President Trump has selected Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster to be his new National Security Adviser. McMaster is a “warrior” and a true believer in military power, applied intelligently, that is. He has been highly critical of political power brokers in Washington, DC, and wrote a book on the mishandling of the military during the Vietnam War. Back in 2013, he wrote an article for the New York Times, an article I critiqued in the following post. McMaster, intelligent and well-read, nevertheless is defined by his military experience, seeing “security” as something to be attained through the savvy use of power by warriors like himself.
From July 26, 2013:
In the New York Times on July 20 , Major General H.R. McMaster penned a revealing essay on “The Pipe Dream of Easy War.” McMaster made three points about America’s recent wars and military interventions:
1. In stressing new technology as being transformative, the American military neglected the political side of war. They forgot their Clausewitz in a celebration of their own prowess, only to be brought back to earth by messy political dynamics in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.
Earlier today, President Trump selected Gen. H.R. McMaster to be his National Security Advisor, replacing the short-lived Gen. Michael Flynn. Those breathing a sigh of relief that the rumored favorite John Bolton didn’t get the nod may want to hold that thought – and their breath. McMaster is not the man to guide President Trump toward better relations with Russia and less US interference in the internal affairs of others.
In fact, he believes the opposite.
In a speech delivered at the Center for Strategic and International Studies just last May, Gen. McMaster blamed the lack of sufficient US military presence overseas for what he calls a more aggressive Russian geostrategic posturing.
After nearly 14 years of US military action in Iraq, significant parts of the country remain occupied by an ISIS that did not exist before the 2013 US “liberation.” The occupation that followed the 2013 US invasion of Iraq fueled the resentment that led to the rise of militants, which in turn led Washington to believe it needed to continue its military presence in Iraq, which led to the creation of more militants. It’s a never-ending cycle that it seems will be continued under President Trump’s new strategy to defeat ISIS. No one benefits from this cycle except the Beltway defense contractors and think tanks. More in today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:
Despite vowing not to use depleted uranium (DU) weapons in its military action in Syria, the US government has now admitted that it has fired thousands of the deadly rounds into Syrian territory. As Foreign Policy Magazine reports:
US Central Command (CENTCOM) spokesman Maj. Josh Jacques told Airwars and Foreign Policy that 5,265 armor-piercing 30 mm rounds containing depleted uranium (DU) were shot from Air Force A-10 fixed-wing aircraft on Nov. 16 and Nov. 22, 2015, destroying about 350 vehicles in the country’s eastern desert.
Operation Inherent Resolve spokesman John Moore said in 2015 that:
US and coalition aircraft have not been and will not be using depleted uranium munitions in Iraq or Syria during Operation Inherent Resolve.
I served my country for 29 years in the U.S. Army/ Army Reserves and retired as a colonel. I also served 16 years in the U.S. diplomatic corps in U.S. Embassies in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan and Mongolia. I resigned from the U.S. government 13 years ago in March 2003 in opposition to President Bush’s regime change war on Iraq.
Since my resignation I have traveled to many countries where the U.S. government did not want me to go – to Cuba, Iran, Gaza, Yemen, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia and back to Afghanistan. I didn’t agree with many of the policies of the governments in power in those countries. But, I wanted to see the effects of policies of our government, in particular the effects of attempts of regime change. I wanted to talk with citizens and government officials about the effects of U.S. sanctions on them and whether those sanctions lessened their support for the government the U.S. was attempting to change or overthrow by non-military means.