McMaster is an accomplished general who points out the good and the bad of Trump, but misses the mark when observing the bad.
He understands that Trump is unpredictable and recognizes he cannot read what is clear in Trump's mind. In part, that failure might come from the fact that, as a general, McMaster is used to dealing with people in group situations. Trump is a businessman and a loner. Therefore, many considerations are unseen by others, but, in his mind, Trump's management is transparent, with many paths to choose from that are dictated by the response he gets from those he is negotiating with. Unfortunately, this isn't comforting for the one who manages things in a group.
When examining Trump's negotiating strategies, instead of assuming He made a mistake, look carefully at the contract, where a backdoor invariably exists. Trump always leaves that unseen backdoor to get his way.
I disagree with Walz's perspective on moving toward a two-state solution, as it perpetuates an ongoing cycle of conflict rather than resolving it. The notion of a two-state solution doesn't lead to lasting peace but instead fosters continuous warfare between the parties. For example, Abraham Lincoln didn't consider a two-state solution during the Civil War; instead, he empowered General Ulysses S. Grant to defeat the Confederacy decisively. Grant's strategies, such as the siege of Vicksburg—where civilians resorted to eating rodents for survival—and his directive to General Sherman to burn Atlanta to the ground, illustrate the necessity of total victory. In war, the goal should be to decisively destroy your enemy and impose your political will, not to negotiate halfway solutions like those seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, which only prolong instability.
Several comments. First, the FP article “Walz for Trump” and all the comments below sadden me. Together they take away from my perception of TheFP as being a moderately conservative, but disciplined & not blind outlet. Bummer.
Second, the comments below devolve into a pro-Trump narrative. That’s not what Mc!aster is doing here.
I wish he’d gone on to say that the job of our leaders is to be firm on the “what” - the values to which we as a nation, and to which they as a President, will be true, and be willing to work with others on “how” we achieve them in a given time & circumstance.
For instance. This is a foreign policy debarpte. In that, I value:
- US as the strongest global power & influencer. If we are not, others (China) will step into that role. We will no longer control how we operate, travel, conduct business, and influence other countries to accomplish our goals. Trump, Harris: Tell me about a time when you demonstrated valuing unequivocal US hegemony over China. What actions will you take in the future to assure it?
- Related: Preserve US power in the 21st Century. In the 20th Century, military power was our superpower. We could achieve our ends based on our sword. China is proving that money & trade matter more now. Its Belt & Road initiative is more powerful than guns. Harris, Trump: Prove this value by showing what you’ve done, or will do, to wield the biggest stick possible on the global stage to stop China from replacing the US as the most important country to so many nations around the globe? What matters most to those nations? How will we be their best friend?
- Excellence at partnering to be so. From Ben Franklin and his influence in Paris to help us achieve our goals of independence from Britain, to our post-WW II alliance with Japan to stabilize our relationship with Asia, we do better when we partner well. They may have their own reasons for joining with us; but simultaneous common action increases the chance to achieve a shared goal. E.g. we helped Japan build production capacity after being enemies and became a huge customer of their products to our benefit. So, Trump, Harris: Tell me about how you’ve partnered in the past; did everybody get what benefitted them - including you/us? What potential exists around the globe to leverage for our benefit?
- Be consistent on goals & values, & flexible on the how to achieve them. The job of a President is to lead by goals & values, not specifics. The latter is Congress’ job. See JFK & the moonshot. A President should be willing to debate, experiment, and compromise on how we achieve goals. For instance, I strongly support the right to freedom of people to choose their national governance. I also value life such that I don’t want indiscriminate slaughter - unless the opposition leaves no alternative. (See Hitler, notwithstanding Tucker Carlson’s revisionist history.) This is complicated in the Middle East, but I want my candidate to share those values and take a stance that shows it. So, Trump, Harris: tell me how you’re going to enable both Israel & the Palestinians to have self-governance with minimal loss of life?
The same principles apply beyond foreign policy. For instance, we can agree that no child should go hungry in the US; that every vendor should have an equal opportunity to reach the same customers. In both, there are multiple ways to achieve the goals. Let’s experiment, and adjust if one way doesn’t work. Or try several at once.
It’s no doubt that there are hard questions: What is “Life” and how do we each value the government’s role in preserving it as a matter of law? But I assert the number of these is small, indeed. They should be influential in value-selecting leaders; should they be absolutely determinative? Hmmm.
My position as a voter is not to focus on the “how” but on the “what”. What are the values & goals each candidate espouses? Then, I will vote in line with value expressions, not with policy.
thats such a GREAT picture!! now show trumps fist in the air "fight, fight,fight" next to it:):):)
so, wounded duck turns into Viscous Eagle Act. I saw the administration start to act this way 4 years ago. america used it before WW1 and WW2. its silent but deadly. and China has recognised it , pivoting to a "destroy from within", corrupt american politicians, creep in locally slowly. If we went at it today, america would win. also, the divide the politicians and media create and Feed and maintain, would turn into PURE unity (on their terms) within a week. also you don't have to pay back the whomever your fighting, convenient and (planned/considered as inevitable?) people, people, were not going to war, were already on the path. america is being attacked and invaded every day. go watch some Chinese propaganda kill america media, i dare you.
This dude just wrote a book that slams trump and is now telling us that Biden/Harris foreign policy has led to the most dangerous time for America that he can remember.
Does the Free Press and this guy really expect us take him serious? You lose all credibility when you cash out on a book deal slamming your former boss lol. What a joke.
Will TFP pretty please please with sugar on top turn on the text to voice feature for ALL of their articles?
Veterans with prosthetic arms would appreciate being able to LISTEN to the great content TFP has to offer instead of being forced to scroll through the pages. Thanks!
Excellent analysis from a professional soldier. I know one of his instructors from when he was at West Point. He is the real deal. An exceptionally intelligent leader.
We have to decide whether we want Harris or Trump. Each has warts. It is telling that Trump sees national security as a contest with Iran and the other usual suspects. Harris sees it as a fight against climate change.
Yes Trump was erratic, yet he understands our enemies. I my decision is easy. I want to insure we continue to exist. I will vote for Trump.
I like much of your comment, but I can’t say I would vote for either candidate right now.
Trump is pretty friendly toward Putin and is touring with Tucker Carlson. He is showing some pretty poor judgment in my opinion. It seems they want to withdraw from the world when it looks to me that the world is becoming ever more dangerous. If I knew he would bring on someone like McMaster and listen carefully to him, I’d feel differently.
I share your concerns completely. When I conducted research using surveys to gather some of the data, there were items called forced choice, while others offered a neutral response category.
The presidential election is a forced choice question. Lack of a choice leads, indirectly to the election of one of two principal candidates. No matter my disdain for them, a choice must be made.
Trump is equivalent to a ‘60’s muscle car. Loud, overpowered and poor handling. Exterior tarnished and paint in need of improvement. Great on a straight road, but has difficult maneuvering turns and curves. Nevertheless, is indominitable. When veers off the track, gets back in the race quickly. Focused on the goal of winning.
Harris is an old model sedan, that was run down in appearance and performance, completely ignored and disregarded. It has now received a new paint job, and has been polished to a shining gloss. Absolutely sparkles. However the overhaul neglected the interior which s empty. No seats, engine, transmission or differential. Even if it could be propelled, its wheel are stuck in the mud of failed, socialistic and other unworkable, ideological policies.
Thank you General McMaster for your brilliant service! Folks look this guy up he is the prototypical hero soldier/leader that has done nothing but make us proud of his distinguished service. We are lucky to have people like this serving our country.
Every thing Walz said before “but” is meaningless. In my life experiences, people always say what they really mean after but. I do agree with the author though. Whoever is elected, we need to support. Even if we didn’t vote for them.
I agree with his last paragraph, but I don't consider his overall commentary helpful. It is very clear we can never survive a President Harris. She would be the death of our economy and our leadership in the free world. Our only chance of regaining what we've lost is clearly the re-election of President Trump.
Clearly Trump was vastly inexperienced, not of the traditional models of leadership Washington nor frankly the military was an is accustomed to. The article was very well written and an excellent contrast was made between Biden and Trump, but candidly the muse of Trump's personality flaws-which the author insisted on revisiting to include the reason for his firing-we all know all too well. As a voter and 4the generation veteran, these imperfections are exactly why we voted for him then, and these jagged edges and acute imperfections are what we need now.
If Harris wins, Israel will be destroyed. There will be a second Holocaust. Trump is absolutely right in that assessment.
But the danger is much greater than that. Israel has supposedly 100-400 nuclear weapons. A dying Israel would use them, and not just against Iran. There is a good chance that this would somehow explode into a larger, possibly global, nuclear war.
McMaster is an accomplished general who points out the good and the bad of Trump, but misses the mark when observing the bad.
He understands that Trump is unpredictable and recognizes he cannot read what is clear in Trump's mind. In part, that failure might come from the fact that, as a general, McMaster is used to dealing with people in group situations. Trump is a businessman and a loner. Therefore, many considerations are unseen by others, but, in his mind, Trump's management is transparent, with many paths to choose from that are dictated by the response he gets from those he is negotiating with. Unfortunately, this isn't comforting for the one who manages things in a group.
When examining Trump's negotiating strategies, instead of assuming He made a mistake, look carefully at the contract, where a backdoor invariably exists. Trump always leaves that unseen backdoor to get his way.
This is a phenomenal article and opinion piece. THANK YOU FREE PRESS!
I'm not going to be casting a vote in this year's Presidential election. Never Trump, but endorsing Kamala Harris is out of the question.
Is that decision made with the best interest of the country in mind?
The best interest of the country left the chat years ago, or we wouldn’t have these truly moronic candidates between which to choose.
Excellent article.
Agree, but I think that was a quote of Walz’s, wasn’t it?
You're right. I misread and have edited my comment to reflect the change.
I disagree with Walz's perspective on moving toward a two-state solution, as it perpetuates an ongoing cycle of conflict rather than resolving it. The notion of a two-state solution doesn't lead to lasting peace but instead fosters continuous warfare between the parties. For example, Abraham Lincoln didn't consider a two-state solution during the Civil War; instead, he empowered General Ulysses S. Grant to defeat the Confederacy decisively. Grant's strategies, such as the siege of Vicksburg—where civilians resorted to eating rodents for survival—and his directive to General Sherman to burn Atlanta to the ground, illustrate the necessity of total victory. In war, the goal should be to decisively destroy your enemy and impose your political will, not to negotiate halfway solutions like those seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, which only prolong instability.
He was quoting Walz. That's not his opinion. I made the same mistake.
Thank you, Mike!
Several comments. First, the FP article “Walz for Trump” and all the comments below sadden me. Together they take away from my perception of TheFP as being a moderately conservative, but disciplined & not blind outlet. Bummer.
Second, the comments below devolve into a pro-Trump narrative. That’s not what Mc!aster is doing here.
I wish he’d gone on to say that the job of our leaders is to be firm on the “what” - the values to which we as a nation, and to which they as a President, will be true, and be willing to work with others on “how” we achieve them in a given time & circumstance.
For instance. This is a foreign policy debarpte. In that, I value:
- US as the strongest global power & influencer. If we are not, others (China) will step into that role. We will no longer control how we operate, travel, conduct business, and influence other countries to accomplish our goals. Trump, Harris: Tell me about a time when you demonstrated valuing unequivocal US hegemony over China. What actions will you take in the future to assure it?
- Related: Preserve US power in the 21st Century. In the 20th Century, military power was our superpower. We could achieve our ends based on our sword. China is proving that money & trade matter more now. Its Belt & Road initiative is more powerful than guns. Harris, Trump: Prove this value by showing what you’ve done, or will do, to wield the biggest stick possible on the global stage to stop China from replacing the US as the most important country to so many nations around the globe? What matters most to those nations? How will we be their best friend?
- Excellence at partnering to be so. From Ben Franklin and his influence in Paris to help us achieve our goals of independence from Britain, to our post-WW II alliance with Japan to stabilize our relationship with Asia, we do better when we partner well. They may have their own reasons for joining with us; but simultaneous common action increases the chance to achieve a shared goal. E.g. we helped Japan build production capacity after being enemies and became a huge customer of their products to our benefit. So, Trump, Harris: Tell me about how you’ve partnered in the past; did everybody get what benefitted them - including you/us? What potential exists around the globe to leverage for our benefit?
- Be consistent on goals & values, & flexible on the how to achieve them. The job of a President is to lead by goals & values, not specifics. The latter is Congress’ job. See JFK & the moonshot. A President should be willing to debate, experiment, and compromise on how we achieve goals. For instance, I strongly support the right to freedom of people to choose their national governance. I also value life such that I don’t want indiscriminate slaughter - unless the opposition leaves no alternative. (See Hitler, notwithstanding Tucker Carlson’s revisionist history.) This is complicated in the Middle East, but I want my candidate to share those values and take a stance that shows it. So, Trump, Harris: tell me how you’re going to enable both Israel & the Palestinians to have self-governance with minimal loss of life?
The same principles apply beyond foreign policy. For instance, we can agree that no child should go hungry in the US; that every vendor should have an equal opportunity to reach the same customers. In both, there are multiple ways to achieve the goals. Let’s experiment, and adjust if one way doesn’t work. Or try several at once.
It’s no doubt that there are hard questions: What is “Life” and how do we each value the government’s role in preserving it as a matter of law? But I assert the number of these is small, indeed. They should be influential in value-selecting leaders; should they be absolutely determinative? Hmmm.
My position as a voter is not to focus on the “how” but on the “what”. What are the values & goals each candidate espouses? Then, I will vote in line with value expressions, not with policy.
You?
Argh - McAlister….
thats such a GREAT picture!! now show trumps fist in the air "fight, fight,fight" next to it:):):)
so, wounded duck turns into Viscous Eagle Act. I saw the administration start to act this way 4 years ago. america used it before WW1 and WW2. its silent but deadly. and China has recognised it , pivoting to a "destroy from within", corrupt american politicians, creep in locally slowly. If we went at it today, america would win. also, the divide the politicians and media create and Feed and maintain, would turn into PURE unity (on their terms) within a week. also you don't have to pay back the whomever your fighting, convenient and (planned/considered as inevitable?) people, people, were not going to war, were already on the path. america is being attacked and invaded every day. go watch some Chinese propaganda kill america media, i dare you.
This dude just wrote a book that slams trump and is now telling us that Biden/Harris foreign policy has led to the most dangerous time for America that he can remember.
Does the Free Press and this guy really expect us take him serious? You lose all credibility when you cash out on a book deal slamming your former boss lol. What a joke.
Will TFP pretty please please with sugar on top turn on the text to voice feature for ALL of their articles?
Veterans with prosthetic arms would appreciate being able to LISTEN to the great content TFP has to offer instead of being forced to scroll through the pages. Thanks!
Excellent analysis from a professional soldier. I know one of his instructors from when he was at West Point. He is the real deal. An exceptionally intelligent leader.
We have to decide whether we want Harris or Trump. Each has warts. It is telling that Trump sees national security as a contest with Iran and the other usual suspects. Harris sees it as a fight against climate change.
Yes Trump was erratic, yet he understands our enemies. I my decision is easy. I want to insure we continue to exist. I will vote for Trump.
I like much of your comment, but I can’t say I would vote for either candidate right now.
Trump is pretty friendly toward Putin and is touring with Tucker Carlson. He is showing some pretty poor judgment in my opinion. It seems they want to withdraw from the world when it looks to me that the world is becoming ever more dangerous. If I knew he would bring on someone like McMaster and listen carefully to him, I’d feel differently.
I share your concerns completely. When I conducted research using surveys to gather some of the data, there were items called forced choice, while others offered a neutral response category.
The presidential election is a forced choice question. Lack of a choice leads, indirectly to the election of one of two principal candidates. No matter my disdain for them, a choice must be made.
Trump is equivalent to a ‘60’s muscle car. Loud, overpowered and poor handling. Exterior tarnished and paint in need of improvement. Great on a straight road, but has difficult maneuvering turns and curves. Nevertheless, is indominitable. When veers off the track, gets back in the race quickly. Focused on the goal of winning.
Harris is an old model sedan, that was run down in appearance and performance, completely ignored and disregarded. It has now received a new paint job, and has been polished to a shining gloss. Absolutely sparkles. However the overhaul neglected the interior which s empty. No seats, engine, transmission or differential. Even if it could be propelled, its wheel are stuck in the mud of failed, socialistic and other unworkable, ideological policies.
Thank you General McMaster for your brilliant service! Folks look this guy up he is the prototypical hero soldier/leader that has done nothing but make us proud of his distinguished service. We are lucky to have people like this serving our country.
Every thing Walz said before “but” is meaningless. In my life experiences, people always say what they really mean after but. I do agree with the author though. Whoever is elected, we need to support. Even if we didn’t vote for them.
I agree with his last paragraph, but I don't consider his overall commentary helpful. It is very clear we can never survive a President Harris. She would be the death of our economy and our leadership in the free world. Our only chance of regaining what we've lost is clearly the re-election of President Trump.
Clearly Trump was vastly inexperienced, not of the traditional models of leadership Washington nor frankly the military was an is accustomed to. The article was very well written and an excellent contrast was made between Biden and Trump, but candidly the muse of Trump's personality flaws-which the author insisted on revisiting to include the reason for his firing-we all know all too well. As a voter and 4the generation veteran, these imperfections are exactly why we voted for him then, and these jagged edges and acute imperfections are what we need now.
You’re correct
If Harris wins, Israel will be destroyed. There will be a second Holocaust. Trump is absolutely right in that assessment.
But the danger is much greater than that. Israel has supposedly 100-400 nuclear weapons. A dying Israel would use them, and not just against Iran. There is a good chance that this would somehow explode into a larger, possibly global, nuclear war.
An absolutely brilliant analysis. The Free Press continues to astound me with its superlative journalism.