McMaster Testifies on Global Security

Lt. General H.R. McMaster served as National Security Advisor, following a 34 year career as West Point graduated officer in the United States Army. He recently testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. The New York Analysis of Policy and Government provides key excerpts:

Thank you for the privilege of discussing global security challenges and how the United States, alongside our allies and partners, might overcome those challenges, preserve peace through strength, promote prosperity, and secure a better future for generations of Americans to come.

…Thirty years ago almost to the day, I had the privilege of commanding Eagle troop of the Second Armored Cavalry Regiment at the Battle of 73 Easting. During an intense twenty-three-minute assault across four kilometers of heavily defended ground, our 132 troopers equipped with nine Abrams tanks and twelve Bradley Fighting Vehicles destroyed a brigade of the Iraqi Republican Guard without suffering casualties.

Senator Sam Nunn, who as you know rendered extraordinary service to our nation as a senator, member of this committee, and its chairman, invited me to testify as a captain alongside retired U.S. Army General Paul Gorman to explain our cavalry troop’s lopsided victory in the Gulf War, a war that was full of lopsided victories. I thanked the committee for giving our troop, our Army and our entire joint force the weapons that allowed us to overmatch the fourth largest Army in the world and prove wrong pre-war predictions of massive American casualties. But General Gorman and I stressed the less tangible sources of our force’s combat prowess and in particular the training, military education, and leader development that were foundational to forging confident, cohesive teams bound together by our warrior ethos, an ethos based on honor, courage, respect and a willingness to sacrifice for one another and the mission.

What might be effective for somebody may well not levitra canada pharmacy be effective for you and others. This will help them to purchase viagra attain strong erections and hold them too during the sexual activity. It could be caused by some physical problems such as premature ejaculation, weak erections, impotency, low volume of semen, frequent nocturnal viagra online france emissions etc. Treatment: If https://unica-web.com/members/russie.html online cialis pills we talk about treatment for erectile dysfunction, from physical problems to emotional issues, but luckily for sufferers, solutions are easy to come by.

It is that same ethos that has allowed our small volunteer military to sustain combat operations across the first two decades of this century after the most devastating terrorist attack in history took the lives of nearly 3,000 innocents on September 11, 2001. The warrior ethos is foundational to combat power and to the sacred covenant that bonds servicemen and women to one another and to those in whose name we fight. With the support of this committee, General Gorman and other leaders of his generation strengthened that ethos as they led a renaissance in our all-volunteer joint force after the Vietnam War, a renaissance based on improved training, education, doctrine, organization, equipment and quality of recruits.

Our joint force is a living historical community in which today’s leaders are charged with building on the legacy of excellence inherited from those who have gone before them. Today’s leaders, like those of General Gorman’s and my generation, will continue to rely on this committee to help them preserve the warrior ethos and fulfill their responsibilities to the servicemen and women of today and generations to come.

We live in a dangerous time because our confidence appears eroded as the global pandemic catalyzes challenges to American security, prosperity, and influence in the world. I describe some of those challenges in my statement for the record and suggest ways that we might overcome them and secure a better future for generations of Americans to come.

In general, we must overcome our narcissistic view of the world and stop assuming that what we decide to do or not do is decisive to achieving a favorable outcome. We need to adopt a non-partisan long-term approach to foreign policy focused on competitions important to our nation’s security, prosperity, and influence in the world. And we must ground our national security and defense strategies in the reality that rivals, adversaries, and enemies are unlikely to conform to our preferences.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.