POPULARITY
201 episodes with War college
56 episodes with War college
4 episodes with War college
5 episodes with War college
3 episodes with War college
2 episodes with War college
4 episodes with War college
3 episodes with War college
3 episodes with War college
A Cadet at a Crossroads In this Trek Tuesday Thursday Special, Tony Zoomed with George Hawkins, the performer behind Darem Reymi on Star Trek: Starfleet Academy. Episode seven marks a turning point for Darem — a moment where the young cadet must confront a life‑altering decision that will shape not only his future, but his place within Starfleet itself. Inside the Episode Seven Deep Dive George and Tony explore: The internal conflict between personal desire and Starfleet responsibility A Klingon Connection: Jay-Den and the Power of Unlikely Friendships One of the most intriguing threads this season has been Darem's dynamic with his Klingon classmate Jay-Den. War Games, Rivalries, and Leadership Under Pressure George also reflects on the standout episode where Darem unexpectedly leads the cadets in a war game against the War College — a storyline sparked by a series of escalating practical jokes between the two groups. SAVE 17% ON SCI-FI TALK PLUS
Time for back to back classes! In this episode of The Prime Subjective, Chris Newcomer, Karie Coleman-Hinners, Mike Henley and Jonesy dig into two episodes of Starfleet Academy. First - S1E3 - "Vitus Reflux," which depicts an escalating prank war between cadets of SFA and the War College. Expect team sports and mascots and co-ed locker rooms and plant shenanigans! Then - S1E4 - "Vox in Excelso," which focuses on Jay-Den and his newfound uncertainty when he faces a family crisis that speaks directly to his troubled backstory. Expect debate teams and warrior stew and some tricky diplomatic solutions for Klingons caught in their feelings!
When the Academy and the War College are spirited away on a field trip to visit the USS Miyazaki, everything seems like fun and games until rabid bat men crash the party. But when Captain Ake is short on options for saving the students, Admiral Openly-Judges-You-For-Not-Having-In-Unit-Laundry suggests they should set Nus on the loose. What grade level does a ship's computer read at? How do you best cook a Caleb Mir? What's the worst part about invisible space suits? It's the episode that's front and center for the Andrew Davis film festival. Support the production of Greatest TrekGet a thing at podshop.biz!Sign up for our mailing list!Greatest Trek is produced by Wynde PriddySocial media is managed by Rob Adler and Bill TilleyMusic by Adam RaguseaFriends of DeSoto for: Labor | Democracy | JusticeDiscuss the show using the hashtag #GreatestTrek and find us on social media:YouTube | Facebook | X | Instagram | TikTok | Mastodon | Bluesky | ThreadsAnd check out these online communities run by FODs: Reddit | USS Hood Discord | Facebook group | Wikia | FriendsOfDeSoto.social Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Episode 6 of Starfleet Academy delivers one of the most tonally distinct installments of the season, shifting from collegiate character drama into full psychological thriller and survival horror. The podcast opens with immediate high energy, framing the episode as a major turning point — one that blends classic Trek moral dilemmas with modern cinematic tension. The panel quickly agrees: this is the episode where the show proves it can operate at franchise stakes. The early discussion centers on the controversial opening sequence involving Caleb and Tarima. While romantic development has been building, the telepathic boundary violation sparks debate about trust, consent, and Betazoid psychology. The hosts explore how this tension isn't just interpersonal drama — it foreshadows the emotional decisions both characters must make under life-or-death pressure later in the episode. Once the cadets board the derelict USS Miyazaki, the tone pivots hard into horror. The abandoned post-Burn experimental vessel becomes a graveyard setting — dark corridors, failing systems, and an ever-present sense of dread. The introduction of the Furies raises the stakes immediately. Their cannibalistic nature, hybrid physiology, and predatory tactics create a new kind of enemy — less political, more primal — evoking comparisons to the Vidiians or even Reavers in tone. The hostage scenario and airlock sequence form the episode's action centerpiece. The cadets' inexperience shows early, but they evolve rapidly under pressure. A key moment highlighted in the podcast is the sacrifice of their commanding officer, which forces the cadets to step into leadership roles prematurely. This trial-by-fire dynamic reinforces the show's core theme: Starfleet officers aren't born — they're forged in crisis. Sam's bridge sequence becomes the emotional and technological high point. Tasked with restoring fragmented ship systems, she demonstrates not just computational superiority but personal agency. The panel reads this as a pivotal evolution in her arc — choosing to risk herself for organics, further complicating her loyalty to her creators. Her eventual injury adds philosophical weight: even artificial life can bear scars of trust. The episode closes with wider implications for the season. Nus Braka's looming presence, the emergence of the Furies, and the cadets' accelerated growth all point toward a larger coordinated threat. The hosts speculate that Episode 6 may represent the “Empire Strikes Back” tonal shift of the season — where youthful optimism gives way to the harsh realities of command, sacrifice, and war. 00:01 – Cold open, hype reactions, and spoiler warning for Episode 6 03:20 – Panel introductions and first impressions of the episode 06:10 – Opening romance scene and early character tension 09:05 – Caleb & Tarima relationship analysis and emotional stakes 12:00 – Betazoid abilities and telepathic boundary debate 15:10 – Away mission briefing and training exercise setup 18:20 – Boarding the USS Miyazaki and mission objectives 21:30 – Post-Burn warp lore and ship disaster backstory 24:40 – First appearance of the Furies and threat assessment 27:50 – Horror tone shift and haunted-ship atmosphere 31:00 – Airlock standoff and hand-to-hand combat breakout 34:15 – Tactical coordination and cadet crisis response 37:30 – Leadership contrast: War College vs Academy cadets 40:45 – Lieutenant Commander sacrifice and protocol analysis 44:00 – Bridge lockdown and survival strategy planning 47:10 – Sam begins computer restoration under pressure 50:20 – “1200 files” moment and Sam's hero sequence 53:40 – Comic lore tie-in and Miyazaki historical context 56:50 – Ship systems reboot and turning the tide 01:00:00 – Cadets regain control and tactical regroup 01:04:10 – Genesis & Darum bridge command dynamics 01:08:25 – Leadership growth and teamwork evolution 01:12:40 – Athena ship response and search coordination 01:16:55 – Furry threat escalation and hostage stakes 01:21:05 – Rescue strategy and multi-team execution 01:25:20 – Final confrontation buildup 01:29:35 – Climactic battle and survival resolution 01:33:50 – Nus Braka implications and villain framing 01:37:40 – Sam's injuries and EMH medical response 01:41:10 – Character fallout and emotional aftermath 01:44:00 – Season arc theories and “big bad” speculation 01:46:00 – Final ratings, closing thoughts, and sign-off
Send a textWho is that on the flight deck of the Starship Athena? Why it is none other than Raoul Bhaneja who has boldly gone on to wow audiences across Canada on stages as well as in feature films and television.The Manchester born, Ottawa-raised actor-musician plays Chancellor Kelrec, head of the Star Fleet's War College, in Paramount +'s Star Trek: Starfleet Academy.Interviewed while finishing up production in Toronto on Season Two of the series, Bhaneja says he's having a blast acting opposite Oscar winner Holly Hunter, Emmy-winner Paul Giamatti and promising young Canadian Sandro Rosta, among others in the cast.Hear Bhaneja turn his phasers on so-called critics such as Elon Musk and Stephen Miller, both whining about the multi-species, "woke" nature of the series. Their opinions are at odds not just with Gene Roddenberry's original vision for Star Trek, but also with critics on Rotten Tomatoes, who deem it "Certified Fresh."
On this week's episode of WeeklyTrek, TrekCore's news podcast, host Alex Perry is joined by Kara Amens to discuss all the latest Star Trek news. This week, Alex and his guest discuss the following stories from around the web: TrekMovie: Initial Data Shows 'Starfleet Academy' Performing "Well Ahead" Of Other Paramount+ Star Trek Series (05:44) SlashFilm: Star Trek: Starfleet Academy's Shocking New Status Quo For Klingons, Explained By The Showrunners [Exclusive] (12:51) TrekCore: Interview — STAR TREK: STARFLEET ACADEMY's Raoul Bhaneja on the War College's Commander Kelrec (20:58) TrekMovie: 'Star Trek: Strange New Worlds' Nominated For 4 Saturn Awards, Including Best Sci-Fi Series (26:11) In addition, stick around to hear Kara's opinion about the use of zippers in the 32nd century, and Alex discuss how much he's enjoying the story structure of the episodes of Starfleet Academy we've seen to date. *** Do you have a wish or theory you'd like to share on the show? Tweet to Alex at @WeeklyTrek, or email us with your thoughts about wishes, theories, or anything else about the latest in Star Trek news!
SPECIAL RELEASE Before we return to our regular release schedule, here's the second—and final— specialaudio drop from our Patreon-exclusive Mission Log Live discussions. This episode focuses on Star Trek: Starfleet Academy Episode 3, "Vitus Reflux." The rivalry between Starfleet cadets and the War College heats up, culminating in a competitive game of Calica (laser tag of the future), a full-blown prank war, and a fast-growing, mockery-spouting fungus at the center of it all. As always, Mission Log Live is driven by you. Callers weighed in with reactions ranging from unabashed enjoyment to a resounding "meh," sparking a wide-ranging conversation about tone, tropes, and what this episode is really trying to say. To help put some of the criticism into perspective, we're joined by special guest Larry Nemecek (aka Dr. Trek) for additional context and critique.
SPECIAL RELEASE Before we return to our regular release schedule, here's the second—and final— specialaudio drop from our Patreon-exclusive Mission Log Live discussions. This episode focuses on Star Trek: Starfleet Academy Episode 3, "Vitus Reflux." The rivalry between Starfleet cadets and the War College heats up, culminating in a competitive game of Calica (laser tag of the future), a full-blown prank war, and a fast-growing, mockery-spouting fungus at the center of it all. As always, Mission Log Live is driven by you. Callers weighed in with reactions ranging from unabashed enjoyment to a resounding "meh," sparking a wide-ranging conversation about tone, tropes, and what this episode is really trying to say. To help put some of the criticism into perspective, we're joined by special guest Larry Nemecek (aka Dr. Trek) for additional context and critique.
Listen below or click here for full show notes Main Mission, Part 1 Star Trek: Starfleet AcademySeason 1, Episode 3“Vitus Reflux”Written by Alex Taub & Kiley RossetterDirected by Doug Aarniokoski Subspace Chatter (if Charlie okays it) See William Shatner Return On A Unique Captain's Chair In Super Bowl Ad Tease – TrekMovie.com ‘Star Trek: Strange New Worlds' Nominated For Michelle Yeoh’s Star Trek: Section 31 Has Five Award Nominations No Movie Wants RAZZ NEWZ – The Razzies ‘Star Trek: Strange New Worlds' Nominated For 4 Saturn Awards, Including Best Sci-Fi Series – TrekMovie.com The Academy of Science Fiction Fantasy and Horror FilmsJanuary STAR TREK Merch Roundup: Factory Entertainment's Klingon Communicator Prop Replica, Funko POPs, Books, and More! – TrekCore.com Star Trek: Starfleet Academy Comics Coming Soon (Exclusive) – Nerdist CLINTON In Vulcan, Alberta, Canada news… Nothing this week Here are links to 77 additional stories.broken out by series, movies and other categories. CLASSIC TV SERIES (in order of premiere) Star Trek: The Original Series (1966 – 1969) [3 seasons] One of Kirk’s Greatest ‘Star Trek’ Episodes Ever Is a Masterclass in 1 Thing the Sci-Fi Show Does Best The Star Trek Prop You Didn’t Realize Came From Gilligan’s Island Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987 – 1994) [7 seasons] 'Star Trek: The Next Generation's Near-Perfect Episode Breaks a Core Rule With a Quote Fans Can't Shake Star Trek: Voyager (1995 – 2001) [7 seasons] Captain Janeway’s Single Greatest Star Trek Line Hits Harder Than Any Sci-Fi Quote Since Star Trek: Enterprise (2001 – 2005) [4 seasons] Why Star Trek’s Original Captain Janeway Actress Quit The Series STREAMING SERIES AND MOVIES (in order of premiere) Star Trek: Starfleet Academy [2026 – present] [renewed for second season] Star Trek: Starfleet Academy — Season 1 review: ‘compelling’ ‘Star Trek: Starfleet Academy’: Paul Giamatti and Holly Hunter on beaming into the storied sci-fi franchise (interview) | Space Starfleet Academy Will Revive an Age-Old Star Trek Conundrum | Den of Geek Star Trek: Starfleet Academy review – Holly Hunter is a transgressive thrill in this horny high-school spinoff | Star Trek | The Guardian This Risky New Star Trek Series Is Streaming Free Sooner Than You Think Star Trek: Starfleet Academy – 10 Key Facts About The New Series ‘Star Trek: Starfleet Academy’ review: The latest Trek series asks big questions : NPR The State of the ‘Star Trek’ Universe Coming Into ‘Starfleet Academy’ Star Trek: Starfleet Academy Series Premiere Review – IGN Star Trek: Starfleet Academy tries something different, and I don't hate it – Ars Technica STAR TREK: STARFLEET ACADEMY Review — “Beta Test” – TrekCore.com ‘Star Trek: Starfleet Academy’: Paramount+’s New Series Delights ‘Star Trek: Starfleet Academy’ Paramount Plus Review: Stream It Or Skip It? Star Trek: Starfleet Academy Divides Critics & Fans On Rotten Tomatoes Recap/Review: ‘Starfleet Academy' Series Premiere Is A Welcoming Return To Star Trek – TrekMovie.com New Star Trek Series Hit With Immediate Backlash and Review Bombing on Rotten Tomatoes 39 Years Later, Star Trek Just Gave An Old Alien Race A New Superpower ‘Starfleet Academy’ brings a modern sheen to the ‘Star Trek’ universe | WVXU Star Trek: Starfleet Academy Debuts With Divisive Rotten Tomatoes Score Stephen Miller Leads ‘Woke' Backlash Against New ‘Star Trek' Series Starfleet Academy’s Best Decision Allows The Series To Be A Traditional Star Trek Project Star Trek Star Defends Controversial New Character After Backlash – ComicBook.com ‘Star Trek: Starfleet Academy’ Stars Talk Fun of Jett & Lura’s Romance Captain Janeway’s Hidden Cameo In Star Trek: Starfleet Academy Premiere Starfleet Academy Officially Solves Star Trek's Biggest Voyager Problem 31 Years Later Star Trek: Starfleet Academy Continues One Of Voyager’s Silliest Gags One Cool Trick Makes Star Trek: Starfleet Academy Feel So Huge Star Trek’s New ‘Canon-Breaking’ Officer Is Actually a Deep Space Nine Deep Cut Most Fans Forgot I Had No Idea The Star Trek: Starfleet Academy Set Was So Intricate, But I Can’t Get Over The Stars' Comparisons To Voyager And Discovery Review: STAR TREK: STARFLEET ACADEMY is What Happens When Star Trek Forgets Itself — GeekTyrant Star Trek: Starfleet Academy – Plugged In ‘Starfleet Academy’ Makes a Prank War Out of One of the Oldest Debates in ‘Star Trek’ Star Trek: Starfleet Academy Episode 3 – ‘Vitus Reflux' Review – IGN STAR TREK: STARFLEET ACADEMY Review — “Vitus Reflux” – TrekCore.com Classic STAR TREK Characters Who Could Appear in STARFLEET ACADEMY – Nerdist Latest Star Trek reboot unveils human-alien lesbian romance amid criticism that it is too woke | Daily Mail Online 9 Years Later, Star Trek Still Hasn’t Fixed the Biggest Discovery Problem – ComicBook.com ‘Star Trek: Starfleet Academy’ faces ‘woke’ backlash from fans and critics | Fox News ‘Star Trek’ actress argues that series has always been ‘woke’ as new show faces backlash Holly Hunter Says She Loved Being Barefoot in New ‘Star Trek: Starfleet Academy’ Role (Exclusive) ‘Starfleet Academy’ isn’t the first time that ‘Star Trek’ tried to go back to school | Space Star Trek: Starfleet Academy episode 1 review | Efficiently going where many have tried to go before | Film Stories Star Trek: Starfleet Academy’s Wall Of Heroes Hints At Terrifying Fates For Strange New Worlds Characters Star Trek’s New 88% RT Show Has Been Set Up For 60 Years (So Why Didn’t It Happen Before?) – ComicBook.com ‘Star Trek: Starfleet Academy’ Ep. 4: A Species in Danger – Parade Interview — STAR TREK: STARFLEET ACADEMY's Raoul Bhaneja on the War College's Commander Kelrec – TrekCore.com THEATRICAL MOTION PICTURES (in order of premiere) OTHER MEDIA Star Trek video games/board games ‘Star Trek: Voyager – Across the Unknown' Release Date & Switch 2 Confirmed; Watch New Gameplay Video – TrekMovie.com ‘Star Trek: Voyager’ Delta Quadrant Adventure Awaits You – Parade Star Trek Adventures Species Sourcebook now available for pre-order Star Trek Comics/graphic novels/magazines Star Trek Is Officially Scrapping Its Best Piece of Sci-Fi Tech After 39 Years IDW April 2026 Full Solicits With New Star Trek: Starfleet Academy MISCELLANEOUS Franchise-wide/Miscellaneous The 22 Greatest ‘Star Trek’ Episodes of All Time – Parade Anniversary of Star Trek brings back basement memories | News, Sports, Jobs – Marshall Independent A decade of Star Trek-themed fart jokes: The Greatest Generation podcast turns 10 – Ars Technica Every Confirmed & Rumored Star Trek: Discovery Spinoff – ComicBook.com People Are Calling For William Shatner To Run Star Trek, But That’s A Terrible Idea What constellation am I: A starry personality quiz | Space Letter to the editors: What's the fuss? ‘Star Trek' warned us about AI and more | Chattanooga Times Free Press A Brief History of Fictional ‘Star Trek’ Sports Stephen Miller Wants William Shatner to Take Control of ‘Star Trek.' Actor's Response Goes Viral | Military.com 60 Years After Her Debut, Star Trek Reveals the Fate of The Original Series’ Most Important Star – ComicBook.com Star Trek 4's Cancellation Gives the Reboot Crew an Unwanted Movie Record After TOS & TNG – ComicBook.com Star Trek Is Repeating A Decades-Old Mistake | GIANT FREAKIN ROBOT 10 Smartest Star Trek Villains, Ranked Ranking Star Trek On Paramount+ Premieres: Worst to Best Pluto TV Adds 5 New Live Star Trek Channels | Cord Cutters News Actor Watch Robert Picardo Reminds Fans What STAR TREK Has Always Been as The Franchise Turns 60 — GeekTyrant Tig Notaro: ‘Star Trek: Starfleet Academy’ shows ‘same Tig, different galaxy’ | Out.com ‘Star Trek’ star Paul Giamatti says THIS role of his deserves an award ‘Star Trek' Star Returns to the Franchise After Two Years – Parade Paul Giamatti ‘Never’ Thought He’d Be Cast in New Star Trek Series (Exclusive) Chris Pine Tells New Paramount Bosses ‘Good Luck’ With ‘Star Trek’ Main Mission, Part 2 (with an appropriate sound effect) Star Trek: Starfleet AcademySeason 1, Episode 4“Vox in Excelso”Written by Gaia Violo & Eric Anthony GloverDirected by Doug Aarniokoski End Of Show It’s about time to refill the dilithium chamber and get on out of here. Find Clinton at Comedy4Cast Find Chuck and Kreg at Technorama Podcast If you liked the show, please be sure to tell a friend about it. And subscribe, so you’ll never miss an episode. We’d love to hear from you. Follow us on BlueSky (@thetopicistrek), visit our Facebook page or call us at 816-TREKKER, that’s (816) 873-5537 Until next time, on behalf of Chuck, Kreg and myself, I’m Clinton, thanking you for listening. And, as we always say here on “The Topic Is Trek” Don’t put on the red shirt!
Welcome back to TreknoPod — this week we're reviewing Star Trek: Starfleet Academy – Season 1, Episode 3 (“Vitus Reflux”).We cover the big conversations Episode 3 sparked:Is Starfleet Academy missing the “utopian” Star Trek feeling?Pranks vs bullying (and why the War College stuff hits differently)Which division we'd choose: Command, Engineering, Medical, or ScienceAlien hybrids + evolving species (does it enrich Trek or blur the lines?)The “too woke” discourse… and why Trek has always been progressivePlus: the barefoot Chancellor, fandom reactions, and the moments we lovedQuestion for the comments:Do you say “Vitus Reflux” or “Vitus Reflux”… and did Episode 3 win you over?
Phasers set to petty.
Anika and Liz are not sports people, but they're willing to watch from the sidelines as we discuss Star Trek: Starfleet Academy's "Vitus Reflux", including... No stakes! Only shenanigans! It's a Gen Z "Take Me Out To The Holosuite"! The War College kids are facing obsolescence and acting out, but their strategy, with overtones of hazing and sexuality, is also evidence of why the War College is being phased out This episode understands that growing up with access to sports is a privilege Starfleet Academy is not Euphoria, thank goodness Darem is queer! Lura and Jett are dating! Kyle is totally into Jay-Den! If any Star Trek is gonna give us polycule drama…
TEX-TREK Mission 363: STAR TREK: STARFLEET ACADEMY S1E3 "Vitus Reflux" Deep Dive DiscussionThe third episode of STARFLEET ACADEMY is here and seems to be spotlighting some fun extracurricular activities, school rivalries, and young romance. Is all really fair in love and War College? As always, available in both video and audio-only formats.Watch on YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YObT34frqPgGet RSS feed:https://anchor.fm/s/f37edb0c/podcast/rssApple Podcasts:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/tex-trek/id1495605753?uo=4Spotify:https://open.spotify.com/show/6mdZ030Klldxwn7SSc5PKpJoin our Discord server:https://discord.gg/YXPeRyQh7ySupport us on Patreon:https://www.patreon.com/txtrekStar Trek: Starfleet Academy, Season 1 Episode 3"Vitus Reflux"Written by Alex Taub & Kiley RossetterDirected by Doug AarniokoskiWhile our cadets compete to join an elite team at the Academy, a battle of escalating pranks breaks out between Starfleet Academy and a rival school. Tensions rise fast, threatening their newly-emerging bonds and a blossoming romance.http://www.facebook.com/textrekhttps://www.instagram.com/txtrek/http://twitter.com/TxTrekhttps://www.tiktok.com/@txtrekEmail: fathereeactual@tex-trek.com
A prank war exacerbates the rivalry between the Academy and the War College. Matt and Pete cultivate episode 3, “Vitus Reflux.”Thanks as always to everyone who supports the podcast by visiting Patreon.com/PhantasticGeek.Share your feedback by emailing PhantasticGeek@gmail.com, commenting at PhantasticGeek.com, or tweeting @PhantasticGeek.MP3
This week Dana and Dan discuss Star Fleet Academy episode 3, "Vitus Reflux." The guys talk about the rivalry between the students of the Academy and the War College. They also talk about feet, the mumps, and how difficult this episode was to watch. You will definitely like the podcast better than the Academy episode! Please send your comments, questions, and suggestions to damnitjimpodcast@gmail.com. You can find us on YouTube and Facebook. You can also call the Damnit Jim Hotline at 509-676-6298. Music: Climb by Shane Ivers - https://www.silvermansound.com
When the War College students start pranking the Starfleet cadets, the adults in charge only add fuel to their fire. But after Darem fumbles as team captain and Caleb and Tarima get closer, the cadets end the prank war with only a little bit of lab-grown eye trauma. What do we not universally want to know? When is a backwards basketball shot required? Which movie will not be mined for drops? It's the episode with a Paul Verhoeven shot.Support the production of Greatest TrekGet a thing at podshop.biz!Sign up for our mailing list!Greatest Trek is produced by Wynde PriddySocial media is managed by Rob Adler and Bill TilleyMusic by Adam RaguseaFriends of DeSoto for: Labor | Democracy | JusticeDiscuss the show using the hashtag #GreatestTrek and find us on social media:YouTube | Facebook | X | Instagram | TikTok | Mastodon | Bluesky | ThreadsAnd check out these online communities run by FODs: Reddit | USS Hood Discord | Facebook group | Wikia | FriendsOfDeSoto.social Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
And we're back with a review of the third episode of Star Trek: Starfleet Academy Season 1, "Vitus Reflux, "as Caleb, Darem, Genesis and the rest of the cadets find themselves up against those jerks over at the War College... and yes, that does include Tarima, the Betazoid with the mysterious power inhibitor...Speaking of which, we talk about the question many of you have been asking -- are Betazoids empaths or telepaths or all of the above? We also hit the Replimat for some Cold War fun and we have a really good Red Shirt from DS9!
00:01 – Welcome, cold open, and framing Episode 3's themes 05:10 – Early reactions to Episode 3 and growing positivity around the series 10:02 – Star Trek, relationships, and why Academy leans into emotional storytelling 14:55 – Episodic vs. serialized debate and expectations for a “big bad” 18:05 – Darum's background, family pressure, and the first signs of growth 22:10 – Genesis vs. Darum: competition, trust, and leadership dynamics 26:15 – Romance, rivalry, or mentorship? Breaking down Genesis's motivations 30:05 – The prank war: War College vs. Starfleet Academy tone shift 33:40 – Lighthearted episodes and why they matter for long-term stakes 37:05 – Foreshadowing danger: loss, sacrifice, and Star Trek precedent 40:10 – Transition to Caleb and Tarima's reduced screen presence 43:20 – Tarima's choice of the War College and emotional self-control 46:30 – The inhibitor device, emotional suppression, and trope discussion 49:40 – Critiques of Tarima's arc and missed development opportunities 52:55 – Caleb's desire for belonging and team identity 56:10 – Comparing Episode 3 to Episodes 1–2 character focus shifts 01:00:05 – Predictions for romantic tension and future conflicts 01:05:40 – Who's most at risk later this season? Death theories emerge 01:10:55 – Academy life vs. real-world Starfleet consequences 01:17:30 – Final thoughts, season trajectory, and closing reflections
This week it’s a classic school rivalry between Gryffindor and Slyther–I mean the Academy and the War College! Will the students rise to the occasion? Will the militant Jem’Hadar take her blood pressure meds? Will the flighty space hippy put on shoes? All these questions AND MORE will be answered in our discussion of Ep […] The post Starfleet Academy “Vitus Reflux” – Earth Station Trek – Episode 247 appeared first on The ESO Network.
This week it's a classic school rivalry between Gryffindor and Slyther--I mean the Academy and the War College! Will the students rise to the occasion? Will the militant Jem'Hadar take her blood pressure meds? Will the flighty space hippy put on shoes? All these questions AND MORE will be answered in our discussion of Ep 3: "Vitus Reflux"! Earth Station Trek is a part of the ESO Podcast Network, Executive Producer Mike Faber. #startrek #starfleetacademy #vitusreflux
Hosts Cam Smith and Tyler Orton walk out to hip-hop entrance music as they tackle the third episode of Star Trek: Starfleet Academy, Vitus Reflux. From cadet sport competitions, to character chemistries and War College, the duo highlight what works and what didn't. Join our Facebook page for exclusive content such as videos and bonus episodes. And you can also visit our blog, or follow us on Twitter and YouTube! Send any other questions, topic ideas or feedback to subspacetransmissionspod@gmail.com! Related Podcast Episodes: Why the Stakes in Star Trek Matter Strange New Worlds: "Through the Lens of Time" Join us next time as we review episode four of Academy, Vox in Excelso!
STARFLEET ACADEMY – S01E02 „BETA TEST“ | Discovery Panel „Democracy is continuous action“ – und genau so fühlt sich diese Episode an: als politisches Dauer-Workout mit emotionalem Muskelkater. In „Beta Test“ startet das Herbstsemester an der Starfleet Academy – inklusive Unterricht (Alien-Schleim mit Beziehungsstatus), Culture Clash mit dem War College und einer betazoidischen Delegation, bei der ausgerechnet die Jugend-Aktivist:innen die Tür zur Föderation wieder aufstoßen will. Wir sprechen (ohne alles vorwegzunehmen) über: • Disziplin, Verantwortung & das wiederkehrende „Make your bed“-Motiv • Diplomatie, die sich anfühlt wie ein Gespräch kurz vor dem Phaser-Schuss • Betazoid:innen, Gefühle auf Anschlag – und Vertrauen als riskanteste Technologie • Star Trek als „nur Dialoge“-Feuerwerk (und warum das unfassbar gut funktioniert) Hashtags: #StarTrek #StarfleetAcademy #BetaTest #DiscoveryPanel #StarTrekPodcast #Betazoid #Federation #SciFiPodcast #ParamountPlus
00:00 – Show intro, Episode 2 framing, and community welcome 05:35 – Initial reactions to “Beta Test” and slower pacing vs Episode 1 11:10 – Betazoid canon discussion: telepathy, eyes, and cultural norms 16:45 – Tarima's neural inhibitor and fear of her own abilities 22:20 – Starfleet Academy vs War College explained post-Burn 27:55 – Caleb's leadership arc and why he avoids the War College path 33:30 – Raimi (“Fish Boy”) and the struggle to define his role 39:05 – Comedy beats: Borg gag, barefoot Chancellor, and visual humor 44:40 – Is this still Star Trek? Tone shift and generational appeal 50:15 – Romance tension: Tarima, Caleb, Genesis, and teen-drama tropes 01:01:25 – 90210 comparisons and “college dramedy” intentionality 01:07:00 – Kurtzman-era Trek, Discovery DNA, and legacy expectations 01:12:35 – Writing strengths, character chemistry, and standout performances 01:18:10 – Episode 2 final thoughts and narrative direction going forward 01:23:45 – Closing remarks, audience reactions, and Episode 3 anticipation
In this episode of the Foreign Area Officer Podcast, host Michael Hill interviews retired Lieutenant Colonel Bill Woods, an Eastern European FAO and current instructor at the Joint Military Attaché School (JMAS). LTC Woods shares his experiences and challenges faced during his career, including the undervaluation of FAOs in the past, his roles in Naples, Cyprus, and London, and the importance of building relationships in diplomatic and military contexts. The discussion also touches on the practical aspects of being an FAO, the impact of critical thinking and current doctrinal knowledge, and the unique experiences and opportunities presented by serving at JMAS. Bill reflects on the importance of having fun in the job and staying engaged in current assignments while planning for future roles. 00:00 Introduction and Disclaimer 00:42 Welcome and Guest Introduction 00:59 Early Experiences as a FAO 02:13 Challenging Assignments and Career Growth 04:44 Political Advisor Role in Baghdad 07:47 NATO Advisor Experience 23:22 Greek Language and Cultural Immersion 41:39 Access and Opportunities in Foreign Military Education 43:06 Challenges and Misconceptions in Greek War College 44:19 Thesis Writing and Overcoming Language Barriers 44:58 Navigating Cultural and Academic Expectations 45:33 Ethical Dilemmas and Academic Integrity 46:31 Building Relationships and Gaining Respect 47:25 Experiences and Reflections on Military Assignments 49:45 The Importance of Fitting In and Building Trust 51:29 Protocol and Respect in International Military Relations 54:33 Career Path and Assignments in Military Diplomacy 55:59 Navigating the Attache Service and Career Challenges 57:54 The Role of FAOs in Multinational Operations 01:00:25 Balancing Operational Knowledge and Diplomatic Skills 01:07:31 The Value of War College and Continuous Learning 01:20:02 The Future of FAOs in a Changing Military Landscape 01:22:39 Experiences and Challenges in Cyprus 01:27:11 Minister's Support and Explosive Seizure 01:28:06 Meeting the Minister of Defense 01:28:59 The Explosion and Its Aftermath 01:30:14 Improving Relationships Post-Explosion 01:33:44 Challenges and Strategies in Diplomatic Relations 01:42:24 Reflections on Career and FAO Experiences 01:53:13 Working at the Joint Military Attaché School (JMAS) 01:58:28 Advice for Future FAOs and Instructors 02:08:22 Final Thoughts and Farewell
Leadership demands grit, clarity and conviction. SUMMARY On Long Blue Leadership, Congressman August Pfluger '00 reflects on these qualities through his experiences at the U.S. Air Force Academy, in the cockpit and as part of the U.S. House of Representatives. His story challenges every leader to ask where courage is calling them to go next. SHARE THIS PODCAST LINKEDIN | FACEBOOK CONGRESSMAN PFLUGER'S TOP 10 LEADERSHIP TAKEAWAYS Courageous career leaps require conviction, timing and faith. Pfluger left active duty at 19 years and four months — a highly unconventional choice — demonstrating that major pivots sometimes require stepping into uncertainty. Work ethic is a lifelong differentiator. He emphasizes that he has never been “the best,” but has always been willing to outwork anyone. Hard work + grit consistently opened doors. Failure and setbacks shape long-term success. Missed opportunities at USAFA and earlier career disappointments taught him timing, resilience and long-term perspective. Leadership is transferable across domains. His fighter pilot and command experience directly enabled his political success — planning, debrief culture and thick skin all mapped over perfectly. Credibility requires deep study and prioritization. You cannot master everything; leaders must choose focus areas and know them cold so others trust their expertise. Humility, credibility and approachability are foundational leadership traits. These principles translate powerfully to Congress and team leadership. Family and faith must anchor leadership. His family's summer crisis reframed his priorities: “None of this matters if you don't take care of your family.” The nation needs more military and Academy graduates in public leadership. He stresses that only four USAFA grads have ever served in Congress — and more are needed to restore civility and mission-focused service. The U.S. Air Force and U.S. Space Force are under-resourced relative to global threats. Pfluger advocates vigorously for rebalancing defense spending to meet modern challenges. Self-reflection is critical to growth. Leaders must ask: How do I see myself? How do others see me? If those don't align, adjust the work ethic, mindset or behaviors accordingly. CHAPTERS 00:00 — Introduction & Biography 01:44 — Opening Remarks 01:47 — Leaving Active Duty at 19 Years and 4 Months 04:06 — Why Run for Office? 05:40 — Family, Faith & Influences 07:14 — Representing His Hometown District 08:29 — Learning to Represent a District 11:07 — Work Ethic and USAFA Foundations 12:22 — Failure, Setbacks & Long-Term Rewards 15:10 — Unexpected Assignments Becoming Career High Points 17:24 — Pentagon, Fellowship & NSC 19:49 — USAFA Grads in Congress 21:03 — Role of the Board of Visitors 23:24 — Key Focus Areas for the Board of Visitors 25:11 — Top National Security Challenges 27:13 — Balancing Congress, Leadership, and Family 29:01 — Leadership Style & Decision-Making 30:40 — Humble, Credible, Approachable 33:38 — Building Credibility as a Younger Leader 34:43 — What's Next: A More United Country 37:29 — Daily Habits for Growth 39:37 — Advice for Emerging Leaders 41:24 — Final Reflections & Call to Action 43:45 — Closing Thoughts & Outro ABOUT CONGRESSMAN PFLUGER BIO U.S. Rep. August Pfluger '00 is serving his third term in the U.S. House of Representatives. He represents 20 counties in Texas' 11th Congressional District. After graduating from the U.S Air Force Academy, he served in the Air Force and Air Force Reserve for 25 years as an F-22 and F-15 pilot with over 300 combat hours. In Congress, he is chairman of the Republican Study Committee, the largest caucus on Capitol Hill. He is a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence. CONNECT WITH THE CONGRESSMAN LINKEDIN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CONNECT WITH THE LONG BLUE LINE PODCAST NETWORK TEAM Ted Robertson | Producer and Editor: Ted.Robertson@USAFA.org Send your feedback or nominate a guest: socialmedia@usafa.org Ryan Hall | Director: Ryan.Hall@USAFA.org Bryan Grossman | Copy Editor: Bryan.Grossman@USAFA.org Wyatt Hornsby | Executive Producer: Wyatt.Hornsby@USAFA.org ALL PAST LBL EPISODES | ALL LBLPN PRODUCTIONS AVAILABLE ON ALL MAJOR PODCAST PLATFORMS FULL TRANSCRIPT OUR SPEAKERS Guest, Rep. August Pfluger '00 | Host, Lt. Col. (Ret.) Naviere Walkewicz '99 Naviere Walkewicz 0:00 Welcome to Long Blue Leadership, the podcast where we share insights on leadership through the lives and experiences of Air Force Academy graduates. I'm Naviere Walkewicz, Class of '99. In this edition of Long Blue Leadership, we're honored to welcome a distinguished leader whose career spans military service, national security and public office, Congressman August Pfluger is a proud graduate of the United States Air Force Academy, Class of 2000, and currently represents the 11th Congressional District of Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives. Before entering Congress, Congressman Pfluger served for nearly two decades in the United States Air Force, rising to the rank of colonel. He is currently a member of the Air Force Reserve as an F-15 and F-22 fighter pilot. He logged over 300 combat hours in defense of our nation. He has also served as a member of the National Security Council, bringing strategic insight to some of the most complex global threats we face today. Since taking office in 2021 Congressman Pfluger has remained deeply committed to strengthening our national defense. He currently serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Homeland Security Committee to critical platforms from which he continues to represent and lead. He is the chairman of the Republican Study Committee and serves as the chairman of the Air Force Academy's Board of Visitors, appointed to the BOV by the speaker of the house in 2023 and elected by his colleagues to serve as chair. Whether in the halls of Congress or in the cockpit, Congressman Pfluger's career has been defined by a steadfast commitment to courageous service and leadership. Congressman Pfluger, welcome to Long Blue Leadership. Rep. August Pfluger 1:44 Thank you, Naviere. It's honor to be here with you. Naviere Walkewicz 1:47 Well, we are so glad to have you. And there's something that I want to jump right into, because it really occurred to me how odd this is, but you served for nearly two decades, and when I say nearly two decades in the Air Force, 19 years and four months, and then you pulled the plug, you didn't go to retirement right then. Can we talk about that a little bit? Rep. August Pfluger 2:09 Well, this is not something that most financial advisers would advise you of doing. And I'll tell you, this was a journey in faith, because at almost 20 years. September of 2019, we made a decision, my wife and I made a decision to run for Congress, which meant that we got out of the active duty, joined the Reserve, and started a campaign, something that just a month prior, we had absolutely no intention of doing, and had not even talked about doing. Running for office was something that was always of interest, but certainly not at 19 years and four months. So the opportunity came up, had a couple of phone calls from friends and family to say that the representative who represented my hometown and where I grew up was retiring after 16 years, and a lot of factors. And I'll really take you down this faith journey, a lot of factors happened that we couldn't ignore. And we literally moved back to my hometown of San Angelo that I had not lived in for over 20 years, and started a campaign, which, as you can imagine, was, I mean, it took a lot of courage for my wife, from my family, three little girls, who we uprooted and went through this. But I'm so glad that we did it. But it wasn't without, you know, I can say anxiety and just, you know, the fear, the unknown maybe, and not knowing exactly what would happen. So when you say and use the words, we burned the ships. That was the moment in time that we literally burned the ships and ran a campaign with every piece of our heart and soul. Naviere Walkewicz 3:48 Wow. Well, let's talk about that a little bit, because, you know, we have listeners that make these pivotal moments in their careers. They make these decisions that really shaped them. What was it about that time, other than the incumbent was going to retire. Like, why you? Why then, you know? Let's talk about that a little bit more. Rep. August Pfluger 4:06 Well, this is pre-Covid. And the thought of running for office always sounds good. You know, if you have that interest, you're like, “OK, that'd be great.” Well, then when you kind of get down to the brass tax that you're going to have to put in 14- to 16-hour days and learn how to talk to people about what's important in this district that then it kind of changes things. But honestly, there were signs and things that pointed me and my wife in this direction that we couldn't ignore. And when you look at this type of district, I mean, it's really, in the past 100 years, there's only been about six representatives. So it's not one of those things you say, “Well, maybe we'll wait for next time.” The opportunity was there, there was a window of time. It was about 30 days where we had to make a decision to literally move from northern Virginia back to Texas and start a whole new career. And ended doing so forego the pension for what would now be five or six years, because I've had to work as a reservist to, you know, kind of get back to that point. So there was a financial piece to it. There was a career that was, was going very well that, you know, maybe, are we giving that up? And what happens if we don't win? And then, you know, all these unknowns. So I will say it was, it was definitely the biggest professional decision that I've ever made in my career. Naviere Walkewicz 5:40 So you talked about some of your family members — you had phone calls. It sounds like, your faith and your family are a big part of your decision making. And, when you go forward with things, I think you've talked about your grandfather having been someone that inspired you to go into the Air Force. You know, who are those key players in your family that have really inspired you in your big leadership decisions. Rep. August Pfluger 6:02 Yes, you're right. I had two grandfathers that served in World War II. One was a pilot, and that that led me to make the first decision to go to the Air Force Academy. And that stayed with me. We had nobody in my family who was in politics. I mean, not a single person. In fact, a lot of my family, I had several great uncles and different family members that I'm close to, and they said, “What?” Like, ”What are — you sure you want to do this? And why? Don't you have a really good Air Force career and you've been able to, you know, rise in the ranks and all the things that you've tried to do?” But I honestly — it was kind of a word of wisdom to say, “If you're going to do this, have some good reasons.” Like, “Why do you want to do this?” And the district that I get to represent in my hometown, we have military bases, agriculture and energy, and I love all three of those things. And I think of those as national security-level entities that really dovetail very nicely with my first part of my professional career. Naviere Walkewicz 7:14 That makes sense. So it really was an extension — this new path in your journey was really an extension of what you had done in uniform and active duty and now being able to give it back to your hometown district and the patrons in there as well. Rep. August Pfluger 7:30 Absolutely. And in the campaign I talked about how important it was to be able to provide our own food. We have a lot of cattle ranchers there that are in my district, that you don't want to be dependent on some other country, especially an adversarial country, for your food needs. And the same thing for energy production: that you can't be dependent for energy needs on your adversaries. So those were things that I was able to really talk about, and I mean, oh my gosh, after I actually was elected and got into office, I mean, they became front and center and still are of that discussion. And I think that was the really interesting piece about having been deployed. We were stationed all over the world, almost seven years outside of the United States, on three different continents, and to be able to tie it together and kind of bring that back home and communicate why this place where I grew up and now where I live and where I represent is so important to our national security? Naviere Walkewicz 8:29 Well, you talked a little bit about earlier, about you weren't sure if you were going to get elected, and then when you did, you had to go out and talk to people and really understand the challenges. What is that journey like when it's completely new, right? It's not the same. It's you're not getting into a cockpit. You're not an instructor pilot now. Now you are — you're representing all of them. How do you how do you approach that new path? Because I think that's something when our leaders take this leap of faith and they're looking at, well, how do I approach it? It's completely different from anything I've done. I think they'd like to know how you did it so well. Rep. August Pfluger 8:59 Well, thanks for the question. It was a huge challenge in being a squadron commander, having been an instructor pilot or a mission commander, and having led in actual combat, that that was everything. I mean, I didn't know anything about politics, but what I did know was how to map out a plan and how to put the pieces and parts together. And I knew that nobody was going to outwork me. I mean, come on, you know, when you have a SAMI on Saturday morning, you got to wake up and make your bed and do all the things to get that weekend pass. I mean, you're going to work hard. And so I knew that I had a competitive advantage on the work ethic and the ability to plan and so really, the thing that I realize now, now six years later, is that I think people — what they really appreciated was that I wasn't a career politician, that the things that I was saying and campaigning on were like true passions, and they weren't empty promises. I told them this is what I'm going to do, and I'm proud to report I've done every single one of those things that I told them that I would do, and it's because we were instructed so well, both at school and then as members of the active-duty Air Force about how to follow through and be persistent and just carry through with what you said you're going to do. I mean, integrity is a big piece of this, but I will tell you also that now staying in touch after being elected, elected, I travel throughout these 20 counties all the time, and you have to have some thick skin, because you're going to get some feedback from people that is not always flattering, and they're going to ask you, “Well, why did you vote this way, or what happened here, and why are you not doing this? And this is expensive.” And, I mean, so you have to be willing to take that feedback, which, by the way, sitting in a fighter pilot debrief — I mean, that was the perfect training for having thick skin, to understand that what people are trying to tell you: Is it critical? Without substance? That you really need to listen to them and try to solve these problems? Naviere Walkewicz 11:07 So earlier, you had talked about, I think there are these things that you did at the Academy. No one is going to outwork you have. You always been that type of person, someone that, you know, just kind of works really hard. Or is that something that you kind of developed at the Academy. Rep. August Pfluger 11:21 I developed it at the Academy. But I would say I came in with a with a good work ethic and then was challenged by our classmates, who are amazing, you know? It's like, “Oh my gosh, I'm really not that smart and not that fast and not that… you know, whatever,” because you see all these amazing people. But yes, work ethic was, I mean, I look at it now, having administered how many nominations to service academies? I mean, dozens and dozens of kids that I've gotten a chance to work with over the past five years who are absolutely incredible. I'm like, I don't know if I could get in at this point in time, because they're just incredible. And I had to work very hard at everything I ever did, everything I ever achieved, was because of hard work. It wasn't because I was the best. It was because I just, at the end of the day, worked very hard to get it. I think that's something that's a lesson that we learned during four years at the Academy, but it served me very well in this profession. Naviere Walkewicz 12:22 Was there a particular time at the Academy where you worked really hard and it didn't go your way? And, you know, how did you overcome that? Because I think sometimes the outcome is, “If I if I give it all and I work really hard, I'm going to get to where I want to go.” And if that wasn't the case, how did that actually change the trajectory or shape you? Rep. August Pfluger 12:42 There were multiple times at the Academy that you work hard for something. I mean, I came in as a recruited athlete, had some injuries, and so didn't get a chance to finish all four years that that was hard to go through that process, and it just didn't work out. And or you're just not good enough. And then that was the case too for me, on the football team. But they're just better people, which is awesome and that, but that shaped who I am now, because it is not just about how hard you work. That's a huge piece of it. But you also have to have good timing. You have to have some luck. You have to be in the right place and have been brought up by the right people. And when the when the opportunity strikes you, you've got to be able to take advantage of that timing to do that. And that those lessons — I absolutely remember that there was one instance where I really, really wanted to go to do this exchange program in Egypt, and they were going to bring some of the political science department over there. Well, apparently my grades were not in the right area to be selected for this program. I think I was an alternate or something, unless that's good, that's — it's not nothing. But I was very disappointed, because I thought I worked hard, you know, maybe not hard enough on the grades, but had worked hard to be a part of the conversation, to go. Well, didn't get a chance to do it. So always had that in the back of my mind. Well, I went to Egypt, but it was as a congressman. I led a congressional delegation of six or seven members. We met with the president of Egypt and had very serious conversations about the negotiation for what Gaza has now with the peace deal that we have gotten to and had a, you know, went to the president's palace, got to sit down right next to him and talk to him for over an hour. So I always kept that in the back of my mind that I was going to Egypt one day. Naviere Walkewicz 14:37 That's right. And honestly, you worked really, really hard. You didn't get there, but it kept you — kept that fire going, because you knew at some point you're going to, so it did end up working out, in that case, for sure. You know, one of the things that I find really interesting and fascinating about you is, as you talk about these different experiences you've had, you said they've shaped you. And when you're in the military, can you share a time when you maybe we're in a position that it wasn't what you'd hoped for. You thought it was going to be, but you found it to be incredibly rewarding. Was there anything in that kind of space that happened to you? Rep. August Pfluger 15:10 Yes, several times. You know you want things, you think you want things, and then it doesn't work out. You don't get selected. And always in the back of my mind, every young lieutenant wants to be a weapons officer wants to then be a squadron commander of a fighter squadron, and that's just the competitive side of this. And I was no different when it came time to select who the next squadron commanders were going to be. I'll never forget: My operations group commander came to be and he said, “Well, we got a problem. We have six really talented lieutenant colonels. You're all promoted below the zone, and we have four squadrons, so we're going to have to figure out a Plan B for a couple of you, and I've got something in mind for you.” He said, “I think that you should go be a deployed squadron, commander of an OSS, an operational support squadron.” He said, “We've got a war going on, a conflict with ISIS, and you'd be great.” Well, that's not exactly an easy conversation to go home and to tell your spouse: “Oh, I just got told that I was going to deploy. I'm not going to be a fighter squadron commander here. I'm going to go somewhere else, and I'll be gone a year.” So that was hard, but oh my goodness, what an experience professionally. Obviously, I missed my family, but this was the height of the conflict against ISIS. I had hundreds of people that I got a chance to work with, command, flying combat missions, doing something that mattered, working with our international partners. You know, we were on an Emirati base, and so I worked with the Emiratis on a daily basis, because we had almost 20 different weapon systems, 20 different aircraft there and it was the highlight of my professional career. So God had a plan. It worked out much better than I could have ever engineered, and it turned out — minus the fact that I had to be gone for a year; obviously, nobody likes that — but it turned out to be the best professional year of my Air Force career. Naviere Walkewicz 17:13 I find that really interesting because that — so would that have been the last kind of position you held before going into the move for Congress? Is that correct? Rep. August Pfluger 17:24 You know, actually, I came back — was PCSed to the Pentagon, worked for the chief of staff of the Air Force, General Goldfein, OK, went to a year of War College equivalent in D.C., a fellowship program, and then was assigned to the White House, to the National Security Council, for just about two and a half months before we made — three months before we made the decision to run for Congress. Naviere Walkewicz 17:49 So just a couple things happened after that. [Laughs]. What an amazing run, and the amazing leaders that you got to work with. So was that experience that when you were deployed as a squadron commander and then coming back, did that help shape your thoughts specifically to the Congress role, because you talked about the very three important things, right? Energy, you know, national security and there was one more… and agriculture. Thank you. And so, you know, did that all kind of get settled in when you were in that transition piece from, you know, squadron commander, to your time at the Pentagon in the White House area. Rep. August Pfluger 18:26 Absolutely, I had a year as a deployed squadron commander, came back and worked a year at the Pentagon, which I didn't know how lucky that was. Most people get there two or three years, but work directly for the chief of staff. Heard all of the conversations between Gen. Goldfein and Secretary Heather Wilson and then had a year where I studied at a think tank on Middle East policy. It could not have been a better education with a little bit of time in the White House to prepare me to run for Congress. You look back on that, you go, “Oh, so that's why.” “Oh, these steps were to prepare for this job now,” which I mean, just the fact that, as a member of Congress, I've probably met with 10 or 15 heads of states, one on one, presidents from different countries around the world, and to have that education, to be able to speak intelligently, at least somewhat intelligently, on these issues. Took that the steps that I just went through right there. Naviere Walkewicz 19:31 And you know, something that I think is really interesting to what you just said, working with Gen. Goldfein and with Secretary Wilson, you know, there are so few Academy graduates that have had the opportunities to serve in Congress and to be in the role that you are. How many Academy, Air Force Academy grads we have now have that have done this? Rep. August Pfluger 19:49 There's two currently serving, myself and Don Davis, opposite sides of the aisle, but great friends, and there were only two prior, so there's only been four. And the first two were Heather Wilson was the first Martha McSally, I'll never forget when I got elected. Heather Wilson called me and she said, “Congratulations, you're finally keeping up with us ladies.” And I thought it was great. But you know, we need more graduates, honestly. And I don't care who's listening to this, what side of the aisle you're on, we need more air force academy graduates. There are nine West Pointers currently serving, and seven from Annapolis currently serving, and we've only had four total. Naviere Walkewicz 20:30 All right, it's out there now. We've got our, you know, got our calling. So here we go. You know, I want to ask you a question about, you know, being in Congress, you are on several committees, and you're in leading roles in them. Let's talk a little bit. First about, if you don't mind, I'd like to talk about the Board of Visitors, because I think it's a great opportunity for our graduates to understand actually what the Board of Visitors actually does. So if you don't mind, kind of sharing in your words, you know what your priorities are with the Board of Visitors and what that looks like. I think it'd be really helpful in educating our listeners. Rep. August Pfluger 21:03 Well. Thank you. It's an honor to be on the Board of Visitors. It's statutorily set up by Congress decades ago, and it basically provides an avenue of oversight, something that is appointed both legislatively, by the speaker of the house and by the Senate majority leader and also the president. And, you know, we've got a number of several grads, but a number of senators and congressmen. And, you know, again, one of these timing things that I didn't necessarily intend to run for the chairmanship, but we needed, I think, a graduate to do that, and am proud to be the chairman of this group. You know, Charlie Kirk was on this board, and what a tragic situation that was. We've got a number of really passionate leaders, and our job really is to interact with the institution, to ask questions and to report back directly to the Secretary of War and into the Secretary of the Air Force on the health and welfare of the institution, on any other issues that we think are important. And for me, kind of the driving principle is that I love this institution, the leadership lessons that I learned there and those that I hear from so many graduates are important well beyond military service. They're important for the rest of a graduate's life. And I want to make sure that everything that is going on there, the resources that are needed there, the schedule and the curriculum and the ability to train the next generation of young warriors, both for the space and the Air Force, are the best in the country, and that we are prepared no matter what, that those graduates can go do their job. So it really is an honor to be on the board, but then to be the chairman of it. Naviere Walkewicz 23:03 I can imagine that, and I think it really speaks volumes, the fact that, you know, you're so passionate about it, you've taken what you've had from the Academy, you've applied it in this role. What are the first things that I think you're looking at? You said you talked about the resources and kind of the schedule and things that are happening at the academy. What are the key things that you're looking at right now as a Board of Visitors? Rep. August Pfluger 23:24 Well, I think to start with, I mean, we all know you wake up early, you go bed late, and you're trying to cram, you know, 28 hours into 24 and so the No. 1 thing that I want to see and work through is, how are we continuing to innovate with the best training possible, so that, you know, you can't teach the solution to every problem, but you want to teach a framework of how to think, and that, you know, there's going to be cadets that are challenged through their academic studies, there's going to be cadets that are challenged through their military studies. There's going to be cadets that are challenged athletically, and some that get all three of those, obviously, we all get got all three. But no matter which piece of the puzzle fills, you know, their time, they should get the training that teaches them how to respond in stressful situations, that teaches them how to function as a team, and that that offers them the opportunity to honestly, to experience a little bit of failure, while also knowing that success is right down the road, and that with a little grit, a little determination and a little persistence, that they're going to get there, and that is a challenge, I mean, In a resource-confined environment that we have right now that that's a big challenge, but that's why we have legislators, Senators and House members, They can go fight for those resources to make sure that they're getting that training that they need. Naviere Walkewicz 24:56 Thank you for sharing that you know, I think when you talk about having that framework to critically work through whatever is coming at you, and, you know, fighting for resources. Can you share what is the greatest challenge that you're faced with right now and how you're working through it? Rep. August Pfluger 25:11 Yeah, absolutely. I mean, just, you know, from a military standpoint, I'm obviously very biased on what air power and space power does I mean the army will deploy to certain locations. In the Navy will deploy to certain locations. But the Air Force and the Space Force are everywhere. We're in every theater. We've been in every conflict. We are the constant and I don't think resource wise, that that our Department of the Air Force is receiving the resources that it needs proportionately speaking to the threat that we face. We're the smallest and the oldest that we've ever been, and we need to change that immediately. As chairman — you mentioned I was chairman of the Republican Study Committee. What is that? Well, it's a 189-member caucus, committee, policy committee... Naviere Walkewicz 26:01 It's the largest one, right? Rep. August Pfluger 26:02 It's huge. It's the largest committee in Congress, and we meet weekly with Cabinet members and other leaders to discuss policy. But this has been something that I've been passionate about, which we have to take advantage of an environment where some more resources are being put towards our military, and I want to make sure that a larger portion of those go to the Department of the Air Force to meet the threat. And that's just a neat opportunity that it's a competitive election. I had to get elected by my peers. You know, 188 other congressmen and women from across the country. I had to run an election to get elected to it, and now trying to communicate to them why the business of Air and Space power is so important, but, but I'm we're slowly but surely getting there. Naviere Walkewicz 26:53 Well, I'm not sure where you have time when you're you know, you're doing so many things, you're on the road, meeting with your constituents. You're leading. You know these major committees, the Board of Visitors, as chair. Can you talk about how you're balancing? You know, you always talked about being your family is really important to you. How are you balancing that? What does that look like for someone in a leadership role? Rep. August Pfluger 27:13 Well, it's obviously the biggest challenge that any of us face, which is making sure that you take care of the most fundamental and important piece of your life, which is your family and being gone. I mean, I go to Washington, D.C., on Monday, and generally come home Thursday or Friday, and that's about three weeks out of every four. So my wife, is the most important piece of this, because she allows me to do this, and I couldn't do it without her, honestly. And then secondly, you know, we had a scare this summer because two of my girls were at Camp Mystic. And you know, that was that really brought things back to such a fundamental level that, you know, my No. 1 job on this earth is to be a husband and a father, a person of faith. And I'll tell you that that was, that was a transformational moment in it, just in my in my life, because when you have two daughters that were that thankfully came home and in then you see 27 others that didn't, that they knew that we knew the families and we were close to that. This has put everything back into perspective, that the service that I'm doing should be focused on a foundation of family and faith, and that none of it matters if you don't take care of that. Naviere Walkewicz 28:41 So what does that look like in how you lead? How does that shape the decisions you make in your role in Congress, as a reservist? And then for our listeners, you know, how do they put those important things first in the midst of having to make other decisions professionally? Rep. August Pfluger 29:01 I think a lot of it is, maybe not so much, the “what” in the decision, but it's the “how,” you know, you carry yourself, and you know on the other side of the aisle. I mean, I'm going to fight policies that I don't agree with all day long. But I think the how I do that, what I want my daughters to know is that they had a dad that was very firm in his beliefs. So I think that's, you know, when I look at it kind of like from the, “OK, what's important?” OK, being a good dad, not just saying the right things, but actually going and carrying those out. I think the how you carry them out is really important. And then, you know the specifics of legislation. There are things that, if I believe in in taking care of the American family, then there are things that I'm going to advocate for, not, not to make this to political of a discussion, but I think you can see through my track record that that I have focused on those things that would help strengthen the family, Naviere Walkewicz 30:08 The “how” is really, it's part of your legacy, right? And I think that's what your children are seeing as well, in the way that you, you, you do what you do. And I think as leaders, that's something really important to be thinking about. So I'm really thankful that you shared that example. Shared that example. Have you found that your leadership style has evolved, or has it already always been kind of rooted in you know, who you've been and you've just kind of tweaked it a little bit? Or have you seen yourself evolve more than you would have expected? Rep. August Pfluger 30:40 Yes, it has evolved, but, and I hope for the better, we'd have to ask others what they think of that, but, but, you know, look, growing up in a professionally in a fighter squadron, there were three tenants that they even though I didn't go to weapon school, they teach you this to be humble, credible and approachable. I mean, think about that. Those are the core tenants of who our lead warriors are, and that is not what you see. When you think of politicians. You think, Well, they're braggadocious and annoying. And you know, OK, and I hope I don't fall into that category. I need to do some self-reflection every once while, but, but I've got a staff of almost 40 people, and I have 434 other colleagues that you have to work with. So you better believe that you've got to be humble because there are people who are better than you in every category. You better believe that being approachable in this job is really important, because people are going to come to you and they're going to need something, or you're going to need something from them, and if you don't have the credibility of what you're talking about or what you're leading, then you're not going to get anything done. And so I've really had to work on all three of those things since I was elected to make sure that tying that to a servant leadership model. We started out in 2021, and I told my team, I said, we are going to do everything we possibly can to make other people that I am working with, other congressmen and women better. And they said, Wait, what? I said, Yeah, this isn't about me getting the limelight. We will get plenty of limelight, but let's work on giving other people the credit, giving other people the opportunities, calling on their expertise, pushing them up. And it will all work out, and we will achieve everything we wanted to achieve for the district that I represent, and it was just like this lightning bolt of it was so antithetical to the way that many people in Congress think. And I am not saying that we have changed the world, but when you're elected to basically a conference-wide position like I am, then you really have hard conversations with people, and those conversations people said, You know what, you've helped me out. I'm going to vote for you. And that meant everything, Naviere Walkewicz 33:08 Humble, approachable, credible, what great lessons for our leaders. And I think that translates across anything you're doing. Of the three, it seems that credible would probably be the hardest to achieve, right? It's a time-based thing. How would you recommend that our leaders, especially those that are growing in their leadership roles, achieve that when they don't necessarily have the time right in? Rep. August Pfluger 33:38 It's so hard, but that grit, that determination, I mean, the study, the thing, all the things we learned, you know, it's like they give you. The academic instructors are like a torture chamber, because they know you can't study everything, so you have to prioritize, which is a lesson I think I still draw on today. But I think that credibility comes from if you're going to be an expert in something, you've got to study it. You've got to know it, and people have to trust you. So when you tell them something, it has to be the truth, and they have to know well, I don't know that particular policy issue, but I know Pfluger does, because, you know he did that in his career. He studied that. So I think that grit and that determination and the prioritization of your time is so important, you can't do it all. I mean, we just can't. You have to. You have to make a choice, and those choices have to then go towards the goals that you're setting for yourself. Naviere Walkewicz 34:32 Excellent, excellent lessons. So you've accomplished so much since 2021, you know? What's next? What are you trying to work towards next? Rep. August Pfluger 34:43 I mean, there's so many different like policy issues I'm not going to bore you with. Let's just talk about the big picture, the elephant in the room, which is how divided our country is, and it's heartbreaking to see. You know, I think back to like, the aftermath of 911 I literally 911 happened two weeks prior to my pilot training graduation. You as a Class of '99 were right in the same boat. I mean, we were our professional careers were turned upside down, but our country came together, and that that was kind of the I think that that was the best thing to see how many people that were divided on whatever lines kind of came together. We're very divided, and it is hard to see and from I want to see an end of the radical sides of our parties and a normal conversation. We should be able to have a normal debate in Congress about whatever issues of spending and things like that. And we should be able to then slap each other on the back and say, Yeah, good job you won that one. Or, you know, good job I won this one. That should be kind of the norm. And I've got so many good friends who are Democrats that it's there, but the pull to radicalization is it's alive and well. And to be honest, this is why we need more Academy graduates who are doing this type of work, whether it's running for local office or running for Congress or Senate or whatever, because we get it. We get it from being a part of something that was greater than ourselves and being a part of a mission that it wasn't about, I it was literally about the team of success. And I think it's, it's veterans that are in these leadership positions that are going to help be a part of this, so that that really, I really do want to see that that doesn't mean that I'm not going to fight tooth and nail for policy that I believe in, which is partisan at times. And I'm OK with that, but what I'm not OK with is demonizing somebody for having a different belief. Let's go fight the merits of it, but not, not the character of the other person. Naviere Walkewicz 37:03 Thank you for sharing that. I think, you know, just putting the elephant on the table, I think, is really important. That's what it is about conversation. It's about dialog and so thank you for sharing that. For sure, this has been an incredible conversation. We've kind of navigated different parts of your career, you know, your leadership journey, maybe, if I could ask you this, what is something you're doing every day, Congressman Pfluger, to be better? Rep. August Pfluger 37:29 I think, in faith life, really trying to tie in spiritually, and to not be the one in control, trying to be more present in in my family's life, I'm going to give you three or four. So, you know, just being more intentional, putting the phone down, like if I'm going to sit down with my kids and be there, because I could be on the phone 24 hours a day. So put the phone down, talk to my wife be engaged, and that that's really that, that, I think that's a challenge for anybody who is in any adult right now, quite frankly, but especially those that are in leadership positions, which all of our graduates are, and so just put the phone down and being engaged, and it's hard. It's like, “Oh, I got to take care of this, you know, I got to call that person back. We've got to do this.” But you know that is, I think that that is probably the No. 1 thing that then allows a stronger faith life, a stronger relationship with my family. Physically, still taking the Air Force PT test, got a 99 last year. Was very proud of that and so trying to stay physically fit. Naviere Walkewicz 38:48 That's outstanding! Rep. August Pfluger 38:49 There are some other graduates who have challenged me with that. You may know Joel Neeb? A classmate of yours. Naviere Walkewicz 38:58 Oh yeah! I know Thor. Rep. August Pfluger 39:00 Thor is awesome. And he's been such an inspiration. I could name 100 people, but he said he's a really good inspiration to so many people. And on all the things that you just the things that I answered for your question, he's been a good inspiration on. Naviere Walkewicz 39:15 I would agree with that wholeheartedly. Yes. Well, thank you for that. Can you also share, you know, knowing what you know now through the years that you've experienced, you know your hardships, the triumphs — what would you share with our growing leaders that they can do today to help them be stronger down the road? Rep. August Pfluger 39:37 You know, I think some self-reflection, like, how do you see yourself, and how does the world see you? And is this — does it match up? Because if it's different, if your opinion of yourself is higher than that of what other people are thinking and your work ethic and what you're bringing to the to the table, then then you need to do some self-reflection. And I again, I got back to my career as a fighter pilot, which was perfect for politics. You know, you got to learn to work as a team. You have people debriefing you, and there's critical thoughts on your actions, of how you perform. But I think any leader, it needs to first have the grit to be able to stick with it. It's not always the best person that gets the job, but I can promise you, the person who keeps seeking that job and has that drive, they're going to get there. That has been the story of my life and self-reflection, to go What's stopping me from getting there is probably the key, as long as you have that grit, that self-reflection, to have some clarity for whatever goal you want to achieve. That's my humble opinion of what I would tell myself 15 years ago. Naviere Walkewicz 41:00 Wow. And I think that does kind of give us a moment to just sit in it and think about that as we are, you know, trying to be our best selves and to continue to evolve as leaders. What a great way to do that, right? Just reflect some self-reflection. I want to make sure we have an opportunity. If there's anything that I didn't ask you, that you feel is really important to share with our listeners. What would that be? Rep. August Pfluger 41:24 Well, there were a couple of things. No. 1, I was trying to think back — because your Class of '99 and I'm Class of 2000 — on whether or not I had to get in the front-leaning rest and recite John Stuart Mill's poem, or not. I can't remember that, so maybe I snuck by. Naviere Walkewicz 41:45 Definitely a front-leaning rest kind of gal. I have pretty strong abs. I can handle that. Rep. August Pfluger 41:51 You know, I just, I want to go back to what how important our institution is, because we're in that other dimension. We're in the air, in the space domain. We're solving problems in our professional career that I mean, think about where we've come since the Wright Brothers demonstrated we could fly and now, you know all the things that we're doing in air and space, and that's because of our graduates. And you know, I just, I really want to have a call out to our graduates that your leadership in a variety of ways is needed. It's needed in the business community, in Fortune 500 companies. It's needed in your local communities. It's needed at the national level of politics; there are several candidates for Congress right now who are graduates. I'm helping them, and I will help anybody. I don't care what party you are, of course, I have my favorite, but I will help any person who is looking to run for something like this. This is what I know now. But we really do need your leadership in order to bring the temperature down, to unite our country, to make sure that we're going to be successful. It's not if it's a matter of when we're going to face that next big, truly existential threat and challenge to our country. And guess what? I trust the people that were right there next to be in the front, winning rest, reciting all of those quotes and having to do a little bit harder of a standard in our four years of education than other institutions. And so I trust our graduates, but we need you, and we really need you to take that opportunity and serve in any possible way that you can. Naviere Walkewicz 43:45 Wow. Thank you for sharing that. I think that that is a perfect way a call to action, so to speak, for all of us you know the service after the service, so this has been incredible. Congressman Pfluger, thank you for your time today. Rep. August Pfluger 43:57 Well, Naviere, thank you for reaching so many graduates and looking forward to a Bitton Army and Navy again next year. Naviere Walkewicz 44:04 That's right next year. Well, you know, as I reflect on this conversation, you know, one theme really rises above others, courage, the grit, you know, not just the courage we often associate with the battlefield or moments of crises, but the quiet, steady courage that it takes to lead with conviction every day, Congressman Pfluger reminded us that true leadership means standing firm in your values even when the path may be uncertain or the stakes may be high, it's the kind of courage that doesn't seek comfort, but instead answers to responsibility. So as you think about your own leadership journey, ask yourself, Where is courage calling you? Where is that grit gonna take you? Whether it's in the workplace, in your community or your personal life, lean into those moments, because courage, real, principled, humble, courage is what transforms good leaders into great ones. Thank you for listening to this edition of Long Blue Leadership. If you know someone who needs encouraging words in their leadership journey, please share this podcast with them as well. I'm Naviere Walkewicz. Until next time. KEYWORDS August Pfluger, Long Blue Leadership Podcast, U.S. Air Force Academy, leadership lessons, congressional service, fighter pilot, national security, grit and resilience, service after service, Air Force Board of Visitors, faith and family leadership, career transition, public service, humble credible approachable, air and space power. The Long Blue Line Podcast Network is presented by the U.S. Air Force Academy Association & Foundation
The Cognitive Crucible is a forum that presents different perspectives and emerging thought leadership related to the information environment. The opinions expressed by guests are their own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of or endorsement by the Information Professionals Association. During this episode, COL Rob Thelan discusses the US Army's Information Warfare (IWAR) Branch. IWAR aims to integrate the IO (Information Operations) and PSYOP (Psychological Operations) communities into a unified, conventional force branch. Other topics include: U.S. lagging behind adversaries like China and Russia in IO funding and the need to break down "stovepiping" within the U.S. information operations community; the State Department's Global Engagement Center and filling the void with respect to mis/dis-information; and military public affairs evolution. Recording Date: 19 Nov 2025 Research Question: Rob Thelan suggests an interested student or researcher examine: Where else are we falling behind our adversaries and how do we make up ground – especially with respect to operations in the information environment? Resources: Cognitive Crucible Podcast Episodes Mentioned #106 Mike Taylor on the Global Engagement Center Art of War by Sun Tzu The Fire of the Dragon: China's New Cold War by Ian Williams Link to full show notes and resources Guest Bio: Colonel Robert M. Thelen is currently the chief of staff of the Department of the Army Strategic Operations Directorate (DAMO SO). Previously, he was the Department of State Senior Military Advisor to the Bureau of Public Diplomacy and Global Public Affairs office of Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (R/FIMI). Colonel Thelen completed a War College Fellowship at the Near East South Asia Strategic Studies Center at National Defense University. Prior to War College he was assigned to the Joint Staff J39 (Deputy Director for Global Operations DDGO) as Chief Special Activities Division (SAD). He was also assigned to the US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) J39 Information Operations (IO) Division as the Chief of Special Activities. He also served at the US Africa Command (AFRICOM) J39 Information Operations (IO) Division after earning a Master Degree in Public Administration from Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. He previously served as the G7 Information Operations Officer for the Second Infantry Division, stationed at Camp Red Cloud, Republic of Korea. He was also assigned to Fort Hood's III Armored Corps as a G35 Future Operations IO Planner and deployed to Afghanistan in 2013 where he lead an international team of IO planners for the Future Operations G35 of the ISAF Joint Command (IJC). Before joining III Armored Corps, COL Thelen served with the U.S. Army Forces Command's Operations Division Watch team where he was instrumental in establishing the IO section within the G-3/5/7. Colonel Thelen has had a long and diverse military career, bringing a plethora of military experience to the Department of State. While still a junior in high school, he enlisted in the Illinois Army National Guard as a photo journalist. Four years later, he attended Officer Candidate School and commissioned as a Second Lieutenant after graduating from Illinois State University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Public Relations. He then relocated to Washington, D.C., where he pursued a career with the federal government while continuing to serve in the Virginia Army National Guard's 29th Infantry Division as the Commander of Headquarters and Headquarters Company, as well as an aide-de-camp to the Commanding General. COL Thelen was transferred to Atlanta, Georgia where he joined the Georgia Army National Guard and the 124th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment. In 1997 he was mobilized, deployed and attached to the 1st Infantry Division 2-2 Infantry in Bosnia-Herzegovina, serving as the Task Force 2-2 Public Affairs Officer. He remained on active duty through the Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) program where he served in Stuttgart, Germany with the European Command J37 NATO Exercise Branch and performed Operations Center duties during the Kosovo Campaign. Following this assignment, he returned to Atlanta and served in the G-3/5/7 Training Division at the U.S. Army Forces Command and the Executive Officer to the 2-star senior Army National Guard Advisor. He was then selected to serve as the Battalion S3, Assistant Professor of Military Science (APMS) at the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) ROTC program, and then as the Coordinator for the Georgia National Guard's State Partnership Program with the Former Soviet Republic of Georgia. During this time he also commanded the 124th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment. After command, he attended Command and General Staff College (CGSC) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas and was then assigned as the Brigade S3 Plans officer at the 48th Infantry Brigade. COL Thelen was then assessed to active duty as an Information Operations officer and continues to serve. COL Thelen is married to Alexis (Layton-Moore) and has three children, Jake, Rachel and Robert, Jr. He has owned and operated a real estate investment firm and is an active member of the Harvard Kennedy School Alumni Association. About: The Information Professionals Association (IPA) is a non-profit organization dedicated to exploring the role of information activities, such as influence and cognitive security, within the national security sector and helping to bridge the divide between operations and research. Its goal is to increase interdisciplinary collaboration between scholars and practitioners and policymakers with an interest in this domain. For more information, please contact us at communications@information-professionals.org. Or, connect directly with The Cognitive Crucible podcast host, John Bicknell, on LinkedIn. Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, 1) IPA earns from qualifying purchases, 2) IPA gets commissions for purchases made through links in this post
When Rebecca Gray '94 arrived at her first duty station, she thought she was ready to lead — until a senior master sergeant told her to get a coffee cup and led her away from the safety of her desk. “You've got to know who people are, so that you know how to relate to them,” he told her. That simple moment became the foundation of her entire leadership journey. SHARE THIS PODCAST LINKEDIN | FACEBOOK REBECCA'S TOP 5 LEADERSHIP TAKEAWAYS 1. Lead With Authentic Connection Genuinely care about your team members as people, not just colleagues—know their stories, show real interest in their lives, and let authenticity drive your leadership style. This builds trust and drives engagement. 2.Adapt and Balance Across Life's Seasons Recognize that leadership and career paths aren't always linear. It's important to intentionally adapt your role and focus to meet the current stage of your life, whether that means prioritizing family, professional growth, or personal health. 3. Translate Core Values Across Environments Military leadership lessons—like accountability, communication, and team cohesion—are just as powerful in civilian life. Carry these values into new environments and roles, and tailor them to fit each unique context. 4. Empower Others Through Example Be a “working leader” by setting the pace and modeling the behaviors you want to see. Encourage your team's growth by giving responsibility, asking for input, and trusting them to rise to new challenges—even if it means letting them make mistakes. 5. Continuous Self-Development Fuels Leadership Commit to lifelong learning and personal development through regular habits—like reading, exercise, and reflection. Maintaining intellectual curiosity and a growth mindset not only strengthens your leadership but also inspires others to do the same. CHAPTERS 0:00:04 – Introduction to the Podcast and Guest Rebecca Gray 0:00:29 – The Coffee Cup Lesson: Early Leadership and the Influence of Senior Master Sergeant Kennedy 0:01:48 – Authentic Connection: Lessons Carried From the Military to Corporate Leadership 0:03:32 – The Power of Authenticity and Understanding Team Members' Lives 0:04:49 – Translating Military Leadership Lessons to the Corporate World 0:07:58 – Creating Team Connection in Remote and Fast-Paced Environments 0:11:47 – Memorable Military Leadership Influences 0:13:24 – Balancing Military Service, Family, and Career Transitions 0:16:53 – Career as Seasons: Crafting Balance and Intentionality 0:19:19 – Navigating Critical Career Junctures and Embracing Change 0:22:18 – Building Confidence and Trusting Yourself 0:23:46 – Fostering Confidence and a ‘Go Mentality' on the Team 0:25:39 – Leading and Aligning Family and Professional Goals 0:27:28 – Practicing Continuous Learning and Personal Development 0:28:32 – Advice to Emerging Leaders: Value Well-Roundedness and Humility 0:29:43 – Reflections on Alumni, Family Connection, and Leadership Beyond the Academy 0:30:15 – Closing Thoughts on Leadership, Service, and Authentic Paths ABOUT REBECCA BIO Rebecca Gray ‘94, Boingo Wireless senior vice president and general manager, leads a division providing soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines connectivity wherever they go. Alongside her military service, she's held leadership roles at Fortune 200 companies in energy, media and telecommunications — including Southern Company and Comcast NBCUniversal — and has volunteered with multiple nonprofits. Her focus is on innovation that strengthens communities and keeps people connected. A three-time All-American springboard diver, Gray started her Air Force journey as a recruited athlete at the U.S. Air Force Academy. After graduation, she trained as a World Class Athlete and competed for Team USA at the 1995 World Games in Rome. She's served in key leadership roles across the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve, including deputy wing commander at the 111th Attack Wing in the Pennsylvania ANG, as well as director of staff for the Georgia ANG. She's also a graduate of the Secretary of Defense Fortune 500 Corporate Fellowship Program and earned her doctorate after studying around the globe in Israel, England, India and China. She and her husband — an Air Force Academy '93 grad — married at the Cadet Chapel in 1994. They have three daughters: Jasmine, a junior at Bates College; Grace, a sophomore at Centenary University; and Kennedy, a freshman at NJIT. Their Yorkie, Cookie, has become a seasoned traveler, having visited all but two states in the continental U.S. CONNECT WITH REBECCA LINKEDIN BONIGO WIRELESS CONNECT WITH THE LONG BLUE LINE PODCAST NETWORK TEAM Ted Robertson | Producer and Editor: Ted.Robertson@USAFA.org Send your feedback or nominate a guest: socialmedia@usafa.org Ryan Hall | Director: Ryan.Hall@USAFA.org Bryan Grossman | Copy Editor: Bryan.Grossman@USAFA.org Wyatt Hornsby | Executive Producer: Wyatt.Hornsby@USAFA.org ALL PAST LBL EPISODES | ALL LBLPN PRODUCTIONS AVAILABLE ON ALL MAJOR PODCAST PLATFORMS FULL TRANSCRIPT OUR SPEAKERS Guest, Rebecca Gray '94 | Host, Lt. Col. (Ret.) Naviere Walkewicz '99 Naviere Walkewicz 00:04 Welcome to Long Blue Leadership, where we explore the lessons of leadership through the lives and stories of Air Force Academy graduates. I'm your host, Naviere Walkewicz, Class of '99. When Rebecca Gray walked into her first duty station after graduating from the Academy, she thought she was ready to lead. But it wasn't a general, a colonel or a policy manual that changed her view of leadership. It was a senior master sergeant named Patrick J. Kennedy and a coffee cup. Rebecca Gray 00:29 He said, “You're doing this all wrong. You need to be out, out, out.” He told me, “Go grab a coffee cup.” I didn't drink coffee at the time, so he goes, “Go get some water. Stop being difficult.” And he walked me around and said, “This is this is what matters. You've got to know who people are, so that you know how to relate to them.” That really shaped me. Naviere Walkewicz 00:50 That simple moment became the foundation for how Rebecca has led her teams ever since. From the Air Force to corporate boardrooms, from public service to private equity, Rebecca Gray, USAFA, Class of '94, has led across nearly every domain — active duty, Reserve and Guard — and built a remarkable second career spanning nonprofit work, education and now executive leadership. Her path has been shaped by transformational moments, moments that taught her how to connect, to trust herself and to lead with conviction. Rebecca, welcome to Long Blue Leadership. Rebecca Gray 01:23 Thank you so much for having me. It's just a privilege to be here. Thank you for what you're doing for the grads, for the parents, for alumni, all of that. It's really impressive. Naviere Walkewicz 01:31 Oh gosh. Really appreciate that. And I think, you know, that clip was so wonderful to hear. And I think we should just jump right in to that moment in time, kind of winding back the clock when you were just really transformed in your leadership style by your senior enlisted leader. Can we talk about that? Rebecca Gray 01:48 I was just, had just graduated, and, as you said, my first duty assignment, and the only officer in the shop. And so senior master sergeant, which is one rank below chief — so the top, one of the top senior enlisted advisers in my shop, and we went for a walk and he really just taught me how to connect with the troops, to connect with people, walk around, get to really know them. And I'll have to tell you the first time I did it, I did a pass through, I went through the motions, if you will. And, you know, I came back, I was like, “Oh, OK, I did it. I did it. I'm all… I'm good, and have done my leadership duty for the day.” And he asked me, he said, “Who got a new car?” And I mentioned the airman's name of who got a new car. He goes, “What color was the car and what was the type of car?” And I was like, “Oh, OK.” And he goes, “So you didn't really care.” And I thought that's true, that's actually accurate. I needed to really care about what his first car was, and was it a truck? Was it a sedan? What was it? And so that really shaped me into really caring in a way that's already in your heart. But how do you express that in a leadership capacity? And so that changed the course of my 30-plus years in the military and then in corporate. Naviere Walkewicz 03:07 What a powerful story. I mean, we can actually visualize you walking around. And as you know, graduates, we are kind of like, you know, task-minded. We're going to get this done. And you did it. You check the box. But to go down that next level, how do you see that actually becoming actionable across, you know, all leadership levels, you know, where you're actually walking the walk with your troops, so to speak. Can you talk about that a little bit more? Rebecca Gray 03:32 Well, I think you have to be authentic, and be your authentic, you know, be authentic in your heart and what you're really doing. And if you don't have that, then people can feel it. People can tell if they don't feel your connection or your care concern for them. I think that really just mirrored an opportunity for me to put the two together. To your point, we're very task-minded, results-driven. When you graduate, very results-driven. It still impacts me every day, to be results, but you were doing it alongside of other people who have lives and who have things going on in their personal and professional lives, and we bring that to the table too, and really connecting with that and how to motivate people, how to encourage, how to walk with people and help them get to the results that they need to do, you know, as part of your team. Naviere Walkewicz 04:29 Maybe, can you share an example of how you're using this? You said this has impacted you over the past 30 years. You know, it seems very clear — we're in an in middle military setting, and you're, you know, amongst your troops, you're leading beside them, you're understanding. How does that translate now and where you're at in the corporate world, at your level of leadership. What does this look like? Rebecca Gray 04:49 I think that's a really good question, because when you look at it, you can see it very easily in the military. It plugs and plays very easily. Once you understand and you put it all together and you can develop it. You get a opportunities to develop that every day, if you will, every day you get that opportunity. But I think when you translate it into civilian life — and we all end up having a civilian life after the military — whether it's, you know a first-term enlistment, whether it's your first duty assignment, you fulfill your active-duty commitment from the Academy, whatever those years are. Whether you, you know, finish your 20 or what have you, you do transition out of military life at some point in time. Naviere Walkewicz 05:37 Let's talk about what you're doing right now. I think it's important for our listeners to understand what that looks like and, you know, how you're leading in that space. Rebecca Gray 05:44 Oh my gosh. I am so excited about what I do. It's the best job I've ever had. It's a great company that I work for. I work for Boingo Wireless. And what I do — my job at the company is to do anything that relates to the military. So we provide connectivity to over 100 bases around the world. I've got an incredible team that many of them have served, either as a veteran retiree or still serving. You have to understand what they know. What is their background? Where have they been? Where have they served, so to speak? What companies have they worked in? What role, leadership roles? What technology have they been around? What schools have they been to? All those things, and then also some of their things that are going on in their personal life so that you understand what's bringing them to work every day to support their personal and professional goals. And so you have to translate that, take that military experience and put that into the civilian workforce. And I think it's very powerful. It's so natural. I really actually don't think about it as much because you've developed it so such a tried and true part of who your character becomes, that coming back into civilian life and transitioning back into it, it's a great opportunity to bring all of those skill sets and move right into that — in leading teams, in learning that new chain of command, if you will, in corporate. And so that's a really powerful thing, and it feels like it's an enjoyable part of my day is the people I get to work with, the quality of people I get to work with. If I don't have that connection, I feel like I'm missing something at the end of the day. Naviere Walkewicz 07:36 Can you share an example in which to that level that, you know, that the senior master sergeant said, “Did you know what type of car it was?” Where you've actually got to that level with someone, maybe in your civilian career, and how that has… Have you seen that actually make an impact on either performance or the results, or really just their own worth? Rebecca Gray 07:58 Well, I think that's an interesting question. I think that can be played in two different areas. If you're in the office, there's an ability to be connected just by having lunch together, by having coffee, you know, you're in and you're around and about, and physically, there's just a different kind of energy when you're around people. So my team, we get together at some regular intervals that we set as a team for the year. We do one big, we call it an all-hands, an annual meeting, we're going to Vegas this year, and we're going in February. And so we're bringing the entire team; everybody's coming out of the field, everybody's coming from around the world, and they're all coming. We're meeting in Vegas, and we're going to spend a couple days together talking about what we accomplished last year, what we're going to do in the future, and then we also do some learnings, and, you know, things like that, some technology growth opportunities and things like that. So that's one thing that shows that you use… You're going to spend some budget dollars to really ensure that people know how you feel and how you value them as being part of this team, and making sure… I spend every other week planning this for a year and we do that every other week, and we talk about the hotel, we talk about the food, we, you know — our team-building exercises, the agenda, the T-shirts, the design of those, every detail, because I want my team to walk away at the end of that — we'll probably have over 100 people in the room — and I want everyone to walk out of that knowing that they are a valuable member of the team. So that's one thing we do, you know, on my team. And then on Monday mornings, we have a staff meeting every Monday morning, a team meeting, and the first question of the day is, “What did you do for the weekend?” And that's where we learn about all kinds of, you know, really fun things about people and what they're doing, what they're doing with their family, or who they're, you know, trying to date, or, you know, buying a new house, or, you know, all kinds of things that you learn. And then also you develop that within the team, because other people hear that question, and otherwise it's very transactional. This is what you do. This is what you can do for me. And in this fast-paced technology world, taking that time at the beginning of the meeting to say, “Let's take a pause, and I want to hear about you.” And so to me, that's another small thing, but a very powerful thing. In a fast-paced technology space, I think it's even more critical to take a pause, to take a stop and take a breath and realize the people that we're working with are… It's a gift to have this opportunity to work with one another, and I want them to feel a part of the team, even though we're in a remote setting, because most of my team is in the field. And so in that remote setting, that is even more critical, I think. So I think there's both, you know… When you're in the office, there's one way to do things, and then when you're in this more remote setting that we are — and then we're in a fast-paced technology setting. It's moving all the time, and sometimes you get into more activity and results and results and activity, and you accomplish one thing, and you're on to the next and, and that's… I don't know if that wheel spinning so fast is always, you know, healthy. Naviere Walkewicz 11:15 Well, I really appreciate how you actually gave very specific examples of this leadership in action, because you're right: In this pace and in this remote kind of setting that many of us operate in, being able to still find that human touch and that connection to what you were speaking about that went all the way back to, you know, the senior master sergeant. But I'm sure you also had leaders throughout your military career that also exemplified some of this. Can you share any other moments while you're in uniform, where you saw some of these leadership traits that you really wanted to embody and that you've carried through your career to date? Rebecca Gray 11:47 Gen. Hosmer was the, I think he was the calm when I was at the Academy, and he would walk around with his A-jacket. So you didn't really know if he was a cadet or not, because once you put your hat on, you can't tell. But, and you know, “Oh my gosh, it was a general just walked past me.” But he knew people's names. He remembered my name, and he remembered it for four years, and it was just a powerful moment that I remembered on my graduation, when we walked through the line with your parents, and you're doing that reception, and he said, “Rebecca, congratulations. Well done, and you did great.” And all those kinds of you know things. And I'll never forget that walk, whether he was walking on the Terrazzo and called my name, whether he remembered it going through a line of 1,000 people with all their parents, and you know, all of that. And I think that's always stuck with me, that level of remembering somebody's name, remembering who they are, that really was powerful to me early on in my military career. Naviere Walkewicz 12:48 Oh, thank you for sharing that, because those are the moments that so many people can connect with that really do imprint on them and how they are as leaders, you know, and I'm curious, because… Rebecca Gray 12:57 That's a good word, “imprint.” That's a really good word, “imprint.” Naviere Walkewicz 13:03 Yeah, it feels that way. Thank you. Thank you. You know, I would love to dive into your Air Force career and the decision to transition out, because I just imagine in the way that you have done so many incredible things that your time in the military was very successful. Can you talk about what that was and then the decision to transition, why that came about and why you made it? Rebecca Gray 13:24 That's a very powerful decision. It's a big decision to come into the military, and it's a big decision when it's time to leave. And those are hard decisions. And sometimes you leave too early, sometimes you stay in too long. You know, different things like that. But for me, it was my husband was a '93 grad. So I'm '94 he was '93 we got married at the Cadet Chapel right after I graduated in September. I share that because my husband and I were dual spouse, joint spouse. We were just talking about it the other day, because we just celebrated — it was our 31st wedding anniversary — and we looked at it and we said, “Gosh, you know, what a ride we've had.” And we got to know each other. We were in the same cadet squadron. We were both in 29 for three years and sophomore through senior year. And we both looked at each other. We were going to get separated. I was going to do a remote to Korea. He was going to Malstrom in Montana, and my follow on was Vegas, at Nellis. And so we realized we were going to be as separated for a few years, and that was a really big decision for us, because we loved the military, we loved our lifestyle, we loved our friends, we loved the camaraderie and all the things that you love, and we realized, where does that fit with our marriage and how do we pull this off? And so I think along the way, we've really tried to drive a commitment to service. We both went off active duty. We decided to go into the Reserve together, and then I eventually went into the Guard. So I ended up serving active duty, Guard and Reserve, which was really wasn't done back in the day. Naviere Walkewicz 15:04 No, I was going to say… Rebecca Gray 15:07 No, that was not done. I mean, you stay active duty for 20 years. You stay Reserve. You might do active duty and then Reserve, but to finish up and get to your 20… But I had three little children, and so I was able to do the Reserve. And so I think what's great about the military is, if you are open to looking at your career and seeing it as a different stages and phases of your life and letting it shape and form around that too, there are ways to serve. That was the way I felt called to serve. I think other people, active duty is the way to go, or Reserve or Guard is the way to go, you know, straight through. But for me, it gave me the flexibility, and I found that it was a lot of fun to do it that way. I got to learn different things in each of the different statuses, if you will. And I was able to put a whole career together with three little kids, and, you know, 31 years of marriage. Naviere Walkewicz 16:04 Well, I think as a leader, those decision points — and it sounds like you were really well grounded in, you know, what do we want to commit to. Commitment to service, a commitment to each other. But I think what is so special about your career, when you look at it in seasons or in stages, is you've had some incredible opportunities to still continue to thrive professionally, even as those stages change. And if you wouldn't mind sharing some of that, because I think there's times when listeners feel like, “If my trajectory is not vertical, like in one path that you know, that everyone kind of recognizes as the path, then it's not successful.” But to your point, if you look at it in stages, and what is this stage, how do I evolve in this stage? In this stage? And maybe it's not always directly vertical, but we're still moving in it at an angle. I think it's powerful for our listeners to hear, if you don't mind sharing what that's been like. Rebecca Gray 16:53 I made a very intentional decision to serve as a squadron commander in a certain season. So I wanted to build a life that had different components to it, and to do that, that meant you have to be intentional about that if you want to stay on one path. And I think as this world gets more complex, the technology is moving very fast. You want to stay balanced. I think the only way you can stay balanced in life is to really have different components of your life. There's a time to be a squadron commander, there's a time to be a senior leader. There's a time to be an individual contributor and there's a time to say this is, you know, for whatever myriad of reasons, health or family dynamics, or you're going through a degree program. And so you have to kind of make those things to ebb and flow appropriately. And I wanted to put those building blocks and pieces together to make something really interesting and a reason to wake up in the morning and something that got me out of bed. I do Squadron Officer School. I do, you know, ACSC, and then War College. And so you can end up checking these boxes and checking, you know, different assignments and different levels. Just like you graduate from college, you got to meet certain, you know, credit requirements and different kinds of classes and things like that. So I'm not saying it's a negative, but it shouldn't be a mindset. It should be just the way you need to get certain things done. Naviere Walkewicz 18:17 And by the way, Sgt. Kennedy would come back and be like, “This is not enough, ma'am.” So, but you know what I really loved about what you just described? This might be the first time I've heard the description of balance, because you did it in a way that — you talked about balance being almost having holistic, a holistic view of various pillars. And there's times when you know you're bringing one of the forefront, so you're not ever saying they're in balance, where they're all, you know, equitable or like, everything is just, you know, the scale is exactly the same on both sides. But what you're saying is, there's time when you're bringing stuff to the forefront, but I'm really aware of the all of those pieces, and I think that is such a wonderful way to look at balance. Which brings me to this question of, you know, you have approached your career and, you know, being a mother and a wife was such, you know, a unique view. When did you know it was time to add onto your plate in this nonprofit space? And then you go, you know, going… So it just seems like you've made these decisions at critical points. How do you measure when that next point is supposed to come around and you take that leap? Rebecca Gray 19:19 Sometimes, life gives you that opportunity to take a step back and say, “OK, I'm now at a critical juncture. What do I want to do?” That can be your, you know, your health, or a family dynamic, or you get accepted into a program and you want to do this. When I got accepted into that secretary of defense corporate fellowship program that's basically Air War College in residence. You can imagine doing Air War College in residence as a Guard member was very prestigious, an incredible opportunity, and then they sucked me into this fellowship opportunity. But that really changed my trajectory, because at the time, I was in nonprofit, and it pulled me out, put me back in uniform for one year. That was a one-year commitment to do War College in that capacity. And then it was after that I decided to move into corporate. And so I think there's certain times when you get those moments, and what I think is, people race through those — I think they race through that moment. And instead to take a stop and a pause and say, “Do I want to make a change at this moment? Do I want to do this?” I really didn't want to make that change. I didn't want to come out of nonprofit at the time. I didn't want to do War College in residence. I didn't want to do some of those things. And instead, I took it and I said, “I don't know where this is heading, but I'm OK with where this is gonna go.” And I don't think sometimes you need to know all those pieces before you make those decisions. And I think — because then if you need that, you're never going to have it. I mean, you just don't. And so for me, it's always a moment where you stop and you say, “This is an opportunity for me to change where I live, to change my career, to change a family dynamic.” Do you add another kid? Do you, you know, stop at three? You know, what do you do? I think what I have tried to really do is stop and really have it like, really, I really take it… Really take that moment and have that moment and say, this is a moment for me to say, is, “What do I need to change? What do I want to change?” Or nothing? Do I want — I keep going, but I have made that decision. Naviere Walkewicz 21:30 Well, what I'm hearing from that is a level of confidence in yourself that you've probably developed over time. From, you know, the different interactions you've had from… I mean, wearing so many hats has probably actually given you a stronger confidence in what you're able to accomplish, what your capacity is when you don't really know what's all around you, so to speak, you don't have all the answers. Can we talk a little bit about when you knew that, or when you recognize that in yourself? Because when you made those decisions and you said you walked through those doors with your eyes wide open, you're essentially betting on yourself, right? You have built this trust and confidence in your ability. Can you talk about what that looks like? How you came to that? Because I think there's times where our listeners have this doubt, this self-doubt, so let's talk about that. Rebecca Gray 22:18 If you have good, good people around you, you ask for good advice. You have a, I think, a faith that can ground you. And you know that you've been given these gifts and this skill set, and you've made certain mile markers in life. I think it just builds over time. Naviere Walkewicz 22:39 Would you say that you recognized, I guess, betting on yourself and confidence in yourself early in the years when you started diving and recognized, “Wow, this is scary, but OK,” right? Or was it more developed later? Rebecca Gray 22:52 I started diving when I was 10, and you know, I would be up there on the diving board. I was a little 10-year-old, and sometimes you couldn't get walked down the board. You were terrified. My coach would sit there and she would say, “OK, we're gonna go — 1, 2, 3,” and you go, you learn how to walk down that diving board, and you learn how to do things that you you're not really confident on, and you're not really… But once you master it, it's really fun. It's probably from, I think, diving, athletics, I think does that to you. You know, whether you're chasing that soccer ball and you got to go up against somebody bigger, whether you're in football, and you got to go off up against… My husband was a fullback at the Air Force Academy, and so he went up against lineman at Notre Dame and Ohio State and things like that. And he goes, “It was terrifying.” And so… But when the whistle blows and the play calls called you. You go and so you develop that strength some somehow along the way to push through. Naviere Walkewicz 23:46 How have you developed those that have come under your care as a leader that maybe didn't have that athletic background? How do you teach them that? How do you instill in them that “go” mentality, that, you know, fear is just your body's response, gets your blood, you know, your blood flowing. How do you do that as a leader? Rebecca Gray 24:03 I think, I think you do it by going out ahead and standing out there, and maybe you're the only one out there, so to speak, ahead of it, ahead of the team, in believing whatever direction you need to go, whatever new business direction you need to go in, or what new product line you need to develop, or what new revenue goals do you need to accomplish? And you have to go out there, and you've got to do it yourself. I'm probably more of a working leader than a leader that manages. I'm not the best manager, if you will, but I can get out in front. But I think, for me, it's just been leading out in the head, going out there and saying, this is the direction, building that conversation across the team leaders to make sure we're aligned, to make sure we're thinking the same thing. Are you reading the market the way I'm reading the market? Are you reading some of these leadership decisions within the industry that we're reading? And are we seeing this the same way — bouncing those ideas off and then developing that and that groundswell to really go for it. Naviere Walkewicz 25:06 I want to ask you this question that's tied to this idea of understanding your capacity, your capabilities, your talents, your strengths, betting on yourself, and how you've been able to do that while you still successfully have a 31-year marri… right? Like a marriage and a family that has to also buy into those decisions. What does that look like as a leader when you're making those decisions, when you have children and a family or a spouse, you know? How do you navigate that when they also have their goals? Rebecca Gray 25:39 Oh, it's so deep. It's so deep because… Naviere Walkewicz 25:43 It's real because this is what they're facing. You know, all of our leaders are facing these questions. Rebecca Gray 25:47 It is, it is. You're facing these decisions back at home, and what you've got to manage at home. You know, my husband, I really lead, and we lead by example — that we take care of our business and we do our things. And as soon as the girls were able to do a lot of things for themselves, we gave them that responsibility. That really helped. I think your kids are pretty capable, and they're really strong and they're very smart and they're wise, and they can feel the energy in the room. They can feel your commitment to them. Naviere Walkewicz 26:19 Well, I mean, I think what I heard through all that as well, is having those values aligned like you do, and then really communicating and then just championing the responsibility and the capabilities of your family members. It seems like, you know, you don't only just do that at work, but what I'm hearing is you've done this and the home life as well, and it's continued to just really evolve your family in such a beautiful way. So thank you for sharing that with us. Because I think that's really powerful and sometimes when our listeners feel like, “Gosh, I don't know how to make this decision,” I think if you start from that place of, “Are we aligned? Do we know what our core, you know, piece is,” go from there, it seems like you've been able to navigate that really well. Thank you for sharing that. Well, I want to ask you something that you're doing every day, because as leaders… And I'm not sure what your thoughts are on this, maybe you can share, but a lot of people will talk about how “I'm always learning. I'm continuing to learn, even as a leader, I'm still learning every day.” Can you share if that's how you feel, and if so, what are you doing on a daily basis to just be a better version of yourself as a leader, professional, etc.? Rebecca Gray 27:28 I think when you work out and you get a really good workout, and whatever that is, walking or, you know, at the gym or lifting, or whatever that is, biking or swimming — I think for me, that exercise and reading — those are probably the two things that I really work a lot on, and making sure that's just part of the day. You know, a lot of times we don't have to think too much about eating because we get hungry. But, you know, once you start exercising a lot, and you read a lot, and you have that quiet time — when you don't have it, you miss it, and so you almost get hungry for it. And so to create that consistency, so you can create that hunger. If you do skip it, or you want to skip it. Even when I travel for work, I do it. The girls know that if we're in a hotel, I'm going to go run down to the gym for a little bit. They'll come with me or not, but that's something I'm going to do regardless. And then the reading is really, really critical. Naviere Walkewicz 28:20 You know, one of the things we also love to ask, and maybe this is a better way to ask it, is, if you were to give advice to your daughters on what they could do today to be better leaders for tomorrow, what would that be? Rebecca Gray 28:32 I don't know if it's a goal to be a leader, but I think it's a goal to develop and be really well rounded, really solid, because you will default to being the leader. If you have that strength, you have that intellectual capacity, you have the humility. But I think having that humility is really, really critical, the well-roundedness, having different aspects to your life. You know, it can't all be just school and homework, and it needs to be whatever that is music or athletics or, you know, what have you in your faith community or something, you've got to have a well-rounded… because things come and go in your life. Naviere Walkewicz 29:12 Well, I love how you really put that together. Because I think the key thing was, you know, I don't know that they're necessarily aspiring to be a leader, but if they aspire to be well rounded and that kind of a wholesome approach, they will be the leader in the room. And I just, I just love that, because it just makes it so clear, right? I thought that was incredible. Well, we're coming up at our time, and I just have loved this conversation. Is there anything we didn't cover that you just like, this is a time, like, we want to make sure we didn't miss anything that you would like to share. Rebecca Gray 29:43 What you're really focused on is really powerful. And connecting the alumni, connecting the families, so that they understand what their child is going through at the Academy is really important. Realizing there's life out of the Academy, and you still need to serve, and you still need to contribute, and there's a way, there's a lot of lessons that we had at those four critical years of our life that can carry us. And I think you're really highlighting that and giving us the space to share some of that. So really appreciate that. Naviere Walkewicz 30:15 Well, I appreciate you saying that, and I just have to share with our listeners: You know, what I've really taken away from today's conversation is that leadership begins in small moments, a cup of coffee, a conversation, you know, choosing to listen, but it grows through courage, you know, the courage to step into uncertainty, which you've done, to serve where others maybe wouldn't, and to believe in your path, even if it looks unconventional. Rebecca Gray 30:38 It has, yeah, even if it looks unconventional, that's OK. It's OK too. Naviere Walkewicz 30:43 And I love that you talked about how it wasn't about the titles, but it was really about the experiences and kind of having that full picture of you and the confidence to bet on yourself. So this has just been a privilege to be with you on Long Blue Leadership I want to thank everyone for listening to this Long Blue Leadership episode. If you know others that are really growing in their leadership journeys and could benefit from this, please share it with them. We love having all of you listen to these wonderful lessons on leadership from our Air Force Academy graduates. So Rebecca, again, thank you so much. We will see you another time, but for now, I'm Naviere Walkewicz, Class of '99. Thanks for joining us. KEYWORDS Rebecca Gray, leadership lessons, authentic leadership, Air Force Academy, military to corporate transition, women leaders, team connection, career development, executive leadership, Boingo Wireless, building confidence, personal growth, leadership podcast, work-life balance, empowering teams, transformational leadership, continuous learning, squadron commander, leadership journey, remote team management, military experience, family and career balance, purpose-driven leadership, leading by example, leadership advice, mentoring, professional development, inspirational stories, alumni connections, values-driven leadership. The Long Blue Line Podcast Network is presented by the U.S. Air Force Academy Association & Foundation
Lane Kiffin LEAVING for LSU Becomes CHAOS! Ole Miss & Lane AT WAR! College Football is BROKEN!
Last time we spoke about the Changsha fire. Chiang Kai-shek faced a brutal choice: defend Wuhan to the last man or flood the land to slow the invaders. He chose both, pushing rivers and rallying a fractured army as Japanese forces pressed along the Yangtze. Fortresses at Madang held long, but the cost was high—troops lost, civilians displaced, a city's heart burning in the night. Wuhan fell after months of brutal fighting, yet the battle did not break China's will. Mao Zedong urged strategy over martyrdom, preferring to drain the enemy and buy time for a broader struggle. The Japanese, though victorious tactically, found their strength ebbing, resource strains, supply gaps, and a war that felt endless. In the wake of Wuhan, Changsha stood next in the Japanese crosshairs, its evacuation and a devastating fire leaving ash and memory in its wake. Behind these prices, political currents swirled. Wang Jingwei defected again, seeking power beyond Chiang's grasp, while Chongqing rose as a western bastion of resistance. The war hardened into a protracted stalemate, turning Japan from an aggressive assailant into a wary occupier, and leaving China to endure, persist, and fight on. #175 The Soviet-Japanese Border Conflicts Welcome to the Fall and Rise of China Podcast, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about the history of Asia? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on history of asia and much more so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel where I cover the history of China and Japan from the 19th century until the end of the Pacific War. So based on the title of this one, you probably can see we are taking a bit of a detour. For quite some time we have focused on the Japanese campaigns into China proper 1937-1938. Now the way the second sino-japanese war is traditionally broken down is in phases. 1937-1938, 1939-1942 and 1942-1945. However there is actually even more going on in China aside from the war with Japan. In Xinjiang province a large full blown Islamic revolution breaks out in 1937. We will be covering that story at a later date, but another significant event is escalating border skirmishes in Manchukuo. Now these border skirmishes had been raging ever since the USSR consolidated its hold over the far east. We talked about some of those skirmishes prior to the Sino-Soviet war in 1929. However when Japan created the puppet government of Manchukuo, this was a significant escalation in tensions with the reds. Today we are going to talk about the escalating border conflicts between the Soviets and Japan. A tongue of poorly demarcated land extends southeast from Hunchun, hugging the east bank of the Tumen River between Lake Khasan to the east and Korea to the west. Within this tongue stands Changkufeng Hill, one of a long chain of highlands sweeping from upstream along the rivers and moors toward the sea. The twin-peaked hill sits at the confluence area several miles northwest of the point where Manchuria, Korea, and the Russian Far East meet. The hill's shape reminded Koreans of their changgo, which is a long snare drum constricted at the center and tapped with the hands at each end. When the Manchus came to the Tumen, they rendered the phonetic sounds into three ideographic characters meaning "taut drum peaks" or Chang-ku-feng. The Japanese admired the imagery and preserved the Chinese readings, which they pronounce Cho-ko-ho. From their eastern vantage, the Russians called it Zaozernaya, "hill behind the lake." Soviet troops referred to it as a sugar-loaf hill. For many years, natives and a handful of officials in the region cultivated a relaxed attitude toward borders and sovereignty. Even after the Japanese seized Manchuria in 1931, the issue did not immediately come to a head. With the expansion of Manchukuo and the Soviet Far East under Stalin's Five-Year plans, both sides began to attend more closely to frontier delimitation. Whenever either party acted aggressively, force majeure was invoked to justify the unexpected and disruptive events recognized in international law. Most often, these incidents erupted along the eastern Manchurian borders with the USSR or along the 350-mile frontier south of Lake Khanka, each skirmish carrying the seeds of all-out warfare. Now we need to talk a little bit about border history. The borders in question essentially dated to pacts concluded by the Qing dynasty and the Tsardom. Between the first Sino-Russian Treaty of Nerchinsk in 1689 and the Mukden Agreement of 1924, there were over a dozen accords governing the borders. Relevant to Changkufeng were the basic 15-article Convention of Peking, supplementing the Tientsin Treaties of November 1860, some maps made in 1861, and the eight-article Hunchun Border Protocol of 1886. By the 1860 treaty, the Qing ceded to Tsarist Russia the entire maritime province of Siberia, but the meaning of "lands south of Lake Khanka" remained rather vague. Consequently, a further border agreement was negotiated in June 1861 known as "the Lake Khanka Border Pact", by which demarcations were drawn on maps and eight wooden markers erected. The border was to run from Khanka along ridgelines between the Hunchun River and the sea, past Suifenho and Tungning, terminating about 6 miles from the mouth of the Tumen. Then a Russo-Chinese commission established in 1886 drew up the Hunchun Border Pact, proposing new or modified markers along the 1860–1861 lines and arranging a Russian resurvey. However, for the Japanese, in 1938, the Chinese or Manchu texts of the 1886 Hunchun agreement were considered controlling. The Soviets argued the border ran along every summit west of Khasan, thereby granting them jurisdiction over at least the eastern slopes of all elevations, including Changkufeng and Shachaofeng. Since the Qing dynasty and the house of Romanov were already defunct, the new sovereignties publicly appealed to opposing texts, and the Soviet side would not concede that the Russian-language version had never been deemed binding by the Qing commissioners. Yet, even in 1938, the Japanese knew that only the Chinese text had survived or could be located. Now both the Chinese and Russian military maps generally drew the frontier along the watershed east of Khasan; this aligned with the 1861 readings based on the Khanka agreement. The Chinese Republican Army conducted new surveys sometime between 1915 and 1920. The latest Chinese military map of the Changkufeng area drew the border considerably closer to the old "red line" of 1886, running west of Khasan but near the shore rather than traversing the highland crests. None of the military delimitations of the border was sanctified by an official agreement. Hence, the Hunchun Protocol, whether well known or not, invaluable or worthless, remained the only government-to-government pact dealing with the frontiers. Before we jump into it, how about a little summary of what became known as the Soviet-Japanese border conflicts. The first major conflict would obviously be the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905. Following years of conflict between the Russian Empire and Japan culminating in the costly Battle of Tsushima, Tsar Nicholas II's government sought peace, recognizing Japan's claims to Korea and agreeing to evacuate Manchuria. From 1918 to 1920, the Imperial Japanese Army, under Emperor Taishō after the death of Meiji, assisted the White Army and Alexander Kerensky against the Bolshevik Red Army. They also aided the Czechoslovak Legion in Siberia to facilitate its return to Europe after an Austrian-Hungarian armoured train purportedly went astray. By 1920, with Austria-Hungary dissolved and Czechoslovakia established two years earlier, the Czechoslovak Legion reached Europe. Japan withdrew from the Russian Revolution and the Civil War in 1922. Following Japan's 1919-1920 occupations and the Soviet intervention in Mongolia in 1921, the Republic of China also withdrew from Outer Mongolia in 1921. In 1922, after capturing Vladivostok in 1918 to halt Bolshevik advances, Japanese forces retreated to Japan as Bolshevik power grew and the postwar fatigue among combatants increased. After Hirohito's invasion of Manchuria in 1931–1932, following Taishō's death in 1926, border disputes between Manchukuo, the Mongolian People's Republic, and the Soviet Union increased. Many clashes stemmed from poorly defined borders, though some involved espionage. Between 1932 and 1934, the Imperial Japanese Army reported 152 border disputes, largely tied to Soviet intelligence activity in Manchuria, while the Soviets accused Japan of 15 border violations, six air intrusions, and 20 cases of "spy smuggling" in 1933 alone. Numerous additional violations followed in the ensuing years. By the mid-1930s, Soviet-Japanese diplomacy and trust had deteriorated further, with the Japanese being openly labeled "fascist enemies" at the Seventh Comintern Congress in July 1935. Beginning in 1935, conflicts significantly escalated. On 8 January 1935, the first armed clash, known as the Halhamiao incident, took place on the border between Mongolia and Manchukuo. Several dozen cavalrymen of the Mongolian People's Army crossed into Manchuria near disputed fishing grounds and engaged an 11‑man Manchukuo Imperial Army patrol near the Buddhist temple at Halhamiao, led by a Japanese military advisor. The Manchukuo Army sustained 6 wounded and 2 dead, including the Japanese officer; the Mongols suffered no casualties and withdrew after the Japanese sent a punitive expedition to reclaim the area. Two motorized cavalry companies, a machine‑gun company, and a tankette platoon occupied the position for three weeks without resistance. In June 1935, the first direct exchange of fire between the Japanese and Soviets occurred when an 11‑man Japanese patrol west of Lake Khanka was attacked by six Soviet horsemen, reportedly inside Manchukuo territory. In the firefight, one Soviet soldier was killed and two horses were captured. The Japanese requested a joint investigation, but the Soviets rejected the proposal. In October 1935, nine Japanese and 32 Manchukuoan border guards were establishing a post about 20 kilometers north of Suifenho when they were attacked by 50 Soviet soldiers. The Soviets opened fire with rifles and five heavy machine guns. Two Japanese and four Manchukuoan soldiers were killed, and another five were wounded. The Manchukuoan foreign affairs representative lodged a verbal protest with the Soviet consul at Suifenho. The Kwantung Army of Japan also sent an intelligence officer to investigate the clash. On 19 December 1935, a Manchukuoan unit reconnoitering southwest of Buir Lake clashed with a Mongolian party, reportedly capturing 10 soldiers. Five days later, 60 truck‑borne Mongolian troops assaulted the Manchukuoans and were repulsed, at the cost of three Manchukuoan dead. On the same day, at Brunders, Mongolian forces attempted three times to drive out Manchukuoan outposts, and again at night, but all attempts failed. Further small attempts occurred in January, with Mongolians using airplanes for reconnaissance. The arrival of a small Japanese force in three trucks helped foil these attempts; casualties occurred on both sides, though Mongolian casualties are unknown aside from 10 prisoners taken. In February 1936, Lieutenant-Colonel Sugimoto Yasuo was ordered to form a detachment from the 14th Cavalry Regiment to "drive the Outer Mongol intruders from the Olankhuduk region," a directive attributed to Lieutenant-General Kasai Heijuro. Sugimoto's detachment included cavalry guns, heavy machine guns, and tankettes. They faced a force of about 140 Mongolians equipped with heavy machine guns and light artillery. On February 12, Sugimoto's men drove the Mongolians south, at the cost of eight Japanese killed, four wounded, and one tankette destroyed. The Japanese began to withdraw, but were attacked by 5–6 Mongolian armored cars and two bombers, which briefly disrupted the column. The situation was stabilized when the Japanese unit received artillery support, allowing them to destroy or repel the armored cars. In March 1936, the Tauran incident occurred. In this clash, both the Japanese Army and the Mongolian Army deployed a small number of armored fighting vehicles and aircraft. The incident began when 100 Mongolian and six Soviet troops attacked and occupied the disputed village of Tauran, Mongolia, driving off the small Manchurian garrison. They were supported by light bombers and armored cars, though the bombing sorties failed to inflict damage on the Japanese, and three bombers were shot down by Japanese heavy machine guns. Local Japanese forces counter-attacked, conducting dozens of bombing sorties and finally assaulting Tauran with 400 men and 10 tankettes. The result was a Mongolian rout, with 56 Mongolian soldiers killed, including three Soviet advisors, and an unknown number wounded. Japanese losses were 27 killed and 9 wounded. Later in March 1936, another border clash occurred between Japanese and Soviet forces. Reports of border violations prompted the Japanese Korean Army to send ten men by truck to investigate, but the patrol was ambushed by 20 Soviet NKVD soldiers deployed about 300 meters inside territory claimed by Japan. After suffering several casualties, the Japanese patrol withdrew and was reinforced with 100 men, who then drove off the Soviets. Fighting resumed later that day when the NKVD brought reinforcements. By nightfall, the fighting had ceased and both sides had pulled back. The Soviets agreed to return the bodies of two Japanese soldiers who had died in the fighting, a development viewed by the Japanese government as encouraging. In early April 1936, three Japanese soldiers were killed near Suifenho in another minor affray. This incident was notable because the Soviets again returned the bodies of the fallen servicemen. In June 1937, the Kanchazu Island incident occurred on the Amur River along the Soviet–Manchukuo border. Three Soviet gunboats crossed the river's center line, disembarked troops, and occupied Kanchazu Island. Japanese forces from the IJA 1st Division, equipped with two horse-drawn 37 mm artillery pieces, quickly established improvised firing positions and loaded their guns with both high-explosive and armor-piercing shells. They shelled the Soviet vessels, sinking the lead gunboat, crippling the second, and driving off the third. Japanese troops subsequently fired on the swimming crewmen from the sunken ships using machine guns. Thirty-seven Soviet soldiers were killed, while Japanese casualties were zero. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs protested and demanded the Soviet forces withdraw from the island. The Soviet leadership, apparently shocked by the incident and reluctant to escalate, agreed to evacuate their troops. By 1938 the border situation had deteriorated. The tangled terrain features, mountain, bog, stream, forest, and valley, would have complicated even careful observers' discernment of the old red line drawn in 1886. Fifty years later, the markers themselves had undergone a metamorphosis. Japanese investigators could find, at most, only 14 to 17 markers standing fairly intact between the Tumen estuary and Khanka—roughly one every 25 miles at best. The remainder were missing or ruined; five were found in new locations. Marker "K," for example, was 40 meters deeper inside Manchuria, away from Khanka. Japanese military experts noted that of the 20 markers originally set along the boundaries of Hunchun Prefecture alone, only four could be found by the summer of 1938. The rest had either been wrecked or arbitrarily moved and discarded by Russian or Chinese officials and inhabitants. It is even said that one missing marker could be seen on display in Khabarovsk. The Chinese had generally interpreted the boundary as the road line just west of Khasan, at least in practice. Free road movement, however, had become a problem even 20 years before the Japanese overran Manchuria in 1931–1932 during the so-called Manchurian Incident. The Japanese adopted, or inherited, the Chinese interpretation, which was based on the 1886 agreement on border roads; the key clause held that the frontier west of Khasan would be the road along the lake. Japanese sources emphasize that local residents' anger toward gradual Soviet oppression and penetrations westward into Manchurian territory fueled the conflict. Many natives believed the original boundaries lay east of the lake, but the Soviets adjusted the situation to suit their own convenience. In practice, the Russians were restricting road use just west of Khasan by Manchurian and Korean residents. There was speculation that this was a prelude to taking over the ridgelines, depending on the reaction of the Manchukuoan–Japanese side. Villagers who went to streams or the lake to launder clothing found themselves subjected to sniper fire. Along a 25-mile stretch of road near Shachaofeng, farmers reported coming under fire from new Soviet positions as early as November 1935. Nevertheless, Japanese and Koreans familiar with the Tumen area noted agrarian, seasonal Korean religious rites atop Changkufeng Hill, including fattened pigs sacrificed and changgo drums beaten. Village elders told Japanese visitors in 1938 that, until early the preceding year, no Russians had come as far as Changkufeng Hill. Looking only at the border sector around Changkufeng, the easy days were clearly behind us. In the summer of 1938, Gaimusho "Foreign Ministry" observers described the explosive situation along the Korea–Manchuria–USSR borders as a matter of de facto frontiers. Both sides pressed against each other, and their trigger-happy posture was summed up in the colloquial refrain: "Take another step and we'll let you have it." Near dawn on 13 June 1938, a Manchurian patrol detected a suspicious figure in the fog swirling over Changlingtzu Hill on the Siberian–Manchurian frontier. Challenged at 15 feet, the suspect hurled two pistols to the ground and raised his hands in surrender. At headquarters, the police soon realized this was no routine border-trespassing case. The man was a defector and he was a Russian general, in fact he was the director of all NKVD forces in the Soviet Far East. Beneath a mufti of spring coat and hunting cap, he wore a full uniform with medals. His identification card No. 83 designated him as G. S. Lyushkov, Commissar 3rd Class, countersigned by Nikolai Yezhov, NKVD head in Moscow. Lyushkov was promptly turned over to the Japanese military authorities, who transferred him to Seoul and then to Tokyo under close escort. On 1 July, the Japanese press was permitted to disclose that Lyushkov had sought refuge in Japan. Ten days later, to capitalize on the commissar's notoriety and to confound skeptics, the Japanese produced Lyushkov at a press conference in Tokyo. For the Japanese and foreign correspondents, who met separately with him, Lyushkov described Soviet Far East strength and the turmoil wracking the USSR, because for those of you unfamiliar this was during the Stalinist purges. Clearly, the Japanese had gained a unique reservoir of high-level intelligence and a wealth of materials, including notes scratched in blood by suspects incarcerated at Khabarovsk. A general tightening of Russian frontier security had recently been reported. Natives of Fangchuanting asserted that a Soviet cavalry patrol appeared in June, seemingly for the first time. Contact with Yangkuanping, northwest of Khasan, was severed. More importantly, Japanese Army Signal Corps intelligence detected a surge of Soviet message traffic from the Posyet Bay district. After Lyushkov's defection, a drastic reshuffle in the local Russian command apparently occurred, and responsibility for border surveillance seems to have been reallocated. Japanese records indicate that the Novokievsk security force commander was relieved and the sector garrison replaced by troops from Vladivostok. Gaimusho intelligence also received reports that a border garrison unit had been transferred from Khabarovsk or Chita to the Tumen sector. The Kwantung Army signal monitors also intercepted two significant frontline messages on 6 July from the new Russian local commander in the Posyet region, addressed to Lieutenant General Sokolov in Khabarovsk. Decoded, the messages suggested (1) that ammunition for infantry mortars amounted to less than half the required supply; and (2) a recommendation that higher headquarters authorize Russian elements to secure certain unoccupied high ground west of Khasan. The commander noted terrain advantages and the contemplated construction of emplacements that would command Najin and the Korean railway. As a start, at least one Russian platoon should be authorized to dig in on the highest ground (presumably Changkufeng) and deploy four tons of entanglements to stake out the Soviet claim. Korea Army Headquarters received a telegram from the Kwantung Army on 7 July conveying the deciphered messages. On the same day, the 19th Division in North Korea telephoned Seoul that, on 6 July, three or four Soviet horsemen had been observed reconnoitering Manchurian territory from atop a hill called Changkufeng. The alarming intelligence from the Kwantung Army and the front warranted immediate attention by the Korea Army. Some Kwantung Army officers doubted the significance of the developments, with one intelligence official even suggesting the Russian messages might be a deliberate ploy designed to entrap the Japanese at Changkufeng. On 7–8 July, all staff officers in Seoul convened at army headquarters. The name of Changkufeng Hill was not well known, but maps and other data suggested that neither the Japanese nor the Russians had previously stationed border units in the ridge complex west of Khasan. As early as March 1936, Army Commander Koiso Kuniaki had distributed maps to subordinate units, indicating which sectors were in dispute. No patrol was to enter zones lacking definitive demarcation. Until then, the only Japanese element east of the Tumen was a Manchurian policeman at Fangchuanting. Ownership of the high ground emerged as an early issue. A number of other points were raised by the Kwantung Army: At present, Soviet elements in the area were negligible. The intrusion must not be overlooked. The Russians could be expected to exploit any weakness, and half-measures would not suffice, especially regarding the Japanese defense mission along a 125-mile frontier. In Japanese hands, Changkufeng Hill would be useful, but two excellent observation posts already existed in the neighboring sector of the Manchurian tongue. With dissidence and purges underway, the Russians may have judged it necessary to seal border gaps, particularly after Lyushkov's defection. They may also have sought to control Changkufeng to offset Japanese dominance of the high ground to the north. Soviet seizure of Changkufeng would upset the delicate status quo and could provoke a contest for equivalent observation posts. In broader terms, it mattered little whether the Russians sought a permanent observation post on Changkufeng Hill, which was of relatively minor strategic value. Japan's primary concern lay in the China theater; Changkufeng was peripheral. The Japanese should not expend limited resources or become distracted. The matter required consultation with the high command in Tokyo. In the absence of more comprehensive intelligence, the assembled staff officers concluded that the Korea Army should, at a minimum, ignore or disregard Soviet actions for the time being, while maintaining vigilant observation of the area. The consensus was communicated to Major General Kitano Kenzo, the Korea Army chief of staff, who concurred, and to Koiso. Upon learning that the recommendation advocated a low posture, Koiso inquired only whether the opinion reflected the unanimous view of the staff. Having been assured that it did, he approved the policy. Koiso, then 58, was at the threshold of the routine personnel changes occurring around 15 July. He had just been informed that he would retire and that General Nakamura Kotaro would succeed him. Those acquainted with Koiso perceived him as treating the border difficulties as a minor anticlimax in the course of his command tour. He appeared unemphatic or relaxed as he prepared to depart from a post he had held for twenty-one years. Although neither Koiso nor his staff welcomed the Soviet activities that appeared under way, his reaction likely reflected a reluctance to make decisions that could constrain his soon-to-arrive successor. On 8 July Koiso authorized the dispatch of warnings to the 19th Division at Nanam, to the Hunchun garrison, and to the intelligence branch at Hunchun. These units were instructed to exercise maximum precautions and to tighten frontier security north of Shuiliufeng. In response to the initial appearance of Soviet horsemen at Changkufeng, the Kucheng Border Garrison Unit of the 76th Infantry Regiment maintained close surveillance across the Tumen. By about noon on 9 July, patrols detected approximately a dozen Russian troops commencing construction atop Changkufeng. Between 11 and 13 July, the number of soldiers on the slopes increased to forty; there were also thirty horses and eleven camouflaged tents. Operating in shifts on the western side, thirty meters from the crest, the Russians erected barbed wire and firing trenches; fifty meters forward, they excavated observation trenches. In addition to existing telephone lines between Changkufeng, Lake Khasan, and Kozando, the Russians installed a portable telephone net. Logistical support was provided by three boats on the lake. Approximately twenty kilometers to the east, well within Soviet territory, large forces were being mobilized, and steamship traffic into Posyet Bay intensified. Upon learning of the "intrusion" at Changkufeng on 9 July, Lt. General Suetaka Kamezo, the commander of the 19th Division, dispatched staff officers to the front and prepared to send elements to reinforce border units. The special significance of Suetaka and his division stemmed from a series of unusual circumstances. Chientao Province, the same zone into which Lyushkov had fled and the sector where Soviet horsemen had appeared, fell within Manchukuo geographically and administratively. Yet, in terms of defense, the configuration of the frontier, the terrain, and the transportation network more closely connected the region with North Korea than with southeastern Manchuria. Approximately 80% of the population was of Korean origin, which implied Japanese rather than Manchukuoan allegiance. Consequently, the Korea Army had been made operationally responsible for the defense of Chientao and controlled not only the three-battalion garrison at Hunchun but also the intelligence detachment located there. In the event of war, the Korea Army's mission was defined as mobilization and execution of subsidiary operational tasks against the USSR, under the control and in support of the Kwantung Army. The Korea Army ordinarily possessed two infantry divisions, the 19th in North Korea and the 20th stationed at Seoul, but the 20th Division had already departed for China, leaving only the 20th Depot Division in the capital. Beyond sparse ground units, devoid of armor and with weak heavy artillery, there were only two air regiments in Korea, the nearest being the unit at Hoeryong. The Korea Army was designed to maintain public security within Korea as well as fulfill minimal defensive responsibilities. Such an army did not require a full-time operations officer, and none was maintained. When needed, as in mid-1938, the task fell to the senior staff officer, in this case Colonel Iwasaki Tamio. In peacetime, training constituted the primary focus. Thus, the 19th Division was entrusted with defending northeastern Korea. Its commander, Suetaka, a seasoned infantryman, resented the fact that his elite force had never engaged in combat in China. He intensified training with zeal, emphasizing strict discipline, bravery, aggressiveness, and thorough preparation. Japanese veterans characterized him as severe, bullish, short-tempered, hot-blooded, highly strung, unbending, and stubborn. Nonetheless, there was widespread respect for his realistic training program, maintained under firm, even violent, personal supervision. His men regarded Suetaka as a professional, a modern samurai who forged the division into superb condition. Privately, he was reputed for sensitivity and warmth; a Japanese phrase "yakamashii oyaji" captures the dual sense of stern father and martinet in his character. At the outset, however, Suetaka displayed little aggression. Although not widely known, he did not welcome the orders from army headquarters to deploy to the Tumen. Until late July, he remained somewhat opposed to the notion of dislodging the Soviets from the crest, a proposition arising from neither the division staff nor, initially, Suetaka himself. Colonel Sato noted that, for a week after reports of Soviet excavation at Changkufeng, the division's response was limited to preparations for a possible emergency, as they perceived the matter as a local issue best settled through diplomacy. Korea Army officers acknowledged that, around the time the Soviets consolidated their outpost strength at Changkufeng, an informal and personal telegram arrived in Seoul from a Kwantung Army Intelligence field-grade officer who specialized in Soviet affairs. If the Korea Army hesitated, the Kwantung Army would be obliged to eject the Russians; the matter could not be ignored. While the telegram did not demand a reply and struck several officers as presumptuous and implausible, the message was promptly shown to Koiso. Koiso was driven to immediate action, he wired Tokyo asserting that only the Korea Army could and would handle the incident. One staff officer recalled "We felt we had to act, out of a sense of responsibility. But we resented the Kwantung Army's interference." The Korea Army staff convened shortly after receipt of the unofficial telegram from Hsinking. Based on the latest intelligence from the division dated 13 July, the officers prepared an assessment for submission to the army commander. The hypotheses were distilled into three scenarios: The USSR, or the Far East authorities, desires hostilities. Conclusion: Slightly possible. The USSR seeks to restrain Japan on the eve of the pivotal operations in China: the major Japanese offensive to seize Hankow. Conclusion: Highly probable. The Posyet district commander is new in his post; by occupying the Changkufeng ridges, he would demonstrate loyalty, impress superiors, and seek glory. Conclusion: Possible. Late on 13 July or early on 14 July, Koiso approved the dispatch of a message to the vice minister of war, and the Kwantung Army chief of staff: "Lake Khasan area lies in troublesome sector USSR has been claiming . . . in accordance with treaties [said Secret Message No. 913], but we interpret it to be Manchukuoan territory, evident even from maps published by Soviet side. Russian actions are patently illegal, but, considering that area does not exert major or immediate influence on operations [Japan] is intending and that China Incident is in full swing, we are not going to conduct counterattack measures immediately. This army is thinking of reasoning with Soviets and requesting pullback, directly on spot. . . . In case Russians do not accede in long run, we have intention to drive Soviet soldiers out of area east of Khasan firmly by use of force." The message concluded with a request that the Tokyo authorities lodge a formal protest with the USSR, on behalf of Manchukuo and Japan, and guide matters so that the Russians would withdraw quickly. Dominant in Japanese high command thinking in 1938 was the China theater; the Changkufeng episode constituted a mere digression. A sequence of Japanese tactical victories had preceded the summer: Tsingtao fell in January; the Yellow River was reached in March; a "reformed government of the Republic of China" was installed at Nanking several weeks later; Amoy fell in early May; Suchow fell on the 20th. With these gains, northern and central fronts could be linked by the Japanese. Yet Chinese resistance persisted, and while public statements anticipated imminent Chinese dissension, private admissions acknowledged that the partial effects of Suchow's fall were ominous: control might pass from Chiang Kai-shek to the Communists, Chinese defiance might intensify, and Soviet involvement could ensue. A Hankow drive appeared desirable to symbolize the conclusion of the military phase of hostilities. The Japanese and their adversaries were in accord regarding the importance of the summer and autumn campaigns. Even after Suchow's fall, the government discouraged public insinuations that enemy resistance was collapsing; when Chiang addressed the nation on the first anniversary of hostilities, Premier Konoe prophetically proclaimed, "The war has just begun." Colonel Inada Masazum served as the Army General Staff's principal figure for the Changkufeng affair, occupying the position of chief of the 2nd Operations Section within the Operations Bureau in March 1938. A distinguished graduate of the Military Academy, Inada completed the War College program and held a combination of line, instructional, and staff assignments at the War College, the Army General Staff, and the War Ministry. He was recognized as a sharp, highly capable, and driveful personality, though some regarded him as enigmatic. Following the capture of Suchow, Imperial General Headquarters on 18 June ordered field forces to undertake operational preparations for a drive to seize the Wuhan complex. Inada favored a decisive move aimed at achieving a rapid political settlement. He acknowledged that Soviet intervention in 1938, during Japan's involvement in China, would have been critical. Although Japanese forces could still defeat the Chinese, an overextended Japanese Army might be fatally compromised against the Russians. Soviet assistance to China was already pronouncedly unwelcome. The Soviets were reported to possess roughly 20 rifle divisions, four to five cavalry divisions, 1,500 tanks, and 1,560 aircraft, including 300 bombers with a range of approximately 3,000 kilometers, enabling reach from Vladivostok to Tokyo. Soviet manpower in Siberia was likely near 370,000. In response, Japanese central authorities stressed a no-trouble policy toward the USSR while seeking to "wall off" the border and bolster the Kwantung Army as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, the envisaged correction of the strategic imbalance could not occur before 1943, given shortages in ammunition, manpower, and materiel across existing theaters in China. By the end of 1937 Japan had committed 16 of its 24 divisions to China, bringing the standing force to roughly 700,000. Army General Staff planners reallocated three ground divisions, intended for a northern contingency, from north to central China, even as the Kwantung Army operated from a less favorable posture. Attitudes toward the northern problem varied within senior military circles. While concern persisted, it was not universal. As campaigns in China widened, planning at the high command level deteriorated, propagating confusion and anxiety to field armies in China. The Japanese Navy suspected that the Army general staff was invoking the USSR as a pretext for broader strategic aims—namely, to provoke a more consequential confrontation with the USSR while the Navy contended with its own strategic rivalries with the Army, centered on the United States and Britain. Army leaders, however, denied aggressive intent against the USSR at that time. The Hankow plan encountered substantial internal opposition at high levels. Private assessments among army planners suggested that a two-front war would be premature given operational readiness and troop strength. Not only were new War Ministry officials cautious, but many high-ranking Army general staff officers and court circles shared doubts. Aggressive tendencies, influenced by subordinates and the Kwantung Army, were evident in Inada, who repeatedly pressed Tada Shun, the deputy army chief of staff, to endorse the Wuhan drive as both necessary and feasible, arguing that the USSR would gain from Japan's weakening without incurring substantial losses. Inada contended that Stalin was rational and that time favored the USSR in the Far East, where industrial buildup and military modernization were ongoing. He argued that the Soviet purges impeded opportunistic ventures with Japan. He posited that Nazi Germany posed a growing threat on the western front, and thus the USSR should be avoided by both Japan, due to China and Russia, due to Germany. While most of the army remained engaged in China, Tada did not initially share Inada's views; only after inspecting the Manchurian borders in April 1938 did he finally align with Inada's broader vision, which encompassed both northern and Chinese considerations. During this period, Inada studied daily intelligence from the Kwantung Army, and after Lyushkov's defection in June, reports suggested the Soviets were following their sector commander's recommendations. Russian troops appeared at Changkufeng, seemingly prepared to dig in. Inada recollects his reaction: "That's nice, my chance has come." I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me. The simmering Soviet–Japanese border clashes centered on Changkufeng Hill near Lake Khanka, set within a broader history of contested frontiers dating to Qing and Tsarist treaties. Japan, prioritizing China, considered Changkufeng peripheral but ready to confront Soviet encroachment; Moscow aimed to consolidate border gains, with high-level war planning overlaying regional skirmishes. Conflict loomed over Manchuria.
Today's Topics: 1, 2) How Lincoln freed the black slaves https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/american-christmas-american- new-year/ 3, 4) The Lion of Münster: A role model for Catholic resistance https://www.boniface-institute.com/the-lion-of-munster-a-role-model-for-catholic-resistance/ TAGS: Virgin Most Powerful Radio, VMP Radio, VMPR, Internet Radio, Jesus 911, Jesse Romero, Paul Clay, Ruben Nava, Anita Romero, Dan Schneider, Kyle Clement, spiritual warfare, Bible, Catholic, Scripture, Catechism, War College, brave men, protestant, Abraham Lincoln, Lion of Münster
Today's Topics: 1, 2, 3) Bob Kroll on his book: "The Father Wound," a powerful book about the importance of the father in a child's life www.withallyourheart.org Foreword by Dr. Bob Schuchts, founder of the John Paul II Healing Center. Bob Kroll worked with Terry for several years selling CDs and the CD of the Month for Lighthouse Catholic Media 4) Is the cat out of the bag? Viral song "Rich Men North of Richmond" says it all https://cforc.com/2023/08/viral-song-rich-men-north-of-richmond-says-it-all/Virgin Most Powerful Radio, VMP Radio, VMPR, Internet Radio, Jesus 911, Jesse Romero, Eddie Chavez, Paul Clay, Ruben Nava, Anita Romero, Dan Schneider, Kyle Clement, spiritual warfare, Bible, Catholic, Scripture, Catechism, War College, The Father Wound, Bob Schuchts, John Paul II Healing Center, Rich Men North of Richmond
Presenting the first Perspectives in Military History Lecture of the 57th Season! This month we welcome Dr. Michael Neiberg, Chair of War Studies and Professor at the U.S. Army War College.The best way to understand the crises in Europe today is through rigorous study of European history since at least 1914.This presentation uses the War College's "Historical Mindedness" methodology to better understand where Europe is today, where it might go in the future, and the options open to Americans as we relate to it. Ultimately, it asks whether Europe can truly be, as President George H. W. Bush, hoped, "Whole, Free, and at Peace" given the legacies of its complicated past.
Every August, a fresh new cohort of students arrives on Carlisle Barracks to attend the resident course at the U.S. Army War College. The goal is to educate and develop these senior military and civilian leaders to serve at the strategic level, enhancing national and global security. Maria Gregory shares her hard-won tips for success with host Liz Woodworth. Maria began the 2024-2025 academic year feeling apprehensive but by the end felt transformed (for the best!) Maria hopes the lessons she learned during the "Carlisle Experience" might help others to make the most of the opportunities available during their own studies. And for all those students that have just arrived be sure to check out our special Back to School series for more incredibly useful information like you'll find here.
Today's Topics: 1) Why is the prologue in John 1: 1-14 used during the Rite of Exorcism? 2, 3) My Traditional Priest (FSSP) told me that I should not pray deliverance or binding prayers. He strongly advised me against this practice. I listen to War College and I hear quite the opposite. I'm confused 3, 4) What are binding prayers and when can they be used?
Liber Christo War College Situation Room – Virgin Most Powerful Radio
Today's Topics: 1) Why is the prologue in John 1: 1-14 used during the Rite of Exorcism? 2, 3) My Traditional Priest (FSSP) told me that I should not pray deliverance or binding prayers. He strongly advised me against this practice. I listen to War College and I hear quite the opposite. I'm confused 3, 4) What are binding prayers and when can they be used?
Listen to ASCO's Journal of Clinical Oncology Art of Oncology article, "A Whipple of Choice” by Dr. Carl Forsberg, who is an Assistant Professor of Strategy and History at Air Force War College. The article is followed by an interview with Forsberg and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Dr Forsberg shares his experience with an uncommon cancer treated by a new therapy for which no directly relevant data were available. Transcript Narrator: A Whipple of Choice, by C. W. Forsberg, PDH I sat across from a hepatobiliary surgeon on a gray October afternoon. “To be frank,” he told me, “we don't know what to recommend in your case. So we default to being conservative. That means a Whipple surgery, even though there are no data showing it will improve your outcome.” The assessment surprised me, diverging from my expectation that doctors provide clear recommendations. Yet the surgeon's willingness to structure our conversation around the ambiguity of the case was immensely clarifying. With a few words he cut through the frustrations that had characterized previous discussions with other physicians. I grasped that with an uncommon cancer treated by a novel therapy with no directly relevant data, I faced a radical choice. My situation that afternoon was worlds away from where I was 5 months earlier, when I was diagnosed with presumed pancreatic cancer at the age of 35. An early scan was suspicious for peritoneal metastasis. The implications seemed obvious. I prepared myself for the inevitable, facing my fate stoically except in those moments when I lingered next to my young son and daughter as they drifted to sleep. Contemplating my death when they were still so vulnerable, I wept. Then the specter of death retreated. Further tests revealed no metastasis. New doctors believed the tumor was duodenal and not pancreatic. More importantly, the tumor tested as deficient mismatch repair (dMMR), predictable in a Lynch syndrome carrier like me. In the 7 years since I was treated for an earlier colon cancer, immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) immunotherapy had revolutionized treatment of dMMR and high microsatellite instability tumors. One oncologist walked me through a series of recent studies that showed extraordinary responses to ICI therapy in locally advanced colon and rectal tumors with these biomarkers.1-4 He expressed optimism that my cancer could have a similar response. I embarked on a 24-week course of nivolumab and ipilimumab. After 6 weeks of therapy, a computed tomography (CT) scan showed a significant reduction in tumor size. My health rebounded as the tumor receded. This miraculous escape, however, was bound by the specter of a Whipple surgery, vaguely promised 6 months into my treatment. At the internationally renowned center where I was diagnosed and began treatment with astonishing efficiency, neither oncologists nor surgeons entertained the possibility of a surgery-sparing approach. “In a young, healthy patient like you we would absolutely recommend a Whipple,” my first oncologist told me. A second oncologist repeated that assessment. When asked if immunotherapy could provide a definitive cure, he replied that “if the tumor disappeared we could have that conversation.” My charismatic surgeon exuded confidence that I would sail through the procedure: “You are in excellent health and fitness—it will be a delicious surgery for me.” Momentum carried me forward in the belief that surgery was out of my hands. Four months into treatment, I was jolted into the realization that a Whipple was a choice. I transferred my infusions to a cancer center nearer my home, where I saw a third oncologist, who was nearly my age. On a sunny afternoon, 2 months into our relationship, he suggested I think about a watch-and-wait approach that continued ICI therapy with the aim of avoiding surgery. “Is that an option?” I asked, taken aback. “This is a life-changing surgery,” he responded. “You should consider it.” He arranged a meeting for me with his colleague, the hepatobiliary surgeon who clarified that “there are no data showing that surgery will improve your outcome.” How should patients and physicians make decisions in the absence of data? My previous experience with cancer offered little help. When I was diagnosed with colon cancer at the age of 28, doctors made clear recommendations based on clear evidence. I marched through surgery and never second-guessed my choices. A watch-and-wait approach made sense to me based on theory and extrapolation. Could duodenal tumors treated by ICIs behave that differently from colorectal cancers, for which data existed to make a watch-and-wait approach appear reasonable? The hepatobiliary surgeon at the regional cancer center told me, “I could make a theoretical argument either way and leave you walking out of here convinced. But we simply don't know.” His comment reflects modern medicine's strict empiricism, but it foreclosed further discussion of the scientific questions involved and pushed the decision into the realm of personal values. Facing this dilemma, my family situation drove me toward surgery despite my intuition that immunotherapy could provide a definitive cure. The night before I scheduled my Whipple procedure, I wrote in my journal that “in the face of radical uncertainty one must resort to basic values—and my priority is to survive for my children. A maimed, weakened father is without doubt better than no father at all.” To be sure, these last lines were written with some bravado. Only after the surgery did I viscerally grasp that the Whipple was a permanent maiming of the GI system. My doubts lingered after I scheduled surgery, and I had a final conversation with the young oncologist at the cancer center near my home. We discussed a watch-and-wait approach. A small mass remained on CT scans, but that was common even when tumors achieved a pathological complete response.5 Another positron emission tomography scan could provide more information but could not rule out the persistence of lingering cancer cells. I expressed my low risk tolerance given my personal circumstances. We sat across from one another, two fathers with young children. My oncologist was expecting his second child in a week. He was silent for moments before responding “I would recommend surgery in your situation.” Perhaps I was projecting, but I felt the two of us were in the same situation: both wanting a watch-and-wait approach, both intuitively believing in it, but both held back by a sense of parental responsibility. My post-surgery pathology revealed a pathological complete response. CT scans and circulating tumor DNA tests in the past year have shown no evidence of disease. This is an exceptional outcome. Yet in the year since my Whipple, I have been sickened by my lack of gratitude for my good fortune, driven by a difficult recovery and a sense that my surgery had been superfluous. Following surgery, I faced complications of which I had been warned, such as a pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, and pancreatic enzyme insufficiency. There were still more problems that I did not anticipate, including, among others, stenoses of arteries and veins due to intraabdominal hematomas, persistent anemia, and the loss of 25% of my body weight. Collectively, they added up to an enduringly dysfunctional GI system and a lingering frailty. I was particularly embittered to have chosen surgery to mitigate the risk that my children would lose their father, only to find that surgery prevented me from being the robust father I once was. Of course, had I deferred surgery and seen the tumor grow inoperable or metastasize between scans, my remorse would have been incalculably deeper. But should medical decisions be based on contemplation of the most catastrophic consequences, whatever their likelihood? With hindsight, it became difficult not to re-examine the assumptions behind my decision. Too often, my dialogue with my doctors was impeded by the assumption that surgery was the obvious recommendation because I was young and healthy. The assumption that younger oncology patients necessarily warrant more radical treatment deserves reassessment. While younger patients have more years of life to lose from cancer, they also have more years to deal with the enduring medical, personal, and professional consequences of a life-changing surgery. It was not my youth that led me to choose surgery but my family situation: 10 years earlier, my youth likely would have led me to a watch-and-wait approach. The rising incidence of cancer among patients in their 20s and 30s highlights the need for a nuanced approach to this demographic. Calculations on surgery versus a watch-and-wait approach in cases like mine, where there are no data showing that surgery improves outcomes, also require doctors and patients to account holistically for the severity of the surgery involved. Multiple surgeons discussed the immediate postsurgical risks and complications of a pancreaticoduodenectomy, but not the long-term challenges involved. When asked to compare the difficulty of my prior subtotal colectomy with that of a pancreatoduodenectomy, the surgeon who performed my procedure suggested they might be similar. The surgeon at the regional cancer center stated that the Whipple would be far more difficult. I mentally split the difference. The later assessment was right, and mine was not a particularly bad recovery compared with others I know. Having been through both procedures, I would repeat the subtotal colectomy for a theoretical oncologic benefit but would accept some calculated risk to avoid a Whipple. Most Whipple survivors do not have the privilege of asking whether their surgery was necessary. Many celebrate every anniversary of the procedure as one more year that they are alive against the odds. That I can question the need for my surgery speaks to the revolutionary transformation which immunotherapy has brought about for a small subset of patients with cancer. The long-term medical and personal consequences of surgery highlight the urgent stakes of fully understanding and harnessing the life-affirming potential of this technology. In the meantime, while the field accumulates more data, potentially thousands of patients and their physicians will face difficult decisions on surgery verses a watch and- wait approach in cases of GI tumors with particular biomarkers showing exceptional responses to ICI therapy.7,8 Under these circumstances, I hope that all patients can have effective and transparent conversations with their physicians that allow informed choices accounting for their risk tolerance, calculations of proportionality, and priorities. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Hello, and welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology, which features essays and personal reflections from authors exploring their experience in the oncology field. I'm your host, Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. I'm Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at University of Miami. Today, we are so happy to be joined by Dr. Carl Forsberg, Assistant Professor of Strategy and History at the Air Force War College. In this episode, we will be discussing his Art of Oncology article, "A Whipple of Choice." At the time of this recording, our guest has no disclosures. Carl, it is such a thrill to welcome you to our podcast, and thank you for joining us. Dr. Carl Forsberg: Well, thank you, Mikkael, for having me. I'm looking forward to our conversation. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: So am I. I wanted to start, Carl, with just a little bit of background about you. It's not often we have a historian from the Air Force College who's on this podcast. Can you tell us about yourself, where you're from, and walk us through your career? Dr. Carl Forsberg: Sure. I was born and raised in Minnesota in a suburb of Minneapolis-St. Paul and then went to undergraduate on the East Coast. I actually started my career working on the contemporary war in Afghanistan, first as an analyst at a DC think tank and then spent a year in Kabul, Afghanistan, on the staff of the four-star NATO US headquarters, where I worked on the vexing problems of Afghanistan's dysfunctional government and corruption. Needless to say, we didn't solve that problem. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Wow. Dr. Carl Forsberg: I returned from Afghanistan somewhat disillusioned with working in policy, so I moved into academia, did a PhD in history at the University of Texas at Austin, followed by postdoctoral fellowships at Harvard and Yale, and then started my current position here at the Air Force War College. The War Colleges are, I think, somewhat unusual, unique institutions. Essentially, we offer a 1-year master's degree in strategic studies for lieutenant colonels and colonels in the various US military services. Which is to say my students are generally in their 40s. They've had about 20 years of military experience. They're moving from the operational managerial levels of command to positions where they'll be making strategic decisions or be strategic advisors. So we teach military history, strategy, international relations, national security policy to facilitate that transition to a different level of thinking. It really is a wonderful, interesting, stimulating environment to be in and to teach in. So I've enjoyed this position here at the War College quite a lot. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, I have to tell you, as someone who's been steeped in academic medicine, it sounds absolutely fascinating and something that I wouldn't even know where to start approaching. We have postdoctoral fellowships, of course, in science as well. What do you do during a postdoctoral fellowship in history and strategy? Dr. Carl Forsberg: It's often, especially as a historian, it's an opportunity to take your dissertation and expand it into a book manuscript. So you have a lot of flexibility, which is great. And, of course, a collegial environment with others working in similar fields. There are probably some similarities to a postdoc in medicine in terms of having working groups and conferences and discussing works in progress. So it was a great experience for me. My second postdoc occurred during the pandemic, so it turned out to be an online postdoc, a somewhat disappointing experience, but nevertheless I got a lot out of the connections and relationships I formed during those two different fellowships. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, there are some people who used the pandemic as an excuse to really just plow into their writing and get immersed in it. I certainly wrote one book during the pandemic because I thought, “Why not? I'm home. It's something where I can use my brain and expand my knowledge base.” So I imagine it must have been somewhat similar for you as you're thinking about expanding your thesis and going down different research avenues. Dr. Carl Forsberg: I think I was less productive than I might have hoped. Part of it was we had a 2-year-old child at home, so my wife and I trying to, you know, both work remotely with a child without having childcare really for much of that year given the childcare options fell through. And it was perhaps less productive than I would have aspired for it to be. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: It's terrifically challenging having young children at home during the pandemic and also trying to work remotely with them at home. I'm curious, you are a writer, it's part of your career, and I'm curious about your writing process. What triggers you to write a story like you did, and how does it differ from some of your academic writing? Dr. Carl Forsberg: Yeah. Well, as you say, there is a real difference between writing history as an academic and writing this particular piece. For me, for writing history, my day job, if you will, it's a somewhat slow, painstaking process. There's a considerable amount of reading and archival work that go into history. I'm certainly very tied to my sources and documents. So, you know, trying to get that precision, making sure you've captured a huge range of archival resources. The real narrative of events is a slow process. I also have a bad habit of writing twice as much as I have room for. So my process entailed a lot of extensive revisions and rewriting, both to kind of shorten, to make sure there is a compelling narrative, and get rid of the chaff. But also, I think that process of revision for me is where I often draw some of the bigger, more interesting conclusions in my work once I've kind of laid out that basis of the actual history. Certainly, writing this article, this medical humanities article, was a very different experience for me. I've never written something about myself for publication. And, of course, it was really driven by my own experiences of going through this cancer journey and recovering from Whipple surgery as well. The article was born during my recovery, about 4 months after my Whipple procedure. It was a difficult time. Obviously kind of in a bad place physically and, in my case, somewhat mentally, including the effects of bad anemia, which developed after the surgery. I found it wasn't really conducive to writing history, so I set that aside for a while. But I also found myself just fixating on this question of had I chosen a superfluous Whipple surgery. I think to some extent, humans can endure almost any suffering with a sense of purpose, but when there's a perceived pointlessness to the suffering, it makes it much harder. So for me, writing this article really was an exercise, almost a therapeutic one, in thinking through the decisions that led me to my surgery, addressing my own fixation on this question of had I made a mistake in choosing to have surgery and working through that process in a systematic way was very helpful for me. But it also, I think, gave me- I undertook this with some sense of perhaps my experience could be worthwhile and helpful for others who would find themselves in a situation like mine. So I did write it with an eye towards what would I like to have read? What would I like to have had as perspective from another patient as I grappled with the decision that I talk about in the article of getting a Whipple surgery. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: So I wonder if I could back up a little bit. You talk about the difficulty of undergoing a Whipple procedure and of recovery afterwards, a process that took months. And this may come across as a really naive question, but as, you know, as an oncologist, my specialty is leukemia, so I'm not referring people for major surgeries, but I am referring them for major chemotherapy and sometimes to undergo a bone marrow transplant. Can you educate us what makes it so hard? Why was it so hard getting a Whipple procedure, and what was hard about the recovery? Dr. Carl Forsberg: Yeah, it was a long process. Initially, it was a 14-day stay in the hospital. I had a leaking pancreas, which my understanding is more common actually with young, healthy patients just because the pancreas is softer and more tender. So just, you know, vast amount of pancreatic fluid collecting in the abdominal cavity, which is never a pleasant experience. I had a surgical drain for 50-something days, spent 2 weeks in the hospital. Simply eating is a huge challenge after Whipple surgery. I had delayed gastric emptying for a while afterwards. You can only eat very small meals. Even small meals would give me considerable stomach pain. I ended up losing 40 lb of weight in 6 weeks after my surgery. Interestingly enough, I think I went into the surgery in about the best shape I had been in in the last decade. My surgeon told me one of the best predictors for outcomes is actual muscle mass and told me to work out for 2 hours every day leading up to my surgery, which was great because I could tell my wife, "Sorry, I'm going to be late for dinner tonight. I might die on the operating table." You can't really argue with that justification. So I went in in spectacular shape and then in 6 weeks kind of lost all of that muscle mass and all of the the strength I had built up, which just something discouraging about that. But just simply getting back to eating was an extraordinarily difficult process, kind of the process of trial and error, what worked with my system, what I could eat without getting bad stomach pains afterwards. I had an incident of C. diff, a C. diff infection just 5 weeks after the surgery, which was obviously challenging. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Yeah. Was it more the pain from the procedure, the time spent in the hospital, or psychologically was it harder? Dr. Carl Forsberg: In the beginning, it was certainly the physical elements of it, the difficulty eating, the weakness that comes with losing that much weight so quickly. I ended up also developing anemia starting about two or 3 months in, which I think also kind of has certain mental effects. My hemoglobin got down to eight, and we caught it somewhat belatedly. But I think after about three or 4 months, some of the challenges became more psychological. So I started to physically recover, questions about going forward, how much am I going to actually recover normal metabolism, normal gastrointestinal processes, a question of, you know, what impact would this have long-term. And then, as I mentioned as well, some of the psychological questions of, especially once I discovered I had a complete pathological response to the immunotherapy, what was the point to having this surgery? Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: And the way you explore this and revisit it in the essay is absolutely fascinating. I wanted to start at the- towards the earlier part of your essay, you write, "The surgeon's willingness to structure our conversation around the ambiguity of the case was immensely clarifying." It's fascinating. The ambiguity was clarifying to you. And the fact that you appreciated the fact that the surgeon was open to talking about this ambiguity. When do you think it's the right thing to acknowledge ambiguity in medicine, and when should we be more definitive? When do you just want someone to tell you, “Do this or do that?” Dr. Carl Forsberg: That's a great question, which I've thought about some. I think some of it is, I really appreciated the one- a couple of the oncologists who brought up the ambiguity, did it not at the beginning of the process but a few months in. You know, the first few months, you're so as a patient kind of wrapped up in trying to figure out what's going on. You want answers. And my initial instinct was, you know, I wanted surgery as fast as possible because you want to get the tumor out, obviously. And so I think bringing up the ambiguity at a certain point in the process was really helpful. I imagine that some of this has to do with the patient. I'm sure for oncologists and physicians, it's got to be a real challenge assessing what your patient wants, how much they want a clear answer versus how much they want ambiguity. I've never obviously been in the position of being a physician. As a professor, you get the interesting- you start to realize some students want you to give them answers and some students really want to discuss the ambiguities and the challenges of a case. And so I'm, I imagine it might be similar as a physician, kind of trying to read the patient. I guess in my case, the fact was that it was an extraordinarily ambiguous decision in which there wasn't data. So I think there is an element, if the data gives no clear answers, that I suppose there's sort of an ethical necessity of bringing that up with the patient. Though I know that some patients will be more receptive than others to delving into that ambiguity. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, you know, it's an opportunity for us to think holistically about our patients, and you as a patient to think holistically about your health and your family and how you make decisions. I believe that when we're in a gray zone in medicine where the data really don't help guide one decision versus the next, you then lean back towards other values that you have to help make that decision. You write beautifully about this. You say, "In the face of radical uncertainty, one must resort to basic values, and my priority is to survive for my children. A maimed, weakened father is without doubt better than no father at all." That's an incredibly deep sentiment. So, how do you think these types of decisions about treatment for cancer change over the course of our lives? You talk a lot about how you were a young father in this essay, and it was clear that that was, at least at some point, driving your decision. Dr. Carl Forsberg: Yeah, I certainly have spent a lot of time thinking about how I would have made this decision differently 10 years earlier. As I mentioned the article, it was interesting because most of my physicians, honestly, when they were discussing why surgery made sense pointed to my age. I don't think it was really my age. Actually, when I was 23, I went off to Afghanistan, took enormous risks. And to some extent, I think as a young single person in your 20s, you actually have generally a much higher risk tolerance. And I think in that same spirit, at a different, earlier, younger stage in my life, I would have probably actually been much more willing to accept that risk, which is kind of a point I try to make, is not necessarily your age that is really the deciding factor. And I think once again, if I were 70 or 60 and my children, you know, were off living their own lives, I think that also would have allowed me to take, um, greater risk and probably led me to go for a watch-and-wait approach instead. So there was a sense at which not the age, but the particular responsibilities one has in life, for me at least, figured very heavily into my medical calculus. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: It's so interesting how you define a greater risk as watch and wait, whereas a surgeon or a medical oncologist who's making recommendations for you might have defined the greater risk to undergo major surgery. Dr. Carl Forsberg: And I thought about that some too, like why is it that I framed the watch and wait as a greater risk? Because there is a coherent case that actually the greater risk comes from surgery. I think when you're facing a life and death decision and the consequence, when you have cancer, of course, your mind goes immediately to the possibility of death, and that consequence seems so existential that I think it made watch and wait perhaps seem like the riskier course. But that might itself have been an assumption that needed more analysis. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Do you think that your doctor revealing that he also had young children at home helped you with this decision? Dr. Carl Forsberg: I think in some ways for a doctor it's important to kind of understand where your patient is in their own life. As a patient, it was interesting and always helpful for me to understand where my physicians were in their life, what was shaping their thinking about these questions. So I don't know if it in any way changed my decision-making, but it definitely was important for developing a relationship of trust as well with physicians that we could have that mutual exchange. I would consider one of my primary oncologists, almost something of a friend at this point. But I think it really was important to have that kind of two-way back and forth in understanding both where I was and where my physician was. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: I like how you frame that in the sense of trust and hearing somebody who could make similar considerations to you given where he was in his family. One final question I wanted to ask you. You really elegantly at the end of this essay talk about revisiting the decision. I wonder, is it fair to revisit these types of decisions with hindsight, or do we lose sight of what loomed as being most important to us when we were making the decisions in real time? Dr. Carl Forsberg: That's a great question, one that is also, I think, inherent to my teaching. I teach military history for lieutenant colonels and colonels who very well may be required, God willing not, but may be required to make these sort of difficult decisions in the case of war. And we study with hindsight. But one thing I try to do as a professor is put them in the position of generals, presidents, who did not have the benefit of hindsight, trying to see the limits of their knowledge, use primary source documents, the actual memos, the records of meetings that were made as they grappled with uncertainty and the inherent fog of war. Because it is, of course, easy to judge these things in hindsight. So definitely, I kept reminding myself of that, that it's easy to second guess with hindsight. And so I think for me, part of this article was trying to go through, seeing where I was at the time, understanding that the decision I made, it made sense and with what I knew, it was probably the right decision, even if we can also with hindsight say, "Well, we've learned more, we have more data." A lot of historical leaders, it's easy to criticize them for decisions, but when you go put yourself in their position, see what the alternatives were, you start to realize these were really hard decisions, and I would have probably made the same disastrous mistake as they would have, you know. Let's just say the Vietnam War, we have our students work through with the original documents decisions of the Joint Chiefs in 1965. They very frequently come to the exact same conclusions as American policymakers made in 1965. It is a real risk making judgments purely on the basis of hindsight, and I think it is important to go back and really try to be authentic to what you knew at the time you made a decision. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: What a great perspective on this from a historian. Carl Forsberg, I'd like to thank you, and all of us are grateful that you were willing to share your story with us in The Art of Oncology. Dr. Carl Forsberg: Well, thank you, and it's yeah, it's been a, it's a, I think in some ways a very interesting and fitting place to kind of end my cancer journey with the publication of this article, and it's definitely done a lot to help me work through this entire process of going through cancer. So, thank you. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Until next time, thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. Don't forget to give us a rating or review, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all of ASCO's shows at asco.org/podcasts. Until next time, thank you so much. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Show notes:Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review. Guest Bio: Dr. Carl Forsberg is a Assistant Professor of Strategy and History at the Air Force War College.
Send us a textIt is time to hit the trail in the final couple of weeks of the 1992 campaign. I figured we would take off with the three Vice Presidential candidates in this episode. They were Vice President Dan Quayle, Senator Al Gore, and Admiral James Stockdale. We will start out spending the the day with Dan Quayle. You will hear him interacting with the public, giving a campaign speech, and being interviewed by the press. This selection of events really does give you a feel for what it is like on the Presidential campaign trail for these candidates. It us up early in the morning and out late at night. This campaign really is a high spot for the Vice President Dan Quayle who I feel was often unfairly maligned. He was a much better campaigner than anyone has given him credit and I feel like he performed outstandingly through out the 1992 campaign. In fact, it was his Vice Presidential Debate performance that finally began to close the gap between the President and Governor Bill Clinton. This episode then turns to a campaign rally given for Senator Al Gore. You will hear him giving one of his stump speeches in the final weeks of the campaign. Al Gore is also a much better campaigner than you may think. I have always felt he was actually better in 1992 and 1996 than his performance at the top of the ticket in 2000. This speech is guaranteed to fire you up and it too will give you a feel of what it was like to be on the campaign trail in 1992. Finally, we will introduce you to the true American Hero that was on the ticket in 1992, Admiral James Stockdale. Stockdale was a far more formidable man than his performance in the Vice Presidential debates would lead you to believe. He had been the President of the War College and had led troops in Vietnam as a POW, creating a civilization and working to keep the troops spirits alive in captivity for nearly 8 years. It seems a shame to me that he is only remembered today for his Vice Presidential debate performance. We hope to change that here by letting you hear his video biography from the Congressional Medal of Honor Society because among James Stockdale's many honors he was a member of this most exclusive clubs of men who have attained the highest honor available in the land, the Congressional Medal of Honor. We want to end this episode honoring this extraordinary achievement from this extraordinary man. Boundless Insights - with Aviva KlompasIn depth analysis of what's happening in Israel—and why it matters everywhere.Listen on: Apple Podcasts SpotifyQuestions or comments at , Randalrgw1@aol.com , https://twitter.com/randal_wallace , and http://www.randalwallace.com/Please Leave us a review at wherever you get your podcastsThanks for listening!!
The 761st Tank Battalion, known as the Black Panthers, was a segregated unit created during World War 2. Regardless of the fact that African Americans had participated in every major conflict dating back to before the United States even existed, a report from the War College labeled African Americans as "not fit for service" in World War 2. The 761st was created and kept stateside until the need for more tanks was too great. The Black Panthers would accompany Gen. Patton's 3rd Army as they fought the retreating Germans. They helped during Bastogne, broke through the Seigfried Line, and even liberated a concentration camp. The hope of returning to a more accepting United States wouldn't match the reality as the 761st would return to no acclaim. Their fight for equal recognition is still going on to this day. Join us as we get Historically High on the 761st Tank Battalion. Support the show
Today, we're talking through recent strikes in Gaza, Lebanon, and Israel; a shakeup in College Football rankings; Elon Musk's offer to Pennsylvania voters; and other top news for Monday, October 21st. Stay informed while remaining focused on Christ with The Pour Over Today. Please support our TPO sponsors! Cru: give.cru.org/tpo Upside: https://links.thepourover.org/Upside The Bible Study: https://links.thepourover.org/TheBibleStudy Politics for People Who Hate Politics: https://links.thepourover.org/PoliticsForPeopleWhoHatePolitics Keola Fit: https://links.thepourover.org/KeolaFit_Pod Compelled Podcast: https://links.thepourover.org/Compelled Dwell Differently: https://links.thepourover.org/DwellDifferently Nothing Left Unsaid Podcast: https://linktr.ee/tgnlu CCCU: https://www.mycccu.com/tpobonus Courage for Life Study Bibles: links.thepourover.org/CFL_Podcast_0901 Grace Bible for Kids: https://links.thepourover.org/GraceBibleforKids The Daily Walk Bible: https://links.thepourover.org/DailyWalk
The father of Eckel joins The Grum to preview the CFB weekend
This week, we have one final episode in our "Back to School" series highlighting another special program at the U.S. Army War College. The Advanced Regional Studies (ARS) program offers opportunities for students to meet the senior decision- and policy-makers of our allied and partner nations on their own turf. Daniel Krebs, the director of ARS, is in the studio to explain how a select number of students will travel abroad for study. He joins podcast editor Ron Granieri to discuss how students gain invaluable knowledge and understanding of the culture and mindset of these nations and their leaders by spending time in their countries and meeting with them face-to-face.
ORIGINAL AIR DATE: APRIL 2, 2016Since I reference this book a lot, I felt it was time to remaster and re-upload this show, with it's short Patreon segment as well. Eric Ouellet joins me for a fascinating discussion of his new book, Illuminations: The UFO Experience as a Parapsychological Event. He proposes that we should examine the UFO Phenomenon as we would a poltergeist case. It's a novel way of looking at it, and may ultimately play a part in solving this enigma. ERIC OUELLET is professor of Defence Studies at the Royal Military College of Canada, and at the Canadian Forces College (Canada's Joint Staff and War College). He has a Ph.D. in sociology from York University (Toronto, Canada), and he is the liaison officer for Canada with the Parapsychological Association. He has published parapsychological work in the Australian Journal of Psychology, EdgeScience, and the Bulletin Métapsychique. His other research works focus on military sociology and war studies.You can check out his blog at parasociology.blogspot.com
Some call it Romantasy, some call it Dragon Corn (except replace the C with a P). Fourth Wing by Rebecca Yarros is hotter than dragon's breath, and so of course we have to see if we can figure out why it's so popular. Sarah Skilton joins me to discuss “love triangles,” indescribable pain that we would actually like described, War College, and how…hot…Xaden…is. Also, is Fourth Wing enjoyable for people with romance or fantasy genre competence? Listen…or die.Discussed: Fourth Wing by Rebecca YarrosGuest: Sarah SkiltonWebsite: www.sarahskilton.comInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/skiltongram/Hollywood Ending by Tash Skilton: https://bookshop.org/p/books/hollywood-ending-tash-skilton/15806212?ean=9781496730671 Shelf Love:NEW! Substack for original writing and stuff | Website | Twitter | Instagram | YouTubeEmail: Andrea@shelflovepodcast.com
Originally aired on April 2, 2016Since I reference this book a lot, I felt it was time to remaster and re-upload this show, with it's short Patreon segment as well.Eric Ouellet joins me for a fascinating discussion of his new book, Illuminations: The UFO Experience as a Parapsychological Event. He proposes that we should examine the UFO Phenomenon as we would a poltergeist case. It's a novel way of looking at it, and may ultimately play a part in solving this enigma.ERIC OUELLET is professor of Defence Studies at the Royal Military College of Canada, and at the Canadian Forces College (Canada's Joint Staff and War College). He has a Ph.D. in sociology from York University (Toronto, Canada), and he is the liaison officer for Canada with the Parapsychological Association. He has published parapsychological work in the Australian Journal of Psychology, EdgeScience, and the Bulletin Métapsychique. His other research works focus on military sociology and war studies.You can check out his blog at parasociology.blogspot.com. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
It's time once again to feature some of the smart conversations that occur around the country through the Eisenhower Series College Program. For over 50 years, the Eisenhower Program has reached out to colleges and town halls across the nation to introduce War College students to audiences that are often unfamiliar with members of the U.S. military. This episode features Don Mozer and Luis Peral as they examine the current efforts of the U.S. military support to the ongoing drug interdiction mission of the nation. With the benefit of Don's recent tour in NORTHCOM and Luis's decades of law enforcement and prosecutorial experience between them, they share their perspectives with podcast host Ron Granieri. Their conversation aims to understand the nature of a very real threat to national security as well as consider possible strategies to combat that threat in the present and well into the future.
It's time once again to feature some of the smart conversations that occur around the country through the Eisenhower Series College Program. For over 50 years, the Eisenhower Program has reached out to colleges and town halls across the nation to introduce War College students to audiences that are often unfamiliar with members of the U.S. military. This episode features Ajai Dabas, Wade Smith and Matthew Taylor discussing great power competition. They join podcast editor Ron Granieri to discuss their professional experiences, primarily in the Indo-Pacific theater. Their insights highlight not only China's actions and motivations in the region but, more importantly, the crucial importance of alliances as well. All three guests share their thoughts on strong partnerships in INDOPACOM as the primary tool to defeat unchecked Chinese aggression and expansion.
It's time once again to feature some of the smart conversations that occur around the country through the Eisenhower Series College Program. For over 50 years, the Eisenhower Program has reached out to colleges and town halls across the nation to introduce War College students to audiences that are often unfamiliar with members of the U.S. military. This episode features Qiana Harder, Seana Jardin, and Carina Kelley as they discuss their personal and professional experiences as women serving in the United States Army. They join podcast editor Ron Granieri to discuss the challenges they've experienced during their time in the military, as well as to highlight the successes and opportunities they've encountered. With nearly seventy years of combined experience, these three soldiers point out that while there is still plenty of room for improvement, military service for women has come a long way. They believe there are plentiful opportunities open to the next generation of women for a successful, fulfilling career in the U.S. Army. And these three ladies prove that fighting like a girl is a good thing.
Police arrest 93 people at USC amid Gaza war protests. Hamas and Iran throw support behind the college protests. A settlement that will rewrite the way many real estate agents are paid in the U.S. has received approval from a federal judge. Los Angeles makes progress but earns 25th straight F in air quality; nothing like the ‘smog sieges' from the 1950's to 1980's.
The conflict in Gaza has galvanized a new generation of young anti-war activists, in the same way that opposition to the Vietnam War and apartheid South Africa did in decades past. A backlash is now building in the United States, led by right-wing activist and pro-Israel groups aimed at eliminating any public dissent over U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.As the death toll of Palestinians rises, a new authoritarian climate is sweeping across the U.S. — particularly on college campuses, which have transformed into laboratories for censorship and surveillance. Intercepted host Murtaza Hussain discusses this new political reality with Sahar Aziz, distinguished professor of law at Rutgers Law School and author of a new report on free speech and discrimination in the context of the Gaza conflict.Intercepted has been nominated for a Webby award under the category of Best News and Politics podcast. Help us win by casting your vote today. If you'd like to support our work, go to theintercept.com/join, where your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference.And if you haven't already, please subscribe to the show so you can hear it every week. And please go and leave us a rating or a review — it helps people find the show. If you want to give us additional feedback, email us at Podcasts@theintercept.com. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
PREVIEW: #PLA-NAVY: #PRC: #INDIA: From a conversation with US Navy War College Professor James Holmes re questions of the ability of the PLA Navy to project into the Indian Ocean and even into the South Atlantic. More of this tonight. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/indias-navy-has-arrived-208922 1854 Bombay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Frederick_FitzClarence
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
