Talk:H. R. McMaster

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. 199.184.238.231 (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  McMaster's promotion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thesis 

message: 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 PostNew 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)
replies: text: --Jerzy•t 06:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Promotion List details 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Date of Birth 

message: 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)
thread_title: Neutrality?

message: 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)
thread_title:  What contoversy? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  CFR 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Feedback request after edit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "McMaster says evidence of Russian meddling is ‘now really incontrovertible’ "  

message: May be useful
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/04/30/mcmaster-and-commander
Sammartinlai (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article 

message: 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)
thread_title: To add to article:  [[Erik Prince]]'s campaign to entrap McMaster

message: 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)
thread_title:  Crash during exercises prior to 73 Easting