Dan Caldwell

Sure.

So yesterday, the Washington Post had a story.

And I think War Room audience members will know and see that this was a strategic leak by people likely opposed to these reforms.

So that's important to keep in mind.

No decision has been made.

And this is likely being pushed out by people who don't want to see them.

So essentially what is being proposed is a consolidation of these combatant commands which exist around the world.

You have six geographic commands that were set up in the 1980s as part of Goldwater-Nichols in response to some of the military failures in Lebanon and Grenada, some of the command and control issues.

And it was a reform that made sense at the time and actually worked very well in operations like Desert Storm.

and the opening days of post 9-11 wars.

But since then, these combatant commands like Central Command in the Middle East and European Command in Europe have become incredibly powerful.

My friend Justin Logan wrote a piece in National Interest where essentially he compares them to Roman proconsuls.

They in effect run their own semi-independent foreign policy.

And they are incentivized and positioned to prioritize their own commands and to ensure that they get more resources and that they have their own lobbies and own special interests here back in DC.

I've heard you and Jack, for example,

describe Washington DC as a central command company town.

And I think that perfectly sums up the problem.

So what the Secretary of War supposedly is considering is consolidating these commands from six to three, which will reduce bloat, and in my mind, reduce the power of some of these combatant commanders.

which is incredibly important to ensuring civilian control of the military.

about the system and the incentives it creates.