#15 - Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones

The day after President Trump announced the section of Army Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster as his National Security Advisor, I said it was win for all of us.  I made that statement based on two early data points which had come out in the news. First, he was well respected by individuals on both sides of the aisle, and, second, because he had written a book for taking the military to task for aspects of its public posture during the Vietnam War (which, as a teen in the sixties, made me very happy) .  

I have since learned that McMaster's work began as his dissertation at UNC, which he would then publish as a book, when  he was a just a Major at the time.  McMaster concluded that the Joint Chiefs had been so focused on their own self interests of their different services, that they never properly pressed their opposition to the gradual escalation strategy favored by President Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara. 

Retired general David Petraeus would later bring the book to General Hugh H. Shelton when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs in 1997. Shelton said  “It is a valuable resource for leaders of any organization,’’ and made it required reading for all of his staff. 

There are two lessons here, the first that one individual would be thoughtful enough to study history and come to a different conclusion than the prevailing wisdom at the time.  The second was that others in the military want to learn by any mistakes of the past, so they don't repeat those mistakes. These are the strengths of our military which go beyond the number of F-16s and nuclear bombs in our weapons arsenal.

Learning more about this individual who was now tasked with the security of our nation, I was now sure that President Trump had made a solid choice for an extremely important position. 

But there's more.  In his first week in office, McMaster told an all-hands staff meeting that he did not consider the term “radical Islamic terrorism’’ helpful, even as the president Trump continued using it on the same day and as he would continue to use it in a speech to Congress last night.  To describe the use of term in the most delicate way as "not helpful" shows that McMaster will make his thoughts and opinions known even if they run counter to the President, and more importantly, it shows that he has strong diplomatic skills as well, skills which should come in handy as he learns to negotiate the different factions growing within the Trump administration.  

The arguments to avoid the use of the term are (i) that using it denigrates an entire peace-loving religion, (ii) that it will cause some individuals, outside the religion, to blur the line between peace loving Muslims and radical ones, (iii) that peace living Muslims will feel abused  and disrespected themselves and be less cooperative in the battle against the radicals, and (iv) that the repeated use of the term from our president will only serve as propaganda for radicals wishing to recruit others to their demented way of thinking. 

The argument to proactively use the term is captured in a statement by Trump's first National Security Advisor, Micheal Flynn who said "You cannot defeat an enemy that you do not admit exists".  Trump himself has said "Anyone who cannot name or enemy is not fit to lead our country".  The credit for the use of the term pre-dates Trump and goes to other Republican rivals in the primary including Ted Cruz and to his own advisor, Steve Bannon and has been fostered by other conservative news outlets such as Fox News. 

In my way of thinking, the use of the term is just counterproductive. To be more blunt about it, I would say it's just childish, and I am reminded of an important lesson I learned as a child that  "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me".  The point is, if I am a terrorist, I'm not sitting in my hillside cave worrying about what name some orange-colored guy in a blue suit with an American flag pin on his lapel is calling me.   I do, however, have concerns about the sticks, the stones and other multi-ton munitions he may drop on my head.  

The fact that Trump's predecessors George W. Bush and Barack Obama both avoided the use of the term seems lost on him, but if I were permitted to offer advice to President Trump, I would suggest that he follow the lead of one of his well known heros, a man who he holds out to be a strong leader, who also never uses the phrase, Vladimir Putin.   Yes, its true.  Apparently Vlad had done the math and decided, with all he's got going in his world,  he didn't need to do anything to piss off 1.6 billion Muslims in the world.

Politically speaking, it is unrealistic to think that Trump would just immediately stop using the term, as it would be viewed as a broken promise to his supporters, but the hope is that over time, McMaster will coax him to just stop using the term, and eventually his supporters will lose focus on it, and it will become a non-issue.  Based on where Trump is in the evolution of his Presidency, I would be happy with this.  

I applaud President Trump for his most recent selection of H.R McMaster as his National Security Advisor.  It is my sincere hope that he will listen to McMaster's advice, specifically on the non-use of the controversial term and on other more important topics.  I believe it will be imperative to do so.  

It won't do anyone, any good if McMaster leaves the administration in frustration early and goes on to write a sequel to his first book, "Dereliction of Duty".