Talk:H. R. McMaster

McMaster's promotion
I don't know whether or not this makes the part about McMaster being passed over for promotion obsolete, but word in Army circles is that the latest promotions board selected him for promotion to Brigadier General. For citation, check Washington Post, May 15, 2008 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/14/AR2008051403366.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.241.78 (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. 199.184.238.231 (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And, as it happens, he's taking the advanced interservices joint course right now which is a prerequisite for the promotion (which is why he got to be on Charlie Rose a few days ago - he's not in Iraq right now, but in Virginia). However, that's not confirmation that he actually was promoted.  Someone (Petreus) got him off his duty in Iraq and out to the course.  Presumably there's a reason.  However, that's speculation...  We'll see.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not see how it is possible that this year was his last chance to be promoted. He was commissioned in 1984, meaning he was selected for BG with 24 years service. An 0-6 can stay on active duty until 30 years service. Most 0-7s are selected in the 26th year of commissioned service. BazdMeg14 (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In any case, the secn needs to be rewrit. The only function, since 15 July, for
 * A May 15, 2008 article in the Washington Post speculating about the 2008 promotions list stated that McMaster will be promoted on this year's list, the final year he is eligible for promotion to brigadier general. The 2008 list was not officially announced at its usual springtime deadline and remained the subject of widespread speculation for several months.
 * or mention of the blown deadline is to violate SYNTH by insinuating the controversy over him was the primary reason for the delay. I've removed it to here, and struck "finally". If mainstream journalists insinuate that, then provide refs and rewrite as "mainstream journalists report that...". Their views on why his promotion was resisted should also be of interest. --Jerzy•t 06:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thesis
I found
 * It alleges that U.S. military leaders of that era did not fulfill their constitutional duty to adequately challenge Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and President Lyndon Johnson's deeply flawed military strategy.

but Constn grants powers, and limits powers, but imposes no duties (other than for the Pres to deliver the State of the Union Address) AFAICan see, nor even anything that could be called a "constitutional oath". I assume the oath they do take requires defense of the Constn, so he might have argued that the chain of command of the 101st Airborne violated their oaths, when it was deployed to Washington to deny the right of the people to petition the government for redress of grievances related to the war. But it would be bizarre to choose "flawed strategy" as the way of describing that, so it's hard to imagine what he could reasonably have said, that would support the description above. I am replacing with
 * It harshly criticizes high-ranking officers of that era, charging they inadequately challenged Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and President Lyndon Johnson's military strategy.

We deserve something stronger, but adequately ref'ed. --Jerzy•t 06:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

May I please have a address to write to Herbert Ramond McMaster U.S. army.Thank you.my email is 1kathymom@gmail.com Kathleen Graham (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Promotion List details
For the record, pasted below is the 15 July 2008 Official Army Brigadier General Selection Announcement which contains COL McMaster's name. I would also note that the Selectee Profile contained in the announcement states the following: YEAR GROUP MOST RECENT: 1986 PREDOMINANT: 1982 EARLIEST: 1978

In that COL McMaster is Year Group 1984, it would appear he was selected two years ahead of the Predominant Selectees. Only a typical Washington Post New York Times reporter who knows nothing of the military would characterize this as being "passed Over" for promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.199.18 (talk) 06:15 & :19, 14 August 2008
 * The misplaced content that followed the preceding misplaced & unsighed contrib is now at /Prom'n List. --Jerzy•t 23:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The question of whether the Post author of Army's Next Crop of Generals Forged in Counterinsurgency (who accurately forecast not only McM's promotion, but Tovo's and MacFarland's in that article -- whose citation i removed as obsolete), or the NYT reporter we currently cite, are sufficiently specialized to do the subject justice, is worth a search for a mainstream critique of at least the latter writer (who actually wrote "passed over"). In any case, one of the reasons we don't do OR (as by interpreting the stats of the list) is that it's not feasible for WP to muster the perspective needed. My dict collection doesn't offer insight into what constitutes "passed over", but i have three thots:
 * I can't rule out a weak sense of "not chosen tho eligible".
 * The frequent sense of "not chosen, signaling that career advancement is over" may well be applicable when the officer is exceptional and prominent enough that the only plausible barrier to exceptional advancement is political defeat (whether inside or outside the service).
 * I'm glad, in view of what i perceive as the ambiguity of "passed over", that that was the NYT ' s term and not ours. I don't think we should scare-quote those two words, but maybe a direct quotation of a longer phrase is in order, especially if we can't find a second source that agrees with the term or clarifies its denotation.
 * --Jerzy•t 06:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that the number of "looks" promotion boards may take at a given candidate officer before the zone, in the zone, and after the zone are limited (by law) - one can run out of looks without hitting the mandatory retirement age. I believe that this was what happened to McMaster, but I don't know that the NYT writer phrased it properly.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As a retired Army Colonel (O6) I must correct you. This is NOT correct for any promotion and there is NO Law about how many looks an officer gets by a promotion board. Once you are "Above the Zone," you are looked at every year until you reach your Mandatory Retirement Date or MRD. That is 20 yrs for a MAJ, 26 for a LTC and 30 for a COL. I sat 2 Major Boards and one Lieutenant Colonel Board so I know what I'm talking about. The ACC BG Boards looks at ALL Serving Colonels with one year in grade and more right up until an officer submits his retirement papers. As a matter of fact, the 2008 Board that Selected McMaster selected two officers from Year Group 1978, their Mandatory Retirement Date year. Whoever wrote this above comment obviously does NOT know much about the Army Promotion System.The-Expose-inator (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Date of Birth
HR McMaster was born July 24, 1962 ...not 1960  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.204.216 (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality?
This page has been tagged for NPOV; after reading it, I see--generally--verifible fact. Yes, it does read like an official bio cut down into a press release, but that's wordsmithing, not a NPOV issue. I recommend removing the tag, and will remove the tag barring any disagreement. MWShort (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What contoversy?
How can the article have a section called "Promotion Controversy," if that section isn't going to say anything about what's so controversial? This is lame.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

CFR
Should it be mentioned that McMaster is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations? Many politicians have a "membership" section in their WP bio, mentioning CFR membership among others. McMaster being a CFR member might be especially relevant since he's the first in Trump's administration to be, and only after a couple of reshuffles. The usual ratio for any administration would be something like 1/3, with posts like State, Defence, National Security etc. most likely covered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.228.22.176 (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Military Career
In 1991 the T-72 were not "grossly outdated T-62s and T-72s of the Soviet era".

Some of the T-72's were the 'export' models, some were somewhat better off. It is true none of them were the latest versions the Soviets had.

Do we need this much detail on the promotion issue?
has included several sentences about year group's and contemporaries. I removed it once, and he re-added it. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? I think it might be of interest to an Army personnel officer, but not the general reader. The-Expose-inator is clearly of the view that these details are helpful.

Specifically:


 * McMaster was selected by the FY08 Army Competitive Category Brigadier General Promotion Board. The results were released on 15 July 2008 and included in the release were the selectee demographics showing that the predominant Year Group selected was 1982. McMaster was the second officer in his 1984 West Point class select for general behind only William Rapp, another outstanding officer, and he was selected two years ahead of his Year Group 1984 contemporaries.

Maybe it's just me, so I figured I'd ask. Does anyone else care to weigh in? If anyone else has advice or suggestions, please share. I pinged those who made the most recent edits to the McMaster article.

Thanks,

Billmckern (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As a drive-by commenter, I find this level of detail to have the hallmarks of a short-shelf-life issue. The term which comes to mind, courtesy of Bernard Malamud, is pilpul. Unless there is a likelihood of this matter affecting his career as an adviser, we might as well omit it.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * -- It looks like AzureCitizen agreed with my assessment and removed the language I was questioning. I guess we'll see if this resolves the issue.


 * Thanks,


 * Billmckern (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Either leave it in to counter the myth that he was “passed over twice” or take out the entire paragraph and just state:

McMaster was selected by the FY08 Army Competitive Category Brigadier General Promotion Board and the results were released on 15 July 2008.

This “pass over” myth was started by Fred Kaplan in his New York Times Magazine article published 26 Aug 2007 entitled “Challenging the Generals” and a Slate article he wrote. I had several exchanges with him then and subsequently to educate him on the Army Competitive Category Brigadier General promotion process but, despite providing him indisputable evidence that McMaster was in fact promoted two years ahead of his contemporaries and was only the second member of his West Point Class of 1984 to be selected for general, Kaplan proved uneducable. In order to understand why he was not “passed over” for promotion, you need to understand the Army Competitive Category BG Promotion process. Unlike selection for colonel and below where there is a set primary, secondary and above zones, all colonels in grade for one year are technically eligible for consideration by the Brigadier General Board but are not seriously considered until they have enough OERs in their file to be evaluated and for Combat Arms officers that means successfully completing their 06 level command. The lasts thing the Army wants is to have someone come out on a BG Promotion List and later get relieved from command. . Hence, in the Army the term "passed over" is not used at the COL to BG promotion level. When the 2006 BG Promotion Board met, McMaster was still in command of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment so would not have been seriously considered and NO one from his Year Group 84 was selected that year anyway. The 2007 Board was the one that selected William Rapp, a truly outstanding Engineer Officer and McMaster’s ONLY classmate to be selected before him. McMaster was selected by the 2008 Board and, although he was Year Group 84, the predominant Year Group selected that year was 1982.

In that McMaster was the second officer in his entire West Point class to be selected for general officer and was two years ahead of his peers, that's pretty conclusive evidence that he was NOT “passed over” but I can provide copies of the 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 Promotion lists as well as the relevant GOMO General Officer Rosters to back up everything I’ve said. It was the 2010 list where the predominant selectee was McMaster’s Year Group 84.

Hence, either leave my edit in or remove most of the paragraph and put in my suggested replacement.The-Expose-inator (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Come on! I'm willing to debate whether the additional details on the promotion should be included -- I don't think they should, but like I said, I might be wrong. But the promotion pass over definitely happened.  Nagl wrote about it in Knife Fights. Tim Kaine wrote about it in Bleeding Talent.  Kaplan wrote about it again in The Insurgents.  Blake Hounshell wrote about it in this 2008 article: "H. R. McMaster gets his star". If it hadn't happened, I have to believe someone would have corrected the record before now.


 * Billmckern (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Then how do you explain the fact that he was only the second person in his entire West Point Class of 1984 promoted to general officer and that the predominant Year Group selected by the FY08 BG Board was 1982? YG84 did not become the predominant selectee Year Group until the 2010 BG Promotion list? Do you want me to send you the CSA 2008 Promotion announcement clearly stating that YG82 was the predominant selectee year group? Leaving in these two demonstrable FACTS simply puts context to the fact he was not selected by the 06 or 07 boards although he was "technically eligible" but definitely not seriously looked at.The-Expose-inator (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, how do you explain the fact that so many others have a point of view that's at variance with yours, including individuals with first hand knowledge? If they were mistaken or lying, wouldn't that have come to light before now?


 * Billmckern (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not calling anyone a liar, I'm just adding these additional indisputable FACTs to the conversation; McMaster was ONLY the second officer competitively selected for general officer in his entire 1984 West Point class behind ONLY William Rapp, McMaster was selected by the 2008 AAC BG Promotion Board and the predominant Year Group selected by the 2008 Board was YG82, McMaster is YG84 so he was selected 2 years before his contemporaries.

I don't care how many times reporters say he was "passed over," it doesn't alter the truthfulness of my additions although it might make people wonder how they came to their conclusions.The-Expose-inator (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Please look at the edits I made to your content and see if they meet with your approval. I tried to reduce the length without losing the context.


 * Thanks,


 * Billmckern (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Swearing in
Hasn't McMaster been sworn in as National Security Advisor, yet? GoodDay (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * No. According to news reports, he intends to remain on active duty in the Army while serving in the post. Lieutenant generals require Senate confirmation of their rank and assignments, so he has to wait. At least officially. "Trump national security adviser will face Senate vote".


 * Billmckern (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, CNN was confusing me, by calling him the National Security Advisor :) GoodDay (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC) CNN rarely gets anything correct when it comes to reporting on the Military  but this time they did.  He is the National Security Advisor because that position does not require Senate confirmation.  What needs Senate confirmation is for him to retain his LTG rank which is a separate issue.07:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)The-Expose-inator (talk)

Major General is the highest rank an officer is promoted to, LTG and GEN is position dependent and does require Senate Confirmation. If an officer is not in a position authorized an LTG or GEN they revert to MG after 30 days. McMaster does not need Senate confirmation for his assignment to the position of National Security Advisor, he just needs it to retain his LTG rank. This is why they almost always retire if they are not promoted or assigned to another position authorized their grade. By the way, to retire as a LTG or GEN they must be confirmed by the Senate to go on the Retired List in the higher grade.The-Expose-inator (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Feedback request after edit
I just added a paragraph to the "National Security Advisor" section about the August 2017 anti-McMaster smear campaign. This is my first "major" Wikipedia edit so feedback and discussion welcome. DFlhb (talk)


 * your edit (in the section National Security Advisor) has 'survived' until today :-) --Neun-x (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

"McMaster says evidence of Russian meddling is ‘now really incontrovertible’ "
washingtonpost.com

Let's watch the echo this statement gets. sueddeutsche.de (one of the four German prime newspapers, besides FAZ, Spiegel and ZEIT) chose the heading Die Antwort, die Trump allergrößte Probleme bereiten könnte (translated: the answer that might cause ultralarge problems) --Neun-x (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

This article
May be useful

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/04/30/mcmaster-and-commander

Sammartinlai (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

To add to article: Erik Prince's campaign to entrap McMaster
To add to this article: mention of Erik Prince's campaign to entrap H. R. McMaster. Source 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Crash during exercises prior to 73 Easting
In this article by a fellow veteran of the Battle of 73 Easting, Lt. Col. Daniel Davis describes an incident where McMaster's tank collides with a Bradley during an exercise conducted at night, as part of their unit's preparations for the liberation of Kuwait. I feel like this might be a significant detail to add to the bio. AustralianSepticPolicyInstitute (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)