Command Post: Top General Reportedly Retired Over Investigation Into Kid Rock Flyby

Hi, I'm Ben Parker from the Bullwark. Welcome to Command Post on the Bullwark Take Speed. I'm joined as always by our very own Lieutenant General Mark Hurtling General. How are you this morning? Overwhelmed, Ben. Should I be overwhelmed with the amount of news that we're going to report on today? It is overwhelming. We got a lot of stuff to get to. We are going to be disciplined and prioritized, and so we're going to start with what President Trump said about Iran just this morning. Right from the beginning from the B2 bombers a little more than a year ago, where we knocked out the nuclear to the present. We have really dominated, really truly dominated. We have knocked out the nuclear and we have dominated. That's why we're still there. That's why we're still there, and I'm confused about what our continued desired and state is. It appears now that it's opening this straight of our moves and stopping the economic disaster that seems to be percolating not in the Middle East, not only in the Middle East, but all over the world. It is interesting that in President Trump's mind, Operation Midnight Hammer from 2025, the summer of 2025, just bleeds seamlessly into, what do they call this, Operation Freedom? Epic theory, right. Thank you. Operation Epic theory from February of this year, those were very. By the way, can I just point out the fact that Epic theory starts with the two same letters as abstaining files? Oh, that's interesting. That was probably a mistake on their point. I'm sure yes, yeah. I remember saying last year in 2025, actually, it seems like Operation Midnight Hammer went pretty well, not total obliteration as the President promised, but we didn't get a ton of retaliation from the Iranians, and it did a lot of damage. You can go to independent organizations like the Institute for Science and International Security, as they call good ISIS, did a lot of open source reporting about this. And I remember thinking like, okay, not bad, right? That was kind of the best case scenario. Of course, the administration couldn't admit that it was only a partial success, they couldn't take half a loaf. Now, as you said, our goal isn't even to destroy the rest of the nuclear program because either we can't or won't. It's just to get back to where we were right after midnight hammer when the Strait of Formus was open, right? We're just trying to correct the thing that went wrong, that we caused. Yeah, it's interesting, Ben, because I spent during my time in the military, I spent a lot of time in Israel, because they were part of the US Army, Europe's footprint. And there was a term I picked up from Israeli military leaders when they talked about trying to knock back Hamas or Hezbollah or even the Iranian threat. And it was that every year or three, they would have to cut the grass. And I think that's what we contributed to in terms of the Iran nuclear capability. And as you just said, it seemed to be a pretty successful mission back in 2025 that was only received more contributions in early 26. So the question would be if the nuclear facilities had been destroyed, as President Trump just said, and he continues to use that mantra, what the heck were we doing? And we've followed his different end states. It's helping people of Iran and helping them conduct a revolt against their Ayatollah and then it was destroying the IRGC and destroying the missiles and drone capabilities, and then it was opening the Strait, so the constantly changing end state is what causes confusion. And it hasn't been well publicized either with our Congress, with our Citadel citizens, or even I would say with the military and we're starting to see some effects of that within the morale and discipline within our military ranks, and I think we're going to talk a little bit about that today. Yeah, certainly. And as we keep saying, you know, the word we here we have really dominated is an interesting one because the uniform military forces have performed very well, right? The operations to suppress or any near defenses to bomb or any and targets, to, you know, accomplish the original objectives of the air campaign, that was a well orchestrated well performed mission for the most part, right? Like it was very impressive. But we in terms of the chief executive of the United States and his senior advisors versus the chief executive of Iran and his senior advisors, that we is not dominating so much. So as we keep on talking about right, it's the military force versus the strategic direction of the war, and it's the strategic direction of the war in this case that really matters more and usually I think really matters more, what do you think? Yeah, it is a, I mean, you are an expert in national security affairs as are so many other people, and they will tell you, and I'm sure you learn this throughout your career and also in schooling, that there are really four elements of national power. They are the economic, the diplomatic, the military, and the informational space. We use the military only. Now we seem to be using the economic only. There has been very little effective diplomacy because of the people we son over that the Iranians did not want to deal with. And the information space has been absolutely horrible because no one has known from the beginning exactly what we are trying to do and it hasn't been publicized either our own government, our people, our allies. So when you have the disconnect and a lack of synchronization as the military calls it of the four elements of national power, and you just use each one in a very peace mill approach. This is the kind of results you should get and it could be it could have been predicted by anyone that understands the use of national power to achieve political objectives, and yet here we are. Yeah, amen. Okay, so we have to move on because we have so much to talk about. One of them is we got to check them what's going on of the Pentagon and all of the senior leadership changes that are that are going on. I'm actually going to do the second one first Matt this New York Times story. Hegseth purge of top generals leaves the army rudderless the leadership vacuum comes as the army is trying to adapt to a new kind of war dominated by deadly drones. You and I've talked about this offline there was a story that the new chief of staff of the army shut down an experimental drone unit that was pioneered by the former chief of staff of the army whom Hegseth fired. You've been in these kinds of you know on if you've been an experimental team that's been you've at least been in the army before which I have not what do you make of all this. Well, the word rudderless is a little bit harsh in my view by the New York Times because it certainly has caused some confusion when you eliminate multiple four stars a whole bunch of three star generals who are waiting in the wings to assume four star positions. Key four star positions you now have the rumor mill suggesting that secretary Dan your school who has been very effective. I would say one of the most effective service secretaries in hexes lot and he's well liked within the army because he's a common sense guy very pragmatic and he works very well with the military. But now he is rumored to have potentially providing his resignation from the cabinet in the first of the year or at the end of this year which you know that's a normal situation for for a lot of people who spend two years in administration then go on to do something else. Because of the other confusions within the higher ranks of the army with the force retirements of several key figures and I could provide names the force retirements of the staff judge advocates the i g the inspector general and the chief of staff of the army you see where yeah it is a purge of top generals in the army but not just the army it's the other services as well. And you've also cut off the knees of those who were going to assume are presumed to assume some of those key positions like the chief of staff of the army when general George would have retired normally but in the meantime we've got an acting chief of staff of the army who also is serving in the role as the vice chief of staff now for most people. I know big deal you've got a four star replacing another four stars and acting chief but the roles of those two individuals are decidedly different you know the chief of staff of the army does his title requirement of manning equipping training and providing direction for the US ground forces the military arm of the army the vice chief kind of runs the Pentagon and does all the things like policy and. Assignments and you know selection of new generals so you really have two very difficult roles that are the chief of a service being clued into one and none of them are congressional approved so that's problematic in and of itself especially during a time when we're seeing a massive evolution in. in warfare, where units need to be given directions in terms of how to address the future with some of the things we're learning from the current conflict in both Iran and Ukraine. And we should talk about that a little bit in what happened between the Brits and the Ukrainians on Monday, 'cause that's an important step that I think is going under the radar right now. But you also just have the establishment of a military vision, normally the role of a chief of staff consists of either a two year or a four year assignment and they project a vision for those four years for the direction the Army takes. Right now, we don't have that. - Yeah, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, it would be remarkable in a normal administration. If there were, first of all, it's very rare that I think there's an acting chief of staff for any of the services. And then to have an acting chief of staff, so the highest uniformed officer in that service is not confirmed. And it's been pretty clear the Senate is not going to confirm the guy who's acting chief of staff for the Army. And then at the same time, you have the service secretary saying, "I'm also gonna get out of here." So you have the people in charge of making sure this service is ready to fight now, 10 years from now, 15 years from now, and whatever those conflicts may look like, both of them are kind of placeholders, that's not good. - And title requirement. - I'm sorry, go ahead. No, no, no, please. - No, the title requirement of the Army chief is to man, equip, and train the Army force. Those three things are requirements. He doesn't fight them. I mean, the cheapest out of the Army is not leading on the battlefield, saying, "Follow me." But he sets the directions for all those other units who are parsed out to the combatant commanders for the kind of operations that we're conducting right now. - So we should talk about this story from the Washington Post about how this change may have occurred between General George and General Anev, who's the acting chief of staff. It may have had to do with Kid Rock of all people. People remember the story that there was a military helicopter flight by Kid Rock's house, that Secretary Hegseth thought was really cool. It was in violation of all sorts of regulations. It wasn't exactly a model of aviation safety, but it was a cool stunt. And so Hegseth said, no investigation, no reprimand for the pilots who did this. And so now Washington Post was reporting that General Anev, who was, before he was in the Army leadership, he was a military aide to Secretary Hegseth. He then became the vice chief of staff of the Army. Then he told General George, who his boss, "Hey, don't do an investigation. Just leave this whole Kid Rock situation alone. Believe me." And days later, General George was, what's the term we're using, prematurely resigned? Invited to resign. The prematurely retired. The prematurely retired, thank you. And then General Anev, this parent Hegseth, protégé of sorts, even though I guess he's older and more experienced, becomes acting chief of staff of the Army. It is a weird story. And my biggest takeaway is like, this is such a small deal to be making these very important personnel decisions, right? - Yeah, I would say I think most people will see it as a small deal, Ben, but from a senior leadership perspective, it is a big deal. And I think that's why General George, as reported in this Washington Post Army article, was so upset because it has to do with military standards. And one of the things in terms of the man equipped and training piece, the training piece is setting the standards and the metrics by which your forces is judged. And when you see an abrogation of standards like we saw in the Kid Rock house fly by by a couple of Apache helicopters, I mean, anyone that was in a senior leadership position is like, are you kidding me? Who the hell ordered that? And what was the pilot doing? And let's investigate what the hell's going on in that unit that caused that to happen. Well, suddenly, it just, you know, Hexas not only dismisses it, but he says, I can't remember what his tweet said. It said, carry on patriots or the sound of freedom or something stupid like that. It's immature and it's unprofessional. So when you're the chief, if I'm the senior leader of an organization, no matter what the organization is, but if you're the chief of the Army, and your vice chief who is supposed to be your wingman in this role says, I know Hexas, let it go. It's no big deal. It's a big friggin' deal. And if I was once taught early in my career, if you walk past a violation of standards and allow it to exist, you have just created a brand new standard and that standard is lower. So what happens if tomorrow there's a flyby of, oh, I don't know, Mel Gibson's house by A64s, and one of those gets too close to the house and crashes and kills the pilot and the copilot. What happens then? Because it is a safety violation. Now, I know I'm getting into the weeds on this bend, but this is the kind of thing we should get into the weeds are because Secretary Hexas is deluding the standards of the military and basically claiming this old boys club of just, it's almost like a drunken frat house approach of, hey, everything's okay as long as it's cool. It ain't cool 'cause one of these days it's gonna cause somebody to die and that's not cool at all. That's what commanders have to, that's why we have to maintain standards. - Yeah, no, I think that's very, very well put. The other angle I'd just like to point out on this is that this is also a corruption story, right? Kid Rock is clearly a friend of the administration. He's done his weird photo shoot video thing with RFK Jr., he, I can't remember if he was actually at any campaign events, Donald Trump. He may have been, I can't remember. Yeah, he was, okay. He's clearly a friend of the administration. And so Pete Hexas says, it is okay for us to spend taxpayer money to get those helicopters into flying shape with all the maintenance and parts and all the, the lubricants to spend taxpayer money to buy the aviation fuel, to pay those pilots and ground crew to go do a flyby for a friend of the administration. That's our tax dollars, right? And it's by no means the biggest corruption story of this administration, but like, I don't wanna pay, if those helicopters need to fly in training missions to practice for combat, I am more than happy to pay for that. But I don't wanna pay for Kid Rock to get a cool spectacle of personal air show. That's how my tax dollars are for. Well, there's even more of them. Soon after the flyby of Kid Rock's house, the Secretary of Defense took himself and Kid Rock and put them in the back seat of two Apache helicopters and actually did an orientation flight. Now, having once commanded an armored division and having a helicopter brigade under my command and knowing that they had age 64s, we never put anybody in the back seat of an age 64 to do an orientation flight. It never happened. Every once in a while, there might be a senior commander that might wanna see how the Apache systems work. So you fly, I mean, I've never flown in an age 64. I've flown in OH-58s, the observation helicopters and I spend a lot of time in the back seat of a black cock, but I've never been in the co-pilot seat of an age 64. It's just not what we do. - Yeah, so great, everything's going really great and we have so many more dominating things. We're dominating so hard. - We're dominating, yeah. - We're gonna get to more domination right after a short break. - This message is sponsored by Zbiotics. So I have to tell you all about this game-changing product to add to your routine before a night out with drinks. It's called pre-occupied by Zbiotics. Zbiotics, pre-occupied probiotic drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists to break down acetaldehyde and byproduct of drinking alcohol. Now pre-alcohol produces an enzyme that is designed to break down this byproduct. Drink pre-alcohol as your first drink of the night, drink responsibly, and enjoy your next day activities. Zbiotics has sold more than 14 million bottles and earn the trust of thousands, including us here at the Will Work. Try it for yourself today and if you're unsatisfied, they'll refund your entire order, no questions asked. Head to Zbiotics.com/BullworkTakes and use code BullworkTakes for 15% off your first order. - Okay, before we get back into the substance, a quick note, if you just watched almost 20 minutes of command post and made it through the ad break, thank you so much. You're probably a fan of command post. We appreciate that. And there's a lot more the Bullwork has to offer, more takes like this and subjects like the economy with the art economics editor, Catherine Rampell, like what's going on on the right with Will Summer, who's an absolute star. If you want way more in-depth analysis like this and original reporting and honest commentary, you can get a lot more by becoming a Bullwork Plus member at thebullwork.com. If you just wanna watch the video and move on, we can't stop you, but if you like it, which you probably do if you're still watching, give a like, maybe give a comment, but definitely go to thebullwork.com and consider subscribing because there's a whole bunch more and it helps us keep doing that. and we would really appreciate it. And it's a whole pro-democracy community on the internet, unlike anything else. And we think you probably like it. If you're hanging out with us, like really, I know it's a hard sell, but if you're still with us, boar plus this for you, go become a member of the boarwork.com. - And we also have Sonny Bunch, the culture ad editor too, right? And Mona Chair and the book reader, and we've got a lot of other folks too, which is-- - There's a lot of stuff that we check up on, yeah. - Absolutely. And a lot of it is free. I will admit that a lot of it is free, but there's some stuff. Well, even if you don't want the stuff, it's behind the paywall. Most of it's free, but even so, you'll be supporting us, which we appreciate. Speaking of support, we were early on this. You called it. When the Everett was talking about the USS Abraham Lincoln, you said don't forget the support ships and the other ships in that strike group, 'cause it's not just a carrier floating out by itself in the middle of the ocean. There's also destroyers and cruisers and submarines, and probably tenders for those ships to make sure they're fueled and supplied. And what do we see now? The USS Abraham Lincoln is heading home. Excuse me, not the rest of the strike group. The rest of the strike group is staying in place. It's just the Lincoln. They get to be swapped out. - Well, yeah, and the Lincoln will probably take a couple of support ships along with them on the cruise home. They, by the way, as I understand it, they're doing a port call right now, and God help the port that they're in, because these sailors have been on board that ship for almost nine, over nine months. So they're gonna be drinking a little bit of beer, I would suspect, and whatever port they're going to, and letting awesome steam. But the fact that the destroyers are staying home, and in this case, it's the Murphy and the Spruense, the USS Spruense and Murphy, it's because we don't know what's gonna happen next within the straight-up hormones. Are those destroyers gonna have to provide escorts for some of the merchant ships if things get back to normal? Are they gonna be a part of the Washington carrier strike group that are coming on board? Did the Washington leave some of their destroyers back in the Indo-Pacific region? And just like any military organization, Ben, strike groups or task forces, if you will, exchange forces within their group, depending on the mission set. But I gotta tell you, if I'm part of the ships that were left behind, if my family members weren't told they were gonna stay longer, if I'm a sailor on one of those ships, and that's part of what's in this article, the thousand sailors that are on those two ships, allegedly have not been told they were staying behind for a little bit longer, there continues to be morale problems. So that's just all part of the deal in terms of long-term deployments in any kind of theater of operation. - I'm just getting word, by the way, that we have a clip, Trump just commented on the situation in the street of Hormuz this morning. So I think we're gonna play a clip of that and I have no idea what he's gonna say, so we'll react live. - Okay. - If the war, prior to what we're doing with the rent, which I think will be ending fairly soon, you could really say, you know, because the straight is open, we take a lot of ships through the straight down, we're taking them in. The mines are gone, you probably saw that, we put it out yesterday, all the mines, we got rid of the mines, but the straight, it's functioning, it's a functioning straight. Yes, everyone's in a well, there'll be a drone or a rocket or something, shot, but it is a very functioning straight. A lot of oil is pouring out, a 10 million gallons, 10 million barrels yesterday. - So I just wanna point out that I would not want to be anywhere where every now and again, you get a rocket or a drone, and more importantly, I don't think the real decision-makers here in terms of the trade through the straight, who are the insurance companies, who back up these tankers, I don't think they're going to be okay with the insurance on a straight where every now and again, you get a rocket or a drone. That does not sound like an optimistic prognosis to me. - There was a hit, a ship hit, I think it was on Sunday, by a merchant ship hit by an Iranian drone on Monday, that created a significant amount of damage on the olmani side of the straight. And to hear the president say the straight is open, and they have de-mined the waters, Ben, I gotta tell ya, I'm talking to Navy guys, that is just, politely I'll say it's mistruth. It is a lie, that is not the case. There were over the last couple of days, in less than a dozen ships that have gone through the straight of our moves. And those were admitted by Iran and Omar. And usually there's an average of between 120 and 150 ships going through that straight on a daily basis. - Before the war, yeah. - Before the war. So, and the de-mining operation has just not occurred. I don't know how the president can say that. And he's acting and messaging that things are back to normal and they are not just infatically, they are not. Oman and Iran are still negotiating the means to get ships through the straight. One on the northern side, on the Iranian side, one on the southern side, on the southern side, the olmani side, and it's not open. Well, maybe if we just say it a bunch more times, miraculously, it will become open. You never know, you never know, it could work. One of these days, this is a question we didn't prepare for, but I just wanted to get your thoughts on it. So we've been talking about morale. And there's a story that President Trump, or I should say the Pentagon, someone, is considering changing the name of the next Ford class aircraft carrier that's going to be launched. It was going to be named Doris Miller after a Medal of Honor recipient. This was a black sailor who was in Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. He was only rated, I think, as like a mess mate or something. He was a cook. He was a cook. He was a cook. Back in the segregated Navy, that was one of the few jobs that he could do. And so he wasn't even trained to operate a weapon. But he saw an anti-aircraft gun that was uncrewed, because it was a Sunday morning, or because the crew had already been killed, or whatever. And he jumped on, immediately taught himself how to use it, and just started firing at the Japanese. He just said, I'm a sailor, there's a weapon. I'm going to defend the ship. I'm going to defend the base. And he was awarded the Medal of Honor. And so the Navy was going to name a ship after him. The Navy names tons of ships out of Medal of Honor winners. Wow, good job, Matt. I didn't even warn you about that. You just found it. The Navy names tons of ships after Medal of Honor winners in the Navy and the Marine Corps to celebrate their acts of service and heroism. What do you make of the reports that perhaps the administration is considering taking away the name of this aircraft carrier that was already planned and approved and changing it to something else? I can't imagine that happening. Matt, there would be such an upheaval in the United States Navy about this, if that occurred. Dory Miller-- Doris Miller is his formal name, but he's known as Dory Miller-- is the hero of the highest for dart, of a guy that went above and beyond the call of duty. He was, like you said, a duty as a messmate, a cook. And on that morning of December 7, the crew of that anti-aircraft gun were killed. He jumped up on a hot gun and continued to fire at Japanese airplanes. You can see the pictures. This is a proud young man. He's wearing that medal on his chest is not the Medal of Honor, it's the Navy Cross, which I believe it's the Navy Cross, which he was awarded initially and then it was upgraded to the Medal of Honor. But every single sailor is taught the story of Dory Miller. It's sort of like every single army soldier is taught the story of Audie Murphy, and more were-- I mean, it's just legendary. If that sailor's name is replaced on that ship by any other name, it doesn't matter whose name it is, there will be an upheaval and a revolt within the US Navy, in my view, and there should be. Yeah, the only good thing about this is that it's bringing more attention to this remarkable American hero. And that's a good thing. OK, our last topic for today. You have a great article up at the bulwark right now, "The Pentagon's Purge at Stars and Stripes is a gift to our enemies." Regular command post fans will remember when we talked to Jacqueline Smith, who for a long time was the ombudsman for Stars and Stripes. She was the sort of public relations officer. And she resigned because she thought that the independent newspaper operated by the Department of Defense was coming under pressure to become a mouthpiece for the Pentagon. And so she was basically fired for that. And she was right because now they have removed the publisher and the editor-in-chief of the newspaper because they said they were insubordinate. And there is talk about replacing them not with civilians who work for the Department of Defense's journalists, but with a uniformed officer who would be lawfully obligated to follow orders. You wrote about what Stars and Stripes means to the military, what it meant to you during your time the service, and why it's so important and actually the senior leaders will miss it if they replace it with something that is just a PR mouthpiece. - Yeah, and there was also, by the way, been a reporter who was also fired, a very brave reporter who stood up for Freedom of the Press in one of her articles. Yeah, the reason stars and strides in most Americans never see this newspaper rightfully so is usually overseas. There is an online edition now that has only occurred recently as the web has become ubiquitous. But if you're stationed overseas or on a ship somewhere and you get a paper copy of this, it gives you snippets of information about national security on the front page. But it also provides, you know, stories about fellow soldiers, fellow sailors, depending on what base is in, airmen. It really massages its news to the audience it's speaking to. They want to know about what's going on in their military, in their community, in their local high schools. So, I mean, in Germany, the stars and strides when I was there for 12 years, would not only have the key news stories on the front page and maybe a couple of human interest stories about soldiers primarily or airmen that were in the European landmass, but they would also list the football games between Heidelberg High School and Ramstein High School, you know, the Army versus the Navy bases. They would give you your box scores for your cardinals game like you were talking about me being such a fan. They would give you information about your commanders and what was going on. And it gave, and by the way, it also gave you a great comic section on a daily basis and a great crossword. So, you know, this was one of those kind of things you could leaf through within, I don't know, 15 or 20 minutes or so, but it was geared specifically to the military community wherever you were in the world. And it gives, and they're reporting, done by both military members and civilian reporters, were based on freedom of the press. They would report, sometimes I'd open up the stars and strides and there'd be a picture of me. You sent me a picture that got me in trouble that was on the front page of the stars and strides when I was a young Brigadier General and I was drinking a beer with a German mayor and my boss chewed my ass because, hey, we're in the middle of a war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why are you on the cover in Germany of stars and strides with a beer in your hand? - Can I do a picture just one second? - Sure. - After we told the story, I want to see if I could find the picture. So I reached out to stars and strides. He really got an email back and said, you know, okay, sure, why do you want that photo? (laughing) - Yeah, and you shared it with me. So thanks a lot for that, 'cause I had to see you in the 20 years. But, you know, it also shows sometimes the troops things that are embarrassing to their commanders. And, you know, sometimes it talks about best squad competition or the best tank gunnery or the low justitions who are supporting. So it's really a newspaper for the troops and it's often by the troops. And it provides trust in the institution because it tells the great stories, but it also every once in a while, tells the bad stories like the morale issues on the USS Abraham Lincoln. Stars and Stripes was one of the first group of reporters that broke that story because they were hearing from sailors about what was going on. And that was when the act of media sort of picked it up as well. So, if you put it as a Pentagon mouthpiece, as opposed to freedom of the press, you're gonna lose the trust and confidence of the military members wearing the uniform within the force. And their family members as well. - Yeah, it doesn't make the bad news disappear. It just makes it go elsewhere. It doesn't mean there's not morale problems in the Middle East or on the Lincoln. It doesn't mean that there aren't families back home in San Diego or wondering about their loved ones. It just means they're gonna have to go elsewhere to have those conversations. And that's not necessarily a healthy thing for the military, for the country, for anyone. - Right, you know, when you go to TikTok or Twitter or Blue Sky or whatever you go to, there's no editorial devices that make corrections or say, yeah, that's not true, that's misinformation. Within stars and stripes, they have an editorial board. So, they're telling the truth with facts and logic and reason and passion. And that's what makes the difference in good journalism versus blog sites. So, yeah, it's an important thing. And it's just troubling that the Pentagon thinks they can control the editorial board of stars and stripes as well as firing some of their better reporters. - It's part of a larger pattern of not just this Pentagon, this administration, of just this instinct, which I think is actually a self-destructive towards secrecy. You can see it in a bunch of ways in the Pentagon. One is the last time they had a press briefing. We had all the scandals from mostly last year about how basically they said to all the national news outlets, you can't report from the Pentagon or unless we clear it first, we have to approve your reports, which is ridiculous. So, they replaced all the Pentagon reporters with, you know, totes and licks bittles. They restricted the areas of the Pentagon where journalists could go. And then we're not talking about like, this is a classified room, we need a clearance to get in. We're talking about like, you have to stay in the press room, you can't go to the cafeteria, that kind of thing. They shut down a, some of the defense department databases that just had, you know, like research papers and things. So, outside of researchers can't get information about the defense department currently or going back generations. It's going to be harder for other people to do research. - Or casualty reporting as well. - Yes. - Yes exactly. - Or enlistment rates. We've been told by Secretary Hagset that enlistments are through the window and we can't talk, we don't have enough time today to talk about it, but I think next week we'll probably talk a little bit about a great story that's coming out of MSNOW right now regarding people who are taking, asking for conscientious objector status because they see things that they shouldn't be seeing. And during my time in the military, I had a total of two over a 40 year period, soldiers who submitted conscientious objector packets. And it's a difficult thing to use that to get out of the military, but there's a process in place. There seems to be a much larger number today than it was in the past. We have to do some more research on that before we report on it. But it's a troubling trend that we're seeing. - We will talk about that 'cause that is super interesting. I'd love to get into that. And that'll be a subject for the next command post. General, thank you so much for joining me. - Always a pleasure, Ben. Thanks for doing this once again.