The Ricochet Podcast - To Speak Ill of the Dead

Episode Date: March 20, 2026

H.R. McMaster joins Steve and Charles to take stock of the war in the Middle East. Though a tank man by training, H.R. is no stranger to thinking about our capabilities and how they stack up against our foes—both the enemy in Iran and the aggressors backing them up. Plus, Cooke and Hayward can't help but feel a bit of relief that there's a bit less Erlichian misanthropy in the world; consider newly reported accusations against Caesar Chavez that could prove fatal to the progressive hero's reputation; and they round the necrologies out with a salute to the immortal Chuck Norris. Sounds from this week's open: Cesar Chavez at UCLA in 1972, Paul Erlich (Growth Busters, 2007) and Chuck Norris on… Chuck Norris (Full Measure, 2017)

All right. General, I think we're going to jump right in when you're ready. Okay, cool. My hair okay? Right. I go to the same barber you do. Brothers and sisters, you know, you are really not that far from the farm workers. There are a lot of people who think we can relax because population growth is projected to level off. What you got to remember is it's projected to level off, adding more people than we're alive on the entire. planet when I was born. It's the Rickashay podcast with Steve Hayward in California, Charles C.W. Cook in Florida,

and today our very special guest is H.R. McMaster. Let's have ourselves a podcast. They wanted to put Chuck Norse on Mount Rushmore, but the granite wasn't tough enough for his beard. I thought, you know, this is pretty funny. Welcome everybody to the RICOchet podcast number 781. It's Steve Hayward sitting in the host chair for James Lalex today, joined by Charles Cook in Jacksonville, Florida, and I'm coming to you from Malibu, California. So, boy, have we got the two coastal paradises covered? And the rest of the country, I'm afraid I just don't feel sorry for you.

Going through winter, going through snow and slush and rain and gray skies. Right, right. So I am going to begin the show today. with noting the passings of this week, which include the late great Paul Ehrlich, say more about him in a moment. All the successors in Iranian leadership seem to be dying very quickly. And news out here Friday morning that Chuck Norris has passed away, which is going to present a challenge to the memeosphere. I don't know if you follow all the Chuck Norris memes, Charlie, but they're pretty funny. I don't know if you agree with this, but the only person that I have ever been told that I look like,

is Chuck Norris. Oh, I get that. I don't so much now. Maybe 10 years ago I did more. But I was in France last year on the streets of Avignon. I was actually in the Palais de Papad Avenue when the Pope died, which is a very strange experience. But I was walking past a restaurant and this guy came flying out of the front door of this restaurant

and said, you look like Chuck Norris. So, I mean, I do follow those memes because I do. I have a personal stake in it now. Oh, I can totally see that. And, you know, you might, I don't know, want to get a little karate robe sometime and post for some pictures. Except he was very short. I was shocked to learn this because I'm 6-3, but apparently he was about 5-8. Yeah, 5-8, 5-9.

And one of the memes is Chuck Norris, who's 5-9, stood next to some basketball player who's 6-8, and Chuck Norris was taller. And there's already one out today that, you know, Oh, shoot, I've already lost what it does, but something about, you know, death lost his appointment with Chuck Norris or something like this, and he's going to be resurrected faster than Jesus was, something like that. It gets out of hand, but those things take wing, right? But then I can't help mentioning the passing of Paul Ehrlich, which got a lot of notice, including from you all at National Review and everywhere else,

and I wrote a couple of different things. I actually debated that miserable person a couple of times, including the first time on this half-hour PBS television show hosted by some young sandy-haired guy named Peter Robinson. That was it. Peter Robinson had me on with Erlich. And you could actually find it on YouTube. Production values 20 years ago were pretty grainy compared to what we're used to today. But I was pleased that I got Erlich to concede that actually there have been some improvements.

and not only the population outlook in the world, but the environmental outlook. Because one of the craziest things he said, hard to rank them, was, you know, by the year 1980, we're going to all have to be wearing gas masks because air pollution will have gotten so bad. And I just went through the numbers because, you know, I'm a clean air act nut about how much air pollution has improved, including in the worst places like Los Angeles, where I grew up. And he had to admit, yes, there has been some good news, but we're still all doomed. And anyway, what I'm like that. But good grief.

You know, not to abstract this out to the breaking point, Steve, but this really is the core debate, I think, in our politics and our world. Do you believe that human beings are the problem, that they destroyed some Russoian state of nature, that they are a virus, that they are using the earth in. lastedly ways, or do you believe that people are good, that sure, we have original sin or whatever your religion determines, but that human nature can be overcome, not permanently, but on an individual basis, and that the earth is here and that we should be stewards of it, but we should use it for ourselves. I mean, I think that's the dividing line. And Paul Ehrlich was notable purely because he was so far in the other direction that he wanted people dead, or at least he wanted them not to be born. And he didn't want them to thrive.

I mean, all of the quotes I've read since he died have been about population. But he also said things like, you know, giving human beings cheap and abundant energy would be like giving an idiot child a machine gun. That's just a misanthropic thing to say. Cheap abundant energy is at the root of all societal and cultural thriving. That's what you need. You need that and food. And actually, we're really good at producing both as long as the poor Oerlicks of the world don't get in the way. Yeah.

You know, I'm teaching energy policy this semester as it happens. And one of the first things I do on the very first day of class is, say, human beings could easily be called homoigniferen's. There's actually evidence in evolutionary biology that are. brain size began to expand and certainly it's true that human development takes off when we mastered fire the most primitive energy technology of all right and and all the correlations in human health longevity and well-being correlate and the industrial revolution that correlates with mastering energy and so to say that cheap and abundant energy and by the way I think you would include clean

energy would have you to find clean leave that for another day he'd be against that totally misunderstanding that above all if we don't have energy we don't have much of anything. Yeah, there's a bunch of those like that. That one's the one I was going to pick on. I will give him one credit for honesty. He often said, I'm in favor of coercion. He used the C word, including, you know, directly, you know,

he talked about putting contraceptive chemicals in the water supply, fining people if they had more than one child, things of that kind. And by the way, the population control movement, that actually predates him by several decades, did involve or impose some of the worst human rights abuses around the country in places like India and China. And so that's right, which he liked. That's true.

FCC should determine that every depiction of a large family was negative. Right, right. Yeah, there's that. And then I guess the other way of talking about who gets celebrated in the world. So we'll talk about Caesar Chavez a bit later. But so Erlick remained a huge celebrity. You know, 60 Minutes had him back on again just a few years ago, long after his population projections and predictions had been busted. Meanwhile, the person who really deserved to be celebrated, I know you and your readers know this, is Norman Borlaug, who did win the Nobel Peace Prize for his really central role in the Green Revolution that prevented starvation from being our future.

And but nonetheless, Erlich was still getting the UN Environment Prize. He got one of those MacArthur Genius prizes, which is actually always a badge that you're an imbecile most of the time. But still, it's amazing how you can be celebrated no matter how far wrong you are as long as you have the ideology, right? Premature. You see that? Mm-hmm. Yeah, times. Well, that, ah, yes, I can't resistance.

We have you with your native accent with us. One of his predictions was, he actually said, if I were a bearer. betting man, I'll bet that the nation of England will not exist by the year 2000. And in a certain way, you know where I'm going with this, in a certain way he might be correct, just premature because of the birth rate of a certain subpopulation in England these days. I think he thought it would be underwater, right? That was it, yeah. It's crazy.

I mean, as Christopher Hitchens used to say, you know, they really deserve to be wandering aimless, around a park selling pencils from a cup. He's a crazy person. Could you just imagine in any other circumstance, somebody whose core goal in life was to stop people being born, being treated the way that he was? Yeah, yeah. Well, I'll just mention, maybe it's another symptom of what you brought up.

The second time I debated him was not recorded, but it was at the new school in Manhattan, which is a pretty liberal place. And I was on a panel, And it was James Hansen, the big climate change alarmist. Michael Oppenheimer from Princeton, who's also a big climate change factotum back then, and Erlich, and then me. So it was three-on-one, and that's what academia calls a balanced panel.

But actually, I had fun because I got to whichever direction I fired in, I hit something that deserves hitting. So anyway. Well, all right, we have a very special guest today to talk to us about the Ron War, and I think we should turn to him right now. And now we welcome to the podcast, General H.R. McMaster, one of our favorite guests here on the Rickershay podcast, author of several fine books, most recently at War with Ourselves, my tour of duty in the Trump White House, and, of course, a veteran of some pretty serious

Middle Eastern combat. So General McMaster, I'll bet you can't guess why we wanted to talk to you today. And obviously the subject on everyone's mind. So I'm going to make a proposition in the way of an opening question in a manner of speaking and let you respond to it and see if I'm completely off base. And, you know, fog of war, a layperson, I have no combat experience, no great expertise in knowing what's going on. But it did strike me the other day that I think I know why we're winning this war. And the reason I think that is because the media is so sour on it. I think back to something you'll well know, the TED Offensive, 1968, a sweeping triumph for American forces on the battlefield, and the media said it was a catastrophic defeat, and we suffered a political

defeat. It kind of seems to me the way the media is playing it that way. Now, media's different these days, but what do you think? I think we're winning, but that's just this, you know, superficial impression I have. Yeah, I'll tell you, Steve, we are winning, and we're winning because, you know, you have to consider what the world would be like, you know, what... our security would be like, if we didn't do this, first of all. And, and, you know, it's really clear to me that the intelligence that drove this decision

was the fact that Iran was building up its arsenal of these drones and, and, and of these ballistic missiles, in a way to threaten our security interests in the region, to hold the world's economy hostage, and then to continue to strike Israel because their long-term goal, right, is to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews, right? and to hold the Arab states at risk as well, to have a hegemonic influence, really, in the Middle East. And they're part of this axis of aggressors, you know, with China and Russia as well. So we're winning because I think we're making tremendous progress

toward the objective, which has been sure that Iran can no longer project power beyond its borders. And I think the president was clear about this, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs was clear about this, and the campaign has been extraordinarily successful in destroying these missiles and drones over time. They still have the ability to fire about 20 ballistic missiles and 40 or 50s or so drones a day.

But that number's going down, down 90%. The Iranian Navy is on the bottom of the Persian Gulf and their ability to interdict shipping through their Navy. And really importantly, I think, and this has not gotten a whole lot of coverage, their industrial base, their ability to rebuild these capabilities is destroyed. And you have the continued loss of their own leadership and the destructive power oriented against the repressive arms of the regime,

the repressive arms of the besiege and the RGC, who just murdered 30 to 40,000 of their own people in a 48-hour period in January. So I think it's been extraordinarily successful so far. It doesn't mean it's going to be easy going forward, that the Straits of Hormuz are going to be open immediately. But there is a campaign plan being executed very effectively. Right. So now you're an old tank man mostly. And so you might have a slightly biased opinion about this. But given that our goal is, I'm calling it regime displacement rather than regime change,

since we're not supposed to use that phrase anymore. But can this be accomplished by air power alone? Or are we going to need some component of ground troops in some way at some point? You know, Steve, it just remains to be seen. I don't know. I mean, I think this is kind of an unprecedented situation in connection with complete air dominance, you know, the ability to fly with impunity to control all of the airspace combined with pretty exquisite intelligence in terms of being able to identify specific leaders within the regime. I mean, it was really, I think, you know, this strike, you know, most recently against Laura Johnny, you know, the head of the security

apparatus who was meeting with about 300 members of the besiege. These are these mass murderers, the people who have the most blood on their hands from the most recent attacks against their own people. And now the continued efforts, you know, now this guy, Kaliboff maybe, you know, maybe he's, I don't think, I mean, who wants that job? I think his, his, time is quite limited. Will that be sufficient? Will that be sufficient to weaken that the repressive arms of the regime sufficiently so, so that then the people can, can take control of their country. I don't know the answer to that question. It will,

can you do, can you accomplish from the air, the objective of reopening the Straits of Hormuz, air and the sea, as well as denying the Iranian's ability to continue to fire these long range missiles and drones?

I think that's unclear. The historical record indicates that it's insufficient to do it from the air, but I think this is, this is an this is an unprecedented situation. So then you said a moment ago that our immediate objective, military objective, is to degrade their capacity to threaten their neighbors and their nuclear program and so forth.

And then so I guess regime displacements I'm calling it is sort of secondary. I mean, the Venezuela model is we'll leave the people that are in place if they're going to behave themselves and deal with us in good faith. So, I mean, how will we know that we've reached that stage? What things should we be looking for, what things should be demanding of the Iranians? And it'll turn it over to Charlie. Well, Steve, in 2017, when we were developing options for the president for an Iran strategy, we made it an assumption, we thought it was a valid assumption.

I think subsequent events have borne it out, and the president agreed with it, that we will not be able to secure our interests in the Middle East, protect our citizens there, protect our partners and allies, Israel and the Gulf states, until there was a fundamental change in the nature of the Iranian government such that it ceases its permanent hostility to the United States,

who they call the Great Satan, Israel, who they call the cancer is boiled, and their Arab neighbors. And I think that remains the case today, Steve. I think if this regime stays in power, with those who adhere to the ideology of the revolution, who, you know,

these are the people who chant death to America and really mean it, then I don't think you can have an end of the war. I think this regime is already done. I think that this regime is a dead man walking because I don't think, you know, Prime Minister Netanyahu or President Trump is going to leave a regime in power

that still is permanently hostile and a regime that can still project power outside of its borders into the Straits of Hormuz, for example, in a way that allows them to hold their neighbors hostage and hold the global economy, hostage. So I have a fairly blunt question, which is why does every media report, and it seems half the political class, certainly on the left, but also to some extent on the right, cast this as if it has been an historic disaster? Well, you know what the historic disaster has been? Well, first of all,

I think because they don't consider the historical record. They don't consider the content. the context, and they don't consider what the cost would have been to not do this, Charlie. And so the historical record would tell us that this isn't the start of a war. This is actually the continuation of a 47-year-long war that the Iranian has initiated, and this is the best chance we've had in those 47 years to maybe end the war that began in 1979 with the taking of U.S. hostages that continued into the 1980s with the murder of 247. Marines in Lebanon, as well as the bombing of our embassy there, and the murder of French commandos on that same day, people forget.

The initiation of a worldwide terrorist campaign that involved the taking of U.S. hostages, the assassination of Americans, a synagogue in Argentina, blowing up a Padamadian airliner. I mean, the list goes on. Cobar Towers bombing, 1997 in Saudi Arabia, done by the Iranians, kills 19th, men and women. How about the 600 Americans who died in Iraq because they were attacked by Iranian proxies equipped with Iranian-made projectiles that were devastating. So, hey, Charlie, I just think it's a misunderstanding of the nature of the regime and neglect of the historical record.

And the second question is, I think the military operation has been really impressive. And as I've said many times, I hope the rest of the world, especially China, is watching. But we obviously do have some problems now in that the Straits of Formuz are closed, oil prices are up, that's a political problem as well as geopolitical problem. How serious is that? Is it something that we can resolve on our own? And if so, how long will that take and how much will it cost? Our military does a combined exercise with about 30 other countries every year based on a scenario of Iran closing the Strait of Formoose. So we know what to do, but from the very beginning, the emphasis in this campaign was going to, we were going to prioritize the destruction of their long-range missile capability and their drone

capability. And then, and then turn to opening the Strait with really a concerted effort to take out the weapons systems that can, that can, that can influence the straight. You know, what Admiral Cooper, the commander of Sincom command, a central commander said, is that we have to get the threat down to a manageable military risk of moving through the straits. Once that's done, you will see a relocate, a reallocation of assets to dominate the terrain from which Iran can influence the strait of Hormuz and then to physically escort with ships and capabilities that can really, first of all, there'll be a minesweeping operation. That's going to take a little while. that's a very deliberate effort.

You want to get that right the first time, because you don't want anybody run into a line, and then you delay further. Then the next thing that you do is you begin to escort these escort operations, and you'll start to see flow through the straight increasing, not all back to normal, but little by little by little increasing day to day. I believe that's going to happen in about 14 days,

maybe even a couple days sooner than that. And then you're going to have really a shift in the focus of many of our ships to an air defense bubble around the ships that are moving through, and you're going to have Apache attack helicopters, A-10, close-air support aircraft, and the platforms you've seen being used already in large numbers, like the F-A-18s, F-16s and so forth, really providing cover for that escort operation.

But that is a different phase of the campaign, was anticipated, and I think there would be a shift toward that in the next week or so. So, General, I want to ask you about President Trump for a moment. You have been very measured in your criticisms and support for him over the last several years, both in your book and your comments ever since you left the administration in the first term term. We tell them that. That's right.

I get it. No, look, we all know how well. I think he misunderstands me, man. I mean, you know, okay. Yeah, thanks. Thanks. Right. Well, here's what I think.

Now, I'm not following things as closely as you are, I'm sure. But my impression is I have been impressed that he seems very serene, very calm, and look, I mean, we know Trump's going to say day-to-day crazy things, like, why didn't Japan tell us about Pearl Harbor? I mean, that's Trump, it is sort of comic but offensive best or worse, depending. But the point is, when it comes to these war questions, I have been kind of impressed at his steadiness and calm. And so I'm wondering what you make of his leadership so far.

Hey, here's what I think. You know, I think that the axis of aggressors, this is Russia and China, who brought into the fold, Iran and Venezuela and North Korea, they felt like they were winning, right? I mean, they said that they were winning, right? Remember right before the massive invasion of Ukraine in February of 2020 at the Beijing Olympics, they say, this is the new era of international relations. United States, you're done, you're finished, because they had seen, I think, the disasters withdrawal from Afghanistan, the deadly withdrawal to the Biden, They viewed, I think, America as feckless, you know, in this period of time, and were emboldened, and I believe that led not only to the invasion of Ukraine, I think it led to October 7, 2023 and the lighting of the fire around Israel. I think it led to Maduro saying, hey, the Americans aren't going to do anything. In fact, they're alleviating sanctions on me, like we were on the Iranians, like we were undesignated the Houthis as a terrorist organization, for example, not enforcing sanctions. So the, so, so I told a hominate. the coffers of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, they're filling up.

He's increasing his stipends to Hezbollah. He's supporting the proxy army in Syria. Things are going his way. And he's like, hey, time to cross this off my to-do list. You know, destroy Israel, kill all the Jews, right? They were the protagonists. They had the initiative under the Biden administration. Then Trump comes in.

What happens? You know, Maduro's gone. He's in a New York prison, right? Now we're acting against the Iranians. hey, I think, you know, I think what President Trump has done is restored deterrence and regain the initiative, such that we are the protagonists now against this hostile axis of aggressors, you know? And, man, I wish he could, you know, do it with a bit more finesse, Steve, you know? I mean, I wish he could stop insulting our allies, you know,

because big surprise if you insult people for several months and then you say, hey, how about some support, they might be a little bit reluctant at first. You know, who knew? So I wish he would just get out of his way. And the one thing I would say is, gosh, we've got such a big opportunity. If there is a change in the nature of this regime in Iran, Russia and China are the huge losers. Look at the world from their perspective. You had your man Maduro, gone. Cuban army regime in Cuba, almost gone. Noriege is so nervous, he's preemptively releasing all the political prisoners. in Nicaragua. I mean, the pink wave, you know, to the progressive anti-American left in the Western Hemisphere, it's all swinging back. You've got, you've got Shinebell, you know, helping with

border security going after the narcotics kingpins. You have now China and Russia who had Iran in the region and used Iran as the way to convince the Gulf states, hey, you got to hedge with me, right? Americans aren't going to do anything against Iran. I have economic power over Iran. This is China talking to the Gulf states, you need me. And they thought Russia said the same thing. You need me. Because, you know, I'm involved in the Syrian Civil War. I can help, you know, I can help, you know, in a post-Civil War Syria. Well, now, guess what? Russia's out of Syria, you know. And when, if there's a change in nature of this regime, the U.S. will be seen as the only, the only reliable security partner in the region will have the keys to China's gas station,

and they will have no influence left in the Middle East. I mean, honestly, you know, there are people, there's some people who make the argument, hey, we shouldn't be doing any of this stuff in the Middle East because the real threat's China. Well, guess what? This is an arena of competition that is very consequential for the China competition. Right. I mean, something that I've observed a long time ago is that, you know, Trump famously said no stupid wars. He never said not no wars at all, right?

And so, you know, people read into what they want. And a lot of people on the right, as you know, have been unhappy about this for reasons you mentioned. Let me ask another particular thing that I think should be in your wheelhouse. There's been a lot of concern that we may be running short of weapons, you know, interceptors and other things. And along with that, there's the equally important question of, you might say, asymmetries. They fire a $40,000 drone and we're shooting it down with, what, a $10 million missile or something like that. So. 13.5 million, if it's with that. 13.5 million. But only 4.5 million if it's a patient, though, Steve. I mean, so. Okay. Well, there's still the, I mean, but you get a

the point there's still an asymmetry there and and even though we're you know ridiculously rich country or at least think think we can borrow forever we'll leave that aside for another day i wonder first of all if you think it's a legitimate worry that we might be running dangerously short of weaponry and then second uh the asymmetry question i assume we're going to learn a lot about out of all this i expect we already are from the ukraine theater and so what's your projection for how this is going to change our doctrine and indeed design and procurement forward? Well, you know, the missile drone strike complex is coming to you, you know, Europe, even the United States, everybody, right? I mean, so this is something that we must learn from

with a sense of urgency. In terms of your question about our magazine depth, do we have enough, we have enough, certainly for this campaign in the Gulf, although we have to increase our manufacturing capacity. This is what President Trump has been really good at emphasizing. You know, so has Secretary of War Hexeth and his extremely competent. deputy, Steve Feinberg, who is helping us ramp up our defense production capacity. So just to give you an example, we bought 650 THAAD missiles. We expended one quarter of those during the 12-day war last year. Okay. But then what the Department of War contracted was a 4x increase in procurement. Patriot missiles were in pretty good shape with. Ukraine uses

them as well. The Saudis have bought a lot of them. I won't say how many, but they've got plenty. The Emirates have them and we have them, but we have vastly increased our buy of Patriots as well. And this is why the Congress should pass this $200, this $200 billion supplemental to get our military hold because there was a bow wave of deferred procurement and a bow wave of what you're getting to in terms of drone defense overall of deferred modernization. You also have the arrow system by the Israelis joint developed with us, which is very capable. But what you also have are a whole bunch of like lower end defense capabilities, air defense capabilities that can be quite effective for point defense.

This is called like an A-Rab system, a C-Rab system and so forth. And so, you know, we're going to get better at this. You mentioned the Ukrainian capabilities. one of the Ukrainian capabilities are these small quadcopter drones that I detect a drone coming in and then vector at that drone and destroy a drone with the drone. There are Ukrainian teams on the ground right now helping Gulf states put together this defense capability. And I think Steve, we're about nine months away from some very significant low-cost counter-drone capabilities. Some of those are involving these kind of counter drone drones,

but also directed energy capabilities, laser beams, you know. You know, I always wanted to say like Dr. Evil, fire the freaking laser, you know, we'll be able to say that now. So, so, you know, those are coming online

and on munitions, you also have to look at the offensive munitions. We expended a lot of our standoff munitions. These are air launched and sea-launch cruise missiles, essentially. And so we've got to buy those and build those back up.

But, hey, we're not using them anymore. You know, what we're using because we have air supremacy, is we're using J-Dams, which is like a precision-guided bomb that you drop out. And now we're flying bombers, you know, over Iran and there's some concern about one of our carriers, had a fire in the laundry, it's going to get refit. But two of those bombers, B-1 or B-2 bombers,

is the equivalent of a naval air wing on a carrier, you know, in terms of what they can do in terms of targeting. So now with these J-DM systems, which we have a whole heck of a lot of, by the way, I think we're in good shape. Now, it doesn't mean we're in our industrial base. We have to still vastly increase our throughput. We have to pay attention to the supply chains, many of which are fragile based on China's effort to gain exclusive grip

on critical minerals and components. So there's a lot of work to be done. But, hey, I think one of the things I'm most optimistic about is how the Department of War, I still want to call it Department of Defense, you know, because anyway, but the Department of War is really engaged in meaningful reforms in contracting, procurement, and importantly, the incentives to free up private capital. Because, you know, our defense companies, they're not charitable organizations, you know. They've got duties to shareholders. So what they need is they need, they need secured demand.

right strong demand signals multi-year contracting so that they can invest in the workforce and make the capital investments necessary to get as healthy again your remark about the lasers my joke about that has been huh Marjorie Taylor green was right after all about the Jewish space lasers right I mean that was one of my friends what my friends which she made that comment he said you know you said you and I should open up a Jewish laser bagel shop and he said we can do that because you know I'm Jewish and I have my grandmother's recipe and you're a general and you can get lasers for free. Yeah, yeah. So one of the reasons I like talking to you so much and reading you so much is that I mentioned earlier that you're an old tank man.

And my teacher of strategic studies in graduate school a long time ago now had been a tank driver for Patton's Third Army in the sweep across France. You can imagine how he taught the subject in the classroom. It was not theories, it was not abstractions. His first day of class was always, if there's going to be a war, the first question is, who's going to win? And that's a question about capacities and leadership. And so that's my setup for our next question, which is to shift gears over to the big theater we keep worrying about, which is potential theater, which is China. I agree with you that China has to be right now saying, and in fact, I saw some new squib this morning that our new intelligence assessment of China is, no, actually they're not really planning to invade Taiwan in 2020. 27, as some people have been saying for the last several years.

But what's your sort of assessment of the balance of power between us? I mean, you know, the broad numbers of what they're making sound alarming. I'm not sure about their capacities to use them effectively, but then it comes down to the willpower. So give us your very short, compressed summary of where you think we stand on the China question. Well, you know, Steve, I think we are behind in some areas that are really critical. First of all, is capacity, right? just the size of our armed forces, and then also depth, you know, the depth in our,

in our armed forces and in our defense industrial bases, as I mentioned. China has engaged in a massive buildup, right? They've included, I mean, they've increased their defense spending like 46, 48-fold since the turn of the century. And, you know, quantity does have a quality all its own, you know, and what they also have done is try to take apart what they see as our exquisite capabilities and our differential advantages in technology with some asymmetric answers to that. Long-range ballistic missiles, anti-ship missiles, which they were, by the way, right before this campaign, they were about to

provide to Iran, tiered and layered air defense, but counter-satellite capabilities, offensive cyber, these bold attacks, Steve, that we've seen in all of our critical infrastructure, that's trying to prepare to take us down, to take down our banking system, to take down our transportation system to take down our power grid. Gee, I wonder why they're doing that. Well, because they're preparing for war against us, you know? And so what we need to do is address a bow wave of deferred modernization because we have answers to a lot of the capabilities that are developing, but we haven't fielded them yet. And we need greater quantity. And the reason for that is over the years, we have traded off the size of our armed forces for more and

more exquisite and for fewer and fewer, I should say, exquisite capabilities. What if those capabilities fail catastrophically because of countermeasures, right? You need depth in these capabilities. And as you've already alluded to, you need some cheaper solutions. So maybe less exquisite solutions because, you know, scale matters. Your ability to conduct simultaneous operations maybe across multiple theaters because the competition with China, it really is a global, competition. You know, so, so I think there's a lot of work to be done to really convince China

that they can't accomplish their objectives with the use of force because you know what? That's what prevents wars and it's a hell of a lot cheaper to prevent a war than to have to fight one. And so there's work to be done, but I do think it's beneficial that we just had this demonstration and that President Trump really, he's restored deterrence, I think, deterrence that was lost under the Biden administration and maybe in the Obama years as well. And so I think that it's positive, but they're going to study the hell out of this. The Chinese already are, you know, and they will develop countermarsion. The other indicator, though, the 2027 is probably not the year is the Taiwanese election.

They're going to be watching the Taiwanese election in 2028. And if it's the, you know, if it's the KMT that comes in a party, it tends to be more sympathetic to the PRC. Maybe they'll back off a little bit and try to get annexation by invitation, by buying off elites, by subversion. and so other enticements and incentives. If it's the DPP who comes in again, I think it's game on, and you're going to see this escalation toward a coercive campaign against Taiwan. The best remedy for that is make good on the backlogged arms sales to Taiwan. You know, make Taiwan like a hedgehog, you know, that can't be ingested, you know, by the PRC.

How long has Trump got in this war before he starts to fill pressure? He has been all over the place in his explanations. At the start, he was very open. He called any journalist who would talk to him, but he gave three or four different answers. And then he said, you know, it's almost over. And they said, maybe it's just beginning. So it's quite hard to know exactly where we are. How long do you think he's got realistically?

because the military questions and the political questions don't line up neatly. And Charles, I'd like to ask you that quote. You're probably much better at this than I am, both you and Steve. I'm terrible like domestic politics and political pressure internally. I mean, you know, what you see with President Trump is, you know, he is still kind of a marketing guy. You know, he's still kind of a salesman and real estate developer, you know. And so a lot of what he says is performative, but he wants to shape reality, you know, by he thinks if it repeats enough, you know, it's going to happen.

You know, so, so, so, part of it is maybe aspirational, you know, language that is going to be really short or, you know, we say we said we're all, we've completely won almost or something. I mean, I mean, so I, you know, so you get these phrases. You're like, what is he talking about? But a lot of it is really him trying to lay out the positive vision. He tries to allay concerns. I think the best way to do that, by the way, is the way he did it in that seven-minute true social video

where he said, hey, this isn't going to be easy. You know, we're probably going to suffer losses, you know? I mean, that was actually pretty good. I wish he'd lose the baseball hat and do it from the Oval Office, man, when he's talking about more. But anyway, I mean, minor points, right? But I think, you know, that was the right tone. What you see, I think, in Trump, too, is somebody convinced him that his own staff was the deep state.

And there are probably like 25 people on the NSC staff whose job it is to coordinate and integrate across departments and agencies, get him best analysis, get him best advice, put together the communications plan, make sure everybody's got the communications plan, put together a congressional engagement plan, put together the allied engagement plan, run it, execute it, right? all elements of national power. I mean, nobody's doing that. I mean, people are doing that in the departments and agencies. Of course they are. But it's not integrated and consistent. And so I think if they're the biggest criticism that I would have of the campaigns so far is the unsurious and inconsistent communications effort. You know, I mean, stop with the memes, man. I mean, stop with the video game stuff. That's nonsense. Nobody who's been in actual combat who I know Nobody talks like that, you know? Nobody says we need $200 billion to kill bad people.

I'm so excited. You just, I mean, it's implied. It just gives us a potent, you know, ammo unnecessarily. So anyway, what do you think? Can I turn the question to you guys? I mean, how long do you think he has? Well, watch the price of gasoline. I actually think that's going to be, because everyone,

that's something that people buy every week, and they're going to get cranky about that. and the pressure will go up and and then congressional Republicans will get very nervous because they're nervous already about the midterms. So we'll see. But I think, you know, Trump, as you know, he's a winner. Well, he said we don't win wars anymore, right? That's what makes me think he's going to see this through.

Now, as you say, he's perfectly capable of declaring anything of victory anytime he wants to. But I think it needs to be real this time. I don't think you can have this to PR thing. Charlie, what do you think? And then we have to let the general go, I think. Not long. Not long. Okay.

I worry that this is a virtuous enterprise, but that people are going to get impatient and the midterms are coming. I hope we can win fast. Right. I'm worried about it, too. The last thing you'll say on this, though, just quickly to respond, is that I think Trump will not accept an outcome where you have like a bludgeoned Iranian regime that still has the keys to the straits of Hormuz, right? So I think you're right. There's going to be mounting pressure on it, but I don't think he'll succumb to it if, if, if that means that's the, that's the condition at the end of, this, this phase of the 47-year-long war against, uh, against Iranians.

Yeah, that's what I think, too. I mean, he's taking a huge risk here. He's really bet his whole presidency on this. So that's what makes me think he'll probably see it through. And, you know, we'll, as he likes to say, we'll just have to see what happens. We'll see. Exactly. Yeah, exactly.

We'll just have to see with you and have you on again sometime. Oh, I know you're really, really busy following this in your times and high. demand right now and we're grateful you can spend time for you guys what a great podcast great to be with you I always love the discussion with you guys thank you so much well thank you John it's very kind of you and and thanks very much good luck we'll talk to you again soon thanks take care well Charlie we mentioned briefly at the top of the show that one of the deaths this week was not a literal death but was the death of the reputation of caesar Chavez and as someone who grew up in California in the 60s and 70s and saw boycott grape signs everywhere,

saw Caesar Chavez on TV every night in his farm worker dungarees before he'd changed back into a suit and scoot off in a limousine for some fancy dinner. This is long overdue, and I don't know if you ever followed him or not as someone more recent arrival to the American shores, but good grief. I have to say, I'm taking way too much delight in this,

which is very unchristian of me, but still, the left deserves the agony they're going through right now. Yeah, this is the worst thing that's happened to Caesar around the eyes of Marx since what? Oh, that's very good. I hadn't thought of that one. Well, there are a couple of things that I have not seen reported, and it's because, well, everyone's talking about his deeds and the fact that they were covered up. And may be surprising that the New York Times went after this so hard for so long about such an icon, right? Props to them for doing it.

But I remember back in the 70s, just to give an example to listeners of really how, what a thug Caesar Chavez was, is that farm workers actually had some union representation before he came along and got the United Farm Workers Union going. And they were, believe it or not, represented by the Teamsters. And normally when you think union thugs, Teamsters are number one on your list, right? And in fact, the growers in California always preferred to deal with the Teamsters rather than Chavez. So an employer wants to deal with the Teamsters? Well, here's why. Now, first of all, a lot of union contracts were not like auto workers. They weren't five-year contracts.

Or if they were, they had a lot of variable conditions depending on the migrant season, right? A lot of the farm labor was migratory. They'd spend some time here in California. Then they'd go to Michigan for two months for a different time of the year and so forth. And but the, when the Teamsters had a contract with you, they followed the terms of it. What Chavez would do is he'd wait till harvest time, like literally a week before the workers needed to go in the field and pick the fruit when it's ripe. And if you didn't pick it, it would go bad and the farmer would lose all their costs in growing it for that season. And he would suddenly, even if he had a contract, would have a whole bunch of new demands.

You know, more money, more this, more that, and threaten a wild catcher. strike if the growers didn't give in. Now that's just pure thuggery and extortion. And he is, after all, a disciple of what's as they, Saul Olinsky. So we shouldn't be surprised at all this. But lastly, I'll say, is, you know, John, you and I were both inmates at Berkeley's Bolt Hall Law School here a few years ago. When they went through the agony of taking Bolt's name off of the building because it turned out he'd said mean things about the Chinese back in 1890, well, there's a scene. Caesar Chavez Student Center on the campus at Berkeley and Caesar Chavez, everything throughout the state. Some of those names are already being taken off buildings, statues covered already here before the week is out,

including on some California State University campuses. But Berkeley has announced they're going to go through their long, laborious renaming committee process with public input and meetings. And, oh, I wish I could be around to watch all this because it's going to be pretty hilarious, I think, before they end up deciding to take his name off the building. That's my guess. right, that's my speech. Like I said, I'm enjoying this way too much. Well, I obviously think he's a communist. I think almost everyone's a communist. But I have, I suppose, mixed feelings in that I'm a squishy, small, liberal in the realm of accusations. I think these are quite convincing.

Yes. But it is a long time. And there's a reason that we have a statute of limitations. in the law and it's not just because it's difficult in a legal context, but it's difficult for anyone to judge allegations that are made decades after the fact. But I do think these are fairly persuasive. I'm in two minds, Steve, because on the one hand, I want to praise the times and I want to praise progressives for living up to the values here, which they don't always, always do. As I say, those values aren't necessarily mine. I'm probably more skeptical than many. I didn't like the Me Too movement, but I want to praise them. On the other hand, I can't help but notice that the only point at which they ever do this is when the person is either dead or not useful to them anymore. It's reminiscent in that respect of Bill Clinton. I was so annoyed in the 2010, early 2020s, when people would say, well, we got rid of Bill Clinton. No, you didn't.

Not when you needed him. You didn't get rid of him in 97, 8. You did the opposite. You called everyone who commented on what he did a Puritan. Now you got rid of him, but that's because you don't need him anymore, because you don't need his wife anymore, because you've decided that his politics were reactionary. And I don't think that the leftist decided,

Caesar Chavez's politics were reactionary, but he is dead. This is a lot easier to do. Well, right, this is the converse of the view that the only good conservative is a dead conservative, right? You know, William F. Buckley is now a national treasurer, a hero, but they called him a fascist 50 years ago, as we know. Right. Something that you may not know, but I know, because I knew attorneys were involved in some of the Catholic sex abuse scandals from 20 years ago. California essentially repealed its statute of limitations on pedophilic offenses, right? So you can now still bring a criminal and civil action against somebody for something done back when Chavez did it. And yeah, the time story, what was convincing to me was not necessarily the testimony of the women. I mean, that's always

the he said, she said problem. But, you know, there's a lot of incriminatory documentary evidence that backs up their stories. And I thought that was probably what tipped the scales. I think one of the things that did it. But finally, something the universe had mentioned, but you have seen some people bring up, is that Chavez in his heyday was an immigration restrictionist, quite a serious one. And in fact, he used to use the W word, which is, you know, the Hispanic word from the end word, right?

And, you know, I remember all that and that, you know, people who've studied the matter know this, and that was all airbrushed out of all of the Caesar Chavez celebrations in the last 20 years. But I heard people speculating, oh, the reason this is coming out now is because the left has become so fully open

borders and against immigration restriction that Chavez's record might get brought up. I don't know. that seems a little too conspiratorial and cute for me, but it is an interesting angle of things, I think. Absolutely. It is absolutely wild how far the left has come on immigration in 20 or 30 years. You go back and you look at Barbara Jordan.

You look at Bill Clinton. You look at Nancy Pelosi. You look at Chuck Schumer. You look at Caesar Chavez. They were sane at one point. Now, maybe their motivations weren't mine. Bernie Sanders used to be skeptical of immigration because he thought it impinged upon the labor union paradise

he wished to build. But yeah, Cesar Chavez was another one of those. Yeah, yeah, it is a weird thing, right? Yeah. Well, all right, enough of that until, you know, next year, next week's celebrity deaths. I think it's time for us to get out, Charlie. You have been listening to the Rickashay podcast.

We miss James Lytics today. He's in the thick of six. selling his house, but I know what he would want you to do. He'd want to remind you that this podcast is brought to you by ricochet.com and it's other supporters. And I'm remiss if I don't remind you to take a minute to leave a five-star review on Apple podcasts or whatever other podcast platform you use. Your reviews really do.

Help us get new listeners. And that's just a nice boost for all of us when you do. So for now and for Charlie, we will see you in the comments at RICOA 5.com. dot. Four. Four point dot dot dot. All right. But Charlie, see you next week.

We'll get James back. See you next time. Rickashay. Join the conversation.