Loading summary
Transcript38 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign hi, I'm Ben Parker from the Bulwark.
- [00:06]
B
And hi, I'm Mark Hertling from the Bulwark.
- [00:08]
A
Welcome back to another episode of Command Post. Thank you so much for joining us. We have to start we're gonna, we're gonna talk about Pete Hegseth. We promised. It's in the title, it's in the thumbnail of the video. We're gonna go through a whole bunch of Pete Hexith stuff. But we have to start with an Iran update because in not too much, maybe before even we're done with this live stream, the president is going to be having a cabinet meeting to talk about the Iran negotiations. It is not at all clear to me what's happening. There are lots of reports about what may or may not be in this memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran. General, can you give us an update on Iran, please, because I can't follow it.
- [00:45]
B
Yeah, let's, let's try and summarize as best we can. BEN okay, so it's the 27th of May, and the United States and Iran are in what many might describe as an unstable armed pause. Now, you got to remember, epic Fury started on the 27th of February. So we're three months into this as an anniversary. And what we've seen over the last few days have been confusing. There's been continued combat actions over both sides in this so called memorandum of understanding phase. But the combat phase that began in February has diminished, certainly. But the issues that caused the conflict remain unresolved. And in some ways I'd suggest they've actually worsened. And that's probably what the president's going to talk about tonight. There are still major disconnects between tactical developments, what's going on with boats and ships in the straits, political messaging both sides are claiming with their own unique kind of spin with the strategic outcomes they've achieved. But the members of the Trump administration continue to describe the current situation as evidence of peace through strength. In other words, the military is what has caused all these things and that it has worked. Iran, on the other hand, is portraying the pause as proof that they have survived the regime change effort and they forced Washington to negotiate. So both sides are claiming victory. And in this kind of situation, that usually means neither side has truly resolved anything. So these are the big things I'd like to point out, Ben. The current talks reportedly involved from the US Side, reopening the Straits of Hormuz to commercial traffic phase, sanctions relief, potentially release of frozen Iranian assets, reduction or withdrawal of some US Naval forces and discussion of Iran's nuclear and missile programs. Now, I didn't list those in order of importance because what's it. What I think is interesting is the. Washington wants, you know, Trump wants de escalation the nuclear breakout of Iran prevented and to restore shipping activities. Iran appears to want regime survival, sanctions, relief, restoration of oil exports and preservation of at least some nuclear capability, whether it be for weapons or commercial use. So you can see, it's interesting that neither side has a clear picture during this Memorandum of Understanding what they want to achieve.
- [03:28]
A
Yeah, I want to focus in on what I think are the two main sticking points here. One of them is the Strait of Hormuz, which it sounds like the Iranians want to say, okay, we'll resume shipping. Unclear if that means shipping with their toll booth system where they have to charge, you know, they get to charge whatever they want to different ships from different countries, which would effectively leave them in control of the strait. Or so they want a resumption of shipping and the United States Navy to withdraw. So that effectively leaves Iran in control of the strait. I don't think we're going to agree to that. I certainly don't think we should agree to that, but I don't. The other, the other moving piece is the, the nuclear program, which, and I wrote about this right when the. Right when the Operation Epic Fury started is sort of people have trouble thinking, and the people in the administration seem to have trouble thinking about in connection with the rest of what Iran is doing. And we've heard about this from the administration. They wanted regime change. That was clear. Right. Help us on the way to the Iranian protesters. We're going to, you know, have our own. Trump was even saying, there's new leadership in Iran. There's new leadership. I'm going to choose the next ayatollah. He didn't. And then, so sorry. There was regime. Regime change. And then they said, oh, no, actually, we just want to destroy the Iranian navy. That was the point, just to destroy the Iranian navy. And then Trump decided, no, actually, they must. They must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, which doesn't explain why we didn't just do a repeat of Midnight Hammer from last summer almost a year ago, where we just bombed the nuclear facilities. So it seems like Iran has sort of two trump cards, if you will. One is the Strait of Hormuz, which they are basically negotiating to get control of. And we apparently cannot reopen, otherwise we would have done so, or at least we think the cost is too high. And the other is some element of their nuclear weapons program, which my understanding is was almost entirely destroyed a year ago or a little less than a year ago.
- [05:36]
B
It was obliterated. Yeah. Right. Obliterated, yeah.
- [05:40]
A
So it seems like they're saying, okay, well, like, you know, it seems like their negotiating position is, regardless of what they're actually saying, which is we want all of this right there seems like maybe the negotiating position is, which poison pill do you want to take? Trump administration, do you want the nuclear poison pill or the Strait of Hormuz poison pill? And it's not clear to me that the Trump administration has a plan for any of this, a plan for negotiating, a plan for achieving any kind of result. And my worry is that Iran is going to end up with both.
- [06:08]
B
Well, the shift has been, even though the, the dialogue seems to focus on the nuclear program, the real shift has been reopening the straits for the world's economy, global supply chains. It's been fascinating. You outlined all the shifts and pauses and redirections that we've seen over the last three months. And it has been interesting that the operational, the campaign, the military approach has shifted several times during this operation. The end state was never quite clear. And I think, again, I'm going to go back to the point that there are indicators and reports, valid reports from good agencies saying that Mr. Trump was pushed into this by Prime Minister Netanyahu. Netanyahu saw an opportunity. Iran had been damaged over the last year, plus, so let's finish them off by decapitating their leadership, which is what was attempted on the first night and achieved on the first night. But again, it doesn't show an understanding of how hardy the institutions are in Iraq, that they don't depend on one individual. They depend on the institutions of the ayatollah, the religious institutions, and the military institutions of the irgc. So that's why we're seeing continued shifts. Will the straits open, as you pointed out, will Iran attempt a toll booth? I'm not sure they would be able to get away with that because that's interfering with rights of navigation. But they could certainly charge more for port fees or loading fees or the kinds of things that commercial ships would have to pay to use their facilities to transport the goods. But it wouldn't necessarily be payment just to traverse the Strait of Hormuz. But it could certainly increase the economic situation here. That's what I think President Trump is primarily interested in. But as he stands outside his helicopters every day burning holes in the grass and the need for a helipad at the White House. It seems to be the primary focus is on the nuclear capability, which, as you so rightly said, was announced having been obliterated a couple of months ago. So I, I just don't get that disconnect. And it just, it just really, I think, affects the ability to trust whatever we're hearing from the government or from Mr. Trump himself.
- [08:46]
A
Yeah. I would just make two final points, which is it really seems like the nuclear issue has become, and I take the nuclear issue very seriously. I don't think Iran should have a nuclear weapon. But I, but I think after Midnight Hammer back last June, they weren't, they weren't close to nuclear weapon. They, their ability to make a nuclear weapon had been severely degraded is apparently what it looks like. So I think that nuclear issue has now become sort of a post hoc rationalization for why we're at the war in the first place.
- [09:14]
B
It's their spinning point. It's. It's their messaging point.
- [09:17]
A
Right, right, right.
- [09:18]
B
Yeah.
- [09:19]
A
The other, the other point I'd make is after the first decapitation strikes that killed among other people, the former Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, the Iranian system did what it is designed to do. They have a body that elects the next supreme leader. They elected his son, who everyone, I think, thought was going to be the sort of consensus candidate between the clergy and the irgc. It's the Revolutionary Guard Corps, and that's Khamenei's son. Most of Khamenei we didn't hear about from most of Khamenei for weeks. There was, there were reports that maybe he was injured in some of the initial bombings and that, like, maybe he was like sort of supreme leader in name only because he was bedridden and maybe dying. There were all sorts of reports we heard from a bunch of other people, like the speaker of the Majlis, the Parliament, like the foreign minister. Now we're starting to hear statements that at least are in the name of Moshe Bahomenei. So this is the one guy that Trump said he would not allow to become supreme leader. And not only is he de jure the supreme leader, but at least apparently there someone is putting out statements in his name. I don't think we've seen video of him yet. But, like, as you said, yeah, the Iranian system is kind of working as designed. And that's not regime change. That is the regime just carrying on. It would have been no different if Ali Khamenei just had a heart attack.
- [10:34]
B
Yeah, they are damaged to be sure, there have been a lot of facilities destroyed that are connected to the military and to the regime itself. But again, we've seen this in other recent wars. You can destroy a lot of things, you can kill a lot of people, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you are going to achieve your strategic end state, which has been the case in this. And truthfully, Ben, I've noticed a lot of writing by individuals in the last couple days. Those ambassadors, people who are part of former administrations are all suggesting finally what many in the military have said, even Secretary Mattis, General Mattis when he was president. Let's spend a little bit more time on diplomacy before we start using the weapon of choice, which is the military. And I think that's where again, we can chalk up this particular operation as failing in that resolve.
- [11:30]
A
Yeah, I agree. Okay. So speaking of previous wars and before we move on to talk about our dear, dear friend Pete Hegseth, we have heard your pleas and your cries and your requests and. And we finally have a Bulwark Book Club led and hosted by the Bulwarks.
- [11:50]
B
Those are pleas and requests.
- [11:52]
A
No, no, sorry, I mean the. The pleas and cries and requests of the Bulwark members who are for years. Bulwark Book Club hosted by the Bulgarian. And the first installment for June, for next month, it's going to be like a once a month things. You have time to actually read the book. The first installment, the book under discussion is Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling's own if I Don't Return a Father's Wartime Journal. So if you don't have your copy yet, order it now. Read the book. It is such a good read. It is the kind of read that is fast because you can't put it down.
- [12:28]
B
Well, thank you, Ben. And I'll say it. A lot of the listeners are right now thinking to themselves, boy, that's self serving and nepotism. But it. First of all, I'm very thankful because Mona reached out to me after she started reading the book and said, hey, we're going to start this book club and we want you to be the first victim, I guess would be the term. But it was a real honor that she would ask me to do this. And I think it's keeping it within the family. But I also think it's appropriate around the date. She's doing it for Father's Day. But also the message, talking about character and leadership and the way our nation's military works. So I'm happy to be a part of that. And I appreciate Mona asking Me?
- [13:09]
A
Yeah. No, you and I had a conversation about this. There's a lot in that book that is about fatherhood. Because this book is based on letters you wrote to your. To your sons from service in the Gulf War, from. From combat, from. From your deployment. This is going to be a live stream for Bulwark plus members on YouTube and on Substack on Monday, June 8 at 7pm so before then, if you have questions about the book, comments about the book, you want to participate in the book club, you can send us your questions, comments on the. On the book club, post on the website. We'll put a link in the show, notes for that. If you're on YouTube, you can just drop a comment on the video. We'll collect those for the book club and then again, we'll discuss all of that on June 8th at 7pm Eastern.
- [13:56]
B
Can't wait.
- [13:56]
A
Again, I cannot recommend the book enough. It's really great.
- [13:59]
B
Yeah, thank you. Appreciate that.
- [14:01]
A
Okay, so this next thing we're going to do, we spent a lot of time talking about Pete Hegseth. We're going to do a deep dive, a close reading of Pete Hegseth, because this speech that he gave that you flagged for us to the graduation ceremony at West Point was sort of a cornucopia of everything that is wrong with the way he's running the Department of Defense. So here's how I think we're going to do it. We have a bunch of clips from his speech, and I'm gonna just engage in rank, political punditry. Punditry. And share my opinions or whatever. But you are not only a graduate of West Point, you were also commander of the Army's Training and Doctrine Command. Correct. So how we. How the army accepts new people into its ranks and new officers included was a big part of your responsibility. And you have a lot of experience. So while I do the yelling and screaming, I want you to give the professional analysis of what. What maybe should have been done instead.
- [14:58]
B
Yeah. It just struck me, Ben, though. Can I make a correction? What you said I was not the Commander of Training and Doctrine Command. I was commander of one of the sub elements of Training and Doctrine Command. The initial military training, which takes about 160,000 soldiers and 40,000 officers every year into the force and teaches them how to wear the uniform, how to shoot and salute, and all the other things that soldiers do.
- [15:21]
A
Sorry. Right. So even more specifically applicable to West Point, which is for new officers. All right. Any. Any quick. Any quick background you want to give about West Point and what it's like to be a cadet there before we start. Because you have to understand what these cadets are feeling when they're watching Pete Hegseth give this speech.
- [15:38]
B
Yeah, well, first of all, you know, I, I entered West Point in 1971. So that was 100 years ago. It's probably older than all of our, our listeners. And it was a different place back then. It was during the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War had been going on for several years. Not a whole lot of people wanted to join the army. That's probably why I got into West Point, because not too many other people wanted to do that. Although we had a class of about 1200 new cadets that entered in July of 1971. And it was four years of just intense academic, disciplinary, social, emotional and intellectual rigor. It was all male at the time. Women had not been admitted to the academy at the time. But what's interesting, Ben, I'll share this with you. I've had the opportunity to go back to West Point over the last couple years on multiple occasions because they have a program they call the 50 year affiliation program. So as a graduate of the class of 1975, we were the 50th year affiliation program with the class of 2025, which graduated last May. During that four year period, my classmates would mentor and interact with the cadets that were currently involved in the program. And so I got to see up close and personal not only the way they do classroom activities, physical fitness activities I was part of for a three year assignment. I worked in the Department of Physical Education at West point in the mid-80s. So I knew that program pretty well. But the kinds of rigor that these young men and women go through today is just awe inspiring. If you've ever been there to the academy and you meet and talk to some of these people, I have concluded that had I attempted to enter with the class of 2025 as opposed to the class of 1975, I would have never got in. These are such good young men and women and so intellectually capable of. And to prove my point, they had the highest number of graduates this past year who were going off to medical school. 22. That normally doesn't happen. They've had the most amount of Rhodes Scholars and Marshall Scholars and Truman Scholars that graduate and go on to other programs of any other school. In fact, they're right up there with Harvard and Princeton in terms of their number of Rhodes Scholars. They have an incredible number of young men and women who are going right out to the force to take their place as second lieutenants and lead units in combat, as they've always done. So it is a pretty unique institution, just like all the other military academies. I was there last year in May of 2025 when President Trump gave the graduation address, and that was an interesting event. I won't say anything more about that, but listening to some of the takes from Secretary Hegseth at this year's graduation was also interesting. So you're, you're going to do the very political commentary, and I'll try and do the apolitical analysis of what cadets expect during their graduation versus what they received this year. And by the way, when I graduated, we had a president at our graduation. It was President Ford, and I don't remember a doggone thing he said because I was a little hungover from the night before and with an excruciating headache, which is what most graduates do. But we'll try and walk our way through the Secretary Hegseth graduation ceremony.
- [19:30]
A
All right, so we have a lot of clips here. Thanks to producer Matt for getting all these ready. We're going to try to get through as many of them as possible. Let's start with number one,
- [19:39]
C
for all those cadets who've committed minor infractions or violations of the regulations of the United States Military Academy for which ordinary and special punishment has been imposed or is being considered to the corps of cadets, as President Trump might say, say, a complete and total pardon.
- [20:11]
A
So that was one of the first things he said, and it really set the tone for the speech, which is we're going to get political here. Right? I mean, this is some of those complete and total pardons are, you know, the ones that Trump issued to people who attacked the Capitol on January 6th and people who committed a serious crime. So that's sort of the tone setting he had.
- [20:33]
B
Let me elaborate. Okay. In every military academy, at graduation or sometime even during the year, cadets get in trouble. They get demerits, they get room, what either call room tours or walking tours. So literally, let me describe this to you. They will walk with a rifle on Saturday and Sunday afternoon or morning to walk off demerits back and forth. It's a mindless event, but it's punishment for some type of disciplinary issue or an infraction at graduation. And sometimes when foreign dignitaries visit the academy, they are allowed to give what the academy calls amnesty. It's not a pardon, it's amnesty. So all the punishment tours are wiped away, and cadets don't have to do the silly things they have to do for their Disciplinary actions. So, Secretary Hegseth turning that phrase and saying pardons I thought personally was inappropriate. It's a turn of phrase for what is normally done at the academy, but it also is an indicator of what President Trump does to individuals who are guilty of crimes. He pardons them. It's not a pardon at West Point. It's amnesty to, okay, your crimes are for. Your disciplinary infractions are forgiven, so you can continue on with your cadet life as opposed to, hey, you're being pardoned from prison or a felony account, and you don't have to serve any more time. So, yeah, there's a distinct difference between the two, in my view.
- [22:10]
A
Yeah, definitely. Okay, let's. Let's get to clip number two, because I have thoughts about this one and
- [22:15]
C
that you have what it takes to lead Our nation's top 1%, America's most valued treasure, America's son and daughters, the American soldier. You are the real 1%. You are the real 1% of our society. You are the real elite, along with every soldier you'll ever lead. You are the absolute best that America has to offer.
- [22:51]
A
Couldn't help but notice the very unenthusiastic applause there. And frankly, I was happy to hear that because this is a delicate subject, and anyone who listens to this podcast, who watches this show will know that we absolutely honor the courage and very often the heroism of the people who serve in America's armed forces. It is a job that requires personal bravery, that requires discipline, that requires integrity. And the people who join the profession of arms and do so with honor are to be praised. No doubt about it. But Hegseth is saying something a little bit different. He's telling people in the military, you are better than other Americans. And if you read the whole speech or listen to the whole speech, he's. He's pretty clearly saying you are better than other Americans because your job involves violence. And that is a really uncomfortable thing to hear. You do not want to tell the military you are more worthy, you are better Americans. You count more than the people you are sworn to protect. That's a really dangerous message to send, and that's what I heard him saying, and that sent a shiver down my spine.
- [23:55]
B
Well, let me do the analysis of what he said, Ben, if you don't mind, please. He was saying that you are the top 1% of the country. What he's suggesting is that they are better than 99% of the civilian population. That's not the point of the 1%. The 1% number or percentage is the number of 18 to 24 year olds who serve in the military who serve under uniform. It is not that they're the top 1% of the country. They just happen to be the 1% that decide to serve in the professional force. So there's a difference there. The second thing I would suggest is that he's telling these individuals that they are better than everybody else. And personally, from a military perspective, I'm proud of the army. I served for 38 years too. But I personally believe we hear a little bit too much of that. We have to be a little bit more humble in our approach to military service and not consider the fact that everyone's praising us. And, and what he did in that statement, just there was praise. All of them, hey, you can congratulate them for going through four years at a very tough military school. You can congratulate them for passing all their courses and their physical fitness exams. That's not what he did. He suggested they were better than all other Americans, and that's just not true. There are a lot of really good people in other colleges and universities and even those who don't go to college who can compare with the cadets at West Point as they get ready to graduate and put on their bars. But they will be serving in a top notch military, there's no doubt about that. But one of the things most really good leaders in the military do is continually assess our capability. And if we always think we're too good and always carry the swagger, you know, I think Nemesis, the God Nemesis is always going to follow the God. Hubris. Whenever you get too caught up in yourself, you're always going to be brought down. So the key point for most military leaders is, hey, let's try and be a little bit more humble.
- [26:16]
A
Pride goeth before the fall. Okay? Clip number three is much more straightforward and just makes me want to bang my head against the wall. Let's Do Clip 3.
- [26:24]
C
Throughout our storied history, when soldiers said send me, it didn't matter whether they were well equipped or poorly equipped. It didn't matter whether they were stepping into a clear mission or a vague one.
- [26:39]
A
Fact check, false. Fact check, false. It matters if they're well equipped or poorly equipped. And by the way, part of the job of the Secretary of Defense is to make sure that they are well equipped to win so you're not sending people to a slaughter so they can actually accomplish the mission. It matters if they're stepping into a clear mission or a vague one. And by the way, Hegseth said this right in the middle of this memorandum of Understanding negotiation period, in the middle of the Iran war. He should be thinking about this every second of every day that it matters if the mission is clear or vague. I just, this is just patently false. He clearly doesn't understand his job or frankly like what the military is for.
- [27:17]
B
Yeah, and by the way, the phrase send me comes from a Bible verse and it was initially used by special operations forces. Hey, when America is in trouble, like the Lord said, send me. And it's interesting that he's co opting that to talk about a force that might be sent into harm ways is not well trained or well equipped. And he also suggested that, that they might not know what the mission is, but they'll go anyway. That scares the hell out of me because that's specifically what civilian leadership in the Department of Defense are supposed to do, is to make clear the orders from the President to the military, the uniform leaders of the military to make sure they do know what the mission is and how it, how it relates to national security.