Gen. McMaster’s Blistering Account of the Trump White House

Until now, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster has been relatively quiet about his time in the Trump White House. Gen. McMaster’s Blistering Account of the Trump White House. McMaster, who has served with honour in significant American conflicts over the years, including the Gulf War, the Iraq War, and the war in Afghanistan, shares in his new book, “At War with Ourselves: My Tour of Duty in the Trump White House,” that his most difficult assignment as a soldier was his final one: acting as the national security adviser to a president known for his unpredictable nature.

In his sharp and revealing narrative about his experiences in the Trump administration, McMaster portrays Oval Office meetings as “exercises in competitive sycophancy,” where Trump’s advisors would shower him with compliments, saying things like, “Your instincts are always right” or, “No one has ever been treated so badly by the press.” In contrast, Trump would make “outlandish” remarks such as, “Why don’t we just bomb the drugs?” in Mexico or, “Why don’t we take out the whole North Korean Army during one of their parades?”

McMaster’s book, which examines Trump’s time as commander-in-chief, arrives at a particularly relevant moment, as many Americans begin to weigh whether Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris would be the better leader in that role. Gen. McMaster’s Blistering Account of the Trump White House

ALSO READ: Eric Trump Demands Answers from Secret Service Director

In her acceptance speech for her nomination to the presidency at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday, Harris focused on showcasing her national security credentials. She addressed the war in Gaza, stating that as president, she would firmly support the US alliance with Israel to “ensure Israel can defend itself.” Harris also acknowledged that the Palestinians have “their right to dignity, security, freedom, and self-determination.” With this speech, Harris aimed to balance the views of Americans who strongly oppose the war — many of whom are in her party — with those who fully support Israel.

McMaster offers unique insights into Trump’s foreign policy approach, and like his successor in the national security adviser role, former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, who criticized the former president in a book published in 2020, his account is unlikely to reassure US allies about the prospects of a second Trump term.

In addition to being a highly decorated officer, McMaster holds a doctorate in history. His first book, “Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam,” detailed the troubling history of how top American generals informed President Lyndon Johnson only of what they believed he wanted to hear about the Vietnam War, rather than providing him with their best military advice regarding the conflict and the full range of policy options available to their commander in chief.

Gen. McMaster’s Blistering Account of Trump: ‘Tell Trump what he didn’t want to hear’

McMaster was determined not to repeat the same error after Trump appointed him as his national security adviser in February 2017. He notes, “I knew that to fulfil my duty, I would have to tell Trump what he didn’t want to hear.” This insight sheds light on why McMaster’s time in the role lasted just over a year. (Disclosure: I have known McMaster professionally since 2010 when he led an anti-corruption task force in Afghanistan.)

One topic was especially sensitive for Trump: Russia. McMaster wisely remarks, “I wished that Trump could separate the issue of Russian election meddling from the legitimacy of his presidency. He could have said, ‘Yes, they attacked the election. But Russia doesn’t care who wins our elections. What they want to do is pit Americans against one another… .’ McMaster explains that the “fragility” of Trump’s ego and “his deep sense of aggrievement” would never permit him to make this kind of distinction.

McMaster believed it was his “duty” to inform Trump that Russian President Vladimir Putin “was not and would never be Trump’s friend.” He cautioned Trump that Putin is “the best liar in the world” and would attempt to “play” him to achieve his goals, manipulating him with “ambiguous promises of a ‘better relationship.’”

The tipping point that led to McMaster’s departure from the White House appears to have been his public statement on February 17, 2018, at the Munich Security Forum — an annual meeting of leading Western foreign policy officials — where he declared that the indictment of a group of Russian intelligence officers for their interference in the 2016 US presidential election was “inconvertible” evidence of Russian meddling in that election.

Trump soon tweeted, “General McMaster forgot to say that the results of the 2016 election were not impacted or changed by the Russians….” Once the commander-in-chief started publicly castigating him on Twitter, it was obvious that McMaster would not be long for the White House.

McMaster’s account of the Trump team is not pretty. Steve Bannon, Trump’s “chief strategist” early in the presidency, is portrayed as a “fawning court jester” who played “on Trump’s anxiety and sense of beleaguerment … with stories, mainly about who was out to get him and what he could do to ‘counterpunch.’”

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense James Mattis were often at odds with Trump, McMaster says. Tillerson, who had previously run Exxon, is portrayed as inaccessible to top officials in Trump’s administration, while Mattis is described as an obstructionist. McMaster writes that Tillerson and Mattis viewed Trump as “dangerous” and seemed to construe their roles as if “Trump was an emergency and that anyone abetting him was an adversary.” Trump himself also contributed to the dysfunction: “He enjoyed and contributed to interpersonal drama in the White House and across the administration.”

Also, McMaster wasn’t on the same page as his boss on some key foreign policy issues. McMaster enumerates those issues as “allies, authoritarians, and Afghanistan.” Trump denigrated American allies whom he saw as “freeloaders”; he embraced authoritarian rulers who McMaster despised; and while Trump largely believed Afghanistan was a lost cause, McMaster thought there was a path forward for the country, and he pushed for a more significant US commitment there, while simultaneously blocking a cockamamie notion by Bannon to turn the conduct of the Afghan war over to American private military contractors.

ALSO READ: Donald Trump’s Outlined Policy Plans for Education in Agenda 47

Gen. McMaster’s Blistering Account of the Trump White House: McMaster credits Trump on Syria and China

McMaster acknowledges some of Trump’s effective foreign policy choices. Unlike President Barack Obama, who hesitated over his own “red line” when Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against civilians, Trump took swift action in April 2017 after Assad’s chemical attack that killed dozens. He ordered airstrikes on the Syrian airbase responsible for the attack.

Regarding the critical foreign policy issue of China, McMaster determined that Trump made appropriate decisions. He was in charge of Trump’s 2017 national security strategy document, which adopted a firmer public stance on China compared to earlier administrations. It highlighted China’s theft of US intellectual property, estimated to be worth “hundreds of billions of dollars” annually, and pointed out that China was developing the most capable and well-funded military in the world, second only to the US. After being briefed by McMaster on the new strategy, Trump exclaimed, “This is fantastic,” and requested similar phrasing for his upcoming speeches.

The events of January 6, 2021, during the assault on the US Capitol, appear to have marked a significant turning point for McMaster in his view of Trump. In his earlier book published in 2020, “Battlegrounds: The Fight to Defend the Free World,” he refrained from directly criticizing his former boss.

In contrast, in his latest book, McMaster states that following Trump’s 2020 electoral loss, his “ego and love of self… led him to forsake his oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution,’ which is the highest duty of a president.” McMaster further remarks, “The attack on the US Capitol tarnished our reputation, and it will require a sustained effort to recover what Donald Trump, his supporters, and those they incited took from us that day.”

What could this imply for a potential second term for Trump? The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 lays out a strategy for Trump loyalists to take the place of many career foreign service officers and intelligence officials. These loyalists would probably provide Trump with the feedback he desires rather than offering him honest evaluations of the national security issues confronting the US, which is the essential duty of American national security experts.

Although Trump has attempted to distance himself from Project 2025, the discovery by CNN of at least 140 individuals who previously worked for him being involved in the initiative speaks volumes. In a second Trump term, it’s unlikely there would be any McMasters to deliver the hard truths to Trump; in fact, that’s essentially the goal of Project 2025, which aims to replace as many as 50,000 federal employees with Trump loyalists.