PDF Summary:At War with Ourselves, by H. R. McMaster

In At War with Ourselves, H. R. McMaster gives an inside look at the inner workings of the Trump administration's national security decision-making. He describes the chaotic atmosphere, power struggles, and his efforts to establish an orderly policy process while serving as National Security Advisor.

McMaster provides insights into developing America's strategies for dealing with major national security challenges, such as China's growing power, Russia's destabilizing actions, North Korea's nuclear ambitions, and instability across the Middle East. The summary sheds light on his resolute push to protect the independence of the National Security Council amidst the White House's infighting and efforts to undermine its authority.

(continued)...

McMaster's team developed comprehensive national security strategies that elevated U.S. influence and pushed back against revisionist powers, even as Trump's own impulses sometimes pulled in the opposite direction.

McMaster delves into the development of lasting approaches to tackle the most pressing issues facing the United States. Despite Trump's apparent disinterest in historical context and his tendency to ask questions rather than conduct thorough analyses of issues, he was energized by the opportunity to question the conventional approaches to China's behavior in the Indo-Pacific, to confront Russia's aggressive tactics in Ukraine, and to address North Korea's progression of dangerous weapons. McMaster explores the challenges he and his team faced in trying to align the unpredictable tendencies of the administration and to steer clear of the hazards of "pink flamingos," which he describes as obvious threats and trends that were overlooked by past administrations, including China's rapid expansion of its military might and its assertive efforts to position itself as the dominant global force, consequently eroding the influence and alliances of the United States.

McMaster endeavored to strengthen relationships with partners and allies, recognizing their crucial importance in advancing the interests of the United States, which had previously experienced challenges.

H. R. McMaster was convinced that addressing the critical challenges of the 21st century, which include countering authoritarian aggression and fostering the growth of free societies in a stable and peaceful environment, necessitated the promotion of collaboration among allies. McMaster saw Trump's atypical stance on matters such as the financial obligations of NATO as an opportunity to accelerate the achievement of his objective to strengthen partnerships, enhance relations with nations that hold similar values, and create joint plans to reach common objectives.

Other Perspectives

• While McMaster may have worked to maintain independence, some critics argue that the nature of his role required him to align closely with the President's vision, potentially compromising his ability to be fully independent.
• The coherence of the strategies developed under McMaster's guidance could be questioned, as some analysts suggest that the Trump administration's foreign policy was often seen as unpredictable or inconsistent.
• There is debate over whether Trump's policies truly aligned with US national interests, as some critics argue that certain policies may have been more influenced by the President's personal beliefs or political agenda rather than strategic national interests.
• The effectiveness of McMaster's protection of the National Security Council's decision-making process is subject to scrutiny, with some suggesting that the Council still faced significant political pressure and interference.
• The assertion that McMaster's efforts led to substantial changes in US foreign policy could be challenged by those who believe the changes were more a continuation of previous policies or were less significant than claimed.
• The claim that McMaster's team developed comprehensive strategies to elevate US influence might be contested by those who argue that the strategies were not effectively implemented or did not have the intended impact.
• The effort to strengthen relationships with partners and allies under McMaster's guidance could be criticized by those who feel that the Trump administration's approach to international relations strained some of these relationships.

The Trump administration faced significant challenges related to national security and ongoing turmoil with countries including China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, in addition to sustained strife across the Middle East.

The book by McMaster examines the key national security issues that emerged during the early years of Trump's presidency and outlines the strategies and measures developed to tackle these issues. The work by H.R. McMaster scrutinizes the factors that prompted the United States to shift from a policy of conversation and cooperation to one of competition with China and Russia. He describes the strategy his group adopted to develop long-lasting, feasible, and cost-effective actions to reduce the threat from extremist militants and to restrain the aggressive tendencies of Iran. He underscores the challenges the United States encounters when addressing threats from distinct nations, such as the isolated and dictatorial North Korea, which maintains a nuclear armament.

McMaster and his team formulated robust approaches to mitigate the assertive economic maneuvers, military expansion, and initiatives by China aimed at altering the global hierarchy to its advantage.

In his book, McMaster underscores the consensus among the administration's leaders that the ascent of China's power and influence constitutes an unprecedented national security challenge for the United States in contemporary times. McMaster scrutinizes the development of strategic responses aimed at mitigating perceived economic aggression from China, as well as other harmful actions, which included bolstering a significant military presence and the CCP's intensified efforts to create a worldwide pecking order with China at the pinnacle. They exercised particular caution regarding China's attempts to alter global trade regulations to benefit a state-controlled economic system, a system that threatens the core principles of free-market economies and seeks dominance in key industries, all under the governance of Beijing's ruling political party.

The government implemented a more assertive approach to counteract the aggressive economic tactics, cyber spying efforts, and methods of regional coercion originating from China's capital.

The Trump administration abandoned the prior administration's hopeful anticipation that China's economic growth would lead to increased openness and collaboration. During the discussions at the presidential retreat and the subsequent official trip to the Chinese capital, focus frequently returned to the manner in which China capitalized on the United States' benevolent and cooperative actions to advance its own strategic interests, thereby posing a threat to the wealth and safety of America. The conviction that the United States needed to adopt a competitive posture towards China steered President Trump's decisions. The government took decisive measures to address the major trade deficit with China, put a stop to the cyber attacks on American companies, and counteract China's aggressive economic and military endeavors in the South China Sea.

McMaster underscored the necessity of bolstering partnerships with countries like Japan and India as a strategic measure to mitigate China's expanding sway across the Indo-Pacific territory.

McMaster concentrated on fortifying and expanding partnerships with nations in proximity to the Indian and Pacific Oceans, such as Japan and other regional players who were growing wary of the CCP's intent to disrupt the existing order and its heightened assertiveness in economic and military matters, in reaction to the global challenge that China's actions presented to free societies and the international system. McMaster viewed the establishment of the Quadrilateral framework in 2004, which included Australia, along with Japan, the United States, and India, as an essential instrument for strengthening alliances and coordinating actions to avert conflict and tackle diverse issues. McMaster believed that by bolstering relationships and improving the capabilities of nations sharing similar values, the Trump administration could have paved the way for a future that was both safer and more affluent in the swiftly evolving region, thus deterring conflict through a shift in the balance of regional power.

The administration sought to impose severe costs on Russia for its destabilizing actions, from election interference to the invasion of Ukraine, while leaving the door open for selective cooperation.

McMaster scrutinizes the Trump administration's dichotomy of striving to enhance relations with Putin's Russia while recognizing the imperative of vigilance against Russian aspirations. He underscores the imperative of levying significant sanctions on Russia for its destabilizing activities, which include cyber attacks targeting the electoral infrastructure of the United States and its allies, the illegal annexation of Crimea, and its support for the Assad government amid the Syrian conflict, in addition to its 2014 military foray into Eastern Ukraine. McMaster details the strategic posture adopted during the tenure of the previous administration, highlighting the need for alertness in the face of Russian aggression under Putin, the necessity to thwart Moscow's intensifying attempts to undermine international stability, the significance of bolstering the defense of the United States and its partners, and the recognition of the importance of preserving avenues for cooperation in spheres advantageous to American interests.

McMaster supported providing Ukraine with defensive weaponry and called for intensified sanctions, even as Trump remained doubtful.

McMaster contended that the ongoing hostile actions of Russia towards Ukraine and its neighbors are likely to persist, and he held the view that any conciliatory agreements with Russia must be predicated on the cessation of its harmful activities, a stance that sharply diverges from the hopeful anticipation that building a friendlier relationship with Putin could lead to a better resolution of security concerns. McMaster believed that Trump's tendency to downplay Russia's actions by equating them morally with those of others, as well as his affinity for authoritarian leaders, impeded efforts to prevent further Russian aggression. President Trump saw Putin as a possible ally and was reluctant to approve the supply of advanced anti-tank weaponry to Ukraine. McMaster effectively argued to Trump that the benefits of supplying Ukraine with Javelins surpassed the possible risks. His argument suggests that signs of vulnerability are more likely to encourage Putin than signs of strength are to dissuade him.

The incident involving the poisoning of Skripal on British soil highlighted the Trump administration's difficulty in balancing its desire for better ties with Russia against the necessity to check its aggressive behavior.

The 2018 episode in which a covert operative in England was attacked with a banned chemical substance highlighted the challenges McMaster faced in guiding Trump toward a uniform stance on the Kremlin's actions. Intelligence agencies in the US, the UK, and other nations were in agreement regarding Russia's responsibility, yet the president was reluctant to take decisive action against Moscow, such as expelling diplomats and imposing economic sanctions. McMaster recognized the importance of demonstrating that a strong response to the nerve agent attack was essential to deter further aggressive actions by Russia. In collaborating with partners, McMaster emphasized to Trump that showing weakness might incite aggression, and although some allies were eager to work together, others appeared ready to acquiesce to Putin's requirements and appease him.

The administration under Trump adopted a strategy of applying considerable force to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear weaponry, though there were some instances of inconsistency in its application.

The Trump administration, from the outset, recognized North Korea’s growing missile and nuclear capabilities as one of its most difficult and pressing problems. McMaster discusses the transition from the Obama administration's strategy, which was less inclined to intervene and unintentionally allowed North Korea to enhance its arsenal of formidable weapons, to the Trump administration's approach that, in collaboration with allies, imposed tough sanctions on Pyongyang to communicate that the risks associated with having such weapons outweighed any potential benefits.

McMaster was instrumental in crafting a comprehensive strategy that combined economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and the preparedness for military action, which persuaded the leader of North Korea to initiate conversations.

McMaster and his team believed that historically, China had not made significant efforts to sway Pyongyang, even while Tillerson was seeking their assistance to persuade North Korea to enter into talks. In his strategy, McMaster highlighted the importance of unified diplomatic actions aimed at marginalizing the government, as well as enforcing economic restrictions designed to disrupt North Korea's financial support for its military and weapons initiatives. This was coupled with conspicuous demonstrations of military readiness, signaling the United States' willingness to resort to military action if necessary, in reaction to Kim's continuous progression and trials of armaments.

Maintaining a unified front was essential, and this required strong collaboration with South Korea and Japan, even though the unpredictability of the US administration sometimes threatened to undermine this unity.

The strategy of applying considerable force on North Korea hinged on the robust partnership and joint actions of the United States, South Korea, and Japan. Working closely with his South Korean and Japanese peers, McMaster frequently faced difficulties in aligning their strategies due to differing perspectives on the intentions of the North Korean leader and the optimal approaches for interaction. McMaster examines the concern in South Korea that adopting a strong stance against North Korea might lead to heightened hostility, and he notes that South Korean President Moon Jae-in sought to improve relations with the dictator despite growing evidence of the severe tribulations endured by Otto Warmbier, an American student who died after enduring abuse at the hands of the North Korean authorities. McMaster also expressed disapproval of Trump's spontaneous social media updates, describing the combined military exercises with South Korea as provocatively excessive, redundant, and a financial burden.

The administration took a tougher stance against Iran's regional aggression and support for terrorism, withdrawing from the nuclear deal and imposing new sanctions.

The approach of the Trump administration marked a significant shift from the more conciliatory tactics of its predecessor toward Iran's governing theocracy. In his book, McMaster discusses the development of a strategy towards Iran, challenging the idea that the previous administration's approach had moderated the regime's behavior, and highlights that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was a unique compromise that enabled the regime to finance its militant allies and support terrorism throughout the region, while also hastening the advancement of its ballistic capabilities.

McMaster argued that a comprehensive strategy was crucial to effectively counter the danger, considering that the nuclear agreement failed to curb Tehran's harmful activities.

McMaster was of the opinion that the JCPOA was predicated on the erroneous belief that Iran would discontinue its unwavering backing of groups like Hezbollah, restrain its aspirations to intimidate or topple neighboring Arab nations, and forsake its ongoing vows to annihilate Israel following the receipt of economic relief and the release of assets valued at more than a hundred billion dollars. McMaster's team led a comprehensive effort across various government agencies to develop a lasting strategy intended to weaken the regime's influence and shift the balance of power in the region to benefit the United States and its partners.

Efforts by the administration to curb Iran's provocations, including the removal of Soleimani, were intended to serve as a deterrent, yet the unpredictable manner in which the President reacted to specific attacks diminished the intended effect of these measures.

The Trump administration's implementation of tough economic and diplomatic actions against Iran's allies in nations like Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, and Afghanistan demonstrated America's resolve and was part of a strategy designed to persuade Iran's leaders to consent to a more advantageous agreement. McMaster underscored the necessity for a consistent strategy of deterrence to avert further aggressive acts by Iran or its surrogate terrorist groups, thus ensuring America's allies of the United States' resolute dedication to combating terrorism and impeding Iran's supremacy in the area. The decision not to retaliate against Iranian troops and their associates initially sent ambiguous signals, but this stance was overturned when Qasem Soleimani, the IRGC military commander, along with his deputy overseeing militia activities in Iraq, were killed in Baghdad on January 3, 2020.

The government's strategy was to reduce tensions in Afghanistan and Syria, protecting vital interests of the United States, but the unpredictable actions of the President opened doors for adversaries.

When Trump took office, he was resolute in his decision to disengage the United States from the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East that had ensued since the September 11th events. His viewpoint on the turmoil in Iraq and Syria was shaped by skepticism about the reliability of partners, a firm stance against nation-building and the promotion of democracy, and a significant aversion to extended foreign engagements. McMaster faced the difficult task of reconciling the president's preference for a swift withdrawal of troops with the essential task of protecting core values and interests vital to the United States' lasting stability and prosperity.

McMaster was committed to developing an adaptable approach in Afghanistan to prevent the country from becoming a haven for terrorist groups again.

McMaster shared the President's concerns regarding the situation in Afghanistan, but he insisted that persistent involvement was crucial to prevent the Taliban from regaining strength and to stop the establishment of a haven for terrorists that might threaten the safety of Americans worldwide. He deemed it crucial to convey to the Taliban through the pullout from Afghanistan that their victory through armed conflict was unattainable and to impose repercussions on Pakistan's military and intelligence leaders, who were the main supporters of the Taliban. When Trump endorsed the strategy in August 2017, it was characterized by a sense of uncertainty.

McMaster's endeavor to maintain US presence in Syria in order to limit Iranian influence and prevent the resurgence of ISIS was undermined by Trump's preference for pulling out troops.

H. R. McMaster, in concordance with the leaders of the state and defense departments, believed it was essential for the United States to sustain a substantial and lasting involvement in the conflict in Syria. The president's inclination to acquiesce to the desires of Turkish and Russian leaders, who eagerly took advantage of the situation created by the U.S. pullout, added layers of complexity to the scenario, despite his endorsement of a clear strategic approach to the conflict. McMaster emphasized the need for U.S. forces to adopt a more assertive stance rather than merely providing support in a conflict crucial to America's regional interests.

Other Perspectives

• The assertion that the Trump administration's approach to China was necessary might be criticized for potentially escalating tensions rather than seeking diplomatic solutions.
• The strategy towards Russia, particularly the provision of defensive weapons to Ukraine, could be seen as provocative and possibly exacerbating the conflict rather than leading to a resolution.
• The administration's approach to North Korea, emphasizing military readiness, could be criticized for risking escalation rather than exploring more peaceful avenues of negotiation.
• The withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) can be viewed as a step back from international consensus and diplomacy, potentially isolating the U.S. from its allies and undermining non-proliferation efforts.
• The administration's tough stance on Iran might be criticized for lacking a clear path to a diplomatic solution and risking further destabilization in the Middle East.
• The strategy in Afghanistan, particularly the continued military presence, could be criticized for not addressing the underlying political and social issues that contribute to the region's instability.
• The decision to maintain a U.S. presence in Syria could be seen as an overextension of U.S. military involvement without a clear endgame or benefit to U.S. interests.
• The overall portrayal of the Trump administration's foreign policy might be criticized for being overly favorable and not accounting for the complexities and potential long-term consequences of its actions.