[01:00:00;03 - 01:00:13;06]
 In 1986 Congress designated the joint staff to be responsible for providing policy advice and consent to the president of the United States and the secretary of war.

[01:00:13;06 - 01:00:26;29]
 More than 30 years later the joint staff has become an organization of thousands and the joke is that you can't plan a barbecue in the Pentagon without joint staff concurrence that has to change.

[01:00:26;29 - 01:00:35;25]
 This episode's topic is joint staff reform and what a real implementation of the Goldwater Nichols Act would look like.

[01:00:35;25 - 01:01:05;09]
 Doug that that joke that I started with is real. I mean that that's what people that's what people talk about in the Pentagon is that you can't plan a barbecue without joint staff concurrence. And there are a few kind of details to expound upon there. First is that you know formally the joint staff doesn't have any budgetary or operational authority. They don't decide how money is spent. They don't decide where troops go. They don't decide if we start wars or end wars.

[01:01:06;13 - 01:01:10;21]
 They do exist to provide advice and consent to the president of the secretary of war.

[01:01:11;28 - 01:03:26;24]
 But what's happened is that the joint staff has grown in size and therefore the bureaucracy has injected itself into what we call what you know best the military decision making process basically every echelon of the military. So yes the joint staff may not make any decisions but they sure as heck get consent and a voice and that's enough to really slow decision making that I think especially in this age of modern warfare has to be a lot faster than it has been. Absolutely. And I think that it goes to what you said in the startup. You could have something in the beginning that the intent was good. OK. Let's just form this thing and get it going. But just like any bureaucracy just like it just starts to get a little bigger and everybody there says let's get a little bigger and let's get a little bigger and there's a reaching for power and stuff like that. And then you know one day you have you know Mark Milley is calling the Chinese you know behind Trump's back. So you know one thing leads to another. Right. Right. So you just have to say what happened here and why do we do this. And what's the real impact this is having especially when it comes to like you're alluding to the changes in warfare. Right. Things are happening so fast and you think about our combatant commands and all the things that are out there. Do we need to have it set up like this at all. And that's the point of this episode is trying to figure out OK what should we dial it back to. You know where's this going long term if we can start to fix it all those things that needs to be addressed. Well and what a consistent theme I hope you know viewers understand from watching these episodes is that the military is going to be very different than civil society. The rules will be different. Your life will look differently. Again you're part of an organization responsible to kill people and to do so on behalf of the American interest. Thank God we don't have other institutions like that. But but it means it's different. It also means though that it is even more important that given the responsibility of the military's mission set that the military is subject to political accountability. Ultimately the president of the United States is elected as commander in chief and then he appoints

[01:03:27;28 - 01:06:45;09]
 officials many of whom in the military are approved or confirmed by the Senate to lead and make decisions about operations budget in the course of military activities. What I find striking about the Joint Staff is that it is such a powerful relevant organization. Again thousands of people now when you include contractors it has this power but there's not a single political appointee that works in the Joint Staff. And so it really does become this self perpetuating bureaucracy that has troubling manifestations when Mark Milley calls the Chinese to talk them through our nuclear posture. When Mark Milley tries to inject himself into the decisions surrounding the deployment of the National Guard on January 6 when he throws roadblocks in front of President Trump's desire to withdraw from Afghanistan during his first term. Right. All of these things are manifestations I think of an organization that has clearly grown way too powerful without anyone to hold them accountable. Yeah that's right. It becomes to me it's almost like a reflection of the mindset of some of the deep state people in a sense because the point that you just made about civilian control of the military. Yes absolutely great. These guys all need to get out of a copy of the Constitution. Right. It's like no the president is the commander in chief and I think what's happened over the decades here is especially on the left for political purposes and for their own you know nefarious ways going forward. They're saying no no no no no no the military is too big it's too powerful we can't just you know the president. No we got to have other things in here we got to have the king of the military. Right. Mark. That's what Billy thought he was in his head. I'm sure he ran here right and the Trump. I go back to your office. And so but that's not what the Constitution says and that's not our system is set up because you think about as we have elections and the president comes or goes every four years a lot is writing on how he in this case so far has done in those four years with the military. Right. Because it's a very sacred institution to all patriotic Americans and you can't just flippantly go do this and that the other thing. So it's built in. We don't need to have this other thing that is like this governor you know and they're just kind of like. You know and they're just kind of independent decision making and they'll let you know what they come up with. It's like a really it just has that overall deep state impact going forward and it's got to be it's got to be rained in. Well and so a few ways in which it manifests. You know you and I probably both got out of the army before this really became a pressing issue for us but now there's this concept called mandatory joint duty for all officers. And you know it's not enough to lead soldiers in combat then command at higher echelons perform army staff functions with excellence. You have to kind of take the check mark of joint duty or assignments where you interact with joint forces other other services in order to then be ready to one day serve on the joint staff. And that's exactly what I mean when it is a self perpetuating institution and there's of course a degree of kind of cross pollination and cross functional collaboration that is valuable but when it is so ingrained into how especially officers spend their time in their careers. I think that's worth kind of reconsidering how that manifests itself.

[01:07:11;12 - 01:07:45;01]
 The nature of combat in a lot of ways I mean we're just being in like a you know core artillery tactical operations center during you know simulated combat and there's all kinds of services in there right and everybody's figuring out what to do. Yes you know we're all together. You don't have to go off and get some box checked by somebody who now says okay now you're smart and you're better than everybody else because you came in and saw us. It really does become this the way the entity is perpetuating its own reputation. Yeah exactly. Well and that's I think the lens through which we should understand our policy proposal here.

[01:07:46;09 - 01:09:12;21]
 We don't we don't want to fire anyone. We don't want to reduce the capability of the military. We want to streamline and orient the bureaucracy which to a degree must exist but to streamline it towards war fighting. And again as it exists now the Joint Staff has no relationship in the operational chain of command. So in recent history when President Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth were you know directing activities for Operation Epic Fury in the Middle East they were communicating and directing the CENTCOM commander who who has the only statutory obligation he has is to then report to the secretary and the president. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs at the time Dan Cain has the ability to officer offer insight and advice but he's not in the chain of command. No one reports to him but but you know that's a lot of bureaucracy to orient towards someone who's not in the chain of command. And so I think one you know one example is we'd want to both empower the service secretaries who are you know politically accountable individuals appointed by the president confirmed by the Senate. And so they can then run and ensure that the services Army Navy Air Force are equipped and ready for war and then also empower the combatant commanders commanders of these groups called CENTCOM and OPAICOM.

[01:09:13;21 - 01:10:38;23]
 Right. The war fighting commands who are responsible for operational decisions on the battlefield. And I think that would clean a lot up. You know you've you've led organizations of all kinds Doug and I think it just speaks to the sensibility of making sure that the military doesn't need to function like a business but it does need to make sense about how it operates. And what happens is what works best starts to manifest itself anyway. And so you know you could have situations that I'm sure it happens all the time where you know the president's going straight to that combat command. There's direct communication there and it's like the joint staff say hey we're over here. It's like well yeah I know you're over there but this is right. This is what I'm doing. It's like it's like inserting another middleman in a way. It's like well why do I need you to have this conversation and come back if we're confident in this combatant commander who was a four star. I hope they're good. Why do we need another four star to weigh in and talk about them. It's a little bit you know operationally just it's naturally that it slows things is natural to slow things down. We just got to ask ourselves if we are setting this up like what you said we're not here to like you know turn everything over. But it's like okay well we want to win our wars as quickly as we can. Exactly. And how does this help us. And so I don't want to be hyperbolic but I do think like this is about the integrity of our republic.

[01:10:40;01 - 01:10:54;24]
 You know we hear in history and in the present day of military coups and those those coups that the collapse of democratic institutions happens when there is a breakdown in trust and accountability

[01:10:56;06 - 01:16:34;21]
 between the military leadership and the political leadership. When the people think that the military leadership is a distinct organism from political leadership. And so I think if we want to. And again it's I don't I don't know that we're on that doorstep as America now but you never know. And I think if we ever if so we can preserve our republic it's important to make sure that that there's a streamline sense of accountability. You know for for the American people to understand that the military is not this independent body of operations and decision making. It's it's a it's an institution that's responsible to the ballot box. Right. And I don't think it's I think it's great that you say it like that. You know. And I I do it now is like you know I got grandkids now and everything we're doing in this in these episodes is you know what's best long term. Yep. And it's okay to talk about it. Where is this going. You know if there is a king of the military I think the Millie the Millie thing I have both brought it up because we're still salty about the whole thing. He's just going to go around the president and talk to the Chinese. Okay. Case in point. This is how this stuff happens. And then if why don't we just do what the Constitution says the president's the commander in chief. We have the combatant commands and lo and behold you know they're around the world. Now of course we have bases here and stuff like that. And we have to create a system thankfully that if run properly you don't ever have a situation where it's like no that guy over there we have the president this guy over here he's four star. We think he's in that we don't want that. Yeah. We get anywhere near there. Well I want to bring up a pet peeve of mine in Mark Millie I think because he knows he has to defend an indefensible you know Twilight to his career will always say that officers serve and obey the Constitution. They take an oath to the Constitution as if military officers are these micro judges you know who parse orders and regulations. Exactly. And in real time to. But what Mark Millie and I think the establishment and the political left especially miss is that officers take an oath to the Constitution in so far as it commands officers to follow the orders of politically accountable officials who have civilian control of the military. It does not license them to be an independent judicial body of military law that is separate from I think patently illegal manifestly illegal orders. That's a whole other conversation. But it's just an important kind of context in which we should understand kind of the nature of the military officer and the Constitution. That's right. I'm glad you brought that up because just even a couple of months ago I forget exactly when it was with the you know Senator Kelly and some of the guys made the video that oh you don't have to obey a lawful orders and what they were intimating was to your point. Okay. In the military. Yeah you don't have to obey a lawful orders but that's very clear when they're being exactly it's like hey go mow down all those civilians. Okay that's unlawful. Right. Right. But what they were encouraging was basically National Guards people. Guardsmen being deployed in cities to disobey what they're being told to do that was completely lawful. Yep. That's where they were going with it. So they're trying to do this whole joint thing at the top and then you got that down at the bottom. If they can make it meet in the middle we got a real problem on our hands and so we got to nip all this stuff. No I think you cannot overstate just how dangerous America would become if we lose the sense that the military doesn't follow the orders of the commander in chief. That's right. And that they are somehow outside of the political system. I think that's a really dangerous future. We have a few kind of recommendations to that end. It is a personnel cap on the joint staff. I even offer the I've offered the trite but it's serious to me recommendation that we relocate the joint staff from the Pentagon to maybe a building with some more office space like the USAID headquarters. Exactly. Just so they can focus on what is their job. Providing policy advice and consent to the president. They get to be closer to the flag pool in that sense. But then we ask Congress to establish a commission to relook how the implementation of the Goldwater-Nichols Act in 1986 has gone. And to then offer some really serious recommendations to further roll back the expanse of how the joint staff has gotten out of control. And I think these are just a few steps but it is ultimately a reorientation of why the joint staff actually exists. Because we want our fellow patriotic Americans to understand here's what's going on. Here are the implications. And doing what you just said is not that big a deal. We talked about this. What happens? Oh the generals start writing the letters. Our last episode was one grads coming after me. What are you doing? It happens right. Okay fine. First amendment you can do whatever you want. But it doesn't change the fact that you still have to be thinking about the long term good of the military and where this is going. And it's hard for people to argue against what we're saying. If you know people not arguing against us are the ones that are like right there and have a vested interest. I want to kind of pick up that thread. We're talking about a few really controversial items. Getting women out of combat roles. Ending affirmative action once and for all in the military.

[01:16:36;00 - 01:17:06;14]
 Breaking some of the defense prime hold on acquisition and sustainment in the military. I don't think there is going to be a policy proposal that is as vigorously opposed from the United States Senate and House of Representatives as this one. And it is something that I think it's worth viewers to understand that there is. You can call it a deep state. You can call it the administrative state. What it is though is this fundamental unity between establishment senators on both sides of the aisle.

[01:17:08;01 - 01:17:56;25]
 Senators and congressmen who want the bureaucracy of the military to exist in its current form so that the power and nature of the system can survive any political administration. It is this I think bargain, this unity between I think a really good sized portion of elected congressmen and this permanent military, uniformed and civilian that definitely wants itself to survive and continue so that this governance by professional class can continue for the indefinite future for the American people. But I think if there's anything that supporters of President Trump have rejected, it is that exact notion that we can't have a say in our republic.

[01:17:57;27 - 01:18:49;29]
 It's that permanent deep state piece. It's real. We've seen it in DC so many times and I think that points are bringing up about the politicians, especially the ones that have been in there a long time. Yes. And they have staffers that have been in there a long time. And then you have armed services committee staffers that have been in there a long time and they all know the guys at the Pentagon that have been in there a long time and they were all buddies. Exactly. So let's just be talking about this. We're just going to make this thing go. And that's a huge part of what we're doing here with the conversation around the NDA is making sure that if you are a patriotic American and you're concerned about the military and where this might be going, here's some things to be thinking about. And, you know, we need people to call their senators and their congressmen and say, like, hey, what's up with this? Why don't we do this? You know, make them answer. Let's hear it. Exactly. Again, it is about how our republic functions. That's

[01:18:49;29 - 01:18:52;24]
 Since 1986, the Joint

[01:18:52;24 - 01:19:29;27]