In the novel, Once An Eagle, author Anton Myrer begins with this quote:


It is easy to think of the two main characters in that book, Sam Damon, who many believe was based upon Army General Huebner, and Courtney Massengale (no coincidence that he was named after a feminine hygiene product), who is believed to be a composite of General Mark Clark and Gen MacArthur when you read "H.R. McMaster Passed Over - Reverse Peter Principle?"

One progressive website blamed the Bush Administration for McMaster's non-selection to general officer wrote:

Now you may be thinking, wasn’t it H.R. McMaster that led the pacification of Tal Afar, an operation so successful that Bush devoted an entire speech to it just last year? Didn’t I read about McMaster’s brilliant strategy in a long New Yorker piece about him? Wasn’t it McMaster who won a Silver Star in the Gulf War, leading troops so bravely and well that Tom Clancy wrote it up? And surely it was McMaster who’s PhD dissertation became a hugely influential book, Dereliction of Duty, that the then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs made required reading for senior military types?

Reading that, I couldn't help but think that was beyond silly. The Army did it to itself for reasons known only to the promotion board. There will be a lot of speculation why this warrior, viewed by many in the military as the hope for the future of the Army, is evidently going to be shown the door. (Note: It is unclear whether this is a first non-select or second.)

For many junior leaders McMaster represented all the traits of a successful warrior who had also shown he was a thinker, scholar, and leader. Undoubtedly, these junior leaders will conclude McMaster's non-selection represents proof-positive that the cynics were right. Those are the ones who charge that the real traits of a successful general officer are shown by one with worn knee pads, a brown nose, and awesome PowerPoint skills. Leaders like this are disparaged by warriors.

Validating the cynic's point of view that lifer-careerists, not 'soldier's warriors' are what the Army wants in its leadership will prove the catalyst for those who have been on the tipping point of making a 'stay or bail' decision on an Army career. These are the warriors "who get it" who have embraced the ideas of Col. John Boyd that Small Wars Journal discusses in "Contrary Peter Principle (Updated).

In May of this year, Col JB Burton wrote a memo to the CG, 1st Cav in Iraq that addressed the crisis the Army faces retaining its officer leadership which actually applies to every soldier in the Army. He wrote:

They [junior officers] want recognition for their performance and want a competitive OPMS system that rewards top performers. They want challenging duty assignments and educational opportunities that allow them to invest in themselves while providing the time and stability to invest in their families. Educational opportunities are more important than bonus money as it invests in our military's human capital, while also giving Officers a break to have a somewhat normal life.

The key is that soldiers want to see warriors rewarded for their performance. They resent the success of perfumed princes who adroitly maneuver in 'the building' for their personal advancement. They detest 'leaders' who see soldiers as 'means' to their personal goals.

The message sent by the non-selection of Colonel McMaster is unambiguous. The Army I fear will be worse for it in more ways than just losing the talents of Col McMaster. It will drive out those warriors who lived and breathed the warrior ethos. It is nothing more than the beginning of a slow suicide by our Army.