March 12, 2024 • 10 mins
There is a ship headed to the Middle East to build a port in Gaza. That will require about 1,000 troops? How will they not be a target?
Talking to A&G, military analyst Mike Lyons breaks it down for us.
Hear the entire conversation in a new episode of Armstrong & Getty's Extra Large Podcast....
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
The US Navy defeated a large scale attack by Iranian
backed Houties in the Red Sea this weekend, the largest
single attack to date. US warships shot down at least
twenty eight drones in just four hours. Days earlier, the
Houties fired an anti ship ballistic missile at the Envy
True Confidence, a commercial bulk carrier, killing three sailors.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
How's our deterrence going?
Speaker 3 (00:26):
The largest attack over the weekend since this whole thing
started a little more from Jennifer Griffin on Fox.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
Senthcom Commander General Eric Krilla, just back from the region
told Congress Iran is not second guessing backing proxies.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Iran is undeterred in support to the Huthies.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
They're undeterred and their support to am Hezbala, their support
to hamast So.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
Iran's completely undeterred supporting the proxies. And then when I
see the headline over the weekend won thousand US troops
deploying to build offshore port in god, how do we
not end up attacked and sucked into this thing?
Speaker 4 (01:04):
To discuss that hot spot and several others, please welcome
Mike Lyons, the Shocian and military analyst Mike.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
It's always a pleasure. How are you.
Speaker 5 (01:13):
Hey, Good morning guys. Great to be back.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
I feel like I'm not hearing anybody ask this question anywhere.
Maybe there's an obvious reason. I'm just an idiot, but
we're sending a thousand troops to build a port and Gaza.
Why wouldn't we be a target if we're a target
all over the Middle East?
Speaker 6 (01:27):
No, no question, They're going to be a target. And
this is I'm finding it a polarizing issue with other
analysts I'm speaking to, so okay, it's very political, and
that's really the bottom line is because from a political perspective,
the military wants to show it has this capability, and
then the Army has this capability.
Speaker 5 (01:42):
That's where it's coming from. Of all things.
Speaker 6 (01:43):
It's not something that the Navy does. But Ak Dearborn
Corps has a ship that's stationed off of Virginia and
it's heading to the Middle East right now, and the
Navy will support it. And there's a it's called j LOTS.
It's a joint command that the Army and Navy will
get together and work with and marines. About a thousand
marines have been activated in order to provide the security
(02:04):
force for it, so it will take a few months
and to get it all set up. And where military
analysts I think are conflicted is it will create a
big target. It could be similar to what happened in
eighty three and Lebanon. It could be the coal it
could be something where it'll be an easy target because
it'll be wide open in the Red Sea there. But
from a political perspective, it's checking a lot of boxes
(02:26):
right now for the industry.
Speaker 3 (02:27):
I'm interested in. You said it was polariz is polarizing
within the military. Are you saying it's polarized the military
versus the politicians or where's the polarization.
Speaker 6 (02:36):
No, I think from analysts just trying to figure out
whether this is a good idea or not. It's kind
of a good, good example of civilian control of the military,
whereas there's probably people in the military that don't think
it's a good idea on any level. Just from what
you said, the security and protecting other force is going
to be challenging, but this is an example of the
commander in chief says this is what we're going to do.
The military has the salute and obey the mission. I'm
(02:57):
finding more and more of my colleagues and people I've
talked to him, for example the West Point, feel that
it's really a dangerous mission and it's putting a lot
at risk. Usually these kinds of humanitarian efforts are not
necessarily into combat zones, especially in one like this where
it'll be well inside the range of the Houthis as
we continue to degrade their capability, that's not done yet.
(03:18):
But also this is kind of a classic small boat
Iranian attack target that they could likely go after as
well as you're aiding and abtding the enemy on some
level in Hamas. So there's lots of reasons you could
argue that we shouldn't be doing this, but the military
has to salute and get the mission done right now.
Speaker 4 (03:37):
And it's easy for Americans to forget that Hezbola is
at war with Israel. In effect, now it's a fairly
restrained trading of artillery across the border, but I've got
to imagine if they wanted to make a big splash,
that would be a target for.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
Them as well.
Speaker 6 (03:52):
Now absolutely, and it's going to be likely in a
place right by Gaza City there that Israel has closed
this port, they don't have a port. Israel has not
allowed Hamas to bring goods and services through this port
for many years. It's been blockaded. And so that's what
the United States is doing. It's almost sticking its finger
(04:12):
in the eye of Israel as well, opening up this
port and saying, you know, try to try to stop
us doing this. Israel has no choice but to now
provide oversight and security for it. But it's going to
be very challenging in that to try to get it's
going to be like a causeway port. So let me
get the visual. Put a ship out offshore about let's
say half a mile that'll have a lot of capability
(04:36):
for it to take in and receive certain ships that'll
come in from Cyprus and humanitarian efforts. And then a
long causeway road similar to what we saw like D
Day for example, when they built those causeways, long roads
where trucks will bring supplies back and forth. And that's
going to be the target. You know, you blow up
that middle of that causeway, you blow up a truck
in there, and think a few trucks, and you create
(04:59):
a very easy target for a terrorist organization.
Speaker 4 (05:02):
Wow, So it's going to be a manufactured road out
into the harbor of the Bay of the Sea there.
Speaker 5 (05:11):
Yeah, that's the plan for right now.
Speaker 6 (05:14):
And that's from our perspective, the safest thing as well,
because it keeps the ship and most of the supplies offshore,
providing more oversight to anything that could come from an attack.
And the risk is going to be that kind of
noman's land between where the ship is, whether it really
originatorship's dock, and then the supplies traveling on that road
(05:37):
into Gaza. Now, they do have a port that's there,
and this will help eventually help improve that capability once
this is over. And that's to say it even goes down, right,
I mean, it's going to take probably sixty days in
order for this to say it's up and running and
completely functional.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
So I just don't understand what if there if a
variety of different entities are sent drones at our barracks
all around the Middle East hoping to kill a bunch
of US servicemen, Obviously they're gonna be sending drones of
this thing, right yeah.
Speaker 6 (06:10):
I mean the air defense umbrella is they'll likely have
battleship they'll destroy, they'll keep they'll keep naval presence there.
Speaker 5 (06:18):
As well.
Speaker 6 (06:19):
That'll be looking over the horizon air defence platforms. But
this is a good example again of a swarming drone
target where you get a thousand drones or do something
with who these are going to do, and go after
it and just one or two of them gets through.
It creates, you know, pierces that veil of the security
and then people start to question, you know, what's going on.
Speaker 5 (06:39):
You know.
Speaker 6 (06:39):
Again, so from a theoretical perspective, it does show the
United States it's got this capability.
Speaker 5 (06:44):
But whether we can really pull it off in the
long run, it.
Speaker 6 (06:47):
Remains to be seen, and it will be a tremendous
risk if there is a catastrophic incident like we had
in eighty three and Lebanon, or the coal being attacked,
or we just drop our guard because all they got
to do is get one or two through and then
that's it.
Speaker 4 (07:01):
UH. Military analyst Mike Clions on the line. Mike, I
have a bad habit of asking questions that really ought
to be answered with a book, and I'd love to
read it if you ever write it. But I was
reading at CNN dot com the other day that Russia
is producing three times more artillery shells than the US
and Europe combined.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
For Ukraine, their.
Speaker 4 (07:22):
Military industrial complex, if you will, is much more capable
or efficient at this point. And with all due respect
to Eisenhower's warning and that there's always profiteering in war
and military production, blah blah blah, we Americans like to
think that we won World War two because we're just great.
I mean, I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about
(07:44):
you know, popular perception, when indeed it was the Russian
sacrificing millions of troops are brave fighters, and the fact
that we were the arsenal democracy, we had this mind
boggling production capacity for the tools of war. Anyway, finally,
a very long question comes to its end. Are you
worried at our lack of ship building, artillery building, and
(08:06):
the rest of the capacity to make the armaments of war.
Speaker 5 (08:11):
In the short term.
Speaker 6 (08:12):
Yes, In the long run, we've proven historically that when
we want to crank up the war machine, watch out,
because when that happens, it's really no match for anybody else.
Speaker 5 (08:23):
But for right now, as others.
Speaker 6 (08:25):
Are doing that, as the Chinese are building a six
hundred chip navy, and as Russia creates more artillery ambudition.
You know, we actually increased our supply line about another
fifteen to twenty thousand artillery rounds a month. We're now
producing about forty five thousand rounds a month. Ukraine needs
one hundred thousand a month. They probably have about eight
or nine month left and so they're not being replenished
(08:46):
at a faster rate. In addition to we've taken some
out of our Pompkins stocks already in order to support
this the mission there, so we've not put ourselves in
any kind of war footing.
Speaker 5 (08:56):
Europe is trying.
Speaker 6 (08:57):
We see some European countries, especially when it comes to
artillery air, trying to do that as well. But it
takes time. It's dangerous. Creating artillery shells is dangerous. You're
creating bombs, you're creating explosives. So in the short term,
the whole planet's always been all along that our standing
force has got to be able to and absorb the
initial blow. But everybody's confident that we'll for crank the
(09:18):
war machine up once that will be fine. Whether we
can do it again or not remains to assume. I
haven't done it in what eighty years? Haven't done it
eighty five years.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
Any other thoughts on Ukraine before we let you go?
Speaker 6 (09:29):
No, I think that the longer we wait to get
them this a to get them this sixty billion dollars
of what was American jobs, of what will help crank
up the war machine in our country, it's slipping away.
And without trying to sound chicken too much like chicken little,
the fact that Ukraine has held on for as long
as they can has been nothing short of miraculous. But
(09:49):
when Russia decides to grind you down from a historical perspective,
they will grind you down. And that's that's what they're
doing right now. They're putting them they're putting their front
on the gas and that's what they're going for and
we just need to wake up and see it.
Speaker 4 (10:00):
CNN Military analyst Mike Liines, Mike, thanks so much for
the insight.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
Good to talk to you.
Speaker 5 (10:05):
Thanks guys, things for me, Armstrong and Getty
The US Navy defeated a large scale attack by Iranian
backed Houties in the Red Sea this weekend, the largest
single attack to date. US warships shot down at least
twenty eight drones in just four hours. Days earlier, the
Houties fired an anti ship ballistic missile at the Envy
True Confidence, a commercial bulk carrier, killing three sailors.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
How's our deterrence going?
Speaker 3 (00:26):
The largest attack over the weekend since this whole thing
started a little more from Jennifer Griffin on Fox.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
Senthcom Commander General Eric Krilla, just back from the region
told Congress Iran is not second guessing backing proxies.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Iran is undeterred in support to the Huthies.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
They're undeterred and their support to am Hezbala, their support
to hamast So.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
Iran's completely undeterred supporting the proxies. And then when I
see the headline over the weekend won thousand US troops
deploying to build offshore port in god, how do we
not end up attacked and sucked into this thing?
Speaker 4 (01:04):
To discuss that hot spot and several others, please welcome
Mike Lyons, the Shocian and military analyst Mike.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
It's always a pleasure. How are you.
Speaker 5 (01:13):
Hey, Good morning guys. Great to be back.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
I feel like I'm not hearing anybody ask this question anywhere.
Maybe there's an obvious reason. I'm just an idiot, but
we're sending a thousand troops to build a port and Gaza.
Why wouldn't we be a target if we're a target
all over the Middle East?
Speaker 6 (01:27):
No, no question, They're going to be a target. And
this is I'm finding it a polarizing issue with other
analysts I'm speaking to, so okay, it's very political, and
that's really the bottom line is because from a political perspective,
the military wants to show it has this capability, and
then the Army has this capability.
Speaker 5 (01:42):
That's where it's coming from. Of all things.
Speaker 6 (01:43):
It's not something that the Navy does. But Ak Dearborn
Corps has a ship that's stationed off of Virginia and
it's heading to the Middle East right now, and the
Navy will support it. And there's a it's called j LOTS.
It's a joint command that the Army and Navy will
get together and work with and marines. About a thousand
marines have been activated in order to provide the security
(02:04):
force for it, so it will take a few months
and to get it all set up. And where military
analysts I think are conflicted is it will create a
big target. It could be similar to what happened in
eighty three and Lebanon. It could be the coal it
could be something where it'll be an easy target because
it'll be wide open in the Red Sea there. But
from a political perspective, it's checking a lot of boxes
(02:26):
right now for the industry.
Speaker 3 (02:27):
I'm interested in. You said it was polariz is polarizing
within the military. Are you saying it's polarized the military
versus the politicians or where's the polarization.
Speaker 6 (02:36):
No, I think from analysts just trying to figure out
whether this is a good idea or not. It's kind
of a good, good example of civilian control of the military,
whereas there's probably people in the military that don't think
it's a good idea on any level. Just from what
you said, the security and protecting other force is going
to be challenging, but this is an example of the
commander in chief says this is what we're going to do.
The military has the salute and obey the mission. I'm
(02:57):
finding more and more of my colleagues and people I've
talked to him, for example the West Point, feel that
it's really a dangerous mission and it's putting a lot
at risk. Usually these kinds of humanitarian efforts are not
necessarily into combat zones, especially in one like this where
it'll be well inside the range of the Houthis as
we continue to degrade their capability, that's not done yet.
(03:18):
But also this is kind of a classic small boat
Iranian attack target that they could likely go after as
well as you're aiding and abtding the enemy on some
level in Hamas. So there's lots of reasons you could
argue that we shouldn't be doing this, but the military
has to salute and get the mission done right now.
Speaker 4 (03:37):
And it's easy for Americans to forget that Hezbola is
at war with Israel. In effect, now it's a fairly
restrained trading of artillery across the border, but I've got
to imagine if they wanted to make a big splash,
that would be a target for.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
Them as well.
Speaker 6 (03:52):
Now absolutely, and it's going to be likely in a
place right by Gaza City there that Israel has closed
this port, they don't have a port. Israel has not
allowed Hamas to bring goods and services through this port
for many years. It's been blockaded. And so that's what
the United States is doing. It's almost sticking its finger
(04:12):
in the eye of Israel as well, opening up this
port and saying, you know, try to try to stop
us doing this. Israel has no choice but to now
provide oversight and security for it. But it's going to
be very challenging in that to try to get it's
going to be like a causeway port. So let me
get the visual. Put a ship out offshore about let's
say half a mile that'll have a lot of capability
(04:36):
for it to take in and receive certain ships that'll
come in from Cyprus and humanitarian efforts. And then a
long causeway road similar to what we saw like D
Day for example, when they built those causeways, long roads
where trucks will bring supplies back and forth. And that's
going to be the target. You know, you blow up
that middle of that causeway, you blow up a truck
in there, and think a few trucks, and you create
(04:59):
a very easy target for a terrorist organization.
Speaker 4 (05:02):
Wow, So it's going to be a manufactured road out
into the harbor of the Bay of the Sea there.
Speaker 5 (05:11):
Yeah, that's the plan for right now.
Speaker 6 (05:14):
And that's from our perspective, the safest thing as well,
because it keeps the ship and most of the supplies offshore,
providing more oversight to anything that could come from an attack.
And the risk is going to be that kind of
noman's land between where the ship is, whether it really
originatorship's dock, and then the supplies traveling on that road
(05:37):
into Gaza. Now, they do have a port that's there,
and this will help eventually help improve that capability once
this is over. And that's to say it even goes down, right,
I mean, it's going to take probably sixty days in
order for this to say it's up and running and
completely functional.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
So I just don't understand what if there if a
variety of different entities are sent drones at our barracks
all around the Middle East hoping to kill a bunch
of US servicemen, Obviously they're gonna be sending drones of
this thing, right yeah.
Speaker 6 (06:10):
I mean the air defense umbrella is they'll likely have
battleship they'll destroy, they'll keep they'll keep naval presence there.
Speaker 5 (06:18):
As well.
Speaker 6 (06:19):
That'll be looking over the horizon air defence platforms. But
this is a good example again of a swarming drone
target where you get a thousand drones or do something
with who these are going to do, and go after
it and just one or two of them gets through.
It creates, you know, pierces that veil of the security
and then people start to question, you know, what's going on.
Speaker 5 (06:39):
You know.
Speaker 6 (06:39):
Again, so from a theoretical perspective, it does show the
United States it's got this capability.
Speaker 5 (06:44):
But whether we can really pull it off in the
long run, it.
Speaker 6 (06:47):
Remains to be seen, and it will be a tremendous
risk if there is a catastrophic incident like we had
in eighty three and Lebanon, or the coal being attacked,
or we just drop our guard because all they got
to do is get one or two through and then
that's it.
Speaker 4 (07:01):
UH. Military analyst Mike Clions on the line. Mike, I
have a bad habit of asking questions that really ought
to be answered with a book, and I'd love to
read it if you ever write it. But I was
reading at CNN dot com the other day that Russia
is producing three times more artillery shells than the US
and Europe combined.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
For Ukraine, their.
Speaker 4 (07:22):
Military industrial complex, if you will, is much more capable
or efficient at this point. And with all due respect
to Eisenhower's warning and that there's always profiteering in war
and military production, blah blah blah, we Americans like to
think that we won World War two because we're just great.
I mean, I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about
(07:44):
you know, popular perception, when indeed it was the Russian
sacrificing millions of troops are brave fighters, and the fact
that we were the arsenal democracy, we had this mind
boggling production capacity for the tools of war. Anyway, finally,
a very long question comes to its end. Are you
worried at our lack of ship building, artillery building, and
(08:06):
the rest of the capacity to make the armaments of war.
Speaker 5 (08:11):
In the short term.
Speaker 6 (08:12):
Yes, In the long run, we've proven historically that when
we want to crank up the war machine, watch out,
because when that happens, it's really no match for anybody else.
Speaker 5 (08:23):
But for right now, as others.
Speaker 6 (08:25):
Are doing that, as the Chinese are building a six
hundred chip navy, and as Russia creates more artillery ambudition.
You know, we actually increased our supply line about another
fifteen to twenty thousand artillery rounds a month. We're now
producing about forty five thousand rounds a month. Ukraine needs
one hundred thousand a month. They probably have about eight
or nine month left and so they're not being replenished
(08:46):
at a faster rate. In addition to we've taken some
out of our Pompkins stocks already in order to support
this the mission there, so we've not put ourselves in
any kind of war footing.
Speaker 5 (08:56):
Europe is trying.
Speaker 6 (08:57):
We see some European countries, especially when it comes to
artillery air, trying to do that as well. But it
takes time. It's dangerous. Creating artillery shells is dangerous. You're
creating bombs, you're creating explosives. So in the short term,
the whole planet's always been all along that our standing
force has got to be able to and absorb the
initial blow. But everybody's confident that we'll for crank the
(09:18):
war machine up once that will be fine. Whether we
can do it again or not remains to assume. I
haven't done it in what eighty years? Haven't done it
eighty five years.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
Any other thoughts on Ukraine before we let you go?
Speaker 6 (09:29):
No, I think that the longer we wait to get
them this a to get them this sixty billion dollars
of what was American jobs, of what will help crank
up the war machine in our country, it's slipping away.
And without trying to sound chicken too much like chicken little,
the fact that Ukraine has held on for as long
as they can has been nothing short of miraculous. But
(09:49):
when Russia decides to grind you down from a historical perspective,
they will grind you down. And that's that's what they're
doing right now. They're putting them they're putting their front
on the gas and that's what they're going for and
we just need to wake up and see it.
Speaker 4 (10:00):
CNN Military analyst Mike Liines, Mike, thanks so much for
the insight.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
Good to talk to you.
Speaker 5 (10:05):
Thanks guys, things for me, Armstrong and Getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.