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

[confusedponderer]

mauisurfer
"Bush 2 was very unpopular in the first 9 months of his presidency ... he was incompetent and uninformed and not curious to learn anything - and he bragged that he was "the decider"

Ah. That's probably all true if put a bit too light. IMO you really should have gotten more complete to do Bush 2 the justice for what he said and did. He deserves that.

I propose to give honour to those who act honourably, and to give disgrace and mockery to those who truly deserve it.

Here are two marvellous bits that Bush 2 said:

(*) Bush 2 said on November 17, 2002 in an interview this:

'I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation.'

Indeed, cruise missiles speak for themselves ...

(*) Bush 2, speaking at the Pentagon, on 19.8.2004:

'Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.'

Ah, 'neither do you'?

Judging by success, Bush 2 has been doing just a heckuva job.

[Yeah, Right]

"Is there any comparable time in history where the Leading world power has behaved so hypocritically and amorally?"

I believe the phrase you need to look up is "perfidious albion".

Ain't nothing the Americans can teach the good ol' Foreign Office.

[Peter AU]

"The only thing I can not explain is how the actual Sarin Gas attack was initiated almost exactly the same time as the attack."

Is there any video/photos of the victims at or near the site where the small crater is shown in the road? That is allegedly the place were the chemical munition hit.

All I have seen is video of people that look like they have been gassed in a quarry.

[Marko]

Tweets like this one suggests the rebels had some advance knowledge :
https://twitter.com/WithinSyriaBlog/status/849240804556242944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.almasdarnews.com%2Farticle%2Fjumping-conclusions-something-not-adding-idlib-chemical-weapons-attack%2F

I think the rebels may have known with some detail about what targets the Syrian jets would bomb and when. The U.S. would have received information about this because of the deconflict agreement they had with Russia , and then could have alerted the rebels. Also , any number of the anti-Assad states' intel agencies might have also picked up transmissions , etc., and then passed the info to the rebels. It's important to consider the possibility that high-powered state assets were involved in this - it was a big operation that they all wanted to succeed.

[LeaNder]

Not only the two rebel controlled premises that surface a lot lately, but (from the top of my head) what about the Syrian Army deserters, the Free Syrian Army. Who were they, where were they stationed, what were their jobs? ... Concerning some of the scenarios above. How many double, triple, quadruple agents or servants to whoever's interest are around?

Beyond that, a nugget for b, could it be that reality politics dictate that Assad has to go, since some German firms were involved in a little help creating the Syrian program to start with? Now that the issue gets hotter and hotter? Better handle it with a little distraction for the multitude of us? Looks like it anyway, or did I stumble across fake news, not quite concentrated yesterday?

Hope? ... Change? Making America Great Again? ... we'll see.

[Harry]

"Also, the Defense Secretary said that he did not see the situation with Russia spiraling out of control as it was not in their interest to do so."

I wonder in whose interests was the first or second world War?

[Degringolade]

Please don't forget the Byzantine empire

[Babak Makkinejad]

England.

[William R. Cumming]

Interesting post and thread IMO!

We all have blind spots and are captive to some degree with our personal experience.

Here is another take that may well be defective but I put forth! Most of these ideas are not new to my posting on this blog.

1. Few U.S. Flag Ranks are actually expert on nuclear weapon effects and targeting. Perhaps the best open source writing ever was by Retired 4-star Lee Butler and his analysis of defects in the SIOP.

2. Nuclear weapons are NOT military weapons. To use a nuke is to become a pariah nation IMO.

3. The leading user in actual warfare of chemical weapons is the U.S. [Agent orange?]

4. I have had many American friends whose background was the Christian/Arab world of the Middle East. {Are not most of the Lebanese in this country Christian?].

5. If we had trained 50K Americans in Arab, Farsi, Court Persian, Urdu, Turku
and other languages after 9/11 what would have been the impact?

6. Is not the activities of Russia since 1991 proof that that nation is inextricably tied to the WEST not Asia?

7. Who controls the Russian economy and for what purposes?

8. Many have argued for a long time that the U.S. State department was under the control of Big Oil? Was it and is it?

9. What will be the lasting impacts of the Trump Presidential win? IMO no evidence the Swamp will be drained!

10. The Law of In-Intended Consequences has long rule Washington D.C. power circles will it continue to do so? Reminder THE POWER ELIT [1955] STILL OF VALUE IMO!

AND FINALLY NATURAL RESOURCES AND CLIMATE MAY WELL DETERMINE WINNERS AND LOSERS AND BE OUTCOME DETERMATIVE IN THE NEXT CENTURY EVEN IF NOT IN THIS ONE.

[William R. Cumming]

One review from Amazon of the POWER ELITE:

What is strikingly apparent even though this book was published in 1956, is that many of the factual bases of it and its observations are seen today, in 2006. And, the current power-structure will continue to operate this way. It is increasing, and will continue to do so. This is where democracies often lead.

There are a few thousand people in the United States that control almost all aspects of society. These few thousand individuals, hold leadership posts in the political, military, and economic spheres. An extremely high percentage of these individuals were educated in the same schools, come from upper-class families, belong to the same public clubs, and often the same secret societies. The members of this ruling group hold the same interests and values. And this group, self-selects the majority of its members. This is why there won't be change in the values and course of direction of the United States. One of the biggest myths of American society is that the middle class has influence on which direction and course, our society takes. The American middle class does not have interests or values in common with the Power Elites that control and run US society.

Because of these differences, who benefits?

The shift from the land-owning elites to the Oligarchic Corporate Rich began in earnest after the American Civil War.

Today, the foundations of the "3 tiers of control" that form the current oligarchic power structure of the United States has been long in the making, be it by intentional design, convenience, and/or by coincidence. (The first is the most intentional and influential.)

HOW THIS BOOK APPLIES TO TODAY:

First, applying a concept of 1956 into to the present year of 2006: The power nuance and enmeshment of and within, the political, military, and economic world. There are thousands of examples. Here are a contemporary few:

Colin Powell, occupying the upper echelon of the military world. Achieving the post of Joint-Chiefs of staff, retiring from the military world and moving directly into the political world, as Secretary of State. Not born into the club, but by his work, intellect, and skills, selected into the club, as Cheney.

Dick Cheney went from political (Congress, advisor, Sec. of Defense) to the Corporate (Halliburton CEO) and then back to the political (Vice President) echelon.

It was Charles Wilson, the President of GM that famously said, "What's good for the country is good for General Motors, and vice versa," He later became the Secretary of Department of Defense.

MEDIA and the MASSES:

Intriguing yet disturbing is the author's description of what he defines as the "Masses." The Masses (population) receive their information and form opinions by what the Elites of society present to them through the conglomerate media. Instead of forming their own opinions, the Masses believe, and regurgitate what the conglomerate media run by the Elites, feed them. The Masses are merely spectators of which about 50% vote occasionally. They don't even make decisions.

The Iraq war is an example of "Mass thinking," and one can see it in American media, as well as from ordinary Americans that copy-cat and parrot the media's slogans about the recent petro-dollar oil bourse campaign. Independent thought does not exist for the masses. The Iraq campaign was started and controlled by unelected bureaucrats.

Speeches and writings by General Douglas McArthur and Dwight D. Eisenhower decades ago, echo the sentiments in this book in an eery way.

The Power Elite in the US isn't necessarily different from other contemporary societies today, and throughout history. But by being aware of it, people can choose to live for themselves and form their own opinions, even though they cannot change society's course.

[Fred]

Ivan,

You mean CJCS told him the truth and he knew he couldn't get congressional approval for a war based on the first false-flag attack?

[Fred]

b,

The other question is what will prevent anyone from trying at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

[ISL]

Marko, very good point. That could explain why Russia decided not to deconflict anymore.

[Freudenschade]

Who are the neocons with whom he has surrounded himself? When you're hunting the white whale of the borg, every wave that hits the hull of the SS Committee of Correspondence somehow turns into a neocon.

[pmr9]

Kunuri and Peter AU

As you note, there are no images of the victims being rescued in their homes, or near the attack site. Work is still going on, at the ACloserLookOnSyria wiki and elsewhere, to try to arrange the videos by time and place and to identify continuity errors. Early findings suggest that the videos showing bodies being hosed down in the quarry / cave complex were recorded before 4 April. but this is not yet definite. There is also evidence of victim recycling: same victims in different locations, as there was in Ghouta.

Kunuri: if you have video production skills, your expertise in analysing the videos would be most welcome. Playlists have been prepared.

[Mikey]

Worth reading this article from 2012 before the propaganda war became established. Has public opinion there changed? Not in my estimation. It has likely increased.

Most Syrians back President Assad, but you'd never know from western media

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/syrians-support-assad-western-propaganda

And from 2014: Syrian election shows depth of popular support for Assad, even among Sunni majority

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/06/04/syrian-election-shows-depth-popular-support-for-assad-even-among-sunni-majority.html

[Brunswick]

Fred,

Why would any external player try?

Bush43 did more damage to the US, militarially, politically and economically, than any US Foreign Enemy, since the War of 1812.

Trump45's gonna make the wounds from Bush43 look trivial.

[sid_finster]

I suspect that, even if it gives up Syria, Russia is merely playing for time.

Russian people know history well, and they know that, no matter what he said, Hitler would never be satisfied with "just" the Rhine or "just" the Sudetenland.

FWIW, the Germans also justified their annexations with lurid tales of atrocities that nobody, not even they, believed.

[sid_finster]

"Has Trump ever read a book?"

Fixed that for you.

[sid_finster]

But supplying Saudis with banned cluster munitions is just peachy.

[fanto]

Chinese state TV the CGTN is laying out the FOUR changes in the US politics within last 2 weeks, it was on Tian Wei show "World Insight". Unfortunately I am unable to find the link to that show. It seems to me that China is viewing USG as quite unstable and that is why President Xi made a phone call to Pres. Trump earlier today. I look at the whole world mess as quite similar in some ways to the years 1938-39 with diplomats scurrying around.

[Thomas]

"Is there any comparable time in history where the Leading world power has behaved so hypocritically and amorally?"

Napoleon's France. By 1810 Tzar Alexander realized there was no useful way of dealing with him so he slow walked political action as he prepared for war. Caulaincourt tried to talk sense to Napoleon about taking on Russia, but could do no good in changing his mind. Though in fairness to Napoleon, he understood that if one major country broke his yoke others would follow.

This is why the current elite consensus that Russia will back down will be proven oh so effin' wrong.

[trinlae]

Press conference Tillerson - Lavarov:
1:55 pm EST - 12 April 2017

https://youtu.be/-El3F_1xDz8

[Fred]

Adamski,

"Who will/can trust US ever again?"

11,000,000+ people here illegally.

[John_Frank]

fyi Declassified U.S. Report on Chemical Weapons Attack
The White House released a declassified four-page report that details United States intelligence on the chemical weapons attack, asserting that the Syrian and Russian governments have sought to confuse the world community about the assault through disinformation and “false narratives.”
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/11/world/middleeast/document-Syria-Chemical-Weapons-Report-White-House.html

(The headline and link is from the New York Times)

People can read the document in a PDF at this link:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3553049/Syria-Chemical-Weapons-Report-White-House.pdf

Related background briefing:

Background Press Briefing on Syria, 4/11/2017
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/04/11/background-press-briefing-syria-4112017