Michael McFaul

But we could wake up tomorrow morning to another true social posting saying he's all in for the next four months in terms of another invasion requirement.

I mean, it could.

because it has changed so many times, it could change again tomorrow.

I anticipate tomorrow, as Ambassador McFaul said, that he may say it's over.

We've won.

We've done what we needed to do, even though he hasn't defined what we were trying to do yet, except for the passing fancy of different members of his administration trying to cover up for a strategic objective.

And by the way, Secretary Rubio is good at

at defining tactical battles.

That conversation he gave the other day was not at all close to being strategic objectives.

So we still have some problems in that area from not only a military, but a national strategy perspective.

I met a junior airman as the sun was going down and a chill was setting on the tarmac who, when asked what they needed, she simply looked up at me with a sly smile on her face and said, more bombs, sir, and bigger bombs.

We will happily oblige her.

That didn't happen.

General?

No, that's kind of like the guys coming up to the president crying and thanking him for all the things he's done and assuring him to death.

That did not happen.

And the setup even from the secretary.

I mean, you know, Michael, I've seen a bunch of secretaries during my time in service, and none of them had the kind of swagger that we're seeing right now.

And that's not what the military expects.

They expect an individual as a secretary of defense that translate strategic objectives into operational dynamics.