Regardless, even this 2015 article highlighting McMaster and MacGregor's differences (and similarities) shows that the man has been consistent about what he believes, and that his opinions about military readiness — far from being motivated by bitterness — are rooted in legitimate concerns about the current state of the U.S. armed forces: "In effect, the debate between Macgregor and McMaster is a battle over whether the Army’s BCT structure is capable of matching up against what Army thinkers call a “near peer” competitor, like Russia. Though it may sound to outsiders like a disagreement over crossed t’s and dotted i’s, the dispute is fundamental–focusing on whether, in a future conflict, the U.S. military can actually win. Even inside the Pentagon, that is very much in doubt. A recent article by defense writer Julia Ioffe reported the “dispiriting” results of a Pentagon “thought exercise” between a red team (Russia) and a blue team, NATO. The “table top” exercise stipulated a Russian invasion of the Baltics, the same scenario proposed by Macgregor. “After eight hours of gaming out various scenarios,” Ioffe wrote, a blue team member concluded that NATO “would lose.”"
But sure, keep saying that it's only bitterness motivating MacGregor to say that the current US military wouldn't fare well in a battle against a peer competitor. (I happen to be one of them, which is why I think our proxy war in Ukraine has been an exercise in foolishness.)
[MacGregor] was wholly unable to handle the “what-ifs,” or the “bigger picture,” which is essential for star rank.
As compared to toeing the line, or being utterly ruthless or a political cutthroat? (Because when I think of modern generals like Mark Milley, being able to handle "the bigger picture" is the first thing that comes to mind...not.)
Oooh, sounds like I struck a nerve.
You just jump right over the fact that Macgregor’s superiors wanted him nowhere a star because of his short-sidedness, inflexibility, and hubris; he was insufferable, which is the death knell for advancement in any endeavor. A star means one MUST be flexible, and MUST be politic in one’s attitude; and Macgregor possessed neither of those qualities; and apparently, still doesn’t possess them.
His actions since retiring serve to confirm that.
Think about it: He’s so stubborn, so inflexible, and so full of himself that he has been wrong on practically everything about the Russo-Ukraine War and will never admit it; and the Russians love him because he says EXACTLY what Russia wants to hear: He is a propaganda goldmine for Russia.
“As compared to toeing the line, or being utterly ruthless or a political cutthroat?”
You don’t sound like you ever served in the military, but military officers, especially the more senior military officers, are not expected to “toe the line”; they are expected to follow orders and carry them out to the best of their ability...REGARDLESS of their personal feelings. If they had a disagreement with an order, they could even put it in writing (which may or may not end their careers, depending on how the subject of the disagreement came out in the end); but then get on with the business at hand. Superiors expect their subordinates to voice their misgivings, but those misgivings are expected to be logical, and supportable; but in the end those misgivings are to be set aside and the orders followed to the best of the officers’ abilities. Also, if the officer felt that strongly about his or her position, he or she could always resign their commission. But, Macgregor? Some of his contemporaries said he would stew over a disagreement. That attitude likely cost him a star.
And, did you forget that Macgregor was the insufferable Wesley Clark’s go-to guy for the Balkans campaign? Did you forget that Macgregor drew up the game plan for it? How did that work out?