[Music Starts]

Lieutenant Colonel Howard: “Hey, you’re American.What are you doing here?” And it usually raises questions as to why I’m there and why I'm wearing a Canadian flag.

Captain Orton: H! I’m Captain Adam Orton and this is the Canadian Army Podcast. This episode, we’re gonna talk to Lieutenant Colonel Isaac Howard, who is a U.S. Army exchange officer in the Canadian Army Headquarters in Ottawa. He’s going to tell us a little bit about his experiences here so far, and maybe a little bit of his career in the U.S. Army. Welcome to the podcast, sir.

[Music Ends]

LCol Howard: Hey, Adam. Thanks for having me. And it’s okay with the slip up of rank, because it’s probably going to take me a lot of time to get used to saying lieutenant colonel as well. I’m sure I'll have a number of slip ups by the time I get back to the States. But, yes—so I'm Lieutenant Colonel Isaac Howard. I’m coming here from Fort Carson, Colorado. That was my most recent duty station. But unlike in the Canadian Army, where you’re regimentally affiliated, we don’t have that kind of a setup in the United States Army. So Fort Carson is not necessarily my home base. It’s just the one that I came from most recently. I’ve been to a number of installations across the U.S. since I’ve been in the military. But that was just the one that I came from most recently. So coming from the west of the mountains back to the East Coast is nice.

Just to give you a little background information on myself, I am not from a military family, but I spent my whole life moving around. So I am an American. But I was actually born in Korea. I was born in the capital of Korea, Seoul. I lived there until about the age of seven. But, unfortunately, I didn't pick up a lot of Korean there—so if you ask me to say anything, you’re not going to get much. After spending some time in Korea, I then moved back to the States. And I’ve lived on both coasts. So I spent some time in the Washington, D.C. area in elementary school. I went to high school in Southern California, and I went to college in New York City. So I’ve been kind of around all over the place. After graduating high school, I joined the military, went to college at a military university in New York. And I’ve been in the military ever since. So I’ve been around a bit. But I haven’t traveled abroad a lot outside of my army employment. Most of my time in pre-college days was spent in the States—but I’ve been on both coasts. So here I am in Canada. This is the first time I’ve actually lived in a foreign country that hasn’t been a deployment.

Captain Orton: Wow, that's quite the backstory. For people who are listening, probably most of them are maybe a little bit familiar with the Canadian Army career path—but how does that work on the U.S. Army side?

LCol Howard: Well, I'll talk to you about the U.S. Army career progression. And there are some areas where—we have another land force in the United States, and that’s the United States Marine Corps. And in terms of military progression, our paths can be just a little bit different. I’ll indicate that nuance. But from the U.S. Army perspective—well, I actually enlisted from high school so I was on the enlisted side prior to going into officer. The United States has a number of enlisted officer programs and I took advantage of one of those and that was the West Point route. So, after being enlisted as a tank crewman for about two years, I transitioned to the United States Military Academy Program at West Point where I spent four years there, and I went back into armour. So I started off as an armour enlisted man and one as an armour officer. After graduating from West Point, immediately went through the officer basic course—which is specifically designed for tank officers.

And, after that, I was assigned to the 3rd Infantry Division, which is located in Fort Stewart, Georgia. I wasn’t there very long before I deployed to Iraq. So my first deployment was in the Anbar Province. We went to the capital of Anbar and I was there for fifteen months. So it was a pretty long first deployment. And this was right around the surge time. So, for those who recall those days, when the United States Army decided to push a surge into Iraq, George W. Bush got on the news around 5 January 2008, and said he’d made a decision to dramatically increase the number of troops in Iraq. And it was almost exactly one week after that I was flying overseas to Ramadi, Iraq. So I was the first unit as part of that surge. But, in order to make that surge work, units had to do fifteen months straight in Iraq. Now we were afforded a leave period in there. So that was a nice break—but I think I didn’t take that leave until after the first ten months. So I was there for a significant period of time.

We were the only United States Army brigade that was nested under a U.S. Marine Corps division. So the U.S. Marines, at that time, had full authority over the Anbar Province. So my brigade was sent to Ramadi—which, at that time, was in very bad shape, and they needed some additional combat power. So we worked primarily with Marines outside of our own unit. But we spent fifteen months there. And I was lucky to have a good deployment because up until that point, most units that had gone into Iraq had seen it much worse by the time they left. We were one of the first units that it was actually worse when we showed up and better when we left. We turned a corner pretty quickly. Within the first four months, the entire area looked dramatically different. I think the surge was part of that success. But there are a number of factors that really go into that. It’s certainly more than just one variable.

But that was my first deployment. I came back to Fort Stewart and we trained for about the next twelve months, and I was off to Iraq again—this time to Baghdad with the same unit. And then after coming back from that deployment, I moved to a new duty station location and went to Fort Benning, Georgia. I spent some time as an instructor, and then I got pulled into some of the educational courses that are requisite for field grade officers—so for majors and above. I did some time with the United States Air Force. I did their Joint Staff College, and I did some extended education with them on the backside. And after that, I deployed to Afghanistan. So Afghanistan was number three for me. And this was my first strategic level assignment. So up until this point, I spent all of my time on the tactical level. By going to Afghanistan, I worked at the 4-Star headquarters, which had become Resolute Support. Previously, it was known as ISAF, but under then-President Obama’s new policy of renaming the operation to Operation New Dawn, the NATO headquarters became Resolute Support headquarters.

Captain Orton: That;s in Kandahar, right?

LCol Howard: It’s in Kabul, actually.

Captain Orton: Oh, okay. Right.

LCol Howard: So, it’s in the capital of Afghanistan. Kandahar, is currently where the tactical Operation South was located. So I spent one year in Kabul. It was at a NATO headquarters. It wasn’t necessarily a NATO billet—but I had the opportunity for the first time to work with a lot of our international partners. That had been lacking in my Iraq deployment. It was primarily a U.S. venture, but Afghanistan was much more multinational in nature. So that was really my first time having really close interaction with our NATO allies. It was a tremendous experience. So the team that I worked in, which was in the J5, the planning cell, had roughly ten members and only two of us were American—the rest were all NATO members. And my immediate boss was actually Australian. So tremendous opportunity to work internationally on a very important effort.

But I spent one year in Afghanistan and came back—and this is when I moved to Fort Carson, Colorado. Almost immediately after arriving there, I deployed to Kosovo. Most of my brigade went to Afghanistan, but one battalion was required in the Balkans. And so I spent nine months in the Balkans doing the K4 mission there; again, along with a number of NATO allies. In fact, an Italian general was in command of the operation there. And that was my most recent deployment. So, after coming back from Kosovo, that’s when I found myself in Canada. I only had a few months after returning before coming up here. So it’s been a pretty high operational tempo since I’ve been in. I’ve been able to travel to a number of places—some of them a little bit nicer than others. But I’ve had the opportunity to be pretty operationally involved. But my job here in Canada is very strategically focused. And the only other strategic job I've had was in Afghanistan. And so it’s been a very broadening experience for me, as it’s exposed me to a number of aspects that armies deal with that I haven’t really dealt with before. So in a number of ways, it’s been very unique.

Captain Orton: Wow, that's a lot to unpack. But that’s a great story. So what got you to transition to the officer corps?

LCol Howard: Well, shortly after joining, I kind of realized it was something that I wanted to do. So I joined as an enlisted man. When I first joined, I didn't really have the plan to stay in the military for the long-term to make it a career. I knew it was just something that I wanted to do. I guess part of that had to do with a lot of the interests I had at the time. I was on a wrestling team where the coaching team was entirely made of U.S. Marine Corps veterans. And in California, because we were so close to Marine bases, a lot of former Marines who were on that wrestling team used to come by a lot. And so there was just a lot of military influence, I guess, from that experience. But just from having read a lot of history and what, you know, what our country had done—he just really inspired me and made me want to be a part of that. So I joined with the intention of only staying in for a short period of time. But I enjoyed the enlisted time I had so much that I decided I wanted to make it a long-term career.

And the idea of being an officer had crossed my mind and I thought I wanted to do it. I just wasn’t really very sure of the path. But one of my platoon leaders, a lieutenant at the time, actually pulled me aside and said “hey, I don’t know if you’ve ever thought about this, but if you’ve ever wanted to be an officer, there's a path and how to do that.” And so I had a mentor kind of coach me on how to do that. So he showed me the way and I took it from there and finally switched over to the other side.

Captain Orton: And now here you are in Canada working for the Director of Army Staff.

LCol Howard: Which has been an absolutely incredible opportunity.

Captain Orton: So, what does your day-to-day look like right now?

LCol Howard: Well, COVID has shaped a lot of that. So my duties and my daily routine have been very much shaped by COVID experiences. As I’m sure a lot of other peoples’ have. What I’m doing here, officially assigned, is the International Engagement Cell. So specifically, I manage all the international engagements that the Canadian Army has between Canada and the European armies. So that includes aspects related to training. It includes visiting counterparts—so when the Commander has to visit other commanders, or when we host foreign commanders into Canada. It also pertains to conferences that we may attend that deal with army level engagements or European strategy. So one of the conferences I attended with General Eyre was hosted by the United States Army in Europe, but it was attended by all army commanders across Europe. And we discussed a number of areas that pertained to readiness. How to be sure that we were strategically ready in the event a crisis came up. So any kind of engagement the Canadian Army has with the European armies is primarily my purview.

About a year ago, though, I was pulled aside to work on a special project. And that’s the Canadian Army Modernization Strategy. So the Commander of the Canadian Army, Lieutenant-General Eyre, had a vision for where he felt the Army needed to go over the next five years. But he needed someone to compile and abridge his vision for what that looked like. And so, he assigned me to write this strategy by working with a number of the staff across the headquarters to address some of the areas that he felt that the Canadian Army needed to progress forward in. And so, really, I’ve been working on that for the past twelve months. On the side, I’ve been doing what I can to support international engagements. But, a lot of those have come to a really slow pace given the COVID restrictions we’re enduring right now. So, primarily, my job has been working on the Canadian Army Modernization Strategy. And that manual now is published, it’s been disseminated to the Force. And right now we’re in the process of operationalizing it or implementing it. And so that’s primarily where my focus has been. So on a day-to-day, I primarily work with the lines of governance, which are various staff sections in the Canadian Army Headquarters, in working to implement the Strategy that General Eyre has for the Army.

Captain Orton: So, and I know you and I have talked about this just a little bit before—but what’s it like being an American officer, who’s maybe ramrodding some of the international engagements that involve also the U.S. Army and other organizations as a representative of Canada?

LCol Howard: Well, I would say that in terms of process, it’s been very seamless. There certainly have been no major complications arising from the fact that I’m American. I think that because we have a number of nations that participate in exchange officer programs that most of our allies understand, you know, how the process works. And so seeing an American in a Canadian role is usually not too big of a shock for anyone. But it has provided some interesting anecdotes—and it usually raises questions as to why I’m there and why I’m wearing a Canadian flag. I think that that’s actually a good thing, though. I recall having an Army Staff talk early with the Brazilian army. And this was when I first arrived in Canada, and one of the general officers, who was with that delegation, came up and said “hey, you're American, what are you doing here?” And it sends a signal that we are one Force because you have an American working in a Canadian Army Headquarters, other nations are able to see that we are, in fact, a unified team—that we’re not a loosely disparaged alliance that comes together when it has to, but rather, we are fully integrated. And that message has also been seen overseas as I’ve gone to these conferences with General Eyre. He goes to these meetings with an American at his side, and in some cases, I’ve had to stand in meetings on General Eyre’s behalf. And that provides one interesting anecdote where the Forces Commander from the United States Army saw me sitting in General Eyre’s spot with an American uniform. And I was the only non-general officer at the table. He came to me very confused and said “who are you?” And after explaining that was working for General Eyre, he kind of shook his head and walked away. But again, it does send a signal that, you know, we as an alliance are a unified team. And as I said, it’s a pretty seamless transition—that it really doesn’t cause any obstacles, because we are so similar in the terms of the ways that we operate and the processes that we work with, that it's a pretty seamless transition.

Captain Orton: You talked a little bit about the similarities. And definitely in the concept of, you know, the unified force slash team. Have you noticed any cultural differences in terms of the militaries and how perhaps we operate differently from the U.S. Army?

LCol Howard: You know, it’s really been hard to see to be entirely honest. And part of that is to do with the COVID restrictions and how that’s—it’s really kind of narrowed my window. So I’ll admit that my views are a little myopic because I've primarily been in the Canadian Army Headquarters, and haven’t had a whole lot of opportunity to engage with organizations outside. So just within the Canadian Army Headquarters, I would say that the biggest difference that I really noticed is what I think you would find in any organizations where there’s a significant size difference. So the United States Army is a massive, massive organization. And I don’t even know that Americans fully appreciate just how much larger we are than a lot of other militaries.

So a lot of the differences that I see with the Canadian Army often had to do with the size. So one such example would be just how horizontal the chain of command is in the Canadian Army Headquarters. So it’s very easy for me to have access to the Deputy Commander of the Army or the Commander of the Army himself. It would be much more difficult in the United States Army—just given the sheer size of the staff. There are many more layers of bureaucracy that are layered in between. And so one of the benefits, I think, of a smaller organization is that the chain of command is a little less hierarchical and more horizontal, and there’s more access to senior leaders or easier access to senior leaders.

But I do admit saying that without having worked at the Pentagon—so I haven’t done a similar job like this on the United States side. Maybe I would be surprised at just how horizontal it is. But I have been surprised at how horizontal this chain of command is and how easy staff have access to senior leaders here.

Captain Orton: You know, it’s funny that you mentioned the comparative sizes of our militaries—because I remember when the Sergeant Major of the U.S. Army came to visit Sergeant Major Dailey, he was talking about kind of the recruiting numbers and was saying how the U.S. Army was intaking about 100,000 soldiers that year. I realized, like, man, that’s a huge number—considering that the entire Canadian Armed Forces is about 100 to 120,000 people, so he’s taking in the entire Canadian military’s worth of soldiers every year.

LCol Howard: It is. It’s absolutely massive. And you know, even I didn't fully appreciate it until I started working with our international partners. And I got a better understanding for the size of force they have and how they’re integrated. But like I said, I don't think most Americans just fully appreciate how large an organization it is. But it helps provide a lot of understanding and context into why the U.S. Army operates the way that it does—why its policies are the way that they are. And I contrast that oftentimes with the United States Marine Corps, which is a much smaller organization. And there are benefits and disadvantages to both sides. And you know, big organizations certainly have a benefit in terms of resources. I mean, they can amass massive amounts of resources, but smaller organizations have a lot of advantages as well. And I’ve always seen the U.S. Marine Corps as a very agile organization that’s able to implement change very quickly, from the point of decision to the point of full implementation. And I think the Canadian Army has that advantage as well, given the fact that it’s a smaller organization. I think that implementation, once the decision has been made, is very rapid. At least from my point of view, that seems to be the case.

Captain Orton: And it’s interesting, you know, from maybe you’re talking about maybe bureaucracy perspective, regardless of what organization you’re in, and what size it is—sometimes you find yourself frustrated with the lag time between decision and implementation. And I’m sure there’s people listening right now that are thinking about that. And the reality of it is it may seem like that when you're here. But then when you go to a much, much, much larger organization, you would realize “oh, my god, this is so much more complex than maybe it was otherwise.”

LCol Howard: Yeah, absolutely. And it helps to foster understanding by serving time at a higher headquarters, because you understand the logic a little bit better. You know, I think back to my early Lieutenant time. And sometimes it was very hard to understand the policies, even of the battalion staff. It’d be very easy to say “well, that’s a policy that doesn't make a lot of sense” or, “why would they choose to do something like this?” But when you actually serve on that staff, and you’re familiar with those processes, you gain a better appreciation as to why sometimes that lag exists. And most often rather than not, those reasons are for good reasons. You know, maybe, you know, they need more deliberate thinking on a particular problem—Or maybe certain individuals need to review a decision before it’s made, to make sure that they’re in line with the grand strategy of what we’re trying to accomplish.

One of the things that we do in the United States Army is that, as a young officer, you immediately go into a leadership position. As soon as I was Lieutenant, I didn’t spend any time on a battalion staff—I went right into a unit. And there’s some benefit in doing that because you immediately gain leadership ability, you immediately get to build some confidence in your ability to work with troops and go straight after a tactical mission set. But I’ve also seen advantages where we sent lieutenants, sometimes into a staff position first. And oftentimes I think that provides them some perspective. So when they go to a lower or lower echelon unit, they have some perspective as to why the unit leadership may be doing some of the things that it’s doing, because they’ve already been on a staff like that. So it always helps to work in the headquarters where you see the decision-making process taking place, because it just facilitates understanding.

Captain Orton: Tell us about a memorable experience you’ve had in uniform up to this point. It doesn't necessarily have to do with your exchange experience—but just anything.

LCol Howard: Well, I would have to say that my experience in Afghanistan has provided probably some of the most anecdotes that I've come out with simply because of the nature of the experience. There were so many different nations that were working there, that it really provided a lot of context for what the Alliance does in the big scheme. And frankly, it generated, you know, a lot of sympathy on my side—because I saw a lot of partner nations there who weren’t necessarily a part of the Alliance. But they were still there contributing a lot of horsepower to the mission in Afghanistan, which I found very admirable. Georgia would be one country, for example, not a part of the NATO Alliance—but they were there supporting the cause. So, for me, it was just a really great experience.

But it certainly had its quirks and its challenges. Trying to release information to the Afghanis that we were working with was very, very difficult, because there were so many levels of clearance that it needed to go through. And these were all necessary processes to make sure that we weren’t releasing information we shouldn’t. But it certainly made things very challenging. So while we wanted to work with the Afghani government and help them as much as we could, it was always a significant amount of time—from the products that we were able to produce to the products that we were able to give them. But part of that process was also working through the translations that we would have to do. Any products that we received from the Afghanis would have to be translated into anything that we wanted to get to them would have to be translated. And depending on the level of translator skill that you had, some of those could always come out to varying levels of satisfaction. Right? So I recall one in particular, where my boss, who was Australian, was very adamant that we really needed to stay on top of our translators, because if we didn't, they would translate things very poorly. And he was very unaccepting of that.

And so I would always have to screen whatever our translators would produce very closely, because if there was the slightest thing off, in terms of military terminology, he would get very upset. Well, I recall reading one from a conference that we had, that was a pretty high level conference. It was a strategic level conference where all the core commanders across Afghanistan came in. And I was reading his translated notes from this. And there was something very profane and obscene he’d included in this translation that made absolutely no sense. And I almost fell out of my chair laughing about it. And I took it to my boss—and you know, rather than being upset, we were really hysterical for about the next fifteen minutes because we didn't understand how something like this could possibly end up in a translation. And it really hit the point because we were mentioning how some of these terms often get translated incorrectly. And we needed to watch out for that. But that particular incident was one that was memorable to me—but it just kind of highlighted to me the need to really watch that, because terminology can sometimes be confusing for people who aren’t from a military environment. And that was just one example of how it can sometimes go awry.

Captain Orton: I really empathize with your comments on the challenges of moving secret information or secure information around. I recall, I had an experience in Afghanistan as well, where I wrote a report, and I sent it up to the intelligence cell. And then I subsequently deleted that document. And so, like a couple of weeks later, I asked if I could get it back. And they’re like “no, that's above your security clearance level.” I'm like, “I'm the guy that wrote it.” Usually I can’t get it. So it’s one of those times we have that problem of over-classifying things. And it makes it difficult for us to even access our own stuff.

LCol Howard: Yeah, absolutely. And my Australian boss was actually filling a U.S. bill and he ran into the same problems. In fact, we had the exact same problem where he had written a document and sent it to me for translation—but then we couldn’t give it back to him because he didn't fit the U.S. criteria for secure information, even though he was the author of the document.

Captain Orton: Oh, man, that’s a good one. So you talked a little bit about it—you didn’t talk a little bit about it. You talked a lot about interoperability, and that total force, everybody working together. What are some other benefits of working with allied nations in the context of exchange officers?

LCol Howard: Well, credibility is a really big piece of that. In operating in an international environment, when you go as a member of a team, then you have a lot more credibility in that it’s not a single nation trying to achieve its own single objective, but rather, you see that there’s a collective effort to achieve some kind of good—and I certainly found that in Afghanistan. That doesn’t necessarily relate specifically to exchange officers, but I think that’s one of the benefits in acting as part of an international team. I was fully convinced in my time in Afghanistan. You know, when I tried understanding, you know, why are we still here and what is it we’re really trying to accomplish? I really came to the conclusion that we're there entirely for humanitarian reasons. It was really hard for me to understand any other political outcome that an entire collection of nations could want to achieve than increased rights for women, especially, but also just for the Afghani population as a whole. There obviously are a number of problems going on in Afghanistan—but in terms of why are all the nations there trying to achieve something that we all have common interest in, I couldn’t believe it was anything other than humanitarian reasons.

So in terms of credibility, there is immeasurable benefit to working as part of an international team. But in terms of exchange officers specifically, I think it goes back to some of the messaging that I mentioned before; that we’re able to show. And it’s not just for show—it’s not just for, you know, empty messaging purposes. You know, there’s a benefit to the messaging and showing that we are an interoperable and unified team, that Canadians can work in U.S. headquarters, or they can work in British headquarters, or they can work in French Headquarters. We’re all interchangeable and we’re all using the same doctrine. And we all have the same objectives. You know, a lot of our political goals in terms of where we want to see the international rules based order go—they’re all similar. It presents that message of unity. But it’s more than just message setting as I said. It’s being able to actually operate. So we send the signal that we’re a unified team, but it only enhances our interoperability to have those exchanges to have staff get used to working with each other. Because while we’re all very similar, there’s some small nuances that are good to get used to each other, but it also provides understanding of what a nation’s capabilities are. So that when an exchange officer like myself goes into a planning job in the United States, and we start working with Canada on some future operation—they now have someone in their headquarters who's worked with the Canadian Armed Forces and has an understanding of their capabilities. You know, what they’re able to bring to the fight, what their limitations are, what their strengths are, and it just facilitates better understanding across the Alliance.

Captain Orton: What’s next after this for you?

LCol Howard: Well, right now I'll be moving to Washington D.C. to pick up an instructor position. So it’s hard to say what the long term future holds for me. But what I really hope is that I’m able to capitalize on the knowledge and experience that I’ve gained while working with Canada. I really enjoy working with our international partners. And it’s something that I'm very passionate about. I feel that the Alliance and the partnerships that we have are very important—especially as we’re seeing a shift in the global balance of power, those alliances are only going to become more important. So, what I'm hoping for in the near future is: I’ll have an opportunity to either work with Canada again, or work with NATO more broadly. There are a number of ways that assignments could take shape like that, but that's what I'm really hoping for in the future.

[Music Starts]

Captain Orton: All right. Well, I think you really covered why all of this matters. And I really appreciate you coming on the podcast.

LCol Howard: Yeah. Adam, it’s been great being here. Thank you.

Captain Orton: Thanks, sir. That was Lieutenant Colonel Isaac Howard, who is an exchange officer from the U.S. Army working at our very own Director of Army Staff. Also, take a quick second to go to armyrun.ca and check out this year’s Canada Army Run. Virtual listeners of the Podcast get to use a promo code “C-A-P,”— “Charlie Alpha Papa” which will give you five bucks off your registration. Stay safe out there. Orton out.

[Music Ends]

Captain Orton: Hey, so we were just talking the other day about working out. What music do you work out to?

LCol Howard: Now if you're cranking weights, it’s got to be like Nickelback—or what’s another good Canadian hard rock band? Bryan Adams, maybe?

Captain Orton: That’s a little old school. I mean, it’s cool, though. I mean, some of the best you know—AC/DC is like old school too. But Bryan Adams has been around for quite a bit.

LCol Howard: I was trying to think of someone Canadian specifically. I’ve heard there’s a band called—what are the names? The Tragically Hip. I've heard it’s a pretty big band up here, but I haven’t listened to them yet.

Captain Orton: It’s a little bit—I like The Hip on average. It’s a little bit folky, so if you need something that’s got a little bit more juice to it. You know, I go through phases. There’s like, you know, death metal, and like, you know, Rob Zombie, and all that stuff. And now I was doing synthwave a little while back, which is a little bit more techno. And then, like, over the past week, for whatever reason, I’m stuck on Taylor Swift. It’s just like, just all over the place.

LCol Howard: She’s one of my favorite musicians. In fact, the first place I saw Ed Sheeran was at a Taylor Swift concert. He opened for her—and this is before I even knew who he was. So his first CD I think had just come out. And so, really, he was a bit of a nobody at that point. He came out and just floored us with his performance. I mean, it was insane; I mean, I don't know if you’ve watched much about his technique, but the way he loops his sounds. He’ll play like a certain chord pattern or whatever, he’ll loop it, then he’ll drum on his guitar, he’ll loop it, then he’ll provide some background vocals, he’ll loop it. So by the time he’s done doing that, when he starts playing, it sounds like there’s an entire band on the stage. But it was just him—just him and a pedal board. Absolutely phenomenal performer.

Captain Orton: So, this is why I like going into things. My thing is, I don't watch movie trailers. Right? If I’m gonna go watch a movie, I’m not gonna watch the trailer for it. Unless I somehow accidentally get exposed to it. Because that experience of just going into the unknown and then getting that whole—you have no expectations, you don’t know what you’re gonna get. And then I find you’re usually more prepared to enjoy something just by virtue of you don't have any of those preconceived notions. You just get a rando up on stage, like, “oh, who’s this Ed Sheeran guy?” And then you just like—something happens. You’re just like, “wow!”

LCol Howard: Yeah, no. In some ways less is certainly more. Isn't it? JJ Abrams, I’ve found, is very good at that. There was a movie he released not too long ago called 30 Cloverfield Lane. The trailers for it didn’t give anything away. You didn’t have any idea what the movie was about to be honest. Even the basic plot seemed like it was kept a secret. But when you went into the movie, it had so many different plot twists and went so many different directions. I thought it was a fabulous piece of work, but it would not have worked if he did let a whole lot out on the trailers.

Captain Orton: Yeah, for sure. And I think that the art of making movies with, like you said “less”—like, that's basically just two characters for the first half of the movie. And they just do so much with two characters and basically what amounts to two rooms. And it’s just like they do so much with it, you know.

LCol Howard: Yeah, it’s funny how some movies can be used, like, you can tell that they’re just really low budget. Signs with Mel Gibson was one I felt that was like that. Like it all just kind of took place in just some house in the country. But the way they built the plot and everything I thought it made for a very well-done movie, but it was very minimalist in its approach.

[Music Starts]

Captain Orton: Yeah. I love it.

[Music Ends]