Retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, is convinced the nation is facing a potential existential threat: a rising tide of Muslim extremists. Since being forced to retire in August 2014, Flynn has been an outspoken critic of the administration, alleging the Obama White House has failed to confront what he calls “radical Islam.”
Flynn is now taking his message to the biggest stage possible: the 2016 presidential election. Last week, the New York Post reported that Flynn, a registered Democrat, was being considered as a running mate for Donald Trump on the Republican ticket. In the days since, Flynn has been making the media rounds praising the GOP frontrunner.
The odds are long for the retired three-star general. Flynn is up against a stable of veteran political operatives, including Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie, and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence. According to the most recent media reports, Trump is leaning toward a candidate with a background in politics, rather than the military. Trump is expected to hold a public event on Friday with his selected running mate.
“The Field of Fight” by Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn.
On Friday night, Flynn spoke to The Intercept on a range of topics, including his new book, The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies, his prescriptions for U.S. national security, and his admiration for Trump’s platform. In doing so, he offered a window into his worldview and a glimpse at a vision of national security that resonates in the Trump camp.
For Flynn, the decision to step into public life preceded the rise of Trump and boiled down to two core issues: perceived lies peddled by the Obama administration and his self-imposed duty to confront them. “I watched our own government lie to us about a number of things,” Flynn told The Intercept.
“I just see us going in the wrong direction, and that’s really why I sort of jumped into the middle of the fray,” he explained. “I don’t mind doing that. That’s kind of me.”
A native of Rhode Island, Flynn put in 33 years of service for the U.S. government, climbing the ranks as an Army intelligence officer. In 2004, he became director of intelligence for the Joint Special Operations Command — JSOC — the U.S. military’s elite hunter-killer force, which includes such well-known units as the Army’s Delta Force and the Navy’s SEAL Team 6. At the time, JSOC was run by Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Flynn made a name for himself under McChrystal, as JSOC set its sights on Iraq and pursued an intelligence-driven strategy for capturing and killing suspected terrorists known as “find, fix, finish.” Flynn went on to serve in several other roles in the years that followed, both stateside and in Afghanistan, before taking over the DIA in the summer of 2012.
Flynn’s outspokenness has never been in dispute, particularly in recent years as he’s transitioned from intelligence chief in the shadowy war on terror to a frequent media guest and source for national security reporters. In an op-ed for the New York Post published over the weekend, Flynn said his outspoken language on “radical Islamism and the expansion of al Qaeda and its associated movements” led to his firing at the hands of Gen. James Clapper, the director of national intelligence.
Flynn presents his personal story as one of an honest U.S. official punished for telling the truth. The full account of his exit from government is less clear-cut. When the Washington Post first broke the news that he was being pushed out of the DIA in April 2014, the paper reported that the forced retirement had less to do with Flynn’s views on the threats posed by radical Islam and more to do with his efforts to remake the agency into a spy service that could rival the CIA. Flynn’s plan encountered pushback on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers raised questions about its necessity and potential costs, and it reportedly triggered clashes between Flynn and other senior U.S. national security officials.
Flynn is credited by many in the national security community for his work on a 2010 report on U.S. intelligence failures in Afghanistan, published by the Center for a New American Security. The influential report offered a stinging critique of the U.S. intelligence apparatus in Afghanistan, recommending “sweeping changes to the way the intelligence community thinks about itself.” The report argued that after nearly a decade of war in Afghanistan, U.S. forces still barely understood the country in which they were operating.
Since leaving government, however, Flynn has blasted the Obama administration on its Syria strategy, the Iran nuclear deal, and what he considers to be a debilitating White House desire to embrace political correctness in the face of dangerous trends in the Islamic world. What Flynn appears to view as speaking honestly has a tendency to veer into dangerous and Islamophobic terrain. Earlier this year, he called for the destruction of Raqqa, the Syrian city captured by the Islamic State where tens of thousands of civilians remain trapped. And on more than one occasion, Flynn has told an interviewer, “I’ve been at war with Islam, or a component of Islam, for the last decade.”
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump during a campaign event in Raleigh, North Carolina, on July 5, 2016.
Photo: Sara D. Davis/Getty Images
A Possible Veep
Conversations with former military and intelligence officials, including some who worked directly with Flynn and others who crossed paths with the retired general, as well as civilian researchers, offer a mixed picture of his reputation. Speaking largely on background, some praised Flynn as a free-speaking visionary, while others described his leadership style as one marked by abrasiveness and borderline contempt for civilian officials. None ventured to explain his recent attraction to Trump.
Nada Bakos, a former CIA analyst, described Flynn’s depiction of the extremist threats facing the U.S. as unsettlingly familiar. Bakos, who led the hunt for the al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, said Flynn’s “broad brush of how he views intelligence and analysis actually scares me.”
“This reminds me of where we were in the beginning of the Iraq War, before the invasion,” she added, “when you’re talking to someone who doesn’t actually understand the problem and applies very broad strokes to very specific issues.”
Even given his history of provocative statements, Flynn’s support for Trump has taken many former military and intelligence officials by surprise. Yet Flynn’s flirtation with the Trump camp has been months in the making. Bloomberg first reported that he had met with the Trump team in January. “This guy is really switched on and has a strong understanding of what’s going on in the world,” Flynn said of Trump at the time.
Speaking to The Intercept, Flynn confirmed that he would attend the Republican National Convention, though he did not say how he would answer if offered the vice president slot on the Trump ticket. “You have to talk to his campaign about that,” Flynn said. “There’s obviously a lot of rumors.” The Trump campaign did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
Flynn claims it was Trump’s economic positions that ultimately won him over. On national security and foreign policy, Flynn argued that Trump’s stated openness to employing torture techniques, his endorsement of lethally targeting the family members of suspected terrorists, and his call to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are part of a broader strategy aimed at keeping the enemy on its toes. “Here’s what a guy like Donald Trump is doing,” Flynn explained. “He’s basically saying, ‘Hey, look, all options are on the table,’ and being very unpredictable in the face of a very determined enemy.”
Regarding issues of interrogation, “I believe that the way we did interrogation operations post-Abu Ghraib worked very effectively,” Flynn said. “We were going by the book.” In addition to the CIA’s widely reported use of torture and black-site detention facilities, JSOC, in Iraq, also faced allegations of abusing detainees, in particular at a location known as Camp Nama, though Flynn has maintained that he took an active part in shutting down abusive interrogation practices once he arrived in the country, rather than promoting or expanding them.
Nevertheless, Flynn indicated that he wouldn’t exclude using harsh methods if there were an imminent threat of something like a dirty bomb attack. “Why not use some other legal techniques?” he said.
Flynn did not elaborate on the techniques he would recommend, though he repeatedly said they would need to be in accordance with law. Flynn indicated that he would not support explicitly targeting the family members of suspected terrorists with lethal force. He added, however, that when the U.S. is “trying to capture or kill a high-value target,” and that target is accompanied by family members, “that’s a decision that has to be taken.”
“We do make those decisions, and we did make those decisions fairly routinely in warfare,” he added.
Flynn is careful in his remarks on some of Trump’s most controversial statements, such as not allowing Muslims into the United States, and stressed the importance of being “really precise” on Trump’s views.
“What he’s talking about, and what I talk about, is we have to understand where the individuals are coming from,” Flynn said. “The immigrants flowing into Germany, they’re not even using biometrics or identifying them in any way, they’re just letting them in. We can’t just ship in thousands of people and park them in communities inside of the country. That’s what this administration is going to do, that’s what they are doing. So what we have to do is we have to document, just like we normally do, and we have to do it through legal channels. We have to be very precise about who’s coming in, where they’re coming from. We have to vet them properly.”
In fact, the U.S. screening process for Syrian refugees is far more arduous and information-focused than Flynn suggests. As the New York Times detailed last year, the process often takes up to two years and involves applicants going through a rigorous 20-step evaluation involving multiple interviews, background checks, and fingerprinting.
Flynn insists his concerns aren’t “about shutting down an ability for some group of immigrants to come into our country,” but determining who the immigrants are.
“I mean, we don’t have people shooting up or blowing up, you know, clubs and marathons yelling ‘Jesus Christ,’” he said. (A New America study found that since 9/11, jihadist attacks on American soil have killed 94 people, and far right-wing attacks have killed 48.)
![U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (2nd R) checks her phone while sitting next to South Korean Foreign Minister Kim Sung-hwan (R) at the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan November 30, 2011. REUTERS/Saul Loeb/Pool (SOUTH KOREA - Tags: POLITICS) (Newscom TagID: rtrlfour932049.jpg) [Photo via Newscom]](http://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2016/07/hillary-clinton-phone.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90&w=1000&h=713)
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton checks her phone while sitting next to South Korean Foreign Minister Kim Sung-hwan, right, at a forum on aid effectiveness in Busan, Nov. 30, 2011.
Photo: Saul Laub/Reuters/Newscom
A Double Standard
If selected to run alongside Trump, Flynn will find himself up against Hillary Clinton, whom he believes broke the law in transmitting classified information.
In Flynn’s view, FBI Director James Comey committed an act of professional “malpractice” when he publicly recommended that the attorney general not bring charges against Clinton lasft week. “All Comey should have done was give the facts of the case and then said, ‘I am turning this over to the attorney general to make a decision,’ and not given his personal, legal assessment,” he said. By offering his conclusion publicly, Flynn argued, the FBI director “put the burden on the American voter, which is totally wrong. It’s so wrong.”
As far as Clinton is concerned, “She obviously broke the law. According to [Comey] she broke the law,” Flynn said. “I would be in jail if I had done that. I would have lost my clearance for the rest of my life.” Flynn agrees that “absolutely there’s a double standard” in the prosecution of cases involving the disclosure of classified information by U.S. officials. “There are so many cases where it’s so much less” than what Clinton was accused of, he said. “I mean thousands of times less, and they lost their clearances, meaning they lost their jobs and their livelihoods.”
“She could be potentially be the next president?” he said. “Unbelievable.”
When asked about the case of another high-profile U.S. official disclosing classified information — retired general and former CIA Director David Petraeus’s disclosures to his biographer and lover, Paula Broadwell — Flynn said the situation was less severe, though he conceded there were “some parallels.”
He called Flynn’s analysis “a Tom Clancy novel.”
“The case of Dave Petraeus, you know, he’s the director of the CIA at the time he’s sleeping with a woman and giving her secrets to benefit the writing of a book about him,” Flynn said. “I mean, that was blatant. That was blatant.” Still, he added, “I think it’s apples and oranges.”
Flynn argues that the presumptive Democratic nominee for president “did something worse than Petraeus.” (In the case of the Petraeus investigation, the retired general admitted he lied when first asked about having given Broadwell access to classified information, and journals containing top-secret information were found in his home. The FBI was reportedly unhappy that Petraeus avoided prison time.)
“She’s a target of our adversaries,” Flynn explained. “We do the same to them. And we target senior government officials. And when a senior government official of another country gives us their information on a silver platter like Hillary Clinton gave to the Russians and the Chinese … oh man, it’s a great day for our adversarial intelligence systems.”
While he acknowledged that Petraeus, as the director of the CIA, would also have been a target for foreign adversaries, he argued the retired general “didn’t share too much electronically, you know, except with some computers.”
Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division patrol a street in Mosul, Iraq, 250 miles north of Baghdad, Sept. 13, 2003.
Photo: Misha Japaridze/AP
An Updated Axis of Evil
The big lie Flynn says he’s combating is the notion that the U.S. is not at war with radical Islam. In his book, co-authored with the neoconservative writer Michael Ledeen, Flynn declares that he aims to show readers “the war being waged against us” and “lay out a winning strategy.” Flynn describes Field of Fight as “a book from a guy who’s sort of been there, done that.”
“It’s my language,” he said. “It’s simple language. It’s straightforward. It offers solutions. It’s not just another bash about radical Islam. It’s very practical ideas.”
The book’s language, at times, mirrors the rhetoric against political correctness that has become a hallmark of the Trump campaign. “This administration has forbidden us to describe our enemies properly and clearly: they are Radical Islamists,” Flynn writes. “They are not alone, and are allied with countries and groups who, though not religious fanatics, share their hatred of the West, particularly the United States and Israel. Those allies include North Korea, Russia, China, Cuba, and Venezuela.”“Let’s face it: right now we’re losing, and I’m talking about a very big war, not just Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan,” Flynn goes on to write. “We’re in a world war against a messianic mass movement of evil people, most of them inspired by a totalitarian ideology: Radical Islam. But we are not permitted to speak or write those two words, which is potentially fatal to our culture.”
Militarily, the campaign Flynn envisions would be “similar to the effort during World War II or the Cold War” and would be guided by a single leader answering to the president. Additionally, Flynn adds, “Another more fundamental and dramatic effort would be a call for a complete reformation of the Islamic religion. This must start inside the Muslim community in order to succeed — but it must start somewhere.”
Flynn does not shy away from hyperbole. “There is no escape from this war,” he writes. “Do you want to be ruled by men who eagerly drink the blood of their dying enemies? Such questions are almost never asked. Yet if you read the publicly available ISIS documents on their intentions, there’s no doubt that they are dead set on taking us over and drinking our blood.”
“Anybody who thinks Venezuela and Cuba pose a threat to the United States is truly unhinged.”
Flynn insists that his views are not the extension of personal religious convictions and that he does not view the conflict he describes as a fundamentally religious one. “This is a political struggle,” he said. “Islam is a political ideology masked behind a religion, using religion as an advantage against us. Islam is a political ideology. Sharia, the law of Islam, OK? Sharia is the law. Just like our Constitution is our law.”
While Flynn at times draws distinctions between what he describes as radical Islamists and ordinary Muslims, in conversation he often refers simply to Islam when referencing the United States’ chief enemy. Whether the rhetorical slippage is intentional or not, that lack of precision, which can so easily generate horrific consequences, has military and intelligence professionals concerned over Flynn’s role in a possible Trump administration.
Malcolm Nance, a 35-year veteran of the intelligence and counterterrorism world, said the portrait Flynn paints of an updated and expanded version of Bush’s axis of evil — one linking ISIS to the governments of North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba — strains credulity. Nance, who has written a book on defeating the Islamic State, called Flynn’s analysis “a Tom Clancy novel.”
Andrew Bacevich, a professor of history and international relations at Boston University and a West Point graduate who fought in Vietnam, was equally unsparing in his critique of Flynn’s national security prescriptions. “Anybody who thinks Venezuela and Cuba pose a threat to the United States is truly unhinged,” Bacevich said. “If Gen. Flynn would spend 10 minutes reading a newspaper, he would note that Venezuela is really a country that is on the verge of internal collapse. It doesn’t threaten anybody.”
Flynn’s characterization of the radical Islam threat flies in the face of the past two administrations, Bacevich argues. “Unlike Gen. Flynn, both President Bush and President Obama have wanted to avoid any implications that the United States is at war with Islam and/or the roughly 1.4 billion people on the planet who are Muslim,” he said.
For Flynn, this is a conflict with centuries of historical precedent. “In my book, I talk about how in the 15th and 16th century, people were fleeing from Europe to flee the Christian reformation and coming to the new world,” he explained. “These immigrants that are coming into Europe and the U.S., they’re fleeing this revolution that’s going on in the Islamic world and they’re trying to find a better life.”
The problem, he claims, is that the “enemy is infiltrating inside of that and they’re bringing it to us, they’re bringing it to our homeland,” Flynn said, “And they already have.”
Flynn’s clash of civilizations worldview is precisely what worries his critics, and there is scant evidence that his prescription for the region — which Bacevich paraphrased as a “try harder” model of what the U.S. has been doing for three decades — would yield new results. What’s more, Bacevich added, implicit in Flynn’s prescription is the unanswered question of how much his vision would cost the United States.
“How many Americans and other allies are going to die?” he asked. “In the war that we have fought since 9/11, it’s cost us trillions of dollars and there simply is no evidence that things have gotten any better.”
Correction: July 15, 2016
Due to an error in the editing process, the original version of this story incorrectly stated that results of a recent study indicated that right-wing extremist attacks have killed more people on American soil than jihadist attacks. While this was accurate when the study, conducted by New America, was released in 2015, following more recent attacks, including those in Orlando and San Bernardino, the numbers have been updated and now conclude that jihadist attacks exceed those of right-wing attacks.
“Far-Right Wing Attacks” don’t necessarily have a religious component, which is why they are labeled Right-Wing and not “Christian”. Jesus christ, you could at least be intellectually honest about that instead of trying to mislead your less astute readers into an incorrect conclusion.
They are almost always racially or politically motivated. Sovereign-citizen type stuff. The Planned Parenthood one was religious but the man was obviously mentally disturbed. The Islamists and Jihadists are perfectly sane.
Descent article, however how can Nada Bakos, a former CIA analyst who from her own admission essentially only did office work and briefs say anything about another person that is clearly more qualified than her (not being anti this or that) she loathed (her own words) the intelligence she worked on…this intelligence was gathered and paid for with blood and personal sacrifice by having someone in the field (where the war is) and conducting reconnaissance and observation then gathering that raw data and sending it out. Sometimes these people were compromised (killed, captured tortured jailed) and this man did that was there and has the shirt hat and belt, this is (again) the problem with this country a General with the education,training and experience looking at those that wish us harm and dealing with them directly and ending the threat! An Honorable man with a lifetime of providing the very thread of the blanket of security and freedom, is being hounded as an evil maniacal person…..by a person who slept comfortably under it on a 9-5 schedule m-f weekends off, comfy egronomic leather chair sipped her $7 latee light sugar, light twist of lemon and read reports….for 5-7 years(maybe no one knows her info is elusive) I can imagine that there are females out there in the field gathering intel sweating away stank as $%!%&$!! wondering “eff..ive done my time out here, id like to move up and out of the field to a higher position with some stability, why have I been passed over for someone fresh outa college? or another political appointee?? I dont doubt her role in sorting AQI shes been clearly marketing that like it was her signature line at rooms to go, I am kinda murky on her personal intentions vs loyalty to god country honor and code.
I was hoping Donald Trump would choose either retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn or Sen. Jeff Sessions as his running mate. Either one would make an excellent VP and would easily take on the Presidency, should Trump die in office.
As it is now, Trump’s been receiving death threats on social media, from Bolsheviks of all stripes .. and, despite Secret Service protection, he could still be assassinated. All one has to look to for an example, are the assassinations of both JFK and RFK. Both brothers had SS protection, but all that protection didn’t save them.
This is why Trump should be very careful of whom he chooses as potential VP. That VP must be able and ready to assume the Presidency if – God forbid – Trump is assassinated. Gov. Pence is definitely NOT a good choice; as Governor of a Midwestern state – Indiana – he has NO real experience in foreign policy .. He’s definitely NO Harry Truman, who had to take over after FDR had died from a stroke, in the midst of WWII. Now, either Flynn or Sessions would be much better choices; they’d be much better able to take right over in the above situations.
Mike Flynn had a very hard time talking last night about Nice France on Megyn Kelly last night.
Looks like we’re headed toward more troop deployments, more police militarization, more sigint gathering. Yay! They must not be trying very hard if they’re already doing that; the U.S. should keep at it and try harder… over and over and over, because hell is about repetition.
Rather disappointing to see anything but an overall condemnation of this maniac here. He’s typical of the variously banal, moronic, frightening and outrageous people being floated as Trump lieutenants.
In youtube I’m watching ‘Mehdi Hasan goes Head to Head with Michael T Flynn in which a reporter finally puts the screws to one of these neo crusaders. What a damned smug, slithering bastard Flynn is — he admits the WOT is a disaster but refuses to take any real responsibility!
“I am at war against Islam”, he says, hastily adding “or a part of it” in so many words. That was close! Can’t just blurt out the unvarnished truth now and contradict Prexy Bush after the fact.
Huh?
This is what the article claims: “A recent study found that since 9/11, right-wing extremist attacks have killed more people on American soil than jihadist attacks.”
However, the ACTUAL ARTICLE that The Intercept links says this: “Violent Jhadist Attacks: Total number of People killed: 94″ and “Far Right Wing Attacks: Total Number of People Killed: 48.”
WHAT?
Thanks for posting this. I didn’t know that Trump was considering choosing someone for VP who thinks we should be at war with Islam.
Whether Trump picks Lt General Flynn for VP or not, the fact that he is being considered does give some insight into what a Trump foreign policy would look like.
(If not VP, I wouldn’t be surprised if he got a spot somewhere in the Trump administration – horrified but not surprised)
Around 1,400 years ago the adherents of the new faith of Islam rode forth with fire and sword and a fervent desire to expand the word or Allah. In central France they were halted by Charles Martel and in the steppes of central Asia by the Chinese. For the next THOUSAND years they looted the Mediterranean, built Mamluk slave armies in Egypt, conquered Constantinople and rode to the gate of Vienna twice. They have been called Saracens and Arabs and Barbary Pirates and Ottomans and Moors and Moghuls – different regimes under one evil banner according to a fearful West.
So what is different now?
For the most part, nothing as far as the average follower of Islam is concerned.
The only things that are different are OIL and SAUDI ARABIA. Oil is not Muslim, let alone Radical. But Saudi Arabia is both. And Saudi Arabia wants Islam in their image. They want a billion Muslims at their beck and call. They are building the mosques around the world. They are funding the Imams. They are fighting the Shiites. They are bombing Yemen. They are organising the terrorists across Africa and the Middle East and across Asia. And America are backing them and arming them and providing the logistics.
And we are paying for it all because these people are rich from our purchases and our taxes. They are fucking NOBODIES who deserve this power and this wealth for NO REASON. They are murderous thieves one and all, with one hand holding a holy book of laws of their own making and the other on a gun we paid for. We are fucking idiots.
There is no Radical Islam.
There is Saudi Arabia and her oil-producing allies backed by US military know-how making a concerted effort to take full control of the price-fixing of oil to treble Saudi Arabia’s profits and allow the US to frack its oil shale and start sucking the money back out of China and destroy Russia’s bloc of allies.
There is also a mass of angry, poor and gullible young men from the poorer parts of the world ready to play jihadi on behalf of some secretive paymaster to frighten soft Westerners into funding the militarisation of their nations to this purpose. There is also – something which The Intercept is also guilty of – a failure in our mass media to inform us of this and to help us build better societies that can take the power away from these violent conmen and the dumb fools who do their bidding.
I live amongst Muslims, they are not interested in stealing the world or burning the West. These are lies told by our leaders and advisors just to loosen budget purse strings and tighten societal controls, to rob us of our money and our freedoms.
Perhaps the General is a big fan of the comic book writer Frank Miller, as his worldview seems to be based on (and provides examples from) Miller’s Holy Terror “graphic” novel:
http://toobusythinkingboutcomics.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/on-frank-millers-holy-terror-part-1.html
(“graphic” in its violence and extreme Islamophobia if nothing else)
“They are dead set on taking us over and drinking our blood,” he said. Wait a moment, isn’t that what ISIS thinks of us? What a strange coincidence. Sort of like a Fawlty Towers script. What could possibly go wrong.
Ah Ryan, that study you link to that supposedly says “since 9/11, right-wing extremist attacks have killed more people on American soil than jihadist attacks.” http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html Actually says the complete opposite by a ratio of almost 2 to 1 (94>48). Might want to fix that.
There are not many general or admirals whose views would be congenial to most Intercept readers. Flynn is at least to be commended for consenting to be interviewed. Nor was it quite fair to ignore the fact that Flynn like Trump is in favor of negotiating with Russia to lessen the tensions being ramped up to Cuban missile crisis levels by the neocons with qualified support from Obama and wholehearted support from Clinton.
That said, I find Flynn’s crusader mentality very disturbing. The only reason they come to attack us in the US and Europe is that we are over there in the Mideast invading and subjugating them, which we do in order to dominate global oil supplies. All we have to do is decide to get off oil and commit to conversion to green energy sources and the cost in lives and $trillions of dominating the Mideast could be saved. With saving the planet in the process a decidedly positive bonus.
I didn’t even bother reading the article. WHY is TI giving this jackass any press time? Ryan D., you should be ashamed.
This was marketing for Flynn’s book. No one smart thinks we need to know more about Flynns POV, despicable violent past, corruption or general shame to defeat people like him (stop). Its all about back scratching.
@Tony S
Book, eh? Well, I do hope we can defeat such (chaneling Matlock again) jackasses.
babyish responses.
feline16 and Tony S think all press attention must be a net favorable for that which gets attention.
get real — who is going to read this article and then rush out to buy this guy’s book?
but then, feline16 wants a pat on the back for NOT reading the article
Good (pat) for (pat) you.
@Vic Perry –
“all press attention must be a net favorable for that which gets attention??” Huh – I’m not sure what you mean there…
I want a pat on the back for not reading the article? Not really. Actually, I thought someone would chastise me for commenting at all since I didn’t read it.
So let me tell you this, Vic: I am extremely upset that the nutjob candidate (and I think we all know who that is) has gotten this far. If you’ve read the article about the ACLU gearing up in case the unthinkable happens, well, I am with them totally about that. I am so upset that I mentioned before I’ve considered moving countries — but what a Herculean task that would be and where would I go? Yes, I’m that concerned. The mentality shown by him and some of his supporters is really scary (the bigotry especially). I haven’t read the recent article here about the next pres. could order torture (thought it would just be too depressing), but the mere suggestion that this nutjob is vying for the presidency and has advocated torture is very upsetting to me. Then look at the way riot police have treated protesters in Baton Rouge and Rochester. both covered here. The nutjob has condoned beating up protesters, so I would hate to think… Many groups have decried his stand on climate change and think he could be a danger to the whole planet just for that… I could probably go on. Basically this nutter is against EVERYTHING I stand for. So do you now wonder why I would decry anything that might put a positive spin on his candidacy?
but….you were NOT decrying something that might put a positive spin on his candidacy. Since you didn’t read it before attacking it ( a bad move maybe??) I have to say: this article didn’t put a positive spin on the Trump candidacy.
It’s water under the bridge now because this guy wasn’t the VP pick anyway.
@Vic Perry –
Ummmm – the headline said the guy supported the nutjob – doesn’t that sound as though he would be giving a positive spin?
As far as reading before attacking, generally yes, that would not be the best move. However, I have read enough stories this election cycle to know the horrible candidate this fellow supports – what purpose would even reading it serve? Normal times I might not even give much thought to having an opposing view presented. Years ago, I even used to watch both parties’ conventions. But as the political climate changed – probably in the late 70’s or 80’s, I just got so I couldn’t stomach the Republican one anymore. Now as far as conventions go I won’t watch either – too scripted and phony. But the nutjob is probably the worst candidate I’ve seen since George Wallace. So articles about someone supporting him really touch a nerve with me.
GenFlnn is tight about SecClinton having made US NationalSecurity a joke and has devalued us in everyone’s and will more easily make americans a target! She has totally disrespected the Constitution. We understand she lies to cover and not be punished. That is quite a normal reaction, but then a person of that type does not run for Potusa.
I always have to chuckle when the media terms people like Flynn, Clapper, Brennan, et al, as a “spy”. I was in spy work in Germany and Vietnam, but by definition, was never a spy. Love them or hate them, a real spy puts their life on the line, doing grunt work for the desk jockeys.
You’re not chuckling alone. >:-D I get the impression that even the janitor at the NSA is accorded “spy” status by the media.
Tim: Any agency that classifies a Christmas card would have no qualms about that, I would think.
Don’t you just love all the security “experts” comprised of ex- CIA types snatched up by the TV networks?
My opinions on spies and spying vary widely according to details and circumstance.
There’s no question about guys like Flynn, Clapper and their ilk, though: useless, narcissistic REMFs, one and all.
Doug: Amen to that. I know of people who were imprisoned or executed when caught. Contrast that with these people who must suffer greatly from paper cuts or carpal tunnel syndrome secondary to too much time on the computer.
Well, maybe paper cuts from reading briefings and memos. They have personal assistants to handle the computers.
Well, to a certain amount I have been able to understand what Flynn was talking about in the past, but not from this article. The US has for example used jihadist movements to their proxy advance in Syria against Iran and Russia. If Flynn warned against it because it is very dangerous policy than that is to praise, and think he did.
From 2001 a disturbed Middle east was meant and planned as long term US foreign policy target: to ignite major conflict between Sunni and Shia.. .. deep down spooky the outcome of the interventions in Iraq and Libya will be seen as a success by some very evil people. While most people didn’t care enough to be bothered. I’ve been very negative about it for long time but have no more time left to waste on it. Good luck world, salute to mr. Flynn
One of the dumber ideas of the Bush era was claiming that Iran and Iraq and North Korea formed an Axis of Evil. I’m imagining a secret island somewhere (or hey maybe they went to Yalta). North Korea felt like a real third wheel at the secret get-togethers and would tiptoe out when Iran and Iraq started going at each other’s throats.
Well, Flynn makes this quaint notion seem sort of restrained and comparatively possible; the man is completely off his rocker:
“Radical Islamists are not alone, and are allied with countries and groups who, though not religious fanatics, share their hatred of the West, particularly the United States and Israel. Those allies include North Korea, Russia, China, Cuba, and Venezuela.”
That is the weirdest collection of allies I have ever seen. These countries don’t even all have equally hostile relations with the US and some of them could probably give a flying fig about Israel.
Flynn wants to sell us a cold war sandwich with hot terror sauce.
When is enough, enough? These crazy paranoid bastards just won’t rest until there’s nothing left to destroy and the nation collapses in a depression that makes the last one look like a Saturday picnic. Putting a military general in a position of real power with a highly uneven, influence prone president with the machinery of the military complex is a certain recipe for doom. HRC and her hawk like nature is certainly bad enough, but Trump with generals egging him on really could be the end of things. The radical Islamic terrorists weren’t so radical until the US intelligence and later the military turned them into a cancer that can’t be fought off. But maybe instead of pouring more gasoline on the flames of the radicals, try to usher in a less aggressive stance and then just maybe the flames would die down on their on. Help the ones that need it but back off the fuel, restore some peace in the region, and spend some of the borrowed funds helping those that actually need help in rebuilding their shattered world. Otherwise grab your hats because the storms are a coming.
war is a racket and a profitable one. what’s odd is how that knowledge rarely trickles down from the haliburtons and lockheed martins to the cannon fodder doing their dirty work. this guy is a lunatic but he’s also naive and dense and pays too much attention to the “sizzle” of the Vast Islamic Threat ™ and too little to the “steak” of globalisation, neoliberalism and vulture capitalism. he’s like a mcdonald’s employee who actually thinks the food is good quality while the guys back at corporate wouldn’t eat it if you put a gun to their heads.
maybe his attraction to trump comes from being a trained monkey for war profiting billionaires for so many years. he’s a hunting dog in search of a new master. what a strange half-formed human he is.
good post
he’s a monkey, he’s a dog, he’s a half-formed human
he’s a swizzlestick selling the sizzle
Gotta say, that’s a damned good question.
Uh-huh, uh-huh. ‘Nuther good one.
The whole “radical Islam” line is just a pathetic effort on the part of the military-industrial complex to maintain its bloated budget in the post-Cold War era. The previous “anti-communism” justification was far more effective (accounting for Obama’s efforts to restart the Cold War in eastern Europe and the Pacific) for that purpose, however. That’s all Flynn is doing: hyping threats to help perpetuate the status quo.
However, Hillary Clinton’s likely pick, Michele Fluornoy, is very similar to Flynn – and to Donald Rumsfeld:
This is what the Democratic neoliberals and the Republican neocons are bent on: continuation of the militaristic foreign policy agenda in the post Cold-War era. The corporate media refuses to discuss this, however, so you have to turn to random internet sites that turn up in Google searches:
https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/defense-one-warmonger-clinton-likely-to-pick-warmonger-michele-flournoy-as-sec-of-defense/
That’s the Clinton constellation: FBI Director James Comey was previously general counsel for Lockheed Martin at $6 million a year; Raytheon supplies TOW-II missiles to ISIS via Saudi Arabia for the assault on Assad; Goldman Sachs gives hundreds of thousands of dollars to Clinton for “speaking fees” – a nice little circle of corruption and warmongering.
Really, this is what Sanders is endorsing? He might as well just spit in the face of all his supporters.
“He might as well just spit in the face of all his supporters”
Sorry, I was busy wiping off my face from yesterday’s news conference. Were you saying something about Burnt Suspenders??
Flynn is another one of those power hungry political climbers walking the halls of the Pentagon and State Department who will toe the imperialist establishment line to grab power; truth be damned.
Surely this guy has read the history of the conflict in the Middle East and realizes quietly to himself that this conflict undeniably has it’s roots in Britain’s and America’s quest for control of oil in the region. Just forget about 70+ years of covert and overt operations against those people in the middle east and the installation of puppet governments that bow to western Oil interests at the expense of those people. No! According to Flynn and his peers: Radical Islam hates that we; who reside on the other side of the world are “free”, that we allow Rock & Roll music and our women to walk around without hijabs.
The Field of Fight?
No native English speakers working for the publisher?
As for Flynn, the fact that this moron made it to within a single step of full general might provide a significant clue to the reasons that the US military forces have not “won” a single “war” our moron “leaders” have sent them to fight since WWII (in which they played second fiddle to the USSR).
What’s important is the level of testosterone in the title.
You’re always missing the point Doug.
I know. I’m aging, of course. Could be mild cognitive impairment.
Well, some of our fellow contributors probably don’t think it’s mild. ;^)
Any explanation why the interview is presented in narrative rather than transcript or audio or video? I’ve never seen one of these types of articles that didn’t eventually garner an objection from the subject. I also think it’s a bit disingenuous to essentially pepper the article with insulting innuendo between Flynn’s comments. Finally, I don’t think, from Flynn’s comments elsewhere, that his plan is “more of the same,” and perhaps Mr. Devereaux could read the book and relate the basic outline of his plan rather than quoting Bacevich saying he hates it. Flynn is the only senior official to admit (and criticize) the U.S. role in creating ISIS, so I doubt he advocates repeating that bit of “more of the same.” That part of the article just doesn’t comport with the theme of Flynn’s public comments, including and especially his exceedingly courageous and forthright interview with Mehdi Hasan…
…Found an excerpt. Flynn rails against Carter, admonishing him for not fearing the Soviets, not supporting “friendly tyrants” (no, really), and not spreading democracy, uh, hard enough. So it seems my objections are unfounded. Flynn is batshit imperialist, all the way.
This guy claims to be “pro-life”.
I don’t understand how you can work for 33 years for an organization which uses killing as the primary tool to achieve its objectives and simultaneously be “pro-life”.
Babies — he doesn’t like killing babies (under many, but not all, circumstances). He likes them to grow up, stand up straight with military posture, then take one between the eyes.
LOL!
They’re only pro life until the baby leaves the womb. Then the funding stops to help the poor until they reach 18, after that, all bets are off and if they enlist pro-life is only a superfluous notion, laughed at in the local bar on the beltway.
He’s really pro-life in the sense that the simplest organisms are the best, having a naturally acquired yet militarily sound discipline about their conduct that makes them “LIFE” in the zesty sense we as a species have fallen so far from.
Fetuses are his favorite kind of human, but they can’t hold a candle to pond scum. He also greatly admires intestinal parasites for their cunning:
“We can learn a lot from intestinal parasites, who are beyond the call of radical Islam.” (quote left out of interview because it remained unspoken by interviewee)
You do not confront a religion with militarism, that simply reinforces it! Substitutw radical islam by radical buddhism, radical xianity, radiical judaism, etc. it will never work for MANY different reasons. I would expect a general to have this standard of intelligent discernment? Maybe if these people were fforded a DECENT OPPORTUNITY TO REMAIN AT HOME, THEY COULD RESOLVE SOME DIFFICULTIES? This brought to us by the ones that so decry the PalestinianPlight– not saying they are wrong and yet repeateldy impose the same Plight on people throughput the world! And then it is acceptable?
Flynn is either a liar or seriously deluded. Russia, China and North Korea are not “allies” of Islamic extremists. The powerful need for America to manufacture enemies must be factored into the reality of why we are involved in military violence all over the planet. And he’s also completely wrong about domestic terrorism; Christian extremists have been murdering people in this country for a long time and continue to do so.
It’s amazing when people are blinded by power, nationalistic prejudice and their own career aspirations what they will say and do. Leaders that have no respect for truth are actually misleaders and can only bring us more harm and suffering.
Yes, when you see what the afghans and the chechens– remember the theatre?– did to the russians, they are not friends.
WHERE IS THE INTERVIEW?
yeah. where is the interview?
It was briefly on HBO and is now available on Netflix, I believe.
“The interview” has been “strategically dispersed” throughout the article in the form of “quotelets” which allows a back and forth discussion to “be consumed at a pace and direction more accommodating to today’s busy lifestyles” by eliminating “the questions entirely and editing” the answers down to a punchy highlight “re”el.
saved me a lot of time because when i quickly realized i wasn’t reading an introduction to the interview but the “interview” itself i stopped reading and posted my comment to make sure i hadn’t missed a link to the real INTERVIEW. i’d been thinking, this is cool publish a bad guy’s thoughts unedited in context, that would be something new and interesting for the intercept. but no ha ha i’m a fool
“What Flynn appears to view as speaking honestly has a tendency to veer into dangerous and Islamophobic terrain.”
i need to be told what to think
An Alternative Headline.
Obama unsurprisingly hires insane Trump supporter to head the Defense Intelligence Agency.
verb tense issues, but good call
“A recent study found that since 9/11, right-wing extremist attacks have killed more people on American soil than jihadist attacks.”
This is directly contradicted by the link provided in the story (94 killed in jihadist attacks vs 48 killed in far right wing attacks).
You may want to update the story to reflect this.
http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html
Clearly this guy is not a serious thinker. I’m not being facetious, but anybody with this opinion on Trump, can’t possibly have a useful opinion on the ME.
“The FBI was reportedly unhappy that Petraeus avoided prison time”
@Ryan: They were upset because they haven’t been brought into the surveillance family family until recently. Is it really surprising that those who have access to our country’s greatest secrets aren’t prosecuted?
Petraeus: “If you prosecute, I’ll tell!”
Of course you already know the opposite is true, right? Those who do tell, get prosecuted.
Need I name them to make my point? I certainly hope not.
Did you ask him whether he agrees with DOD and MI5/6 that US interventionism in the Middle East causes terrorism? Did you ask him why or why not we should believe or disregard bin Laden’s fatwas showing the reasons attacking the west was justified?
The question to ask this guy is, ‘What is the CIA doing or better yet, not doing, that he feels that the DIA should be doing instead of the CIA?
Perhaps the CIA has it’s hands full helping out the NSA with their misadventures. Where are all those CIA operatives and budget that they don’t have time to help out with Afghanistan or other international areas of interest?
Perhaps the answer lies within the reason of why he was pushed out at DIA.
It’s an awful big job collecting data on US citizens and keeping a lid on the Edward Snowden’s of the world inside the US with so many Silicon Valley employees working on so many projects for the NSA.
All those reports, all those people being watched and investigated. And it seems that the FBI didn’t have access to phone until recently. Perhaps they will brought into the surveillance secrets arena now to help out and free up some resources.
Who knows…..maybe not.
Those are fantastic questions, sir. I bet in part it comes down to rivalry; like, just how many SOCs are there? Does the US really need MARSOC when they already had Navy Seals? Next we’ll have a Marine-Navy Narwhal Spec Ops. OK, like we need it; but someone will lay it out and argue for it.
And the CIA got involved in doing military operations, according to Spymasters show. So, tons of overlap.
Everyone wants that medal of honor.
Just occurred to me: local and state police looking ever more like DOD military/intelligence; CIA looking more like paramilitary; basically I guess there’s gonna be a massive military intelligence complex in the U.S.
“I guess there’s gonna be a massive military intelligence complex in the U.S”
Are you sure it’s not already?
“Everyone wants that medal of honor.”
Exactly. All the agencies will want the ability to spy on Americans. And if they don’t get it, they will scream foul and threaten to expose it more than it has already been exposed.
Right… off to the concentration camps with ’em, eh, buddy?
Or shall we all put on white knight costumes with big shields and big cross and just go git ’em with long lances, like, since the 1200’s… What a crock.
Clash of civilizations. The free world and the Gulf states.