Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, Check users, delete, edit, move, oversight, protect, rollback, Administrators
51,035
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 43:
Line 43: − +
→Soldier-scholar
==Soldier-scholar==
==Soldier-scholar==
McMaster holds a Ph.D. in American History from the University of North Carolina. His dissertation is a harsh criticism of [[President Lyndon Johnson]], [[Robert McNamara]], and the [[Joint Chiefs]] conduct of the [[Vietnam war]]. With a clear reference to Vietnam-era news reporting, McMaster answered punctiliously how journalists' thinking fits into strategic thinking after the Battle of Tal Afar in 2005, “body counts are completely irrelevant.” <ref>https://leftistcritic.wordpress.com/2017/03/22/body-counts-are-completely-irrelevant-h-r-mcmaster-the-new-national-security-advisor/</ref>
McMaster holds a Ph.D. in American History from the University of North Carolina. His dissertation is a harsh criticism of President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]], [[Robert McNamara]], and the [[Joint Chiefs]] conduct of the [[Vietnam war]]. With a clear reference to Vietnam-era news reporting, McMaster answered punctiliously how journalists' thinking fits into strategic thinking after the Battle of Tal Afar in 2005, "body counts are completely irrelevant."<ref>https://leftistcritic.wordpress.com/2017/03/22/body-counts-are-completely-irrelevant-h-r-mcmaster-the-new-national-security-advisor/</ref>
His dissertation was turned into a book, ''Dereliction of Duty'', which was recommended and widely read in the [[Pentagon]] by the next generation of [[combat]] leaders. The ''[[New Yorker]]'' summarizes it saying, "[T]he Joint Chiefs of Staff, knowing that Johnson and McNamara wanted uncritical support rather than honest advice, and eager to protect their careers, went along with official lies and a split-the-difference strategy of gradual escalation that none of them thought could work."
His dissertation was turned into a book, ''Dereliction of Duty'', which was recommended and widely read in the [[Pentagon]] by the next generation of [[combat]] leaders. The ''[[New Yorker]]'' summarizes it saying, "[T]he Joint Chiefs of Staff, knowing that Johnson and McNamara wanted uncritical support rather than honest advice, and eager to protect their careers, went along with official lies and a split-the-difference strategy of gradual escalation that none of them thought could work."