← Truth in the Barrel
Loading summary
Transcript66 lines
- [00:00]
A
Introducing Family Freedom from T Mobile. We'll pay off four phones up to $3200 and give you four free phones, all on America's largest 5G network. Visit t mobile.com familyfreedom up to $800 per line via virtual prepaid card typically takes 15 days. Free phone via 24 monthly bill credits with finance agreement. Example Apple iPhone 16128 gigs $829.99 Eligible trade in example iPhone 11 Pro for well qualified credits end and balance due if you pay off early or cancel Contact Us.
- [00:30]
B
American engagement in the world has been a central part of the global order for the last 75 years. A major part of US leadership has been security alliances. These are agreements with our friends around the world. Those alliances are a major source of American power. Mr. Trump has used his office to bring these alliances into question in a way no other president has, has ever done. Today on Truth in the Barrel, we'll be talking with Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, a decorated army leader who has had firsthand experience maintaining and strengthening these alliances. His last assignment was the Allied Land Command with the United States Army Europe, where he oversaw land, NATO forces and operations. Lieutenant General Hodges, now retired. Welcome to Truth in the Barrel.
- [01:21]
C
Thank you for the privilege, Amy.
- [01:23]
B
I want to jump right in and I'm going to call you Ben, if that's okay.
- [01:28]
C
Please do.
- [01:29]
B
Good. Well, you have had such an extensive career in the United States army and particularly dealing with our allies around the world. Not just dealing, but strengthening our alliances around the world. And something that has happened, I think, in the past, I don't know, five to seven years has been this questioning of our alliances by the commander in chief in ways that I never thought would happen in my lifetime. I always figured this was something that both Republicans and Democrats care about, that our country needs. We now see Mr. Trump's recent statements about other NATO states not giving enough, not keeping their end of the deal up. And I want to start here. Given your experience in operations and consulting with our allies, are those fair statements? I mean, where did this sort of come from?
- [02:43]
C
So I think it's worth remembering that the United States does not have enough capabilities, air, land or sea or special forces or intelligence to do anything by ourselves. We depend on allies, whether it's their actual forces, intelligence sharing, or the access we get through bases. I mean, you'll know that we have Navy bases as well as army and air Force bases around the world that countries allow us to have there. This is to our benefit. So the essential nature of allies is Important. Secondly, only one time in the 75 years history of NATO has Article 5 ever been invoked. The Order 5, of course, is an armed attack on one shall be considered an armed attack on all. That was after 9, 11, and all of the other allies agreed that they would come help us. And we had allies from all the other NATO countries came to Afghanistan with us, and most of them also came to Iraq with us. So I think the thing that's annoying or frustrating that the, that the administration has touched on, as have all of their predecessors, is too many European countries and Canada did not live up to their obligations to be prepared to defend themselves. They took a holiday on defense spending and investment. They shrunk the size of their militaries. And so in that case, the administration was correct that the United States was carrying an unfair burden as part of the overall collective defense.
- [04:24]
B
Do you think the administration has been correct in the way it's handled it here? Because as you mentioned, there have been other administrations that have seen this problem. What's different now?
- [04:38]
C
Well, the main thing that's different is that people are finally waking up to the danger that is Russia, that what Vladimir Putin has done against Ukraine. More and more European countries realize that there is a real threat from Russia, both not just against Ukraine, but against Europe, especially if Ukraine fails. So, so they're realizing that they can't just assume that the United States is going to take care of everything for them. Now, I think the administration should get some credit for cranking up the pressure to a new level where people are realizing this is not a joke, that the President of the United States would actually do things that would have consequences more than just saying, you know, you guys are free. Free riders, which of course, is what President Obama called them. My, my only concern is that about this approach is that anything that creates a crack in the cohesion of NATO. If the Russians perceive that the United States might not actually defend a particular NATO country as part of a NATO defense, and the President has said that, then I think the risk of Russia making a terrible miscalculation possibly goes up.
- [06:01]
B
Yeah, I often think about if we didn't have these alliances or the US Withdrew from them, and you hear increasing talk of that. I think in this current administration, it's not maybe as significant as we think thought it would be, but it's still there. And I often try to talk to folks here in Kentucky about what these alliances give to us and that it's not just amount of money spent, there's a lot more than that. Can you Talk about that, because it's more than just you spend a bunch of money on this tank and we spend a bunch of money on these planes. It's also about intelligence, right? And basing and other things.
- [06:49]
C
So while the United States has unsurpassed intelligence capabilities with the men and women of our various intelligence services, the platforms that we have, the amount of effort that we put into it, that's the reason we have such a good intelligence system. But there are countries in Europe that will know more about Russia than we could ever get from a thousand satellites. I mean, you know, people from Estonia, Poland, Romania, Finland, they, they speak the language, they know who's who, they understand the culture in a way that we could never do it, no matter how long you went to grad school for it. So we benefit from this intelligence sharing both within the five eyes construct, but also in bilateral relationships. We would severely damage our own security if we lost that. And you've already seen, just last week, the Dutch intelligence services indicated that they are starting to rethink about what they share with the United States. That's bad for us. And that's because they're concerned about how that intelligence might be used, that it gets politicized. And as you know, the intelligence professionals, what they always are most interested in is protecting sources and methods. They don't want those exposed. Now the other thing that we get from allies, of course, is the capabilities that come from. Well, you take the American battalion that is in Poland, battalions, about 600 soldiers, that's a rotational force there, that's part of enhanced forward presence. Under this battalion they have a British company, a Polish company, company's about 120 soldiers and a Romanian air defense battery because we don't have enough air defense to give it to our own battalion. So the Romanians provide that. The best bridges that we have in Europe are German and British bridges because we don't have enough. So these are small examples of what we get. But I would, I would also remind all of your listeners that Europe is America's biggest trading partner. As a bloc, our economic interests are tied to European prosperity. And European prosperity requires European security and stability. So we benefit from a Europe that is prosperous because of the economic relationship. And by the way, there are thousands of, of American businesses in Europe, tens of thousands of Americans that live and work in Europe. So it's not some far off island that we would turn our back on.
- [09:36]
B
And also the tariffs that we are sort of putting on everyone right now, friend and foe, don't help with our Partnerships there. I mean, we talk about security, but security and the economy are linked. I want to ask you about something that I think is really important that sometimes is overlooked. The current administration also seems to sometimes cancel exercises with partners and allies. I find that to be a readiness issue and a real hit to our national security. And the reason why, in my belief, is, you know, when I went over to Afghanistan the first time, I did two tours over there, flew missions. This was in the early days, 2002 time frame, and we had a lot of other nations with us then. One of the. The nations that we had flying fighter jets with us was the French. And the French would have their Mirages, and we would all go do missions into Afghanistan, strike missions. And it became very apparent at the very beginning that we didn't have the communication that we needed to with the French because they didn't have the same equipment that we had, so we could have encrypted stuff, and they didn't have that. And so it ended up being very, very difficult to communicate, and the missions were hampered because of this. And I look at exercises. Exercises are a way to figure that stuff out. And you can say, well, we've been working with the French, and we've been working with the Germans, and we've been working with the Japanese for many, many years. We should know this stuff. But the reality is, and you know this, Ben, technologies change. You buy new equipment, you get new people, you know, and you. You have to test that stuff out, and you want to do it before bad things happen. And so when you cancel exercises, I feel like that's a. That's a big hit on our security alliances. Can you talk about that a little bit?
- [11:54]
C
Yeah, of course. I agree with that. The. The whole purpose of having forces is to be ready to do whatever missions are. And you cannot just sit in the barracks or hang out and expect to be able to perform, just like no professional or competitive sports team could do that. You have to practice. And so the complicated nature of modern warfare in a multinational construct requires that you practice to sort out the communications challenges that you talk to. I think I spent more time and effort on that than in almost any other topic. The three years I was the commander of US Army Europe was so that we could communicate securely with our different allies and even with British forces, because we had different equipment. It was not an automatic. You might speak almost the same, but the communications did not automatically work that way, and you really had to put a lot of work into it. And you are correct that this is not something you fix once and then it's good to go. It's a constant rotation of people. And frankly, the US Military, especially the army, is not set up for Europe. It's set up to go all around the world and, you know, that sort of thing. And so there's always a high level of surprise by American units that would deploy to Europe for a six month deployment and find out things that you didn't have to do when you were at the National Training center or maybe in the Middle east or something like that. So exercises are so important now. I mean, look, I can remember when I was a major in Korea, South Korea back in the 90s, and we had worked almost most of the year getting ready for the big team spirit exercise, and at the last minute it was canceled. This was 1994, maybe, something like that. And of course it was canceled for political reasons. So this happens. But it really undermines readiness when you cancel an exercise. And so, yeah.
- [14:05]
B
What are you worried about right now, Ben, with everything happening in the world? I think here at home we're focused on the government shutdown, we're focused on SNAP benefits going away, healthcare going away. But you, with your background, you have this focus on what's happening internationally, and so do I. What should, what do you worry about that the American people should be thinking about right now?
- [14:36]
C
Three things come to mind right away. First of all, we need to recognize that what Russia is doing now is not going to stop unless they are stopped. And Ukraine is willing to do all the hard work. They just need the tools. And so the administration should say, because it's in our interest, that Ukraine actually defeats Russia, that will improve stability and security in Europe, which is good for our economy. We're going to give Ukraine everything they need to help them defeat Russia, to make Russia live inside its own borders. Now, the previous administration also failed to do this. They never would say it's our objective that Ukraine wins. And so when you don't have a clearly defined objective, it's very challenging to come up with the right policies which would normally achieve that objective. So getting that right and we should stop. I don't understand the back and forth about Russia. Somehow we want to do business with it. We never did business before Russia, not in any meaningful way. So I, I don't, I don't get that part. And secondly, the, the Chinese are watching to see what we do. And if the Chinese look and see that the United States plus Europe, we don't have the political will to help Ukraine defeat a weakened Russia I mean, Russia's in trouble 11 years and they still only control 20% of Ukraine. The with every advantage. So if the Chinese see that we can't or are not willing to do that, then I think our deterrence against Chinese aggression is undermined. And especially when they hear an administration that talks about Ukraine, come on, let them have Crimea, you know, you're going to have to give up some land. The Chinese read that we are pretty flexible on the sovereignty thing. That's bad news for the Philippines and Taiwan and places like that. So in my view, the strategy should be defeat Russia first, help Ukraine defeat Russia. The Chinese go, okay, the US has got the capability and the will and the allies to do that, so that deters them. And it also continues the isolation of Iran. North Korea and Iran have no friends on the planet except Russia. And so all of these things start with defeating Russia.
- [16:56]
B
Normally in an administration, you see by this point some kind of national security strategy coming down. I'm curious what your thoughts are with this current administration, what you've seen so far. I obviously have my opinions on this, but I'd like to hear from you. Are we on track? Do we have a national security strategy that is coherent right now?
- [17:24]
C
I think that the new national defense strategy is supposed to be coming out sometime soon. I haven't seen a document yet anyway. But judging from what they are doing and what we hear, it appears that the number one priority is going to be Western Hemisphere. Of course, for every administration, it's always defense of the homeland. That's obviously going to be the top priority. But in terms of regional prioritization, the Western Hemisphere. So from North America, Central and South America, that's the priority based on what we see, where resources are being put, the language and emphasis. And then the second priority is, I can't tell if it's the Indo Pacific region or if it's the Middle east maybe, but Europe is probably number four of these. And you see that the announcement just the other day that the, one of the brigades, the rotational brigades that's in Europe, that, that's in Romania specifically, would not be replaced when its current tour runs out. Now, the, the justification for it is not terrible, but the timing is terrible. You've got Russia fighting a war on the European continent against a war of aggression against Ukraine and conducting gray zone operations against multiple NATO allies. And at the same time, we are reducing our presence. So that's not a signal or, nor is that a sign of real American leadership. So that's a long answer to a good Question. But I think it seems like the focus is on, in fact, it almost feels like Western hemisphere is ours. G, you can have Indo Pacific. Just don't mess with our access to chips and don't screw with shipping lanes and make sure we can get critical minerals. And then Europe, you're kind of on your own. Good luck with Putin because we really would like to get back to business with him. That's what it feels like. And I hope I'm way off base there.
- [19:36]
B
Well, I hope you're off base too, but that is what it feels like to me as well. I mean we now see this request for this trillion dollar military or defense budget which, you know, we have a lot of threats in the world and I get that. My concern is a refocus or really for the first time sort of focusing on the southcom area which you talked about. And also in my belief a distraction to our armed forces with trying to send them into American cities, which I feel is not required and a bit of a distraction to all of the other things that are going on right now. But I want to get your take on what's happening in the Caribbean and down in the Southcom AOR what we're seeing with 5 to 7, I think boats that have been struck at this point going after what are called narco terrorists. Is there in your belief, is there any problem with the way this is being conducted right now?
- [20:46]
C
So I think we're up to 14 boats total to include some that were on the Pacific side as well as. But the majority of them there are often seem to be off the coast of Venezuela. My look, I'd love to see the trafficking of drugs disrupted ended. 80, something, thousand Americans died of fentanyl last year. Problem is fentanyl doesn't come from Venezuela, it comes from Mexico. And so these Hellfire missiles that are being launched off of a MQ9 Reaper to hit drug boats boat, alleged drug boats from Venezuela does not seem like a very effective means to address the main problem which is fentanyl coming from Mexico. So it, and also, I mean law enforcement can't just kill. If they do a drug bus in some American city, they can't just go in there, start shooting them, you have to arrest them. So I don't, I don't understand how we got to where it's okay to launch a hellfire missile cost $150,000 against a boat that's out in the water instead of letting the Coast Guard intercept it, for example, or try to apprehend it. Because if the. If we're trying to figure out the network who's paying for what you got, you have to catch your people. So it starts to. Number one, it strikes me as being unlawful. Number two, it's aimed at the wrong target. If you really are trying to stop fentanyl, and I think the Congress needs to assert their oversight responsibility to have the secretary. I mean, if this is illegal and it's a good thing, you guys should come in and brag about it. Tell us, here's your justification. Here's how you're hitting what you're hitting. Here's the result so far. Instead, the administration won't even do that. So I think the Congress is failing here.
- [22:48]
B
There's sort of an American way here. And the American way is that, you know, the President doesn't just get to decide to go to war. From our founding, we have this, we have Congress. And that's. If the President thinks, hey, we need to go to war, we need to use our United States military, and there needs to be a kinetic force used against a foreign entity, then it's the responsibility of the President and the administration to then go to Congress, go to the American people, this is essentially what you're doing, and present that case, and then Congress needs to come and authorize it. I mean, this is sort of what we do in America. But the current administration has also said, in this case, we're not in hostilities. The military is not in, so we don't have to ask for permission because they're using drones. So there's no. They've said, hey, there's no American forces at risk. So therefore, we don't need an authorization to use military. I mean, this is where they're sort of using this legal stuff to kind of get around what you just said.
- [23:56]
C
I can't imagine any law school would pass somebody on an exam if they use that as a legal justification for not passing, having to comply with the law with the War Powers Act. And so this is where the leadership of the House and Senate Armed Services Committee are completely failing their responsibilities to provide proper oversight. And the administration, I mean, so far, nobody's been hurt, but we know from history these things always lead to things that have unintended consequences. I don't know that this is in our national interest to be destroying a handful of drug boats out there. That's not doing anything to stop the flow of fentanyl into America. It seems more. They want to get those videos out there. We're doing something. And of course, every administration wants to demonstrate that it's, it sees the problem is doing something. And a lot of what we see now, whether it's National Guard in cities or whatever, it's demonstrating that we're doing something. But that doesn't excuse you from complying with living up to the Constitution and doing things within a legal construct.
- [25:18]
B
Yeah, it's also something that you would expect the Chinese to do in the South China Sea. They don't like somebody there, they'll just take them out. This is kind of the thing that we in America say, hey, you can't do that. There's got it. You can't just go and schwack anybody you want to there. You know, there has to be. And I feel like we're kind of doing that right now. It doesn't make the United States look good. And as you mentioned, it's not super effective to the reason we're we're saying we're doing it.
- [25:49]
C
Well, you know, I'm interested that the former commander or the current commander of U.S. southern Command, the admiral, has announced he's going to step down. Now, I haven't seen, I didn't heard the whole story of why he's stepping down, but the speculation, of course, was that he could not. Either he was not doing it as rigorously as what the secretary wanted, or he had real problems with the legal things that were involved in these strikes. So he's not going to continue in command. Now, you know, the International Criminal Court, even though the United States is not a signatory to it, most other nations are. And so at some point, somebody may decide to go after the officers in the chain of command that are doing these strikes. And while they would net the US because we're not signatories, would not has never recognized their jurisdiction over American military personnel. Those people will never be able to go to a country that is a signatory. So, I mean, there are ramifications here, legal ramifications, if the administration does not make the case publicly of why they're doing this, why it is legal.
- [27:05]
B
Yeah, it's interesting you bring that up, because I feel like the military is put in a really tough spot right now. You have Mr. Trump, who the Supreme Court has said a year ago cannot do anything illegal. I mean, that's basically what the Supreme Court said. And so this adage of the president could then order SEAL Team Six to assassinate his political rival, and it can't be illegal. But that puts the military in this really bad position where the commander in chief could then order you to do something in which he could never be prosecuted for. But, but you could be prosecuted for. I mean, do you, do you see that as, as the way I see it there?
- [27:51]
C
Yeah, absolutely. And, and I've, you know, when I've said that other people have said, well, come on, he's going to pardon them anyway. No, officer, I know, I'm sure you didn't join the military and hope that you would get pardoned one day. I mean that's, that's not why you joined. And so I, I think, and I'm sure they are, I mean the vast majority of people that I know that are still serving are very solid, committed, dedicated officers and senior non commissioned officers who take their oath to the Constitution seriously. And so I certainly hope that they are reflecting on this and that they're finding if it, if it is legal, you know, there's a difference of course between unlawful and really bad policy. If it's a bad policy or a stupid order, but it's legal, you know, you have a duty to make it work, to do your best, to try and carry out the mission anyway, but if it's unlawful, you have a duty not to do it.
- [28:56]
B
It can be lawful but awful and sort of. And I feel like the, one of the things that I've learned in the last year when looking at all of the things that are happening with civil military relations is that it's not always black and white, in other words, the military and because I've gotten asked this a lot from people, well, the military is going to refuse orders that are, that are unlawful. Yes, the military has a duty to refuse unlawful orders. The problem is there's a lot of orders out there that are in this gray area. And I think, you know, as you see the military being used in our cities right now, you know, while they're, they're out there with the border patrol, they're out there with the ICE agents and things that the administration is doing all that it can to make sure that they're not crossing some line there. But it's, it gets really in a gray area that I very much worry about.
- [30:00]
C
Well, this is where the senior officers have to protect the lower ranking officers and sergeants and soldiers from illegal orders. I mean, you can't just, you know, pass it on down and expect and hope that some captain somewhere is going to say, wait a minute, we can't be doing this. And this is where I wish the retired four stars would be much more outspoken, would come out and say like, this is completely wrong. But unfortunately there's very few of the retired four stars that have, have done this because they're the ones that should be protecting the current senior leadership.
- [30:37]
B
Why haven't more retired four stars, three stars, two stars come out?
- [30:43]
C
I can't speak for everybody, I've spoken to some of them, and there's a mix. There are some people that say, nope, this is not, you know, the military has to stay out of politics. And, you know, this is, this is not for us to do. I disagree with that. But that's, that is, that are some people that have a very, very, I don't know, I don't want to call it traditional, but a very strict view of what. And just because you're retired, you still have that general retired or admiral retired after your name. So they have a problem with that. And then there are some that have said, yeah, this is terrible, but if I spoke out, my organization would be shut down. And then there are some that, I think they have their own reasons, and there probably are some that agree with it. I mean, I've been a little surprised to find out how many officers of different ranks are actually okay with a lot of this stuff.
- [31:51]
B
That's really interesting. I want to ask you, you've had such an amazing career in the army and all the way through the ranks, what's been your toughest assignment? You look back and you're like, wow, that was the toughest time of my career.
- [32:08]
C
Well, the hardest year I ever had was I was in Afghanistan for 15 months as a Director of Operations and Regional Command, South Kandahar from the summer of 9 until November of 2010. And it was hard because, I mean, that terrain there is hard. And I was a. I mean, I was working in the headquarters. I wasn't one of these poor dudes out there, you know, every day. But still, it was hard in terms of having enough resources and knowing that people needed things and trying to get them what they needed. Professionally, that was the hardest. But it was also, I have to say, one of the most professionally rewarding. I worked with great allies and great young women and men of the U.S. army and Air Force and other services that were there, Marine Corps, Navy. But that was hard. One of the jobs where I had to learn, I had to learn so much was I worked three times an Army Congressional liaison as a lieutenant colonel and then as a brigadier and then as a two star, where your job was to, number one, help tell the army story to the Hill, but also to help make sure the army responded to Hill requests for information, help leaders prepare for hearings, all of that. And I had to relearn all the high school civics I had blown off, you know, years ago. You know, how a bill becomes a law and all this kind of stuff. It was fascinating. But, I mean, boy, it was a different environment. But what I discovered was that almost every single member of Congress, even, no matter where they were on the spectrum or what party they were, all of them cared about their constituents. You know, if they had women or men from their state or their district who were deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever, they genuinely cared about that.
- [34:09]
B
Yeah, I think we overlapped there because I was at camp leatherneck in 2010. My husband. Yeah, and my husband was out of. Out of Kabul in 2010. So we got married in 2009, and then he took an IA with the army right after we got married and went to Kabul. And then I. I sort of volunteered to go with 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing in 2010 because I wanted to be deployed at the same time that my husband was deployed, because I didn't want, you know, I didn't want him to come back. And then. Yeah, and then. And then the Marine Corps said, hey, it's your turn. That wouldn't have been.
- [34:53]
C
That was a good strategic. Good strategic move. And you can always tell everybody that y' all honeymooned in Afghanistan.
- [34:59]
B
In fact, it's funny you say that, Ben, because my husband got us a plaque that says just that. Honeymoon, Afghanistan. So we have. You know. You know how you have a plaque for everything in the military? We have 100 plaque, but we got a chance to see each other a few times. His. His general, who he worked with, would anytime that he needed a liaison to come down to Kemp Leatherneck, he sent Eric. And every time I needed to, you know, my general needed somebody to go up to Kabul, he would send me. So it worked out well.
- [35:30]
C
That's taking care of the troops.
- [35:32]
B
Yeah, that's right. That's right. You were also in the first West Point class with women. Right. You were 1980. And we're coming up on an anniversary. 45 years of women at service academies. I have spoken with men and women from the Naval Academy because that's where I went to school, or I was trained in class of 97 from the Naval Academy. I have never spoken with somebody from the first West Point class who's a man. I've spoken with women. But what are your observations at that time? Was that just, like, so new or, you know, you were tired of being asked about it? I'm just curious.
- [36:19]
C
Well, first of all, I'M obviously, I'm extremely proud of my class. Those women, I think we started with like 114, 120, something like that, and around 55 or 60 graduated. And, you know, watching what they were going through, I mean, you can change the law, but you can't change culture overnight. And, you know, it was awful for them. But these were incredibly brave, tough women who were determined to do it. Each of them had their own reasons for coming. I mean, there were some who had already finished university or done two or three years of university and still decided to start over as a plebe. Some came from military families. You know, whatever their motivation was, I was impressed. But I also have to say I was impressed with the military academy, with the, with the army. And I think the Naval Academy and the Air Force Academy would have done the same thing. The best institutions are learning institutions. And the difference for that first year to the second year was it was like that from things as simple as uniforms. You know, girls can't just wear boy clothes and vice versa, you know, so getting the uniform stuff, which seems so obvious now, but it was in 1976, it was not obvious. And figuring out, how do you, how do you get the critical mass of enough females in a, in a, in a company of 100 cadet male cadets, you know, what, what's the right number so that, you know, you don't have the one or two predators out there that feel that they can take advantage of this or, you know, women should feel safe. And that's never, not even guaranteed, even in a military academy. So finding what's the right number, the distribution and that, that stuff is all passe now. I mean, we've already had female first captains, road scholars, we've had females retire as senior general officers from the military academy. But back then, those basic stuff. And so I was, I was proud of how the military and, and I would say the same was true across the force. That we got better and better now, I'm sure. I remember being stunned. One time I was sitting in a group of people and somebody asked, this is not when I was a cadet. This was, I was like a senior officer. And somebody said, how many women out here have ever been sexually harassed or have a close friend that was. And like every woman stuck her hand. I'm like, what? You know, I was astounded, which shows that I was, I was naive. So I wouldn't, I wouldn't want to convey that it's all been fixed. Obviously it hasn't. And I was, I was appalled by the secretary's comments at this famous Quantico meeting where he, he, I think without saying we're going to try and get rid of all women, he said, we're going to do these things, these things, these things that would have the effect. It gave the, gave the sense that that's what he wanted to get rid of. And my God, what a loss that would be for us. I always found that female officers and sergeants and soldiers in my formations, first of all, I had a lot less problems, discipline problems with female soldiers than I did with male soldiers. Number two, they always work like dogs because they felt like they had to prove something. And then frankly, there were some things they were just better at anyway. And there's not enough 18 to 25 year old males that can meet the standards. So there's a demographic problem that we have to solve. And so I think if you, no matter what color you are, your boys, girls, whatever, if you meet the standard and you want to serve, we need you.
- [40:22]
B
Well, and I felt like from the academies from when you went in class of 1980, there were so few women. And that was true at the Naval Academy as well. By the time I graduated in 97, it was about 11 to 13. And we had felt like it was just a giant leap from the 80s. I mean, we looked at the women who had graduated in 1980 as like, wow, they went through some stuff, you know, and by the time it got to us, we felt like we had it a lot easier and in a good way. And now women graduate from the service academies. I don't know what it's about at West Point, but it's in Annapolis about 30%. And that's great because it's about talent. It's about keeping the most talented people. Not everybody has to be a 200 pound, 30 pull up guy that can knock it down doors in the United States army or the United States Navy. We need people who speak different languages, we need people who know how to call in for air support, we need engineers and all of that. You're about trying to get the best talented to be able to be in our military right now. And that's why I've always been somebody that looked at, hey, how do we keep the best talent? Because it's one thing to graduate, then 30% of our service academies are women. But then by the time they get to your rank, Lieutenant General, General, it's not 30%, it's much lower. And so what, what is happening there? And I've always been somebody that said, okay, If. If they're not talented enough to get to the top, I get that. But there could also be some cultural things that don't allow people to rise to the top. And I've saw that in my. In my career, and a lot of it was based on sort of work, life balance stuff. But I feel like, you know, we got to keep working to make our military a place where we want to keep talent because we spend a lot of money and resources.
- [42:39]
C
You know, that's. That's exactly right. And I think that in the army, you know, to. To reach the top, you had to be most people. You had to be combat arms, you know, infantry, armor, artillery, something like that. That's where. Because that's where most of the command positions were. And so that's why you end up with infantry and artillery and armor officers as chief of the army or, you know, that sort of level. And so one of the policy decisions that the army made when they said, okay, and of course, the Congress was involved in this, women have to be able to serve everywhere, Whether it's as a fighter pilot or submarine commander or infantry officer. They have to be everywhere. And General Odierno was the Chief of Staff of the army at the time, and he deserves a lot of credit for this. He said, and he was an artillery guy. He was not infantry. He had never gone to Ranger school. But he knew that if you're going to have females in the infantry, they need to have the chance to go to Ranger school, not only because it's the best possible training you could ever get, but also, if you're in the infantry, if you're not a Ranger officer, then you're kind of second tier. And. And it has nothing to do with courage. It has to do with a. I don't know. Anyway, it's a. It's a part of a qualification process and how you get, how you're looked at by everybody else. So Odierno knew that if we were gonna have women in the infantry, they had to have the chance to go to Ranger school. And then he personally got involved, him and General Scotty Miller, who. You may remember Scotty Miller and who was running Fort Benning at the time. And they spoke with all the Ranger instructors and said, look, we're going to make this work, but you guys are the standard bearer. You have got to make sure that not one single woman ever gets through here without meeting the standard. And you really put it on them. And he said, I know that there's no woman that wants a Ranger tab that Got it without earning means that much. And I would be willing to bet that those first women that went through Ranger school probably got less of a break than the average Ranger student would have gotten on judgment calls because those instructors would have been so concerned about the standard.
- [45:02]
B
Sure.
- [45:02]
C
And now we're up to around. I saw the other day, it's about 140 women have earned the Ranger tab. That's incredible because not every woman wants to be an infantry officer.
- [45:11]
B
Right.
- [45:12]
C
All right. So.
- [45:13]
B
And that's what makes, you know, somebody like Pete Hegseth's continued dialogue on this so offensive to me.
- [45:21]
C
He's not a Ranger. He's not a Ranger.
- [45:23]
B
Right. He's not. And the suggestion that standards were lowered for these women is just, it's so offensive. It's like when I went through and became, know, a back seater in the F18 community and then a front seater. There was no standard that was lowered, you know, and it's, it's offensive. This is. Somebody would come in. Well, you, you, you got that because, you know, you're. They, they lowered the standard for you. Well, that's, you know, and we know that, but it's, it's hard to see a Secretary of defense, or whatever you want to call it today, a secretary of war say that. I mean, this is the leader of our military, the civilian leader of our military. And there's some. He, he's got, he's got a bullhorn, you know, he's. He's got the attention of the world. And to say that is just so offensive to me, but I'm off on a tangent.
- [46:20]
C
Well, I don't know how that helps improve the force either when you're denigrating the service of tens of thousands of, of people who are served and who, who are serving and who have met the standard.
- [46:35]
B
Yeah, I want to ask you too, before we go about army football, because they. Army football just defeated Air Force, I think, very recently. And so now this is going to set up the. The match, which is always the match. Army, Navy is always the match. But it, in some years it's more, more important than others. And I would say this year it's very important because both Navy and Army have defeated Air Force in the regular season. And that means the Commander in Chief's trophy is on the line. So I wanted to give you a moment to talk about the army football.
- [47:12]
C
That's very generous of you, Amy. And yes, I am looking forward to it. I was in company I4 of the class of 80. And so each year we get together somewhere to have a watch party at somebody's house. And this year we're going to. One of the guys lives in Hampton, Virginia. So we're all going to gather there and watch it. And it's sort of quasi mini reunion. Last year we were out on the west coast to watch it and we were so excited because army was having this great season and we laid a big egg and the Navy crushed us last year. So that was one of the most disappointing losses that I've, that I've watched. And so we're hoping this year that we don't go in overconfident. You guys, I think you had a 10 game winning streak in this weekend, but you obviously have a very good Navy football team and Navy always seems to be up against army. So I'm looking forward to a good football game. Obviously beating Air Force kind of gets us back on the, on the right track. And you know, it's, there's that famous thing that this is the only game where players on both sides would die for everybody that was watching it. And it's, it's cool. I mean, it is. I'm getting a little emotional now. It is a, it's a great spectacle.
- [48:43]
B
It's amazing. And everybody should tune in. I think it's the only football game that weekend. It should be the only football game that weekend in America. It's awesome. I have two more questions for you, Ben, and then we'll wrap up one. As I'm listening to you and I've sort of watched you and read your works, but I haven't intently listened to you. You have a southern accent. Where, where are you from originally?
- [49:11]
C
Quincy, Florida, near Tallahassee. So very good.
- [49:15]
B
All right. But you spend your days in Germany and, and elsewhere?
- [49:20]
C
Yeah, since I retired, we stayed here in Frankfurt. But you know, like in the army, you know, almost all the army bases are somewhere in the south anyway, so even when I was at home in Florida, I was in Georgia or Tennessee or Kentucky or Virginia.
- [49:38]
B
Good deal. And in Kentucky, have you been to Fort Knox and Fort Campbell?
- [49:42]
C
Well, I served at Fort Campbell four times. I was in the 101st Airborne Division there four times. And of course we would go to Knox for training exercises, that sort of thing. So what a great state. Great part of a great part of the country.
- [49:57]
B
That's great. And because this show is called Truth in the Barrel, a lot of times we do our live shows and we do some shows at night. This one's in the morning, so we're not partaking in whiskey or bourbon at the moment. But I want to ask you, Ben, do you have a favorite? Bourbon or whiskey?
- [50:16]
C
I love Bulleit.
- [50:18]
B
Ah, very good. All right, that's a good one. Bullet Kentucky Frontier whiskey there. Awesome. Well, great to have you with us today, Ben. Really interesting discussion and I appreciate your time.
- [50:33]
C
Well, thank. What a privilege, Amy. Thank you very much. Good luck to you, by the way. And be Navy.
- [50:43]
B
Good ending. Beat army.
- [50:45]
C
All right, Bye bye.
- [50:52]
D
Hey, this is Sarah. Look, I'm standing out front of a.m. p.m. Right now and, well, you're sweet and all, but I found something more fulfilling, even kind of cheesy. But I like it. Sure, you met some of my dietary needs, but they've just got it all. So farewell.
- [51:07]
B
Oatmeal.
- [51:08]
D
So long, you strange soggy.
- [51:10]
E
Break up with bland breakfasts and taste AM PMs bacon, egg and cheese biscuit made with K tree eggs, smoked bacon and melty cheese on a buttery biscuit. AM PM Too much. Good stuff.
- [51:21]
F
Marketing is hard, but I'll tell you a little secret. It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out. You're listening to a podcast right now and it's great. You love the host. You seek it out and download it. You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even going to the bathroom. Podcasts are a pretty close companion. And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention? You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Libsyn Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements or run a pre produced ad like this one across thousands of shows. To reach your target audience in their favorite podcasts with Libsyn ads, go to Libsynads.com that's L I B S Y N ads.com today.