Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster recounts his challenging tour as national security adviser in the Trump White House in his book “At War with Ourselves: My Tour of Duty in the Trump White House.” McMaster describes meetings in the Oval Office as “exercises in competitive sycophancy” where advisers flatter Trump, who would make outlandish suggestions like bombing the drugs in Mexico or taking out the entire North Korean Army. McMaster’s account sheds light on Trump’s approach to foreign policy and is likely to raise concerns about the prospect of a second Trump term.
In a timely moment, Vice President Kamala Harris makes a case for her potential presidency by emphasizing her national security credentials. Harris speaks about the war in Gaza and affirms her support for Israel’s defense while also acknowledging the Palestinians’ rights to dignity, security, freedom, and self-determination. McMaster’s book provides unique insights into Trump’s tenure as commander-in-chief and serves as a cautionary tale about the challenges and dangers of working within the Trump administration.
McMaster’s dedication to his duty as national security adviser led him to confront Trump on sensitive issues like Russia, where he warned the president about Vladimir Putin’s manipulative tactics. Trump’s fragile ego and deep sense of aggrievement, however, prevented him from accepting contrary advice. McMaster’s public assertion of Russian election meddling at the Munich Security Forum ultimately led to his departure from the White House after Trump publicly criticized him on Twitter. McMaster’s account paints a negative picture of dysfunction within the Trump team, with conflicts and a lack of coherence on key foreign policy issues.
Despite his disagreements with Trump on certain issues, McMaster acknowledges the president’s sound decisions on matters like Syria and China. When Assad used chemical weapons in Syria, Trump responded decisively with airstrikes against the Syrian airbase. McMaster also credits Trump for taking a tough stance on China, emphasizing their theft of US intellectual property and their military buildup. However, McMaster’s shifting perspective on Trump after the attack on the US Capitol raises concerns about the potential consequences of a second Trump term, particularly in terms of national security and the administration’s approach to key foreign policy challenges.
As the prospect of a second Trump term looms, McMaster’s account raises questions about the role of loyalty versus expertise in national security decision-making. Projects like Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, aimed at replacing career officials with Trump loyalists, could undermine the traditional role of national security professionals in providing unbiased assessments to the president. Without figures like McMaster to offer contrarian views, the risk of groupthink and serving the president’s interests over the country’s national security priorities is heightened. As Americans contemplate the implications of another Trump presidency, McMaster’s insights serve as a warning about the importance of integrity and professionalism in national security decision-making.
