Will Cain Country - ENCORE: Will & Pete Commemorate American Patriotism On July 4th

Episode Date: July 4, 2024

Will and his FOX & Friends Weekend co-host Pete Hegseth discuss Pete's new book, The War on Warriors. Plus, they give a behind the scenes look at their time with President Trump as well as reacting to Jon Stewart's comments about how handsome of a pair Will & Pete are. Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail] Subscribe to The Will Cain Show on YouTube here: Watch The Will Cain Show! Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for five bucks plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. America. If you distilled America down into human form, the human embodiment of America, what you would probably get is Pete Heggseth. It is the Will Kane Show, normally streaming live every Monday, through Thursday at 12 o'clock Eastern time at Fox News.com, the Fox News YouTube channel, and the Fox News

Facebook page. We hope you'll hit subscribe on Apple or Spotify, so you can listen to us whenever and however. You are living your life in traffic or on the treadmill. I don't know if you've seen my co-host and my buddy Pete Hegseth on Instagram, but lately he's taken to wearing the pit vipers, usually, you know, in red, white, and blue reflection mirrored lenses. He's always got a tank on so you can see his American tattoos. Tank probably reads front towards enemy. And he's casually reading the Constitution while fireworks go off behind him as he sits in a lawn chair. America. So we thought on the 4th of July celebrating Independence Day, why don't we revisit our conversation about the War on Warriors with Captain America? Pete Hedgeseth here on The Wilcane Show.

Twisler's candy keeps the fun going. Keep the fun going. From the Fox News Podcasts Network. Hey there, it's me. Kennedy, make sure to check out my podcast. Kennedy saves the world. It is five days a week, every week. Download and listen at Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you listen.

to your favorite podcast. This is Jason Chaffetz from the Jason in the House podcast. Join me every Monday to dive deeper into the latest political headlines and chat with remarkable guests. Listen and follow now at Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you download podcasts. He is my Fox and Friends weekend co-host. He is my friend on Off the Rails. He's the author of a brand new book, The War on Warriors.

And he is, as I mentioned, according to John Stewart. one of the most sexually attractive individuals in news. He is Pete Hegg said. I think it's all of us, right, Will? I mean, wasn't it a consensus verdict from John Stewart? It was a team award. It was a team. It was a team insult compliment.

What I'm talking about here, for those of you listening or watching, is that John Stewart's returned to the Daily Show. That barely hit my news cycle. and the other night, Pete, Rachel, and my interview with former president Donald Trump hit the radar, specifically one instance where Donald Trump told us he never said lock up Hillary Clinton. The left seems very focused on that moment of the interview. Not that he may lock up Joe Biden in the future, or not that he declined to lock up Hillary Clinton, or not that Joe Biden just did lock up Donald Trump, but that he says he didn't say it in 2016. John Stewart played a bunch of clips of Donald Trump, in fact, saying, lock up Hillary Clinton.

And then he said this. And the Fox and Friends B team is just fucking sitting there. tanned and fit and healthy and so f***able. How did they get so f***able? It's a good-looking bunch. You know your vanity. You know your vanity swallowed the B-team insult and the attack on our journalism just to go,

oh, nice, thank you. Good-looking crew. Oh, that's great. I'm looking especially orange today. in this light. I mean, you're right. Tand hit the gym yesterday. One of your producers, I'll let him remain he was impressed. I was in the gym yesterday. I started

with two plates on both sides. So, yeah, we're working out hard on the bench. We're getting tanned, GTL. And then, yeah, when we interview the president, I want the t-shirts made, Will. I want the t-shirts. Effable B-team. That's the name of our squad.

Forever. Forever. I'll take it. JV, but effable. Effable B team. Fox and Friends Weekend. Hey, by the way, that word did filter through to the Will Kane show text thread. You're throwing around two plates. Young establishment James was in the gym, and he did say, you're throwing around $2.25? I mean, you're fit, but I was a little taken aback, man.

Two plates? That's the first set, Will. That's $2.25 just to open up with the 10 reps, all right? Just to get going. and then I'm up to $2.45, and then I did $2.75, but I only got a $4 times. Come on. Yeah. Yes, yes.

Are you serious? I'm being serious right now. I'm not kidding. You did $2.25 10 times and worked your way up to $2.75? Yes, sir. Absolutely. I've been lifting a long time, Will. I mean, it's just kind of, I'm not trying to, not trying to, you know, gloat. But yes, I work out a lot. I don't take HGH, and I don't take performance.

enhanceers. I promise you, just weigh protein, brother. Wow, man. I mean, seriously, I'm a little blown away. I did $2.25 once. In my heyday, I did $2.25. You know, I'm so happy that your producers witnessed it. I didn't have to bring it up. It's fully verified. It's not a claim. This is documented.

and, yeah, so we'll keep going. It's some serious weight. Shoulder issues and elbow issues, though, so we'll see if you have to back down on it at some point. Clearly not. God. I don't know if I can move on from this. That is a lot of weight.

You don't look that big. I mean, you look in shape, but guys that throw around 275 are, you know, I mean, that's a lot of, like, farm boy strength or something you got in there because you don't have the show muscles. I mean, I know you have, you do, I mean, I swam with you last summer and you're definitely, you know, in shape. But like, usually dudes that are doing 275 are medium shirts and show muscles all for the girls.

You must have some serious farm boy strength. I have a girl already, so I don't need to go schmedium. And I don't do the Chris Cuomo, you know, I don't lift on set and try to show everybody else strong. Just let the suit hide it, you know. So someone wants to challenge, they can try. but it's not going to go well for them. Yeah, I've got to get it together. I'm serious.

This is going to cause some serious self-reflection. This is bad news. All right, I'm moving on from this, I think. I'm going to try. I'm going to try to move on for 275 four times here with Pete Hegseth. All right, man. It's always the case I reference this every so often, but I had breakfast with my buddies this morning.

And one of the things that was a point of conversation, Pete, And I don't expect you have seen this in the news cycle, but it was reported this morning in the Wall Street Journal, was that there is a new stock exchange being formed in Texas. I did see that. It's been venture-funded, interestingly, by Citadel. Two of the big investors in it are Citadel and BlackRock. And that's worthy its own conversation because of so much skepticism towards BlackRock. But the point of this stock exchange seems to be to directly take on the New York Stock Exchange. And the reason to take on the New York Stock Exchange is in no small part, the board. requirements for so many publicly listed companies.

DEI and ESG is forcing Fortune 500 companies, publicly traded companies, to pursue things other than the point of a corporation, which is to make money, just like any other institution, to accomplish its objective and merit being the primary mechanism through which you accomplish your objective. Whether or not Texas will be able to do that is will be interesting and fascinating to watch, But what I am bringing this to you with today is it's an example of an attempt to escape an institution that has been co-opted by an ideology that gets in the way of something accomplishing its purpose. And you have just written a book about that, the War on Warriors, where really the last institution we need to lose in pursuit of a subjective is the United States military. Yeah.

I mean, first of all, long live the Republic of Texas. I mean, only Texas could say we're going to take on the New York Stock Exchange. again, count it as another blind spot for me. Well, I knew about the Black Rock stuff. I knew about the ESG stuff. But I guess I didn't know that the New York Stock Exchange itself had been captured by the, I mean, it's like you always find another institution that you thought was this impromatur of, of, it was a fair arbiter of setting a marketplace. And it turns out businesses in America want an alternative that cuts red tape and gets out of that garbage and lowers these ridiculous regulatory thresholds that prevent companies from being a part of it.

and who better than Texas. So when I saw that, I thought, first I'm going to hear positively and rightfully so from Will on. It's a great Texas flex. Like, there's so much money in Dallas, and I didn't know this, but like, it could be that of all the places in America that could compete as a financial and wealth hub with New York City, it's Dallas, Texas. And I think if it catches on a business to start realizing it, it could become a real competitor. And I love when there's competition where you didn't know. competition was possible for all the right reasons. I have no idea whether this would be viable

or not, but I love it. If I had a chance to invest in a company on the Dallas stock exchange instead of the New York stock exchange, I would. And I bet a lot of Americans feel the same way. They just didn't know there was an alternative. Yeah. And just for what it's worth, and I think there will be some very recognizable, very recognizable corporations that choose to list on the Texan stock exchange from what I am hearing. Well, your buddies. Did they love this? Like, what was their response? Absolutely. And, I mean, you know, the, we can, we're going to tie this into the War on Warriors,

but what this is about is, you know, in order to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange now, there's all these different, obviously red tape bureaucratic requirements and regulations, but one of them is, you know, board representation. In order to be listed, you've got to make sure you have this ESG policy or this DEI individual on your board. And all of that gets in the way of actually, not just gets in the way, but subverts the purpose of a corporation, which is to make money. And I don't know how skeptical we should be towards the fact that Black Rock is behind us, because Black Rock, as we know, has been a big pusher of ESG policy, environmental, social and governance policy in public companies. But, you know, my suspicion is Black Rock, not unlike every other company, has as its primary objective, make money. And if they think that the money has been incentivized, if they think money has been incentivized to pursue ESG policies, they're going to do that. But if they don't have to do that, they're not going to do ESG policies. They're going to do what they were born to do. And what's cool about this. Money. This feels like a really quick whiplash. Like, you know, Black Rock was at the center of peddling ESG. And then I don't know what happened, where that moment was. But if they went not only rejected it, but then said, we want to be part of an exchange that rejects it, that's a good sign.

And the reason I bring this up with you is because I find it directly comparable to your brand new book, War on Warriors, because unfortunately now, there is not a competition. There's no competitive market. There's no alternative to the United States military. But the United States military has been captured by that same ideology, that same loss of a sense of purpose as every other institution in the United States. And if you have a military, as you have pointed out to me on various occasions, who's not focused on killing its enemy, its primary objective, that is instead focused on how many different trans soldiers do we have in every unit, you are going to, as I said, not get in the way, but subvert the primary objective, kill the enemy, and you will be killed. Exactly right. Very well said, well, you got me thinking, though, I hadn't thought of this, but there are alternatives inside the military, right? You could join the Army or the Marine Corps, right?

You can join different services. And the one service that hasn't seen a dip in recruiting is the Marine Corps. Why? Because the Marine Corps is perceived as being the least woke, the most likely to maintain the standards. They're running the ads that still say, you know, I can't remember what the ad is, the few the proud the Marines.

Like, yeah, I want to be a part of that. That's a mini micro reflection inside the institutions. And it is different. I mean, I would have thought of the stock exchange as an entity of one, but now there's competition. There isn't, the only competition of the United States military

is other countries' militaries. The only comp is this is not, you know, a bronze medal is not going to cut it. This is not the Olympics. This is, you know, we go into one war. with a country and either we win or we don't and the whole world changes as a result and you know it's been we've talked about this a lot on on the weekend show you've been very generous with your time

and the opportunity to talk about it and i've started to get reviews and information coming back from people even just in the last day who've been able to read it and it's wonderfully affirming uh it's it's not good to hear the stories but to know that i'm over the target here everyone's saying this is what my son is seeing this is what i'm seeing and and there's a reason for that will you know this, I spend my Saturdays in my office doing work, okay? You don't know what that work is, okay, but I call it work, right? And it's plowing through my schedule and my inbox and getting back to people. And when I'm writing a book, it's writing a book. Well, part of what, TPS reports. TPS for scheduling receipts. I mean, it's, I'm on it and you will see it. I get focused.

Well, one of the tasks over the last year that I've had on Saturdays was I would block out, you know, six hours of time and I'd talk to seven or eight different vets are actively serving members. And then I'd ask them to refer me to somebody else. And these are active duty people who aren't approved to talk to the media. And I talk to me under the condition of anonymity. And I'm able to record their conversations as long as I transcribe them as long as I don't use their name.

And I use that throughout the book. So I'm not surprised by this response because I've already been in touch with this response with all those people across the country. I didn't want to write this book and throw it out there based on media. reports of what we see as a woke military. I need to get under the hood, and I did. And so it's the disenchanted nature of morale. It's the lowering of standards. It's the walking on eggshells. It's the prioritization of training. It's the skepticism of leaders based on where they put there because they're a first or because they're the best. Are we distracted as a unit? So thank you for the

opportunity. You've already given me more than enough time to promote this book. But the war on Warriors is out. It's currently number one on Amazon. People have been great. It's been It's been a huge response and appreciate it. We're going to talk about it some more here today on the Will Cain Show. So I want to talk about what's happened to the United States military in some specifics. But let's start with this, Pete. It sounds rudimentary, but I think it needs to be our starting point. And that is the purpose of the United States military.

I mean, you and I touched on it, kill your enemy. But I do feel like over the past, maybe we could say half a century, but we've lost some sense of actually the mission, the objective. And I think that that has been a bipartisan effort. What I mean by that is we think of the military as nation builders. We think of the military as a police force. We think of the military as a democracy spreader. We think of the military as an institution to reflect representation. We hear diversities our strength. It's applied to the military. And what's completely watered down in that litany of things I just listed off is there's really one single primary objective to the existence of the United States military. Help us understand the

objective of our military. Oh, you're exactly right. That's why in one little paragraph I mentioned, I'd love to change the name of the Defense Department back to the Department of War, which is what it used to be. The function of the military is, yes, to fight and win our nation's wars and protect our national interests. But first and foremost, it's to deter wars. You don't want to have to fight wars because people don't want to mess with the American military. And so our diplomats, joked with Rachel on the show, our diplomats are effective in their diplomacy because we've got a division of tanks behind them who the enemy doesn't want to mess with. Yet, and yes, for reasons of politics, for reasons of the way we wage our wars, mission creep has been a signature of the last

half century. You're exactly what I experienced it in Iraq and Afghanistan. This idea that the 82nd Airborne or the Marine Corps should be remaking remote villages in Afghanistan and delivering a quality of life to civilians that will then turn off all the instincts that culture has to fight an insurgency against a foreign entity landing on that soil. And part of that is our general classes end up going to places like Harvard Kennedy School and Yale and others, and they want to be more like the students they're going to class with than the textbooks they learned in the military about what their real function is. So there's a mingling of political cultural priorities into the military ethos, and we certainly

saw it on the battlefield. And what this book argues for is the military's best function is fighting and winning wars. We want people in position to do just that. Yes, we do have civilian leadership of that military. But the consult, the advice that military leaders are giving those civilians should be laser-focused on what the military does well, not dabbling in the cultural and diplomatic aspects of it. We're here to do one thing. If you need that tool, pick it up and that tool's going to be ready. but don't distract us with other things in the process.

And we just don't have a sharp enough tool right now. We don't have enough of those tools in there. And we got a lot of tool bags at the top doing the bidding of politicians that haven't had the backs of troops. And those are the names that we name in the book. And, you know, they won't like, I know for a fact, Will, that Mark Millie got an advanced copy of this book. And he's none too pleased about it. And I don't have an axe to grind with Mark. Is that right?

Yes. And I don't have an axe to grind. with Mark Millie the person. I'm sure he's a perfectly fine guy. And I know a lot of guys who served with him when he was more of a junior officer going through as a major, a lieutenant colonel, a colonel, and they really liked him. He was a warfighter. But when it mattered the most at the pinnacle of his profession, he caved to the chattering class and gave into false narratives that he knew were false because it was easier to go along with the idea of white rage or CRT or patriot extremism in the ranks because he knew it would allow him to move into the next

administration and be liked by the outside chattering class. So I take issue with those people and so do trigger pollers. And that's who the book's for. Is there such thing as Patriot extremism? Yes. Like what is Patriot extremism? Well, by the way, we're talking about World War II, right? And D-Day, I mean, D-Day and World War II were won by Patriot extremists. Patriot extremists being defined as traditional Christian, heterosexual males. At that point, it was mostly all white males, unfortunately, although there were amazing black contributions in World War II for the American cause also. After that, soon thereafter, there would be full integration and rightfully so. But it was that ethos of patriot extremism that has won our wars. Yeah,

that was a leaked DARPA memo from the extremism working group came out where there was a new definition of potential domestic enemies and threats inside the military, and one of those was patriot extremism, defined by, you know, quoting the declaration and the constitution flying the gadston flag which is no longer allowed on most military installations think about that don't tread on me uh which was a staple of left and right on military basis for years because i don't know we love the country and we want to we believe in stomping out tyranny but that's where we are it's gotten that bad well let's talk about though while i mention that there's been this loss of a sense of purpose or mission creep there's something that well i would

I would say in the last decade, but you've written an entire book on it, so you can tell us, just like you did with Battle for the American Mind, the origins of this, but particularly what's happened, I think, at least to our public eyes in the last decade, and that is this focus on, you know, representation, diversity is our strength. You know, I would just think things that are just so, not even extraneous, but subversive to the idea of a cohesive military in pursuit of a single objective. So give me some examples of what has occurred, what has been the world. on warriors recently. Subversive is a great way to put it. And maybe it wasn't intentional but from

all ranks at the beginning, but eventually that's exactly how it plays out. Take a story that was told to me of a black couple that was serving together and one had bought in on the CRT aspects of it and the other had not and sort of wanted the military of the past was crossing marital problems for them. Or you've got a Hispanic female who felt like she'd been promoted. based on her merit her entire career, but now didn't feel like that was, felt like the black, white divide was the issue. And a lot of this came from Matt Lomeyer, who talks about this in the Space Force, was the real defining issue and what that meant for her as a Hispanic female. So the military has traditionally been a crucible whereby you and I arrive with our biases and our

backgrounds and our assumptions. And then drill sergeants and the institution breaks those down. You're forced to work together with people you never would have worked together. together with before and all those arbitrary distinctions fade away because of what you're being molded into. And that's why the military has historically for decades now been the least racist, least race-conscious, least biased institution in all of government. Because it has this unique forcing function where people are forced to work together, which is why when Millie and others are peddling extremism, they know it's false. And when the studies came out years later, it shows, yes, racism is a problem with 0.007% of service members versus 7% of the general

population. It's not a thing. They knew it wasn't a thing, yet they pushed it to be politically expedient in the moment. So when you do that forcing function and now at the other end, you're in your units and now you're reminding people, no, no, no, it's not that we're the same here. It's that your skin color defines you and will define your career trajectory or whether or not you succeed or fail, then it, just like everywhere else, it turns people back toward each other with different identities that are self-focused as opposed to unit-focused. And I heard it time and time again, not just, I mean, trans is the most extreme example of it, but lowering of standards for females in combat units where the men become very disgruntled by it, an example

of a trans soldier who transitioned, who was a high performer, who now is absent for the better part of a year and the other soldiers have to pick up the slack because he or she is now non-deployable or the one we heard a lot of, and I've experienced this personally, unfortunately will, commanders or leaders in your units who are plucked and placed into a position who underperform and the question is, were they placed there because of their skin color or their background? And you don't want to have that skepticism, but when you look at their performance, it certainly doesn't feel like they're a high performer who should be a battalion commander of a unit. it at this level, but they're there and they're not going anywhere, even though they can't

perform because someone put their thumb on the scale and said, this is the person we need there. All of that affects morale creates cynicism and skepticism, which undermines the mission. Do I want to go and fight and die for that person who's, you know, kind of an idiot? Or if someone did earn it, did earn it, and now there's skepticism of whether they earned it because they look like a first, but they really aren't because they really did achieve it and they are the best. That's unfair to them. you know these examples from across culture across institutions there but when it's life or death

bullets are flying none of this crap matters and that i i write it in the book that's why i detail submissions that we go on because you to give people a sense of the brotherhood of people that you work with and you don't need none of that you don't think about that one bit and you shouldn't be before and you shouldn't be after and we are now and it's poisoning the ranks and and i hear from it from guys all over the place. I told you this last weekend that I just rewatched Band of Brothers. It's on Netflix right now, and I'm falling down the obsession rabbit hole of Normandy and World War II yesterday at large.

I've been watching documentaries on World War II. But in Band of Brothers, you know, it's about easy company, the 101st Airborne paratroopers. And one of the things that they did, they actually led a mutiny in effect at one point against their commander, their commanding officer, because they didn't believe in his combat effectiveness. He was like an incredible drill sergeant. He prepared them well, you know, in basic and in camp.

But they, all the NCOs got together and went to headquarters and like, we're not going to follow this man into battle. And it was a huge deal, and some of them got busted down the ranks for it and all that. But to your point, it just showed, like, believing in the competency of your commanding officer is core at your ability to wage a war. And whether or not it's, you know, race or gender or there are other instances which have been as old as the, as old as time in the military, which is just like who you connected to. Nepotism.

But you're laying this on top of, you're laying all this on top of that problem already. You can't be wondering whether or not your leader is incompetent on the battlefield. Yeah. And then somehow you're, you're racist for having those skepticism when your life is in this person's hands and you know it has nothing to do with this color of their skin, never has, won't. But that environment is why the types of questions that were raised in that film will, which are real, often don't make the light of day in today's institutional and bureaucratic bureaucracy because it's never going to be listened to.

It won't be welcomed. You will definitely be busted down. And that person will definitely stay in their position. And now we don't fight wars the way we did in World War II, which is you fight from start to finish and you're not done until the war's over. We fight it in six to nine month increments. And so, well, you can just survive your six to nine months with that commander, then he washes out, you wash out, and new set of troops are in, and they have to fight the war all over again. It also creates a much more bureaucratic application of war fighting. We're not doing everything

we can to get this war over with, because this war is going on whether we are successful or not for the next nine months. And so we're going to do the minimal. At some, you know, A lot of units go right at it, and I was a part of units like that. But it doesn't create a healthy cultural institution. So the part that I said as old as the tale of time for every institution, but also clearly the military is careerism. I mentioned who you connected to, but the incentive structure of the military is to rise in the ranks, right? That's how you succeed is you get promoted and you rise and you rise and you rise. So you pointed out Millie and people knowing who he was when he was a junior officer and a warfighter.

And I just wonder, like, what role careerism plays in this? And when is that inflection point? Do you know what I mean? Like, when is it that a lieutenant colonel was like, I've got to start echoing this nonsense in order to become a general? You know, whatever it is, you go to from two to three stars. I'm just curious, how much you think is ideological versus how much is just careerism? As always, as often, I shouldn't give you too much, you're right over the target.

Like, careerism is the other word that pops in time and time again in all the interviews. And some people put it at different points. Brigade command, division command, one star general, two star general. But it's not as simple as saying, oh, they just devolve into becoming ideologues or devolve into becoming politicians. Yes, that's true. Careerism starts, you know, when you're a captain. Like, if you're attached to this battalion commander whose success, then you hit your your wagon to him and now he's a brigade commander and now you get to be one of his in his uh in his operations shop and then you move up when he's a division commander to being a battalion commander and he's got his guys and they're good

but usually most of that is tied to effective people right effective senior leaders want effective junior leaders because they succeed when everyone succeeds so they're pulling the good ones up with them and you see this with macristel you saw this with petraeus you saw the you would hear it you're like that's a Petraeus guy, or that's a McChrystal guy, that's an Odeerno guy. And those guys were always the top block high-flying guys. But that's part of, in many ways, a healthy institution. It's when you get to a rank where the political class is having an impact on what you do or do not do, or you're pulled into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and usually that's one-star, two-star level, where you're having to make the decision, all right, the prerogatives coming from, you're no longer in touch with the guys pulling triggers.

is a simple way to put it. You're not out there kind of accountable face-to-face with the impact of your decisions. Okay, we need to meet a certain threshold of environmental readiness. Okay, my career is around pushing and peddling that. Well, how does that impact downstream? I don't really see it, but I know that if I create this PowerPoint presentation and push this new initiative and it's successful or perceived as being successful, that's my track to a second star and then my track to a third star.

and they're no longer thinking about that core issue we talked about, which is war fighting, deterring, and winning wars. What is the political class telling me is important? And that's where I think it clashes with your oath to the Constitution, which is defend the country against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And too many generals just sort of start to abdicate or miss that. And then you get garbage getting pumped down to the lower level. one of the interesting parts about writing this book will is I've had a couple of occasions where I've been able to talk to two or three star generals since the book's been public and they're very sheepish conversations because I go in pretty uh these are these are these are vets they're out retired I go in pretty confident I don't have anything to lose at this point I'm a major you know I mean what and I'm not worth your rank doesn't apply post service and I respect your service and I but you know where they'll sort of admit they were a part of these initiatives yeah we were there when we did this thing and So why did you do that, sir? Like, it's, and they're like, well, it was just had to, had to do it.

Just the future of the Marine Corps. It's the future of the Marine Corps, you know, it's, it's gender integrated. That's the future. And I integrated basic training. Like, there's, it was just what you did because that's what the political class was telling you. And none of it was like, but you knew, sir, that the females couldn't perform the same way men could.

And if your job is to put the best fighting force out there, then how did you improve the Marine Corps, or did you make it worse? You know, and so there's, I think there's a lot of guilt amongst senior leaders who've left the military and didn't do enough when they could have to stem the tide of some of this stuff. I went ahead and one or two more things after the World Warriors, but I don't know that you and I've ever talked about this.

Where are you on compelled service? Where are you on a draft? I mean, I think it has always been a point of pride for the United States military that it's a volunteer service. It shows a reflection of a commitment within the culture. Right? But also, I think we both have talked about without any commonality, like any ties that bind us as a people.

I don't know. We lose cohesion as a society. And I just wonder, I don't know, what do you think? What do you think about maintaining voluntary status of our military versus compil service? I've thought a lot about this. I'm out on mandatory service. I think most mandatory, because anytime we talk mandatory service, It quickly turns into all government service, and so you get young people. You can choose the military or the State Department or the EPA or the National Park Service. And suddenly you just have a bunch of people that are growing government, and you automatically grow government, and I don't want to grow government. So I'm out on that. I wrote in American Crusade, one of the things I very much before is sort of a Minuteman Corps.

Almost this idea that, hey, Will, when you come out of high school or you come out of college, you're not choosing them. military, but if you do this four-week course where you get basic weapons training, you know, you're sort of registered as a, you get basic military etiquette, maybe a uniform, fitness standards, that kind of thing, then you'll be on a list in perpetuity as long as you maintain those fitness standards for 10 or 20 years. And as a result, you get a tax break or you get some student loan relief or you get whatever it is that comes out of it. But Will Kane, you're a patriot. And between your 20s and 40s, if America goes to war, you've said, I will raise my hand in that conflict. And I've got

just a baseline of training that creates that forcing function. But it's not mandatory. You can choose it. And there's a bet. I kind of like the idea of a minute man. Because I know a lot of guys that would jump at that. Oh, I'll do a month. I'll do that. I'm ready to go. Yep, I'm in if my country needs me, but I'm going to go, you know, build a career and raise a family. And hopefully I never have to. But if I need to, I will. That's kind of where I'm at on it. And I like that idea, a Minuteman Corps. Okay, you and I were with Donald Trump last weekend, and he said, when asked, I think, by Rachel Campos Duffy, you may have asked, what can be done about the war on warriors?

And there was some questions about, you know, will you fire these generals? And he said yes, by the way. So, but my question to you is, what can be done? You know, this is a gigantic institution, and, you know, ships don't turn on a dime. So what can be done to save the military? No, they don't. You'd want multiple terms, by the way. So, you know, you need a Trump presidency and then you need a follow on, I think. But Trump's going to have 15 fires to fight, and I think the DOD needs to be atop that list. You've got to fire the secretary of fence. You've got to have a new chairman of the Joint Chiefs. You've got to have very strategic firings of particular generals who are very heavy pushing DEI and CRT and environmental stuff, extremism stuff. Out, you're done. And you don't have to fire everybody. You have to make example of some high profile folks who are invested and involved in this so that so that the institution recognizes the new incentive structure is not to peddle these things then you ban DEI you ban CRT you get you take women out of combat

units you ban transgenderism and you're going to have a whole chunk of the military that says oh finally sanity's back I'm ready to go let's do this and then you just have to change the way you recruit now this is you recruit you go back to you know you write ads like we used to motivating people to want to serve for the right reasons. Now, that's a very oversimplified approach. You've got to change the way we procure weapons systems. You've got to change the way we promote. You've got to change the reporting structure.

There's a lot of other things to change, but there's a lot that Trump could do and quickly. And I think he gets the extent of the problem. It's just it's easy for an officer in a uniform to look like, yes, sir, I'm going to do your, when you have to look harder at what they've really done. and what they've really pushed. And I think a Trump administration would have to do that. The women in military thing, women in combat units, you know, I was, again, I was watching this documentary on World War II.

I was watching about the Battle of Stalingrad, which in the West is really not given its full attention on what it meant for World War II. I mean, the Russians and what happened on the Eastern Front are really what allowed D-Day and Normandy to take place in many ways. That's not to take anything away from the heroism of the American. and British and Canadian soldiers on D-Day, but the Russians kept the Nazis occupied for years on end with all of their resources in human capital. But Stalingrad was just awful, awful. And if Hitler had taken Stalingrad, the theory is he might have easily cut off Moscow and won his war

of the Soviet Union. And it was horrific, the battle of Stalingrad. I mean horrific. Urban warfare, snipers, just huge human attrition. But the Russians, they, they may, immobilized women at some point, all women core, manning huge heavy machine guns. But, I mean, I only bring that up because I was thinking about you talking about women in combat, and it's an entirely different world because today we create a military that basically works as a scalpel, you know, it's like highly specialized, highly effective, highly targeted. They were a sledgehammer. I mean, they were throwing bodies, and the Russians have always been that way.

They don't care how many bodies stack up. They'll win the war. but they just threw everything, the entire sledgehammer, including women at the Nazis. Well, there's moments of necessity. There, I think another moment, a reality necessity is the state of Israel. They just don't have a lot of people and they're surrounded. And so women serving in combat units is more commonplace. I'm not saying no women in the military.

Like, there's a ton of amazing women that have done great things for the country. It's by pushing women into elite combat units or just top performing regular infantry, units, what has happened is standards have lowered because you can't have enough women meeting the male standards. And so we start to lower the standards to get more women in. And now you just have less effective units. And the studies of all the book lays out studies that were done that were thrown out by the military between all male units and male female units. It's clear. It's lung capacity. It's bone density. It's 245 plates on the side. Like, they're not doing that. You know, we are. And so let's have those.

out front and women will play other very important roles. All right, this is the last thing I want to ask you. And I don't really, it's not like our normal off the rails here today because we're focused on the world warriors. And I don't know that this even, I don't even know that this is tied to that. But so I was scrolling through sort of my normal morning routine. I read my different things I check in on. One of the places that I go to is CNN.com because I like to see everything that everybody

is talking about. And one of their headlines at the top of CNN.com right now is like something about this is the hottest year ever and it only is going to get worried. I'm like, oh my God, they're talking about climate change. They're still like the way they think and maintain focus on this, it's clearly characterized at all times as an existential threat. Absolutely. Which it's not. Not even the experts believe it's an existential threat. The definition of an existential threat is something that can end humanity, right?

or we could we can lower the threshold and say something that could end the United States of America truly represents a threat to the existence of something, right? Whatever that thing may be. Humanity, the nation state, whatever. I'm curious, what do you think is an existential threat to

the United States of America? I think it's mostly internal at this point, Will. I mean, first and foremost, I think it's our complete loss of faith in a creator God. and I think the nations have risen and fallen based on the blessings of God, and I think we've turned our back on that. That's an existential threat. I think our education system is an existential threat.

I mean existential. I guess when I mean existential, it doesn't mean we're all going to be exterminated here. It means our place atop the world. I guess I'm thinking of America as the apex predator or America as the superpower of the world or the main currency or the chief Navy maintaining shipping lanes or the top, you know, finance capital of the world, entertainment capital, whatever it is, there will be a moment, we are being challenged in multiple places and these are our vulnerabilities, teaching people to not believe in their country, $34 trillion in debt. And then our military, you mentioned the worship of climate.

Like, our military industrial complex is heavily focused on delivering electric tanks and electric humvees. Why? Not because they believe that they're good. technology because that's where the money's going because the politicians have told them that so they don't believe this stuff but they'll move in that direction yeah i think most of our threats are are internal but hey if china decided to turn on the war machine the pentagon has a perfect record in the last 10 years in war games against china and it's that we lose every time i mean they're

building a military that's built to defeat us and ours is not built is built to fight the last war is as often the case because of administrations and turnover. I'm not saying they're better than us. They're not. And an EMP could change anything, Will, not to get like conspiratorial, but the wrong weapon in the hands of the wrong regime could send any country backwards very quickly. So there's a lot of them, but I tend to focus internally right now. Well, I don't think you're wrong. Again, it's what are you defining the existence of? and internal division, a lack of national cohesion, a common identity under God or under the stars and stripes, whatever it may be, we are losing the sense of what it means to be an American.

And if you've lost that, then there is no, I mean, there's a husk, there's the shell of the United States of America, but it's not in existence. I think you're right. Until some real external threat presents itself that forces, some unification. We are our biggest threat. We are the biggest existential threat to America. All right, War on Warriors, number one on Amazon, Fox Newsbooks.com. Pete Hagseth, his latest bestseller. You got to get it. You got to go check out War on Warriors. All right, man, I appreciate you. Thank you. Thank you. It was a little bit more on the rails this time. We'll bring it back off the rails next time when I'm not promoting a book. I appreciate it. Thank you.

I agree. I agree. We'll go off the rails. All right, buddy. See you later. There you go. I hope you enjoyed that conversation with Pete Hegseth. Hit subscribe, Apple, Spotify, or YouTube. We'll see you again next time. Listen to ad-free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcast. And Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show, ad-free on the Amazon music app.

I'm Janice Dean. Join me every Sunday as I focus on stories of hope and people who are truly rays of sunshine in their community and across the world. Listen and follow now at Fox Newspodcast.com.