Video summary
The Navy SEAL argues that modern society and its moral sensibilities are incompatible with the brutal realities required to win certain wars quickly, suggesting a deliberate effort by external forces to prevent rapid victories in conflicts like those in Iraq or Afghanistan. He posits that if allied nations such as the US, UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand were given six months to resolve an entire conflict, they could succeed with 100% certainty; however, this speed is discouraged because it would force civilians to witness the true nature of military operations. The speaker describes historical examples where villages like Fallujah were "cleared" by killing every male capable of fighting and using flamethrowers—tactics that are now often restricted under interpretations of the Geneva Convention deemed too cruel or unusual, despite adversaries continuing to use unrestricted methods such as suicide vests on children. This asymmetry in rules creates a dangerous environment where soldiers cannot trust civilians, leading to a high-stakes game of cat and mouse involving advanced technology like smart bombs and x-ray vision that can see through clothing. The speaker notes that while technological advancements have improved body armor and medical devices, they also fuel an economic engine for defense contractors like Raytheon and Boeing, who profit from prolonged engagements rather than swift resolutions. He draws a parallel to current political dynamics in Iran, suggesting that leaders might prefer dragging out conflicts over twenty years because ending them quickly would stop the "money printer," whereas decisive action followed by withdrawal is often politically difficult but necessary. When asked hypothetically how he would end an imagined nuclear threat from a non-existent Middle Eastern country immediately, the SEAL admits there are no other options short of using massive force equivalent to dropping the Fat Man atomic bomb or conducting high-risk special operations like snatching a president out of their house in the middle of the night. He expresses immense enthusiasm for such elite raids, noting that while they seem impossible due to security levels, he and his peers would eagerly volunteer if given the chance because no one else can execute them successfully. These types of precise, high-stakes missions represent the pinnacle of military capability but are often avoided in favor of drawn-out campaigns that allow for sustained funding and political maneuvering. The discussion shifts to an analysis of Donald Trump's leadership style during his first term, with the SEAL revealing a surprising perspective on how he avoids conflict despite his bombastic public persona. The speaker recounts instances where operations were canceled at the last minute after phone calls from the President, who seemingly worked out diplomatic solutions without needing to engage in direct military action. While many fear Trump might be "crazy" enough to press nuclear buttons or run for a third term, the SEAL counters that he has actually avoided more conflicts than any other leader his unit served under. The speaker suggests this is partly because Trump's unpredictable and gregarious nature makes him appear dangerous; adversaries believe the threat of escalation so strongly that they back down without needing actual aggression, effectively making the President "crazy enough" to be effective rather than reckless. Ultimately, the interview concludes with a reflection on how much conflict avoidance goes unrecorded because leaders do not flex or boast about de-escalating situations, causing these achievements to get lost in the ether. The SEAL emphasizes that effectiveness matters most and praises Trump for resolving issues quietly without losing sleep over them, trusting his military forces implicitly enough to simply say "send them" before moving on with other tasks like getting cheeseburgers served. This approach highlights a stark contrast between public perception of political figures as warmongers and the reality of their strategic restraint, while also underscoring the difficulty modern militaries face in adhering to restrictive rules of engagement against enemies who operate without such constraints.
Read the full video transcript
I wonder whether or not the modern world
is incompatible with
some of the ugly things that need to
happen in war.
>> Mhm.
>> [gasps]
>> Anybody who's been in Afghanistan,
anybody who's been in Iraq or any of the
wars, they know. If we really wanted to
win that war,
we could win it fast.
They don't want us to win it fast. I
don't know who doesn't.
>> Tell me more about this. What do you
mean?
>> If you grabbed all the Five Eyes, so
US, UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand,
if you just grabbed us and dropped us
into Iraq and said you have 6 months to
close out the entire thing, could we?
100%.
They don't want us to and I think that's
for a bunch of different reasons, but
one of them is you don't want to see
what that actually looks like. Like you
don't want to watch special operations
and all of this the the whole military
might push through Fallujah and clear it
all out. They don't want to see what
clearing Fallujah actually means. Like
when you hear the Marines cleared
Fallujah, they don't know what that
means.
>> What does it mean?
>> They went door to door and killed every
single male that was still there.
Everybody who's willing to fight, they
killed them all. That's how you clear
the village.
>> Huh.
>> So, they gave them told them the time,
get out by this day, if not, we're
pushing through and anybody who's left
to fight, we're going to kill.
>> Huh.
>> And that's what they did.
That's how you do it.
People don't want to see that. People
don't want to live that. They don't want
to realize that's the reality. So, all
your grandfathers who fought in World
War II, I promise you they weren't
handing out Hershey kisses and
handshakes.
It's not what they did. They did
flamethrowers, for God's sake.
You think they're giving us a
flamethrower now?
>> Huh.
>> No.
>> Huh.
>> We can't even use claymore mines.
There's a whole bunch of stuff we used
to use back in the day and because it's
now it's too cruel and unusual,
Geneva Convention threw it out. A bunch
of munitions you can't use, rounds you
can't shoot people with, a bunch of
different weird stuff.
>> Is that being adhered to by the other
side?
>> No.
No, they're
blowing you up, they're doing whatever
they want to. Suicide vest on children
like
they do whatever they want to.
That makes it very, very hard to fight.
So, for you, you run in,
you're a dad, you're a husband, you're a
friend, you're an uncle, little kids all
around. You have no idea if they have a
suicide vest on. Now, are they holding
grenades for their You have no idea.
It really makes you
lose trust in people.
Cuz now you don't know.
As soon as you drop your guard, one
thing happens. You're like, "I'll never
let that happen again."
Technology advances. You get new pieces
of tech, and now you can see through
clothing. You can buy down the risk a
little bit, but they get very, very
smart.
It's just smart bombs they try to sneak
through TSA all the time.
They understand exactly what we're
trying to do.
And you're trying to counter it every
single day.
>> How frustrating is that as someone whose
life's on the line and also is trying to
dedicate their career to doing this
well?
>> It's a big cat and mouse game.
I move my piece here, you move your
piece here.
>> just you've kind of accepted this as a
cost of doing business that you're going
to have to adhere by a set of rules that
the other side doesn't have to. You're
not allowed to pick the ball up, you
have to kick it.
>> Yes.
>> But they're allowed to pick it up and
run with it.
>> Mhm.
It's exactly how it is.
It's like, "Do you really want us to
win, or do you really want us to engage
in this 20-year war because of
all the technological advancements that
have come out of that war? Advancements
in armament, ISR platforms, body armor,
life-saving medical devices." But
really, war creates a lot of money.
A lot of people became billionaires
really, really fast because of the war.
>> Mhm.
>> all these companies sprung up and
Raytheon, Boeing, everybody is involved.
Everybody's making just piles and piles
of money.
>> And he's saying that
uh
protracting out
uh extending uh an enmeshment between
two different sides, that's the sort of
thing that would continue to grease the
wheels of that.
And
blasting through quickly would end the
money printer.
>> Yeah, I mean, [snorts] it's like what
It's like what Trump's doing in Iran
right now. He doesn't want to be in
there for 20 years. I want to go in, I
want to smash you, show you I'm not
going to take this [ __ ] anymore, and
then I want to leave.
>> Mhm.
>> Is it going to work? I have no idea.
We've never tried it before. We always
get put in these long drawn out
conflicts that we know you don't need
to.
>> What would you do if you wanted to end
the war in Iran quickly?
>> Well, you don't know what I'd do.
>> Come on, you're allowed to This is
hypothetical only. We're playing Sydney
as civilizations. Um
you need to end it quickly.
>> Nobody's going to like my answer.
It just not. It's not.
If I say one thing, then I'm on the
Israel side. If I say this, I'm against
it.
>> Okay, let's let's forget that. Let's
forget that. Let's say uh imaginary
country
>> Mhm.
>> in somewhere that's in the Middle East.
It doesn't exist.
>> Are they building nuclear weapons?
>> Sure.
>> going to use them?
>> Sure.
>> And we know they have them.
>> Sure.
Press the button.
>> Mhm.
Yeah.
There's no other way.
Use them.
>> Yeah.
>> You get drawn into a 20-year campaign
doing the entire thing, or all the
countries all come into alignment like
we can't let this happen. We can't.
We can't.
Everybody in agreement? Okay.
Can't do it anymore.
>> And what if you What if that's not a
threat?
>> [sighs]
>> How would it not be a threat?
>> It would They don't have it. They don't
have the materials. They're not able to
make it. The nuclear
uh armaments on the other side is not a
concern. It seems to me like if you're
unable to use that un- unless you can
drop the uh Fat Man equivalent. Uh
then it becomes a much more difficult
operation because then it does look a
lot more like presumably door-to-door
stuff.
>> Or you could just fly in Black Ops with
some really cool dudes in multicam and
snatch your president out of their house
in the middle of the night and call it a
day.
>> That's happened recently.
>> [laughter]
>> Pretty cool job.
>> Do you know much about did you do you
would excited sort of tracking that?
>> Oh, I was No, but
nobody jumped up faster out of the chair
and cheered than I did. I was so stoked
for him. That is a That's a cool op to
do.
>> Why?
>> Snatch the president out of his house in
the middle of the night. Like no one
else is pulling that off. Nobody.
Do you think anybody's going to fly a
Black Hawk and land in the White House
lawn and running and grab Donald Trump
and bring him out?
No.
>> I think lots of people have probably
thought about doing that.
>> Nobody's going to pull that off.
Nobody's pulling that off. That That is
a unicorn raid.
>> Are you
Yeah, are you surprised by
what was done, what you know about how
it was done?
>> No.
>> Pretty standard procedure.
Just done at a very, very elite, precise
level.
>> Mhm.
It's what they do.
It's what they do. Everybody Everybody
who was involved in it was like me and
everybody else who ever did that job.
You are praying that that is going to
happen.
You're praying
>> Super Bowl.
>> Oh my god. If If you had an opportunity
and I promise you they'd all say the
same No, and they'd say the same thing.
Right now, you want to be on the helo?
Yep, cut off a finger. Done.
I'd cut it off right now, jump on helo,
and I
>> [laughter]
>> 100%
Yeah.
I mean, that's the only reason you're on
the planet. You want to do things like
that because no one else can pull them
off.
>> Mhm.
>> It is, but it shows the
really the strength in military.
Like he will do it. He will.
[clears throat]
My last My last rotation was Trump's
first one.
And
I don't know what he says on those phone
calls.
I don't know how he he avoids conflict
and I think everybody thinks he just
wants to go to war, wants to go to war.
We got spun up on a really big op that
I'm not going to talk about, so don't
ask me. He canceled us on the ramp. We
were getting ready to jump in and send
it and they canceled us on the ramp
because he worked it out with a phone
call.
I don't know what he says. I don't know
what he does, but he does something.
Probably says something like, "Don't
make me do it."
"I'll do it. Don't make me."
Somehow they come to their senses and
somehow they solve it.
>> That's one of the
like kind of catch-22s of having
a
a leader who seems to be at least
somewhat predictable and a bit bombastic
that
you he actually might press the button.
>> Yeah.
>> Like you know,
uh people are
uh severely concerned that he might run
for a third term.
Right? That would be kind of the
domestic equivalent of doing this. But
even the fact that you think that he
might be the sort of guy that would go
for a third term.
That's internally.
And what do you think he would do to
someone that's the enemy?
And I
I don't know whether anybody on the
planet has the IQ
to play like seven-dimensional chess of
I'm going to construct this incredibly
unpredictable, very gregarious, outgoing
guy who seems to say things that almost
might be like a WWE character if they
were the president. And then what that
means by playing that game is that
people will believe that I'm going to be
like that so that then I don't actually
need to use the threat because they
believe the threat more, not because
they think that I'm aggressive, but
because they think that I'm kind of
crazy.
>> Mhm.
>> I mean
>> That's what I don't realize.
Is he crazy or is he just crazy enough
to make you believe he'll really do it?
>> Yeah.
>> Or crazy or genius is is the question.
>> It's hard to know. But I mean, you know,
we said
>> Effective is what matters most, right?
>> Effective. He's avoided more conflicts
than
anybody I ever served under.
He just has.
If people knew the amount of conflicts
he's avoided, they'd give him more
praise than I do.
>> But he's not able to talk about them.
>> He just doesn't. I don't know why not.
>> You would think that it would be
something that he could flex. That he
would be able to talk about this is how
close we got to this thing. We have come
to a deal. Da da da da da.
>> I think he's done that so many times,
it's just lost in the ether. Like he
didn't even think about it.
>> It's just a Thursday.
>> Yeah, he's like, "Eh."
Like the Homeworld thing, I think.
He's like, "Yeah, send them."
Do I think he lost sleep over that? No.
>> [laughter]
>> I mean, like he has full trust and
confidence in the force. Yeah, you You
know what? I'm sick of it. Send them.
Knox, my great job.
Get them all cheeseburgers and
Yep, see you guys on Tuesday.
>> Most people don't realize how much being
dehydrated impacts their performance,
which is why for the last 5 years, I've
started pretty much every morning with
Element. Element is a tasty electrolyte
drink mix with everything that you need
and nothing that you don't. This orange
salt in a cold glass of water is like a
sweet, salty, orangey nectar. And I
really tell the difference when I take
it versus when I don't. It plays a
critical role in reducing muscle cramps
and fatigue, helps to optimize brain
health, and regulates your appetite
while also curbing cravings. Best of
all, they have a no questions asked
refund policy with an unlimited
duration, so you can buy it and try it
for as long as you want. And if you
don't like it for any reason, they'll
just give you your money back. Plus,
they offer free shipping in the US.
Right now, you can get a free sample
pack of Element's most popular flavors
with your first purchase by going to the
link in the description below or heading
to
That's drinklmn t.com /
modern wisdom.
Congratulations, you made it to the end
of a clip, and the full-length episode
is available
right here.
Go on.