![]() national security policy, the future of conservative national security policy, and American civil-military relations. These impressive contributors engage McMaster’s core arguments and explore their implications for U.S. But these discussions are not without controversy. 1Īs this roundtable demonstrates, the retired general already has inspired meaningful dialogue about some of the central national security challenges America will face in a post-Trump world. I hoped that improved understanding might inspire the meaningful discussion and resolute action necessary to overcome those challenges. I wanted to write a book that might help transcend the vitriol of partisan political discourse and help readers understand better the most significant challenges to security, freedom, and prosperity. Already the author of an acclaimed civil-military history of the Vietnam War, McMaster instead staked out a more ambitious task: The three-star general was only the third active-duty military officer to fill this highly political role and one of a handful of appointees dubbed the “adults in the room,” who many Americans hoped would serve as a check on President Donald Trump’s worst tendencies.Īgainst this backdrop, it is understandable that McMaster didn’t want to write a tell-all memoir about his White House tenure that focused primarily on his experiences and interactions with Trump. McMaster’s appointment also raised some civil-military concerns. With his appointment to the role of assistant to the president for national security affairs, he was also thrust into the role of statesman in the midst of one of the most controversial administrations in recent history. McMaster is one of the most distinguished and rightly heralded soldier-scholars of his generation. Introduction: Defending the Free World in the Post-Trump Era So, I think we have to remain engaged and, as I mentioned, militarily, but also diplomatically and among partners who are working together to secure all humanity from these jihadist terrorists.1. Well, we know what happened on September 11, 2001. And under the Bill Clinton administration, we fired a few cruise missiles and called it a day. Then they committed the first World Trade Center bombings, the truck bombing, and then they attacked our embassies. Remember, Nick, in 1998, right, al-Qaida had already declared war on us earlier in that decade. And I think that sustaining the effort is certainly in our interest. And the reason why we haven't seen massive attacks on our soil is because our forces have been engaged against them.Īnd these terrorist organizations have to worry about their own security more than they can worry about what they're going to do to us next. I mean, it's economical for us, actually.Īnd it's very important, I think, Nick, to recognize that these groups, many of them are more dangerous today than they were on September 10, 2001. ![]() Well, I would ask, obviously, the officials who know better.īut I think what's really important is, if you just look at the math of it, of the small forces that we have, highly capable forces, extremely courageous service men and women who operate with partners, and compare that small number to the large number of force that you can now access to fight against these terrorist organizations, I think it's a win for us. forces are lower in number than the rest of the coalition that are supporting the Afghan forces these days. And I think they're worthy of our support.Īnd when I say our support, it's the U.S. About 30 Afghan soldiers or police give their lives every day fighting these groups. ![]() What we do need to support are those who are bearing the brunt of the fight. I mean, the American people don't need to support that. So, I mean, the argument that I would make, Nick, is not for hundreds of thousands of troops in the region. And it is this terrorist ecosystem that exists between Afghanistan and Pakistan that poses a grave threat, because it gives these groups the ability to recruit, train, plan, organize, and also to fund their mass murder attacks against all civilized people. It's - we know that it was the safe haven and support base in Afghanistan. And we should remember, hey, it's not a theoretical case, right? Well, Nick, it's difficult to prove a negative.īut I would say that our sustained commitment abroad has - is what has prevented jihadist terrorists from committing another attack on the scale of 9/11.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |