Podcast Summary: The Team House – Eyes on Geopolitics

Episode: The DC Shooter Worked for CIA
Hosts: Dimitri Kontakos, Mick Mulroy, Andy Milburn
Date: December 1, 2025

Overview

This episode of Eyes on Geopolitics dissects the recent D.C. shooting involving a former Afghan interpreter affiliated with CIA-backed “Zero Units,” sparking renewed debate over U.S. vetting and resettlement of allied foreign nationals. The conversation expands to broader lessons about partner forces in irregular warfare, psychological trauma among veterans, and the complex calculus of U.S. intervention abroad. The second half pivots to escalating tensions with Venezuela, evaluating American interests, operational risks, and potential unintended consequences.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The D.C. Shooting Incident: Context and Ethical Implications

• Incident recap: Two National Guardsmen were shot, one fatally, by an Afghan who worked as a translator for CIA-linked “Zero Units.”
  (01:30)
• Vetting & obligations: Debate over responsibility toward Afghans who assisted U.S. operations and the effectiveness/limitations of vetting procedures.
• Danger of collective blame: Universal condemnation of the individual act but emphasis on not generalizing the crime to all interpreters or Afghan partners.
  • Mick Mulroy highlights parallel cases of violence by U.S. military personnel, cautioning against collective blame.
  • Quote: "We don't condemn the army and the Marine Corps in its entirety for the actions of those individuals." (03:14 – Mick Mulroy)
• Psychological wounds:
  • Both American and partner forces face lasting trauma from years of relentless combat, especially for locals who never had the option to rotate home.

2. PTSD and Irregular Warfare: Human Cost and National Security

• Unrelenting war's toll:
  • Afghan and Iraqi partners endured continuous, brutal conflict without respite, fundamentally changing many through trauma.
  • Andy Milburn: "PTSD is an awful thing … It changes people traumatically. It makes good people do bad things." (10:12)
• Implications for vetting:
  • Vetting mitigates, never eliminates, security risks. Many incoming allies hail from states with poor records, complicating background checks.
  • Mick Mulroy: "Any vetting process is mitigation of a threat. It's never going to be elimination of a threat." (08:13)

3. America's Track Record: Resettlement, Loyalty, and Consequence

• Abandoning allies:
  • The U.S. has a troubling history, across Vietnam, Laos, Iraq, and Afghanistan, of leaving local partners vulnerable after withdrawal.
  • Mick Mulroy shares the Hmong and Laotian example from Montana’s community:
    • "How did they get here? Because a bunch of CIA paramilitary and military special operations vets brought them from Laos when we decided we didn’t want to do that anymore." (14:14)
• Employment and integration:
  • Self-sufficiency and the right to work are seen as integral to successful resettlement; bureaucratic barriers can drive alienation and resentment.

4. Inside the 'Zero Units': Fact and Fiction

• Role and significance:
  • CIA-backed Afghan units were pivotal, taking greater casualties than U.S. troops, and arguably lowered American losses drastically.
  • Mick Mulroy: "We would have lost thousands of more soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines if it wasn't for these units." (16:56)
• Disputing abuses:
  • Mulroy rebuffs media depictions of endemic human rights abuses, citing close U.S. oversight and a lack of large-scale prosecutions or oversight committee turmoil.

5. Counterinsurgency and Partner Forces: Lessons Learned

• 'Light touch' vs. conventional warfare:
  • American success in post-2014 Afghanistan and similar theaters is attributed to specialized advisory operations and deep partnership with local units, not broad conventional deployments.
  • Andy Milburn: "The light touch – the better we do." He describes how embedding with indigenous fighters — living and working together — fostered trust and reduced 'green-on-blue' (insider) attacks. (20:56)
• Importance of trust:
  • Friction and failures grow when U.S. troops "virtual advise" from afar. True partnership is personal, involving risk-sharing.

6. Relevance to Future Conflicts: Institutional Adaptation

• Doctrine and selection:
  • Not every soldier can be a good advisor; special training, selection, and a more thoughtful institutional approach are crucial.
  • Discussion of U.S. and allied Security Force Assistance Brigades (SFABs), the British Ranger Regiment, and Canadian SOF as models.
  • Andy Milburn: "Not every soldier or marine makes a good advisor. So you have to have some kind of selection process." (36:45)
• Private military companies:
  • The rise of PMCs (in Ukraine, Israel, etc.) reflects the need for adaptable, specialized force options to supplement direct intervention.

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On Individual vs. Group Responsibility:
  "Don't condemn the entirety of the group based on the depraved actions of one individual." (03:14 – Mick Mulroy)
• On the Trauma of War:
  "PTSD ... changes people traumatically. It makes good people do bad things." (10:45 – Andy Milburn)
• On U.S. Allegiance:
  "We have a long history of unfortunately leaving our allies behind and then the community... stepping up." (13:59 – Mick Mulroy)
• On Partner Forces' Contributions:
  "If it wasn’t for them, we would have lost... Those would have been Americans." (16:56 – Mick Mulroy)
• On Military Action in Venezuela:
  "Only 30% support any military action in Venezuela. But the buildup is there... Everything's set for some kind of action." (40:03 – Mick Mulroy)
• On the Risks with Venezuela:
  "If we start, you know, attacking them... they might attack us. That's how this could escalate." (42:37 – Mick Mulroy)
• On Congressional Oversight:
  "Oversight is supposed to be done over every element, really, especially in national security." (53:56 – Mick Mulroy)

Venezuela: Forecast and Strategic Questions

1. Escalation Signs

• Intelligence and recent U.S. military posture (F-35 sightings, airspace warnings) suggest increasing readiness for intervention in Venezuela. (39:37)
• Low public and congressional support (approx. 30%) complicates the legitimacy of possible action.

2. Strategic Value

• Andy Milburn questions U.S. interests:
  "I don't see solid American interests being forwarded... it's hard to discern what those interests are right now." (44:51)

3. Operational Risks

• Military capabilities: Venezuela’s Russian and Iranian-supplied anti-ship and SAM missile inventory presents real risks to U.S. assets.
• Potential for escalation: Even limited airstrikes can trigger unpredictable retaliation.

4. Possible Outcomes

• Uncertainty about regime change’s effect — success isn’t guaranteed, and adversaries (Russia, Iran) may exploit instability to entrench.
• Humanitarian risks: widespread deprivation could worsen, potentially creating mass migration crises.

Additional Key Segments

• Green-on-blue trust and the advisor model:
  • Embedding yields fewer incidents and better mission outcomes due to deep interpersonal bonds.
  • Ancient Greek analogy: Spartans in Sicily as early “advisors,” shifting battle outcomes through mere presence. (32:54)
• Legal/Ethical Gray Zones in Warfare:
  • Complexities of distinguishing legal orders from illegal ones, especially when national standards are ambiguous or shifting (e.g., post hoc rulings on enhanced interrogation). (50:38)
  • Importance of moral agency among officers — not being “automatons.” (51:43 – Andy Milburn)
• Congressional Oversight:
  • Renewed hope for real investigation by the Senate Armed Services Committee in light of recent events.
  • "That should be what leads this. Not just, in my opinion, speculation." (53:32 – Mick Mulroy)

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 01:30 – Introduction to the D.C. shooting and Afghan “Zero Units”
• 03:14 – Mulroy on individual culpability vs. group condemnation
• 10:45 – Milburn discusses PTSD and the human cost of war
• 14:14 – Historical context: Hmong resettlement and U.S. obligations
• 16:56 – Explanation of the zero program’s impact & misunderstood allegations
• 20:56 – Transition to discussion of SOF-centric counterinsurgency
• 32:54 – Greek history—Sparta as “advisors”
• 39:37 – Venezuela conflict buildup, risks, and strategy
• 44:51 – Milburn questions U.S. interests in Venezuela intervention
• 50:38 – Legal/illegal orders and U.S. military ethics
• 53:32 – Call for congressional inquiry and the need for oversight

Conclusion

This episode balances urgent analysis of a highly publicized tragedy (D.C. shooting by a former CIA ally) with measured reflection on moral, operational, and policy dilemmas that recur wherever the U.S. forges alliances in war. The hosts make a strong case for avoiding xenophobic backlash while advocating for realistic, compassionate, and security-minded solutions in future coalitions. The discussion of Venezuela underscores the perils of intervention without clear interests, broad support, or appreciation for likely second-order effects.

"We have to be able to do both [conventional and irregular war], and part of it is having a word that you can trust from all the groups around the world."
(28:22 – Mick Mulroy)

For further reading on the Zero units, see articles by Jack Murphy and Sean Naylor.
For more on future episodes and resources, subscribe to the Team House newsletter.