McMaster: U.S. war plans for Iraq and Afghanistan smacked of ‘narcissism’
That’s a big thought from Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, and one worth pondering.
That’s a big thought from Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, and one worth pondering. I’ve never seen it made before. Reflecting on it, I suspect he is right.
Here is how he puts it, in an article in Survival magazine that was highlighted the other day by The Strategy Bridge:
In Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, gaps between prior visions of future warfare and the nature of the eventual wars themselves complicated efforts to adapt strategy over time. Minimalist, linear plans – in place at the outset of both wars – were disconnected from the ambition of broader policy objectives and the complexity of the operating environment. Indeed, recent war plans have, at times, been essentially narcissistic, failing to account for interactions with determined enemies and other complicating variables.
I think he is also pointing to a civil-military problem. The military plans he notes, were essentially minimalist, while the Bush Administration’s ambitions were maximalist. That’s not entirely a hit on Bush, although ultimately he is responsible for overseeing a lousy planning process. It is also a big hit on the generals who failed to point out the discrepancy between their plans and the president’s goals. That was the purpose of those meetings, guys.
That’s a big thought from Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, and one worth pondering. I’ve never seen it made before. Reflecting on it, I suspect he is right.
Here is how he puts it, in an article in Survival magazine that was highlighted the other day by The Strategy Bridge:
In Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, gaps between prior visions of future warfare and the nature of the eventual wars themselves complicated efforts to adapt strategy over time. Minimalist, linear plans – in place at the outset of both wars – were disconnected from the ambition of broader policy objectives and the complexity of the operating environment. Indeed, recent war plans have, at times, been essentially narcissistic, failing to account for interactions with determined enemies and other complicating variables.
I think he is also pointing to a civil-military problem. The military plans he notes, were essentially minimalist, while the Bush Administration’s ambitions were maximalist. That’s not entirely a hit on Bush, although ultimately he is responsible for overseeing a lousy planning process. It is also a big hit on the generals who failed to point out the discrepancy between their plans and the president’s goals. That was the purpose of those meetings, guys.
Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons/Army Capabilities Integration Center, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command
Thomas E. Ricks is a former contributing editor to Foreign Policy. X: @tomricks1
More from Foreign Policy
The Hezbollah Pager Explosions Are More Dangerous Than You Think
Beyond human rights concerns, the attacks raise questions about U.S. and Israeli policy in the Middle East.
China Has Become Powerful Before It Is Rich
By placing power above plenty too soon, Xi Jinping may have made a great strategic blunder.
The World Is Leaving Biden Behind
In his valedictory speech at the United Nations, the president declared that the center was holding. But things are falling apart faster than he can keep up.
Washington’s Playbook for China Must Change
Asia is the global epicenter of a competition for global leadership.
Sign up for World Brief
FP’s flagship evening newsletter guiding you through the most important world stories of the day, written by Alexandra Sharp. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.