Retired Army Gen. Mike Flynn, a top intelligence official in the post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, says in a forthcoming interview on Al Jazeera English that the drone war is creating more terrorists than it is killing. He also asserts that the U.S. invasion of Iraq helped create the Islamic State and that U.S. soldiers involved in torturing detainees need to be held legally accountable for their actions.
Flynn, who in 2014 was forced out as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, has in recent months become an outspoken critic of the Obama administration’s Middle East strategy, calling for a more hawkish approach to the Islamic State and Iran.
But his enthusiasm for the application of force doesn’t extend to the use of drones. In the interview with Al Jazeera presenter Mehdi Hasan, set to air July 31, the former three star general says: “When you drop a bomb from a drone … you are going to cause more damage than you are going to cause good.” Pressed by Hasan as to whether drone strikes are creating more terrorists than they kill, Flynn says, “I don’t disagree with that.” He describes the present approach of drone warfare as “a failed strategy.”
“What we have is this continued investment in conflict,” the retired general says. “The more weapons we give, the more bombs we drop, that just … fuels the conflict.”
Prior to serving as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Flynn was director of Intelligence for the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. During his time in Iraq, Flynn is credited with helping to transform JSOC into an intelligence-driven special forces operation, tailored to fight the insurgency in that country. Flynn was in Iraq during the peak of the conflict there, as intelligence chief to Stanley McChrystal, former general and head of JSOC. When questioned about how many Iraqis JSOC operatives had killed inside the country during his tenure, Flynn would later say, “Thousands, I don’t even know how many.”
In the upcoming interview, Flynn says that the invasion of Iraq was a strategic mistake that directly contributed to the rise of the extremist group the Islamic State. “We definitely put fuel on a fire,” he told Hasan. “Absolutely … there’s no doubt, I mean … history will not be kind to the decisions that were made certainly in 2003.”
Over his 33 years in the Army, Flynn developed a reputation as an iconoclast. In 2010, he published a controversial report on intelligence operations in Afghanistan, stating in part that the military could not answer “fundamental questions” about the country and its people despite nearly a decade of engagement there. Earlier this year, Flynn commended the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture, saying that torture had eroded American values and that in time, the U.S. “will look back on it, and it won’t be a pretty picture.”
He echoed these statements in his Al Jazeera appearance. Before his tenure at JSOC, operatives of the force had already become notorious for operating secretive prison facilities in Iraq where the torture of detainees had become routine. In his interview, Flynn denied any personal role in these abuses, while calling for accountability for U.S. soldiers who had been responsible. “You know I hope that as more and more information comes out that people are held accountable,” Flynn says. “History is not going to look kind on those actions … and we will be held, we should be held accountable for many, many years to come.”
Photo of Flynn by Lauren Victoria Burke/AP
He’s right. I cannot for the life of me understand why the leaders of ‘the free world’ cannot see this. It was the same in Northern Ireland, every time the soldiers killed an IRA or UVF man they just created vacancies for two or three more. Let these people in the Middle East sort their own affairs out, they’re a world away from us. We then wil have to deal with the winners.
And what of the higher-ups who signed off on these “enhanced interrogation techniques” and the psychologists that helped to “perfect” their methods? Pay them no mind, we’re told, it’s just the soldiers we should be prosecuting…excuse me while I reach for my barf bag.
I was under the impression that ISIS, ISIL, as AL KADA (“the toilet”), were contracted, by US, and other so called western states, through government agencies, NGOs, prosing for War Bankers and Defense Industries.
Heck, even John “songbird” McCain, who endured his first wife dying in a hospital by marrying a Coors heiress, only to suffer the unfortunate tragedy of a car-bombed Arizona reporter sniffing into corruption that landed Coors prime vendor contracts at Arizona race tracks, after being fed mother’s milk by taxpayers paying his paw for providing industrial death assemblies, and ended up sunning hisself in the gulf of Tonkin, waiting for another killing boondoggle to hit humanity in which Johnny crashed several cost plus flying naval platforms, proudly claimed to have shook hands with ISIS without a blink of the eye.
So if ISIS and ALKADA and ISIL and (now) Texans, thanks to Jade Helms, are totally vested in Islam that they need to kill brother Muslims, the question is, how come none of them outfits never ever attacks Israel, who be just a few short skips, and a hop, across the borders of Egypt and Syria?
All those groups are crisis actors, of sorts. Shoot there may be ads for `em on Graig’s list. Only difference between the typical fare of Crisis Actors stuffing the pixels streaming out of lame stream hypo-tubes is that those perform dramatic roles as victims or witnesses of FBI directed theatre in America. ISIS and ISIL and “the toilet” are contracted for dramatic roles as killers, and CGI green screen be headers.
Remeber Syria Danny, one day he appears to be directing his crew to pop off a few rounds, the next day he’s on CNN’s set. Being a revolutionary ain’t what it used to be when I ancestors were slogging in viscera slimed trench mud as 30 pounders gutted their comrades while cutting off frost bitten toes and wait for sawdust biscuit to puff up.
HOW COME, GIVEN THE CONVENIENCE OF PROXIMITY, ISIS NEVER ATTACKS ISRAEL? THEY ARE IN A PERFECT POSITION TO DO SO, THEY ARE STATELESS according to the lame stream, so there is no state for Israel to target it’s US and UK nuke ordinance at. They are in a win win situation.
A pulp sketch from Zap’s Robert Crumb, say it best, “I smell fish!”
Political service should be like jury duty. No hardworking law abiding American wants to do that. But now, public service is not and obligation, it be a career with benefits. I still seeing the very same gadflies I saw on C-SPAN about the time I became interested in the lingerie section of the peep’s Sear’s catalog.
Signed,
Confused.
It’s all about natural resources, the heartbeat of economies. Who controls them and through whom access to them is to be possible.
The vast majority of peace-loving peoples of the world believe that the best mechanism of acquiring natural resources is through peaceful arrangements between those who have them, and those who do not. But some despise sharing and believe instead, in killing off all those who have natural resources so they could simply waltz and snatch them, while making vulgar profits at both the killing and the owning.
Dr. Sue Arrigo, MD, wrote: “The initial “hopes” for HIV per its designers was to be able to walk into Africa and take the resources from a ghost continent.” http://www.rense.com/general76/ft.htm.
South Africans and other Africans and many others, died by the million, and AIDS continues to claim hundreds of thousands. Africa is THE frontier for natural resource rape.
And Iraq’s population is hemorrhaging. At the rate at which the citizens of that nation are dying, in 50 years, all Iraqis will have died or severely maimed,and all that will remain standing will be foreigners. But the oil never dies. It just changes ownerships. And the new owners will be foreigners.
Millions know this. And many of them are tortured or killed for just daring to say this.
In case I missed something, is this the ‘new look’ of TI or is just my library station UI? Someone say somefin’ pls…
I hope they do not torture him remotely with electromagnetic weapons systems for saying this, if they do not already.
““What we have is this continued investment in conflict,” the retired general says. “The more weapons we give, the more bombs we drop, that just … fuels the conflict.””
;
This has been true of virtually all empires in decline. They get stuck in the rut of continuing conflict and can’t get out of it — because they have no other arrows in their quiver. Integrity gone; diplomacy gone; influence gone; credibility gone. Violence is the only thing left.
Washington will continue further to bloat the budgets of its favourite sinkholes: the Pentagon, the surveillance state, Homeland Security — everything that comes under the heading of militarism. Thus, the American state will continue to neglect the real needs of the American nation, and the American nation will continue its trend of turning its back on the American state.
well, well, well, obviously the reason this general was booted was his mental capacities left him, blaming “crusaders” for muslims now killing muslims is a mental issue, the fact is the muslims killing muslims and pushing the killers agenda are thiefs masking as muslims, the goal is power and wealth, stop glue sniffing and wake up to reality
@Mike Flynn: “What we have is this continued investment in conflict […] The more weapons we give, the more bombs we drop, that just … fuels the conflict.”
Mike, Mike, Mike … this is “sustainability”! Perhaps your military training was devoid of economics, so let me Explain It All To You:
Once upon a time (until ~1973) the US had economic growth and moderate economic inequality, but such moderation was intolerable (see the Powell Memo or any Ayn Rand novel for details). Now, we have extreme inequality, which is much better, but negligible growth, because the 1% have all the income but have low propensity to consume. This is a problem, because the 1% still expect 3% (returns per annum). How to achieve the expected rate of return? We can’t have all that capital chasing falling product demand–that produces only deflation. And we can’t have all that capital flooding into already-speculative asset and financial markets–that produces Global Financial Crises. But we *can* have capital-intensive military adventures! So remind me: how exactly is it a problem (for the 1%–don’t forget who your *real* masters are, Mike!) if these conflicts go on forever? Hear that sound every time a bomb falls or a missile flies: “ka-ching” !-)
No shit Sherlock. Im head of nothing and I could have told you all this 30 years ago!!! You bomb, they bomb you back!! Whats so hard to figure out??
Reason enough to end the drone strike program.
The general’s point on IS is lacking the specifics that would actually lead to better policies in the future.
When he says “we created Isis”, everyone assumes he is referring to the war in Iraq which created the circumstances that allowed IS to emerge, but in reality that is only half, or maybe not even half the story.
The covert actions to fund and arm the regime change effort against Assad in Syria (not to mention ongoing overt actions) in conjunction with regional “allies” is how IS actually became what it is today.
In any case, his suggested solution to the problems created by drones and IS (and for reasons he doesn’t substantiate, Iran), namely a bigger more decisive war, is, based on the historical evidence, not actually a viable solution but would rather compound our mistakes and end up making things worse.
When it comes to the military and the CIA, inaction is the best course of action.
However, that doesn’t preclude treating the “bad guys” as what they really are… criminals.
Investigations, arrests, prosecutions and punishment with no military involvement always was and will remain the only reasonable course of action for dealing with terrorists.
As far as dealing with IS, since we can’t undo the creation, the first step must be abandoning the official policy of regime change in Syria… end the funding, arming, training and logistics for the “moderate rebels” fighting alongside al Qaida and who frequently end up joining IS.
Then we must openly confront the Saudis, Persian Gulf state monarchs and Turkey about their support for IS and debate consequences if they don’t end it.
Support for the Iraqis, Kurds and Syrians fighting IS at whatever levels are necessary would then fulfill our obligation in dealing with this monster we created.
Of course, not creating more such monsters in the future should be set in stone.
Libya and Yemen are other perfect examples that regime change efforts by both Republicans and Democrats is a failed policy that should never be tolerated again.
I’m reading through these comments and I’m thinking to my self, “This is fucking poetry!” Good show lads, I’ll grab the pistols and we can have a old fashion duel!
While I respect Gen. Flynn’s candid acknowledgements wrt intelligence operations and his attempts to answer “fundamental questions” about the country and its people “despite nearly a decade of engagement there”, he is clearly mistaken in his belief there is anything to *win* (as expressed in his ‘controversial 2010′ report) in Afghanistan.
Imo, there is nothing to WIN … either in Afghanistan or Iraq. The reason is simple to understand: the U.S. led unjustified invasion and occupation of those countries.
And no amount of lipstick will make that pig pretty.
I found both invasions completely justified. And I didn’t need any lipstick.
Really? Do tell … OBL is, allegedly, dead and there were no WMD in Iraq.
If the justification is that might makes right, then you are correct. Hitler, Napoleon, and a whole host of other historical tyrants and madmen used the same justification. However, in a moralistic sense, that doesn’t mean they were actually justified.
since 1945 the USA armed forces as continuation of expansion and containment politics killed over 45 million people and injured hundreds of millions. the chain reaction of hate will produce more and more fanatics, who will adapt to counter high tech weapons and surveillance. the more the USA does to try to control people and nations the more will slip away. ask the empires who already fell
Iran ? What is his issue with Iran ? Iran is the only peaceful country in the region and it condemns terrorists all the time.
I think one should replace “peaceful” with “stable”.
Iran is pushing it’s own agendas with money & weapons. Not all of them are peaceful. Not to mention it is a pretty oppressive regime.
This guy\general seems to b working for Isis himself what an idiot
He’s stating the obvious. You can’t be flying drones (they are not silent, despite incorrect press reports) over villages and then attack a house, car or group of people (weddings seem to be a favorite target) without blowback. And using drones is terrorism; keeping people in real fear is terrorism. So the General is right, and it is obvious.
The alternative to drones being?
He can state random facts all he wants about who created who, doesn’t change the fact that thousands are being killed and it’s 2015.. we don’t need our troops dying anymore so we shouldn’t put them out there. It’s simple. It’s effective.
The alternative to drones being nothing. Maybe you should go home and leave the people there to sort their own problems out.
Thank you, Ann, for stating the obvious option that is staring us in the face. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be obvious to too many people.
Drones are “effective” at what? Lining the pockets of their manufacturers? Remind me again about how our drone wars have improved the lives of 99% of Americans.
That is an excellent comment
This guy knows more about the middle eastern conflicts than your low-iq redneck brain will ever do. But of course, to a random bumfuck anyone that doesn’t agree with his outdated and wrong opinion must be working for the enemy.
Thank you General
for publicly denouncing the wayward turn our nation has taken.
And a sidebar, today’s incident in Chattanooga.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/16/chattanooga-tennessee-active-shooter-navy-reserve-center
Tis true!
You are inclined to repeatedly throw out this causality, and with good reason, yet in the process you inexplicably pay basically zero attention to the fact that it is the Islamic State, not the U.S., that are systematically murdering people and committing genocide across the ME. I am confounded how your overarching goal of condemning U.S. foreign policy so heavily outweighs the actions of the Islamic State? Your author description say you focus on “human rights” so what gives!?
Moreover, do you even have an alternative to using drone and aerial support to combat ISIS? Anybody with a pulse can cast stones, but what’s your solution? Based on your several articles, it seems to be inaction. I’m not saying we should put boots on the ground like some want but since you agree the U.S. helped create this situation, shouldn’t there be some moral imperative that it combat the monster that’s been created?
General Igor admits that Frankenstein created the monster and you’re all, “Yeah, but monster!”
If you want to discuss alternatives and moral imperatives, then maybe the person you should take that up with is General Igor and his associates instead of the town crier.
Since blaming “Igor” will lessen the killings that are occurring right now?
Sorry to burst the town crier’s bubble but attribution has been described in much more detail with less grade school simplicity.
This piece is just an echo.
Aren’t you ever embsrrsssed at the panlim you spew for a paycheck, Nate? You should be. Do you parents know what you do for a living?
it’s you that is embarrassing, having played the “paid shill”card. A tactic used so frequently around here by fools who cannot form an actual rebuttal and find their beliefs so sacrosanct that dissent must be some disingecomfy paid effort.
It would be much simpler to discuss things with you if your level of reading comprehension were to rise above the grade school simplicity you accuse authors around here of employing.
I didn’t say anything about blame. But since you brought it up, you cast pisswater shade at Mazz for not discussing alternatives and the level of moral imperative that the US might be subject to, so I directed your concerns toward the person who actually took responsibility with his own words. Why should Mazz have to do this General’s job for him?
The truly weak play here is how you come in, give partial agreement to some part of an article’s assertion/premise – Tis true! – then twist it around such that the author is to blame for the nasty situation he reports on because he hasn’t found a way to create kumbaya out of chaos he had no part in.
I don’t agree with Startueyef that you are paid to do this. I think your problem and raison d’etre is the particularly nasty authoritarian knot in your knickers that gets repeatedly twanged by information made public by TI. It would be embarrassing beyond words for the government if it were discovered that they actually placed some monetary value on the little skidmarks you leave laying around here.
– their top secrets were published on the internet,
– hackers gained access to the personnel files of all government employees,
– generals openly questioned the wisdom of their political leaders.
@Benito Mussolini a ecrit:
“It would be embarrassing beyond words for the government if . . .
– their top secrets were published on the internet,
– hackers gained access to the personnel files of all government employees,
– generals openly questioned the wisdom of their political leaders.”
I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment, but I think it would be more accurate to say:
“It /*should*/ be embarrassing beyond words for the government if . . .”
One would think that, given the collective wisdom of the information security community and published DoD policies and directives, the lessons of Manning and Snowden, that they really would be embarrassed. If they have been, there is no evidence that it has been embarrassing enough to result in any corrective action. I have seen no indication that anyone in the Executive branch has a clue about governance and risk management. All I have seen come out of Washington is abject cluelessness and criminal negligence . . .
My 0.02 $CURRENCY, of course . . .
This must have come from the “No shit, Sherlock” files.
You’d think so – but then again, when you read the comments…
It is very important for the US that they maximise violence whilst ensuring that they do not achieve military victory. The play off “Hawks” and “Doves” to create a fake middle ground between peace and war which is never-ending conflict destruction and misery. Wars never end any more because the US will never let them end and thus it has to suppress generals like Flynn who would destroy the military enemy and force the US to create another.
In the modern era, wars must be self sustaining. Ideally, the number of terrorists killed and created would be equally balanced. Such a system is in equilibrium and therefore morally neutral.
—
The problem, for those who are squeamish about such things, is that many of those killed are not in fact terrorists. But the authors of the war on terror press on. They know that once enough terrorists are created, the chance of killing a non-terrorist diminishes. So the system finds a new equilibrium point.
—
The same fundamental error is made by those who worry that global warming threatens the human race. Those who survive will be those best adapted to a warmer world. A new equilibrium will be reached.
—
To our descendants, a sun baked desert world where everyone is a terrorist will be normal. Hell is when you are not adapted to your environment. Heaven is when you are. Thus the human race is creating its own heaven. It will only seem like hell when viewed by other species.
—
Pessimists will worry about the capacity of the human species to adapt. But pessimism is non-adaptive, so they will eventually disappear and the problem will be solved.
It’s Sisyphean and a paradox, Duce. The drone is like an aerial dispenser of hydra’s teeth; in killing, it sows. If it kills the innocent as it eliminates the enemy, it creates new enemies.
The Japanese, in their war in China, took it to its logical conclusion: the doctrine of sanko sakusen, or, “kill all, burn all, loot all.” Edgar Snow, writing from behind Chinese Communist lines in The Battle for Asia, noted that every district so treated, then guerrillas, relying on the people in the Maoist tradition, were stymied.
Of course, the Japanese didn’t win that war, either. Paradox indeed.
The drone is like an aerial dispenser of hydra’s teeth;
Now there’s an image…having flashbacks to Jason and the Argonauts. :-s
Certainly a memorable scene, in a film still remarkable for its stop-action special effects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXmRuJByoVs
“Hell is when you are not adapted to your environment. Heaven is when you are.”
and
“pessimism is non-adaptive”
Thank you. Really.
“To our descendants, a sun baked desert world where everyone is a terrorist will be normal. Hell is when you are not adapted to your environment. Heaven is when you are.”
“Mad Max” movies depict what our leaders seem to want out of our future, and their ridiculously silly fears. Rest assured – it won’t happen as they see it.
Gas takes large corporate machines to refine. Psychopaths won’t be racing around the future desert to steal it, because it will literally no longer exist.
If anyone is doing anything in the desert of the future, it will literally have no relation to our current reality – sorry Benito.
Like this ?
“What we have is this continued investment in conflict”
This has been the unpublicized mission statement of the US Armed Forces since the days of, oh, Smedley Butler. It took a while for Flynn to read between the lines.
Ya think?!
WE call them terrorists while the drone create more and more terror making us the terrorists….and Washington doesn’t want to see it or say anything about it -NEVER WRONG. . . F O O L S
Does he ever articulate holding responsible those civilians who ordered the torture? Or is he of the opinion that more low-level grunts should be held responsible?
#NothingToDoWithIslam
Here is an article that looks at how many drone attacks were used against al-Qaeda in 2014:
http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2015/01/the-2014-drone-wars-death-from-sky.html
While the frequency of drone attacks dropped in 2014, on average, each attack resulted in more deaths.
And of course this just in, FBI/NSA fail to thwart another actual “terrorist” act-(crime) with their mass surveillance of everything. Looks like FBI is only good at stopping “terrorist threats” that they create.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/16/chattanooga-tennessee-active-shooter-navy-reserve-center
Ah, some of want to have your cake and eat it too. Here’s how it works.
1. Whine about the out-of-control intelligence apparatus and its supposed omniscience.
2. When an attack happens, criticize the intelligence agencies for not thwarting the attack!
How utterly convenient. Maybe you should stop and consider whether there really is “mass surveillance of everything.” And shouldn’t this come with the territory when you’re an anti-surveillance hardliner – meaning that you have to accept some additional risk that these types of individuals get through the cracks?
Yet, if the FBI had identified, monitored, and ran an undercover operation that led to this individual’s arrest before the attack, we’d be reading TI’s latest sob-story about another “mentally ill” individual that was so stupid and impressionable that he was convinced by another stupid criminal informant to murder others.
Heads I win, Tails you lose!
There is enough straw and just flat out bull shit in your post, Nate, to shit all over the cow pasture and then cover it all over with the straw.
No, mass surveillance of everything is one of the biggest reasons why real danger, such as what happened in this case, goes unnoticed or suffers from communication breakdown. That has been documented again and again.
No. See above for explanation. They don’t “get through the cracks” because of lack of surveillance, they get through the so called cracks because of the mountains and mountains of useless attention thwarting spying and surveillance, which should have been and should be narrowly targeted at actual threats rather than activists and citizens of many stripes, from grandmas to young children.
No, you have that exactly 180 degrees incorrect. You must know that but are apparently so full of yourself that you’re incapable of seeing through your bull shit. If the FBI weren’t spending their time and resources creating plots, they might have had the time and the “intelligence” to have been aware of this person. They wouldn’t need an “undercover operation.” They wouldn’t even have had to send in one of their criminal informants to game the guy. All they would need to do would have been to maintain surveillance on him, because the guy was in the process of creating his own plot– without *help from the FBI.
@ Nate
I won’t respond the blah, blah, blah, strawman, blah, blah, blah because Kitt already did it for me.
Here’s the bottom line, I’m 100% behind the idea that if law enforcement has probable cause/articulable suspicion that a crime has been/or will be committed they can seek a particularized warrant limited in time and scope to engaged in surveillance against said “suspect”. That’s precisely consistent with 4th Amendment jurisprudence. Any risks associated with the fact that such surveillance justifications and limitations are imperfect are risks I am, and everyone should be, willing to live with.
My point as Kitt made so well, is that mass surveillance is both illegal and ineffective if not counterproductive.
“Terrorism” commonly understood as “crime” doesn’t scare me in any way because I understand the statistical reality of anyone being impacted by a crime/terrorist act. And until it rises to the “risk/threat” commensurate with driving a car on a public road in America I’m not going to suggest we should sacrifice our Constitutional rights in service of irrational fear. But hey that’s just me, I’m not a ridiculous coward in the face of statistically unlikely events like “terrorist attacks”.
People like you who would defend mass surveillance on such grounds obviously do because you’re either cowards or misunderstand the statistical “risk/threat” involved. Or you have an agenda that aligns with an ability or willingness to mass surveille human beings.