Battles aren't one solely on the field. That's a common misconception. Battles are one within over enemies or fear, enemies of doubt, promises to one's self, promises to one's country. In the heart of every marine, you will find a promise, a promise forever kept, A promise of battles one.

Battles aren't one solely on the field. That's a common misconception. Battles are one within over enemies or fear, enemies of doubt, promises to one's self, promises to one's country. In the heart of every marine, you will find a promise, a promise forever kept, A promise of battles one.

This is the story of a soldier who operates your nation's patriot missile defense systems. It begins in California with a little girl raised by two moms. Although I had a fairly typical child hood, took ballet, played violin.

This is the story of a soldier who operates your nation's patriot missile defense systems. It begins in California with a little girl raised by two moms. Although I had a fairly typical child hood, took ballet, played violin.

I also marched for equality.

I also marched for equality.

I like to think I've been defending freedom from an early age. I needed my own adventures, my own challenge, and after meeting with an Armored recruiter, I found it a way to prove my inner strength and maybe shatter some stereotypes along the way. I'm US Army Corporal EMM Alonelord, and I answered my calling.

I like to think I've been defending freedom from an early age. I needed my own adventures, my own challenge, and after meeting with an Armored recruiter, I found it a way to prove my inner strength and maybe shatter some stereotypes along the way. I'm US Army Corporal EMM Alonelord, and I answered my calling.

On this episode of The Newts World, Forget everything you think you know about American military culture. In their new book Woke Warriors, How the Left is Destroying America is about to fight and win its wars, authors Andrew and Katie Tcherkowski describe how the US military, America's most powerful and stif as morphed into America's most woke industrial complex. From diversity, equity and inclusion policies to social justice reform, preferred pronouns, and removal of tests of skill, the US military is hardly recognizable to many who knew it even two decades ago. More than that, dedicated service members are losing their careers, their retirements, and in some cases, their freedom as a result of this drastic cultural shift. Here to talk about their new book, I'm really pleased to welcome my guests, Andrew and Katie Tcherkaski. They are both former federal prosecutors, veterans of the US Air Force, where they served as judge advocate general officers prosecuting the military's most serious fundly crimes. They now run their own civil rights and criminal defense law firm, Golden Law. Andrew and Katie, welcome and thank you for joining me the News world.

On this episode of The Newts World, Forget everything you think you know about American military culture. In their new book Woke Warriors, How the Left is Destroying America is about to fight and win its wars, authors Andrew and Katie Tcherkowski describe how the US military, America's most powerful and stif as morphed into America's most woke industrial complex. From diversity, equity and inclusion policies to social justice reform, preferred pronouns, and removal of tests of skill, the US military is hardly recognizable to many who knew it even two decades ago. More than that, dedicated service members are losing their careers, their retirements, and in some cases, their freedom as a result of this drastic cultural shift. Here to talk about their new book, I'm really pleased to welcome my guests, Andrew and Katie Tcherkaski. They are both former federal prosecutors, veterans of the US Air Force, where they served as judge advocate general officers prosecuting the military's most serious fundly crimes. They now run their own civil rights and criminal defense law firm, Golden Law. Andrew and Katie, welcome and thank you for joining me the News world.

Thank you for having us. It's very good to be with you.

Thank you for having us. It's very good to be with you.

You know.

You know.

First, I want to thank you both for your service to our country. You were writing as veterans people who've served and people who are passionately committed to defending America. You were lawyers for the Air Force. What was that like, k of was it to serve in the Air Force?

First, I want to thank you both for your service to our country. You were writing as veterans people who've served and people who are passionately committed to defending America. You were lawyers for the Air Force. What was that like, k of was it to serve in the Air Force?

Well, it was a great opportunity. We both became officers right after law school. We had many options that were kind of available for us, and we decided instead to serve. It was the middle two thousands, during our war on terrorism. We were both inspired by kind of the sense of patriotism, but also a very unique way to begin legal careers, and so to be able to combine the ability to serve with the legal education that we had had, we thought that was a really neat opportunity and we both gained so much from it. We have been all over the world thanks to our time in the service and have put away some bad people as prosecutors in the military, making sure that the interests of command and good order and discipline were adhered to. But we've also had the unique opportunity to defend thousands of military members individually who have gone through tough times and we're facing issues in the military, so we're deeply integrated in the community. We've visited over one hundred and twenty military bases, around the world, and we still are on military bases almost every week helping individual service members out with one thing or another.

Well, it was a great opportunity. We both became officers right after law school. We had many options that were kind of available for us, and we decided instead to serve. It was the middle two thousands, during our war on terrorism. We were both inspired by kind of the sense of patriotism, but also a very unique way to begin legal careers, and so to be able to combine the ability to serve with the legal education that we had had, we thought that was a really neat opportunity and we both gained so much from it. We have been all over the world thanks to our time in the service and have put away some bad people as prosecutors in the military, making sure that the interests of command and good order and discipline were adhered to. But we've also had the unique opportunity to defend thousands of military members individually who have gone through tough times and we're facing issues in the military, so we're deeply integrated in the community. We've visited over one hundred and twenty military bases, around the world, and we still are on military bases almost every week helping individual service members out with one thing or another.

How competitive was it to become a JAG officer.

How competitive was it to become a JAG officer.

Well, I don't know that I have the stats on that, but I know that it is a very coveted position and the reason for that. As a lawyer, I think is that you get a great amount of litigation opportunity as a very junior attorney, So it's very unique in that sense.

Well, I don't know that I have the stats on that, but I know that it is a very coveted position and the reason for that. As a lawyer, I think is that you get a great amount of litigation opportunity as a very junior attorney, So it's very unique in that sense.

You get to be a prosecutor.

You get to be a prosecutor.

Well this is again, of course before things really shifted, but even as a young prosecutor, you could make decisions about cases that you took forward in addition to dealing with a lot of operational type stuff helping base commanders make decisions and review legal issues that come up just operationally. So it was a very amazing experience and gives you just boots on the ground experience as a lawyer right out of law school.

Well this is again, of course before things really shifted, but even as a young prosecutor, you could make decisions about cases that you took forward in addition to dealing with a lot of operational type stuff helping base commanders make decisions and review legal issues that come up just operationally. So it was a very amazing experience and gives you just boots on the ground experience as a lawyer right out of law school.

When did you first begin to see the changes in the military that you write about.

When did you first begin to see the changes in the military that you write about.

I think that we both came and certainly I came into the military wide eyed and ready to go during the War on terrorism, like I said, and so I had no real baseline to be critical of the military. I was the type of young officer that really worked as well and as hard as I could for every senior ranking officer that gave me orders and tried my best to help support the troops that were below me in any sort of way. And so as I became a senior prosecutor, the military saw the country's first wave of the me too movement, and there was a lot of complaints going through Congress about the way that the military was handling the prosecution of sexual assault cases specifically. Now I was there, I saw it. We were doing a fine job of it. I thought that a lot of justice was being done. I thought that tough cases were being taken to trial and others that we didn't have the baseline to do it didn't go to trial, even though some people may have been disappointed about that, But I saw us doing good work at the time. And then I saw how Congress started to change the laws and the political pressures started to mount during the Obama administration to prosecute service members in a very unjust way, and so I saw the wokeness really start to hit in the early twenty tens with the significant increase attention that was paid, especially to some of the gender dynamic and the sexual assault error. But wokeness really goes much further back. I think that you can pinpoint many different points along the way, but a lot of that was meaningful progress. I guess we could say at this time there's important steps where you kind of have to decide between whether it was progress or whether things went too far. But now looking hindsight, we can really see that the Obama administration is where things started to go kind of wild with wokeness and has led to a really difficult place now for the surface members in our country at large.

I think that we both came and certainly I came into the military wide eyed and ready to go during the War on terrorism, like I said, and so I had no real baseline to be critical of the military. I was the type of young officer that really worked as well and as hard as I could for every senior ranking officer that gave me orders and tried my best to help support the troops that were below me in any sort of way. And so as I became a senior prosecutor, the military saw the country's first wave of the me too movement, and there was a lot of complaints going through Congress about the way that the military was handling the prosecution of sexual assault cases specifically. Now I was there, I saw it. We were doing a fine job of it. I thought that a lot of justice was being done. I thought that tough cases were being taken to trial and others that we didn't have the baseline to do it didn't go to trial, even though some people may have been disappointed about that, But I saw us doing good work at the time. And then I saw how Congress started to change the laws and the political pressures started to mount during the Obama administration to prosecute service members in a very unjust way, and so I saw the wokeness really start to hit in the early twenty tens with the significant increase attention that was paid, especially to some of the gender dynamic and the sexual assault error. But wokeness really goes much further back. I think that you can pinpoint many different points along the way, but a lot of that was meaningful progress. I guess we could say at this time there's important steps where you kind of have to decide between whether it was progress or whether things went too far. But now looking hindsight, we can really see that the Obama administration is where things started to go kind of wild with wokeness and has led to a really difficult place now for the surface members in our country at large.

What fact is that headed in the military in terms of its capability.

What fact is that headed in the military in terms of its capability.

Well, talking day in and day out, we represent military members who are facing criminal or administrative issues in the military, and what we see just on our individual basis dealing with clients is how much effort and resources go into essentially prioritizing these very woke policies, these very far left progressive policies, prioritizing that over what you might think is more important, like elevating people who are really high performers. They will take people out of the workforce altogether. If somebody makes a complaint that they felt offended by a commander, for example, And it's no exaggeration to say that that takes all priority over operational needs from our perspective, and we have clients that run the gamut from the most senior ranking officers down to privates, and so we know exactly what the impact is when these people are removed from their jobs for things that would never have gone on in the past in the military.

Well, talking day in and day out, we represent military members who are facing criminal or administrative issues in the military, and what we see just on our individual basis dealing with clients is how much effort and resources go into essentially prioritizing these very woke policies, these very far left progressive policies, prioritizing that over what you might think is more important, like elevating people who are really high performers. They will take people out of the workforce altogether. If somebody makes a complaint that they felt offended by a commander, for example, And it's no exaggeration to say that that takes all priority over operational needs from our perspective, and we have clients that run the gamut from the most senior ranking officers down to privates, and so we know exactly what the impact is when these people are removed from their jobs for things that would never have gone on in the past in the military.

But that's the number one focus.

But that's the number one focus.

Leadership knows that their positions, especially at the general officer level, are at the behest of congress, so they will toe the line and go along with all of these initiatives in order to appease the leadership. They don't want to be the ones to say that somebody's lying or somebody's exaggerating something against their boss. It's easier to just run these through all these investigative processes. So you're taking really important people from across the entire spectrum of the chain of command out of the workforce, essentially in order to appease the political howers that be.

Leadership knows that their positions, especially at the general officer level, are at the behest of congress, so they will toe the line and go along with all of these initiatives in order to appease the leadership. They don't want to be the ones to say that somebody's lying or somebody's exaggerating something against their boss. It's easier to just run these through all these investigative processes. So you're taking really important people from across the entire spectrum of the chain of command out of the workforce, essentially in order to appease the political howers that be.

From our perspective, I mean, I was an Army brad my dead'smand twenty six years in the infantry so I grew up in a world where we actually thought the purpose of the military was to fight and win wars.

From our perspective, I mean, I was an Army brad my dead'smand twenty six years in the infantry so I grew up in a world where we actually thought the purpose of the military was to fight and win wars.

Exactly. We thought that too.

Exactly. We thought that too.

One of the things that's very striking is that in twenty fifteen, and this is during the Obama administration, the US Marine Corps released the results of a year long study on Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force looking at women in combat units, and the study concluded that all male units outperformed mixed gender units across the board, that female marines were slower, less accurate with weapons, and had more injuries than men. That must have been politically totally inappropriate.

One of the things that's very striking is that in twenty fifteen, and this is during the Obama administration, the US Marine Corps released the results of a year long study on Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force looking at women in combat units, and the study concluded that all male units outperformed mixed gender units across the board, that female marines were slower, less accurate with weapons, and had more injuries than men. That must have been politically totally inappropriate.

It's interesting how that situation happened. There was a mandate from the Department of Defense during the Obama administration to effectively integrate ma and female individuals into combat units. The Army, the Navy, and the Air Force all just said okay. The Marine Corps sought an exception to these combined infantry units, and so they conducted this study, and the study showed overwhelmingly that male units outperformed mixed gender units.

It's interesting how that situation happened. There was a mandate from the Department of Defense during the Obama administration to effectively integrate ma and female individuals into combat units. The Army, the Navy, and the Air Force all just said okay. The Marine Corps sought an exception to these combined infantry units, and so they conducted this study, and the study showed overwhelmingly that male units outperformed mixed gender units.

Well.

Well.

In the end, it turns out that they submit that report with a strong recommendation from a Marine general that they maintain all male units to make sure that our combat fighting force remains as lethal as possible. That was rejected by the Obama administration, and instead of adhering to and following the guidance that came with this very detailed study, they essentially discontinued and disallowed all future studies measuring the effectiveness of a mixed gender combat unit. So you can see, when you don't have statistics anymore, you don't have to respond to them. They simply close their eyes to the issues that are created In our book, we're looking at what makes the United States military the strongest, winning and fighting the nation's wars. We have to win, and if we aren't measuring the successful ways to do that through objective measures, we're just throwing money at an issue, thinking that our social policies are somehow going to save the country when we need lethal, deadly force when needed.

In the end, it turns out that they submit that report with a strong recommendation from a Marine general that they maintain all male units to make sure that our combat fighting force remains as lethal as possible. That was rejected by the Obama administration, and instead of adhering to and following the guidance that came with this very detailed study, they essentially discontinued and disallowed all future studies measuring the effectiveness of a mixed gender combat unit. So you can see, when you don't have statistics anymore, you don't have to respond to them. They simply close their eyes to the issues that are created In our book, we're looking at what makes the United States military the strongest, winning and fighting the nation's wars. We have to win, and if we aren't measuring the successful ways to do that through objective measures, we're just throwing money at an issue, thinking that our social policies are somehow going to save the country when we need lethal, deadly force when needed.

From your perspective, looking at everything you're looking at, how concerned are you that we actually might have combat and capable units. To what extent are you worried about that problem?

From your perspective, looking at everything you're looking at, how concerned are you that we actually might have combat and capable units. To what extent are you worried about that problem?

I think it's just from a practical standpoint, when you look at the amount of man hours that are going into training on these what we would call walk issues when you're looking at the fact that you're turning a blind eye to merit based promotions and you're instead looking at identity based promotions to make sure that people are happy and that everybody feels included. I think for all practical purposes, there's no way that that doesn't impact your operational readiness. And there is a Marine general who spoke out after the integration of the combat units that said our future enemies will be the arbiters of such decisions.

I think it's just from a practical standpoint, when you look at the amount of man hours that are going into training on these what we would call walk issues when you're looking at the fact that you're turning a blind eye to merit based promotions and you're instead looking at identity based promotions to make sure that people are happy and that everybody feels included. I think for all practical purposes, there's no way that that doesn't impact your operational readiness. And there is a Marine general who spoke out after the integration of the combat units that said our future enemies will be the arbiters of such decisions.

So ultimately, at.

So ultimately, at.

This point, the leadership under the Biden administration wants to say that the diversity and wolf policies will make us quote unquote stronger, but they offer no substantive support of that, and in fact, all of the time that goes into pushing these policies and the ignoring of the objective factors and performance metrics, there's really no way to say for sure until it may be too late. And I think it's pretty obvious that it will have some measurable impact on our operational performance.

This point, the leadership under the Biden administration wants to say that the diversity and wolf policies will make us quote unquote stronger, but they offer no substantive support of that, and in fact, all of the time that goes into pushing these policies and the ignoring of the objective factors and performance metrics, there's really no way to say for sure until it may be too late. And I think it's pretty obvious that it will have some measurable impact on our operational performance.

And we'll add to that briefly that as deadly as our fighting forces are today and as effective as many of our units are, it's a question of how much money and resources, how big the military has to become to support a couple of units that are productive or that have the efficiency needed to get the job done. So it's a multifaceted issue. Still a very effective United States military, but it could be far more effective.

And we'll add to that briefly that as deadly as our fighting forces are today and as effective as many of our units are, it's a question of how much money and resources, how big the military has to become to support a couple of units that are productive or that have the efficiency needed to get the job done. So it's a multifaceted issue. Still a very effective United States military, but it could be far more effective.

Part of this problem, of course, is that the psychology of the Defense Department, of the psychology of the services gets reflected into the culture at large, and don't we now have the largest shortfall in recruiting that we've had in modern times.

Part of this problem, of course, is that the psychology of the Defense Department, of the psychology of the services gets reflected into the culture at large, and don't we now have the largest shortfall in recruiting that we've had in modern times.

That's exactly right. It is a recruiting crisis. I see it when I go to the military basis all the time. We just see the overall quality of what it appears to be in For example, I was on a naval base earlier this week. They've let go of basically all dress and appearance standards, meaning that the way in which the PT abilities of sailors. They don't discharge folks anymore for failures on basic PT guidelines. So we have a tremendous issue with our recruiting. But we have to look at what the military is saying. The overall fighting force is to understand who is and isn't coming in. I mean, there is kind of an attitude about the military of there being a nature of a good old boys type of scenario. These are people who are interested in infantry, interested in war, interested in one of the oldest professions there is in humanity. And so there is a lot of nobility in the history of civilization to being a soldier to fighting wars. But now we've kind of shifted the military into essentially the socialist kind of institution. People are coming in for the social policies. That was very criticized in the aftermath of the Gulf War in the nineties and when the army had put so much into essentially creating a socialist type program where they're not just supporting the troops, but they're supporting the families at large. There was a lot of criticis way back then noting that families were relying too heavily on the social programs of the army as opposed to basically anybody else in our country and the working force, and how families have to get their way through. And so that's early nineties that there's criticism, and now you look at what we have today and the military has turned into full socialist type policies and programs, with the way that they treat families and the extent to which military members themselves are accommodated for all of their various complaints and desires that they have. And I'm not saying that we shouldn't fully support our troops, but we have to look at what it means to and how much it costs to support our troops through the lens of these wildly progressive policies that the left seems to want to push on the military as being that which they define as supporting our troops. There's other ways that we support our troops besides socialist programs.

That's exactly right. It is a recruiting crisis. I see it when I go to the military basis all the time. We just see the overall quality of what it appears to be in For example, I was on a naval base earlier this week. They've let go of basically all dress and appearance standards, meaning that the way in which the PT abilities of sailors. They don't discharge folks anymore for failures on basic PT guidelines. So we have a tremendous issue with our recruiting. But we have to look at what the military is saying. The overall fighting force is to understand who is and isn't coming in. I mean, there is kind of an attitude about the military of there being a nature of a good old boys type of scenario. These are people who are interested in infantry, interested in war, interested in one of the oldest professions there is in humanity. And so there is a lot of nobility in the history of civilization to being a soldier to fighting wars. But now we've kind of shifted the military into essentially the socialist kind of institution. People are coming in for the social policies. That was very criticized in the aftermath of the Gulf War in the nineties and when the army had put so much into essentially creating a socialist type program where they're not just supporting the troops, but they're supporting the families at large. There was a lot of criticis way back then noting that families were relying too heavily on the social programs of the army as opposed to basically anybody else in our country and the working force, and how families have to get their way through. And so that's early nineties that there's criticism, and now you look at what we have today and the military has turned into full socialist type policies and programs, with the way that they treat families and the extent to which military members themselves are accommodated for all of their various complaints and desires that they have. And I'm not saying that we shouldn't fully support our troops, but we have to look at what it means to and how much it costs to support our troops through the lens of these wildly progressive policies that the left seems to want to push on the military as being that which they define as supporting our troops. There's other ways that we support our troops besides socialist programs.

You also draw a very amazing interest between a Russian military recruitment ad and what we're currently doing in the US. Can you describe the difference in the two recruiting styles right?

You also draw a very amazing interest between a Russian military recruitment ad and what we're currently doing in the US. Can you describe the difference in the two recruiting styles right?

Well, Russia had released an ad that essentially was like the quintessential masculine ideal of war fighting really strong individuals, rock music, blaring, and he said, I think it even says at the end, you're a real man, be you on or something like that, in order to entice people to join the fight, join the force. I mean, they're in ground warfare. They need to recruit people who can literally fight. In contrast, the US military, with the exception of the Army, because they actually came out later and kind of tried to mirror the Russian AD, has come out with these policies or these I guess recruitment programs that are tailored at individual identity based type conduct, which is interesting. But the idea of the military is literally that you are not an individual in many respects, that you're there as one team, one fight, and so the idea of kind of hoisting up certain identities and saying everyone's special and unique in your own way, and we need to honor you, that doesn't really work with the idea of what the military's purpose is. So even though that's the popular progressive thing to say, it's not working to recruit people because the people who want to fight are people who are traditionally drawn to I guess you could call it like a masculine identity of some sort, but you need people that have that mentality in an actual war set situation.

Well, Russia had released an ad that essentially was like the quintessential masculine ideal of war fighting really strong individuals, rock music, blaring, and he said, I think it even says at the end, you're a real man, be you on or something like that, in order to entice people to join the fight, join the force. I mean, they're in ground warfare. They need to recruit people who can literally fight. In contrast, the US military, with the exception of the Army, because they actually came out later and kind of tried to mirror the Russian AD, has come out with these policies or these I guess recruitment programs that are tailored at individual identity based type conduct, which is interesting. But the idea of the military is literally that you are not an individual in many respects, that you're there as one team, one fight, and so the idea of kind of hoisting up certain identities and saying everyone's special and unique in your own way, and we need to honor you, that doesn't really work with the idea of what the military's purpose is. So even though that's the popular progressive thing to say, it's not working to recruit people because the people who want to fight are people who are traditionally drawn to I guess you could call it like a masculine identity of some sort, but you need people that have that mentality in an actual war set situation.

So I think it was pretty funny.

So I think it was pretty funny.

The Army did eventually come out with an AD that was sort of similar to the Russia AD, like I mentioned, but it was kind of mocked online saying that, oh, it looks like the US is scared that they're going to war now because they were simply trying to actually get recruits.

The Army did eventually come out with an AD that was sort of similar to the Russia AD, like I mentioned, but it was kind of mocked online saying that, oh, it looks like the US is scared that they're going to war now because they were simply trying to actually get recruits.

That had that fighting mindset.

That had that fighting mindset.

So, I mean, I don't know what kind of games they're playing with this, because it is, like you said, a very simple mission to fight and win wars. And so that being said, a lot of military families don't want their kids to go into the military because they see how much it's changed and they don't want to voluntarily put their kids in that situation.

So, I mean, I don't know what kind of games they're playing with this, because it is, like you said, a very simple mission to fight and win wars. And so that being said, a lot of military families don't want their kids to go into the military because they see how much it's changed and they don't want to voluntarily put their kids in that situation.

The Marines used to sort of really focus on the fact that they wanted a few good people and that there was a great pride in the core in sort of being part of the core, not just being an individual.

The Marines used to sort of really focus on the fact that they wanted a few good people and that there was a great pride in the core in sort of being part of the core, not just being an individual.

Has that faded, it has faded, it's still there and there's still a real element to it. So I think that we want to make sure that it's known to the individual service members that we still see them as being particularly unique in terms of the dedication and the commitment they've made to fighting for our country. But the Marines today are a bit different. The way in which the Marine Corps has regulated itself over the years has led to certain instances of really terrible instances of hazing or other types of conduct that would be violative of the UCMJ and always has been, I mean, the idea of unlawful hazing or maltreatment of troops that has always been a part of the modern Uniform Code of Military Justice. But now you have this reality that when junior ranking individuals, even in the Marine corps, where there is not much tolerance for breaks in the chain of command or disrespect to the orders of those above you, we see that younger folks that junior ranking people are able to essentially go around the chain of command take control of a situation where maybe they're getting themselves in trouble, they've got some sort of issue coming their way, and all they have to do is say that they feel harassed or they feel singled out. They feel like their unique identity that's all self proclaimed, is being somehow infringed upon because they wanted to have pink hair, they want to be able to talk about their sexuality in the workplace, or that they don't like that they're getting some sort of attention from somebody who potentially they had given attention to. First. It turns into these high school type politics, and all a junior ranking person has to do is file a dei complaint against a supervisor, and it blows up the whole chain of command. Everything that had been happened, it becomes derailed, and this individual is able to go away Scott Friego where they want, oftentimes even getting a change of station to a new military base, simply because they said that that's what they.

Has that faded, it has faded, it's still there and there's still a real element to it. So I think that we want to make sure that it's known to the individual service members that we still see them as being particularly unique in terms of the dedication and the commitment they've made to fighting for our country. But the Marines today are a bit different. The way in which the Marine Corps has regulated itself over the years has led to certain instances of really terrible instances of hazing or other types of conduct that would be violative of the UCMJ and always has been, I mean, the idea of unlawful hazing or maltreatment of troops that has always been a part of the modern Uniform Code of Military Justice. But now you have this reality that when junior ranking individuals, even in the Marine corps, where there is not much tolerance for breaks in the chain of command or disrespect to the orders of those above you, we see that younger folks that junior ranking people are able to essentially go around the chain of command take control of a situation where maybe they're getting themselves in trouble, they've got some sort of issue coming their way, and all they have to do is say that they feel harassed or they feel singled out. They feel like their unique identity that's all self proclaimed, is being somehow infringed upon because they wanted to have pink hair, they want to be able to talk about their sexuality in the workplace, or that they don't like that they're getting some sort of attention from somebody who potentially they had given attention to. First. It turns into these high school type politics, and all a junior ranking person has to do is file a dei complaint against a supervisor, and it blows up the whole chain of command. Everything that had been happened, it becomes derailed, and this individual is able to go away Scott Friego where they want, oftentimes even getting a change of station to a new military base, simply because they said that that's what they.

Want in order to make the situation go away.

Want in order to make the situation go away.

Historically, basic training was a very tough you know, tear down the civilian and rebuild them as a soldier or a marine or whatever. To what extent has this dramatically weakened the very concept of basic training.

Historically, basic training was a very tough you know, tear down the civilian and rebuild them as a soldier or a marine or whatever. To what extent has this dramatically weakened the very concept of basic training.

Well, like Andy was just saying, a big part of what's happened in basic training all the way through any part of active duty that reserves, any branch of the service. The weaponization of these complaints systems allows for essentially like a out of jail free card regardless of where you are or if you feel offended or if you feel harassed.

Well, like Andy was just saying, a big part of what's happened in basic training all the way through any part of active duty that reserves, any branch of the service. The weaponization of these complaints systems allows for essentially like a out of jail free card regardless of where you are or if you feel offended or if you feel harassed.

And these are very subjective terms, and the military treats them all like it's the gospel. So it's very much an open.

And these are very subjective terms, and the military treats them all like it's the gospel. So it's very much an open.

Secret that anybody can complain and take down the entire chain of command for whatever reason, and.

Secret that anybody can complain and take down the entire chain of command for whatever reason, and.

So you have time out cards.

So you have time out cards.

There's time out.

There's time out.

Cards at boot camp now because they're worried about offending people.

Cards at boot camp now because they're worried about offending people.

And this again comes from the very top.

And this again comes from the very top.

And that's the problem, is that the leadership is the ones pushing this because again their careers are on the line. That's another thing we discussed in the book is kind of how some of this the congressional pressure was a significant part of this, and so now at this point, the chain of command is just totally hands off. They know what the marching orders are from the Pentagon and from the White House, and they do not want to get involved. They're not going to tell somebody that they think that their complaint is illegitimate, because then that will trigger all of the victim's lobbies to go to Congress and complain that people are being bullied. And so it's a very political situation. And even at the very lowest levels, and it's widely known, and so even at basic training and beyond, it's very easy to not do what's expected of you or what we would think happens there.

And that's the problem, is that the leadership is the ones pushing this because again their careers are on the line. That's another thing we discussed in the book is kind of how some of this the congressional pressure was a significant part of this, and so now at this point, the chain of command is just totally hands off. They know what the marching orders are from the Pentagon and from the White House, and they do not want to get involved. They're not going to tell somebody that they think that their complaint is illegitimate, because then that will trigger all of the victim's lobbies to go to Congress and complain that people are being bullied. And so it's a very political situation. And even at the very lowest levels, and it's widely known, and so even at basic training and beyond, it's very easy to not do what's expected of you or what we would think happens there.

I mean, it's sort of a hollowing out of the very core system of being an effective mantor that's right.

I mean, it's sort of a hollowing out of the very core system of being an effective mantor that's right.

I mean, I think that we have a perspective that the military has to take a deep reanalysis of what its policies and programs look like. What can we do to essentially reshape a military to remain the world's best in terms of a fighting force, but avoid it going down a path of wokeness, which we think has an underlying extremely negative effect on it. You can also just look at it from a numbers perspective. The amount of money that we spend on woke programs is quite outrageous. I think that the most outrageous dollar figure is that we spend on global warming. Billions of dollars we spend on global warming initiatives within the military, all to prevent the world from going up one degree by twenty fifty or whatever the varying priorities happen to be that year. From the global warming outrage community, when they're missing the point that if we lessen our military's fighting capabilities and in so doing our enemies end up dropping a nuclear weapon on the world with the one degree of global warming by twenty fifty happens to not be the priority anymore. So we've got to keep our eye on the prize. We have to make sure that everything, every dollar, every man hour that we're putting into the military is to make it the world's most lethal, not to make it the most huggable.

I mean, I think that we have a perspective that the military has to take a deep reanalysis of what its policies and programs look like. What can we do to essentially reshape a military to remain the world's best in terms of a fighting force, but avoid it going down a path of wokeness, which we think has an underlying extremely negative effect on it. You can also just look at it from a numbers perspective. The amount of money that we spend on woke programs is quite outrageous. I think that the most outrageous dollar figure is that we spend on global warming. Billions of dollars we spend on global warming initiatives within the military, all to prevent the world from going up one degree by twenty fifty or whatever the varying priorities happen to be that year. From the global warming outrage community, when they're missing the point that if we lessen our military's fighting capabilities and in so doing our enemies end up dropping a nuclear weapon on the world with the one degree of global warming by twenty fifty happens to not be the priority anymore. So we've got to keep our eye on the prize. We have to make sure that everything, every dollar, every man hour that we're putting into the military is to make it the world's most lethal, not to make it the most huggable.

You know, you've begun to see universities, for example, eliminating their diversity, equity and inclusion offices, some of which turn out to be quite expensive. To what extent should the next administration come in and just simply eliminate all of the DEI programs in the Defense Department?

You know, you've begun to see universities, for example, eliminating their diversity, equity and inclusion offices, some of which turn out to be quite expensive. To what extent should the next administration come in and just simply eliminate all of the DEI programs in the Defense Department?

Well, I think that would be the first step.

Well, I think that would be the first step.

And even under President Trump, there was a significant amount of policies that were different that did not prioritize these programs, that spanned everything from transgender care to even the sexual harassment type regulations. So I think it's a big part is from the administration and from the president themselves.

And even under President Trump, there was a significant amount of policies that were different that did not prioritize these programs, that spanned everything from transgender care to even the sexual harassment type regulations. So I think it's a big part is from the administration and from the president themselves.

For sure.

For sure.

The military has a lot of different programs that kind of fall under the wide range of what we call DEI programs. So while they have like an actual DEI department, there's also other programs that are kind of couched as different names that also fall under that am bit. So it would take a lot of analysis of what is actually going on with those programs, with the personnel that are being used to push them forward, to understand why you do or don't need.

The military has a lot of different programs that kind of fall under the wide range of what we call DEI programs. So while they have like an actual DEI department, there's also other programs that are kind of couched as different names that also fall under that am bit. So it would take a lot of analysis of what is actually going on with those programs, with the personnel that are being used to push them forward, to understand why you do or don't need.

Some of those things.

Some of those things.

And I think it's a balance too, because obviously there's some virtue in certain things to try to eliminate certain harmful things or try to honor people in a certain way. That's not necessarily bad thing, but that's not what this is about. This is going way too far with way too much money, and with nothing to show for it from what we've seen as far as the operational abilities of the force. So I think that it's way too big of a department. That's another conversation altogether as well. But the money that goes into it can certainly be reassessed from the top down.

And I think it's a balance too, because obviously there's some virtue in certain things to try to eliminate certain harmful things or try to honor people in a certain way. That's not necessarily bad thing, but that's not what this is about. This is going way too far with way too much money, and with nothing to show for it from what we've seen as far as the operational abilities of the force. So I think that it's way too big of a department. That's another conversation altogether as well. But the money that goes into it can certainly be reassessed from the top down.

These systems are huge, and they're complicated, and you have people who spend their lifetime developing them, so that trying to fundamentally reshape the culture of the military back to war fighting would be a very wrenching experience. When you're a gigantic peacetime bureaucracy, you can hide a lot of failure and not face the consequences of things that don't work.

These systems are huge, and they're complicated, and you have people who spend their lifetime developing them, so that trying to fundamentally reshape the culture of the military back to war fighting would be a very wrenching experience. When you're a gigantic peacetime bureaucracy, you can hide a lot of failure and not face the consequences of things that don't work.

I think you're bringing up a very important point on culture and the way that our society, the way that culture changes over decades of time, because the military is so different today than it was in the mid two thousands, especially those guys in the Army during the stop loss programs during the War on Terrorism, where they were overseas for eighteen plus months fighting in a ruling war that was a ground war, hand to hand combat. They were seeing and they were seeing it through an extended amount of time, and there was a certain attitude, a certain gravitas about what it meant to be a soldier, what it meant to be a service member infantry, what it meant to be joining the military, even if you were in a profession like my own as a jag still being put into an extraordinarily dangerous situation in mass You know, it wasn't an occasional unit who's in a relatively combat oriented position like we might see today, but this was real combat. So it took fifteen years or so to see that culture shift swinging wildly to the left, with US now having drag show performances on military base is and transgenderism being a matter that many are thinking should absolutely be part of the military. I mean, we don't look at transgenderism as it being something that shouldn't be in the military because we have a judgment about whatever surgery takes place. It's because it's a phenomenal distraction to the mission at hand.

I think you're bringing up a very important point on culture and the way that our society, the way that culture changes over decades of time, because the military is so different today than it was in the mid two thousands, especially those guys in the Army during the stop loss programs during the War on Terrorism, where they were overseas for eighteen plus months fighting in a ruling war that was a ground war, hand to hand combat. They were seeing and they were seeing it through an extended amount of time, and there was a certain attitude, a certain gravitas about what it meant to be a soldier, what it meant to be a service member infantry, what it meant to be joining the military, even if you were in a profession like my own as a jag still being put into an extraordinarily dangerous situation in mass You know, it wasn't an occasional unit who's in a relatively combat oriented position like we might see today, but this was real combat. So it took fifteen years or so to see that culture shift swinging wildly to the left, with US now having drag show performances on military base is and transgenderism being a matter that many are thinking should absolutely be part of the military. I mean, we don't look at transgenderism as it being something that shouldn't be in the military because we have a judgment about whatever surgery takes place. It's because it's a phenomenal distraction to the mission at hand.

I mean, the folks.

I mean, the folks.

Who are going through transgender programs, it's a huge amount of money medically that now they're asking the federal government to pay for. It takes months, if not years to effectively go through such procedures to become deployable again. And so we have a total distraction, and we're welcoming it like it's the Holy Grail, like it's the decidedly correct thing to do in a military fighting force. So we are welcoming in people into the military with a different frame of reference, a different mindset than to fight and win wars. And they're much more interested in how to fight for their identities and to have those identities be stacked upon each other to create the basis for promotions and eligibility to be effectively in the long run in charge of the military only because of their identity, not because of the production that they bring to the force.

Who are going through transgender programs, it's a huge amount of money medically that now they're asking the federal government to pay for. It takes months, if not years to effectively go through such procedures to become deployable again. And so we have a total distraction, and we're welcoming it like it's the Holy Grail, like it's the decidedly correct thing to do in a military fighting force. So we are welcoming in people into the military with a different frame of reference, a different mindset than to fight and win wars. And they're much more interested in how to fight for their identities and to have those identities be stacked upon each other to create the basis for promotions and eligibility to be effectively in the long run in charge of the military only because of their identity, not because of the production that they bring to the force.

Well, you know, I think this is a particularly appropriate time to be talking about this because Memorial Day, which started out as appreciation Day right after the Civil War and a statement of appreciation for those who had given their lives to preserve the country, Memorial Day is a pretty good time to remember that none of this is a game. That in the end, you survive as a free country only if you have the strength, the courage, the commitment to defeat people who would eliminate you. And that what you're describing and the reason your books so important is that woe warriors are not going to defeat real warriors. Woe warriors are fine as long as we have peace time, but then you actually don't need them military if you have peace time. You need a military when you have a war. And I think what you've done and is a very important conversation, and I think the work you've done is really important. I want to in addition to wishing all of our listeners a happy Memorial Day, I want to thank the two of you for serving the country and for being willing to be in service. And I want to thank you for taking the extra time to develop this understanding to write Woke Warriors, how the Left is destroying America's ability to fight and win Wars, which is available on Amazon in bookstores everywhere. I think what you're doing is incredibly important, and I hope that every member of Congress and everybody concerned about our military readiness will get a copy and read it as soon as possible. So I want to thank you Andrew and Katie for sharing your time with me, and I want to thank you for dedicating yourselves to strengthening America.

Well, you know, I think this is a particularly appropriate time to be talking about this because Memorial Day, which started out as appreciation Day right after the Civil War and a statement of appreciation for those who had given their lives to preserve the country, Memorial Day is a pretty good time to remember that none of this is a game. That in the end, you survive as a free country only if you have the strength, the courage, the commitment to defeat people who would eliminate you. And that what you're describing and the reason your books so important is that woe warriors are not going to defeat real warriors. Woe warriors are fine as long as we have peace time, but then you actually don't need them military if you have peace time. You need a military when you have a war. And I think what you've done and is a very important conversation, and I think the work you've done is really important. I want to in addition to wishing all of our listeners a happy Memorial Day, I want to thank the two of you for serving the country and for being willing to be in service. And I want to thank you for taking the extra time to develop this understanding to write Woke Warriors, how the Left is destroying America's ability to fight and win Wars, which is available on Amazon in bookstores everywhere. I think what you're doing is incredibly important, and I hope that every member of Congress and everybody concerned about our military readiness will get a copy and read it as soon as possible. So I want to thank you Andrew and Katie for sharing your time with me, and I want to thank you for dedicating yourselves to strengthening America.

Thank you so much, pleasure, thank you so much.

Thank you so much, pleasure, thank you so much.

Thank you. To my guests Andrew and Katie Tcherkanski. You can get a link to buy their new book, Woke Warriors, How the Left is destroying America's abiling to fight and win its wars on our show page at newtsworld dot com. Newsworld is produced by Gingrid three sixty and iHeartMedia. Our executive producer is Guarnsey Slom. Our researcher is Rachel Peterson. The artwork for the show was created by Steve Penley. Special thanks to the team at Gingward three sixty. If you've been enjoying Newtsworld, I hope you'll go to Apple Podcast and both rate us with five stars and give us a review so others can learn what it's all about. Right now, listeners of the Newsworld can sign up for my three freeweekly columns at gingerstree sixty dot com slash newsletter. I'm newt Gingrich. This is Newtworld.

Thank you. To my guests Andrew and Katie Tcherkanski. You can get a link to buy their new book, Woke Warriors, How the Left is destroying America's abiling to fight and win its wars on our show page at newtsworld dot com. Newsworld is produced by Gingrid three sixty and iHeartMedia. Our executive producer is Guarnsey Slom. Our researcher is Rachel Peterson. The artwork for the show was created by Steve Penley. Special thanks to the team at Gingward three sixty. If you've been enjoying Newtsworld, I hope you'll go to Apple Podcast and both rate us with five stars and give us a review so others can learn what it's all about. Right now, listeners of the Newsworld can sign up for my three freeweekly columns at gingerstree sixty dot com slash newsletter. I'm newt Gingrich. This is Newtworld.