Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster - Trump's best appointment? But who is he & what challenges is he facing?

When, after days of confusion Donald Trump announced his new (or 3rd?) pick for National Security Advisor there more or less universal acknowledgement that he might, finally, have made the correct choice.  That choice is Lieutenant General Herbert Raymond 'H.R.' McMaster, a career soldier with immense experience both as a soldier, a military historian and an award winning author (for a full bio click here).

As a non-American and virulent anti-Trump supporter, my interest was piqued immediately simply because of McMaster's apparent universal appeal.  Every other Trump appointee has been greeted with derision, scorn and whatever delaying tactics can be applied (by Democrats mostly) to stall Trump in his doings - tactics that I must say I wholeheartedly agree with, although those arguments are for another day - but with Lt. Gen. McMaster there was no such fanfare of protest.  This made me want to find out more about the man and what challenges (as NSC Advisor) he is likely to be facing when he gets his feet under the desk.

Lt. General H.R. McMaster

The dynamics of US politics is absolutely fascinating, it absorbs my attention like no other, perhaps because America is the worlds' sole surviving super-power, or perhaps because it is the archetypal liberal democracy that so many other nations aspire to be like.  I cannot claim to be any sort of expert but that doesn't decry me from having an opinion and that opinion is that Trump is changing the face of US politics (and not in a good way), perhaps forever, and may well drag the rest of the Western democracies kicking and screaming along with it.

The problem is that liberal democracies 'depend on rules, but also on norms - on the assumption that you'll go so far, but no further, to advance your political ends.  The norms imply some loyalty the system as a whole that outweighs your immediate partisan interest.  Not red states, or blue states, but the United States of America.'  As Shadi Hamid prophetically wrote when Trump was still on the campaign trail that Americans, 'faced with a growing terrorist threat and a sputtering economy, might (like the then putative 'President' Trump) dispense with the norms of reasonable conduct and support extreme measures,' and in the wake of the (impending?)Muslim travel ban and the treatment of undocumented immigrants this is exactly what we see happening.  Trump supporters seem happy to sanction extreme measures that, by all standards of common decency, are wrong.  The ascent of Trump and his reckless destruction of the(se) democratic norms upon which American society (and by tacit association most 'liberal democracies' around the globe) has been built (since the end of WW2) (e.g.'s How norms die & his recent attacks on press freedom) are for me very worrying signs that the world is regressing, repeating some very unwanted histories that hark back to the bad old times of the early nationalistic decades of the 20th Century.  Furthermore, the illegal Muslim travel ban (based on no evidence whatsoever that [Muslim] refugees in the US pose a danger to national security) which may well lead to an increased terrorist threat and the many armed conflicts around the globe that America is currently involved in lead me to believe that McMaster is in for a very rough, very busy ride as NSC Advisor, especially in light of Trump's announcement yesterday of a ~9% or $54bn increase in defence spending that only sends out the message that America is gearing up for war(s).

However, to take a brief backward step, what is it that the NSC Advisor actually does?

The NSC Advisor or, to give him his full title, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (NPNSA) is the chief in-house advisor to the President on issues concerning national security and as such is part of the Executive Office of the President.  He has no fiscal responsibilities and is there solely to advise the President on all/every policy options in terms of national security and is not expected to have his/her own agenda in this regard.  The post has its' own staff (the National Security Council) that produces research and briefings for the NPNSA which can, if needed, be reviewed and presented to the President in daily security briefings.  However, the exact nature of the role of the NPNSA can vary according to the needs and/or requirements of the President at the time.  Trump has already shown his scorn for daily security briefings and has indicated that he does not see the need for them, and combined with the mixed messages emanating (from Trump) on foreign policy issues where does that leave McMaster?  How then should McMaster proceed with what is a very challenging and difficult role at the best of times?

Gauging public opinion in America is tricky at the moment from where I sit in Spain.  That the US is divided is no great secret and the ascent of Trump has, I believe, shone a light on those divisions more than exacerbated them (so far anyway).  Trump has a knack for polarising opinions and so how public opinion is received by those of us outside of the US depends to a large extent on the particular websites, magazines, etc, one might have read.  As we know 'Trumpland' is securely in middle America, with the coastlines (East and West) largely being the realm of the more liberal, anti-Trumpites!  For years I have been reading that the boys on the frontline with the US armed forces come predominantly from the poorer neighbourhoods in the US (please tell me if I'm wrong here) and that these same neighbourhoods largely form the foundation of Trump's support.  Thus it follows that there should be a pretty secure base of knowledge there on the (basics of the) various conflicts that the US armed forces are currently engaged in, yet there seems to be confusion on the part of the armed forces who feel that the public is unaware that the US is a country at war.

Speaking in the aftermath of Michael Flynn's disastrous and short-lived reign as NPNSA, the Head of US Special Operations Command, Gen. Raymond Thomas, said "our government continues to be in unbelievable turmoil.  I hope they sort it out soon because we are a nation at war," a statement that seems to reflect the concern among the armed forces about the conflicting messages the Trump administration is putting out, but does not, apparently, mirror the feelings of the public at large (and in particular those who support Trump) who appear immune to the ongoing uncertainties.

For McMaster those mixed messages must be a major concern, as must Trump's lackadaisical attitude to security briefings.  How does one go about planning security policies when you don't have a clear direction in which to steer the ship?

It has been suggested that McMaster's first challenge is to get the public onside by underlining Thomas' message above that the US is a country at war.  To emphasise that fact it is worth bearing in mind that the US now has substantial numbers of troops deployed in Iraq (>4,000), Afghanistan (~8,400), Syria (~800), Yemen (unknown), as well as other military commitments in Japan, Germany, the new NATO force in Poland (3,000) and elsewhere (such as Libya).

Since Obama pulled the majority of ground forces out of Iraq in 2011 and Afghanistan in 2009 (notwithstanding the reversal in numbers in 2015) US Special Forces have borne the brunt of worldwide military operations, be it training the armed forces of other nations (e.g.'s in Iraq & Afghanistan) to run their own ops or joining with coalition forces in specific missions (e.g.'s the retaking of Mosul & the recent botched Yemen mission).  However, since by their very nature such missions are more secretive than, say, an all out invasion, this may go some way to explaining why there seems to be a lack of public knowledge with regard to the current whereabouts and activities of US forces.

However, Trump has intimated that he wishes to put 'boots on the ground' in Syria to up the stakes in the war with ISIS so this may well change in the near future.  Similarly Gen. John W. Nicholson Jr. has told Trump in no uncertain terms during a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting that the war in Afghanistan will be lost unless 'several thousand' more troops are deployed in the near future, and that they will be needed just to maintain the 'stalemate' situation in the long-term conflict against the Taliban.  Furthermore the complicated situation on the ground in Yemen with regards to the differing strategic aims of the coalition partners have led to a resurgence of Al-Queada in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and a bitty, untidy coalition campaign.

Thus McMaster is facing security problems on many fronts and exactly how he will propose dealing with them will be interesting indeed, especially given Trump's propensity for ignoring advice and ploughing his own furrow heedless of the inherent wisdom of a given situation.  Having read a few of McMaster's papers, and in light of his obvious experience and evident talent as a military strategist, it is plain that this is a man who likes things done properly and is 100% his own man.  I don't get the impression that he will be just another Trump fawn, nodding politely and going along for the ride.  Neither will he be bullied or shouted down by Trump and so I wonder how long he will be prepared to put up with Trump's rambunctiousness and his egotistical, advice ignoring, boots stomping on everything and asking the questions after the fact?

For everyone's sake, I hope it's a long time!

Rethinking Brexit...not undemocratic, just commonsense!

As an addendum to yesterday's blog I just want to add that although the British economy has not suffered post-Brexit referendum, as many (myself included) had thought, I wish to ponder briefly on the reasons for this in the light of the rising costs of leaving the EU as I detailed yesterday.  Whilst it's not a bad thing that the Bank of England has upgraded Britain's growth forecast for next year (from 1.2 to 2%, with EU Commission following suit) I do think it has the unfortunate side effect of fooling the nation into thinking that (Phew!) 'it's all going to be ok!'  'The sky won't fall in' and 'we will survive after all!'

Well yes, Britain will survive, of that there is no doubt!  But in what form long term?  Realistically, what are the prospects?

Perhaps the first thing to say is that I'm not an economist or a politician.  I'm a layman; an interested layman but nonetheless still just a layman.  But I think that this optimism is somewhat misguided and that, despite the upgraded forecasts, I believe the powers that be are sitting there, fingers crossed and hoping that, in the end, it will all turn out fine.  However, I think this post-referendum mini-boom, for want of a better expression, is a merely a bubble that is just waiting to burst.

Let me explain.

Since June 23rd the value of Sterling has dropped significantly so allowing UK exports to be more competitive and, as one might expect, many companies are reporting increased sales and business as a consequence.  The problem is that the EU receives by far the biggest share of UK exports (when compared to any other trading bloc: 44% in 2015) and I predict (figures are not yet available) that 2016 will see that share rise substantially, and therein lies the problem.  Once Brexit is done what happens to those exports?  To those companies?  As I detailed yesterday the chances of the UK staying in the single market are hopelessly slim and it cannot be expected that deals from outside the EU with the rest of the world will come anywhere near replacing that massive proportion of UK trade.  Thus, the bubble bursts, does it not?

The WEF predicts that the UK will drop out of the G8 by 2030 to become the 10th largest economy in the world (from 5th in 2015), but that (although it doesn't specify so) is if the UK remains as the UK.  I firmly believe, as does Tony Blair (see his speech to Open Britain last Thursday), that Brexit facilitates the chances of Scotland breaking up the union.  If this does happen then the UK will not exist anymore.  The 12th biggest economy in the EU (Scotland) and the 2nd biggest in the UK will be out on their own, as will England, Wales and NI.  England (or more pertinently) the UK will go from being a group of nations punching well above their weight to relative flyweights almost overnight.  Where the UK was once a world power both Scotland (by association with England) and England (as part of the UK) will become virtual non-entities the day after the union breaks up.

Call me stupid; call me naive, but it's just bloody daft to me that we have somehow contrived to get ourselves into this ridiculous situation.

Lord Kerr of Scotland, former British representative to the EU, speaking yesterday in the Brexit debate in the House of Lords, said that he believes Article 50, once triggered, is not irrevocable; that the process could be stopped, if we so wished, and 'there would be nothing the EU could do about it.'

I sincerely hope that before we consign the UK to the bin of economic obscurity that commonsense prevails.  If it looks likely that the deal we would get from the EU is a stinker (and that does seem more and more likely) then I do believe it should be brought back to parliament and indeed, to the people themselves, for us to say 'yea' or 'nay' to said deal.

And if that means revoking Article 50 at a late stage then so be it.  By then (2 years hence) elections will have taken place all over Europe and the EU will either be much stronger or more vulnerable depending (largely) on what has taken place in those elections.  Either way, the EU needs massive reformation.  It needs to be much more democratic, more accountable, more approachable, more open, in short, it needs to start functioning more like a true governing body rather than just being an unapproachable, faceless load of time wasting bureaucrats!  It needs reforming from the bottom up, in a every aspect to be able to move forward and meet the challenges Europe faces in the 21st Century.  Maybe a close run Brexit 'thing' is the push it needs to change, but change it must (however, the mechanics and specifics of that change are for another day).

But for me, and hopefully for the UK, a Brexit at any cost is NOT the way forward!  This must be considered further and more carefully once the road has been explored.  This is not undemocratic I believe, it is just commonsense!

Singing the Brexit Blues! Tony Blair and the rising costs of leaving the EU.

Hi guys!
It's been a while since my last post....perhaps I've been suffering a bit of post-Brexit, post-Trump blues.  Let's face it, as a Brit, living in a (relatively), largely democratic free West, our world has changed immeasurably in the last 9 months or so.  Impending Brexit and all that that means for Britain, the British, for Europe, for our security, for our future, for our children's future, and the rise of Donald Trump with his extremist, nationalistic views are sending seismic waves around the globe, fostering and nurturing selfish, undemocratic, right-wing feelings that are divisive in the extreme and designed to undermine the democratic principles upon which we in the West have, over the centuries, built our nations!

For days after the June referendum I felt bereft, as if I'd lost a close friend or a family member.  Maybe this seems like an over the top reaction to what is, after all, just a question of politics!  And that may be true! Although the grief wasn't apparent in exactly the same way (as after a death), the feeling was certainly analogous.  The problem is that Brexit is NOT just a question of politics.  It has the potential to impact upon almost every aspect our lives from our health and health services to our military capabilities, from our ambient environment and climate to our employment and business prospects, from our education systems and the future of our schools, colleges and universities to our access to food resources, from our levels of influence around the globe to our everyday security....the list is endless and I feel I could go on all day.

I have just watched Tony Blair's speech to Open Britain (on BBC Parliament) that he gave on Thursday last and, whilst I couldn't agree with every word of his assessment of the situation, his message certainly struck a chord and I think he does have a point, and a bloody good point at that!  In a nutshell, his message was this: we are better off in Europe and, despite the result of the referendum, it is not too late to stop Brexit.  He insisted that it was not undemocratic to shout down the June 23rd result in favour of Brexit because 'we had been sold a house and were moving in without having seen it first'.  A simple analogy perhaps, but the point was made.

Now that we can see the far shore does the grass really look any greener (my analogy)?  Is Blair's new house any shinier, brighter, possessing of greater potential or not?  I, along with Blair, would argue for the latter; that Britain's prospects appear significantly dimmed by a life outside of the EU.

He proposed a new cross party movement to tackle the issue, though the specifics were lacking somewhat, he suggested that it was the peoples right to change their mind on Brexit now the terms and costs of an exit from the EU are becoming more apparent.  The prospects of a so-called 'hard Brexit' loom large, as does the possibility that (after the required 2 years of negotiation) we might exit the EU without any deal at all, something that may cost the UK economy ~£6bn a year in extra tariffs should WTO rules apply.  And for all the furore created by the (ongoing) bill to trigger Article 50 and the proposed amendments therein, the plaintive cries of MP's wishing to have their say on how and what Brexit should like from a British perspective, everyone keeps forgetting one simple thing.  Britain will be negotiating (largely) from point of weakness, certainly as regards membership of the single market economy, because quite simply it is not up to us; it will be decided by the EU, so that when Theresa May says that we will leave the single market she should be taken at her word.  Asking for an amendment that insists for it to be otherwise is just naive and unrealistic.  What's more Britain will be expected to pay a 'hefty' price for it's divorce from the EU, says Jean-Claude Juncker, which may be upwards of 60bn Euros!

Even if, after some (what would be) remarkable negotiating on part of the UK's team, some sort of deal is in place in time, it will not be a comprehensive one!  It will at best, be a bit part deal that only covers trade in some of the more financially lucrative areas, such as the motor trade in which both the UK and the EU have vested interests.  However, it should be noted that despite what the leave campaigners said (during the lead up to June 23rd) and still say today, German car manufacturers for one, have strongly intimated that they are willing to take the hit (in terms of added tariffs for trade with UK) in order to preserve the single market for the countries that remain in the EU.  Yet Theresa May insists that falling back on WTO tariffs is a far better deal than no deal at all (with the EU).

I would suggest that before negotiations are even begun, maybe even before Article 50 is triggered, that the various likely scenarios should be put to parliament and debated long and hard to avoid Britain doing the honourable English thing, and going for a Brexit at any cost that could bring the nation to it's knees!  For me, the cost of being 'democratic' in this regard is way too high!  I am sure that many who voted for Brexit did not envisage these horrendous possibilities, and there is no doubt, they are horrendous.  Is it really worth all that Brexit means just to avoid having a few immigrants enter the country?  I say 'no'!

However, there would those who would insist that we would more than make up for the losses through trade with countries outside of Europe.  However, this again is a misnomer.  Monique Ebell, of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, says the cost of Brexit could be as much as 30% long-term reduction in trade (if WTO rules apply) whereas the likely up side (from new non-EU trade deals) is not projected to exceed 5%.

But Donald Trump has said Brexit is a good thing and he promises a rapid and a good deal for the UK I hear you say!  And I would say that Trump, whatever one may think of him (and I don't think a whole lot), has shown himself to be a man who, for all his bluster and controversy, is trying to stick to his campaign promises.  And what was his biggest promise?  That's right....America first!  Sure, he'll give Britain a deal, but it will be a one-sided affair because he knows that if he waits till Brexit is done (and he must, as must we) then we will be on knees and willing to accept just about anything that is offered.  He is first and foremost a businessman, this is why he wants to destabilise, even break the EU, because, to use a military analogy, he wants to divide and conquer.  Why deal with a strong EU when he can push the right buttons and deal with France, Germany, Britain, etc on a far stronger footing?  Trump isn't interested in doing a good deal for Britain, only for the US because that's his job.

Miriam Gonzalez, Nick Clegg's wife, who is an international lawyer and is likely to be part of the British negotiating team, insists that the negotiations are going to be horribly complex and may take up to 10 years to complete (which could cost more than £60bn in extra tariffs- see above), a time frame that dwarfs the 2 year limit imposed by the triggering of Article 50.  She has talked about how Britain has only 25 negotiators (a number that Rod Abbott, former director of WTO says is minimum number for making a deal with a small nation, e.g. Vietnam & many more needed for larger deals) skilled enough to deal with the complex discussions that will arise, and how that figure is woefully inadequate (she suggests 500 skilled negotiators would be more apt; Professor Jim Rollo of the University of Sussex says 900 is a more likely scenario) and that Britain is always likely to get the worst of any deal just because we are small when compared to the EU as a whole.  And that is without the added pressures of trying to tie up deals with nations outside of the EU (the US, Australia, etc) and Gonzalez even goes as far as suggesting that it is just not possible for the UK to complete any of these negotiations at the current time ....the deal many want from Brexit simply can't be done given the limited time available, which means that the uncertainty that clouds Britain's near future is likely to persist for much longer, perhaps decades longer, than what has been promised and anticipated.

As Blair reiterated one huge effect of Brexit has been the divisions it has wrought in the UK; young against the old, North against South, Scotland against England.  For me, in the immediate aftermath of the vote one statistic that stood out more than any other was the huge difference in attitude towards Europe between the over 65's and the under 25's.  What irked me about this at the time was that the vast majority of those over 65 who voted to leave have taken all the benefits that the EU has conferred upon our society, and now out of an (irrational?) fear of immigrants, are willing to consign the wishes of our young to a more insular, insecure financial future.  Now, after we know much more that annoyance remains every bit as real to me now as it was then.  Now that we know the difficulties that all these negotiations will bring, the time that will be needed it becomes even more apparent that it won't be those over 65's who will pay the price, it will be this years school leavers.  The vast majority of those over 65 will be dead (sad but true) before negotiations will be completed, yet my son, who was 6 months too young to vote (at the time, and incidentally built, designed and launched the most downloaded independent app on iTunes that gave daily updates on the Brexit debates) will have to live with the consequences for the rest of his (hopefully) long life.  

Blair laid the blame for Brexit squarely on the shoulders of his 'debilitated' former Labour Party.  That Corbyn was weak during the referendum campaign is no secret, but I would argue the case that David Cameron's misreading of the situation (with regard to immigration) and the blatant lies told by the 'Brexiteers' (the extra £350m for the NHS, for example) should also take their fair share of the blame.  But apportioning the blame so long after the horse has bolted seems like a redundant argument, when perhaps the focus should now be more on what happens next rather than what has already passed.

And what of Europe if, and when, we do leave the EU?  Will it be stronger or could Brexit be the catalyst for the firing of the European dream?  We have witnessed the rise of right wing nationalist, protectionist politicians right across Europe.  With both French and German elections coming later this year we could well be seeing the beginning of the end of Europe as we have known for the past few decades.  Marine Le Pen is campaigning, as Cameron did before, on the promise of an 'in/out referendum' should she win the election.  This is very worrying, if not solely from a political standpoint, then surely from a security one.  Putin's Russia is waiting in the wings, rattling its' sabre, waiting to pounce upon a weakened Europe, whether it be economically or militarily, and that cannot be a good thing,

Now is the time that Europe should be pulling together, not ripping itself apart.  The EU is far from a perfect institution, we all know that.  But what if we re-thought our situation and went back to Europe with another, separate deal, one that says Brexit is not inevitable if the EU can reform; make itself into the properly democratic, fully answerable union that it was intended to be, then we might, we just might, find a way out of the woods that is good for everyone, good for all the member nations and its' peoples, good for the environment, good for our security, even good for the refugees that have perhaps been the over-riding cause of much of the angst.  Can we do this?

As a great man once said, "Yes, we can!"