NBC Nightly News with Tom Llamas - Extended interview: Green Beret charged with murder speaks out

Episode Date: February 16, 2019

In an interview with Maj. Matt Golsteyn, the Green Beret tells Lester Holt his version of what happened, and why he believes that he had the authority to set up the ambush that killed a suspected Taliban bomb maker in Afghanistan nearly a decade ago -- even if he didn’t receive a direct order to do so.

What kind of soldier were you? I think I was what my country expected me to be. I hope that's the case. It's an interesting question. Were you a hard charger? Oh, okay. I think my philosophy or my approach to it has always been that leadership is about service. I felt that leading men into combat, in a sense, was like cheating.

I don't view myself as a particularly brave individual by any length of the imagination. I had an overarching fear all the time of doing something wrong, failing to act, making the wrong decision, not making a decision that would result in someone being injured or killed. That responsibility was just so foremost on me all the time that I never had time to think about myself or my welfare. Again, it's not because I was brave, it's just you have the advantage of having so many of those other concerns taking such precedent that you don't have time for the other stuff.

So I think if I had to describe my service, it's with the same word as service. It was leadership is a real privilege. It's a very heavy mantle. And it was a real honor. But it has to be about the people that you're responsible for. Well, let's talk about the circumstances in which we're talking here. You stand accused of murder. You, in another network interview, admitted you killed Rasool, this alleged bomb maker. Did you think at the moment, did you understand at the moment what that was going to open up that admission? I say yes and no.

No in the sense that it's nothing new. I gave a job interview with a government agency and also gave an interview saying far less. I've been in a lot of combat engagements of which people have been enemy enemies have been killed or wounded it's not anything weird I mean it's almost like asking you you know Lester have you ever done an interview before yeah I mean I mean so it's like you know have you did you get the bomb I guess yeah but this one of course derailed your career before the criminal charges absolutely so I mean, so it's like, you know, did you kill the ball maker, you guys? Yeah, but this one, of course, derailed your career even before the criminal charges. Absolutely.

So, I mean, so I say no. I didn't expect anything from the perspective of I'm giving, you know, an interview. That wasn't what I was there to talk about. But, you know, I answered a question honestly as I answered honestly during a job interview. And so I didn't expect anything. On the other end, I did expect something. I knew that the Army had never intended on letting me go. At that point, I had recently started my employment in D.C.

And I had done that, and in the process of doing that I had put in a request to turn off my pay so that I could go take civilian employment and I had done that because I'd been waiting for over a year for the army to act on two separations. So at that point in time I should have been off active duty service six to eight months prior. Your career is derelict. They labeled it conduct unbecoming an officer. Right. So at that point, you expected to be separated in the military. Right. I should have been separated at some point in time in the late summer of 2015, spring of 2016. Why do you think that you're still in the military?

If I could answer that question, we'd probably be dealing with a whole lot less right now. But there was some influence at some level that kept my separation packet from being processed. Well, let's talk about the events. This is February 2010. You're in Marja. I think I mentioned to you I had been there a few months, several months after you were there. And by that point, commanders were showing us how peaceful it was. But they were talking about what hell it was getting to that point.

You were there during that. Describe what Marser was like at the heat of battle. I think one of the most vivid images that stick out for me that I'll never forget is that we announced Star Invasion. In fact, yesterday was our nine year anniversary of it. In addition, so the day before Valentine's Day. Happy Valentine's Day.

So civilians had by and large left, so the specific date was announced and then the last remnants as we were approaching the city from the, we were coming in from the south, were running out in just droves. And while we were starting to breach into the south, were running out in just droves. And while we were starting to breach into the city, I drove my vehicle over to this large mass of caravan of people running,

and approached an old man. And as he came up to me, I mean, he just had tears flowing down his face. And I just walked up to him, I was with my interpreter, and put my arm around him. What's wrong? And he goes, aren't you going to kill me? And I said, no.

He said, well, they told us that you were here to kill all of us. I said, no, we're not. You can go home. I mean, that guy, you know, over the next course of the months became one of my best friends in Mars. I saw him all the time after that. But it spoke to the intensity of what was coming and that even the civilians had left that area. I mean, you were there, so we had a very massive influx of not just Taliban

but foreign fighters from all over the place. Marjah was a prepared defense in depth, so there were bunkers, explosive devices, IDs, built into the entire fabric of Marja. And along the way, two Marines were killed in a bombing. Right. Do you remember that day? I do.

I was not on the scene. I was controlling air from our headquarters that day. So I did not personally witness those events. But, yes, two of our brothers were killed and three were wounded. And that was a horrible day. This is about what the military says was the murder of this alleged bomb maker. Rasul was his name. How did you learn about him and what he was believed to be up to?

Okay, he was... So the context of this battle that day was I had sent an element out to do a reconnaissance of this area which we had come to learn was a prepared fighting position and a headquarters for the enemy that were operating in the area.

The element became decisively engaged because as they were approaching there was concealed positions and bunkers. Because of the outstanding actions of my team sergeant that day in command and then one of which, another one of my guys, Corey Calkins, who was one of the senior service across for that day, another one of my guys, Corey Culkins, was born at the Senior Service Cross for that day. Their violence of action overwhelmed the enemy, and they began throwing weapons down, radios down, trying to get out of the area to escape. Not everyone was, their assault was so quick

that not everyone was able to get out. So there were enemy fighters that were picked up. This individual was one that was not able to leave his fighting position and was found with his IED components, RCE, excuse me, radio remote controlled, sorry remote, it's been a while, remote controlled improvised explosive devices. So there was little doubt that he was a bomb maker. Absolutely. And he was taken into custody. Yes. So in a, it would be the equivalent of taking an enemy trench and taking the soldiers out of it that didn't make it out with the other ones that were running away. He was ultimately released. Do you know why?

My guidance was to not take prisoners, and I don't mean to infer in any way, shape, or form that that was to imply that we were doing anything unlawful with detainees. It's just at the time we had, you know, General McChrystal had referred to it as government in a box. We were to do everything through the Afghans. So the only Afghan capacity that had been built up was for the drug courts.

So if an individual was not caught with a substantial amount of black tar, opium, or processed heroin, he was to be released. Or just don't even bother. Don't take them. Because they have to be released in 72 hours. And we're not coming to get them. There are no detention facilities. There are no detention facilities. There's no, there was no detention facility. There's no, you know, we kind of had two issues.

One was with, because I was an advisor of Afghan forces, Afghan forces would be taking and handling detainees. We could not transfer them over to ISAF forces. Just a legality of, you know, the chain of custody of a detainee. So were you involved in his release? Yes. Did you hear about that? I directed it.

So what were you told to do? Just following the guidance. There's no way to send anyone without, if they were not captured in some way were associated with drugs They were they had to be released. Did that did that anger you I? Can't waste time getting angry over Stuff like that at the at the tactical level in an operation of that size, it's just you have to adapt to The shortcomings and constraints of the plan.

So there was no grumbling, complaints, like, I can't believe we're letting this guy go? But that's from day one of both wars. I mean, we've never really run full detention operations in either theater. You know, as would, in a declared conflict, anyone detained would be handed over to MPs. Like, combat units would not be, have anything to do with the handling or processing of detainees under the rules of war

and our own doctrine. We've just never done that. So this burden has fallen onto tactical units. It's not correct, but it's been a reality we've been living with for the entire war. So it was not unique to Marja. Just that's the way life was. So you let him go and then what? I set an ambush. You said an ambush to get him. Right. So he could have gone any direction in Marja, and if he went back to rejoin his unit, that's when he met me in an ambush.

Had he gone any other direction, we don't meet. And when I think of an ambush, I think of a squad or a group of soldiers. Was it just you? I'm not going to be on that one. we don't meet. And when I think of an ambush, I think of a squad or a group of soldiers. Were you, was it just you? I'm not going to be on that one. Okay. I mean, I don't want to have that kind of answer on camera, but I'm just not going to speak to any of that. This, and I guess my answer to that question would be, integrity is important to me. and what has happened to everyone associated with me, to include their families, has been so awful that I wouldn't sit here and talk to you about any of my teammates watching their kids for them.

That would prompt invasion and harassment and coercion into their lives. But your decision was made on the direction that he went. Yes, absolutely. Oh, no, he made his decision on what direction he went. But when he went in the direction of what you thought was the Taliban, that's where you were. Did he see you?

I believe so. Did you exchange words? No, no, it was an ambush. So I think what frustrates me about the last, as we're in our eighth year, is the command has known this, the investigators have known this. What they have endeavored to do is to describe what I would say is a fairly routine combat action as murder. The implication is that special operators

and other units that do close combat with the enemy, like the infantry, anyone who's participated in the global war on terror over the last 15 years is likely subject to be accused of murder under this rubric. Because what you told me the Army knew years ago. Yes, absolutely. And it was investigators and lawyers that took their words and put them in my mouth. And what did happen was an incredible effort to adhere to the laws of war, to adhere to our rules of engagement. Did someone order you or instruct you or give you the authority to set this ambush?

I had the authority. To set the ambush? Absolutely. Without an order? Absolutely. I was a battle space owner. I owned the southern third of Marsha. My immediate commander of the Marines, the 7th RCT commander, testified at my board of inquiry that had I not made that decision, he would have fired me.

Our standing rules of engagement not just say I can make that engagement, they order me to make that engagement. I've never been in combat, so I'm trying to see how others might interpret this. What's the difference between setting the ambush and executing him while he was in custody? The fact that he was under my control. But when he was in custody, he was under your control.

He was, but he was no longer. He was of his own free will. Oh, so once he's on his free will. Right. He's not a detainee anymore. Did you talk to your fellow soldiers about having accomplished this? No. How come? I mean, there's so many reasons. We were incredibly busy.

We were doing a lot at the time. Was it something you wanted to conceal from your other soldiers? No. No. I know it sounds easy in my living room, but to be a captain in charge of, at the time, 500 guys and doing a variety of different operations going on all the time. We were busy. On top of that, it's a difficult thing to be just juggling all those things at one time. If you had not killed him,

what do you think the outcome would have been down the road? I believe that what would have happened was that a tribal leader and his family would have been executed. The military says it has come upon additional evidence. Do you know what that evidence is? Evidence against you? No. I've seen the investigation. There come upon additional evidence. Do you know what that evidence is, evidence against you?

No. I've seen the investigation. There is no new evidence. What do you think turned this into a criminal prosecution versus the administrative action against you? I could only make an inference here. It would be difficult i think that this is uh the the result of some ambitious prosecutors at the united states army special operations command i think they um and obviously from what we've learned dishonest investigators right the first investigation was um at the board of inquiry came out the lead agent The lead agent had to testify under oath that he put forth a narrative that was completely false.

You're talking about Sergeant Dela Cruz? No, this is Adam Armstrong. The first investigation was based on a lie. Then he had to come forward with that information at the Board of Inquiry, which is in the transcript that this happened. So the first the first um they're called uh investigative report in you know agent investigative reports uh the first one after they watched the interview um attributed a quote to me that said that i said that i and another teammate took this individual to his home and assassinated him. That's not what happened.

It's not what happened. It's not what I said. You told the story of the ambush. Right. That you just told me. How is that fundamentally different, though, whether it was at the house or...? Well, taking someone to their house is different than releasing them... You've been under your control. Under my control.

So it was a deliberate attempt to paint this person as a detainee. Did Rasul threaten you? Did he have a weapon? He was an RCID maker. Going back to his combat unit, he's a member of a declared hostile force and the standing of rules of engagement authorized me and compelled me to make that engagement.

Had this happened before? Not necessarily involving you, but was this not uncommon? In Marjah? In the war zone in general. We were in combat from sunup to sundown. And again, this was as close to cowboys and Indians and running around in the woods with guns as it could get. It just turned into real bullets. Which is like, again, back to your question, is trying to answer, is there one I can see?

Or do you talk to your teammates? We were in these types of engagements all day. Sometimes with just a small group of people. We didn't come back and go, hey, I was out there and got shot at today or shot today. That wasn't a thing of what we talked about. But in terms of someone being released, back on their own, ambush, would that be unusual? It would not be unusual to set ambushes. It would not be unusual to, no. Against someone you know as an enemy combatant? Yeah, that would not be unusual to, no. Against someone you know as an enemy combatant?

Yeah, that would not be unusual at all. Let me ask you just in general, are there any circumstances you can think of where the killing of an enemy combatant by an American war fighter would be a crime? Under the laws of war, it only occurs in one of three situations. One, he's given up his combatant status by becoming a detainee. Two, he's the orders of the combat. So he's so grievously wounded as to render him incapacitated. And so then he gains a protected status.

And then three, he's in the process of surrendering, trying to become a detainee. This guy, it didn't apply to this guy. No, not at all. And that made him a fair ambush target in your view? Yeah. And you know, it is a, the mechanism is different, but no different than what we do with drones. Striking someone from aerial ambush, if you will.

Absolutely. That's actually a great way to put it. It's an aerial ambush. Ambush is a basic battle journal. I mean, it's not a complex operation. That's why I said this is akin to taking routine, normal, basic combat operations that we've all participated in and saying that your participation in it exposes you to charges of murder. You've had a lot of time to play this over your mind. Is there anything that you regret, any decision that you wish you had not made? Not at all. Same circumstances today put you back in Mars or you do it again?

Absolutely. I'll go back to where I started. My overarching fear has been to not do what I'm supposed to do, to not make the decisions that I need to make that cause someone to be killed or injured. That's the kind of thing that there are things worse than death, and that would be one of them. I would not want to live with that. Instead of seeing some of my teammates and people serving with their families, with their kids, the alternative reality could be I could be seeing their kids without them

and know that was because I failed to do my duty and do what I was supposed to do. This story came out during your interview with the CIA and that's when the Army began to take another look. But is it fair to say there were plenty of people who were aware of what had transpired before this became a deal? Are you talking about in Afghanistan? Yeah, in other words, so, I mean, at your, I don't know, command level, was anybody aware of what had happened? No. I mean, I think that

speaks to how unremarkable it was. It was just routine, I mean, routine warfare. So you didn't feel the need to come back, hey guys, you know that guy we took into custody? I took care routine warfare. So you didn't feel a need to come back, hey, guys, you know that guy we took into custody? I took care of him. It wasn't like that? And also what is interesting to me is if he is compelled to handle a situation like that, if he had not, as the Marine leadership has testified, like they would have fired him,

also he could have been charged with misbehavior before the enemy. If he encounters an enemy combatant and does not act, that's also punishable. Do you think this has changed the way other soldiers, SEALs, whoever go about the war now? Has this had a chilling effect on other war fighters that you're aware of I I think you know it's hard to speak on behalf of you know a ton of people but from you know people I know and have come to know through this process I think it certainly has had an effect of confirming what we all thought before was maybe a possibility, is that your command reserves the right to come back and say that what you did in combat wasn't right. It's murder. I think in the environment

of, you know, there's a lot of talk about the rules of engagement are bad. The rules of engagement haven't changed. This is an engagement that's within the rules. This act, like many others, are all within the rules of engagement. It's the interpretation. It's how they operationalize it. That there is this constant pressure. There is no benefit of the doubt. how they operationalize it. That there is this constant pressure, there is no benefit of the doubt.

I think one of the things that stood out to Army investigators and others is that you burn the body. Some might look at that as an effort to conceal. Right. And by concealing, it's an acknowledgement that it was against the rules or maybe even illegal. How do you explain that decision? Same thing as the other one. This is not significant. From the minute we went in there, there were no civilians. There's no one to claim stuff, to claim bodies. We were picking up pieces from aircraft,fire and bombs to dispose of them. I mean this isn't, it's

hard to imagine something as intense as that was for the length of period that it was. But just for battlefield hygiene and those things, bodies and stuff like that were being used as booby traps. The same technique was moved up into Sangin. And so that was a battlefield hygiene and a removal of hazard to the force, not an effort to conceal. What was your reaction when this first became an issue, when the Army first began an investigation?

Were you shocked? Because this had happened at this point a couple years earlier, several years earlier. Are you talking about the second time? No, when, so the job application, you acknowledge what happened and then suddenly the Army begins an investigation. Were you shocked by that? Initially yes, but I think that, you know, you have to separate the emotion and the frustration a bit and be fair that they have an obligation to investigate. I'm not upset with them for doing an investigation and running down the facts, what was frustrating was the obsession to

ignore the facts and somehow find some to substantiate their narrative. Like they wanted it, it was just obvious, they wanted it to be something else. Why? I think on the, I don't know, it's, I don't know. And I come from a civilian world, so I'm trying to process, you know, why the Army would unjustly go after a decorated soldier. You know, there's a difference between on the military side and civilian side. I mean, there's a strong disincentive to not pursue cases that you can't win on the civilian side. On the Army, it's a throw everything up and see what sticks.

They don't litigate a lot. So things like this are career makers, quite frankly. I mean, at the time, I was a Distinguished Service Cross winner, a Special Forces major. You know, there was books, investigators, and these, you know, junior prosecutors make their name by just messing with me or getting me to a court-martial. So were you leading direct action units? Yes. So I was a battle space owner with all of the authorities that goes with that, which is to declare targets hostile, to clear my own fires.

So we used aircraft and dropped ordnance off of just about everything except for a stealth. It's a cliche sometimes, but fog of war. Is it a real thing? It is a very real thing. And there is a psychological contract, if you will. I mean, it's also embedded in all of our doctrine, is that when there is no evidence to the contrary, or there's a firm belief that the commander is acting in good faith, you get the benefit of the doubt that we understand that there is limited information and combat situations can be very difficult and that you have to make the best decision you can with the information you have available under the constraints that you have. It's a good time. Have you been given the benefit of the doubt? Absolutely not. Never have.

I have been guilty. I walked into the board of inquiry in 2015 to a room full of people who were convinced I was a murderer. And they haven't changed their opinion? The board changed their opinion. But what we do is, so as we're entering our eighth year, these lawyers have tours of duty. And so a new set comes in, the energy comes back up and they get excited and then the

tail's off, then they leave and the next crew comes in. That's where we're at the tail end of a set of prosecutors who who just seem to do a much better job of convincing the commanding general to move forward on this. In fact, they both deferred their next assignment to their lawyer advanced course to prosecute me. They're putting their they're putting their career on hold to come after me because it is career enhancing. And not in the interest of justice, in the interest of their own careers. Because if they get Major Goldstein to a court marshal and lose, they still got Major Goldstein to a court marshal. What in your opinion has the military gotten wrong about your case?

What they have gotten wrong is commanders have failed to be commanders. I have spent half of this quiet in a public sense, but speaking very candidly to my commanders and letting them know what was going on and where the errors were and what, and quite specifically the stuff that you're getting from CID is not right. But in terms of the facts of the case, what facts have they put forward? They've got none of the facts right. Both investigations are empty. So we know there was a prisoner who was released, we know there was an ambush.

But they've never called it that. They called the first time when I, you know, so I've been, there's been like a litany of allegations. So right now it's premeditated murder. But it's been war crimes. It's been rules of engagement violations. It's been murder. It's been conspiracy.

It's been obstruction of justice. Everyone's cooperated. If this standard, if other soldiers in roles like yours were held to this standard, do you think if we'd see a lot of guys going up for trial? Yes. For murder? Yes. Anyone who's been in combat. Anyone. Anyone that has been in combat and killed an enemy under this standard could be considered as a murder. Do you feel a moral ambiguity when you're in these situations? No. Fog of war. Did the fog of war apply in this case?

No. You had absolute clarity on what you did and why you did it. Absolutely. This is a known member of a declared hostile force. And the rules of engagement direct me to use lethal force against members of a declared hostile force of the Taliban. As we speak, I'm hearing your baby down the hall. That's your son. Yes. Would you want to see your son join the military? I would be open to it. I think my wife would feel it quite differently.

Absolutely not, you see. Over my dead body. Because of this experience? Absolutely. There's no way. Which makes me very sad, and that breaks my heart to say. And I can't believe I'm saying that. And I can't believe that I now feel the way that I feel about our military. And I don't want to say our military totally about his command and what they've done. Growing up the way that

I did, taught to revere the military, support our troops, all of that. It breaks my heart to say that, but there is no way. But do you both want to see this thing go to trial? I mean, you're very confident in your position. Absolutely. Do you, are you anxious to get this all out there? Or are you fearful you still won't get justice? What I am, what I want is to take away the opportunity for the Army to do this a third time.

So if that's a court-martial, then that's a court-martial. If that's a pardon, then that's a pardon. If one of my commanders acts on the petitions that I'm giving them and dismisses these charges with prejudice prejudice that would be great as well. My fear is is that the Army will retreat from this and dismiss it and not you know not apply a prejudice to it and leave reserve themselves the right to do this two or three days later. If you were if you were found not guilty do you think the damage is still done to you personally I think the moral injury of this is done and is not going to be more or less exacerbated by

you know a court-martial it just is to me personally they can't take away my relationships they can't take away my relationships they can't take away my memories taking a special forces tab for me doesn't make me not a Green Beret taking a distinguished service cross doesn't change the fact that my teammates wrote that up and submitted it you're proud of your service absolutely absolutely that's why I say if either of my sons came to me down the road and said that they wanted to serve, I would support them. Because the, you know, in this instance, I think you have to separate the service and the honor of the profession and the acts from small people in the institution. As you know, the President of the United States called you a U.S. military hero and said he would look into this.

Have you heard from the President? No, we haven't. Were you heartened by that tweet? Absolutely. In fact, my son, you know, that came three days after we got the charges, and it was very hard for my son, my 12-year-old son. I mean, he was not aware of what was going on the first time.

He's fully aware now. And there's probably nothing I could have said or done for him that would have encouraged him more than when I came home and said, hey, bud, you know, the president said he was going to look into this. And you could just see, you know, instantly like the confidence and the stress, you know, confidence build, the stress kind of come out of his face. Are you holding out hope for a pardon? It would be amazing.

Tactically, we can't, you know't think that way or prepare that way. We have to prepare for a court-martial. Again, it's a mindset. That would be great. We would welcome it. It would put finality to this for us. But we are preparing to take the Army head-on. And I want to be very clear, you don't regret your actions that day. Is there any regret, however, you wish that you had perhaps communicated to your superiors about this, gotten more clarity on your mission? No, for the same reasons before, we also, you know, talked about this during the Board of Inquiry. My communications were down at the time, and the pace of operations were such that what happened a couple hours ago, let alone the day before or days before is so far remote into an unrelated to what we got going on right now that no it just it just wasn't wasn't relevant it was not something I look back and go oh I wish

I had done that differently well I didn't have the option I'm curious about your state of the state of mind though was was there a sense of satisfaction that you got him? No. There is a you know the question is anyone else know or I take no pleasure in killing. I'm not a war junkie. War is a terrible thing. So you know getting back to the moral injury of this, this is a command that knew me, especially at the beginning. There's not one protest in Afghanistan. There's not one person who's, to include the senior leaders of the Marine Corps who were in charge of me at the time, that has any issue with my actions, my decision making, the explanations we've offered, the additional context. The only ones who've ever had an issue here are people who weren't there

and have never served in combat. Army prosecutors and army investigators. And that's important to you that they understand that world. We don't understand that. We see that world on television. I think it goes back to the disposal of the body. Of course, sitting over here in our comfy living rooms, we don't understand that there are pieces of people all over battlefields that need to be handled. It's a completely different world, and we're judging it from our living rooms. I mean in the in the first weeks there we were dozens at least of people in parts from air-fired fire and clearing it off the battlefield so it does not become a thing that could be booby-trapped, sitting in bodies of water that poison drinking water for people

and animals. I mean, it's just, life was horrific there. Life was horrific. It is not anything that, in fact, it was something to an intensity that even people who've participated in this war would find intense. And that's hard for those of us who watch it on TV to understand, to appreciate. Right. And there is no ill intent here. It was just, to me, that was so clearly made.

And everyone cooperated with them. And multiple rounds of issuing immunity letters after they cooperated to get the same statement to the point I think everyone is looking at him and go, why don't you just tell us what you want us to say? Because you're clearly not getting what you want because it's not the truth that you want. You tell me. Do you think the Army is trying to create a specific narrative? Absolutely. The rules of engagement in Afghanistan in general under General McChrystal had been tightened around that time, mainly to prevent further civilian casualties. How did that weigh on you and your soldiers as you went about your business? Heavily. Heavily. In the early days of the war, there was a high-march strike. It's a

guided missile fired from the ground in northern Marja that there ended up being some collateral civilian casualties among killing enemy combatants. And General. And General Crystal, who I don't even know if he was in the country at the time, might have been touring Europe, immediately apologized. And we ended up getting restrictions to our indirect fires after that. No investigation, just, I mean, right away apologized. Do you think it put you and your soldiers in front of risk? It put everyone at incredible risk. And it also sends a loud message that he's not for you.

Every incident that happens, the assumption is, is you did something wrong. I mean, what a, again, going back to the intensity, even combat is a very difficult, trying thing. To be a leader in and to be making decisions in those environments are very difficult. To now add to that the burden of my most senior commander is going to assume that I did something wrong if he ever hears about anything that we do. I mean, he proved that over and over and over again. And that was something you guys talked about. Oh, absolutely. I mean, it was first and foremost in everyone's mind.

It was a horrible, horrible thing that he did to us and everyone that served under him in Afghanistan. Okay, I'm just checking my notes here. I'm sorry. You kind of hit on this, but does the public in your mind have the right to judge you and what happened in Marjah? Well, I hope, I mean, I guess in a sense of a criminal process, no, our system doesn't work that way, but everyone's entitled to their judgment or assessment of what I did or didn't do in Afghanistan.

How do you feel about your husband? I mean, I mentioned the Twitter. I see a lot of support there, but are you hearing from critics? Oh, some here and there. I think mostly people who live in their mother's basements and don't get much fresh air. The support has been overwhelming. The positive, I mean, we're every, I mean. Yeah, detractors are very, very rare. Yeah. I can't

even think of anything that sticks out in my head. I mean, it's, I almost, I mean, it's humbling. I'm hearing from his Afghan interpreters who have written statements that I've, I've posted on my social media in support of him, the men he served with, with their wives. I mean, I mean, we stepped. Total strangers, complete wives. I mean, we stepped... Total strangers. Complete strangers. Every time we are on something or there's a new article that comes out, my inbox is flooded with messages of love and support from people that I don't know. What do you think when somebody calls you a hero?

Do you bristle at that? Do you accept it? I don't believe that I'm a hero. I did what I was supposed to do. And it is, in a sense, I think it is validating to know that what you care about, that other people value. That's to Americans here and, you know, teammates and Marines and stuff like that is, it's important, it's been very encouraging. It's really buoyed us through this. You still, we've still got a lot of people over there and in other hotsp spots around the world.

Is your heart with them? Do you think about them? Every day. I've never considered myself a war junkie. I loved leading, and I always felt that it was important to give the guys that are going over there into harm's way the best in leadership that they could get. And so I endeavor to do that. And I do miss them a lot. It's been the hardest. The worst thing that I think happened to me in the initial

is they kind of marooned me. They relieved me of command, and then no one talked to me again really till the Board of Inquiry. Kind of put you on an island. I didn't care if I came to work, didn't care where I was, didn't talk to me and then you know having to but you know deliberately isolate myself from my teammates so as not to give any appearance of impropriety. And when you say isolated, you mean the leadership? Call, talk. I mean, I went, you know, not, you know, just to not, you know, show that we were trying to interfere with it all. You felt like a pariah?

Um, a little bit, but just more so that all of my, you know, relationships, whether for good or bad or colored by this, there was years that went by that I couldn't talk to people I'd surfed with because there was an open investigation. You can't sit there and tell stories over a beer. Right, because then it was just this flailing to find anything to come after me or anyone else with. And so, you know, I watched their kids, you know, separate of every, I mean, when we get together now, we don't even

talk about this. It's not important. But it's hard to, you know, have that separation it was hard to be at that place in my life and then have it just ripped out from me in no real closure no justification officially we don't know but we assume this is gonna go to trial do you in your quiet moments do you think about what that means, go to trial, prison, death penalty is on the table? I have the advantage more so here, I think, than Julie. I'm a bit numb to it. I kind of went through the mental rehearsal of that years ago. Certainly hard now with my son and now having a newborn boy. It is

hard thing to think about. But we, I mean, we've already submitted a waiver for the Article 32. Meaning you're ready to go straight to trial. Absolutely. You skipped the prelim. Yes, the investigation before knowing the situation with Dela Cruz was vacuous. And, you know, the litany of prosecutorial misconduct here. If any of these prosecutors survive this without letters of reprimand at a minimum I would be shocked so we're just ready to go as far as the the consequence of it I'm confident but of course they are

always there and but I'm ready Julie describe you guys have married long after this was all moving through the system. Describe your husband to me. He is very intelligent. He is the most generous person I have ever met. Humble. And honest. And worthy of so much more than this.

You were married in 2017. When did you meet? We met in 2015. I knew of him before I knew him. So, to put it bluntly, you signed on knowing there was, he was in some jeopardy. Yes. I guess I always knew To put it bluntly, you signed on knowing he was in some jeopardy. Yes.

Yes. I guess I always knew this was a possibility, but I am so stunned by the gall of the investigators and the attorneys to actually bring charges when they have no case. It is astounding. Because you married Matthew under these circumstances, you've never really had the experience of being an Army wife, as we think of, in terms of the camaraderie of other Army wives, have you? I was married previously to a soldier. Okay. So yes.

But have you felt any support under these circumstances? Absolutely. Like I said earlier, I mean, I'm hearing from mothers of soldiers, wives, sisters, from the people who have served with Matt, who know us personally, who also have military personnel in their families, but people all over the country. And what I find amazing is so many of them say, for example, my son is in the Army and we are watching the outcome of this. Or I have two young sons and we are watching the outcome of this. Does this occupy your every waking moment or are you able to have normal days and walk as if this is not part of your lives?

We're trying. It's been two months of burdensome traveling to and from Fort Bragg to try to keep some semblance of normalcy with our newborn. Josh is here trying to go to middle school every day, so we're all separated during the week. I insist on going with him to Bragg. I don't know from day to day really what they're going to pull, what kind of stunts may be inflicted on him. So I refuse to let him travel alone. So we have been driving back and forth a lot. Sometimes we come home for a night and get in the car the next day and go right back

so that we can get home, see Josh, see the dog, and repack our things and head right back out. So this has consumed your life. This has been our life. I feel like the last, yesterday was the two-month anniversary of him getting charges, and I feel like it has been two years, not two months. It has been extremely painful at a time, and it's not lost on us that they did this right before the holidays. They called Matt back the day before Fort Bragg went on a half-day schedule. So that's not lost on us.

After eight years, they charged him right before Christmas. We had at a time a two month old. So at a time when we should be bonding as a family and enjoying our lives, we are having this pain inflicted on us every day. Seems like a silly question for me to ask, but why are you sharing your story? Given the fact that one of the interviews may have ultimately led to charges. It's the only way to defend ourselves.

We spent more than half of this completely quiet.