McMaster and Russia by Willy B

 

    I'm one of those folks, probably just one among many, here, who was a great admirer of H.R. McMaster. I've been following his public career since about 2006 and had always been impressed with his intellectual power and his blunt rejection of the Revolution In Military Affairs--concepts "that lead to the idea that you have perfect knowledge and can apply military power perfectly.'' I have been forced, over the past few days, however, to come to the conclusion that McMaster is a big part of the problem in the mad rush to war on Syria that erupted, last week, war that could lead to a direct military confrontation with Russia. His appearance on Fox News Sunday was an indication of that but there were indications of this potential well beforehand, while he was still at US Army Training and Doctrine Command.  His pre-occupation for the past two years, before he went to the White House, was, after all, how to reshape the Army for future war against Russia. There were two public discussions he was involved in April-May of 2016, the first in Chicago on April 12, at the Pritzker Military Museum and Library, and the second one at CSIS in Washington, DC on May 4, 2016, in which he laid out his view that Russia is little more than an aggressive power that uses, among other things, criminal gangs to further its offensive intentions against American power.  (I'm going to focus, here, on McMaster's public remarks. There's been a great deal of reporting on the machinations and feuds going on inside the National Security Council, but I will leave comment on that to those with better insight into such things).
 
    In the Pritzker discussion, McMaster was asked about deterrence by denial, what would this look like in Eastern Europe. In response, he said that there are three aspects to deterrence by denial. The first is the right kind of capabilities "that could counter Russian aggression, right, and those are our capabilities, I think, like what we're seeing as landbased long-range precision fires capabilities, a tiered air defense capability, an answer to their long-range massed fires, for example, that they've employed in Ukraine. I think it's a significant enough conventional deterrent so that you can also address really what Russia has been advertising as this doctrine of escalation domination where they boast about going to the use of tactical nuclear weapons. So certainly there's a nuclear qualitative deterrent to that capability." the second aspect is quantity. "I mean you have to be--you have to have forces in sufficient scale to demonstrate your ability to deny the enemy those objectives.," he said. Thirdly is "the will of the alliance [NATO]," keeping it strong and united. On this, he was full of praise for ex-NATO commander Gen. Philip Breedlove for doing "a tremendous, tremendous job." It will be recalled that Breedlove, for his anti-Russia war propaganda, was getting much of his "intelligence" from Philip Karber, the head of the Potomac Institute, which McMaster praised as a good open source on the Russia New Generation Warfare Study that McMaster was heading up at TraDoc at the time.

    In the CSIS event, McMaster described the "invasion" of Ukraine and the "annexation" of Crimea has having "punctuated" the end of the post-Cold War period, but that thase were not new developments "in terms of Russian aggression." He pointed to the Georgia war in 2008 and the cyber atttacks on the Baltic states as earlier indicators.  Despite these earlier signs, Mcmaster lamented that the US response was to continue draw down forces in Europe. "And what we're seeing now is we've awakened to, obviously, this threat from Russia, who is waging limited war for limited objectives – annexing Crimea, invading Ukraine – at zero cost, consolidating gains over that territory, and portraying the reaction by us and allies and partners as escalatory, that what is required to deter a strong nation that is waging limited war for limited objectives on battlegrounds involving weaker states – or what Thomas – Mackinder called at the end of the 18th, early 19th century the shatter zones on the Eurasian landmass – what is required is forward deterrence, to be able to ratchet up the cost at the frontier, and to take an approach to deterrence that is consistent with deterrence by denial, convincing your enemy that your enemy is unable to accomplish his objectives at a reasonable cost rather than sort of an offshore balancing approach and the threat of punitive action at long distance later, which we know obviously from – recent experience confirms that that is inadequate," he said.

    "Of course, this is a sophisticated strategy, what Russia is employing – and we're doing a study of this now with a number of partners – that combines, really, conventional forces as cover for unconventional action, but a much more sophisticated campaign involving the use of criminality and organized crime, and really operating effectively on this battleground of perception and information, and in particular part of a broader effort to sow doubt and conspiracy theories across our alliance," McMaster went on. "And this effort, I believe, is aimed really not at defensive objectives, but at offensive objectives – to collapse the post-World War II, certainly the post-Cold War, security, economic, and political order in Europe, and replace that order with something that is more sympathetic to Russian interests."

    McMaster presents all of this as if it's happening in a vacuum, as if the actions of the Anglo-American-led West had nothing to do with anything, particularly in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. McMaster, the PhD historian, should know much better than that.  The collapse of the post-World War II system could be happening for reasons that have nothing to do with Russia. Perhaps, like the Soviet Union in the 1980's, it's collapsing for reasons of its own internal contradictions, but this possibility is not even admitted into the discussion.  McMaster knows that the U.S. invaded Iraq on the basis of lies, but dismisses any discussion of that to focus on decisions, both good and bad, that were made afterwards. Yet the events that followed were totally shaped by that decision to invade. So, McMaster appears to have abandoned the intellectual rigor that characterized his book on the Vietnam War and much of his work afterwards. At first glance, it appears that he is instead drawing his outlook from the neo-cons, particularly about the alleged threat to American power, but I have to do much more work to develop this before I can say anything definitively.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/04/09/exclusive-general-h-r-mcmaster-on-decision-to-strike-syria.html

https://www.pritzkermilitary.org/whats_on/pritzker-military-presents/lt-general-hr-mcmaster-harbingers-future-war/

https://www.csis.org/events/harbingers-future-war-implications-army-lieutenant-general-hr-mcmaster

 

Comments

[Jackrabbit]

Was it McMaster (military historian) that choose to launch 59 missiles?

Cold War Messaging Yields Insight Into US-Russian Conflict
https://jackrabbitnyc.wordpress.com/2017/04/12/cold-war-messaging-yields-insight-into-us-russian-conflict/?iframe=true&theme_preview=true

[English Outsider]

Google translate gives a slightly different translation of the archived version:-

"Tomorrow, a media campaign will be launched to cover the intensity of the air raids on the countryside of Hama and the use of chlorine against civilians."

ie "Chlorine" instead of "CW", if the translation is accurate.

[Babak Makkinejad]

c'mon man, they are all narcissists - otherwise they would not have run for political office.

[Kunuri]

Sorry, I can't do it, cant bear to see those dead people and children over and over to give you a proper analysis. But I can tell you that several videos I have seen were put together by someone who really knows how to edit, what to include, what to leave out, how to cut and switch, and how to maintain momentum for maximum emotional response. Just the fact that it had been edited so effectively, in such a short time indicates that there is a purpose and preparation for it. It is suspicious for the fact that it is not raw war footage. Think of the videos from the Halabja Kurds footage we have all seen.

And also I am confused as to the location of where actually people have died, the quarry? Or the town itself, since some videos show people lying dead in natural, almost sleeplike poses, rather than the agonized shapes of dead people lying down, as victims of gravity as well as what caused them to die. Too tidy in their body poses. Grouped too evenly, too much in a pattern. Too well spaced out, even intentional random spacing can not escape revealing patterns. That is what I see. Think of the photos of the St. Valentines Day massacre photos. Everything was messy and random, not clean. When a group of people die at the same time, no matter how sudden, one sees true randomness and variety of gestures.
Macabre subject, did not want to get into it, but I do not believe Assad did it. The whole thing reminds me of the propaganda movies people are watching in "1984".

[John_Frank]

fyi Russia vetoes West’s Syria resolution at UN Security Council
https://www.rt.com/news/384534-un-resulution-syria-chemical/

Unfortunate. Russia demands a fair and independent investigation and then vetoes a proposed resolution.

Despite this, one hopes that the two sides will continue to work towards finding common ground and come forward with a resolution that both sides can live with.

Also from RT

White House claims on Syria chemical attack ‘obviously false’ – MIT professor https://on.rt.com/88p4

The report is by Professor Theodore Postol, who also challenged the Obama administration claims in 2013 is linked in the RT report.

Asessment of White House April 17, 2017 Intelligence Report of April 11, 2017 Page 1 of 14 Pages
April 11, 2017

A Quick Turnaround Assessment of the White House Intelligence Report Issued on April 11, 2017 About the Nerve Agent Attack in Khan Shaykhun, Syria.
Theodore A. Postol Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology, and National Security Policy Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dear Larry:

I am responding to your distribution of what I understand is a White House statement claiming intelligence findings about the nerve agent attack on April 4, 2017 in Khan Shaykhun, Syria.

My understanding from your note is that this White House intelligence summary was released to you sometime on April 11, 2017.

I have reviewed the document carefully, and I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun, Syria at roughly 6 to 7 a.m. on April 4, 2017.

In fact, a main piece of evidence that is cited in the document points to an attack that was executed by individuals on the ground, not from an aircraft, on the morning of April 4.

This conclusion is based on an assumption made by the White House when it cited the source of the sarin release and the photographs of that source.

My own assessment, is that the source was very likely tampered with or staged, so no serious conclusion could be made from the photographs cited by the White House.

However, if one assumes, as does the White House, that the source of the sarin was from this location and that the location was not tampered with, the most plausible conclusion is that the sarin was dispensed by an improvised dispersal device made from a 122 mm section of rocket tube filled with sarin and capped on both sides.

The only undisputable facts stated in the White House report is the claim that a chemical attack using nerve agent occurred in Khan Shaykhun, Syria on that morning. Although the White House statement repeats this point in many places within its report, the report contains absolutely no evidence that this attack was the result of a munition being dropped from an aircraft. In fact, the report contains absolutely no evidence that would indicate who was the perpetrator of this atrocity."

People can also read the full report at the following link, as uploaded by RT America.
https://www.scribd.com/document/344995943/Report-by-White-House-Alleging-Proof-of-Syria-as-the-Perpetrator-of-the-Nerve-Agent-Attack-in-Khan-Shaykhun-on-April-4-2017#from_embed

This arguably helps those calling for an independent investigation by the UN - OPCW "with teeth" should either side fail to comply with the investigators access demands.

[Nancy K]

Obama didn't have to try to look good, he did. His speech was also eloquent. My four year old grandson has a better vocabulary than Trump. To imply he looks good because beautiful women married him says as much about them as him.

[novicius]

John, I'm starting to get a big dose of Buyer's Remorse. Thanks for your input.

[Marko]

Yes , I recall seeing some discussion of that on twitter. It seems there was a change at some point from chlorine to CW in the English tweets that was being viewed suspiciously by many , as if there might have been a sudden change in plans.

[Fred]

Brunswick,

And external player tried on 9-11. That plane hit the Pentagon.

[English Outsider]

The Syrian poison gas attack is also discussed on ZDF. (From comment from "Troy Ounce" on ZH.)

https://www.zdf.de/gesellschaft/markus-lanz/markus-lanz-vom-5-april-2017-100.html

Also significant that it's on a German mainstream TV station. Ties in with David Habbakkuk's summary earlier in SST and also mentions the Turkish assistance to the Jihadis.

[Fred]

Willyb,

I note that the Pritzker’s were big backers of Obama throughout his career. Penny Pritzker, who is at least as rich as Trump, served as Commerce Secretary; not that the left complained of any potential financial gains to her that could result from government policy under Obama.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_Pritzker

After reading your piece I was struck by just where McMaster did not turn his attention: South. To reference the McMaster quotes you provide: “the will of the …. “ How about the will of US Citizens towards acceptance of the traditional social order in the US?

“the US response was to continue draw down forces in Europe. "And what we're seeing now is we've awakened to, obviously, this threat from Russia,”
Instead of looking Eastward across the Litani or the Berezina to Damascus and Moscow the warrior sage could look South of the Rio Bravo. We weakened the border and a result “we’ve awakened to, obviously, the threat from unrestrained immigration of people who do not or will not assimilate.

“but a much more sophisticated campaign involving the use of criminality and organized crime, and really operating effectively on this battleground of perception and information, and in particular part of a broader effort to sow doubt and conspiracy theories across our alliance…”

Sophisticated campaign involving criminality and organized crime? That sounds like Mexico.
“…to collapse the post-World War II, certainly the post-Cold War, security, economic, and political order in, and replace that order with something that is more sympathetic to Russian interests."

to collapse the, security, economic, and political order in the USA, and replace that order with something that is more sympathetic to Utopian Left’s interests. That has been why the border is weakened and executive power strengthened. The Utopian left lost the last election, now they are in “resistance” to the constitutional order. Nothing like another foreign war to further discredit the federal government structure. Didn’t the Bolsheviks perfect this in early 1920s?

[Babak Makkinejad]

The Bolsheviks actually had a positive program of Nation Building that they put into practice.

They truly upgraded the Muzik and the Ra'iyat (among Muslims) and built upon the state structures of the Russian Empire.

[Cee]

Willy B,

On McMasters ties

http://disobedientmedia.com/h-r-mcmasters-ties-to-soros-supported-think-tank-raise-questions/

[LondonBob]

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-13/trump-said-no-to-troops-in-syria-his-aides-aren-t-so-sure

So Eli Lake once again confirms a scoop of Mike Cernovich's, although he says McMaster wants to send 50,000 troops to Syria and Iraq. Looks like McMaster has been over promoted and distinctly lacks the foreign policy outlook of his boss.

[Mikey]

Trump said no, another chem attack forthcoming.

[Fred]

They built some fine infrastructure in the gulag archipelago too.