I thought a significant point made by McMasters was the degree to which LBJ lied to and pushed aside the Joint Chiefs, ergo the dereliction of duty was not limited to those in uniform but was embraced by the President and his civilian advisers who knew better but carried on for political reasons rather than as a matter of strategy. I’ve actually got a copy of Halleck’s book on strategy and mean to read it but it took me five attempts to get through Jomini!
I think that McMaster argues senior military officers were negligent in two ways: they lied to civilian leaders about their true views on military strategies, and they remained silent when their views were misrepresented to the public and Congress (which is what you get at). McMaster did not claim that military views were superior to civilian ones but insisted that civilian leaders should have fully considered military perspectives. I think in Feaver’s view, "McMasterism" suggests that civilians often try to suppress military opinions, that military views are generally more accurate, and that the military should ensure its opinions are both heard and taken seriously. There is a paradox in the Halleck case because when given the opportunity to give his military opinion, he didn’t and than took “extreme” action when Lincoln pressed him to do so but I think the challenges in the Civil War run parallel with McMaster’s book and the scholarship around it.
Yes, I agreed with your point there but didn’t want the civilians left off the hook. As to Halleck, what I really want to know more about is how he made his fortune in California real estate.
I thought a significant point made by McMasters was the degree to which LBJ lied to and pushed aside the Joint Chiefs, ergo the dereliction of duty was not limited to those in uniform but was embraced by the President and his civilian advisers who knew better but carried on for political reasons rather than as a matter of strategy. I’ve actually got a copy of Halleck’s book on strategy and mean to read it but it took me five attempts to get through Jomini!
I think that McMaster argues senior military officers were negligent in two ways: they lied to civilian leaders about their true views on military strategies, and they remained silent when their views were misrepresented to the public and Congress (which is what you get at). McMaster did not claim that military views were superior to civilian ones but insisted that civilian leaders should have fully considered military perspectives. I think in Feaver’s view, "McMasterism" suggests that civilians often try to suppress military opinions, that military views are generally more accurate, and that the military should ensure its opinions are both heard and taken seriously. There is a paradox in the Halleck case because when given the opportunity to give his military opinion, he didn’t and than took “extreme” action when Lincoln pressed him to do so but I think the challenges in the Civil War run parallel with McMaster’s book and the scholarship around it.
Yes, I agreed with your point there but didn’t want the civilians left off the hook. As to Halleck, what I really want to know more about is how he made his fortune in California real estate.