McMaster NSA

McMaster is a serving officer, and thus was not in the same position to say "No" as certain other candidates proved to be. However, he's also a fantastic choice, and it will be a real benefit to the Republic to have him in the position.

6 comments:

douglas said...

Grim, can you elaborate on why he would be hard pressed to say "no"? I fail to see why his status as a serving officer would preclude him from rejecting the offer of an appointed civilian advisory post.

Grim said...

It's not a civilian position necessarily. Service on the National Security Council can be assigned to military officers (for example, and famously, Lt. Col. Oliver North was assigned to it during the Reagan Administration). In that case, it's like any other military assignment for officers: you can resign your commission, or retire if you've got enough time, but you can't otherwise say no.

So I understand, anyway.

Unknown said...

I’ve followed some of the Army’s bright lights, such as McMaster and Nagl, for years…..and could not be more pleased with his nomination….especially after the disastrous flirtation with Flynn and Bolton. McMaster won’t pull his punches…and Trump’s going to get his feelings hurt.

MikeD said...

McMaster is an excellent choice, of a vein with Mattis. Couldn't be more pleased.

ColoComment said...

A friend just recently pointed me to this speech of McMasters from 2014:

http://blogs.cfr.org/davidson/2014/11/18/the-warrior-ethos-at-risk-h-r-mcmasters-remarkable-veterans-day-speech/

douglas said...

I would have been quite happy with Bolton, but this is good to be sure.

Not sure why you think Trump's feelings would be hurt, Unknown, as it seems he's quite willing to pick strong minded people- in fact seems to favor them. I see no actual sign of the kind of sycophancy (voluntary and forced) that was endemic in the Obama years.

I forget who, but it was someone with cred, said that this was the best security team since Eisenhower.