Eric and Eliot - would you please take a moment to explain how the Administration can fire the Commandant of the Coast Guard - without warning or process? This is unprecedented with any of the heads of the services. Nobody is talking about this but at 1 minute after midnight, Jan 21, it was done by the acting head of homeland security. Is this even legal to remove the Admiral in this way?
It's inconsistent to blame Biden for not deterring the Russians better while praising him for holding NATO together. We won't know if we went too far until it happens, at which point we can't go back. It also is remarkable that none of Schake's analysis addresses that Congress has a role in such things as trade policy and military spending (and the taxation it would require, unless we're going to keep ignoring the national debt). Biden did a good, though imperfect, job, probably better than anyone else we likely could have had in the White House.
There is no inconsistency here at all. Both of these statements are obviously true. With respect to trade policy, Congress has little power because, over the past century, it has delegated most of its power to the President. In order to take that power back, it would need to overcome a presidential veto.
Overall, Biden has been a mediocre leader - better than Trump, maybe better than Obama, but not in the same league as Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, who gave us 20 straight years of strong foreign policy between them.
Respectfully, I don't see how they're both obviously true. The US doesn't get to practice deterrence alone when it leads an alliance focused on Russia. I think it's highly unlikely that Estonia and Italy or Poland and Portugal share the same sense of how to deal with Russian aggression (and that doesn't even include Hungary). It's easy to imagine that if Biden had pushed the Russians harder the alliance would have been shaken, if not splintered. Neither you nor I know what would have happened.
Gentlemen. I listen to your podcast because of the years of study and knowledge you have on foreign policy and strategy. However, in your discussion of Trumps rhetoric on Panama, Greenland, and Canada I’m afraid you have forgotten or are not aware of Lamorisse’s work in world strategy, something I was introduced to by my older brothers in the 70’s.
As it relates to North America, it’s clear that the United States, working from a foundational strength in Western and Eastern US, as well as a strong border position in Alaska has three obvious strategic moves to make:
1. Consolidate a defensive southern border in Panama and Central America
2. Greatly enlarge its footprint in Greenland so as to make it impossible for competitors to extend their strength there
3. Then further expand our own strength in Alaska and the US into Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and the Northwest Territory. Forces could be moved from NW territory to Greenland or, if needed Alaska to make our North American continent secure
This is a truly “America First” strategy, but what is better is it is also in the service of Ukraine. Trying to Hold Ukraine with its long border with Russia and Asia does not really gain us anything. But, with our strength in Greenland we can easily move to Iceland and from there the rest of Europe with a strong border protecting us in Ukraine.
I have successfully used this strategy many times and, to be honest, it has occurred to me that the President Elect or perhaps his nominee for SecDef have arrived at their conclusions in the same way that I have.
I'm not sure Trump's attention span is sufficient play out a game of Risk to the end. (Monopoly, with money, deeds, and hotels, might be more his style.) But I'll bet one of his national security advisers (Waltz, Anton, or Gorka) is feeding him Risk-based analysis without revealing the source, and Trump is repeating it without understanding what he is saying. He does that a lot in other contexts.
Great show as always. Interesting take on Biden’s presidency, which was a colossal disappointment for me as a Biden voter. I will never forgive him for his Ukraine policy. If Ukraine ultimately loses the war to Russia it will be all Biden’s fault for his too little too late “your hands are tied” supply of weapons and restrictions thereof.
As to Hegseth, please provide a link if you can to Elizabeth Warren’s letter. She did grill him pretty hard during the hearing, but he still seemed to skate through, and Joni Ernst has now said she will vote to confirm him, so he will probably be the next SecDef. If you can comment here before the vote actually happens, it would be greatly appreciated. If it’s true Hegseth’s Deputy Secretary is also weak and relatively inexperienced, that’s pretty disturbing. What do you think of Elbridge Colby as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy? Scary? Not scary? A guardrail? I look forward to your next episode. Get Kori back. I need someone who can find hope inside these very dark clouds.
Sadly they did not get the nomination hearing right.None of what they predicted about the questioning (which was for the majority weak)became a reality. It's the world we live in. God help America.
Second time their taped show was stepped on by Hegseth-related news. They're smart guys. I suspect from here out they will preface any predictions where he's concerned with "clearly no one has any idea what will actually happen here..."
And by the way, that fact is the *most* chilling thing we can say about the next four years. There is simply no way to predict their actions
Trump himself doesn't know what he will do in six months. He has great confidence in his ability to improvise, and he has never spoken a word that he regards as a commitment.
I don't understand why the Senate dems mostly appear as nincompoops at this sort of thing. Frankly, nobody was interested in hearing them ask, or hearing Hegseth respond, about his personal philandering lifestyle. His drinking yes, but cheating on spouses? Nobody cares at this point. He is so eminently unqualified for the position. You could have just asked him to describe his actual professional experience that qualifies him and ask him to go on the record as to why he left those two organizations that he ran so poorly. It's seems like most of these senators have never interviewed a potential job candidate. And do they even work together to come up with cohesive, coordinated questions? I don't think so.
Eric and Eliot - would you please take a moment to explain how the Administration can fire the Commandant of the Coast Guard - without warning or process? This is unprecedented with any of the heads of the services. Nobody is talking about this but at 1 minute after midnight, Jan 21, it was done by the acting head of homeland security. Is this even legal to remove the Admiral in this way?
It's inconsistent to blame Biden for not deterring the Russians better while praising him for holding NATO together. We won't know if we went too far until it happens, at which point we can't go back. It also is remarkable that none of Schake's analysis addresses that Congress has a role in such things as trade policy and military spending (and the taxation it would require, unless we're going to keep ignoring the national debt). Biden did a good, though imperfect, job, probably better than anyone else we likely could have had in the White House.
There is no inconsistency here at all. Both of these statements are obviously true. With respect to trade policy, Congress has little power because, over the past century, it has delegated most of its power to the President. In order to take that power back, it would need to overcome a presidential veto.
Overall, Biden has been a mediocre leader - better than Trump, maybe better than Obama, but not in the same league as Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, who gave us 20 straight years of strong foreign policy between them.
Respectfully, I don't see how they're both obviously true. The US doesn't get to practice deterrence alone when it leads an alliance focused on Russia. I think it's highly unlikely that Estonia and Italy or Poland and Portugal share the same sense of how to deal with Russian aggression (and that doesn't even include Hungary). It's easy to imagine that if Biden had pushed the Russians harder the alliance would have been shaken, if not splintered. Neither you nor I know what would have happened.
Gentlemen. I listen to your podcast because of the years of study and knowledge you have on foreign policy and strategy. However, in your discussion of Trumps rhetoric on Panama, Greenland, and Canada I’m afraid you have forgotten or are not aware of Lamorisse’s work in world strategy, something I was introduced to by my older brothers in the 70’s.
As it relates to North America, it’s clear that the United States, working from a foundational strength in Western and Eastern US, as well as a strong border position in Alaska has three obvious strategic moves to make:
1. Consolidate a defensive southern border in Panama and Central America
2. Greatly enlarge its footprint in Greenland so as to make it impossible for competitors to extend their strength there
3. Then further expand our own strength in Alaska and the US into Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and the Northwest Territory. Forces could be moved from NW territory to Greenland or, if needed Alaska to make our North American continent secure
This is a truly “America First” strategy, but what is better is it is also in the service of Ukraine. Trying to Hold Ukraine with its long border with Russia and Asia does not really gain us anything. But, with our strength in Greenland we can easily move to Iceland and from there the rest of Europe with a strong border protecting us in Ukraine.
I have successfully used this strategy many times and, to be honest, it has occurred to me that the President Elect or perhaps his nominee for SecDef have arrived at their conclusions in the same way that I have.
I'm not sure Trump's attention span is sufficient play out a game of Risk to the end. (Monopoly, with money, deeds, and hotels, might be more his style.) But I'll bet one of his national security advisers (Waltz, Anton, or Gorka) is feeding him Risk-based analysis without revealing the source, and Trump is repeating it without understanding what he is saying. He does that a lot in other contexts.
Great show as always. Interesting take on Biden’s presidency, which was a colossal disappointment for me as a Biden voter. I will never forgive him for his Ukraine policy. If Ukraine ultimately loses the war to Russia it will be all Biden’s fault for his too little too late “your hands are tied” supply of weapons and restrictions thereof.
As to Hegseth, please provide a link if you can to Elizabeth Warren’s letter. She did grill him pretty hard during the hearing, but he still seemed to skate through, and Joni Ernst has now said she will vote to confirm him, so he will probably be the next SecDef. If you can comment here before the vote actually happens, it would be greatly appreciated. If it’s true Hegseth’s Deputy Secretary is also weak and relatively inexperienced, that’s pretty disturbing. What do you think of Elbridge Colby as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy? Scary? Not scary? A guardrail? I look forward to your next episode. Get Kori back. I need someone who can find hope inside these very dark clouds.
Sadly they did not get the nomination hearing right.None of what they predicted about the questioning (which was for the majority weak)became a reality. It's the world we live in. God help America.
Second time their taped show was stepped on by Hegseth-related news. They're smart guys. I suspect from here out they will preface any predictions where he's concerned with "clearly no one has any idea what will actually happen here..."
And by the way, that fact is the *most* chilling thing we can say about the next four years. There is simply no way to predict their actions
Trump himself doesn't know what he will do in six months. He has great confidence in his ability to improvise, and he has never spoken a word that he regards as a commitment.
Post-facto Hegseth performance before the Senate:
No One Asked the questions of him that y'all predicted regarding weapons, budget, or department management.
Yee-Ha.
I don't understand why the Senate dems mostly appear as nincompoops at this sort of thing. Frankly, nobody was interested in hearing them ask, or hearing Hegseth respond, about his personal philandering lifestyle. His drinking yes, but cheating on spouses? Nobody cares at this point. He is so eminently unqualified for the position. You could have just asked him to describe his actual professional experience that qualifies him and ask him to go on the record as to why he left those two organizations that he ran so poorly. It's seems like most of these senators have never interviewed a potential job candidate. And do they even work together to come up with cohesive, coordinated questions? I don't think so.
It was pathetic. We all know Hegseth is a moral microbe. The Dems needed to expose his incompetence.