You guys normally have insightful commentary, but your latest sounds like my kids squabbling with childish pokes. Don’t lower the bar to mainstream media.

You’re starting to lose me guys. The commentators are getting smug and preachy, especially Chris and Melanie. I don’t know how Zach stays in this group it’s starting to look like a cable news argument. Another few shows without a change and I’ll be dropping it.

Used to really like this show and the differing opinions and banter. However the descent of Melanie into an anti-Biden hack has been a major turn off. She shrieks about anything the administration does as if it’s world-ending, and it’s pretty obvious she’s angling for a position in a possible Trump administration.

Great discussions, really enjoy hearing varied perspectives on national security questions. Was just listening to your Sept 26 show and wonder why in context of deterrence v-a-v Iran your immediately jumped to the question “do you want us to bomb Tehran?” One of our failures of deterrence in general has been our unwillingness to impose reciprocal consequences- we set our own options too high. Eg in Iraq when IRGC was training militias to kill US troops, we should have supported Iranian dissident groups killing IRGC cadres. When China started building islands in SCS, we should have supported Manila and Hanoi to build their own outposts. When Houthis fired missiles at US ships we should have told Iran every missile launched at one of our ships will be answered by a missile launched at one of theirs. Our handcuffing ourselves from options short of $$$ cruise missiles against a capital is one of the reasons we can’t deter effectively.

From deep in the bowels of the national security flim flam comes a podcast that tells us everything we need to know about the dep states’ protection of its own. The “attaboys” on the last episode featured an encomium of praise for the 12 courageous jurors who convicted Trump of 47, count ‘em, 47, felonies. Jeez. You want more Trump, keep supporting these losers.

This is quickly becoming my favorite foreign policy podcast.

among the war on the rocks groups net assessment is surely the best. The 3 hosts balance each other greatly, with Melanie Marlowe being the most outspoken (in a good way). They are all very qualified, educated, and concise in their info, plus they’re also funny which helps lol. Recommend to any of my peers in the FA/IR realm. 10/10 stuff

From a topic Melanie raised in this podcast as a US general public natsec nerd, I heartily agree with her point that the US public needs more explaining on the Pentagon budget and primary contractors. For a Robert Gates "Let's have the Pentagon do more and smarter" push, the US public needs to know the justifications for expenditures, especially the proportionality of the big items in the news, and the success/setbacks of expenditures. A sizable share of the American public has little trust in the Pentagon budget. I follow 30 DC procurement experts on Twitter, but no think tank, journalist, or Substacker is writing about this for the public. Do any US think tanks like CNAS publish infographics, or have dynamic graphs on their website, showing the total armaments and fires expenditures at an 80,000 level? One example of the public education's importance is the Ukraine debate. The public is alarmed by $65B, but as you know, there is little proportionality awareness. Can you do a show(s) explaining the proportions of the defense expenditures, highlighting a couple of points? Or, some procurement expert could do a Substack on this, and make some good money.

I have to say first of all that I love the show—each person has their own unique and thoughtful take on relevant geopolitical events (even if it’s not the hot topic of the moment). The other thing I have to say: this is NOT a twice-a-month show. This is barely a once-a-month show at this point, and the most recent tail-end-of-June episode announced (with about 20 seconds left in the episode) that they will be putting the show on hiatus for the ENTIRE summer. To be fair, this podcast is free, so I don’t have too much room to complain, but the unreasonably long gaps between episodes, compounded with taking the entire summer off, has transformed this show into something I highly anticipate every two weeks to something I forget about completely until a new episode pops up once in a blue moon and I think “oh yeah, that show.” TL;DR: Great show and content, but not even close to a twice-a-month show, and now will be on hiatus for the entire summer.

Although I’m very interested in the topics, episodes are very hard to listen to as Melanie monopolizes the conversation and is fairly closed-minded and ideologically driven

I just finished listening to the Better Burden Sharing with Allies episode, and I have to say Melanie deserves a lot of praise. Her insights and honesty are refreshing. I appreciate that she speaks her mind and isn’t afraid to tell it like it is… but overall another great episode from everyone.

I’ve enjoyed most of the WOTR podcast series and other national security podcasts, but I’ve found the Net Assessment quality has fallen off over the past year. It does bring in new or different articles that I may miss or pass over, so there’s value to listening. What I’m missing, or noticing, is that I never find myself more interested in the subject or background after the podcast. I haven’t had my curiosity sparked or gain a new or different insight. I get that from some of the Horns of a Dilemma episodes. I don’t get a good discussion that I’m used to with Lawfare, in the sense that it’s not a discussion. I feel like the hosts all end up talking past each other, even when they do debate. I don’t need to hear about what think-tanks are thinking, they already have a bevy of their own podcasts. At a basic level it’s not a high-level thoughtful discussion that I’m getting a peek into. I think the series would benefit from having a NatSec “celebrity” guest or WOTR writer come on that Zach, Chris, and Melanie could talk about the article/book/series in more detail. That live discussion would be a lot more to work with than three people reading the same article and asking “what did the author mean by that?”

Most of the analysis is misplaced. I have no problem with a conflicting point of view. But, the delivery is amateurish. The constant stepping all over each other to make a point really needs to end. And, the points of view on today’s topic are errant. Simply put, Japan is prohibited from anything but a defensive force (articles of surrender, 1945). While some will make the case that nukes defend Japan from Chinese and NK aggression, the ones of us actually serving in the defense apparatus of the US know better. Furthermore, the need for nuclear proliferation by either of these two countries is unnecessary as long as the on-site protection of the United States exists. Another missed opportunity to lead if the US lets this happen with regard to either Japan or SK.

I usually enjoy this podcast but the most recent episode (NDS) felt like slow drip, cable news torture. Zack loathes capitalization of common nouns, and Melanie wants detailed classified information in an unclassified, high-level strategy document (while also admitting she knows better). We got the point within the first 15 minutes—the hosts hate “integrated deterrence.” But what would they propose as serious alternatives? Integrated offense against the PRC? Flex hard power and hope all the soft power stuff sorts itself out? Preble tried to offer some constructive criticism by acknowledging the problems/challenges inherent in crafting the NDS, but the rest of the dialogue felt like Melanie and Zach were grasping for hot takes on a tired subject that security professionals all recognize to be a useless paper drill…I’d grade this episode C-, knowing the hosts are capable of producing A/A- commentary when they tackle complex topics and actionable policy options.

Podcast episodes are very insightful, but the latest episode on the National Defense Strategy was a bit too much of an earful, stress-inducing with the raised voices and the fast-paced talking. Also, the interruptions and the speaking-before-thinking resulting in lots of pauses and “um’s” and “uh’s” gets annoying. I respect the passion the hosts have for their subjects, but as listeners, please be conscientious of your audience. Thanks!

The hosts cover great topics and discuss articles I have missed. Even though the hosts come from different organisations that have different policy positions, it the discussion never devolves into taking political sides, à la “Crossfire.” Not an easy feat!

Melanie interrupts too much, otherwise great.

Listened to a couple of podcasts before it became apparent that this group likes very much likes to nit pick and armchair quarterback every little thing. It’s exhausting and not enlightening at all. If you like to hear people get off on their own opinions, you’re in the right place.

This is the one podcast that I ensure I never miss weekly. Please never stop posting. Indispensable for anyone involved in national security at any level. Edit: Two weeks between episodes is just too much to bear. There must be more.

Really great in-depth discussions

Thoughtful, measured and informed. If you’re serious about understanding defense and strategic policy within the realm of the feasible, this is a must-listen.

Good show for updates on modern military and national defense issues. Thoughts on if Russian reticence to use fixed wing aircraft in contested airspace due to a concern on the potential impact of losses on Russian weapons sales?

I listen regularly to Net Assessment; but, it’s become abundantly clear that these hosts exist only in a reality of think tanks and the DC Beltway. Furthermore, their myopic perspective is limited to defense and international relations and disregards the full range of issues in the American Society. Finally, they too often realize only that at the end of their examination of an issue that their recommendations results in far worse consequences and still don’t resolve the core issue.

I listen to approximately 30 hours of podcasts each week including some I pay for. Out of all the shows I listen to, this is consistently in my top two. With their timely analysis of world events, I come away from each show with more questions to ask than before I listened. My only regret is not listening sooner.

Absolutely love this show. The topics are timely. The analysis is incredibly insightful. And most of all, I love the hosts. Their dynamic makes this show so enjoyable to listen to.

Speaking as someone who is sick of the democracy talk. The reason why people don’t like that term is that is comes off as a lie. People who watch what the “Democracy” politicians do instead of what they say understand that they don’t care about democracy or liberalism. Democracy is rule as decided by the people. The same politicians who say they are for democracy are bought out by special interest. The unions, trial lawyers, LGBTQ+, these are the groups who rule our country. That’s more like an oligopoly of special groups in place of a liberal democracy. Meanwhile the every day average job is forgot and in some case used as scapegoat for resentment.

Chris’s transformation from libertarian Kato guy to Biden hack has been very interesting to watch. What a hilarious transformation. For instance, he bemoans 1/6 because there’s a “large segment of the population that the President is illegitimate”….. And that it’s bad because it effects Biden’s ability to do his job….. Please. Are we living in upside down land? Stick to foreign policy. Your an ignoramus on domestic politics.

Great show, love the hosts, format, and articles they review/debate/discuss. I left the military 5+ years ago but this show keeps me in the loop of foreign policy/national defense issues and makes me a better informed citizen. One of the best (and my personal most listened-to) of the many great War on the Rocks family of podcasts.

usually love listening to the podcast the participants are clearly left leaning however when it comes to foreign policy couldn’t enjoy the conversation more. However for someone to say “are 20,000 gun deaths a year not enough to ask questions” is incredibly disingenuous, to say that as a caveat on the topic of the 2nd amendment. Anybody that can type on a computer can do enough research to realize that 20,000 people a year do not die in mass shootings or even in gang violence. Don’t talk about such a controversial topic without actually delving into it. You obviously do not care about the 2A if you’re not willing to engage in an actual conversation about the real issues with gun violence and mental health in the country.

Great podcast. Enjoy tuning in each week. I disagree with the reviews claiming this podcast is “anti-conservative.” They were clearly written by some very far right people. I find the conversation to be very centrist in nature. If you came here looking for Fox News, move along.

Unprofessional doesn’t even begin to describe it.

Would be nice to have someone contribute a worldview that isn’t lock-step with establishment. The bashing of opposing view points and ranting of personal political beliefs is also uncalled for and brings into question the legitimacy of points being made.

Excellent inside analysis, though I no they spend too much time on grievances and atta-people. But I’m grateful to have stumbled upon this.

This is a must listen for anyone in the national security community.

Often missing facts and evidence. Not reflective of balanced writing from WOTR.

If you’re working in a defense-related field, this hits the mark. The topics are timely and the discussions are fact-based and interesting. Stick around for the airing of the grievances and the shoutouts!

Clearly anti-conservative and one sided. The moderators draw conclusions based on opinion without evidence and facts. Great format and idea tarnished by bias. Too bad.

The hosts of the podcast highlight all aspects of war, intelligence and more in this can’t miss podcast! The hosts and expert guests offer insightful advice and information that is helpful to anyone that listens!

I enjoy this podcast, but please get rid of the small talk at the beginning of each episode (do that before you start recording, or edit it out). I really don’t understand the point of it, other than maybe to illustrate that the co-hosts are real humans to anyone dumb enough to not realize that already. Just get to the point of the podcast, I end up having to fast forward through most of it.

For once, I would like to find a podcast that talks about foreign policy that actually supports different political parties. The host are all vehemently anti-conservative and the show lacks credibility because of it. It’s almost like MSNBC. I listen to the show to see what the liberal realist, idealist, etc point of view is.

Zach, Melanie, and Chris (the typical hosts), are excellent. Both the topics they choose and the depth they go into in analyzing and arguing their positions amongst one another are remarkably thorough and engaging. My eyes don’t glaze over at any time within an episode. Refreshingly, they are about as politically-center as you can get, so you never get the feeling that they only ever pull for one side. Their discussions never feel preachy or even unanimous, so you the listener get to listen to a variety of viewpoints to inform and create your own opinion of things. War on the Rocks, please keep this show apolitical, or at least as it currently is, as it challenges me to re-evaluate my own opinions despite my own biases.

Crew, I am a Marine who recently returned from the Kabul evacuation. I’m interested in sending you a response to your recent Afghanistan episode via email. Do you have an email address for the show?

The bombastic criticism of the current US POUS and Secretary of Defense was unfair, ill informed and totally uncalled for while resembling Fox and Friends.

I really enjoy the podcast. Interesting subjects, quality banter, curated well and keeps my attention all the way through. Of course I might not agree with everything, but I enjoy the varying points of view.

Discussion of defense issues - 5 stars. Interesting, informative, expands my understanding. When they wander into domestic politics, the discussion heads directly into the conventional wisdom that you can get anywhere - 1 star is generous on this side.

Great podcast, 360 discussion of issues...tracking the big issues with insider perspectives. Fun and easy to listen to!

One of the analysts could not believe the price of freedom is 20,000 gun deaths a year. So I guess we need to give up the 2nd amendment according to him. What a joke and you are going to analyze what and how we spend money on our military? What a joke! Another analyst was worried about cicadas???

Personal attacks against President Trump which are irrelevant and non-probative to the selected issue, reduce the value and analysis of this podcast. I am deselecting this podcast.

The discussion, structure and reference list are top notch.

Good content, but two of the hosts interrupt each other constantly, making it unpleasant to listen to and difficult to concentrate on the points they’re making