Would you work for Donald Trump?
Let’s say you’re a near 40-year Army veteran, silver star winner, and one of the most celebrated soldiers of the Iraq War. You wrote a book, Dereliction of Duty, about the failure of military officers to be honest with their civilian leaders and the lies that led our country into the Vietnam War.
You get a request from the commander-in-chief. He wants you to be the national security adviser. As an active military officer, it’s difficult to turn down a request from a superior officer. You probably feel it’s your duty to your country.
On the other hand, what might you be asked to do? Take a loyalty oath? Start a war to cover up for someone’s incompetence? Lend your credibility to that of a conspiracy theorist?
Is this why the White House is having so much trouble filling positions? Maybe Rep. Jason Chaffetz was smart to recognize a no-win situation and leave when he did. Who wants to be the next H.R. McMaster?
Tom Ricks, the author of Churchill And Orwell: The Fight For Freedom, said recently in an interview with NPR that:
It's almost Shakespearean to see McMaster in the White House as the national security adviser faced with the same situation, in many ways, that the Vietnam generals had [the same situation he wrote about in his book]. And when it's his job to get up and speak truth to power, instead he appears, in recent days, to have stood up and shielded the president from the truth and dissembled about the truth rather than insisting on the truth.
Here’s what happened during McMaster’s first big moment in the national spotlight.
McMaster spoke to the press about the accusations that Trump had leaked classified information to the Russians. Because he was in the room at the time of the meeting, he said that “at no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed.”
Only this wasn’t what the Washington Post had reported. The newspaper hadn’t said anything about sources or methods. They reported that Trump gave up classified information to the Russians. Basically, McMaster changed the subject to cover for Trump. The Boston Globe called it “a classic non-denial denial, intended to mislead.”
McMaster put his reputation and his credibility on the line to defend Trump. The next morning, Trump threw him under the bus by tweeting that the Post story was indeed true.
How many times can you step into a press briefing not knowing whether what you’re going to say will be undercut later—by the president himself?
What does it take to step into a press briefing and say that President Trump’s visit to the Middle East would “bring a message of tolerance and of hope to billions” after the campaign of xenophobia and wall building Trump ran in the fall?
In McMaster’s defense, Lt. Col. John Nagl said:
H.R. McMaster is exactly the man the nation needs to have at the center of things in the White House to hold all the pieces together at this unbelievably critical time in our nation's history.
Nagl argues that McMaster is sacrificing his reputation for some greater good. The question is: what is he holding together? What is he propping up?
It's hard to see any greater good in Trump. Neither does Tom Ricks:
I think he failed to see that his job is not to protect the president. It's to protect the nation. And what I fear General McMaster has done in recent weeks by coming out and seeking to protect the president is not his job. He shouldn't protect the president. He should protect the nation. And I fear that through his recent actions, he has enabled President Trump to continue to operate in this very reckless, ignorant way. Now, I think what McMaster thinks he's doing is the best he can do in that situation. What I fear he doesn't see is he's enabling it to become worse.
As someone who works to change organizational cultures for a living, I find that Trump’s beliefs match those of our most primitive and early organizations. In Reinventing Organizations, Fredric Laloux characterized these organizations as “red” organizations.
Fear is the glue of red organizations. They’re highly reactive and often focused on the short term. They also are characterized by authoritarian leaders who must exercise power in order to keep everyone in line. The leader must bend others to his will to stay in power. To provide some measure of stability, he often surrounds himself with family members and others whose allegiance is bought.
Examples of red organizations include the mafia and street gangs. Change only happens in red organizations under new leadership.
This is the case because red organization leaders tend to value loyalty over honesty. They like “yes men.” And they get rid of anyone who they perceive as a threat because of their insecurity and paranoia.
McMaster probably thinks he’s doing what he needs to do. It’s safe to guess that he feels he can change more from his position of power within the system than he can otherwise. But this tends not to be the case in red organizations. Going along to get along is not how these organizations change.
To affect change in a red organization, you have to start at the top, with the person who believes in this type of culture.
In Dereliction of Duty, McMaster argues that Vietnam was the fault of politicians in Washington who thought they knew what they were doing, as well as those who remained silent or acquiesced.
McMaster should heed his own advice and speak out before it’s too late.
David Akadjian is the author of The Little Book of Revolution: A Distributive Strategy for Democracy (now available as an ebook).