#156: Integrated Deterrence - Lt. Gen. E. John Deedrick, Former Commander 1st Special Forces Command & Combined Security Transition Command Afghanistan

Retired Lt. Gen. E. John Deedrick https://www.linkedin.com/in/ejohndeedrick/ served as the final commander of the Combined Security Transition Command –Afghanistan (CSTC-A). He also held the position of Deputy Chief of Staff for Security Assistance (DCOS SA) at the Headquarters of Resolute Support; the NATO mission in Afghanistan. He was the United States Military Representative to NATO and commanded 1st Special Forces Command. The Jedburgh Podcast, the Jedburgh Media Channel and the Green Beret Foundation are proud to announce our partnership with the University of Health and Performance https://university-hp.com/ outside of Bentonville, Arkansas. To kick off our combined investment in the development of our Special Operators post service, Fran Racioppi https://www.linkedin.com/in/francisracioppijr/ sat down with Lt. Gen. Deedrick to discuss his take on the Army today, where it came from and where it’s going. As one of the last senior leaders in Afghanistan he gave his honest assessment of the withdrawal, the impact leaving has had on our allies and Special Forces Operators, and what the void left has done for the Taliban and American national security. They also discuss the importance of our allies, why NATO works, the Russian-North Korean Alliance in Ukraine, and counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism in the Grey Zone through integrated deterrence. Finally, they talk about the effect of politics on our military and why our leaders all want the same goal, but have different paths to get there. Watch, listen or read our conversation from the UHP. Don’t miss our full Veterans Day coverage from UHP. Follow the Jedburgh Podcast https://www.instagram.com/jedburghpodcast/ and the Green Beret Foundation https://www.instagram.com/greenberetfoundation/ on social media. Listen on your favorite podcast platform https://pod.link/1558608802, read on our website https://greenberetfoundation.org/jedburghpodcast/investing-in-military-infrastructure-jumping-in-with-arkansas-senator-john-boozman, and watch the full video version on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/@jedburghpodcast as we show why America must continue to lead from the front, no matter the challenge. HIGHLIGHTS 0:00 Introduction2:23 Welcome to University of Health and Performance5:02 Why did we leave Afghanistan8:02 Did we abandon our Afghan partners11:04 Withdrawal Effect13:24 The Taliban and Al-Qaeda15:22 Enabling Iran16:59 NATO’s importance22:30 NATO vs Russia28:38 The Ukraine conflict today32:30 North Korea’s involvement34:12 What makes a Green Beret different?38:24 Changes to the ODA41:14 Is China the next fight?45:51 Politicizing the military48:02 US forces deployed across America49:38 Lt. Gen. Deedrick’s Sergeant51:53 Daily Habits QUOTES 04:10 “It was a pretty low cost to keep an eye on Al-Qaeda. And also off chutes that are as dangerous.”13:23 “I hope we aren’t paying them not to attack us”17:49 “Nobody freelances at NATO. NATO is an expression of the sovereign will of their capitals.”26:30 “Don’t start a shooting war with Russia. I mean the two nuclear powers”29:10 “When you are so reliant on other nations for your supply chains, you put yourself at risk.”31:09 “You’ve got to go to North Korea to get weapons and soldiers. That’s just sad.”45:20 “The most difficult fight would be China, so I think you have to use that as your pacing item and optimize your fight for that.”45:52 “Lethality on the battlefield is critical.”50:23 “What I would love to see is less personality and more policy.”52:53 “It is a really bad idea to use the active duty US Military in a domestic capability.” The Jedburgh Podcast and the Jedburgh Media Channel are an official program of The Green Beret Foundation https://greenberetfoundation.org/. The opinions presented on the The Jedburgh Podcast and the Jedburgh Media Channel are the opinions of my guests and myself. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Green Beret Foundation and the Green Beret Foundation assumes no liability for their accuracy, nor does Green Beret Foundation endorse any political candidate or any political party.

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:02Fran Racioppi?

  Welcome to the Jedburgh Podcast. I'm the creator and host, Fran Ruchopi. Each episode, I speak with transformative leaders, visionaries, drivers of change, and those dedicated to winning no matter the challenge. The Jedburgh Podcast is founded in the lineage of the special operations Jedburgh teams of the past and is an official program of the Green Beret Foundation, supporting our nation's US Army Special Forces and their families. For centuries, the United States has relied on its army to protect and defend freedom across the world. We've held our soldiers to the highest standard and fought hard to protect those who protect us. Today, America's army is under pressure from our adversaries abroad and the political divide at home. Retired Lieutenant General E. John Deedrick served as the final commander of the Combined

• 0:45Fran Racioppi?

  Security Transition Command Afghanistan. He also held the position of Deputy Chief of Staff for Security Assistance at Headquarters of Resolute Support, the NATO mission in Afghanistan. He was the United States Military Representative to NATO. He commanded First Special Forces Command, spent time as the Military Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations in Low-Intensity Conflict. But most importantly, at least to me, he was my commander at 10 Special Forces Groups. The Jedburgh Podcast, the Jedburgh Media Channel, and the Green Beret Foundation are proud to announce our partnership with University of Health and Performance outside of Bentonville, Arkansas. To kick off our combined investment in the development of our special operators' post-service, I sat down with General Deedrick to discuss his take on the Army Today, where it came from, and where it's going.

• 1:30Fran Racioppi?

  As one of the last senior leaders in Afghanistan, he gave his honest assessment of the withdrawal, the impact leaving had on our allies and our special forces operators, and what the void we left has done for the Taliban and American national security. We also discussed the importance of our allies, why NATO actually works, and how special operations has evolved to fight unconventional warfare, counterinsurgency, and counterterrorism in the gray zone through integrated deterrence. Finally, we talked about the effects of politics on our military and why our leaders all want the same goal but have different paths to get there. Watch, listen, or read our conversation from University of Health and Performing. Don't miss our full Veterans Day coverage. Follow the Jedburgh Podcast and the Green Beret Foundation on social media. Listen on your favorite podcast platform. Read on our website or watch

• 2:12Fran Racioppi?

  the full video version on YouTube as we show why America must continue to lead from the front, no matter the challenge.

• 2:23Fran Racioppi?

  Welcome to the Jedburgh Podcast. Hey, thanks Fran. Thanks for having me. We're here at the University of Health and Performance in Bentonville, Arkansas. Amazing backdrop on Veterans Day 2024. It's been a while since I've seen you. Yeah, well, AUSA just a few, few weeks ago, but really to sit down and have a conversation. It has been a little while. So, and I do, I will put it out and I don't think I've ever told you, but you were very instrumental in my career as a young special forces officer. You were the group commander at 10th Group for the majority of my time as a team leader. And then you put me in the fortunate position to be the group assistant operations officer under great leaders like Gabe Zodi and Mike Gates, and made sure you got every dollar out of that from me.

• 3:05Fran Racioppi?

  Oh, yeah. We always got all the dollars out of everybody in the operations shop. Absolutely. That was awesome. And I just, I appreciate that very much. But you've had an amazing career. You've been out now for a couple of years. We sit at an interesting time, I think, as America, we've just gotten over probably the longest election in the history possibly of the world. 50% of the country is jumping for joy. 50% of the country is hiding in their rooms crying. But the reality is, is that America's going to go on a different path. And it really didn't matter who won, but there was going to be some deviation of where we are from where we're going. You commanded the Combined Security Transition Command Afghanistan. You held the position of Deputy Chief of Staff for the Security Assistance Headquarters for Resolute Support in the NATO

• 3:50Fran Racioppi?

  mission to Afghanistan. You were also the United States Military Representative to NATO. You commanded first Special Forces Command, and you spent time as a military assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations in Low-Intensity Conflict, a critical role within the Pentagon. We got a lot to talk about. Okay. Because you've got the experience and we got a, we got a world order right now that I think is challenged in so many ways. But I do want to start with national security. Okay. You were the final commander for the Combined Security Transition Command Afghanistan, and the mission there is to focus on the budget and the accountability of more than 50 billion in the Afghanistan Security Force funds, managing foreign military sales to Afghanistan, all parts of their national defense.

• 4:33Fran Racioppi?

  Forces and then really making sure that money and that equipment was being used in the correct way by them. The command was disbanded in July 2021, August 2021, America left Afghanistan. We spent 20 years there, more than $2 trillion. Special forces, special operations more broadly carried the load in a lot of ways in Afghanistan. We lost 2,500 service members. We had over 20,000 were wounded. Why did we leave?

• 5:02Speaker 01

  You know, when we first went in after 9/11, it was very clear within our policymakers, this is a vital national interest. How do we tap down at that time Al Qaeda? How do we break the safe haven that Al Qaeda had with the Taliban in Afghanistan? You know, the cradle there of bin Laden, you know, and then he later fled over to Pakistan. And the country was united, the policymakers were united, we were very clear. When we got to 2021, the administration had made a different change and it decided, hey, this is no longer a vital national interest. Now, what was the military advice? You know, we were down at that point,

• 5:42Speaker 01

  by the time we left to about, you know, 3,000 American soldiers. NATO forces outnumbered us at that point in time. Even with the national caveats that they had, were they doing as many direct combat operations as we were? No, but they were providing a lot of the backbone of the support that we did. But two administrations made the decision, this is no longer in our vital national interest, to keep a US footprint and a US capability there in Afghanistan. Do I agree with that decision? Yep. I think it was a pretty low cost to keep an eye on Al Qaeda and also, you know, the offshoots that are that are as dangerous or more dangerous there with the Islamic State with ISIS-K. So with the chorus on there. But they made that decision. I know that we as

• 6:27Speaker 01

  the military leaders and the military leaders, the bosses that I worked for certainly expressed, hey, this is the cost and benefit of going, but both administrations were adamant that we're going to leave. And frankly, it was tough. And it was tough for all of us to see that because of the long partnerships that we'd had with our Our Afghan partners and you know, how do we get them out of there? That was another sense of urgency from our partner. We need to start identifying, moving them now. And there was a large discussion on, well, does that show a sign of weakness? Or should, you know, what can we do and how quick should we move it? But it was very difficult and yeah, as the guy that all the equipment that I see now, the Taliban put on parade, I remember the Afghan army, the Afghan National Defense Forces, having that equipment. And when the collapse came and the Taliban seized what we could not destroy

• 7:11Speaker 01

  or get out of country, that was really painful to watch and really painful to watch our partners that are, some of them still stuck in Afghanistan.

• 7:18Fran Racioppi?

  Transitioning out of the military is about more than polishing a resume or attending a LinkedIn workshop. It's about rediscovering your purpose and forging a new path that's worthy of your service. At the University of Health and Performance, veterans are offered transformative GI Bill approved programming designed to help take them to the next level with confidence. Nestled in the heart of the Ozarks, their 800 acre all-inclusive campus features world-class training facilities, modern living spaces, and miles of trails for reflection and growth. Here, veterans find a structured, immersive environment where they can explore their strengths, develop new skills, and build a life that not only honors their past, but prepares the future.

• 7:58Fran Racioppi?

  When we look at our partners in Afghanistan, one of the primary missions of special forces, I'm talking Green Berets, Army Special Forces, is to partner with foreign armies, subsets of militaries, train equip them. And that word partner is the most important one because we go to war with them. We enable them to go conduct operations on our behalf in so many ways. And that relationship's built on trust.

• 8:27Speaker 01

  Right.

• 8:27Fran Racioppi?

  And we've seen several times over in American history where we've, people will use the term abandon our partners. We've heard that over the last couple of years. What are the Afghan partners that were left there? How do they feel?

• 8:42Speaker 01

  Well, I'm sure there was a sense of, first, there was a sense of unbelief. You're not really gonna leave us. And then it was, yeah, we are. Those decisions have been made that we are actually gonna leave. And I think it was almost a sense of disbelief that came into a grudging set of, oh, they really are leaving reality. And, you know, the ones that are still there, the ones that we should have got out, well, yeah, that's kind of shame on us. And we should still be doing, and I know there's a lot of great organizations out there, and I know you interviewed Scott Mann not too long ago, and great work they have done to get those people out. And we all had a different hand, you know, from, I was in Europe by that time, and, you know, burning up phone lines, how do we get, how do we get people out? And, you know, that effort still continues to this day with a lot of folks. But certainly, there was, there was a sense on their part.

• 9:26Speaker 01

  Now, conversely, look at all we did provide to the Afghan National Security Forces. And in some ways, you know, what I have sometimes a hard time reckoning in my mind is, when we got to Afghanistan, when, you know, the first horse soldiers, and when they all came in, we had fighters that were taking on armored formations in the back of, you know, back of Hiluxes with small arms. Somewhere along the line in our training with them, and I'm not talking specifically within the SOF community, but the broader community of how we provided capability to them, we ended up with a force that was reluctant and reticent to leave a secure position to go conduct an operation without outrageous amounts of air support.

• 10:08Speaker 01

  And not always necessarily within the SOF formations, but the normal army soldiers. It was very difficult to get them to move. So where, how did we get from the warrior spirit of guys fighting on horseback in the back of Hiluxes to a force that was, was a little bit reticent? And I think we have to look on how did we empower them? And how did we enable them? And, you know, you want to give your partner everything you possibly can, but they also have to have the impetus to go out forward and fight. And that was, that was tough. The war dragged on for 20 years. So there was obviously, and they had lost far more soldiers than, you know, than we did. And our losses were great. And, you know, and on Veterans Day, we remember all the veterans that served in all wars, but, you know, in Afghanistan, as we're having this discussion,

• 10:52Speaker 01

  but they were also worn out and tired and were not as eager sometimes to continue on. And then, you know, you've also, you've always got the specter of corruption within Afghanistan that made it hard for the individual soldiers. What am I fighting for? Am I willing? And, and how do you imbue that within them? So it was a difficult set of circumstances, but we super empowered them in a lot of ways. When we left, I think we were all very concerned, if not, you know, in some ways resigned that parts were going to fail. Did we know it was going to fail in that rapidly? No, that was surprising.

• 11:24Fran Racioppi?

  What's the effect on the US special operators? I mean, US forces writ large, I mean, of all service components who served there, but we talk about Green Berets primarily on this show, but what is the effect? I mean, we, and you said, we have talked to Scott and we've talked to a number of other folks who've been intimately involved in this. And I think there's a range of emotions.

• 11:44Speaker 01

  Yeah. Green Berets, first and foremost, they need to be really proud of their service and they need to be really proud of what they did. When the Twin Towers went down and when we had the horrific attacks in nine 11, that was centered out of Afghanistan. And we went into Afghanistan and the special operations force that went into Afghanistan and the US Army and our NATO allies under, you know, Article five, only time it's ever been enacted, went into Afghanistan and Al Qaeda was rendered incapable of doing external operations or planning operations from a safe haven to affect our homeland or the homeland of our allies in many ways. Now that they lose all capability? No, but they were really tamped down. And so from that aspect, we need to be proud of the service that we did.

• 12:28Speaker 01

  But yeah, it is tough. When you fought with guys, when you have been to Arlington and you have buried your friends and you have rendered the military honors to suddenly leave. And that is a difficult pill to swallow, but my, my overall point to all those that served and in all the Green Berets that served in Afghanistan, be proud of your service. You answered the call after Al Qaeda attacked our homeland, rendered it impossible for them to do that for the last 20 years. Let's talk about Afghanistan today.

• 12:55Fran Racioppi?

  Okay.

• 12:56Speaker 01

  So reports are out there.

• 12:58Fran Racioppi?

  Some confirm, some unconfirm, but the consensus is that the US has sent about $3 billion in cash to the Taliban since we left in August of 2021. So three years, it's about 80 million a month. You talked about the equipment that we left there, billions of dollars. There are reports out of Afghanistan from people we know are saying that the Taliban and Al Qaeda have lashed back up, that they are working together. We have reports that Hamza bin Laden is in charge, the son of Osama bin Laden, and that Afghanistan is once again becoming that terrorist center of training and operations in the world, and that their top priority

• 13:37Fran Racioppi?

  is revenge on the US. The 9/11 Commission estimates that 9/11 cost about $500,000. I gave you the numbers on what we estimate is being spent into Afghanistan, being put in there right now to be able to want to kill us. Are we paying the Taliban and Al Qaeda not to attack us? And what happens if that dries up?

• 13:58Speaker 01

  Well, I hope not. And then, you know, I don't, I'm not familiar with all the payments. You just, you gave me a lot of facts and figures that I'm not, you know, as familiar with. I think we were naive, although it was in the agreement signed between the US that Al Qaeda and Taliban would not provide each other support that they would break. But they are so ingrained from a philosophical and an ideological position that, you know, it was, I think it was a bit naive if we really thought they would completely break off. Now, they could hide it and, you know, act like they weren't doing it for a certain period of time, but they are brothers and they are linked. And so, and now, you know, they're linked against ISIS-K, which is their mortal enemy. They're the, you know, the other terrorist affiliate that they really don't like, which has a sticky ideology.

• 14:41Speaker 01

  So I hope we're not paying them not to attack us. And again, it gets back to that decision. Was it a vital national interest of the US? We, a lot of us in the military and me said, sure, for that terrorist safe haven, for a small footprint that is really reinforced by our allies, you know, is the cost, which we could have even driven down lower, is the cost worth it? And I think it was. And, you know, I'm sorry that we made the decisions we did, but we followed the decisions that Were given to us that we had to follow.

• 15:09Fran Racioppi?

  I think even when when you think about Afghanistan, and everybody knows when we look at Afghanistan and think about it over history, you know, it's been a quagmire for the Soviets. Okay, you know, we've talked about our 20 years there. And everyone who seems to go to this landlocked country, the most difficult terrain on earth. When you talk about the mountainous regions, everyone kind of gets stuck there. But it is a critical location within that region of the world because it does sit between Pakistan. It sits between Iran and it creates almost a check on Iran. And when we look at the situation in the Middle East, and we'll talk about that here in a second. We had them surrounded in many ways and we've kind of pulled away from there.

• 15:51Fran Racioppi?

  Does that then allow Iran, as we've seen over the last couple of years, to be propped up a little bit?

• 15:57Speaker 01

  Well, I think let's broaden that. Let's broaden that discussion beyond Afghanistan. Let's look at all of the nations that are there, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan. Let's look at, you know, all of the stands that are in that part of the world. They all live in a really rough neighborhood, borders with China, borders with Iran, borders with Russia and borders with Afghanistan. So how do we work to develop the right relationships, the right military partnerships, the right help for those nations also to stand up? And, you know, and that can be done at a fairly efficient cost. But I think I think you're right. That's important that we want to have a footprint and a strong partnership in those parts of the world.

• 16:36Speaker 01

  And, you know, get them into the same, at least the same technological space and understanding that we have within our military. And then, you know, there's, there's certainly a big role for the State Department there and building those bridges as well.

• 16:50Fran Racioppi?

  We mentioned you served as the United States Military Representative to NATO. You also brought up that Article Five of NATO has only been invoked one time since April 1949, when the initial 12 countries formed NATO. They've since added another, it's grown to more than 30. And there's, there's a few who are knocking at the door, principally Ukraine. You know, the Russians are not excited about that. But everybody seemingly wants to be a part of NATO and it's been quite important as we look at our ability to form international coalitions to protect America and the broader West. Why through history has NATO been so important? And why do you think it's more important now than ever?

• 17:34Speaker 01

  NATO was formed at, you know, after World War II so that we could have a collective defense capability within Europe. And, you know, by that time, we'd figured out that while Russia was a great ally at a certain point in time in the war against Nazi Germany and the Axis, we were going to have a problem. And so how do you do collective defense? To bring the nations together. And it is the longest, you know, and probably most successful military alliance that we've had in modern history. And I think it is very important to broaden out. When we say NATO is the largest and the most effective military alliance in history, that's great. But there's a couple of things that I always remind people right off the bat when we start talking about NATO.

• 18:15Speaker 01

  First of all, you know, you have two people, you have the, the permanent representatives to the North Atlantic Council. Those are the ambassadors that each country provides into NATO. And then you have the military representatives to the NATO Military Committee. The longest title I ever had is a, is a job description, which represent the military policy and operate and activities to NATO. Nobody freelances at NATO. NATO is an expression of the sovereign will of their capitals. So, you know, as the military represented the NATO on the lead up and at the, during the invasion of the Ukraine and after that, I was very clear on what the US position was. And that was where, that is what I iterated to the military committee.

• 19:00Speaker 01

  And that is what the ambassador iterated to the NAC. And we stayed very closely aligned in that. You know, so it's the same for the German military. What Berlin says for the Turkish, what does Ankara say for the French, what does Paris say? And then you know where you have wiggle room to, to discuss things on the margins. But it is the sovereign will of capitals. And that's the first thing that people have to understand. And then when we talk about 32 different nations with 32 different sets of concerns. And it's really funny when you really think about it, what are the concerns of those nations? The same concerns that we just went through this election on. Immigration is a gigantic concern, especially for the southern facing European continent,

• 19:45Speaker 01

  which which have the migration flows from North Africa. Inflation, the cost of how much does a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread cost? And then you have to make those decisions, you know, are you going to make guns or are you going to buy butter? And so those discussions and how each ones of those nations look at it is critically important. And sometimes you got to step back and look at it. And, you know, I am very happy that now, as of this summer, I think it's 25 out of the 32 nations are over the 2% of GDP defense spending. So you're supposed to spend 2% of your GDP on defense spending. And I, the last number that I saw was 25 out of the 32 have reached that. Now, do I think it should be all 32? Heck, yeah.

• 20:26Speaker 01

  And I think we need to make sure that 2% is a floor, not a ceiling. But when we talk about scale, and I hear this a lot, you know, the US provides all the capability in the NATO, and we do provide the vast amount, have no doubt about it. But proportionally, we have the highest GDP. Proportionally, when you were sitting at the table and you're looking around 32 different nations, what was always in the back of my head was, aside from three countries, the GDP of California is larger than every other nation sitting at this table. And that's not, you know, and am I proud of that as an American? Sure, but that does give you what is the scale of what you're dealing with. But making sure that NATO stays strong and stays united. But, you know, working through consensus, wow, get 32 people to agree to go, you know,

• 21:10Speaker 01

  where they're going to eat for dinner is difficult. Getting 32 people to agree on on a military course of action, or really NATO shouldn't be providing military courses of action, they should be listening to what SAC, your Supreme Allied Commander Europe, has to say and saying, okay, how do we best support and do this correctly? What is the policy that we will move forward? And those policy decisions, ultimately, they do, they come down to guns or butter. You know, where are we going to spend our money? And it's highly dependable, what's going on in the economy and immigration. I mean, Russia, they weaponized immigration. They were taking plane loads of immigrants and shoving them into Belarus and then pushing them towards the polls.

• 21:49Speaker 01

  And Lithuanian borders. I mean, there are a lot of dirty tricks that go on with the use of immigration is is is really a weaponized system was what Russia was doing with Belarus at that time.

• 21:58Fran Racioppi?

  Well, we've seen that in Africa too, from our time there.

• 22:01Speaker 01

  Yep.

• 22:02Fran Racioppi?

  Where you saw the Chinese taking plane loads of Chinese citizens, bringing them over there for infrastructure projects. Building roads, building airports, building buildings, and then all of a sudden there's no plane home.

• 22:14Speaker 01

  Nope, but they stick a gigantic plaque out there that says courtesy of China. Yeah.

• 22:18Fran Racioppi?

  NATO, the funding around NATO, the willingness of NATO to come together has been front and center over the last couple of years. President Trump in his first administration was very adamant about just what you talked about, getting the countries up to the 2% GDP. And threatening to, you know, what do you ever go through there? Who knows? But, you know, threatening not to support those countries that don't pay. Not to disband NATO, not to get rid of it, but to say, look, you gotta pay. And this is, there could be repercussions. Russia has challenged NATO.

• 22:49Speaker 01

  Sure.

• 22:49Fran Racioppi?

  Since the formation of NATO, but primarily since the invasion of Ukraine several years ago, and they continue to do so. How has NATO done in your assessment in their ability to come together and combat the threat from Russia in Ukraine?

• 23:04Speaker 01

  And the broader Eastern Europe. I remember the lead up to Ukraine and the night before Ukraine in February, when they attacked very, very clearly. And, you know, when, right before the, the Christmas break, when I was still at NATO, I was, I was given a set of talking points from the joint staff. The ambassador had a verbatim set of talking points and they were all run through the Office of National Intelligence. And said, hey, look, before the Christmas break, we want you to tell the nations what we think. And so we basically went out and said, we think they're going to invade. And here in broad terms is why we think they're going to invade. Um, and, you know, that was met with applause on one side, derision on other sides, disbelief on some sides.

• 23:49Speaker 01

  And they're all dependent on what their national beliefs were, and some were very slow to come around our way of thinking. But the first thing that I would commend the United States for during that timeframe was I have never seen intelligence declassified down to a NATO level that fast, ever. And we led the way in providing real intelligence.

• 24:11Speaker 01

  To NATO so that all the nations could see it. The intelligence architecture did a fabulous job. So it was not only here's what we think, but here's why we think. And if you have a counterpart, if you appoint, if you don't believe that, then show us. And let's have that discussion and let's have a fulsome discussion. And so NATO really came together. I remember the, the night before the invasion, you know, my office was a, uh, it was a revolving door of other military representatives coming in saying, well, what does the US think? And at four o'clock was my last meeting. And I know that sounds funny. It was an early day. At four o'clock I had. It's Europe. Are you supposed to stop at four? Not during this. At four o'clock, you know, I had my last meeting. I had the mil rep and the deputy mil rep from all the countries that was the slowest to come along.

• 24:55Speaker 01

  And I said, look, here's what I'm doing. I'm going to get done meeting with you and I am going home. I am going to have dinner. I'm going to sit down and I'm going to read a book and I'm going to be asleep by about eight o'clock tonight. Because we will not make it through the night. We are not going to make it through the night. They will attack this evening. And sure enough, you know, the call came in and we all rushed in. But the intelligence is that clear because we're used to looking for a, for a terrorist within a network. That's hard. That's really hard to find. How do you isolate cells and terrorist networks within, within a large population? It's real easy to find an army car. Yeah. Tanks show up, bladders show up, you know, fuel trucks. So we knew very clearly and NATO came together very, very quickly and approved all the plans that SACU needed to evolve a response. Now, the American response was amazing.

• 25:39Speaker 01

  Forty thousand soldiers, I think we were up to like 12 gen five, uh, you know, a top generation aircraft. We had two aircraft carriers at a, at a different point in the Med. And the other nations, although slower, were also providing in. And so there was a rush of, hey, we've got to do this. We've got to stand up for the Ukraine. We've got to provide in the capability. The US policy was very clear. Number one, we're going to do everything that we can to support the Ukraine in defending its sovereignty. Number two, we're going to do everything that we can to keep NATO united in that cause. And number three, don't start a shooting war with Russia. I mean, the, the two nuclear powers. So that guidance was pretty clear. And so then all the architecture came up around it through how do we provide in the equipment and, and the capabilities? But you started to see it.

• 26:25Speaker 01

  When you talk about resolve, 90 days after the invasion, probably 120 by six months after the invasion, you started to hear, well, what is really the intelligence assessment of Russia? How capable is their ground force? How capable is their military? Do we really need to spend all this money on the rearming and the reequipping of our of our capabilities with the stockpiles we all talked about, you know, in February? Or can we slow that down and push those horizons? Because again, guns are butter, the cost starts to come up. And so that was a very interesting discussion is no, damn it, don't let them reset. Yes, Russia has been damaged their ground forces tremendously, but their air force really hasn't been touched. They haven't used it. Nobody's gained air superiority there.

• 27:10Speaker 01

  Their nuclear arsenal is certainly untouched. You know, their navy has been stung, but is not largely untouched. But their air force, you know, the big thing. So don't all of a sudden look for reasons not to follow up on the promises that we made after the invasion. And so you've got to continue with your spend. Now, the hard part is for a nation like this, and it'd be hard for for anybody is give everything you've got to the Ukraine. So you're offloading your 25 year old, your 30 year old tanks, artillery systems, integrated air defense systems, you know, they're going into Poland and going into the Ukraine. Oh, but by the way, now to meet your minimum capability requirements, you have to replenish that. Right. Well, you know, it costs X what you gave the Ukrainians, it costs XXXX.

• 27:54Speaker 01

  X replenish it. So that obviously put a lot of countries in a fiscal hole too. And then it exposed, I think in a really big way, which is something that I think the United States really has to look at is our supply chains and the holes that we have in our supply chains. And I think one of the greatest, you know, national security threats that we have within the United States of America is our inability to manufacture. We do not have the same manufacturing base that we had. And so when we are so reliant on, and look, I'm a free market guy as well, but when you are so reliant on other nations for your supply chains, you put yourself at risk. And I think that's something that the administrations of the future, the new administration coming in and the administrations beyond that are going to have to wrestle with.

• 28:39Speaker 01

  How do you secure your supply chains and how do you make sure that we have the manufacturing critical to our wellbeing and our national defense here in the United States?

• 28:49Fran Racioppi?

  Green Berets adapt, overcome, and keep moving forward. Now's your chance to stand with them. Join the 1952 Society with a monthly gift of just $19.52 to provide critical medical devices for wounded, ill, and injured Green Berets. Your support fuels their recovery, helping them return to duty or continue serving their communities. A Green Beret's mission never stops. Neither should our support. Join the 1952 Society today and stand with those who stand for us.

• 29:20Fran Racioppi?

  Where are we today in Ukraine? We're years into this. We do have the new administration coming in. President Trump has been very vocal about ending it. We know, as we sit here today, he's already had a call with Putin where he warned him in some way, having given the details on a readout, but not to escalate the situation in Ukraine. But where are we today in this conflict? And where does it go? How does it end?

• 29:43Speaker 01

  Yeah, that, everybody, people have been asking me that question. The entire two years I was at NATO and then I've been retired about 17 months and I get asked that question all the time. It will have to end in some kind of settlement. And it's going to be a tough one. Because for Russia to buy off, the Ukraine is going to lose part of this territory. And that is not something that President Zelensky has been actually able to say. Now, Luhansk and Donetsk, the chances of the Ukrainian military being able to recapture that territory? Slim. Very slim. Now, the other thing is, the Ukraine is also struggling right now with constriction and being able to get soldiers, and they never fully mobilized. So they tried to keep their economy running as best they can away from the front areas.

• 30:28Speaker 01

  But now they're having to dig a lot deeper to get the manpower that they require to do the fight. The same time, Russia, I mean, North Koreans? So you've got to go to North Korea to get weapons and to get soldiers? I mean, that's just sad. And I am really interested to see how these North Korean soldiers do when put in. I hope that we have South Korean soldiers on the other side of the loud with a loudspeaker going, "Hey, come on over, the water's good over here." You know, I think we've got a great opportunity for a CIA. Campaign there, but if to get them to come across lines, you know, I don't know.

• 31:04Fran Racioppi?

  Well, what I want to ask about that first thing, because you were, we didn't mention it upfront, but you commanded special operations command.

• 31:10Speaker 01

  Yeah, there's a pattern where I go, it's not, it's, it doesn't always go well. That was when we had the nuclear test and the firing across the DMZ.

• 31:17Fran Racioppi?

  But is North Korea capable? I mean, what is, what is their capability? And we've always propped the Russians up and you, you, you talked about three months in, six months in, all of a sudden, everybody's like, hey, maybe Russia's not really as strong as they are, but where is North Korea?

• 31:32Speaker 01

  Well, first of all, let me talk to Russia first. I mean, what you can see, what you could visibly see was what looked like a professionalization of their foreign officers that were working as their defense attaches. It wasn't the stereotypical vodka swilling, you know, loud mouth attache, they became much more polished. We could see the level of the exercises and the sophistication of what they were doing with their equipment. But what you can never really tell from satellite imagery, what observations you have is what's the degree of leadership? What's the degree of battle mission command type orders?

• 32:15Speaker 01

  They give a, a, a mission without being too prescriptive. And what we found out is, yeah, they're terrible. They don't have that. They don't have that NCO core that would, that is the backbone of what you've got to be able to do to command formations. And the larger the formation, the more important the non-commissioned officer becomes. So we saw they're pretty, you know, they weren't great. I expect even worse from North Korea. I think those conscripts probably have no idea why they have showed up in Russia and are probably extremely confused. They are not going to speak the language. I have a feeling the Russians are not going to be particularly welcoming.

• 32:54Speaker 01

  On how they are dealt with. And so at least with countries that train together, we have common SOPs that we can, even if they're not perfectly oiled, we can figure them out. We can sit down and tabletop it out. Can you imagine a Russian and a North Korean trying to tabletop out a movement? No. I just don't see it's going to go well. And do I think the North Korean army's good? No, no, I don't. But they are large and you know, and you know, North Korea, this is aside from the threat of North Korea to South Korea and what they can do just with the artillery they have in the Khasan Heights and their their nuclear arsenals. But do I think individually throwing a couple of battalions or you know, a couple of brigades of North Koreans? No, I think they're going to have a very bad day.

• 33:32Fran Racioppi?

  So what's North Korea's thought process? I mean, what's Chairman Kim's?

• 33:37Speaker 01

  If you're Kim Jong-un, who's your friends? You've got two, well, three. You've got Russia, China, and Iran that you can kind of work with. The rest of the world, and I think even those nations kind of look at them going, North Korea? I mean, so he's got no friends. He's got a horrible economy. He's got people that every, every six months are coming out of starvation diet. It's such a blind kingdom from what's going on outside. So those are their friends. So if they can sell them drones, they can sell them artillery that brings in money. If they can provide soldiers to Putin's army, then maybe they get some more favor. They're just playing to the only strengths they have, which are, that's a pretty sad state when those are your only three friends.

• 34:19Fran Racioppi?

  So you joked that throughout your command, you were in some of the hottest places we could, we would say in terms of conflict. Well, you commissioned in 1988. You served in Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Yeah, it just means I'm old. Well, you lost all your hair as lieutenant, I think. So you went to the Q course in 1994 and then you commanded at every, every level. The Green Berets have evolved over the last 30 years in a lot of different ways. And we've seen that you've been a part of that. You've led that transformation in many different ways. I've been fortunate since we've started the Jedburgh podcast to have a lot of support out of Special Forces Command and out of USASOC and been able to sit down with General Braga and General Ferguson and General Bopair, Sergeant Major Strong and Sergeant Sergeant Major of the Army Weimer.

• 35:03Fran Racioppi?

  About the soft mission. We've talked about where they come from, where they're going. We've talked about their role in really preventing the nation state on nation state war. That would be that next third world war. Why did you volunteer to be a Green Beret?

• 35:18Speaker 01

  Oh, because I wanted to work with partners and allies. I wanted to work with partners and allies. I wanted to work with foreign militaries, you know, I also had a deep love for, you know, the unconventional warfare mission of how would we go in and build up a resistance? How would we build a guerrilla force? How would we build an intelligence network? How would we build an auxiliary? And so the opportunity to learn those kinds of skills, practice those kinds of skills and the opportunity to work with partners and allies. That's what drove me towards being a Green Beret. And, you know, I guess I've been parts of teams my entire life, whether playing sports or then going in the army and trying to evolve that out to, to work with different people and around the world with different allies and, and see how, get different perspectives.

• 36:03Speaker 01

  I mean, that is not only physically challenging, but it's intellectually stimulating. And so that's what drove me to be a Green Beret.

• 36:10Fran Racioppi?

  I never say that a Green Beret is better than someone who serves in the conventional army. I say they're different, exactly. Why is it different? Why is a Green Beret different?

• 36:19Speaker 01

  Well, it's got, I think we've got to get back to a couple of things. What should make a Green Beret different? First of all, we have to train to be experts in the bases. We have to be some of the best light infantry there is. Okay? Let's just start there. You have to be the best light infantry soldier that you can be and capable, you know, an ODA should be able to command up to, you know, advise and support up to a battalion. Get it? Do it. How do you do those skills? Be the best infantryman you can be, which you've got to be, you know, you have to be able to do all those drills as well as an ODA. So that's number one. But number two, and, and we've got to get back, uh, hard to it. And, you know, I, I love all the. Theoretical diatribes and all the pictures I get, is it unconventional warfare? Is it regular warfare?

• 37:04Speaker 01

  Is it, you know, is it asymmetric? No, it's unconventional warfare. I mean, how do we walk in? How do we build a resistance organization? How do we build an underground? How do we build a guerrilla force? Now, I think that also has to be married with, how do we use technology? I think back to when I was a captain and General Schumacher was out at, for Special Force Group, and I was the assistant S3. So I got to come up and sit, or maybe I was the HAC commander. So I got to come sit at the big boy table when he came in to give a little OPD. And so this would have been 97, 98? And, and he, he looked around the room, he looked over and he goes, you captains, at some point in your career, it may be important what you can get onto the battlefield than what

• 37:49Speaker 01

  you do on the battlefield. And what I'm talking about is robotics and drones and things like this. And this is 1997 and I'm like, okay, let me, let me think about that. Well, we're, we're entering that point now. So how do you marry being expert at your infantry skills, being an expert at your unconventional warfare task, and then marry that best with the best use of emerging technologies? That is a winning, winning combination that provides a lot of value for our nation and, and can be a great force. And then how do you lash that in to the higher formations and to the, to the other army units

• 38:31Speaker 01

  and the other joint force that especially could be providing you fires that are doing that? That's, I think, where we've got to get.

• 38:38Fran Racioppi?

  So it took then almost 30 years from the point in time in which it was brought up to you as a captain for it to be a part of the force? Because in my conversations with General Bull Per, General Ferguson, they've talked about a change to the MTO. As much as the ODAs have changed doctrinally by Manning, they really haven't, they really haven't changed.

• 39:00Speaker 01

  We've been with 12 men since we all watched John Wayne on, on the movie, right?

• 39:04Fran Racioppi?

  So then, and what we've done, and I think we've done very effectively because of the quality and the character of those who we recruit to become Green Berets is we've always just said, okay, well, now you have an additional duty.

• 39:16Speaker 01

  Right.

• 39:16Fran Racioppi?

  Uh, now, oh, you have two duties. Well, guess what? Now you have three duties. But I think the consensus is we've kind of gotten to a point where you can't keep layering on duty after duty because then nothing gets done well. Is it time to change the MTO and recreate what an ODA looks like?

• 39:30Speaker 01

  Look, I'm not well to do a 12-man ODA. I mean, if, you know, and I've been, you know, I've heard some of these discussions that, you know, we have gotten, let's start with a, start with one that everybody recognized, JTACs, or Joint Tactical Air Controllers. Are we asking them now to do too much as an additional duty while they're also still being, you know, the, the Echo on the team or the Charlie on the team? How do, do we bring those guys in and make that a full-time position? Well, that's a really good, really good idea. Are we gonna have somebody that looks at how we do robotics and drones and how to control those and employ those in the battlefield? Are we doing enough of that as it being proliferated that we need to make those changes in the MTO? I'm certainly not against that happening.

• 40:12Speaker 01

  Now, I'll let the, you know, the guys at Bragg or Liberty, well, will run all the tests and will, will go through what are the exact skills that we require to do that? And does that, is that an 18? Is that another MOS? You know, I'll let them figure that out, but I am certainly not opposed to it. I mean, if you just stand still, you will get passed. You know, you have to be enough to flexible and be open to new, new thoughts and new ideas. And yeah, the 12-man ODA has served us well. It's done very well for us. But we've always piled all kinds of enablers onto it. Whether it was, you know, special operations, uh, you know, the SOTAs that did SIGINT for us, different translation capabilities, different, you know, we've always piled different, we just called them enablers.

• 40:56Speaker 01

  And if we want to have a coherent organization and bring those types of capabilities into the ODA, sure, I got no problem with it.

• 41:01Fran Racioppi?

  So the consensus right now is that we're kind of in this 1939 moment, an interwar period. My conversations with so many of these senior leaders, I've heard them say over and over, it really isn't a matter of if, this is a matter of when America ends up in the next conflict. We've seen senior intelligence officials within the government, the director of the FBI, the director of Homeland Security, all stand up and testify in front of Congress that the red lights are blinking, you know, in every capacity, all over. And then we're seeing conflict in every theater within the world. American leaders, since the withdrawal from Afghanistan, have been very focused on this peer-to-peer fight. What does it look like if we go to war with Russia, with China? General Votel was on with me, and he talked a lot about the shipbuilding capability and

• 41:46Fran Racioppi?

  the weaponry and China's ability to mass produce it at a much faster scale than we are. We've seen Russia, you know, lashing up with our other enemies to enhance their capability. Iran is emboldened much more than they have been in quite a long time. And their arming and equipping of proxies and putting those proxy forces to work throughout the Middle East is on a daily scale. What is America's next fight? Is it the peer-to-peer fight? Or is it the terrorist organization that's reconstituting potentially in Afghanistan, who wants to come attack us on our homeland?

• 42:20Speaker 01

  Well, look at our track record. If we say it's going to be this, you could guarantee it won't be. I think that it is both peer-to-peer and it is still terrorist organizations. And, you know, a lot of the problems are going on in the Middle East right now. Look, they're Iranian state-sponsored. That's nothing new. Hezbollah, Hamas, the different organizations that Iran and, you know, parts of the Iraqi militias have put into Syria for all of these years. You know, there is still a lot of state-sponsored terrorism out there that we have to deal with. What I think is for the big, the big capabilities, what do we use as our pacing item? And I think that has to be China. Because China is evolving rapidly in its ability to field forces, in its ability to provide military equipment, and God knows they have enough people.

• 43:03Speaker 01

  So I think you have to work for your worst. And that, you know, the, the most difficult fight would be China. So I think you have to use that as your, as your And optimize your fight for that. So do you have the long range artillery? Do you have the, do you have the strike capability from the air? Do you have the right space? You know, the, the importance of space force as it grows. Do we have all that right? Get that fixed and make sure that we have the most lethality that we can get in the hands of our soldiers. Lethality on the battlefield is critical and work towards that. Now, does that mean that we get to just put on blinders and solely focus on, on what we're going to do in competition with China? No, the terrorist organizations are still out there.

• 43:44Speaker 01

  And whether they are state sponsored, whether they are religious ideology, they're radicalized. They're still there and we still have to have capabilities that are resonant and capable of addressing those. I, I don't think you could go, I'm from Tampa, Florida. I don't think you could go down to CENTCOM headquarters and tell them, look, there's nothing going on in the Middle East. We're going to pivot everything to China. You'd have a big disagreement there and certainly, you know, what we see in the newspapers would be pretty clear on that. None of that's going away. Now optimize what your large force structure is going to be for the, for the peer to peer conflict. And you know, and I'm not saying we've, you know, we're going to necessarily go to war with China. I, I, you know, I hope that doesn't happen. I don't want it to happen in the Taiwan Straits. But the other concept that I got out of NATO that was kicked around a ton was integrated deterrence.

• 44:26Speaker 01

  And you know, I, I don't ever want to fall into a dogmatic of approach of, well, this is the size fits all. But there is one thing that I also think is useful within an unconventional warfare concept. When you really dig into integrated deterrence, it's about how do you impose a cost on an adversary? How do you deny a benefit for an adversary? And then how do you make sure there's a consequence for an action? And I like that as just a thought process, whether it's one integrated air missile defense capabilities that somebody's building, or it's what they're going to put into space, or it's a movement that they are doing into a zone that you don't want them into. How do you impose a cost, how do you deny a benefit? And how do you ensure there's a consequence for an action? I like that as a thought process.

• 45:08Speaker 01

  It's just a small modicum of rigor that you can put and go, okay, hey, let's, let's take a look at that. And then let's, let's do that against the risk equation and say, okay, it's worth the risk. But is there a better way to bring the risk down as we all do? And then figure out how to do those things. And I think that also opens up the aperture for a lot of what we would prefer to be doing with smaller forces, smaller footprints. And you know, with this new, you know, 15 man ODA that you're proposing. That is the number, I think, fifteen, sixteen.

• 45:39Fran Racioppi?

  If you add in all the enablers.

• 45:40Speaker 01

  Maybe we've been talking about.

• 45:41Fran Racioppi?

  I say, we're almost there in a lot of, in a lot of ways. Let's talk about the effect of domestic politics.

• 45:46Speaker 01

  Okay.

• 45:47Fran Racioppi?

  It is no secret, okay, within the world, that the American political system is, has become very divisive and democracy is an ugly thing. Green Beret and Congressman Mike Walz has been on a couple of times and he's talked about that, you know, that if, if it were pretty, it's never been pretty. And we've had other conversations where I've, we've kind of gone through the history of the political election cycles. When you go back to the 1800s and I think Aaron Burr tried to shoot somebody and others tried to.

• 46:17Speaker 01

  Shot Hamilton, yeah.

• 46:18Fran Racioppi?

  So you've got, you have all these cases where you've seen this flare up, but at least I think in, in modern day, this last election cycle has been a pretty, pretty tough one. It went on for quite a long time, which doesn't help. The military forever has really been able to stay distant from politics and remain apolitical. But we've seen a lot of the politicization of the military. We've seen generals, you know, be called in front of the senate to whether it be to testify and we've seen them be, you know, their names be invoked by the presidential candidates at times. What effect does divisiveness within the domestic political environment have on the military, especially its leadership?

• 46:56Speaker 01

  First of all, the fact that we can have an election like we just had with the voter turnout that we had with the ability to elect presidential candidate, a new house, a new senate, how it comes, I think that's, that is, that is a strength of our democracy. People vote, their voices are heard and, and you know, and it, politics are fickle things. You know, we'll see where in two years where we are at the midterm elections and then enough. And so, you know, politics aside, I'm not advocating for aside, but I think the ability to vote and do that is key. What I would love to see is less personality and more policy. What are the real, really get beyond platitudes and you know, we've got to get an electorate that is willing to read beyond the snap, the little snippet, a little soundbite and

• 47:40Speaker 01

  say, you know, what is the actual policy that's being proposed here? And, and I bet you if we actually had voters could do that, we'd find. A lot more common ground in terms of all the big campaign things that are out there, whether that's immigration, whether that's the economy. I would really hope that our leaders get into a position where we can have more policy discussions. I try to stay very politically neutral and, you know, and I, I think that's usually the best course. I think some of our, some of our senior leaders and some of the senior leaders that I incredibly respect an amazing amount have kind of been drug into it. Some not as willingly, some thought they were standing up for friends and I mean, and, and they've made their choices. And I think in some cases, they did the right things as well by entering into the fray. But I think for the most part, unless we have a real interest that we've got to be drawn in,

• 48:24Speaker 01

  I think we try to stay politically neutral. Now, some, like I said, some really haven't had a choice. When you, when you get attacked or when your, your friends are attacked and you feel like you have to stand up and say something. Well, then you have that. And if you're running for office, by all, by all means, you know, I, I have no problem with veterans and, and encourage them to run for office.

• 48:42Fran Racioppi?

  There's been a lot of discussion over the last couple of months over the ability of a leader, an elected leader to use the military domestically. We understand the regulations that have been in effect since the birth of the nation around Posse Comitatus. And you can't use active duty military to target Americans, especially on American soil. Is there a situation where they could invoke some sort of requirement to use military force within the United States?

• 49:08Speaker 01

  I'm just going to tell you, that is a really, really, really bad idea. And if there is, if there's a reason out there for do it, I mean, I'm sure if we sat here and war gamed for an hour or two, we could come up with a couple, but it's not one that I'm going to throw out there. I, it is a really bad idea to use the active duty US military in at the best of capability. You know, our allegiance is the Constitution of the United States. The National Guard units are from those local areas, are trained to do some of those kinds of things. But active duty component against that, you know, nothing's jumping immediately to my mind that says, wow, we should use the American military domestically. Even most nations that share our same values feel the exactly the same way. So no, I'm not going to run down or run out of hypotheticals.

• 49:52Speaker 01

  It's just a really bad idea.

• 49:54Fran Racioppi?

  And as we've been, and we've talked about here.

• 49:56Speaker 01

  We've got enough work to be focused on externally.

• 49:58Fran Racioppi?

  We do.

• 49:59Speaker 01

  And organize our law enforcement organizations, whether it be at the federal level or the state level or the local level are prepared in the for.

• 50:07Fran Racioppi?

  Yeah, you know, we've got great, you know, we've got great policemen in law enforcement, officers all around, all around the nation, and they've got some of the toughest jobs out there.

• 50:16Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 50:16Fran Racioppi?

  And, you know, the more money and training that we can get them to deal with different situations, you know, I'm all in favor of that.

• 50:21Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 50:22Fran Racioppi?

  So all commissioned officers go through their career and they're influenced heavily by the non-commissioned officers that serve with them and beside them. General Votel, the other senior leaders who I've spoken with have spent a lot of time talking about those who influenced them. And I've come up with this term, you know, who's your sergeant? Who was your sergeant?

• 50:44Speaker 01

  I've got several. And I'm not going to throw their names out here because they probably wouldn't appreciate it, but I mean, I talk regularly, probably once a week to three of the guys who were on my first ODAC. I mean, I talk to them, I at least text with them every week and I probably talk on the phone to at least one of them every week. And I mean, because they showed me what a great non-commissioned officer can be. And so I appreciate their candor and they're also the guys that'll kind of jerk me up and say, hey, you know, we disagree on some things as well. And we have really spirited debates on different aspects of things, but I count them amongst my best friends. And then some of the, the great sergeant majors that I had worked with me throughout my career.

• 51:26Speaker 01

  Because when you're trying to make decisions, I believe that good leaders, when given the right information, will make the right decision about nine percent of the time. And then 5% of the time when they make the mistake, they'll go back and change it. And 5% of the time they're just stubborn and you're stuck with it. But great non-commissioned officers who will, who will say, hey, you're probably not asking the right question to get the right information or you're leading the audience. Or those are the kinds of, of very smart and forward, you know, forward thinking leadership that you have to have. And then how do you hold standards and still have empathy with your shoulders? And then you can do that. You can be a real hard taskmaster and uphold the correct standards. But still be empathetic to what's going on in your soldiers' lives and saying, oh, okay.

• 52:11Speaker 01

  I didn't know that, you know, that all this had happened, but that's great. Let's figure out how to fix that, but you still didn't meet the standard. So let's, let's make sure we get you on that path, too. And the strength of the non-commissioned officers is why our army does not fail. And probably why the Russian army is failing. And, you know, and I don't think we have a crystal ball to look into the Chinese non-commissioned officer corps. But I'd be really interested to see what it looks like.

• 52:32Fran Racioppi?

  All right, last question, test question.

• 52:34Speaker 01

  Mm hmm.

• 52:35Fran Racioppi?

  The Jedbergs, all forces had to have strong habits. Leaders have to have strong habits. I talk about the Jedbergs because I say that when they jumped into occupied France, starting the night before D day, they had to be able to shoot, they had to be able to move, they had to be able to communicate. If they could do those three things effectively without thinking, then they could focus their attention on more complex challenge. That was at hand, like defeating the German army.

• 52:55Speaker 01

  Right.

• 52:56Fran Racioppi?

  What are the three things that you do every day to be successful?

• 52:59Speaker 01

  Number one, I do something physical. Number two, I read. And number three, I am, as I, especially as I get a little bit older, I'm really conscious of my sleep. And the reason I think those three things are so important to me is because it keeps a balance in how I'm spending my time. And it keeps my intellectual curiosity. That's what the reading part is. Once you're, you know, and I read, I've usually got three or four books going. There's usually a couple on tape and at least two that I'm reading. And one of them's usually just kind of a fun book. And one of them's usually, oh, okay, I'm going to have to have them, you know, I'm going to be doing a lot of Googling to see what the heck that term means. Kind of book. But I think you have to be intellectually curious in always looking, what's the next thing?

• 53:42Speaker 01

  Or what, what's the next field that you can be broad and learn about? And I think that's fascinating. And then I think the sleep and the, and the physicality, just to keep yourself, to keep your mind ready, you got to keep your body ready. You know, and then, uh, you know, and I hope everybody has a spiritual component that they have time to sit down and reflect and say, you know, am I, am I living my, my life on the path that I, that I want others to emulate? But I think those are, if you're, I can, I can skip food every now and then, but I can't skip sleep for, for it anymore at this age.

• 54:11Fran Racioppi?

  Yeah.

• 54:12Speaker 01

  Yeah, it's gotten a lot harder.

• 54:13Fran Racioppi?

  Yeah. Do something physical, read, sleep. Love those three.

• 54:16Speaker 01

  Sir, thank you.

• 54:17Fran Racioppi?

  Thanks, friend.

• 54:18Speaker 01

  Spending some time with you.

• 54:18Fran Racioppi?

  Yeah, what a great place to do it here at UHP, here in lovely Bentonville, Arkansas. We got a gorgeous day.

• 54:23Speaker 01

  And we're getting the crowd behind us. They're going to give us the hook here soon because we're going to start off.

• 54:26Fran Racioppi?

  Well, yes, because we got a, we have, we have, yeah, we got a concert that's a lot more popular than us.

• 54:31Speaker 01

  We'll see about that. We're going to have those numbers come out.

• 54:33Fran Racioppi?

  Thanks, sir.

• 54:34Speaker 01

  All right, thanks.

• 54:37Speaker 02

  American Jedbergs went on to form the foundation of the United States Special Forces and the Special Activities Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Thanks for listening to the Jed Burke Podcast, an official program of the Green Beret Foundation. I'm your creator and host, Fran Rycho. Join us next week for a new episode on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Check us out on YouTube for full episodes, highlights, and other long and short form content. If you like what you heard, give us a like and leave a review. Follow the Jed Burke Podcast and the Green Beret Foundation on LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, Extra Threads. Send your comments and inquiries to [email protected]. As former members of Special Operations Forces, the Jed Burke Media Channel, and the Green Beret Foundation remain committed to supporting all generations of US Army Special Forces and their families.

• 55:21Speaker 02

  Thanks for joining us on this episode. How you prepare today determines success tomorrow.