Follow us on social

Shutterstock_687998731-scaled

HR McMaster scorns endless war 'mantra' while pushing for endless war

The former general joins a chorus of calls to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely with broad assumptions that there will be no costs.

Analysis | Reporting | Global Crises

Amid the tragic scenes of the swift Taliban takeover of Afghanistan’s capital after the U.S. military withdrawal, mainstream American media outlets have tossed nuance and sober analysis aside and instead turned hysterical, seemingly incapable of distinguishing between the limits of U.S. military power and their understandable desires to help the Afghan people. 

As part of that campaign, news outlets have been promoting the very people who were responsible for pushing the United States into this 20-year quagmire, along with their claims that the U.S. military should stay in Afghanistan indefinitely (in most cases without an examination of the costs that that course of action would entail).

In one of the more brazen examples, H.R. McMaster — a former U.S. Army lieutenant general who spent time as a senior military official in Afghanistan and served at one point as Donald Trump’s national security adviser —   blasted the decision to withdraw from Afghanistan on CNN Monday while calling for the U.S. military to remain there indefinitely. 

“And what's so sad … [is that] it was a sustainable level of commitment, right, this ‘end the endless wars’ mantra,” he said, deriding those who want to end our forever wars. But then in his very next breath, McMaster proposed staying in Afghanistan forever to prop up an endless conflict. “You're talking about 3,500 troops or maybe 8,000 troops. I mean, it really doesn't matter that we’re enabling the Afghans to bear the brunt of the fight.” 

Of course there was no discussion of what that proposal might cost the American or Afghan people.

But recall that McMaster himself, almost a decade ago, provided a rosy assessment of the situation in Afghanistan, all while seeming to acknowledge the permanent roadblock toward stability there: rampant corruption. 

"Our soldiers, airmen, Marines and sailors, working alongside Afghans, have shut down the vast majority of the physical space in which the enemy can operate," McMaster said during an interview with the Wall Street Journal in May 2012. "The question is, how do we consolidate those gains politically and psychologically?"

Later in the interview, McMaster identified the key problem with consolidating military gains, noting that Afghan officials in Kabul were “robbing Afghanistan of much-needed revenue, undermining rule of law, degrading the effectiveness of state institutions, and eroding popular confidence in the government."

But it’s not just McMaster. David Petraeus — former commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan who would later get caught sharing classified information with his mistress — argued on CNN this week that Afghanistan “was not Vietnam,” and called for a “sustained commitment” there. Petraeus didn’t elaborate on how long that commitment would extend, but comments he made to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction in 2017 suggest that he knows there would be no end date. “I told Congress we wouldn’t be able to flip [Afghanistan] the way we flipped Iraq,” he said. “I had no expectation that we would be able to flip [Afghanistan].”

Cable news this week has featured a cacophony of calls for the U.S. military to remain indefinitely in Afghanistan under the assumption that there would be no substantial cost to doing so. Pundits have pointed to the relatively quiet U.S. military presence there for the past year and a half, forgetting that the Doha peace deal with the Taliban was largely responsible for absence of American casualties or omitting the fact that the war between the Afghan military and security forces and the Taliban was actually intensifying.

National security advisrr H. R. McMaster addresses the press during the White House daily briefing, Friday, May 12, 2017. Photo: Michael Candelori via shutterstock.com
Analysis | Reporting | Global Crises
Will US troops have to  go to war for Mohammed bin Salman? (VIDEO)
Biden's Saudi War Obligation

Will US troops have to go to war for Mohammed bin Salman? (VIDEO)

Video Section

Even as the war in Gaza rages on and the death toll surpasses 35,000, the Biden administration appears set on pursuing its vision of a Saudi-Israeli normalization deal that it sees as the path to peace in the Middle East.

But, the agreement that the administration is selling as a peace agreement that will put Palestine on the path to statehood and fundamentally transform the region ultimately amounts to a U.S. war obligation for Saudi Arabia that would also give Mohammed bin Salman nuclear technology.

keep readingShow less
Following a largely preordained election, Vladimir Putin was sworn in last week for another six-year term as president of Russia. Putin’s victory has, of course, been met with accusations of fraud and political interference, factors that help explain his 87.3% vote share.   If this continuation of Putin’s 24-year-long hold on power makes one thing clear, it’s that he and his regime will not be going anywhere for the foreseeable future. But, as his war in Ukraine continues with no clear end in sight, what is less clear is how Washington plans to deal with this reality.  Experts say Washington needs to start projecting a long-term strategy toward Russia and its war in Ukraine, wielding its political leverage to apply pressure on Putin and push for more diplomacy aimed at ending the conflict. Only by looking beyond short-term solutions can Washington realistically move the needle in Ukraine.  Since Russia’s full-scale invasion, the U.S. has focused on getting aid to Ukraine to help it win back all of its pre-2014 territory, a goal complicated by Kyiv’s systemic shortages of munitions and manpower. But that response neglects a more strategic approach to the war, according to Andrew Weiss of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who spoke in a recent panel hosted by Carnegie.   “There is a vortex of emergency planning that people have been, unfortunately, sucked into for the better part of two years since the intelligence first arrived in the fall of 2021,” Weiss said. “And so the urgent crowds out the strategic.”   Historian Stephen Kotkin, for his part, says preserving Ukraine’s sovereignty is critical. However, the apparent focus on regaining territory, pushed by the U.S., is misguided.   “Wars are never about regaining territory. It's about the capacity to fight and the will to fight. And if Russia has the capacity to fight and Ukraine takes back territory, Russia won't stop fighting,” Kotkin said in a podcast on the Wall Street Journal.  And it appears Russia does have the capacity. The number of troops and weapons at Russia’s disposal far exceeds Ukraine’s, and Russian leaders spend twice as much on defense as their Ukrainian counterparts. Ukraine will need a continuous supply of aid from the West to continue to match up to Russia. And while aid to Ukraine is important, Kotkin says, so is a clear plan for determining the preferred outcome of the war.  The U.S. may be better served by using the significant political leverage it has over Russia to shape a long-term outcome in its favor.   George Beebe of the Quincy Institute, which publishes Responsible Statecraft, says that Russia’s primary concerns and interests do not end with Ukraine. Moscow is fundamentally concerned about the NATO alliance and the threat it may pose to Russian internal stability. Negotiations and dialogue about the bounds and limits of NATO and Russia’s powers, therefore, are critical to the broader conflict.   This is a process that is not possible without the U.S. and Europe. “That means by definition, we have some leverage,” Beebe says.   To this point, Kotkin says the strength of the U.S. and its allies lies in their political influence — where they are much more powerful than Russia — rather than on the battlefield. Leveraging this influence will be a necessary tool in reaching an agreement that is favorable to the West’s interests, “one that protects the United States, protects its allies in Europe, that preserves an independent Ukraine, but also respects Russia's core security interests there.”  In Kotkin’s view, this would mean pushing for an armistice that ends the fighting on the ground and preserves Ukrainian sovereignty, meaning not legally acknowledging Russia’s possession of the territory they have taken during the war. Then, negotiations can proceed.   Beebe adds that a treaty on how conventional forces can be used in Europe will be important, one that establishes limits on where and how militaries can be deployed. “[Russia] need[s] some understanding with the West about what we're all going to agree to rule out in terms of interference in the other's domestic affairs,” Beebe said.     Critical to these objectives is dialogue with Putin, which Beebe says Washington has not done enough to facilitate. U.S. officials have stated publicly that they do not plan to meet with Putin.    The U.S. rejected Putin’s most statements of his willingness to negotiate, which he expressed in an interview with Tucker Carlson in February, citing skepticism that Putin has any genuine intentions of ending the war. “Despite Mr. Putin’s words, we have seen no actions to indicate he is interested in ending this war. If he was, he would pull back his forces and stop his ceaseless attacks on Ukraine,” a spokesperson for the White House’s National Security Council said in response.   But neither side has been open to serious communication. Biden and Putin haven’t met to engage in meaningful talks about the war since it began, their last meeting taking place before the war began in the summer of 2021 in Geneva. Weiss says the U.S. should make it clear that those lines of communication are open.   “Any strategy that involves diplomatic outreach also has to be sort of undergirded by serious resolve and a sense that we're not we're not going anywhere,” Weiss said.  An end to the war will be critical to long-term global stability. Russia will remain a significant player on the world stage, Beebe explains, considering it is the world’s largest nuclear power and a leading energy producer. It is therefore ultimately in the U.S. and Europe’s interests to reach a relationship “that combines competitive and cooperative elements, and where we find a way to manage our differences and make sure that they don't spiral into very dangerous military confrontation,” he says.    As two major global superpowers, the U.S. and Russia need to find a way to share the world. Only genuine, long-term planning can ensure that Washington will be able to shape that future in its best interests.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (R) shakes hands with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden during their meeting in Moscow March 10, 2011. REUTERS/Alexander Natruskin/File Photo
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (R) shakes hands with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden during their meeting in Moscow March 10, 2011. REUTERS/Alexander Natruskin/File Photo

Playing the long game with Putin

Europe

Following a largely preordained election, Vladimir Putin was sworn in last week for another six-year term as president of Russia. Putin’s victory has, of course, been met with accusations of fraud and political interference, factors that help explain his 87.3% vote share.

If this continuation of Putin’s 24-year-long hold on power makes one thing clear, it’s that he and his regime will not be going anywhere for the foreseeable future. But, as his war in Ukraine continues with no clear end in sight, what is less clear is how Washington plans to deal with this reality.

keep readingShow less
Georgia bill passes: Why the West needs to stay out of the protests

Demonstration at Georgia's Parliament in Tbilisi on May 12, 2024, the night before the vote on a law on foreign influence. (Maxime Gruss / Hans Lucas via Reuters)

Georgia bill passes: Why the West needs to stay out of the protests

Europe

Mass protests are roiling the Republic of Georgia as tens of thousands have taken to the streets against a proposed bill by the Georgian government on “foreign influence” that has worsened tension in an already polarized Georgian society.

That bill was passed Tuesday after turmoil in which punches were actually thrown between lawmakers on the parliament floor.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

Latest