Loading summary
Transcript32 lines
- [00:02]
A
Hi, I'm Ben Parker from the Bulwark.
- [00:04]
B
And hi, I'm Mark Hartling from the Bulwark.
- [00:06]
A
We have a very special episode of Command Post. We have been talking again and again about how one of these days we're just going to ignore the news and do a mailbag and answer all of your questions and. Well, that's not exactly what we're doing. There's too much news we have to start with right off the bat. There's the war resolution, there's the guy who has Hertling's old job, who has, let's say, been reassigned, and there's a flu epidemic breaking out. So we got to talk about that. And then we're going to do this whole thing as a lightning try to keep it short and be. And we're going to get to as many of your questions as possible. You all sent in some really interesting questions. I don't know the answers to a lot of them, so I'm going to toss them up and let the general knock them down. And why don't we go ahead and get started, General, with the Senate vote on the War Powers Resolution. So the House voted on this a while ago. In both cases, it was some Republicans joining with basically all the Democrats and saying now that, I mean, just this week that more or less Trump has to stop combat operations in Iran. Is that right?
- [01:13]
B
Yeah. Now that we're. We've kind of stopped combat operations and we're heavy into the MoU phase, we do have a war of powers resolutions. It's, it's. You know, Ben, I gotta tell you, we've talked about this. It's, it's largely pro forma, but it's important because there were a couple of Republicans that came over, I think four that came over and voted for it. One Democrat, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, voted against it, which is interesting, but it is symbolic and it's a reinforcement of how American citizens, through their representatives in the Congress and the Senate, should have a say as to whether or not America goes to war. And even though this all happened yesterday, the President this morning, who I think is going to Congress today to speak with the Republicans as part of an interesting dynamic, has called all the people that voted for this war power a bunch of losers. And that's kind of an interesting take from the commander in chief as he's going to talk to the Republican, calling everybody to include Republicans who will be in the session. He's when losers, because they voted to maintain some consistency in how the nation goes to war.
- [02:30]
A
Yeah, we'll talk about this more because we had a great question about war powers. But what exactly this means legally is really open for debate. The War Powers act of 1973 was part of this ongoing battle between Congress, which under the Constitution has the authority to raise armies and navies and declare war, and the President who is the commander in chief. And there's always this tension about like, what does that mean when you get right down to the nitty gritty details. So Congress said in 1973, in the middle, basically after the Vietnam War, well, the President, you can do a little bit, but if it lasts beyond a certain period of time, it's like a 60 day threshold, there's a 90 day threshold, whatever. Congress has to approve it. And then the Supreme Court said, well, not exactly, because you know, you can't just have Congress approve it. That's not a law. And the whole thing is very complicated. And the executive has never, no president has ever admitted that this act is constitutional. So as you said, it sort of means nothing. But the symbolism is everything. The symbolism is Congress does not approve of the war. That's what a majority of members of the House and Senate said. I got to admit, I think it's kind of lame to do this after the fighting is done. Like if you're going to send a message, send a message, but whatever, it's something.
- [03:44]
B
Well, I would say there is one key element of this because the administration is going to Congress asking for a war supplemental of $80 billion. And that's certainly something Congress can contribute to in terms of holding those fundings back connected to this war powers vote. Republicans are really kind of in a very bad position on this because they understand that all of this, the funding, the actions, the President ignoring of the Congress is all kind of falling on them if they continue to support. And there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of American people behind this war. So the funding of it will become an interesting piece as they look for that $80 billion supplemental which is going to be discussed today as well.
- [04:34]
A
Yeah, that's going to be interesting. Okay. We promised to do a lightning round. Moving on. Your successor several times removed double entendre there, didn't even intend it. As commander of US Army Europe has been removed from his post. This is General Donahue. The Wall Street Journal is reporting this. We've seen a lot of these, not exactly firings, but quasi firings of three and four star generals and admirals and also lower ranking officers. What should we know about this?
- [05:10]
B
Well, first of all, A little bit about Christopher Donahue. Four star general. Everyone knows him as cd he was a special operator, commander of the Ranger Regiment with Delta Force. He is, in Hegseth words, very lethal. But he's also an extremely brilliant guy and really good in terms of international affairs as well as war fighting. He was when he was selected to pick to follow General Chris Cavoli, who I knew real well, who was also not only a war fighter, but a Russian expert, spoke several languages. You're getting some of the cream of the crop in U.S. army Europe, Africa. And that's different from when I commanded it, Ben. It was just US Army Europe. Now it is Usura RAF. So it includes Africa. You have 49 countries in Europe, 54 in Africa. This guy kind of oversees anything that goes on between those two nations. From an army perspective, it's a large, complex organization and he was the right guy to take command of it. Considered to be a potential future chief of staff of the Army. And that was maybe why he was put there, to get some more experience on international affairs. A potential future chairman of the Joint Chiefs. That's how good this guy is. And then suddenly yesterday he announced his retirement, which allegedly will take place on a ceremony on July 2nd. When you do it that quickly with a four star general, that means there's more afoot. There was some real disagreement at both the Normandy celebration commemoration a few weeks ago. When Hegseth went over to give a speech at the cemetery at Normandy, he said some things that really upset a lot of our allies. After that event, there were a lot of the Department of Defense rapid response actions of showing films of Hegseth going around shaking hands with 100-year-old veterans and all that. What you didn't see a lot of was General Donahue going around to the bars in St. Mary Glace and having multiple beers with those veterans and listening to them. That's the kind of guy he is. He's more of a soldier soldier. Just an unbelievable operator. But he knows people. And to see now he's added to the list of more than two dozen senior three and four star generals, which was our bench within the army. But the other services as well is just really distressing. And I think what they will do is replace this four star position with a three star position, which will further degrade the reputation of US Army Europe.
- [07:59]
A
Yeah, that would be a big shame. You know, things like, especially when you get to the level where generals are part diplomats and they're interacting with their peers abroad. Things like how many stars you Wear on your shoulder really matter. That's why During World War II, we invented basically the five star rank so that our generals could be, you know, even with their British and Soviet counterparts.
- [08:18]
B
I just reached over on my desk, Ben, if I can. This was a coin. You know, we give those challenge coins out for US Army Europe. It was the last one I had, so I kept it as a remembrance. But what's interesting about this, this is a representation of the patch of US Army Europe, which was first worn by General Eisenhower as the commander of Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces. The representation of a flaming sword on a blue shield was when Eisenhower originally designed the patch, it was a black background to the flaming sword because he was entering the darkened continent of Europe. When Lucius Clay took command from Eisenhower, he changed it to a blue background, saying, the light is now throughout Europe. And this is the patch that US Army Europe has worn ever since.
- [09:10]
A
That's incredible. One last comment I want to make on this story, which is, you know, this kind of thing we now have to talk about. General Donahue was a white guy. So I think we're seeing two different patterns of, let's call them personnel actions at the senior levels of the Defense Department. One is we're seeing a lot of people who are not white and not men seem summarily just stricken off promotion lists summarily. Their careers basically summarily ended. And then we have a different pattern of white guys who wear stars on their shoulders who are suspiciously retiring early. And those seem to be people who maybe said something to Hegseth, like, I think you made a mistake, or I would do it differently, or I think you're wrong. Obviously, we don't know exactly what transpired in this case, and we have very little information about these cases generally, but it seems like the default answer to any problem is fire someone.
- [10:05]
B
Well, there's a little bit of a conspiracy theory blossoming here too, Ben. I'll throw it out there. Laura Loomer has been knocking General Donahue ever since the exit from Afghanistan. The famous picture that's on that shot that Matja showed that's on the front of the Washington Post is General Donahue being the last person to leave Afghanistan because he was entering the ramp of a C130 after all his troops had already departed. Reminiscent of the movie. We were soldiers once when. When Mel Gibson got. Was the last commander on the helicopter. True story. From the Adrang Valley. Donohue was the last guy out of Afghanistan commanding the 82nd Airborne Division, which came in to support the withdrawal and the non combatant evacuation operation. So he is tarred with being part of what many would say is a, was a botched withdrawal. I would never say that because I don't think it was. But I think we're going to see some conspiracy theories of things being hung on Donahue for being the guy that was the last one out of Afghanistan. Let's watch and see what happens in the future.
- [11:26]
A
Great. Well, that would not be the first case we've discussed as someone being tarred by this administration, by this DoD leadership for the orders they got previously. That seems to be another pattern. Okay, our last, our last lightning round story before we go to the ad and then take your questions. The if you enlist in the Air Force or Space Force, you will go to Lackland Air Force Base in Texas. That is the one place they do new training for enlisted personnel. And you have a very good likelihood right now of having the flu. At least 222 recruits at Lackland Air Force Base, which is in San Antonio, have the flu and four have been hospitalized. This comes not long after Secretary Hegseth removed the requirement that service members get the flu shot every year. He said it was part of their freedom. Still have to get various vaccinations for a bunch of other things. Like I think, do you still have to get anthrax vaccinations? I don't remember.
- [12:24]
B
Yes.
- [12:24]
A
Yeah, still anthrax, a whole bunch of things because that's part of the job. But the flu, you don't. And so now you get the privilege. It's your right to get the flu while in basic training.
- [12:34]
B
Yeah. Well, I'm going to throw some more at you here, Ben. I didn't prepare you for this. Joint base. San Antonio is not only the Air Force basic training site, the major basic training site, it is also arguably the most important military medical education and training hub in the Department of Defense. It is the center for the medical, excuse me, medical education and training campus, METC at Fort Sam Houston. And that's the primary training location for Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, enlisted medical personnel. And it's widely recognized as the largest enlisted military health care education campus in the world. Wow. Approximately 16,000 medical students, soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, across 50 medical specialties, a daily student population of about 5,500. And it's the U.S. army's medical center of excellence. So you've got a flu outbreak at not just the Air Force Training Base, but also the major medical center in the US Military.
- [13:46]
A
And you know, it's not like they can Say, oh, you've got the flu, take a week off, we'll do training later. Right. I mean, they've got to get people into service. They've got another class coming in behind. If you lose time in training, be it medical training, be it basic training, whatever, that's just lost time, right?
- [14:00]
B
Well, yeah, not only that and you have such a short window for training in the first place, but you know, I was looking online yesterday when this story continued to break and get larger and larger and of course all the anti vaxxers are saying, I never got a flu shot in my life and I've never had the flu. Great. You probably were not in a barracks with 500 other people in close proximity training and breathing on each other when you didn't get that flu shot. So it was a luck of the draw. But when you have this many soldiers or in this case airmen together and, and you have any kind of infectious disease, somebody's going to get it and it's going to be passed around very quickly unless you're inoculated.
- [14:41]
A
If only someone had warned them. If only. If only. It's question time. First question since we were talking about war powers just a minute ago from Marta. Her question is all about the War Powers act and what it means sort of operationally for the military. How does it affect the military to keep fighting after the War Powers Acts time window has expired. Are there legal consequences for officers ordering operations when we're not legally at war? If that's even the case, does it affect morale? Are there benefits or accommodations service members would qualify for in an actual war that they're not getting because we're not in a war? And how does this come across as America accepting rules and laws don't apply to war fighting? And how does it affect the military culture in the short and long term? That's a whole bunch of questions. And I would just add as context that the House passed the War Powers Resolution saying we disapprove of this combat, of this war while there was still sort of quasi a war going on in Iran. And the Senate waited until after we were already in the negotiations phase. But generally, General, how do you generally, General, how do you respond to Martin's question?
- [15:47]
B
Yeah, it's a hard question to answer, but what I'll say is I've seen a lot of people asking the question, hey, if the soldiers are still fighting and the War Powers act hasn't been approved, are they now following illegal orders? No, they're not. You know, the war power exists because Congress represents The American people. The founders gave Congress the power to declare war because they believe the people's representative should have a voice before the nation commits its sons and daughters to war. The military doesn't get a vote. Soldiers follow lawful orders from their commanders, which emanate up to the commander in chief. But congressional involvement should force elected leaders to explain their objectives, the costs, the risks, the end states before Americans are asked to send their sons and daughters to war and make the sacrifice. So when Congress avoids the difficult vote, or when they don't vote at all because they don't want to offend the President, their result becomes strategic ambiguity, but not tactical ambiguity. I know I'm hedging this question a little bit, Ben, but what I'd say is soldiers will continue to fight if they're given the orders to do so. What they'll struggle with is any uncertainty about whether the American people support them and what success looks like as identified by the commanders in chief. This should work as part of a system. But what we've seen. Well, at least since the War Powers act was actually passed, there's been a whole lot of confusion. There's been a whole lot of talk about it, but the military will continue to do what they're told to do by their civilian bosses.
- [17:33]
A
Yeah, I don't have. I don't have much to add to that, really. You know, the whole. The constitutionality of the War Powers act is really complicated and nuanced. And if you want to say that anything the President does with the military without prior congressional approval is unconstitutional, that's. That's one theoretical interpretation of the Constitution. I'm not going to say you're wrong, but it's not the way the rules work right now. So the whole thing just gets really, really confused.
- [17:57]
B
Well, not just right now. It acted the same way when the War Powers Authorization of Use of military force, the alleged AUMF during the global War on Terror, was actually in existence for several decades. And there was some, truthfully, some bastardization of that law, too, because people wanted to hit different targets.
- [18:19]
A
Yeah. And if Congress really wanted to. To end a war, they could say, no more money. You're not allowed to spend any more money on the war. They could say, we're disestablishing the units that are. That are, you know, contribute to the war. They could say, we're not going to have an army and Navy next year if they really wanted to. The issue is, it's the, you know, the political possibilities and the. The interplay between the branches. All right. Moving on, lightning round. I'm trying to get this going because we have a lot of questions. Let's go to Mark. When the US moved to a professional military after Vietnam, a veteran warned me that a professional military would allow politicians to wage endless wars. Was he right? He felt the only way to check politicians war desires was for everyone to participate in our defense. So what do we make of the all volunteer force?
- [19:08]
B
Yeah, there's an argument about this that, that you know one. Well, I'm going to start with a little bit of history. One reason that political leaders were cautious during World War II was that nearly every family member had skin in the game. Everyone was fighting in World War II and everyone knew someone who was serving. But today, as I've said a couple times in both writing and on this show, less than 1% of the Americans serve. So less than 1% of our 18 to 24 year olds are wearing the uniform of the country. And most Americans don't prevent personally know any of them. I can't tell you the number of times Ben, I'll get a DM or a text message from somebody saying yeah, well I support the military because my great uncle served in World War II. That's great, but that's not an understanding of what's going on today and that distance matters. To get back to the question though, I'll tell you a little history. When when the, the generals in the 1970s and 80s began designing the all volunteer force Post Vietnam. During Vietnam we had a draft and people were drafted for it. They designed a situation where they put critical capabilities in the Reserve and the National Guard. And here's what I'm suggesting on that. So if you take, I don't know, let's name a couple truck drivers, some military police, civil affairs officers. And I think we have another question on civil affairs coming up. If you put those in the National Guard or the Reserve, then you have to mobilize them and you get more of a connection with the American people. So the idea in that design was that if America went to war that communities across the country would feel the effects of it because reservists would be mobilized. But nobody really fully anticipated the degree to which people would be mobilized during the global war on terrorism from 2001 to 2000. Well, till today, you still see a lot of National Guard tank units and there's plenty of tank units in the army to reinforce the active components. What I'll tell you is during Desert Storm we had a Puerto Rican bath and laundry unit, National Guard with us in the desert. I had never heard of the fact that the army had a bath and laundry unit. But sure enough, these great young men and women from Puerto Rico showed up with their washing machines and their mobile heaters for the showers that we hadn't had in about three weeks. And they were mobilized to be along with us. So, yeah, the professional military that we have right near the volunteer force can make it easier for political leaders to employ forces to because so few citizens have a direct connection to it. But I don't think that there's an answer of, hey, let's reestablish the draft so we make it harder to have war. Vietnam was fought with a draft, and it didn't cause people to second guess that. But the answer, I think, instead of a draft is accountability. How do you use that military? How do the civilian leaders use the military in different ways? And how do they connect what military force is being used for when they speak to the American public?
- [22:40]
A
It's a great answer. You know, they tried to. To when they. After. After Vietnam, they tried to sort of thread the eye of the needle and have the perfect force that was well trained and professional and capable and would follow orders lawfully. Yeah, big part of having a professional military and all volunteer military, but also wouldn't be too separate from the rest of society, which is why they gave the National Guard those particular responsibilities. There are a lot of arguments going on right now about, you know, coming on 50 years later if we got that balance right. There's also no doubt that if we end up in a very, very big war like World War II, like Vietnam, we will have some kind of draft. The Selective Service system is still in effect. You know, I've registered for it. By law, men have to register for it when they turn 18. That's still part of the design.
- [23:33]
B
Wouldn't it be surprising if we did get into a major war and suddenly, Ben, you got something in the mail saying, welcome to the US army or Air Force or Navy. That would be interesting in and of itself. Right.
- [23:44]
A
I would immediately write back and say, can I get a flu shot?
- [23:48]
B
Okay, one more personal point on this. Whereas I'm not for re establishing the draft across the board, I am a huge proponent of national service in some area for all people, because you see how you can contribute to your communities and your government, whether you're working overseas or working in a community. But I think every young person should have an opportunity to spend at least some time in community service of some type of.
- [24:17]
A
Yeah, I think that's a I think it's a great idea. You mentioned Civil affairs units. We have a question from Ryan. Before I read this question, Ryan, if you ever played for the New York jets, send us another email. Confirm if that's you. Okay. Does General Hurtling have any stories or insight from working with Civil affairs units? Have they been. Have they likely been deployed in recent operations? Should they be? Are there concerns in a post USA world us Sorry, a post USAID world that civil affairs might be sidelined?
- [24:47]
B
Yeah. You know, I'd start off by saying civil affairs may be one of the least understood and most important specialties in the military. Have I worked with them? Absolutely. We had Civil affairs brigades with us in Iraq during both my tours in 2003 and 4 and 20078 and they were magnificent. The these go back to the point we were talking about before. The majority of Civil affairs units are from the reserve component. So they are folks who in their civilian lives normally do stuff that's related to civil affairs, like, oh, I don't know, sanitation systems or infrastructure repair or those kinds of things. So the brigade, the Civil Affairs Brigade I had with me in Iraq, and by the way, this was interesting because when I was In Iraq in 2003 and 2004, one of my classmates from West Point who had gotten out of the service, a guy named Todd Blackbourne, was actually commanding the Civil affairs unit as a reservist and he was attached to the 1st Armored Division and he was doing all sorts of things in Baghdad. They work with local government, schools, hospitals, businesses, religious leaders, community organization, and they help commanders to understand the civilians objectives and it helps the civilians understand the military objectives. I'll go one step further, Ben, and just kind of wrap this up. When we had Civil affairs with us in 2007 and 8, when I was commanding the 1st Armored Division, they were working specifically with, with representatives from the State Department and USAID in teams which were called Provincial Reconstruction Teams or Regional Reconstruction Teams in the Kurdish area. So these were large teams, usually led by a State Department official, but that had USAID military members and they received support from the conventional force in, in terms of guarding them and guarding their facilities. So yeah, I think they're critically important. And I believe, and I did work with them, and I believe we should not or could not go to war without them.
- [27:08]
A
You mentioned a West Point classmate of yours who had left the service, which brings up something Ty mentions in his question. As the father of a current female officer in the Coast Guard, I hear young female ensigns, the equivalent of A Army lieutenant and lieutenants the equivalent of a captain more or less in the Coast Guard and Navy, saying they will now quote five and dive, meaning five years in the service and then get out. Whereas just two years ago they were talking about how they wanted to stay in for their full careers. They're highly trained officers, many of them graduates of the academies with specialties like nuclear power, cyber defense intelligence, things like that. They seem to feel that if they spend 15 years in the service and then they get displaced from command because they're women, as seems to be happening in Hegseth's Defense Department, they would have wasted their careers. Seems to me Hegseth has already had a major negative impact on these young officers and hurt the service for years to come. That's technically not a question, but my question is this. How much is this sort of normal attrition of the officer corps? People come in and think I'm going to wear stars one day and they do their first tour and they think maybe I'll go do something else. And how much of this is different and new? And what would you say to these young Navy and Coast Guard officers who are worried about their careers?
- [28:22]
B
Well, I'll say it to all the officers and enlisted throughout the force, especially the officers in the NCOs. Yeah, some attrition is normal. There are some that go into the military thinking they're going to make it a 20 year career and then get out and have a great retirement. There are some that go to West Point or ROTC and have a usually a five or a four year commitment after their graduation because the military has paid for their education. And the military not only knows that this is normal, that some will get out, but they expect a percentage to complete their initial obligation and move on. And in fact, they plan for it. They look at 20 years out from any graduating class of officers and predict how many of those new second lieutenants will someday be lieutenant colonels. So they model what branches they go into, like armor or military intelligence or infantry, based on what they think might happen on early return. So there's a lot of mathematic that goes into this. But what's different today is the reason some of the folks are talking about or thinking about or actually leaving the military. Historically, they leave because they want a different lifestyle. They want greater stability for their family or opportunities in the private sector and using their military education to do it. But what concerns me now is hearing officers question, as you just said, whether merit and promotion will contribute to their departure. You know, the.