Trump appoints HR McMaster as national security adviser
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/20/trump-appoints-hr-mcmaster-national-security-adviser
The US president announced from Mar-a-Lago Monday that Lt Gen McMaster is his pick to replace Michael Flynn, who was forced to resign last week
HR McMaster, an army lieutenant general whose unconventional career has earned him widespread respect in US defense circles, will be Donald Trump’s next national security adviser.
Trump, announcing his decision, called McMaster “a man of tremendous talent and tremendous experience.”
The president had spent the weekend interviewing several generals to replace the disgraced Michael Flynn, included the retired general Keith Kellogg, the former UN ambassador John Bolton, McMaster and the West Point superintendent, Lt Gen Robert Caslen. Late last week, Robert Harward, a retired vice-admiral and a former aide to the defense secretary, James Mattis, declined Trump’s offer to replace Flynn.
McMaster’s appointment follows a week of disarray over the direction of the National Security Council, after Flynn was forced to resign over revelations that he had lied to vice-president Mike Pence about his calls discussing easing sanctions with Russia’s ambassador.
However, much like Trump’s pick to head the Pentagon, James Mattis, McMaster is a known entity to traditional US allies, and a figure reassuring to the US security establishment Trump has often scorned.
During the announcement at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, McMaster thanked Trump for the appointment and looked “forward to joining the national security team and doing everything that I can to advance and protect the interests of the American people”.
Yet it remains to be seen whether McMaster’s imminent arrival at the White House will settle an ongoing struggle for the future course of national security and foreign policy. At least one other candidate for the job, McMaster’s ally David Petraeus, dropped out of the running after insisting on the independence to select his own staff.
Who is HR McMaster, Trump's new national security adviser?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39033934
Donald Trump's new national security advisor has been appointed in the shadow of a controversy after his predecessor lasted just three weeks in the job.
The choice has been well-received by both analysts and politicians - even some, like Senator John McCain, who have been critical of many of President Trump's decisions.
But who is Herbert Raymond McMaster?
A student of history
Lieutenant General HR McMaster is a decorated military official, having served in command positions during the Gulf War in the early 1990s and with the Central Command during the Iraq war in the early 2000s.
He was awarded the silver star for valour for his actions. In Afghanistan, he headed an anti-corruption and transparency task force.
But he is also known for his academic interest in history - and applying that intellectual approach to the battlefield.
Lt Gen McMaster graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1984, but went on to become something of a scholar of military history.
He earned an MA in history from the University of North Carolina in 1994, and taught history at the military academy for two years, before being awarded a PhD in American history in 1996.
That same year, he published a popular military history of the Vietnam War, "Dereliction of Duty", which was deeply critical of the decision-making process in Washington during the era.
The New York Times review of the book credited Lt Gen McMaster as having "doggedly waded through the records of every meeting of the Joint Chiefs" and noted that he concluded that the war was ''lost in Washington . . . even before the first American units were deployed".
Unconventional approach
That academic mindset and intellectual approach to military command impressed many people during this time in Iraq and Afghanistan.
He is widely labelled as a deep military thinker: Time magazine said that he "might be the 21st Century Army's pre-eminent warrior-thinker".
In 2005, he led an operation at Tal Afar in Iraq which was widely held as an example of success in a difficult war.
He seized the town, cutting it off from outside fighters - and then slowly but surely worked his way through the city districts, leaving troop outposts in place - and not allowing the enemy to return, in stark contrast to earlier US strategy.
Lt Gen McMaster's approach was lauded by President George W Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Writing at the time for the Daily Telegraph, Tim Collins, a former SAS officer and journalist, said Lt Gen McMaster - then a colonel - had taken "a refreshingly unconventional approach".
"By using academics and Middle East experts as advisers, he sought to educate his men about the intricacies of Tal Afar. Successfully, it would seem, for his forces won over at least some of the disillusioned Turkmen population at the same time as isolating the relatively small cadre of die-hard extremists," he wrote in September 2005.
'Unimaginable horrors'
Yet despite attempts to replicate the strategy, Lt Gen McMaster himself told the New Yorker magazine the following year that constant fresh consideration was the key.
"It is so damn complex. If you ever think you have the solution to this, you're wrong, and you're dangerous. You have to keep listening and thinking and being critical and self-critical," he said.
He also spoke about some of the tragedies he witnessed during the operation in a 2007 interview with the Sunday Times, in which he spoke of the "child abuse" of al-Qaeda training young men, through often brutal means.
"I saw the most unimaginable horrors," he said. "Things you can't even imagine another human thinking of. In one case, the terrorists murdered a young boy in his hospital bed, booby-trapped the body, and when the family came to pick up the body they detonated the explosives to kill the father."
Sir Max Hastings, writing in the Guardian in 2007, called Lt Gen McMaster "the most successful unit commander to have served in Iraq" and Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas Ricks noted that his "influence already outstrips [his] rank".
He was pulled back to Baghdad in 2007 to be part of the informally-titled "Baghdad brains trust" - along with several other military academics - tasked with coming up with a fresh approach.
In the year since, he has applied his famous deep-thinking approach to his work at the Army Capabilities Integration Centre, which he began in 2008. He also served as the commander of the Army's Manoeuvre Centre of Excellence.
During this period, he was promoted up the chain of command for his contributions to his current rank, a three-star lieutenant general - the second-highest rank ordinarily achievable.
Trump’s New National Security Adviser Is No Friend of Russia’s
https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/trumps-new-national-security-adviser-is-no-friend-of-russias-57231
One week after former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn resigned from his post, President Donald Trump has appointed General Herbert Raymond McMaster to replace him. McMaster’s world view is diametrically opposed to the one Flynn brought to the White House. His appointment may be the final nail in the coffin for Moscow’s dream of a speedy detente with Trump.
While the sheer number of generals on Trump’s presidential cabinet might have been cause for concern — cue Russian trolling of a junta in Washington — McMaster has the makings of a media darling in the vein of Defense Secretary James Mattis. Profiles of the new national security advisor describe him as an iconoclastic philosopher-general who can wield a rifle in one hand while reciting Clausewitz from the other.
It is difficult to say exactly what kind of policies on Russia McMaster might spearhead. Like Mattis, he has a reputation as a serious defense thinker. He is best known for scathing critiques of Vietnam and rewriting the book on combating insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. At times, he has warned Russia could seriously challenge U.S. military and political dominance in Europe.
In recent years, he headed up the U.S. Army Capabilities Integration Center, a sort of in-house think tank. His job there was to analyze strategy and defense trends of potential U.S. adversaries, and draw up recommendations for how the U.S. should prepare for future wars. In this role, he’s been involved in some big-picture rethinking of American defense posture.
No Stranger to Russia
In early 2016, McMaster published a report on modern Russian warfare techniques and abilities. His co-authors took several unannounced trips to front lines in Ukraine conflict to study the tactics of Russian-backed rebel forces. The subsequent report estimated that the U.S. military was outmatched by Russian electronic warfare and cyber capabilities.
McMaster has since accused Russia of waging an offensive campaign against the post-WWII international order. At an event hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington last May, he said that Russia’s efforts in Ukraine were a “sophisticated campaign” consisting of “conventional forces as a cover for unconventional action.”
The new Russian doctrine of warfare, McMaster said during his talk at CSIS, combines military action with manipulating of public perception as part of “a broader effort to sow doubt… across [NATO].” Moscow’s goal is not defensive, but offensive, he said. It wants to replace the Western political and economic order “with something more sympathetic to Russian interests.”
His assessment of Moscow’s intentions and ability to act on them mirror those of Mattis. But they appear to be at odds with Trump’s rhetoric toward Russia and its leader, Vladimir Putin. His views are also opposed to those held by Flynn, who appears to have seen eye-to-eye with Trump on Russia. That Trump appointed McMaster anyway suggests he doesn’t care.
Russian Reaction
McMaster’s appointment is a disappointment for Russia, which is already concerned that chaos in Washington is working against them. Moscow’s enthusiasm for Trump has been sharply reined in following Flynn’s ouster. Russian politicians lashed out at an alleged Obama-led anti-Russian shadow government preventing Trump from lifting sanctions and restoring ties.
But overall the reaction has been muted, following a general toning-down of Trump-related coverage in the Russian media over the past week. The same voices that decried the fall of Flynn have been silent on McMaster so far.
Russian reports on the appointment have been largely restrained. But there have been hints of discontent. Some Russian publications referred back a call from McMaster in 2015 for a “forward deterrent” against Russia in Ukraine. And a TASS profile concluded that Trump’s desire for a detent would soon clash with McMaster’s “rigid” views.
According to international affairs analyst Mikhail Troitskiy, “McMaster, unlike his predecessor, is an advocate of pushing back against Russian actions in Ukraine and in cyberspace.”
Beyond talk of containment, Russia’s silence is understandable. Outside the military, few in Moscow are too familiar with the new national security advisor. The Kremlin is likely to be concerned with his role in studying Russian tactics in Ukraine, says foreign affairs analyst Vladimir Frolov. “But, otherwise, he’s a blank slate for us when it comes to policy.”
At the same time, says Frolov, what Moscow does know about McMaster is that he is not the zealous proponent of total war against radical Islam that Flynn was. This limits room for a detente. Russia was hoping Trump and his advisors would see radical Islam as the ultimate threat, and trade Ukraine-related sanctions for Moscow’s assistance in the Middle East.
That, it seems, is not to be. McMaster’s appointment signals the Trump administration’s normalization on questions of national security policy. While McMaster is seen as a disruptive, sometimes controversial thinker, he is not a radical. He may bring an end to the dysfunction on the national security front in Washington.
Russia is not yet ready to give up hope on Trump. While public rhetoric has been toned down, the Kremlin is withholding judgement on Trump until Putin meets him in person.
“There will still be hope for a new ‘reset,” Troitskiy says.
All Eyes On Munich As Russia Feels Out New U.S. Administration
https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/all-eyes-on-munich-conference-as-russia-feels-out-new-us-administration-57170
At last year’s Munich Security Conference — a traditional get together for the transatlantic alliance — Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev delivered a stark warning. It was time for the West to end sanction, he said, and join forces in a civilizational battle against radical Islam.
“It is either us or them,” Medvedev intoned. “It is time for everyone to realize this.”
His call fell on wearied, and unsympathetic ears. 2016 was a trying time for many of the attendees, after all. Russia’s actions in Syria exacerbated a migrant crisis sweeping Europe. Ukraine continued to pose a security dilemma. U.S. global leadership was under question.
Doing his best to calm the West’s collective nerves, then Secretary of State John Kerry in turn took the stage. He assured them Washington would not abandon its security commitments to Europe.
Today, Kerry is gone. And the transatlantic community is waiting with baited breath to find out what Trump’s administration will bring. The 2017 conference, taking place Feb. 17- 19, is expected to shed first light on that. Trump is sending his A-Team: Vice President Mike Pence, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
Trump’s delegation was also expected to feature former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. But Flynn dramatically resigned his post on Feb. 14, over allegations he illegally contacted Russian officials.
Flynn was among the strongest voices pushing for a “reset” with Russia. It is not clear yet what impact the resignation will have on U.S. policy. But signals from Washington suggest the White House was already leaning toward continuity: sanctions on Russia and support for NATO.
The 2017 conference also marks the 10-year anniversary of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s infamous speech in which he set out an aggressive expression of Moscow’s worldview. He railed against NATO, U.S. hegemony, democracy-promotion, missile defense, and the militarization of outer space.
Observers were shocked by his candor. But for Putin, it was the start of an assertive Russian foreign policy designed to return Russia to its “rightful” role in the world. “It is hardly necessary to provoke us,” he said. “Russia has a history of more than 1000 years, and it has always had the privilege of carrying out an independent foreign policy. We are not going to change this tradition today.”
Ten years on, Putin’s belligerent words feel prescient. But while Moscow has used force to gain outsized influence over international affairs, it has yet to drive a wedge between NATO allies. In fact Putin, ironically, reinvigorated NATO. In Trump, Moscow saw an unexpected opportunity to undermine the alliance. Trump himself appeared to sympathize with some of Russia’s foreign policy concerns.
But in appearing too eager for a detente with Trump, Russia may have again missed its opportunity. Moscow’s support for Trump seems to have become a political liability. It was not Flynn’s controversial views on Islam that proved to be his undoing, but ties with Russia.
Moscow’s elation over Trump was already beginning to show signs of wear before Flynn’s resignation. The Kremlin’s objectives for the 2017 Munich Conference now appear to be conservative. The senior representative on Russia’s delegation will be Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Lavrov is not a policymaker. He will instead be there only to meet his U.S. counterpart, Tillerson. The two will first meet in Bonn.
“Russia will not be saying anything new,” says Alexander Gabuev, an expert in Russian foreign policy at the Carnegie Moscow Center think tank. “They will be there to listen to what the Americans have to say.”