Trumps Foreign Policy: What Can We Expect? | EYES ON PODCAST

remember that that now is your secondary duty. Here comes first fus. All right, listen, everyone trumping all news, no pun intended, is the fact that today is the Marine Corps birthday, which one is it two hundred and forty nine forty nine, And since three out of four of us are marines here, we have to begin with that and make what does the Marine Corps birthday mean to you? I mean, does it still mean something?

never forget and I certainly don't want to forget. And it really just means just absolutely committed to a cause larger than ourselves, right, And there's a lot of groups like that. But you know, I don't think any group is more like that than the United States Marine Corps. So I'm biased as hell, but and I always will be. But it's just a time to remember that and be with my fellow Marines.

I want to do something bigger than myself. And made some of the best friends I've ever had in my life along the way, and those things will always stick with me. It's set the foundation for everything else I did in my life.

and enlisted the Marine Corps. He's seventeen, you know, Jewish kid from I think from New York actually, But anyway, his the book's a book of fiction, but it's a rape. It's the best fiction work I've read about the Marine Corps other than Field so Far. I think both, you know, a very kind of different approaches. Field so Far, of course, is James Webritten about Vietnam, which is tremendous book. I recommend it too. But I read Battle Cry. I must have read it two or three times. I loved it.

And then I read Goodbye Darkness by William Manchester, which is another great one, and Field of Fire, and I was hurt. I knew nothing practically about the Marine Corps. I had just been rejected by the British Army because of a rugby injury, and I had US citizenship as a Jaw national growing up in the UK and Parasitlum was my first taste of the United States, and I

was there thirty thirty seven years ago today. As a matter of fact, this is my first Marine Corps birthday out in the field, and I remember that and that was, you know, like all of you. I mean, the Marine Corps birthday subsequently meant a great deal and I loved the you know, going to the balls and all of that. But but the two that stand out in my mind with that initial one in boot camp and just feeling. It's difficult to describe, but you know, just a sense

of belonging, a real strong sense of belonging. And I can still remember the talk that our battalion, Sarah, major guy named Pees gave us and the field. He was a grunt and you know our paraphrase it, but he said, hey, listen, you're going to have many Marine Corps birthdays ahead of you, but I want this one to be special for you. And they brought out a ca can you believe this?

Nineteen eighty seven in the field and third Battalion, which was thumping, third which was not renowned for its compassionate gestures, and that meant a lot. And I remember it and I remember the feeling. And the other Marine Corps birthday that stands out of my mind was twenty years ago, exactly today, Influjah. I was a it was an advice with that's a horrible word attached to a marine and

I'm sorry. I was attached to a marine battalion which was First Battalion, Third Marines Lava Dogs, which by coincidence

I subsequently commanded a few years later. But at the time I was an only major in charge, and I used that term very loosely of an Iraqi company attached to the battalion, and I remember the Sarah major whose name I forget, actually had a formation in Flujah while we tried to it was interrupted by mortifier and machine guns, but it but it meant a lot because we had gone into the city three days earlier at night and we'd had a rough time on the line of departure.

The suicide bomb it had hit the company I was attached to and killed I think nine marines, wounded a number of others Before we went into the battle. We were pretty shaken up. And you know, you can look at this up but one three lost in the course of that deployment, sixty something marines, okay, in a three month period, but they were part of thirty first few. They were offloaded into the Battle of Flujah and then

subsequently forty in Nambar Province. I left the battalion after Flugen went on to mos All, but the battalion had a really rough ride. And you know, I know that because we had a Flujah memorial outside my office when I was battalion commander and there was sixty something dog tags. I can remember the exact number, but it was over sixty which is a lot dead, not casualties dead. There's

maybe two three hundred casualties. A third of that battalion became casualties in what was less than half a deployment back then. I do believe that's the highest number. I know two four had a rough time in Ramadi, but in terms of numbers, I think that that took the record. So anyway, we were all. I was pretty shaken. For one, we'd lost one of our advisors the night before. We'd been shot in the back of the head, which was rather disturbing at short range, we think by one of

the guys we were advising, which is never good. And we thought it was bullshit that we were being hauled out. We're all dirty, unshaven for this formation for the Marine Corps birthday. But I remember just standing there in those brief moments before you mortifiers did it coming in and just feeling, you know, that same sense of belonging, that feeling coming back. And I can tell you that it

overcame everything. It overcame the tiredness, the fear, the lack of sleep, the sense of isolation because remember us with the Rockies, and it kept me going, you know, in a way that I can't think of anything else can so I always I always think that you know, there's a lot of rarah bullshit propaganda. We are great propagandas and Marine Corps. I think Eleanor Roosevelt said that we have a better propaganda machine than the KGB, and she has a point, but it is an all propaganda and

you guys, I think will agree. There is a stamp on our hearts, as corny though it may sound, that remains with us the rest of our lives. And fast forward twenty sixteen, not quite on the rink carp birthday, but close to it. I'm twenty fifteen, I'm sir, I'm in Iraq and commanding the Special Operations Task Force. There's a multinational task Force and General Nella, the Commandant, came out to visit us and we gave him. You know, I mean, and this is really an eye open by then.

I've been with SOFT for a few years and I although my experience was an infantry battalion commander, now it is with special operations, and difference was huge. I'm not talking about the caliber of guy, you know, but I'm talking about just the amount of intelligence and the things that we could do with that intelligence, you know. And I was showing the commandant and h and I could tell you he's really impressed, you know that, and taking notes.

But afterwards he pulled me aside, said, Andy, when you're coming back to the Marine Corps, and it really hurt me.

Guitar Egypt, are like, what the hell are we doing here? Right, We're launching our you know, head of the CIA every Tuesday to go talk to these folks, and they're not even serious at all. Right, So I think, and this is my speculation I had, I've had nobody tell me that. I think that was basically the last straw. And then from there, uh, you know, Cutter being being one of the main mediators, just like, well, you guys are not

dealing a good face with us. We don't know why we're giving you this level of protection being in Dola,

which I think does give them protection. I don't think Israel would say go after these leaders because they're in dolaw And I think also Quitar is tired tired of being tied to them, right, so they get criticized for supporting them, even though is approved by the United States and Israel to provide financial support in Degaza, and I think they're probably also looking to kind of remove that perception, which is not really correct because we again ask them

to do that. But I think that's probably why they told them to get out. I think we tarbet we the US said they need to get out.

you know, an assassination in my country. Right So there's a lot of issues with these individuals in at the end of the day, they're terrorists. They were just happened to be the ones doing the mediation, and unfortunately, when you have a situation like this, you have to deal with them. But if they're not going to be even close to an honest broker in these negotiations, then you know, you make your choices and you deal with the consequences. And so I think it's I think it's indicative of

how those Eastfire negotiations went. And I although I agree with the DA, I think this happened before the election and we'll talk about it. But the incoming administration, if they're going to be hawkish anywhere, it's going to be on or on, and I think that's one of the things that's factoring into Iran's response or lack thereof, against Israel that's going on right now.

Perhaps again wouldn't be I mean, it's like it's like giving a home to, you know, someone to a plague patient. It may seem like a good idea at the time, compassionate, but there's more to lose for any country, as you point out. But on the topic Iran, I think that's a great way to start about. You know, we we have so far avoided speculation about the administration, the new you know, the new administration's policies. But I think it's

a good topic of discussion to start with Iran. You know, what, what are your feelings, what are your.

you know, because you're dealing with such a adversary. But the issue was how are we going to really try to keep them from going toward a nuclear weapon if we're not in the agreement that kept them from going toward a nuclear weapon the big issue.

So it was a maximum pressure campaign. Significant financial restriction sanctions were placed on him, and it did cut down the actual resources that were available for I think that is a positive of the of the Trump administration's first ones policy toward Iran. They were also pretty hawkish, uh toward Iran. Brian Hook for inside policy. Folks might know him like me. I know him pretty well. He is in charge of the transition right now for the Trump

team and the State Department. He was he was the special envoy for Iran when I was there, so he's a pretty hawkish on that, so I think that is an indicator of where they're going is he's in charge of the State Department's transition, So I think I think we could be looking for and that's to carry this forward.

And some of the criticism on the Biden administration is they they've produced a lot of these sanctions and and it has given uh I think ran a feeling that they can essentially have their cake and eat it too, and they are close to being able to have a breakout moment to get enough nuclear material rich uranium to make a nuclear weapon. They of course have to weaponize it, so it's two steps, but they're closer now than they

have ever been. I think the Biden administration to say, well, that's because you get out of the JCPA, and then the incoming Trump administration is because you reduce sanctions and you basically has given them no consequences significant cots because to the action that they can. So those are the two sides to that. But I do think the Trump administration is going to come in and really look at what they can do to respond to everything that's been going on with r on in the last year.

eye on on enforcing those sanctions. In fact, the you know, rather than loopholes keeping the massive black holes appeared in them and not all the administration's fault, you know, in fairness, but you know, front companies have popped up over the world, particularly in you know, places like UAE are the potential

allies that makes it problematic. Flat tankers get reflagged, the you know, the agreements between the Chinese and the Uranians and the Russians Erenians that involve the purchase of oil. All of these things mean that sanctions are even now you know, even if we wanted to go back and enforce them, we we just we don't. We're kind of on the ropes and being able to do that in a way that makes sense.

the funding that went to the proxies. So now we're in a different world where paradoxically those proxies, the threat of that, I mean, Iran's options have been reduced too. His bolla is on the ropes. It's probably not down and out forever, but certainly on the ropes. I think everyone can agree that they've lost a wide sway for

their leadership. And however, however they are structured. They've lost a very charismatic leader that held them together, and they've lost you know, estimates very but a huge bulk most most of there are of their their weapons that that we were most concerned about. And and similarly of course with har Maas so Iran, Iran's options have been reduced.

But my question is what you know that that kind of is not good for a sign of because the only option to them and now is the nuclear option to go ahead and really you know, push for the bomb. And I would argue too. Of course they take a big risk in doing that. If Israel has indeed removed that, you know, they as Israel claims, there are you know, the S three hundred radar, but the the the restrictions on Israel to go after the nuclear program are kind

of gone too. So I guess what I'm saying is a much more unstable situation than it was during the first Trump administration or indeed during the last administration. How do you feel, I mean, are you confident about our ability? They say our ability, not this administration's ability to handle this.

then it's just empty rhetoric. And I think right now to your point, and which is a good one, is Iran has seen that they cannot stand up to Israel, period, not let alone US. Right conventionally, they had ballistic missiles. That's what they had. They don't have an air force to speak of. They don't have a very strong conventional

military force period. Ballistic missiles is it. And we've shown collectively Israel and the United States that that isn't at all like we can shoot them down and if we if we go full retaliatory mode, we can take out their air missile defense. We can take I mean, it's Israel think has already proved that, and they really that. So then the question if we were them right, oh crap, I mean, now the whole world knows that we are. We cannot even compare to Israel, let alone Israel in

the United States on a conventional military front. So what is our options?

gap so much on TV. But I think we will know, So then the question will come down likely to the next administration, are we going to participate? Because without getting into details, the US participation in that exponentially increase is the chances of success. So Israel is going to do it. I think I firmly believe that if they think they're on the verge of a nuclear weapon, they're not. They're not going to ask permission. They're going to do it

with what they have and hope for the best. And the question is going to come down to the US. It's going to be viewed the same way. Even if it's not successful, are we going to step in and participate and make it successful? We have the munitions necessary. I think I think we could be successful, and that's

a big question for the incoming administration. Nobody knows, so I don't want to pretend like I do, but I think they will be inclined to listen to the argument from Israel that we need to support them, because if we do this, we need to do it in a manner that sets back the nuclear program substantially, not just destroys the entry point. They have to dig it out

and all this stuff. I'm talking like you know when it's all open source stuff on GVU fifty seven, twenty nine thousand pound bomb that, according to open source penetrates two hundred feet below the ground before it detonates. Like, that's a munition that is hard to replicate, and to my knowledge, no other country in the world has. So that's a little bit long winded, but I do think this is going to be an issue that it goes from one of the many to oh Man uh Harad's

on the verge of a nuclear weapon. What are we going to do about it? Was our rhetoric for the last four administrations just that? Or are we willing to essentially do something to stop it for the benefit of the world Quite frankly, but it could trigger a larger scale conflint.

of the bomb itself is the hard part. But what is disturbing is that the news coming from experts saying that that could happen, and I'm just quoting from Twitter land and it's little as six months, which is you know. But the positive part of that is, as macause you pointed out that there are going to be indications and warnings that that is happening. That is why I think we're relying on and the question is do we have the political resolve and indeed the intent to go after it?

potentially deliver. They could essentially get the technology. So this is all got to be part of the discussion with the incoming administration. Who is I want to say, inheriting that's an overused.

among other things. But I mean seriously to and through trying to plant incendiaries or or planting test incendiaries, attempting to on airline as trans atlantic airliners. Yeah, you know, fairly harmless in centric. But but when you're talking about harmless incendiary and airliner in the same you're you're you're in trouble.

some other countries. So that's that's just my thinking on it.

in a disturbing new world. And Mick brought up the Iranian Russian kind of deal in Russia is giving Iran something return for Shahid drones and we know that, you know, head offense systems are one thing to worry about another maybe nuclear thing. And then the North Koreans, yes, you know, we know the Russians are giving them a shipload of rice. Actually that's a that's a bad phrase. To use in conjunction with rice, a lot of rice, and and you know,

money and this and that. But space and nuclear technology is doubtless something that the North Koreans have asked for and something we should worry about, which gets is back to Russia, right, you know, I mean that's there in the room, is literally the fact that there is concern perhaps that Trump is not as hard on going to be as hard on Putin as he is, for instance, on on she you know, the Chinese leader, and Mick, I know, I think you posted in our group chat

the discussion just some details from the discussion about with Elon Musk or you know, the potential proposal for a peace proposal. Do you want to do you want to talk about that a little bit?

which I found to be kind of interesting. Any advice us to play volleyball because they're really good and I like to beat the United States and stuff. We, of course, being the United States, went and found every good volleyball in the embassy and beat their ass. So I'll take that. Yes, we sacked the team, but anyway, other than that, and I'll try to make this story short, but it has an impact. He's telling me that the Americans don't understand Russians at all, and I'm like, what do you mean.

I mean, we're all people, you know, I mean, can't we There's got to be something that we see eye to eye. And he goes, well, let me tell you the story. So Russian fable. This fisherman's out to see and it's long, but again I'll cut it down. And he's about to go in and he hasn't got any fish, hasn't cutting fish yet. So he throws his last cast boom, pulls it in, pulls it off the hook, and it's it's a magic fish.

the answer was yes, I mean obviously. So when I you know, I wrote it up of course, as we all do, and I asked people, and I go, no, oftentimes and their folklore they root for the bad guy.

And it's just it was so odd to me because even people that I know are not good people still would say they vote the good guy, right, and these guys and you know, I'm not, I'm not this is not anti Russian like the ethnic group, but to have a Russian explain that to me, and then I found out from Russian experts like, oh no, this is this is common. The black hats are you know, that's who

they're So I'd start off with that. I know, it's it's more of a broad but when I found out that this is actually the case, they have no problem being the bad guys. So that's why they leave their calling car. They can trace the you know, the radioactive material into killing somebody in England, They're okay with that. They'll be the bad guy, they'll embrace it. So I think that's one of the things that people have to

think about when they're talking about the Russians the government. Right, I'm not saying all Russians are bad, okay, So what do they gotta look at. There's big concerns, you know, those that support Ukraine, both from a moral perspective. You know, it's a democracy fighting an autocracy, which happens to be our one of our biggest adversaries, and it's in our own national security interest in my opinion, I mean, your strength, our strength, collective strength the United States is relative to

our adversaries. If we have a partner who is diminishing their military capability, substantially take away the moral, ethical, all that stuff. Leader of the Free World, it's still in our interest to do it. They are becoming weaker, so we are becoming relatively stronger. We don't have any soldier, sailors, Airman's marine on the ground less. Some one's a volunteer, but not officially. They're doing the fighting. All we're doing

is a supporting. To try to cut that off, to me, would be like, you know, Chamberlain, you know in World War two, appeasement is going to work. Don't buy it. You don't know who you're dealing with. So I'd start with that, and hopefully I know a lot of people. You know, I'm no Partison, but I know people on both parties, and I know there's people in the Republican Party who firmly believe what I just said, and I hope they can get that perspective in front of those

making this proposal. As you said, Andy, and on the proposal, you know this idea, we're gonna have a lot of demarcation, and you know I've seen that. You know they're going to ask European forces to enforce it in US, there's gonna be this big pause and their ability.

to me. I would suggest to the current administration, wemove all the restrictions right now, remove all the restrictions. There's about two hundred major military targets within the realm, within the range rather of our weapon system. We prefer so that when it gets to these negotiations, if they're going to.

we've we've meeted out our support. We gave them, we get them a handful of heimas, right, and until the Russians learned how to adapt, right, they you know, they they adjusted their supply lines, the systems, they moved there command and control centers out of range, and they developed a means to block the gimlers you know, the GPS in high mass because they could do so because they were never overwhelmed. We'd hem and hold about attackers, right.

I mean, it's it's just not if if you, I would argue, you know, if you bring the mentality and make that you just outlined, we've got to we can't keep mirror imaging and being scared of our shadows when it comes to escalation. But there is something I want to talk about here then maybe a positive aspect of this talk of negotiation. It has scared European leaders Macron you know Macron today And don't get me wrong, I mean Europeans listening to this, I don't. It's not that

I like seeing Europeans scared. I'm half of me as well, British, not European. It's totally different. But anyway, I empathize with you people. But you know, I mean Macron warned on Thursday about naive I think, you know, talking about the negotiation, negotiation talks, naive trance atlanticism. He spoke to European leaders gathered in Budapest. But he did say, look, Trump's been elected by the American people and he would defend American interests,

which is legitimate and a good thing. The question is whether we are ready to defend the interests of Europeans.

This is you any question. And and to his point, the Baltic States and Poland, to a lesser extent and less important, the Czech Republic have stepped up to the plate hugely, and you know, with a view to the fact that that Ukraine may not be getting the help that it has from the United States, and everything from reduction of one five to five millimeter shells, which was a big issue, to just enhancing their own military's capability to rebuff the Russians. Uh to to you know, the

cyber the cyber thing. The poels are becoming very very good at them. And you know, we also know public are doing other things, so there is an import I think that's a really useful aspect of this perception that this administration coming in may not be as supportive. But make I agree with you one hundred percent. It's you know, what do we spending? Was spending money? I mean, the whole as horrible as the Ukraine conflict has been a god as I know you know firsthand, and I would

love to see the killing stop. It's it's just horrific what is happening on both sides. You know, the manpower, the young generations of both countries. But of course my sympathies are with Ukraine being just torn up in this Channel house and it breaks my heart. But but like you, I think the solution is to co art, to scare Russia, to really put them on the ropes, and then negotiate, not talk about peace beforehand for what its worth. On that, on that, on that shiny topic, Hey what about you

know the Pacific? Uh? We last time when when we were talking, we talked about that, we thought neither administration would go to the defense of Taiwan. I know, Trump, you know, coming in, has always been a hawk on China. And and I saw today in the news that that there's been some rejoicing in the Philippines in particular. We talked about allies who you know are happy, uh And and you know, the Philippines just made a declaration about their stakes in the South China Sea, which is doubtless,

I think, an anticipation of getting more support. But what But also at the same time, there's a lot of fear in Taiwan from some of what Trump's been saying about the chip market. And you know what, what do you see do you see change in policy of these the I mean, are we fine, You're going to see a pivot to the Pacific?

security capability that's designed to be worldwide. So let's just accept the fact that we're going to be yes in the Indo Pacific, Yes in UH, the Middle East, in Africa, obviously, Europe, et cetera. We're designed in South America. We are designed to be global. Let's not do the typical DC argument to make it either or when some case. You know, one of the things I saw that, I think a lot of paulitism comes in and from the policy making community,

which looks at things in a specific way, not necessarily economic. Right, A lot of us didn't come from business backgrounds. President Trump obviously did. So one of the consistent things is he looks at things, I think primarily the economics first, and then you know, legacy things like alliances in such potentially second. I'm not diminishing the points of alliances at all. I'm just looking at it from his perspective. One of the things he really doesn't like is when he feels

like the United States is getting ripped off. I think that's a business you It's like, we're putting money into this, you're not yet you benefit from us like NATO. I don't know that. I think sometimes people make it more complicated than that, and I don't know that it is. So one of the biggest things NATO can do is all meet their obligations. They should have done that without the threat every president is. I think President Trump has

just made it more of an important point. So, and that's also what he said when he was in office the first time to Japan and South Korea. If you were called, it's like, why are we doing all this? Pay for all your defense and you're just you know, not contributing at least in his perspective enough. So one of the first things that our partners and allies, Japan, South Korea and obviously is to get to where they're

supposed to be in the first place. So you can take that argument off the table or go in willing to contribute to your own defense more so than you have in your past. So I think that isn't that. And then when it comes to China, the question is it's a legit And then we, like you said, and we talked about this last time, Americans really willing to fight and die for Taiwan. I don't know. I think no. I mean, I think if the election is a clear

indication of you know, interventionism and isolationism. I just think even the ones in the center are going to say, no, I think we should support them on hundred percent. We have a law that requires you know, all that, but the law doesn't require us to send you know, the entire Marine Corps to defend Thailand or Taiwan.

That's why you're talking sanctions, and I'm not an economist, probably haven't economist sonics right now that's gonna work, but it's going to be mostly aligned with that, trying to get the US more competitive with China, taking them head on, and hopefully that does translate into supporting our allies and partners in the region, right because I think we're much better off with alliances and try to do anything so

and they know it too, right. That's why they're trying to go out and start the you know, their version of all these things as well they being in a Russia, China, etc. So I hope that that part gets through. I hope that people take into account the way President Trump views many of these issues around the world, and when it comes to you know, you know, even steven when it comes to the defense. If not, then it could be it could it could be pretty.

and be able to persuade him. Look, and this may cost us money, but it's not going to cost us lives. And that's the key issue in that I think, if nothing else, would would piss off the Chinese nicely. And I think you know, and I get it, economists get very afraid of tariffs, But in the end Tarif's the

one thing the Chinese are really afraid. They hate the prospect of that, they'll worry by it, and so that may too be a strong disincentive in our hand as a tool short of conflict, which I agree with you, you know, I mean, I get it, you know, And I'm not blaspheming the Marine Corps plans here on on their birthday. But the thought of, you know, marine's being committed to seize the first island chain under a bombardiment of Russian I mean, I sorry, Chinese missiles is just

too far fetched for me to subscribe to. It, really is. I just don't. I don't see that happening.

state to head of state yet. So these calls are mostly you know, congratulations on the success and look forward to working with you, and I might touch on some topics and then once you are the president for those that don't know, oftentimes people are listening into the conversation, you know, if you're if you're responsible, like when President Trump was talking Middle East. Obviously the second deaf is going to be invited to be on the call. And

by on the call doesn't mean they're a participant. Is there listening in why? Because that's when policy can get made right the president says something, they agree, somebody's got to write that down, right, And so even you know, on my level as the dazz D, I'd be on the call listen right again, taking notes and if something was agreed to in in the past. To be honest, they were much more boilerplate, like we would write the talking points for the president. The president in the most

part would go down the talking points. What do we need to hit They can't keep track of every nuance of every relationship around the world, you know, and then he'd go down the talking points and if they agreed, then it was followed up by the team. Okay, they agreed to this, right, So that's the traditional way to it. President Trump, you know, doesn't follow scripts, at least the ones that a lot of the ones that we get right, So it's it's tend he tends to go and talk

about that's his prerogative, right he's the president. I think that's going to be the same going forward. So it's going to be more of less like suggesting and more just keeping track of what the president's agreeing to with these world leaders.

But nevertheless, you know, for a considerable course of the war during some critical time, starlink was a really important I would say, a critical communications now. It was a game changer, and so doubtless Selenski feels some sense of some memory of that, and perhaps Trump wanted him there as to kind of soften what he was going to say. Look, we we you know, to say, hey, look I've got a guy here who obviously has your interests at heart. You know, bear that in mind when you listen to

what we have to say. That's that's just my thought. And I have listened to the alternate views, the concern that we're drifting into an oligarchy. But the second pieced you know, he doesn't have a staff yet, so it doesn't really matter who he picked. Anyone he picked would have been it would have been unconventional call at what you will, It would have been Joe Blow.

stuff like that, your foreign policy guy or girl. You know, it's concerning only because Mosk is a civilian and he has a relationship with Putin too, like he's been talking to Putin as well. I'm not a I've never was a CIA guy. If I'm a CIA guy, I'm like, what the fuck is going on?

why it was said portion of it. And so it could be because he has a past relationship Musk with Zelenski It could be that when the phone call was over, you know Trump where his people said, Okay, this is why we think he said it. Elon, what do you think?

Because you would want someone who is close to that person, that source or whatever it is, to be able to say, you know what, yeah he said this, but he's angry right now, or he's got a sick child right now, and that might have just been a motion or whatever it is. It could very well be that, and it also could be Trump foreshadowing. Hey, world, get ready because Elon Musk is going to be on a lot of these calls for whatever reason, as far as foreign as that is to us, you know, right.

And and I think the conventional wisdom was that Pompeo was going to be the odds on favor for Secretary Offense. You know, he's been the d C, I A, it's been Secretary of State. So who I'm hearing and this is internal to the media, swirrel and not just ABC, but people bounce stuff off me for Secretary of State. Robert O'Brien, the former National Security Advisor, is really well liked by President Trump and respected by the team as

a whole. Uh. And you know, I think has the qualifications. Grennell, former Ambassador to Germany. Members of person Robert maybe Richard Richard Richard. There you go. I don't I know Robert O'Brien for it's worth, and he is a he's a pretty he's easy to work with, you know, all things. He was the before the National Security Advisor, he was special Envoy for hostages and such. And since a lot of hostages are in the Middle East, Uh, you know,

me and him engaged for a bit. I don't know mister Grenell, but he's he's the two top ones that I've heard consistently for Secretary. I've also heard Senator Rubio, which I haven't heard as much lately. I don't know if it's an issue of wanting to use the Senator that you know, that's a political decision on the d D now that Pompeo is obviously not in the mix.

I've heard Representative Waltz, former Green Beret Mike Wells. I believe it is his name I've heard come up for Secretary of Defense and National Security Advisor, the other name for Secretary of Defense. After Pompeo Cotton pulled himself out.

heard Radcliffe so or Wals. So there's a lot of names that are getting at least discussed openly from multiple positions.

And you know, I mean, change is painful, but change is often good. So we will we will see.

a lieutenant. And I hope you're having a good time and I hope you're staying at trouble but but happy birthday to you, and happy birthday to all Marines full marines and their families out there. No bless you all.