The Team House - WTF is Happening with Venezuela? | EYES ON GEOPOLITICS

Episode Date: September 8, 2025

In this episode, the discussion revolves around the escalating tensions in Venezuela, particularly concerning U.S. military presence and actions against drug trafficking. The conversation delves into the legal and ethical implications of military strikes, the role of intelligence in military operations, and the potential shift in U.S. military strategy towards domestic issues. The participants also explore the growing influence of China in global politics and its implications for U.S. foreign policy, as well as the complexities of Venezuela's role in the global drug trade.Subscribe to our new newsletter!!!!https://teamhousepodcast.kit.com/joinSupport the show on Patreon:⬇️https://www.patreon.com/TheTeamHouseNew merch, patches, and stickers! ⬇️https://theteamhouse-shop.fourthwall.comFind Mick Mulroy here: Fogbow ⬇️https://fogbow.com/Lobo Institute ⬇️https://www.loboinstitute.org/Twitter ⬇️https://x.com/mickmulroy?s=21&t=-Ze3F_Ix2vlJ18KFvORTCALinkedIn ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-patrick-mulroy-31198b52/Bluesky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/mickmulroy.bsky.socialMick’s publications ⬇️https://www.loboinstitute.org/publications/publications-of-michael-mick-patrick-mulroy/Find Andy Milburn here: Twitter ⬇️https://twitter.com/i/flow/login?redirect_after_login=%2Fandymilburn8LinkedIn ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewmilburn2023Substack ⬇️https://amilburn.substack.com/Andy’s book ⬇️https://www.amazon.com/When-Tempest-Gathers-Mogadishu-OperationsBluesky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/andy-milburn.bsky.socialFind Jason Lyons here: LinkedIn ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-lyons-666873316?uBluesky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/bgsilverback73.bsky.social"Karl Casey @ White Bat Audio"00:00 Escalating Tensions in Venezuela07:09 Legal and Ethical Implications of Military Strikes17:57 Shifts in U.S. National Security Strategy30:05 The Future of U.S. Military Engagement33:57 Military Competence and Political Influence38:48 The Future of Military Engagement43:53 Shifts in National Defense Strategy51:44 China's Growing Influence and Military Preparedness55:53 Venezuela: A Complex Geopolitical LandscapeBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-team-house--5960890/support.

Hey, everybody. Welcome to another episode of Aizond Geopolitics. I'm joined Tay with Mick Mulroy in his suit as always. I think he goes to sleep in that suit. Jason Lyons and myself, next week we're all wearing blazers. I'm wearing a blazer no matter what, even if Mixing is regular, regular, like, you know, running outfit. A lot going on as usual. So we're going to lead off with Venezuela and what's going on there over the last week. We've parked a slew of destroyers.

2,200 Marines in an M-EU around or near the coast of Venezuela, probably just patrolling the Caribbean. It escalated a bit. We bombed a drug trafficking boat, an alleged drug trafficking boat that I think has been proven that it was killing 11 people. I saw the video. The video didn't look like there was 11 people there, but I don't know. Maybe somebody was underneath. In response, Venezuela used two F-16s to buzz our destroyed. So things are heating up and ramping up.

We've also designated the, what's the cartel's name? I have it. Hold on. As I do my door. Thank you. Oh, the new ones too. Trendiara was the boat. The other one is, yeah. It's not us.

Just so everybody knows. It's not Lobo Institute. No, of course, yeah. Los Solis cartel, a terrorist group. And it kind of seems like the war on terror and the war on drugs is kind of like, getting together and making a baby and this is what it looks like. Where are you guys at with this? What are you guys tracking?

Well, first of all, I'm wearing this because I was on ABC. Most people don't rule around Montana in a sport jacket to show you know. So to start with, they designated the two drug cartels, Trenti, Aragua, and Los Solis. Los Souls, yeah, as terrorist organizations back in February. So once that happened, I imagine there was a surge in intelligence capabilities and efforts, both on the overt and covert side. And this was the result. So they've probably been collecting information on who's who in the zoo, who's in charge,

how they're getting their drugs to the United States. And of course, drug trade's always been a bad thing to be the United States, but now with fentanyl, it's even worse. And generally put them on notice publicly that this was going to happen. So from my perspective, although one could question the immediate threat of that vessel, but one could also say, well, if they would let it get to the United States with drugs in it, that would have killed the Americans. I think that's what they're going to hang their hat on. I'll leave illegal scholars to say which one's accurate. But I think this was something we saw coming. And I also would point out that the military and the CIA would go through their own intelligence review of whether this was a drug trafficking boat, who was in the boat, etc., before it even got up to the point of getting approval from, you know, the commander chief.

So I don't think they, you know, they just randomly pointed at a boat and said just make a statement here. So I would say that there is fidelity. I don't know for sure because I don't have access, but there is fidelity on who was on that boat, what they were doing. The response, of course, is concerning. Maduro both said, one, it's AI. So it didn't happen. And then was outraged by it, which in a polite way is very inconsistent. it and then buzzed, and I think they've done it twice, the USS Jason Dunham, named after

a Marine Medal of Honor recipient, twice with F-16s. And the Venezuelans have anti-ship missiles that are air launched, sea launched, and land launched. So that's very risky because they could have shot at these aircraft and shot them down. That I think is within their roles of engagement. And now President Trump has said from the over office, they do it again, that could happen. Now, that would have to be transmitted down the chain of command for it to be a direct order. But I think it's fair to say that when you're flying directly at a ship, when we know you have anti-ship missiles, that the rules on engagement say you can engage. So that's where we are now. There's a lot of stuff on social media. There's about

eight vessels, right? Guided missile destroyers, a guided missile cruise. nuclear submarine. You've already mentioned the Marine Expeditionary Unit, which has been training off the coast of Puerto Rico. They've moved 10 F-35 to Puerto Rico. They've apparently moved Reapers to Puerto Rico. So this doesn't seem to be over. I'm clear what we intend, how we intend this to go.

But, of course, some of that's up to Maduro. And it all also, and I know we're getting into it later, It is in line with what is being leaked as the next national security and national defense strategy, which is a whole other topic. But I think this is going towards something that could escalate pretty quickly. I mean, there's not much more to add. I think that, like you said, it's in line with what's being leaked for national security, national defense strategy. But I'm curious that's to know where this shift came from, where it happened, especially given the fact that, which, you know, I guess it's a nifty. But it's like we just renamed the National or Department of Defense Department of War.

And but now we seem to be turning inward more towards defense. So again, it might be nitpicking, but it's just kind of strange to me. Also, too, and I do first right off the bat, wholeheartedly believe that drug dealers get what they deserve. And in the case of that boat, absolutely. You get what you deserve. And I agree that there had to have been, or I'm assuming there was some sort of fixed intelligence that pinpointed this particular vessel as, you know, having fentanyl, something on it that was a threat to the homeland. But I guess the other part of B questions, what is the use of the Coast Guard if this is what we're going to do then? That's what they do.

And we've seen the amazing videos of their interdiction. and crews, you know, hopping on submarines, you know, on a cartel submarines. So I believe this is me personally that this was just a, you know, hey, we've got the toys, let's use them kind of thing. So, yeah, that's where I'm at. Andy, you got anything? Andy Milburn's joining us. Hi, Andy.

What are your thoughts on this? All right. So actually, I've got, you know, I wish we had a, it's the only time I've ever said this. I wish we had a jag on the show because I would love to know what the legal ramifications are of that particular strike. You know, I'm with Jay in the sense that, look, you know, we've all been involved in so many strikes overseas. And I'm pausing before saying this because I'm basing it on legal rather than as well as ethical grounds. But, you know, so we, we, the point, the rationale, I understand the. rationale. We have struck targets that have far more nebulous, far more of a nebulous threat

in the United States than an inbound boat carrying drugs. But my concerns are simply that, you know, intelligence, we can always get the intelligence wrong and the ramifications of making the wrong decision so close to our shores, while it may seem as though there is no ethical, legal difference between that and Afghanistan and Iraq, there's a world of difference because we are operating under an AUMF in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we're not, we're in my mind, in uncharted waters when we're doing strikes offshore. Now, from a purely ethical standpoint, yeah, I'm with Jay. I mean, if there is, if I'm convinced, if I could be convinced that everyone on that boat was a bad actor and they were indeed smuggling fentanyl in the United States, no crocodile tears for them,

But I just feel as though legally we may be on a slippery slope. And I'd love to hear the opinion of a, of a JAG on that. So that's a good point, Andy. I mean, I think, I don't know if you're on when I was talking. I didn't have a problem with the strike for reasons both you and Jay said. But when it comes to, at least from the Title 10, the military doing strikes overseas on al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda-linked organization, it does come from the authorized use to military force and was pass-facts. Congress. There's no similar authorization to go after drug cartels. So maybe that's why they're

no, like, designated a terrorist organization. The question is, does that just designate any, anything, even if you're not connected to al-Qaeda, connect it back to the statutory authorized use of military force to strike terrorists? See what I'm saying? So if you just designated a criminal organization as a terrorist, that does that count? So, and it goes to a much, broader question on, you know, the War Powers Act and, you know, the legality and constitutionality of that. I don't know, but nobody's crying about, you know, drug smugglers. But that is going to be an issue. And it's something that's never resolved, right?

So we have a War Powers Act that no president has agreed actually is constitutional. They abide by some of it, right? And sometimes they decide not to, right? They didn't brief, for example, the alleged operation off of North Korea. But they did brief this because while they published the video, right? So they obviously had to. But it is a broader question. But I don't think it's going to keep them from driving on with this.

I think they're going to look to continue these type of strikes. They can do stuff under Title 50, right, that they don't have to report. And I'm sure, I don't know, but I'm sure that there's something going on there too. But this could get worse. and by all the reports, reporters that talk to me, some that's already out there, is there's talks about taking strikes inside Venezuela. So then it would be, you know, an act of war, I suppose. And then we're going to see this escalate.

And then, of course, although Venezuela's military can't match the United States and no country really can, they do have some things that could be problematic to us, which include these anti-ship missiles, right? So we put in a sizable amount of. naval vessels, Marines and sailors out there, they have a threat. And if we did something like land the Marines, their military isn't that big, but they have a militia that's apparently like four million people. So we all know how that goes, right? I mean, I don't think that's where we're going. I can't imagine we would try to actually invade Venezuela. Return to the banana walls of the 30s. The Banana Wars and completely contrary to the concept that we're getting out.

of wars, right? We just plunge ourselves into, I don't think that's where it's going, so we should give them some credit. Maybe this is just an amping up a military interaction with trying to stem the drug flow in the United States.

Hey guys, it's Jack. I just want to talk to you for a moment about how you can support the show. If you've been watching it, enjoying it, but you'd like to get a little bit more involved and help us continue to do this. You can check out our Patreon. It is patreon.com slash the team House. And for $5 a month, you can get access to all of these episodes of the Team House ad-free.

The same goes with our affiliated podcast, Eyes On, with Andy Milburn, Jason Lyons, Mick Mulroy. That one, you will also get all of those episodes ad-free. And you support the channel and the show, and we really appreciate it. The Patreon members are literally what has helped this company, this small business survive, especially during our early years, and you are what continues to help this thing going even as we navigate the turbulent world of YouTube advertising. So we really appreciate all of you guys. There's going to be a link down in the description to that Patreon page, and there is also going to be a link to our new merch shop.

So if you guys want to go and get some Team House merchandise, we got stickers, and we also have patches. And I should mention, if you sign up for Patreon at $10 a month, we will mail you this patch as well. So we really appreciate that. But they're also for sale on the merch shop. And additionally, they got T-shirts up there, water bottles, tote bag, coffee mugs, all that good stuff. So please go and check them out and support the show. We really appreciate it, guys. Thank you. I think that's certainly an element of showmanship. It was a very important. It was kind of demonstration, hey, this is what we can do against drug traffickers. Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how this develops.

We had that conversation back in January on going after the cartels. And, you know, our consensus was, I think, looking back, that, you know, there was certainly some sympathy for a policy like that because we've all been involved in operations overseas where the connection with direct connection with U.S. national interest was pretty nebulous, let's be honest, and we're with all victims in a sense or unhappy observers of what happened in Afghanistan. So using the military with the direct correlation to preventing bad things come into the United States, ostensibly does not seem like a bad thing. I'm not wringing my hands about it. But again, the legal ramifications are tough.

Hey, I've got a question for you, though, Mick. You know, we're talking about what needs to be declared to Congress. So something like what happened in North Korea. So I understand under Title 50, there are things, of course, that don't have to be declared. But then the Church Commission, the outcome of the Church Commission was, that intelligence operations have to be briefed to Congress, right? Where is the cutoff point? At least the gang of eight, right?

Yes. So the issue really comes to complete deniability, right? So if the military operation happens under Title X and the report in New York Times, guy asked the spokesman to Pentagon, did that happen? They can say no comment. If the president's asked about a CIA operation, he or she or anybody else in his government can say it did not happen. Never happened. They can deny it. Both have to be briefed to Congress. So the intelligence community have our own, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. If this was a Title 50 operation, for example, and it could have been, I think, and I'm not validating this happen. I have no idea. This is what the New York Times reported. they still would have to brief it to their oversight committee. They might be able to make the argument that it's only the chairman and deputy chairman, right, because of the sensitivity of it. But that counts for both as briefing. And like Dee said, maybe the gang eight,

but there isn't a requirement of who necessarily just has to be briefed. So that's problematic if they didn't brief, especially a Title X operation. I don't know that, you know, right now that's going to be made an issue because of the unwillingness buck anything the president did, does now or did then? And it's not approval, by the way. It's just, it's just informing. They can say this was a terrible idea or a great idea. And they do that often with, you know, CIA operations. But it's just, it's just an actual informing. So they know what happened. And they can be part of the dialogue, potentially in the future on similar operations. But they don't have the ability necessarily.

to block operations, just the funding. They're informed beforehand? They don't necessarily have to be informed beforehand. It can come after, right? Because they don't have a veto. So being informed. Now, oftentimes we do when it's going to be a big, overt strike, right? Like when we did the strikes in Syria when they used chemical weapons, the Assad regime did,

we briefed, that was part of my job. Not only the key members of the Senate and House, but also key allies, just say, know what's going to happen. Because once it happens, I mean, you can brief them afterwards, but, I mean, they can just turn on NBC news. Yeah, and this one, we didn't hear anything about the seals at North Korea. Right. Go ahead, Andy. Yeah.

Well, it just seems like rather a powerless obligation. I mean, you know, so you brief the Church Commission. requires that brief. But if the people briefed have no power of veto and they can't talk about it, then it's almost worthless. The only thing that I've seen that they have the ability to do is if it's an ongoing thing,

they can cut funding for it. Like say we're going to over our, and by the way, the CIA doesn't come up with this stuff by itself. Like this rogue elephant stuff hasn't been the case since, as Andy mentioned, the Church Commission. Like the President says do this to the CIA and the CIA, you know, does its best to carry out the mission, just like the military. But it's not, it's not a CIA

coming up with like, I'm going to overthrow a regime or something. It's done by the president. If I'm just using that as a hypothetical, the CIA's task to overthrow country X, it would be brief to the hipsy and the sissy. They could disagree with it, right? And then they could essentially cut off funding for it. So if it's a long, campaign, they have ability to affect. Yeah. Was there anything like the thought process of not informing at least the top, the chairmen of the committees that were supposed to be informed?

Because there's 2019, right, when this went down, at least the seal mission in North Korea. It must have been Title 50, right? I mean, if it's title 10. They could do it under Title 10. So I don't know one again, I don't know that it's true. I have no idea I didn't have anything to do in North Korea by the way. So I just want to put that out there. So my point that I was trying to make was like the reason why they didn't inform anybody in Congress, you know, even one or two people, was because some of the, at 2019, at that point, you know, Democrats control the House and the chairmen were Democrats.

Were they worried about a leak or something like that? Like, was it more political in nature for not telling them? Because, yeah, even if it doesn't have any effect where they can't veto it, you know, we're still a democracy, right? We should inform the people's representatives about what we're doing, like, whether it's covert operations or overt operations, at least I think. So I don't know that it wasn't briefed. We're just going on what the report says. Sure. But if that's accurate, I don't see the excuse for not briefing it.

It was either. If you're concerned about leaks, that's when you. only brief it to certain people. And obviously, if it comes out, you know, who, but it did come out, right? And they didn't even brief it. It seems to me. A lot of people jumped on the idea that it was, and yes, I'm biased, you know, my business partners from that unit. And I have a ton of friends from that unit. They're like, oh, it must have been somebody who was on the operation. No, not necessarily. Not necessarily. I mean, those, those guys have a very good reason not to leak any of those type of things because, you know, I mean, think about it if they're tasked to do it again, right?

You don't think that, you know, the hermit kingdom, the totalitarian state of North Korea is going to do something based on this report. So I wouldn't be, I would, I would push back against people to assume it was somebody on that operation. It could have been somebody for political reasons that found out later. But I don't, I can't think the reason why it wouldn't have been. Reading the article, it seemed like they got their hands on like an AAR. And I could be wrong because I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about.

But it really does seem like somebody got their hands on that. And like, well, that was an investigation conducted by a three-star channel. So it could, it could well have been that. And then somebody. The circle kept getting bigger and bigger.

Yep. I mean, listen, it would have been pretty cool as shit if they got it done. Yeah. I think it's also going to have a re-looking at how we do sensor and placement. I mean, we've got unmanned everything.

now just throwing out there. I was going to say, it just seems a crazy way to do that. I can't, I just can't think of the rationale. I mean, you know, Mick and Jason, you know more about this than I do, but from a technical standpoint,

I just can't imagine a situation where you have to put people in that way in order to unplace it. And I'm wondering, I'm wondering how much of this was an argument from say it, but from Jay Sokol, the seal commuted from within SEAL Team 6

that they were the guys to do this. Well, certainly if this was needed humans to do it, they are the guys to do it. I don't know the debates. Or the specifics of why they had to use this level of force. But that's also, you know, in the broader picture, it should have been briefed.

I can't think of a reason why I wouldn't have. Me speculating again a little bit, reading the article, it seemed like the SDV team and the SEAL Team 6 team were kind of like pointing at each other. Like it was your fault. No, it was your fault. At least how the article reads, right? That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that's the case, obviously. It could just be what they read on like the investigation that was done and stuff.

But that's what it felt like. It read like anyway. And I don't know anything, Bob, but anything. So I only know what Mick tells me offline. Well, again, on the macro level, apparently we're not interested in North Korea anymore if the leaks on the national security strategy and national events strategy are accurate that we're shifting from looking at China and Russia. And, of course, as the first tier concern for the national security United States, Iran and North Korea as the second tier. And now we're focused on domestic, which is kind of crazy, considering the U.S. military is not supposed to have. much of a role in domestic, you know, operations, nor is the agency, for that matter,

and Latin America, right? So that's, that's, if that would be an entire sea change from every administration passed, including the first Trump administration, if it's accurate. They were, and against a lot of people that would be, I think, writing this right now, would have had to completely change their position since when I was involved, you know, in my rule before, the national security strategy, the defense strategy, and the regular warfare annex, which all focused on what we called at the time near peer competitors, now strategic competitors or whatever we call. Maybe we don't call them that anymore since we don't seem to put them highest on the list. Now, we've got to wait until it actually comes out. There will be a

public version. So if this is just inaccurate, then, I withdraw my previous. The interesting to see a penetrator is up that. I mean, in my opinion, they're enemy number one, let's be honest. I didn't say that. They're just there. They're right there. How dare they with their maple syrup and their free health care?

Like, how dare they? Retcheting down China from our national security strategy, national military strategy. Andy, can you get to that? a little bit closer to the camera? I was just saying making China down a notch on those strategies has potential implications

for Taiwan. Yeah, I mean. Good point. Having China up there, I mean, we've always played this ambiguity, right, on whether or not we would go to the defense of Taiwan

because, honestly, I don't think any administration can really answer that question, although I think it ostensibly seems unlikely that we would, because of the nature of such a conflict, would almost be a fait accompli, and it would be us trying to dislodge China after an amphibious landing. Hard thing to justify to the American public. But as a deterrent, we always had China up there as a threat, and we always sensibly talked. I mean, we trained and talked about. the defense of Taiwan. But if it's no longer in our national military strategy,

what message are we sending to China? I mean, is that going to be a green light to cross the straits? Yeah, I mean, and it's not just Taiwan either, but I mean, look at Japan. They're in chaos right now. Their prime minister just resigned. You know, he's only been, I think it's less than a year he's been in, and they're going through all that turmoil and trying to figure out who's next. And then now we now this happens if it's true.

You know, we kind of doing about face with the Pacific, you know, everybody, Philippines, everybody, they're all going to be wondering, you know, what's next? Who do we turn to for this? So it's going to be interesting. Absolutely. And this comes at the same time. We just saw this Shanghai cooperation organization summit at China, right? Which should have scared the bejesus out of all the policymakers and war fighters, quite frankly,

in Washington, D.C. They should be saying, oh, okay, so now they are openly conspiring to dethrone the United States world order, the one we created, which is advantageous to ourselves. No surprise there. And they're doing so not just with the normal bad actors, the China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, but they have what should be, could be, and should be one of the most important strategic partners of the U.S. in the 21st century, India.

Right? And here, they're laughing it up, chumming it up. They're agreeing to do things like this SCO development bank, which is going to do what? It's going to replace the vacuum that we left, right? Certainly with USAID, IMF, the World Bank. And they're not doing it for, you know, benevolent reasons. They're trying to basically get their sphere of interest broader. and our sphere of interest influence lesser, right? So they're doing that.

They're doing things together on AI, security, the development of new technologies. You name it, they're doing it. And they're doing it with about 20 countries. It started as a very regional thing, and now has gotten significant. And the president recognized it. It's literally said that they're conspiring against the United States in a, you know, in a social media post. So we have apparently a national security strategy that totally pivots internally to the domestic and to the south of us at the same time that our adversaries are building their sphere of influence all around the world to include Europe, the Middle East, Europe, or least close to Europe. Turkey was there, support to point out, a NATO ally was at this conference.

and of course all throughout the Middle East Africa and the Indo-Pacific. Big problem. Put it together. We've got a significant shift in worldwide influence. Mick, riddle me this. I mean, so the president tweets about, you know, China trying to curry influence with the SEO, right? Presidential actual, it's a statement, right, from the president, the chief guy in terms of our foreign policy. and the national defense strategy is going to start pivoting to regional and domestic.

How does that, how does what the president say and what they're doing with the national defense strategy even jive, even seem like a coherent strategy in any way, shape, or form? Well, if it comes out, and again, there's a public national security and national defense strategy usually. There's also, you know, classified versions. I think China and the rest of the SEO, is going to say, perfect. This is exactly what we wanted them to do. Have them, and of course, this isn't just military, right?

We're talking about defense strategy. But the national security strategy is diplomatic, economic. It's everything. It's everything around the world and how it affects us. It's how we trade with other countries. So it's how they decide who they're going to have the most favorite trading partners with, who they're going to partner with if there's a, conflict and we need to have partner countries to, you know, to actually hope it doesn't happen,

but go to war again, right? This is all, this plays into everything. It's, it's, it's the dime, right? It's everything. And they're looking at it for a way to seize control, turn it to what they call a multipolar world. And of course, what they mean is one they dominate together, you know, especially the big two, and, and have control over us. And so I think there's going to to be a lot of talk. There already is a lot of talk from both sides of the aisle on the SEO summit. And if this comes out the way it's being reported, that's just going to add to the, I think, loudness of the conversation in Washington, D.C. on just where we're going with our foreign policy. I'm trying to figure out if our foreign policy now is focused. I mean, this sounds

like an anomaly. If it's now focused more domestically, what is that? that look like as far as employment of the military? I don't know, National Guard in the streets of major cities? I mean, are we talking domestic domestic? Mick mentioned, you know, the border and beyond the border. But I'm just trying to think what there is. I, you know, I get it aside from the problem of illegal immigration, aside from the problem with drugs, but it just doesn't seem to me as though those problems require

How big is our military? Three million? Three and a half million, not counting reserves. No, I mean counting reserves, sorry. I think it's like one three active, one point three active. Counting reserves. Right. And this, of course, the national security strategy, certain defense strategies,

is written for the National Guard. National Guard's part of it. But think about the rest of the active forces, which generally don't have a role inside the United States, you know, posse comitatis and all sorts of restrictions. So I don't, again, it hasn't been published yet, so maybe we should wait before we criticize something that might not be accurate as reported. But certainly if that is the case, it's going to cause big issues.

You know, we're going to focus all of our military efforts on Venezuela. Right. Yeah. You know, I often wonder, I retired six years ago now. And, you know, when I retired, OIR was still going on. But I wonder now what it is like in the military because, you know, for most of us, all our memories in the military were of war, right? I mean, there was a fallow period in the 90s when we weren't at war, but even then there were pop-up things. But now it's been, I mean,

you know, essentially conventional troops withdrew from Afghanistan in 2014, right? So it's been a long period where people have gone in and out and now people late in their careers have never experienced combat. And I'm wondering how that has affected morale. I know it hasn't affected recruiting that much, right? I mean, recruiting seems certainly the Marine Corps meeting recruiting goals. I don't know how. But it's in, and now they're just, I mean, at least, at least, look, I'm not getting

nostalgic about this, but, you know, at least during. the wars, right? The war on terror, whatever we're calling it now, Iraq and Afghanistan, there was a proximate purpose to what we were doing. We were training up, we were deploying, and, and, you know, I get it. I just can't imagine being in the military now year after year where you are just training to do nothing. That makes me sound like warmong of it. Yeah, well, I mean, that's why we have a military is to be ready, right? We don't want to be in a constant state of war, but I hear you, most of our careers were in a state of war, right? The global war on terror.

I would point out as, you know, people are talking about the military and, you know, get back to, you know, this war ethos. I don't think the military would left the warrior ethos. So just because, you know, political people weren't in charge at the time, I'd like to do a little sticking up for the military. Yeah. We took down the Taliban and toppled them in Afghanistan in about six weeks. we took down a very sizable military and modern in Iraq in 26 days, right?

The U.S. military with the help of the agency, with the U.S. military predominantly. And, you know, whether we should have done Iraq, whether we, how we left Afghanistan or should have left Afghanistan, that wasn't up to the military, man. That was political decisions, policy decisions. So the idea that we've lost our warrior ethos and our ability to fight wars is just, I think, factually incorrect. And it's disrespectful for the people who fought those wars. Anyway, I want to point that out because this idea that until a certain political entity gets in charge whether there's right or left or whatever, that that's all of a sudden the military becomes competent or not is just defies logic. And it's disrespectful for the people who, you know, serve apolitically, which should be the entire military under any administration.

And they're always preparing for defense in our country. Yeah. I mean, I think the Marine Corps was a far better organization when I got out than when I came in. No, that had nothing to do with me by the period of service. But it just, you know, it was. Marines were better trained. I mean, a lot of factors came into play there. natural progression, the fact that wars do force improvement and adaptation. And I, you know, I think

the Marine Corps adapted very well and very quickly to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at the tactical level very well. And, you know, I'm generally very proud of having been a Marine and seeing performance there. And that isn't me just chest beating because I can also be very critical. But I think the way that we, in a short period of time, trained and deployed individuals and units to go to an Iraq. And the way that they behaved responded to a very difficult situation. A counterinsurgency says a lot for the U.S. military. And yeah, I agree with you, Mick. I don't buy the fact that we lost lethality along the way at all.

I really don't. You know, I think that's – I didn't see it during. my time there. You know, I just saw, in fact, Marines were tougher. They were fitter. They were tougher. NCOs were better, you know, across the board. So, and I'm sure it's continued to, the Marine Corps has continued to progress in that regard in the last few years. I just hope that we're not now facing a period where the military is going to be misused. Yeah, I think that's the biggest. One second, Jay. This segment is brought to you by the United States Marine Corps.

Go to UMC, USMC.com. Go ahead, Jay. Sorry. No, it's all good. Now I was going to say, I think probably, and this is just me, mind reading, the biggest question in the mind of these young kids, and it's crazy that I can call them kids in the military. Today is probably, like you just said, what you just finished with, Andy, is what are we going to be used for next? you know, it's like they're trained up, and I do believe, I agree with both of you that, um, they've stayed lethal throughout despite everything else external that's going on, you know,

politics or whatever. I hate that term, by the way. I do too, but you know what? I had to use it. Um, I believe that they're, yes, their, their, their warrior ethos has always been there in men and women of the armed forces. I, I don't know it at all. Yes.

But, um, I think, sounds like a coffee company. Yeah, it does. There's an idea, right? down. I think it's more a question of where are we going to be used, especially now if, and going back to what Mick said, we don't know. But if it is published and becomes public that, yes, we are turning inward towards and our focus is domestic, you know, it's like, am I going to Los Angeles? Am I going to get that Los Angeles deployment ribbon? Am I going to Birmingham, Alabama? What's going to happen with me? You know, this is not what I signed up for. And I'm not saying

that that's what they're saying, because some of them probably wouldn't care. It's like you tell me where to go and I'm going to go. But from the outside looking in, I think that that's probably our biggest concern is going to be where we're training these kids to fight and be, you know, to use that warrior ethos. But if you're talking and when you start using that word domestic, now you're starting, two things are starting to butt up against one another, you know, lethality. Sorry, I had to use it again. And domestic. And we know how that turns out, you know, Kent State, you know, things like that. So I think that's probably what's on their mind. I should say the leader, leadership, whereas the young Lance Corporal and the

corporal, probably, you know, Lawrence Corporals, PFCs, stuff like that, they're probably like just send us wherever you need us to go. You know, they're ready to do their jobs. Well, if they change, if the national military strategy does downplay China, that's a huge. that's a big deal for the Marine Corps because their last few years, the Marine Corps design is all about that, right? Yeah. And so, you know, there's a lot of planets in the Marine Corps

who are going to be scratching their heads and figuring out, okay, what do we do now? Yeah. I belong to a group called the Vandenberg Coalition, right? And Vandenberger was a senator who said that, you know, politics should stop at the water's edge. I think that's the motto of the group. And it's got people that were in it, like Senator McCain, obviously passed away. And who's the, sorry, his name's skid me now, but he was almost his running mate.

He's a Democrat. It's really close to. Lieberman. Lieberman. There you know. So it has both sides. It's a bipartisan group. And the point being that there's a reason why we want.

our foreign policy to be nonpartisan. Because if you have a strategy that doesn't last beyond four years, it's not a strategy, right? It's wild shifting back and forth. And it's inconsistent and essentially ineffective to even have a strategy. So having a combined one where you invite both sides to actually discuss what's best for the U.S. and foreign policy to push back against China and Russia. And obviously the priorities himself is what's best for the U.S. the US. And that was, that, that would serve me, that was the way things were, obviously,

during the Cold War. The strategy was a single strategy. It was containment. And that continued, you know, regardless of which party was in power. And it continued, it really did continue through the, I hate you used to term war on terror, because it doesn't make sense. But it continued during that period, right? There was. but it was more a kind of, it was more kind of a disinterest. It was a hands-off view of the war on terror. No one really questioned whether the policy goals there or whether we were achieving them.

So it kind of had a negative aspect. But yes, now it seems as though we're in the potential era of whiplash, and that's why China is a great example, and the Marine Corps all in pursued, of force design 2030 which by the way for those of our listeners watchers who are not familiar with it

is basically about 10 years ago right started looking at China as what was called a pacing threat and how China was how the Marine Corps was going to counter China in the Pacific and I'm making this very very simple

but it came down to that Marines were there to enable surveillance, right, and to enable long-range precision strike using anti-ship missiles to set up kill zones using the island chains. And in doing so, pursuing a very distributed mode of warfare, all right, both, you know, in the terms of how the Marine Corps is a raid and how it's going to supply itself and that's why we got rid of our tanks and I believe we got rid of a number of

our artillery units and we went to all in on what we call the marine littoral regiments that whose purpose would be to enable long-range surveillance and and also long-range precision strike bank if the guys correct me if I'm off-target there and and it created a great deal of controversy in the Marine Corps, especially among the retirees, senior officers, and it was one of the only times that I have seen former Marines, senior Marines, go after each other publicly in the media and on social media.

The Commandant at the time, General Berger, came, was the subject of a good deal of, a good deal of criticism to include from former commandants in public and the current commandant too for their support of force design 2030. So now, I mean, everything shifted towards that particular strategy for the Marine Corps to include the acquisition programs, training, organization, everything across. dot MPLF. And so if China is no longer the pacing threat,

it's going to be very interesting. I mean, are we going to get our tanks back? Or what's going to happen? And there's going to be a good deal of chess beating in the media from those who've been getting very emotional and critical of forced design 2030. And just so, I mean, some of the audience might know, but the national defense strategies like the overall policy

for the DoD and then out of it, the national military strategy is how the military meets that strategy, right, and the policy that's put out. So if this comes out, again, we keep saying if, because we're just reading reports, but it's all over the place now, that we're focusing on domestic and, you know, this hemisphere, then the national military strategy is going to react to it. They're going to shift resources to Andy's point. If you're following the strategy, right? Domestic in this Western Hemisphere. So they're going to shift forces out of the Indo-Pacific, and I assume the Middle East and Europe, to match the priorities as stated by the president in the White House. So it's going to do a big number on force design and the entire

plan for a whole branch of service that's going to be a pretty big shift. taking it down to the microview, what does that do to that Lance Corporal, Corporal Sergeant, who have been training to fight the Chinese or fight in the Pacific? You know, now mentally they have to shift focus and use that same, I would assume, those same strategies, tools, TTPs to now focus on a domestic and a regional stage. you know, that's got to have some kind of psychological effect on. I'm not saying it's going to drive them crazy, but it's got to be confusing to them, you know, to, you know, have that zero six formation

and say, hey, we're changing tactics. You can throw those Mandarin or, you know, whatever books away, you know, phrases. Now we're going to give you some Spanish phrases to learn, stuff like that. It's got to be, you know, pretty frustrating for them. again if it happens i i think fortunately the the slow the reluctance of the marine rifle squad platoon to to adapt uh in in that sense is going to be a huge advantage and my my direct experience is a little bit dated as few years off but until i left for ukraine in 2022 i was covering the marines war fighting exercises in 29 palms where

they were supposed to be training for pair-on-peer engagement, i.e. going against the Chinese, and I will say that the way that Marine Corps rifle squad operated had changed not at all. And, you know, for better and for worse, I mean, the tactics that they were training to close with and destroy the enemy by firearm maneuver remained exactly the same. Their organic weapons remained the same. The way they used them remained the same as they did when I would say Lance Corporal. So, and they were slow to adapt. I mean, they were slow for a number of reasons. It just seemed culturally difficult to get them to use drones in the way, for instance,

that at Marine in Marsock that we used drones. And, you know, partly because the drones that they were issued were kind of pieces of shit. But also, I mean, it was just so embedded in the culture for Marines to do what they've always done. So I don't think there'll be so much of a change there, but there will have to. you know, the planner level. And again, you know, we've already got the Marine Corps, the Doral Regiment, and we've, we no longer have artillery. We know, I mean, we do have artillery.

I'm sorry, but we, I believe we scaled down on our artillery, and we got rid of our tanks, which was a very emotional issue for a lot of Marines, not just tankers. So it would be interesting to see how that, how that changes. What else did we got something rid of, we got rid of something else that, that I hadn't realized the other day. Do you guys ability-wise? So I'm ringing a bell with you guys

for 23? Yeah. Did we get rid of stay platoons? Are they gone? We got rid of snipers. Yeah. Snipers. We got right at snipers.

That's right. Which makes no sense to me. Why would they do that? And then they can probably rename somebody that gets additional training and how to be a long-range marksman and then they'll. Yeah.

What if the Army is like, desicating. something like that. It's like, so you just got rid of one of the most, you know, storied MOSs in the U.S. Marine Corps. And if you're going to recreate them, you are. I mean, it's going to happen. Yeah. And there were uncalienable benefits to having snipers.

I mean, it was the ethos. But the thing is that, that shooting was about 10% of what they did. You know, I mean, you, so the guys that did well and became snipers and got through sniper school. Yes, they had the skills of shooting and stalking. all that other stuff that may seem archaic. But they had observation skills. They were savvy.

They were good technically. And all of those things mean that they could have adapted very well to operating drones and using drones, you know, to both for strike and answer. They lent us to the greatest effect. I think, yeah, that to me made, getting rid of them. It made no sense. It didn't save them rank for a ton of money. I'm sure either.

Army didn't get rid of them. Socom didn't get rid of them. J-Soc didn't get rid of them. Yeah. But I think no one's really aware that the Army ever had snipers in the first place. So it was easy just to... But the skill set, what they want...

A sniper in the Army has passed their qualification course. Comments are just going to light up. This is brought to you by the United States Marine Corps. That was his long way of saying that the Navy should have gotten rid of carriers. That was this roundabout way. If we're shifting to domestic and regional, see you later, carriers. No.

Yes, no. Is this going to last three years and then the next administration, be it Republican or Democrat, goes back to what I would say is the traditional view. No, sadly, carriers are, you know, the justification was not in conflict against China. In fact, the greatest criticism of the carrier groups was that they were so vulnerable in a war against China. But they're great for force protection. I mean, you want to put a carrier off, I don't know, Venezuela or Latin America. I mean, it's the modern version of Gunboe diplomacy, right?

That's why you always read in the papers, you know, the United States has now sent three carriers to the Middle East. I mean, it's really kind of a statement, isn't it? I mean, and in the war on terror, they were a great platform for close air support because they were relatively invulnerable. So I'm afraid that a shift away from China will see a resurgence of those who love carriers, that's $12 million bucks apart. Billion, yeah. But we didn't get rid of snipers, right?

Yeah. Well, we saw, we saw China's. $500,000. dollars. We saw China's parade, right? So there's a lot of new weapon systems rolled out there. Laser weapons systems from space from ship, I believe. A lot of hypersonic missiles, new drones, land, sea, air.

Probably all of it stolen from U.S. defense contractors to make. But that's a concern, right? I mean, they're gearing up to fight us and we're gearing down to fight them. So think about it. If we're not there, we're not studying the enemy. We're not preparing for a conflict with them. And as we've seen in history, it's not always up to us whether we enter a war or not a la Pearl Harbor.

So our most considerable adversaries, one is building up their forces substantially and building up their alliances. The other is actively at war with the European country. It's showing zero interest in stopping and has, and we're having. zero effect on their calculation to enter negotiations. So shifting away from those could seriously be at the U.S. peril. And I think you're going to hear a lot about it if this is the way we're going with our national security strategy.

Yeah, putting all these tariffs on China is going to do no good if China takes Taiwan, right? I mean, we're going to see a, I don't want to say a tsunami effect against our economy if that happens. But it is, you know, as far as companies like Taiwan, Cemiconductor, I mean, they provide the chips or they provide technology that fuels Navidia and so many other U.S. companies. that is bound to be a tremendous effect on the U.S. economy if China takes Taiwan. And aside from just, for those who care anymore, our credibility in the world. But it's difficult to imagine now, if we are indeed pivoting away from the Pacific, us providing a deterrent, certainly no means of forcing our way back in without taking high casualties that would be unacceptable to the U.S. public if China.

And, you know, Xi has said that that is his goal. I mean, he's been out quite up front with it, right? When it's going to happen, who knows? It's certainly a possibility. That in that direction, right? So 40% of the world's population was represented by the 20 countries that went to the summit in China. 40% of the world's population, only 20 countries. So the more they get them under their influence,

the more we show an indifference to Ukraine's in supporting them. And the strategic shift away from putting China as a priority is only to Andy's point, bold in China, to do something in Taiwan. As long as they feel they can do it and that we're not going to do anything or nobody else is because nobody's going to do anything if we don't. right so it's either to build an alliance that would do it then we know where this is headed god god i want to feel good story good god give us some irish propaganda something like for god sakes feel good irish propaganda yeah that might be a tall order all right so just to binden up the

Venezuela thing. A couple of, like, facts just for folks to understand. Two-thirds of the drugs are coming to the United States are from the Pacific coast. Venezuela doesn't, like, produce cocaine or heroin. They are a transit point, much like Mexico is, for the most part, Mexico also does produce their own stuff. But most of the cocaine that comes into the countries from, like, Colombia, Peru. So it's not exactly, like, in the terms of, like, really affecting the war on drugs,

I don't think going after these like cartels in Venezuela really is going to put a dent in money things. So I think that needs to just be understood by everybody too because it's like, you know, kind of missing the forest for the trees here. There'll be empirical statistics to show if this works. Yeah. Yeah. I think the hope, the wishful thinking, the hope is that like, you know, stepping up to Venezuela like this is going to emboldened their military. to overthrow Maduro, which Maduro is obviously a piece of shit. Like, he's not a good guy.

You know, stole his election essentially. Absolutely did. Yeah. So he's a straight up autocrat who's definitely making money from like the narco trade. But I feel like it's wishful thinking, hoping that somehow, some way the military is going to step up. And there are Venezuelan opposition parties all giddy about this. And I get it. Why?

But, you know, let's be a little pragmatic here. Also, we made a deal with Venezuela. recently about Chevron selling us oil. And now we're bombing stuff and bombing their narco traffickers and calling them a terrorist state. So go ahead. I'm sorry, Andy. I was just going to say we don't have a good track record when it comes to overthrowing

auto scraps. I mean, we can do it, but we can't control what happens next. I said we got to let loose the CIA. Not even saying that because Mick's here. Like, you know, do some covert stuff, try to get a coup going backwards. That's what we're, that's like perennially what we're. at or you know back to what and he just said doesn't always work yeah well sure that's it doesn't always work out but we have some experience in that uh iran um

silly sometimes the coup works out it just the results aren't the yeah yeah turns out to be you know that's part of the consequences but it should be part of the foreign policy strategy you know incorporate the concern in the past of the agency is when they go oh we can't figure out how to do whatever it is they want to do. Diplomacy's failed. We're not going to use the military. Toss it over the agency. Well, that's the way you want to start with, you know, the dumpster fire and say good luck to you.

It needs to be like incorporated at the beginning as a topic for another. Also with Venezuela, I mean, clearly China and Russia want to, is a certain influence there, right? Because Venezuela is selling their oil to China. Yeah. So, you know, how do they? they react. China's coming to their, at least rhetorical defense.

All right. Anything else, boys? At the very least, I need to know more about what's going on in Venezuela, maybe send in Silled Team 6 to plant some sensors. I had to get that last one in.

Yeah. So you're saying, what you're saying, Andy, is that, like, Marines should flood buds and take over? Is that what you're saying?

No, no, no. No. I wouldn't. I wouldn't. I wouldn't Or if you want to become a seal You need to go to Marine boot camp

Instead of Navy boot camp Every Every unit has its place, man You never know what's going to be the most important, right? Yeah All right All right So guys, this show is brought to you by the USMC

Samperfi Check them out at usmc.gov Or whatever their website is I'm sending them a fucking invoice I'm not you think I'm kidding As they say The Army and the Navy Or traditional military organization

the Air Force is a corporation, but the Marine Corps is a religion. It's, we can't help it. We can't help it. I think that was meant as a criticism, actually. Of course,

Marines took that as a compliment. Yes. All right, boys, this is great, as usual. Awesome talk. Don't forget to hit up

all the guys' links are in the description. Check them out there. Andy's book, of course, organizations, Jason, socials, everything's down in the description. And of course, patreon.com slash the Teamhouse. You have both the Teamhouse and IZon, ad-free and early. And you help support the show.

So we really appreciate that. Thanks again, guys. Bye, thanks. Take care, everybody. Hey, guys. I want to tell all of you today about a new newsletter that we're launching that encompasses both the Teamhouse podcast, the Aizon podcast, and the high side news outlet, which I run with Sean.

Naylor. The newsletter is going to be once a week. It's going to come into your inbox and you're going to get the most current podcasts on Aizon and the Team House and whatever's topical or current on the high side. So it's another way for us to get the information out to you as social media algorithms are pretty iffy and you never really know what you're going to get. So this is a once a week email. It'll slide into your inbox and it will have, you know, the greatest hits of that week. It's really good, man. I'm checking it out. The website for it is teamhousepodcast.

Dot kit.com slash join. Teamhousepodcast. Dot kit.com slash join. Go there and you enter into your email list, or you enter your email into the little thing on the website, and you're good to go, and that'll be it. So we really appreciate your support, and hope you'll consider signing up.

Where's the link? The link will also be down in the description. if you're looking for it there. And that's teamhousepodcast. Dot K-I-T-K-K-Lo-IndiaTango.com backslash join.