 1: I don't know if you want to say anything now
Speaker 1: or we'll call it for later. It's up to you, guys.
Speaker 3: Yeah, let's want to talk a little. Let's let's get
Speaker 3: it done first. So we're talking about Yeah, we are
Speaker 3: working on it. It's it's it's real working on it's
Speaker 3: a regular warfare study.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So you know, keep your eyes on, ears off
Speaker 1: for that. We'll obviously let you guys know when it
Speaker 1: comes out and thanks guys. This is great.
Speaker 2: We're also a waiting our invitation to the Teamhouse Christmas party.
Speaker 1: There is no Teamhouse Christmas party this year. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: don't know, just decided against it. You guys wouldn't have
Speaker 1: came anyway. You're halfway around the world. Is a Montana.
Speaker 2: Virtually, how the Mighty fallen and the weapons of war perish?
Speaker 2: Thanks you guys.
Speaker 3: Gonna have to come out here one time and do
Speaker 3: it at the Whitefish thew.
Speaker 2: I'd love to from the white Fish.
Speaker 3: That's crazy bunch.
Speaker 2: No shortage of snow either, I would imagine that in
Speaker 2: the background. Yeah, oh yeah, great.
Speaker 1: Everyone must be happy in Montana. Thanks Mick, Thank you Andy.
Speaker 5: All right, Phella's hey, hey, guys, I want to tell
Speaker 5: all of you today about a new newsletter that we're
Speaker 5: launching that encompasses both the team House podcast, the eyes
Speaker 5: On podcast, and the high Side news outlet, which I
Speaker 5: run with Sean Naylor. The newsletter is going to be
Speaker 5: once a week. It's going to come into your inbox
Speaker 5: and you're going to get the most current podcasts on
Speaker 5: eyes On and the Team House and whatever's topical or
Speaker 5: current on the high Side. So it's another way for
Speaker 5: us to get the information out to you as social
Speaker 5: media algorithms are pretty iffy and you never really know
Speaker 5: what you're gonna get. So this is a once a
Speaker 5: week email. It'll slide into your inbox and it will
Speaker 5: have you know the greatest hits of that week.
Speaker 2: It's really good checking it out.
Speaker 5: The website for it is Teamhouse Podcast dot kit dot com,
Speaker 5: slash Join Teamhouse Podcast dot kit dot com slash join.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 5: You go there and you enter into your email list
Speaker 5: or you enter your email into the little thing on
Speaker 5: the website and you're good to go, and that'll be it.
Speaker 5: So we really appreciate your support and hope you'll consider
Speaker 5: signing up.
Speaker 3: Where's the link.
Speaker 5: The link will also be down the description if you're
Speaker 5: looking for it there, and that's Teamhouse Podcast, dot Kit,
Speaker 5: k I t Kilo India, Tango dot com backslash Join