Pentagon infighting leaves Hegseth's position in peril

Summary

Pentagon politics heats up as internal disputes threaten Hegseth's position. The Secretary of Defense's office is marred by infighting, with advisors attempting to outdo each other and casting doubt on leadership. Such conflicts could have significant implications for U.S. global security strategies, amid tensions with major powers like Russia and across hotspots such as the Indo-Pacific. As James Heippe discusses with Jim Townsen, the situation underscores broader issues within the Department of Defense (DoD), and the unpredictability of Trump’s administration to manage these effectively. With major concerns over defense operational integrity and the handling of sensitive information, it's a critical time for U.S. military and diplomatic relations.

Highlights

• Pentagon in disarray with advisors fighting, threatening Hegseth's role. 🤯
• Secretary of Defense's office marked by management problems and miscommunication. 🚨
• Trump's muddled interactions within the DoD could impact U.S. foreign policy. 🌐
• Strategic misalignments with Russia, NATO, and broader defense implications. ⚔️
• Conversations suggest pressures on U.S. military integrity under current management. 📉

Key Takeaways

• The Pentagon is in turmoil with internal conflicts impacting leadership visibility. 🔥
• Hegseth's position is under threat due to advisors' infighting and management issues. ⚠️
• Mismanagement within the DoD is posing challenges for U.S. global strategic roles. 🌍
• The unpredictability of the Trump administration adds to the Pentagon's woes. 🎭
• Security concerns aren't just limited to Europe but extend to Indo-Pacific and beyond. 🌏

Overview

In the heart of the Pentagon, political squabbles have reached a boiling point, with advisors squabbling for dominance, threatening the standing of Secretary Hegseth. This brewing storm is not just about bruised egos but rather hints at deeper managerial missteps within the Department of Defense. Former Pentagon insider Jim Townsen brings his expertise to shine a light on these controversies.

As the world turns its gaze towards key geopolitical flashpoints, the ripples of dysfunction within the Pentagon are cause for concern. The infighting among cabinet members lays bare the weaknesses in navigating volatile relationships, especially with significant power vacuums looming in areas like Europe and the Indo-Pacific. The discussion reveals this isn’t just a challenge of internal politics, but of external credibility.

James Heippe’s engaging exchange with Townsen is punctuated with anecdotes and insights into the unpredictable nature of Trump’s governing style. As Trump strives to balance hawkish advisors, isolationists, and pragmatic voices within his team, the stakes couldn't be higher for U.S. and global security. The conversation underscores the looming challenges as Hegseth’s position hangs by a thread, echoing broader uncertainties in U.S. defense strategies.

Chapters

• 00:00 - 01:30: Introduction and Jim Townsen's Background The chapter titled 'Introduction and Jim Townsen's Background' delves into the dynamics within the Pentagon's front office, highlighting the internal conflicts among advisers. It touches upon the competitive nature as advisers tried to outshine one another, leading to a restructuring. The chapter introduces Jim Townsen, who served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense during the Obama administration, focusing on Europe and NATO. The discussion is part of a feature on superpowers and global security aired on Times Radio, hosted by James Heippe.
• 01:30 - 02:30: Current Global Events This chapter introduces an expert commentator on global events, emphasizing the rapidly changing nature of international affairs. The conversation highlights the importance of continuously updating information and keeping track of geopolitical shifts to provide relevant analysis and insights.
• 02:30 - 04:00: Inside the Pentagon and Hegseth's Position The chapter discusses recent global events and political shifts, specifically focusing on the US Department of Defense (DoD) and the broader geopolitical scene. It is a Thursday afternoon in the US, marked by the newly signed trade deal between the UK and the US, although many details are yet unclear. Situations in India and Pakistan appear tense, possibly nearing a crisis point. Additionally, there is a mention of the inauguration of a new pope, indicating a significant change in the Catholic Church leadership. The chapter also alludes to a reflection on recent happenings within the DoD, hinting at the influence or approach of then-President Trump towards defense and international relations.
• 04:00 - 05:30: The Role of the Secretary of Defense The chapter discusses potential shifts in support for Ukraine from key global figures following the Pope's funeral. Despite various circulating stories, there's uncertainty about their authenticity and real-time relevance, even for insiders.
• 05:30 - 07:00: Trump's Influence and Decision-Making The chapter discusses the dynamics and challenges within the Department of Defense (DoD) during Trump’s administration, focusing on the decision-making processes and internal conflicts. It highlights the experiences of a civil servant with 35 years of service, who provides insight into the complexities of working with the Secretary of Defense and the front office. The chapter emphasizes the difficulties in maintaining smooth operations amidst internal disputes within the Pentagon.
• 07:00 - 09:00: Bridge Colby and America's Geopolitical Strategy In this chapter, the chaotic dynamics among top advisers, including deputies, are explored as they compete and undermine each other. This infighting has resulted in public perceptions of poor management, particularly directed at an official named Hex Seth, and it's uncertain how President Trump views the situation. The broader implication is the significant role of the Secretary of Defense in geopolitical issues involving regions such as India, Pakistan, and the conflict involving Ukraine and Putin.
• 09:00 - 10:30: Potential US Military Adjustments in Europe The chapter discusses the necessity for the US Secretary of Defense to have a robust support team adept at maneuvering within government structures and agencies. This team is crucial for integrating the Department of Defense into White House actions and devising strategies for upcoming challenges. A particular concern raised is the current inefficiencies in workflow and communication, possibly leaving the Secretary under-informed on critical issues such as the India-Pakistan crisis, which has nuclear implications.
• 10:30 - 12:00: Trump's Diplomatic Style The chapter discusses the diplomatic style of President Trump, focusing on a situation involving the Secretary of Defense's role in addressing tensions between India and Pakistan. It explores the complexity of diplomatic communication and the influence held by the Secretary of Defense in these matters, including the formulation of talking points and the considerations involved in responding to international situations. The narrative reflects on the unfolding events and the challenges in managing diplomatic relationships.
• 12:00 - 12:30: Conclusion and Thanks The chapter 'Conclusion and Thanks' reflects on an overwhelming situation akin to a horror scenario, with a search for positivity emerging from it, likened to a narrative seeking resolution. The discussion then shifts to the Department of Defense (DoD), described as a professional institution adept at operating under the directives of the current political administration. However, there is an undercurrent of double standards present, with the secretary being implicated in this dynamic.

Pentagon infighting leaves Hegseth's position in peril Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 in the Pentagon as the uh there's a kurfuffle within that front office, the secretary's front office between his adviserss as well as the deputy's adviserss. Uh they are fighting each other. They're trying to uh outshine one another. Finally, they were given the heaveho. Hi, welcome to superpowers, the future of global security on times radio. I'm James Heippe and this week I am joined by Jim Townsen. Jim was the deputy assistant secretary for defense during the Obama administration with responsible ability for Europe and NATO.
• 00:30 - 01:00 Uh and since then he is a fellow of numerous think tanks uh and remains an important commentator on the transatlantic relationship, Euroatlantic security and much more besides. So Jim, welcome. Thank you for joining us. Well, it's great to be here. Thank you for asking. It's become the norm on superpowers have to timestamp our recordings each week because uh even in the short time the brilliant producers take uh to put us up online. Um the world has a habit of changing. Uh so it
• 01:00 - 01:30 is Thursday afternoon US time. Uh and we've this is the day that the UK and US have just signed uh a trade deal. Lots of detail yet to be um clarified. Uh India and Pakistan appear to be uh on the brink. Uh which is interesting times. Uh we've got a new pope. Uh so all sorts of stuff going on. Um but if I may, I want to start um just with your reflections on what's been going on recently in the DoD. Um feels like Trump
• 01:30 - 02:00 has had a bit of an epiphany after the Pope's funeral and sort of a lack of progress with Putin. uh and that perhaps uh he is now more willing to support the Ukrainian cause. But then there's all sorts of stories of Hexf taking a different view. Um you got any inside information? Um I really don't and I'm not sure anyone does because even the insiders as you say it's got to be timestamped as well uh in terms of what
• 02:00 - 02:30 they talk about because it changes so much. And so you mentioned the DoD and uh Secretary Hexf. So, in addition to being a deputy assistant secretary, I was a civil servant in that building for something like 35 years. So, I know very well uh what it's like to work with the secretary of defense, to work with that front office uh and to uh what it takes to really keep the trains to move on time. And that's a problem right now uh in the Pentagon as the uh there's a kurfuffle within that front office, the secretary's front office between his
• 02:30 - 03:00 adviserss as well as the deputies adviserss. Uh they are fighting each other. They're trying to uh outshine one another. Finally, they were given the heaveho. Uh they've now throwing each other under the bus as well as Hegathth. So, it looks bad in terms of management. Hex Seth, that's his office. So, he looks bad publicly and we don't know what Trump thinks about that. We know he's been on thin ice. Uh but what's more important is uh whether it comes to India, Pakistan, whether it comes to Ukraine and Putin, that front office, that secretary of defense plays a big
• 03:00 - 03:30 role. And to do that, the secretary needs to have a strong front office of people who know how to work the building, who can work the inter agency, who can take DoD into the action in the White House and come up with ways ahead. And right now, I just I can't see that the paperwork is getting to where it needs to go, and that the secretary is being told what he needs to know as he goes off to deal with these crisis like India, Pakistan. Uh that's something that's not intuitively obvious to a lot of people. uh and it's got nuclear
• 03:30 - 04:00 implications obviously it's hard to escalate so what does the secretary of defense supposed to say and do about that the secretary himself uh that office at least holds a lot of sway in both those capitals in India and in Pakistan so what secretary he says will have resonance so what's he supposed to say who's telling him these things where what are his talking points so there is so much in what you were asking about that we're going to we're watching unfold in front of our our we're watching unfold in front of our eyes in
• 04:00 - 04:30 a bit of a horror state thinking that when does this movie end? When can we find something that's positive coming out of that building? Let's break it down then. I mean, tell us first of all about the DoD as an institution. You you know it well. Um, in my experience, incredibly professional and well used to working to the will of the political administration of the time. But everybody that I know in the DoD tells me that the line is about double standards. And so the secretary using
• 04:30 - 05:00 signal a number of times to communicate potentially classified information just sort of crosses a line in the DoD that means people very quickly start to question whether or not he's the guy. Um how toxic can that be when that sort of thing creeps in? was very toxic. And I know to a lot of people listening, they might think that it's small beer, you know. So he he we all mess up on social media. We all do these kinds of things. The problem here though is uh when
• 05:00 - 05:30 you're in the Pentagon and you the Secretary of Defense, you you are in a a whole different place. You're not out in the in the wide world the way you were. you're now in a place that is very careful about what it says, how he how it's said, and then how his actions are telegraphed down into the bureaucracy and into the the military as well. Uh you know, when I was there, and and it's certainly still the case, if you're a civil servant, you are bound by very strict ethic rules as well as uh
• 05:30 - 06:00 security rules of all types. You know, you're not you don't use your, you know, your uh your personal devices inside the building. Everyone's in these skiffs, they're called these secret uh uh well protected rooms to have, you know, secret conversations, etc. And you you you pay attention to the rules uh and everybody does from the secretary all the way down. When the secretary appears not to be doing that, as you said, a double standard where uh where he doesn't he feels he doesn't have to do that, that sends a terrible signal. Uh
• 06:00 - 06:30 where it's not just and not just on that particular point, but what other things is he not doing correctly? because it just so happened that the signal information that he leaked the first time was uh operational military op um from a military operation where you're actually putting people's lives in danger. This isn't, you know, uh you know, potentially uh telling the world about some conversations between heads of state or something like that. This is military operational secrecy here, OBSC. Uh and so this is something that means a
• 06:30 - 07:00 lot to the military. uh and so this sets a bad feeling down through the ranks that either he has got a double standard or he doesn't know enough not to do it. So in the UK if something like this were to happen where a serving minister had sort of let the side down the chief of the defense staff would probably come and say hello uh and educate you a little on the way that things are not done and in uh and encourage you to be better next time. that sort of dynamic
• 07:00 - 07:30 exist in the DoD as well. Can the chairman or uh or somebody walk in and say, "Hey, Mr. Secretary, this ain't cool." Um, I would say no. Uh, I would say they should. And I would say that in the past perhaps someone might have come into a new secretary of defense and sat down and in a very diplomatic way kind of laid out, you know, how things need to be done, etc., etc. I think today to directly answer your question uh given who he is and the way he operates I
• 07:30 - 08:00 can't see anyone sitting down with him and telling him something without being fired on the spot and that's a problem because if in fact he's operating out of ignorance and he doesn't have a special assistant or someone that he trusts working with him that might be able to say something like that then he's operating totally blind and he and that puts at risk whether it's a pilot on an aircraft carrier or or or information that we're trying to keep from the wider better world that he knows that we need to keep within the building. So, you
• 08:00 - 08:30 know, this this idea of someone coming in and saying, "Hey, let me educate you a little bit." I will tell you that if I did that or if a twostar general did that, uh or a member of the senior executive service, the very senior civilians, they would be fired. There's no, you know, there's there's no wiggle room here. uh there's no a letter of you know criticism or there's no slapping on the wrist on something like releasing this kind of information on on a reoccurring basis. So uh so I don't think there's anyone suggesting that he
• 08:30 - 09:00 stop it. I think they're going to try instead to play defense. Certainly his outer office, they're trying to play defense and keep from him, things that he might release accidentally uh or make sure that he knows when he's handed a piece of paper that you've got to keep this locked up or whatever. And yet, in a world as fast moving and as volatile as the one that we're living through at the moment, that feels like entirely the wrong way to have an outer office interacting with the secretary. I mean, that's exactly right. uh very
• 09:00 - 09:30 challenging, but he is presumably pretty unsackable given that Trump has just lost Waltz. Uh to lose two members of your senior national security team in a fortnight would feel unnecessarily uh chaotic. Well, Trump does not want to be seen as Mr. Chaos. He was seen that way in his first administration because he went through so many different senior officials in his office. Two or three national security adviserss left, etc., etc. So, he is loathed to look exactly as you
• 09:30 - 10:00 point out, he's loathed to look like he's got chaos again, but I think Hex Seth himself and what he's doing makes him sackable. And so, it's a matter probably of time. Uh, and maybe one more, you know, uh, straw to break the camel's back, if you will, given enough time between Waltz, that relief and, uh, and then maybe Hexf. Uh, but I but I think you're absolutely right. this, you know, Trump wants to look firmly in charge and in command and confident. Uh,
• 10:00 - 10:30 and he, that's the way he operates anyway. He doesn't want events to to unseat that view of him. And chaos in some of these offices, they make him look bad. He gets bad press. So, I think we're going to see a time where Hexf could be shown the door. Uh, because enough time has elapsed. He's might have done something else. And it doesn't look like he's cowttowing to the press. That's the biggest thing for Trump is he doesn't want to take an action cuz he cuz he because it looks like he can't
• 10:30 - 11:00 take pressure from the press. So he want he's going to wait for that to die down before he takes an action like we're relieving someone. So the person I've found really interesting to read about and I'm working my way through his book at the moment is Bridge Colby. Uh, and I wonder, you know, what if you're familiar with what he's written and and and what his mind is as a former um assistant secretary with NATO and Europe specifically to focus on? What do you
• 11:00 - 11:30 make of that view that America's interests don't lie in Europe anymore and that the US should look pretty much exclusively to the Indo-acific and perhaps the Middle East? Well, that's a great question. I I I do know him. uh somewhat uh the the Europe NATO community in Washington is actually very small. It's we all know each other one way or another. And so when he was made the under secretary, which is a very influential position in the Pentagon, uh I was wondering how he was going to square his China first view, and he's
• 11:30 - 12:00 very radical on that, very strong on China first. He lays out his argument in these books and things like that. But once you become the under secretary, you can't just be a onetrick pony. You've got a lot of problems on your hands because you deal not just with other regions, but also other problems, other issue sets, functional issues. He's he has to deal with intelligence issues. He has to deal with arms control. He'll have to deal with nuclear policy. He has to deal with with budgets and that type of thing. I mean, it's it's all-encompassing. So, he has to have
• 12:00 - 12:30 room in his mind for something other than China. When it comes to Europe, NATO, uh, he and I have talked about that. uh and I have waved the Europe flag and I think uh there there was a time when that would upset him a little bit because he felt that too much effort had been put into Europe uh because of that. Uh you know he did say something recently about the uh deployment of the U of the UK aircraft carrier out to the Indo Pacific saying you know I'd rather that be staying around uh Europe to take care of a European contingency. Uh so he
• 12:30 - 13:00 is thinking about and acknowledging that there is a European contingency. He could have said, "Yes, we send both of those carriers uh to the Indoacific. Send all of your military there. Uh this is what we've got to all focus on." But he didn't. And he said, "Could you stay around uh the European theater to handle a Russian contingency?" So to me, that was a little bit of a breakthrough. He might be upset if I were to say that, but but I uh but I think uh for me at least in terms of priorities uh I I will
• 13:00 - 13:30 accept that China is a priority for us and I will accept too that Europe has got to take on more of that that burden in terms of European defense, etc. That's old news we we talk about all the all the time. Uh and I think what we're going to see with Bridge uh is that he's going to have to uh you know follow the guidance he's going to get from the president himself because at the end of the day it's Trump that's going to tell him where did where does he want uh you know the Pentagon and the under secretary's office what's the priority
• 13:30 - 14:00 for for Bridge and he might very well say well look okay it's China for you bridge and we understand that and we're glad you're here but we have other issues too that we want you to to you know if in act Trump is concerned about you where Ukraine is going and is concerned about Putin that maybe he's being tapped along uh that he feels that we need to start thinking about more assistance to Ukraine and have that put pressure on Russia. Bridge is going to be in the middle of that. So it might be the president goes to Bridge and says, "Uh, love what you're doing with China.
• 14:00 - 14:30 Love it. But you need to help me with uh with Russia right now because if I'm being tapped, I want to make sure we push back and use some leverage." and that's going to come from you bridge because it's the your assistance packages to Ukraine that's going to put that pressure on. So let's see how he handles that. Well, I mean it strikes me that there are two parts to the US role in Europe. One bit is the security of continental Europe. Discuss the degree to which that is the United States
• 14:30 - 15:00 responsibility. The difficult thing for Europeans like me is that a lot of what Trump is saying is entirely true that we've completely undervalued our security, taken American investment as as a free good. Um, and we deserve to be told to do better. Um, but then I think there's still a discussion about the degree to which the US can properly disinvest from Europe for the sake of its own interests in in Europe. But then the second part of it, and I'd be interested to get your view on how someone like Bridge Colby would would
• 15:00 - 15:30 would argue this point, there's no way in the world that the fight with China only happens against the PLA army, the PLA Navy, PLA Air Force in the Pacific because that would allow the United States to concentrate force in the Pacific. They will send the Russian northern fleet out into the Atlantic to threaten the US eastern seabird. So, US investment in the Euro Atlantic isn't just about digging out the Europeans. This is
• 15:30 - 16:00 actually about the security of the US homeland as well. Is that just an inconvenient truth or would he tell me that that that's not an issue? Well, I would hope he would tell you that it is an issue because it certainly is. And Bridge has a strategic mindset. Uh he knows that uh that the these two theaters are linked in a lot of ways. Yeah. So, uh, but I think if he's talking to Trump and Trump has another mind, he'll have to probably keep that to himself, you know. But I think your
• 16:00 - 16:30 point is really well taken and I I believe there was a uh something released today from the visit of President Xi to Moscow where uh in that statement, I think it's a Chinese statement where she says exactly what you said, which is Russia is very interested and very supportive of China and China Taiwan and that issue. uh and so they see the world the same way in Asia. So if anything, if you've got a Bridge KBY's mind, which as I said is strategic, he's he's he he's a good man
• 16:30 - 17:00 for that job. Uh he needs to see that uh if something happens uh with Taiwan and China, you you're going to feel it with Russia as well. Russia's going to want to do something. You mentioned the eastern seabboard of the US, but maybe it's Estonia. Maybe it's grayzone uh activity in Europe where suddenly uh there's some some Europeans might die in a train derailment that was sabotaged caused by the Russia. I mean, you're going to see them acting in concert one way or another. Same thing with Russia and Ukraine. If uh China begins to
• 17:00 - 17:30 blockade Taiwan, uh you can bet uh the the uh Europeans are going to get pretty nervous and Ukraine too because maybe the uh Russians are going to take advantage of that distraction of the United States with China and Taiwan to you know there's going to be all kinds of playing off one against the other. I hope that's the understanding of of Bridge that he understands that there's you know it's it's it's three-dimensional chess here. It's not just China China. So, but at the end of the day, it depends on what Trump himself thinks. Trump is going to give
• 17:30 - 18:00 the orders out to everybody saying, "I don't care about Ukraine. Focus on Taiwan or something else." I mean, we don't know. Uh, it would be helpful if we got a national security strategy out of the administration to give us an idea of what at least some people are thinking there. But your question is an excellent one and it shows the complexity that Bridge is going to have to operate in particularly when he deals with a Secretary of Defense who might not be as strategic-minded as he is. in talking to friends on the hill uh and around town this week uh during my visit
• 18:00 - 18:30 to Washington. It's it's interesting and people have described that within the administration there are Iran hawks, there are China hawks, there are Russia hawks and then there are sort of American isolationist almost pacifists. uh and very you know I mean clearly that last group is mutually exclusive from the others but actually the the Iran hawks the Russia hawks the China hawks tend not to be the same people either and that Trump sits a stride this sort of slightly curious assembly of national
• 18:30 - 19:00 security minds who don't really agree on what America's role in the world is nor what America's main threat is. Um and what people have sort of said curiously is therefore for Trump success is basically just to avoid any war. Uh because then you don't have to the showdown doesn't come between the Iran hawks and the isolationists or the China hawks and the isolationists discuss because it doesn't feel like events are going to quite allow that to be the case. No. And you know I think Trump
• 19:00 - 19:30 likes it that way. Trump doesn't want to have a solid front coming from his people or from the bureaucracy. He wants to see that conflict. He thrives on that from what I understand. Interesting. He thrives on that. He thrives on seeing two officials fighting each other in front of him. Uh he likes the sport of it probably. Uh you know, and and also he likes to hear all these views because he knows at the end of the day he's going to call the shots because they're all fragmented. You have you have the various hawks of various stripes and and other types of fellow travelers in
• 19:30 - 20:00 there. And uh at the end of the day, they depend on Trump to say, "Okay, this is what I want." and he's picked people who will who will do what he says. In other words, these all might be hawks. They might all have their views on various things, but they're also at the same time willing to do exactly what Trump wants them to do. So, I think this is something that he he thrives on. I understand Franklin Roosevelt also like to have that kind of thing, too. So, uh so for those Democrats listening, you know, it it runs in the family. So, well, so there's something about, you
• 20:00 - 20:30 know, that a strong leader is one that's willing to see the staff take opposing positions and argue it out and hear all the views and and there's a thought that that leads to more rigorous policym. I'd be interested to hear you say that that's the case in this case. Well, you know, but it's a great point. If he did his homework then uh and then he listened to this fighting in front of him, I would feel better about what comes out of it because Trump isn't depending on that fighting happening in
• 20:30 - 21:00 front of him to make up his mind on what to do. Yeah. If he does his homework, uh if he has other people who call him with advice, if he's someone that listens to everyone and then makes a decision based on what he's hearing, sometimes I think he makes his decision based on the person who who last talked to him. uh and uh sometimes I think he goes with his gut which I think dates to about 1970 to the mid80s from the things he says it sounds like something I heard back then. So I I um you know I I think
• 21:00 - 21:30 I think generally having in front of you people who are willing to fight it out in front of the president their point of view that that can be helpful if it airs different approaches and and it helps you in making up your mind. But if that's your only source of information on on on on making up your mind, you you know, particularly with Trump, he might go after the strongest, you know, the loudest voice or the biggest fist that's being shaken instead of going after actually what's a reasonable point of view. So I um I you know, I'm just we
• 21:30 - 22:00 know he doesn't like to read. We know he doesn't really have the staff certainly in the Pentagon now to put together briefing papers and that type of thing uh to go up to the White House and even if as I said even if they did he doesn't necessarily read it. So I think we're stuck with that as his decision-m if he doesn't have his own innate feeling about something he's going to look listen to those people who are fighting then he will call someone that he really trusts. It might not be someone in Washington. it might be uh you know a CEO somewhere or someone in Hollywood
• 22:00 - 22:30 Mara Lago who knows and ask them for their point of view uh and and then he might go with that. So I want to um tap into your expertise to get some predictions for the NATO summit. just whilst we're talking about the way that the DoD works and the way that advice forms and decisions are made um when you've got you know an emerging geopolitical tension that's you know the what's going on in India and Pakistan at the moment is it's come about relatively
• 22:30 - 23:00 quickly quite dangerous potentially but equally could go away tomorrow without any more noise but but one would have thought that it's exactly the sort of thing that a US administration would be quick to think through, take a position, be speaking to both sides, trying to deescalate, especially given that both sides are nuclear armed. Um, but you've described a dysfunctional process both in the and a lack of bandwidth in the DoD that is concerning.
• 23:00 - 23:30 Do you have a nervousness that America right now isn't able to properly inform itself and make decisions on on global matters like that? I would say in general the the decisionmaking process within Washington is not as good as it needs to be. Uh there's a there's a policy flow, there's a paperwork flow, there's a way in which uh the best advice is is sent from those experts in the military or the civilian side in the
• 23:30 - 24:00 Pentagon in this case up to the president uh where he discusses that with his most senior leaders. he's got these options laid out and this type of thing and that can move very fast if it needs to. I will say that I have also seen uh too much discussion, too many papers written, no decisions being made, lots of meetings with the president or with or right below his level at the NYSE around a table and uh and that's not good either. And I saw a lot of that during some of the past Democratic uh administrations where they just they
• 24:00 - 24:30 talk things to death. What's different here is that um with Trump, for better, for worse, a decision can be made like that because it's Trump making it himself. And maybe he sits there and says something uh based on his gut and they off they go. He doesn't need the NSC to have a meeting and and options to be presented to him. He doesn't need to know what the US military thinks about that. Uh he will go ahead and make a decision. So it moves even faster than other administrations. But that that doesn't mean that it's an informed
• 24:30 - 25:00 decision. uh and uh it just means it's quick. So, and I'm it, if you read the comments below our discussion, you will see all sorts of uh uh of ways of saying that um that the administration is dysfunctional, doesn't work, and that they don't like Trump. um by accident. That speed of decision- making does cause countries all around the world to sit up and take notice and be far more responsive to what America
• 25:00 - 25:30 is and isn't doing, right? And so there is this there is this sequence of events that you can see over the next couple of years where by accident or by design, Trump ends up sorting out a whole load of the world's problems. You take the sort of Gaza Lago uh proposal reacted to with horror in Europe, but the Arab world has coalesed around a sort of sense of purpose that no one else has been able to achieve. You know, it just there's a sort of there's a there's a genius to the
• 25:30 - 26:00 madness. Yes. Yes. No, you're you're right. And uh golly, and there's a lot of people who hate that because they want to blow up, you know. Yeah. But but you're absolutely right. He has uh he's grasped the nettle on a lot of things. And in a lot of ways, I heard someone talked about this a couple days ago, a lot of ways voting him in by the American people. They voted him in not because they liked him or anything, but that he he does things and they want something done. Tony Blair said this uh in California a couple days ago at the
• 26:00 - 26:30 Milicanin uh Institute. He and he was talking about this about uh about Trump and about fell over. He I don't know if you want to have this in but but he said you know when I became a prime minister I expected uh that things would happen and I would say do this and it'd be done and he said after a year I found nothing had happened and he said he said that is the strength of Donald Trump and why he was elected because people know that that he will do things and your point is well taken because whether it's you know
• 26:30 - 27:00 a lot of silly things uh the Gulf of Mexico versus the Gulf of America the Arabian Gulf now Mount McKinley, uh, so many silly things that he's done. But what's interesting about this is that these things stick under the crawl of a lot of American voters. They're not something you would hear about in Washington in the beltway here and the think tanks and this type of thing. That's that's that's, you know, we're above that kind of issue set. But for a lot of American people, seeing Trump do
• 27:00 - 27:30 these executive orders, which most presidents don't operate with that, they operate in a different way. He signs these things out. he takes these actions and it actually scratches an itch and so uh so but you're whether it's Gaza whether it's Ukraine I mean for Ukraine for instance we weren't making a whole lot of progress on Ukraine I mean even though uh there was a lot of assistance going to Ukraine uh you know we'll be there as long as it takes all this stuff coming out of the Biden administration no one really knew where this was going
• 27:30 - 28:00 and there was a lot of caution you know I I remember being involved in decisions around uh main battle tanks storm shadow crew missiles. You know, there was real caution and hesitation on this side of the pond, a real nervousness that third world war would start. Um, I guess that, you know, the the the sort of US threshold that a single US fatality is war, you know, means that people calibrate much more carefully. But, um,
• 28:00 - 28:30 but I mean, I agree. I mean, I the Biden administration did lots. They spent lots of money. They moved the dial in Ukraine, no doubt, but they were incredibly cautious in everything that they did. They were. And that is the topic of a lot of discussion in Washington now about uh were we self-deterring particularly when it came to nuclear issues. Yeah. The the the rattling of that nuclear saber made us too cautious in some ways, the West too cautious, but for good reason. I mean, why would you be, you know, not cautious in something like that? But does that then hand your uh your opposite number a
• 28:30 - 29:00 uh a bit of uh leverage that you that is hard to deal with? We in the West need to be able to have something to say to someone who who rattles a nuclear saber uh to to let them know that that's not going to work on us. Uh and that's a whole another discussion. But but you're absolutely right. uh there is there was a lot of caution there and that administration as well as the Obama administration was known for over being overly cautious uh AC across the board and uh and so I think as we look at the
• 29:00 - 29:30 at the followon administrations after Trump and into the future particularly Democrats is there is there a possibility to have an administration that is in between a Democratic one that just talks things to death or Trump that gets things done but sometimes at great cost uh and at great uh upheaval. So he's going to arrive in the Hague in what is it sort of 6 weeks time or so for the NATO summit. You will have sherpered lots of NATO summits in your
• 29:30 - 30:00 in your day. Um what's going to happen at this one? I mean I it's hard to remember one where everybody else is going to be quite as nervous uh about the outcome as they will be in the H. No, not everybody is going to have met his requirements for defense spending. In fact, very few countries will have done so. Um, are we going to see a big blow up? Well, you know, it's like watching a car race, uh, the Indie Indy500, whatever.
• 30:00 - 30:30 People who watch these car races, they watch it not because they like the race. They watch it because they want to see the big car wreck, the big smashup, and that's what they like. So, they're going to be a lot of people just eating popcorn and watching TV, waiting for the big blow up and for Trump to stomp out. Um, you know, it's it's an interesting question and I think there will be nervousness there about that kind of thing. But I will say that um uh Trump loves that. He loves to walk into a room
• 30:30 - 31:00 and have people uncertain about what he's going to do. He's he said that he likes to be someone who you you can't really uh tell what he's going to do. That gives you a lot of leverage when he walks into that room. He can have allies do a lot of things that that he wants them to do just by making it look like he's getting ready to stomp out. Absolutely. And so and there's some allies who stand up to him, the Danes for instance or others uh you know uh but at the end of the day uh that only goes so far with him and then they have
• 31:00 - 31:30 to cut a deal and he knows that. So my hunch is we had that run of speeches all within the space of about 8 days of each other where um the vice president spoke in Paris. Heath then spoke at a NATO summit in Brussels and then the vice president spoke at the Munich security conference. That was a hell of a time. WA I mean you just Europe was shell shocked on the back of that you know because it wasn't just a criticism of European defense spending and its uh and and how uh you know it had
• 31:30 - 32:00 freeloaded US position on on US um defense and security. It was a sort of an affront on European values and the way that we order our democracies and our societies. It was fullon. I have a hunch exactly as you say that Trump will revel in how nervous everybody will be and yet when he goes he will be sweetness and light. He doesn't need to do what Vance and Hexf and others do as his outr rididers. He's the president. Um I think you're right. You know it's
• 32:00 - 32:30 leverage for him. Uh if he were to storm out of NATO and say look we're we're we're out of here. He's he's throwing away his leverage on how he can make people nervous. Yeah. He makes, you know, he bullies, he has uh bombasts, he does these things to prep the battlefield, as we say in the Pentagon. He he he does these things so that he can intimidate his opposition, the tariffs, and then he walks in to cut a deal and they're going to and they're much more malleable uh after he has kind of scared them and and put political pressure on them. It's a horrible way
• 32:30 - 33:00 between in terms of humanity. It's a horrible way to treat someone else. It's a horrible diplomacy. It's not something the US does and I think it's so striking to Europeans and others to see the Americans acting this way but it has an impact. It does. Uh and and so and he knows that. So the big unknown is what he will do with five core US Air Force Europe the destroyers based out of rotor. Um I as I understand it, this is
• 33:00 - 33:30 still an intense debate within the administration about whether it's time to draw down those forces and position them elsewhere on the globe. I think the balance of opinion I've heard this week is that everything kind of stays where it is. What do you think? Well, so it's the it's the force posture review and we do those uh you know every four years or so. Uh and and and and they always are exciting to see where we end up. Uh and there's a lot behind them. There's a lot of politics, domestic politics behind
• 33:30 - 34:00 that. Uh there's a there's a lot of things that that uh that make this a very difficult uh review to do. Um I I I don't think it's going to be uh left exactly the same. I think where they're going to do a couple things probably. Uh you've heard them talk about the Africa Command and the European Command. They're both in Europe. Y uh and at one time they were they weren't together. Then they were separated out and now they're talking about putting them back together again. So it's not like this has never been done. Uh but what is
• 34:00 - 34:30 different here is that they've said well look uh there's an American four-star general who is the head of the European command. General Kavoli is the one now. He wears two hats. Uh he runs the US forces in Europe, but he also runs NATO forces. Uh he's the sakur, the supreme allied commander Europe. So what they might say this time is we're going to bring those two commands together, Africa and Europe. We're going to take off one of those hats from uh the the uh commander of European command. We're going to take off that NATO hat and we're going to give it to a European.
• 34:30 - 35:00 No. Uh they could uh very well do that. It's a signal to Europe saying we are serious about you all taking over the defense of of Europe. Uh it's something that shows Trump doing something. uh and uh it it kind of as we say pins the rose on the Europeans that you have better hurry because your man is in charge of uh of NATO forces when they go. The hooker in all of this is that that I don't think this is a law but certainly by customs and tradition American forces
• 35:00 - 35:30 can only be commanded by an American general. This is why Sakir is always an American. That came out of World War I by the way uh which is a whole another story. Uh so this would kind of fly in the face of how we've always done things. Uh but this certainly shows a seriousness in the United States about uh who's in charge of the uh of the fight uh in Europe. So that that's one thing I think is going to happen. The second thing I think is I think they're going to probably pull out I'm going to say 10 to 20,000 US forces because
• 35:30 - 36:00 that's what Trump wanted to do and Trump won. Mhm. uh he issued the order and it was slow rolled uh by the military because they didn't want to do that pull and so by the time the election happened uh they were able to you know the Biden administration came in that was the first thing they canceled was that order my I've heard that uh Trump's saying well guess what I'm back uh and just for spite he might pull those uh forces out out of Germany he was trying to punish the Germans at the time it was a miracle I remember uh and so he was going to
• 36:00 - 36:30 move them to Poland so he could do something along those lines as Biden put in about 20,000 forces after uh the the the proper invasion of Ukraine in 2022. So it might be that he's going to pull those out. It's a soop also to Putin. Putin wants US forces drawn down. So this is a concession uh with nothing in return, but this is a concession to Putin, a sweetener, if you will, maybe to get him to the table. Uh and so so there's there's other things at work here. And I think that makes me feel that there
• 36:30 - 37:00 there will be something happening in Europe. Well, Jim, you filled me with dread because I and I think a lot of European defense and security commentators, especially those of us that have been practitioners of late, would say, you draw down the fifth corps, take away the US Air Force Europe, take away the destroyers, they can always come back, but leave Sacker must remain an American because if you want to sort of for exactly the point that you make, you've just put a massive
• 37:00 - 37:30 barrier in place to US reinforcement of NATO if it is not an American general at the very top of the structure because that is a requirement of the American government, the American people that their troops are commanded by an American and um I think we would all take the reduction of tens of thousands of troops instead of the loss of a US sacker. But you know I think that's the debate going on. I I you know it has been kicked around as an idea for a number of years having the sacur be a
• 37:30 - 38:00 European that was back as in terms of the signal towards Europe to increase defense spending etc and this was part of that debate so this is not something new it's been kicked around kicked around uh it it it's easy to do for an American for for Trump to do he doesn't have to necessarily I don't think have to go to Congress or he's going to have to increase taxes is this is something that's easy to do. It's not costly. Uh but and the signal is a powerful one. Uh
• 38:00 - 38:30 and you know a but I will say that in a lot of ways this is something that if you do it the right way, it's not just yanking them out of Mons there, the military headquarters in Brussels and Belgium. But you do it in such a way that um it's it's phased in an American is the deputy that you know there's ways you can and and the in the NATO way you can always package something that takes some of the sting out of it and maybe that's what they do but it's just I I uh and and I agree with you. I don't want
• 38:30 - 39:00 to see that happen either. But it just seems uh the the the I don't know the the the the context, the background, the mood music I'm getting out of the White House is that's something that they wouldn't necessarily disagree doing. What a fascinating conversation. Jim Townsin, thank you so much for joining me. Um you've been watching Superpowers, the future of global security here on Times Radio. For more of Superpowers and all the other fantastic geopolitical content that Times Radio produced, make sure you subscribe to this YouTube channel. But for now, see you next week.