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!

Are Western & US Foreign Policies Limiting the Chance of Reaching & Maintaining a Viable Peace in MENA?

This morning came news that Francois Hollande, the French Premier, had arrived in Egypt with a view to finalising negotiations on a new $1.1bn defence deal that will see French companies delivering new fighter aircraft, satellite technology and naval vessels to Egypt.  Hollande's well known declining popularity at home is likely to be hit further following the news that France is prepared to do business with Egyptian President, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi's, corrupt, oppressive regime.  Since Sisi's brutal, military intervention and put down of Mohamed Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood's democratically elected government in 2013, the Egyptian regime's human rights record makes appalling reading.  Peaceful protesters killed, mass arrests of political opposition supporters, mass slaughters, imprisonment without trial or due process, torture, rape, indiscriminate beatings and repression of free speech and expression are just some of the charges levelled against Sisi's regime in the 2015 Human Rights Watch report.  And yet Hollande was to be seen this morning shaking hands with Sisi, a disgusting act, that for me that is akin to French validation of the tactics he has employed to maintain his violent, oppressive regime.  Yet another example of Western nations putting business and profit above basic human rights and, quite frankly, he should be ashamed of himself.

But it's not the first time; nor will it be the last.  It's just the latest in a long line of inhuman and diabolical decisions made by colonial and western powers that stretches back hundreds of years.

Nice, pale skinned Aladdin!  No less an Arab than Jafar methinks

This morning Al Jazeera aired a very interesting documentary called 'Valentino's Ghost: Framing the Arab Image,' that highlighted the changing image of the Arab peoples as seen in the eyes of the West, and in particular the US, that is well worth a look.  It shows how the romantic vision of the Arab, as first portrayed by Rudolph Valentino in the 1920's, has morphed into today's widely accepted image of the barbarian Arab bent on destruction of all things Christian and Western, and more specifically, all things American, even down to the words of the songs in Disney's Aladdin which surprised me no end.  That the American's are the master's of propaganda, I think, is not in dispute.  Hollywood films are seen around the globe and the popular image of America is well known and largely accepted.  After all, if it's in a film it's gotta be true, right?  All American's are good-looking with bulging muscles, white, perfect teeth, beautiful wives/partners, fast cars, loadsa money and are morally, always on the side of the good!  Whilst the baddies are invariably played by non-American actors (often British, which I find interesting) with, often as not, slightly darker skin than your average Tom Cruise or Cameron Diaz,

Slightly scary looking and darker skinned Jafar, because darker
equates to more evil in the movies.

possessing facial scars and with an innate tendency to scowl, frown and shout incoherently because they are tormented by the evil deeds they are about to, or have already committed.

Don't get me wrong...I love American films (and I have no axe to grind personally against Americans, though I'm sure any reading this will find that hard to believe), but you have to take it all with much more than a pinch of salt not to be taken in by the flashy, glamour of it all.  Well that, or go to the US yourself and see that in fact they are definitely not all good looking with bulging muscles and they are surely not all on the morally correct side of the fence - Ku Klux Clan and an institutionally racist Police force are firm indicators of the truth of that.  But the US is not alone in this.   As in most countries, the truth, as seen in the movies, rarely matches up to the facts on the ground.

However, it is much of this movie-based imagery which I think has had a negative effect on the view of your average American (and by association your average Westerner) in the Arab world.  All over the Middle-Eastern, North African (MENA) region decades of conflict have radically changed the demographics of the populations on the ground.  A 'youth bulge' (the %age of a Native population under 25y.o.), high unemployment and low prospects (for the future) has left many disillusioned and unhappy with what they see as the consequences of Western intervention in their (respective) homelands.  A recent study of 18-24 year old's across 16 Arab nations highlighted the problems facing today's Western diplomats and military strategists.  In countries where the US had had little intervention America and Americans were still perceived reasonably well (such as in many Gulf nations), but where Americans have been actively involved in a conflict (for whatever reason) the perception was markedly different.  In Iraq, not surprisingly perhaps, 93% saw the US as an enemy state, a figure only marginally higher than that in the Palestinian Authority (81%).

Why is this one might ask, when the Western coalition, led by the Americans of course, 'liberated' Iraq from the oppressive shackles of Saddam's wickedness?  A country into which the US continues to pour vast sums of money and aid?  And yet the kids on the ground see your average American in much the same light as your average American sees your average Arab/Muslim.  What went wrong?

I've no doubt that there are a million different and very personal reasons why this might be so.  These kids have grown up in the shadow of continuous conflict; something that most of us, safe in our houses across Europe and the US cannot begin to comprehend.  But maybe we need to try, because these are the Arab kids that our kids and grand kids are going to be dealing with long after we are gone, and even if we don't want to do it for the Iraqi kids, we should at least be motivated to try and understand for our own kids sake, should we not?

I would guess that even in America now it is largely accepted that the reasons for invading Iraq (in 2003) given by 'Dubya' and his puppet, Blair, of WMD's by the ton, hidden in secret bunkers all over Iraq, that needed to be neutralised before Saddam could (heaven forbid) gain enough traction to threaten the security of the good and almighty West, was all a great big crock of shit.  It was, perhaps, one of the biggest propaganda coups of recent times, but one that after 9/11 many of us were more than happy to buy into because the hype and rhetoric at the time was almost deafening in it's clamour.  Someone needed to pay!

At the time it all seemed reasonable, logical even.  That 9/11 was, and remains still, the worst act of unprovoked terror in modern history.  No-one, least of all me, is denying that and I'm sure as hell not, in a ny way, trying to justify what happened.  But bear with me here.....

To make a sojourn back to the movies for a second....in Charlie Wilson's War (alright, I know it's not fact, but at least in part, it is based on fact) the late and much missed Philip Seymour Hoffman's character constantly espouses a Chinese proverb.  Do you recall it?  'We'll see', he keeps saying after every major event has occurred, be they good or bad.  Hoffman's CIA agent character constantly pushes for there to be a reasonable exit strategy once the Ruskies have had their butt's kicked, but it doesn't materialise and, as we all now know, the arms and military training covertly given to the (then) Mujaheddin warriors eventually led to the rise, and continued rise of the Taliban.  Winning the war sometimes just isn't enough!  But, 'we'll see!'

As the Russians leave Afghanistan at the end of the film and everyone's rejoicing and slapping each other on the back at their wonderful victory, Hoffman's 'we'll see' remains oh so prophetic, especially in light of the exact same mistakes that were to be made in Iraq in the years that came after.

The late, great Philip Seymour Hoffman in CharlieWilson's War

In Iraq, the WMD's never materialised, and even though Saddam was ousted, tried and executed, the horrors were just beginning.  I think we all know now, that the reason for the invasion was to secure the oilfields and ultimately to make money from them by getting the American, British and French oil companies back in charge of oil production.  To say otherwise, I think, is to be naive in the extreme.  Of course, no-one will ever admit this, because to do so would be criminally negligent, but 'we'll see!'  In Britain the long-awaited Chilcott Report into Britain's involvement in the invasion will eventually see the light of day and then some opinions might change!

In the end, the numbers of Iraqi's killed in the conflict (civilians and military personal alike) are quite staggering, though not something I wish to go into here.  But the chaos that ensued afterwards has been many times more devastating than perhaps even the most pessimistic of us might have imagined.  The rise of ISIS/Daesh and the sectarian violence that threatens to engulf the whole region was and is quite horrific and could have been, I suggest, largely avoided if any lessons had been learned from the war in Afghanistan.

So was all the chaos, the rise of ISIS and the like, caused by the coalition's invasion of Iraq?  No, of course not.  But did we contribute to it by not having any sort of grand strategy for what happened after the so-called 'war' was won?  Yes, for sure.  The Iraqi kids (above) were mostly born into a life of continually evolving violence, hunger and strife.  They have seen only that Americans (and British, because the US is not alone in this) blew up their homes, their hospitals, their schools, their families, all in the name of 'liberating' them from a horrid and brutish regime.  Had we then spent but a fraction of the money in rebuilding those schools, hospitals, etc, that we had spent on blowing them up in the first place, perhaps those kids would see things differently.

I know, I know....yes, we did try to rebuild, I hear you say.  What about all the aid, all the foreign investment..blah de blah de blah?  And I agree, that did happen, but whatever was spent and done, it wasn't enough and it was all geared towards making a profit for the various companies that got involved.  There wasn't ever a complete, or even a partial plan to put Iraq back together once it had been blown apart.  There was no true humanitarian plan to help the people rebuild their lives as they wanted them to be rebuilt, not how we told them they should be rebuilt.  Not everyone in the world wants to live in an Americanised (or Westernised, if that sits easier)  democracy.  Democracy just doesn't work in some places and no matter how many bullets we fire or bombs we drop will make it work.  As in Afghanistan, sometimes winning the war just isn't enough.  But, 'we'll see.'

Greater strides need to be made in trying to understand the Muslim community at large and we need to allow them to set their own agenda and not try to force a Westernised idea of what we would like Islam to be upon them.  Much has been said about the radicalisation of young Muslim's, and in some cases of Western youths, by unprincipled and hateful Muslims; how Islam and the Koran preach hate and anti-American philosophies.  But this is simply not true.  I am not a Muslim, so have no axe to grind to here, but as an interested party I have taken the time to read the Koran and to read around the subject and to try to learn about Islam because I want to understand the message therein and to try and comprehend all the hate that there is in the world today.  Many Western diplomats and journalists advocate a secular, Western style educational system as the way to go; let's turn them all into peace-loving, Baywatch watching Islamists that will present no threat to us now, or in the future.  But again, history should teach us that imposing a secular liberal education on Muslim nations just doesn't work.  Some Muslim scholars blame the lack of a non-secular education in the Middle-East as part of the problem in the rise of extremist groups such as ISIS, because religious teaching on the 'true' message of the Koran have been lost amid the bloodshed and mire.  Indeed it has been suggested that Western democracies often support (openly or not) radical regime's, such as that of Sisi's Egypt (see above), because they cannot (or will not) understand the true message of the Islamic alternative, such as that put forward by Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and see it as something to be feared, rather than something to be understood, or even admired.  But allow me to quote the words of Amr Darrag, a former minister in Mohamed Morsi's government who can explain it much more eloquently than me.

There is, of course, much hand-wringing over the idea of the caliphate from some Western politicians and writers who cast it as a byword for everything that is to be feared about Islam and Muslims. Some concerns are credible and require further examination, for example religious freedoms and equality, while some other concerns are merely an extension of viewing Muslims as an exotic “other.” We should ask why “states” desiring a “more perfect union” or European countries working towards “an ever greater union” are seen as both natural and laudable, but Muslim nations working towards the same is viewed with suspicion, requiring much justification.

Well, I can't answer that.  Can you, without resorting to the normal, Western-style rhetoric?  Send your answers on a postcard to: Anyone left who's willing to listen in the Middle East, c/o the first destroyed house that you encounter!

I don't pretend to have all the answers.  I don't pretend that everyone in the world has the potential to be good or that evil doesn't exist, because it does.  I'm merely expressing an opinion; my opinion, which may well change over time as I learn more and understand more, and which you are more than welcome to disagree with.  But as a new friend from Galilee said to me recently when he quoted Voltaire back to me after we had disagreed on a point of ethical politics, 'I may disagree with what you have say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it'.   I believe in freedom and I believe in peace and I believe in everyone's right to the same.  I'm a Westerner, a true Brit and proud of it (though some may doubt it now), but as proud of I am of my nationality and heritage I'm also realistic enough to know that the British have a lot to answer for, particularly with regard to our colonial past.  We are now in the 21st Century, with all technological and cultural advantages that that should bring.  Yet I look around and I see massive inequality and huge indifference in most people to the plight and suffering of our fellow human beings.  Even with the planet's rapidly growing population there is more than enough space and resources for us all to live a full and happy life, and yet through basic miscomprehension of the motives and ideals of those who may be a bit different from us, and a lack of understanding and empathy we close our doors, batten up the hatches and sit quaking with fear at the thought that the terrors that we see on our TV's will be visited upon us or our families, and we forget, or just plain ignore the fact that for many those terrors are already a daily fact of life.  And it must stop.  We should come together as one to make it happen, to make this world a better place for us all.

Have a good day, my friends, whatever your God, wherever you are.