The following podcast contains advertising.

To access an ad-free version of the LawFair podcast, become a material supporter of LawFair

at patreon.com slash lawfair.

That's patreon.com slash lawfair.

Also, check out LawFair's other podcast offerings, rational security, chatter, lawfair

no bull and the aftermath.

There was a reason that so many generals said yes to this kind of job, either retired

or acting because not only did it was a sense of duty, which I mean John Kelly has said

if Hillary Clinton offered it in job, he would have taken it.

So certainly a sense of duty is important, but also they thought Obama had failed in not

insignificant areas in the Middle East.

Whether it was not enforcing the red line in Syria, whether it was pulling out of Iraq

in 2011, whether it was signaling that withdrawal date from Afghanistan on December 1, 2009, when

President Obama announced the surge in Afghanistan.

So these are substantive policy differences that they came into office thinking that Obama

had failed in certain ways.

None of them were in love with the Iran deal, although they thought it could be improved.

And John Kelly, by the way, had I think just substantive disagreements with the Obama

administration on an issue when he was running something command, which was the Obama administration

wanted to close Guantanamo.

So there were substantive policy differences, I think that also explained why they were

willing to take these jobs in addition to the fact that the duty calls and they were being

...