Streetwise Professor

November 22, 2016

In Like Flynn

Filed under: History,Military,Politics — The Professor @ 12:54 pm

Retired General Michael Flynn, fired as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency by President Obama, has become a lightning rod for criticism. This was true during the campaign, where he was an early and outspoken Trump supporter, and it has become doubly true since the election and his appointment as National Security Advisor designate. This criticism is largely unfair, and relies on the typical distortions and dishonest tactics that have become the norm for the “elite,” and the “elite” media.

For instance, Flynn has been excoriated for his alleged sympathies for Putin and Russia. These allegations rest on (a) his appearances on RT, and (b) the fact he sat at Putin’s table during an RT dinner. They also ignore the truculently anti-Russia, anti-Putin statements that Flynn made in his book. In a Politico piece that at least lets the man speak for himself, at length (although it also includes a typical dose of MSM snark), Flynn gives his opinions on these subjects:

Yet at times Flynn still struggles to reconcile his views with some of Trump’s most extreme positions, including his persistent praise of Putin.

“Putin is a totalitarian dictator and a thug who does not have our interests in mind. So I think Trump calling him a strong leader has been overstated, I’ll give you that,” Flynn said. “But Putin is smart and savvy, and he has taken actions in Ukraine and elsewhere that have limited our options, and the U.S. and NATO response has been timid. I think Trump’s strength lies in being a master negotiator, and he wants as many options as possible in dealing with Russia.” (Still, Flynn himself may have image problems here, since he appeared with Putin last year at an anniversary party for the Kremlin-controlled RT television network in Moscow.)

Yeah. A real Putin lover, that dude. This echoes what Flynn says in his book (co-authored by Michael Ledeen). This was out there for anyone interested in a fair portrayal of the man’s views to read, but no. Instead all we heard about was Flynn being pro-Putin because he sat with him once in Moscow.

Flynn has also drawn fire for his blunt statements about Islam. Well, get this. They are based on an up-close-and-personal view of our Islamist enemies. A view, it should not need mentioning, but does, that absolutely no one in the media and no one in the Obama administration and pretty much no one outside the US intelligence community has. Here again the Politico piece is informative:

As JSOC’s director of intelligence, Flynn interrogated the senior Al Qaeda commanders at length. Sitting across from them at the detainee screening facility at Balad Air Base, Iraq, Flynn wondered why such obviously educated and intelligent people were devoting themselves to tearing their country apart, regardless of the horrendous toll in innocent lives. Some of the men had electrical engineering and other advanced degrees, but instead of building a bridge or helping establish a functioning government, they applied their talents to attacking vulnerable governing institutions in order to terrorize and intimidate civilians. He could understand their hatred of American interlopers, but the vast majority of their tens of thousands of victims were fellow Iraqis.

During the course of those interrogations and hundreds of others in both Iraq and Afghanistan, Flynn concluded that what united the terrorist warlords was a common ideology, specifically the extremely conservative and fundamentalist Salafi strain of Islam. Salafis believe the only true Islam is that version practiced by the Prophet Muhammad and his followers in the seventh and eighth centuries. They reject any separation of church and state in favor of puritanical interpretation of Islamic Sharia law. They are intolerant of other religions or sects, and at least in terms of Salafi Jihadists, their ideology is violent and expansionist by its very nature. The terrorist leaders he interrogated on a regular basis—whether they marched under the banner of Al Qaeda, the Taliban or ISIS—were true believers, every bit as committed to their ideology and skewed moral universe as Flynn was to his own.

“Over the course of all those interrogations, I concluded that ‘core Al Qaeda’ wasn’t actually comprised of human beings, but rather it was an ideology with a particular version of Islam at its center,” Flynn said in the recent interview. “More than a religion, this ideology encompasses a political belief system, because its adherents want to rule things—whether it’s a village, a city, a region or an entire ‘caliphate.’ And to achieve that goal, they are willing to use extreme violence. The religious nature of that threat makes it very hard for Americans to come to grips with.”

He has looked the enemy in the face. Literally looked them in the face. Hundreds of times. He has interrogated them at length. You think perhaps he just might–just!–have a better understanding of what drives ISIS and Al Qaeda than 99.99999 of the people venting about his unacceptable, radical–and politically incorrect–views about the nature of Islamic terrorism?

The Politico article also details what led to Flynn’s disillusionment with the Obama administration and his criticism of its policies while he was head of DIA. In a nutshell: Flynn thought, based on his deep, personal knowledge of the Islamist enemy both in Iraq and Afghanistan, that Obama’s declaration of victory after Osama’s death was wildly premature. He was dismayed at the administration’s firing of Stanley McChrystal for having the temerity to push back on Obama’s Afghanistan policy. He was also furious at the sanitizing of intelligence about Islamist terrorism:

Worst of all from Flynn’s bird’s-eye perch at the DIA, intelligence reports of a growing threat from radical Islamist terrorism were often expunged as the intelligence stream worked its way up to the president’s desk. Flynn suspected part of the problem was National Security Adviser Susan Rice, who chaired many of the NSC deputies meetings and seemed uninterested in reports out of Iraq. But other intelligence bottlenecks have also come to light. After more than 50 intelligence analysts at U.S. Central Command complained to the Pentagon inspector general that their intelligence reports on the war against ISIS were consistently watered down, a recent House Republican task force report—written by members of the House Armed Services and Intelligence committees—concluded that intelligence on the ISIS threat was systematically altered by senior U.S. Central Command officials to give it a more positive spin.

I can say with metaphysical certainty, that if Flynn had been fired for blasting the distortion of intelligence in the Bush administration, he would have been the toast of all the best parties in DC and New York, and lionized on the pages of the NYT and WaPo. But this telling truth to power thing is a one way street in DC.

Tell truth to the Bush administration: Righteous! Hero!

Tell truth to the Obama administration: Renegade! Loose cannon! Dangerous bigoted wacko!

I wrote about DIA’s truth telling about what became ISIS circa-2012. Another example of no truth goes unpunished.

There is currently a lot of tut-tutting about Flynn’s outspokenness and political advocacy from ex-military types, such as Admiral Mullen. Let’s just say that one should always be somewhat skeptical of those who achieve positions like Mullen did, especially in an administration like Obama’s (or Clinton’s), but Bush’s too. They are usually chosen for their biddability and political reliability, especially in times of (relative) peace.

Some of the things Flynn has said are puzzling, his apparent flip-flop on the coup in Turkey, for instance. But I would not leap (as many have) to the conclusion that he did so for mercenary reasons.

Flynn is obviously a strong willed individual unafraid to speak his mind. He also has deep knowledge of certain issues that none–yes 0.0000 percent–of his media or political critics have. So is it too much to ask to judge him on the substance of his views, and the basis for them, rather than on issues that are less than trivialities?

That question was purely rhetorical. The Lie Swarm gonna swarm.

I fear that a similar fate awaits General James Mattis, in the event that Trump nominates him for SecDef. (This would be a livin’ the dream moment for me, because Mattis is someone whom I deeply admire. But the fact that he would have to get a waiver to serve in this post tempers my hopes.) Mattis was another man who called out the intellectual flyweights in the Obama administration foreign poliicy apparatus, and who was unceremoniously defenestrated for his temerity. (Even Tom Ricks, an Obama-friendly voice, found this episode incredibly shabby and disturbing.)

Flynn’s appointment–and Mattis’, in the happy event–reveals something about Trump. He is willing to have outspoken subordinates. This represents a stark contrast with Obama, who surrounded himself with unimpressive toadies and political partisans (Ben Rhodes–are you effing kidding me? Susan Rice?), and who refused to tolerate any internal dissent (as the fates of Flynn, Mattis, and McChrystal demonstrate). Whether Trump endures internal opposition remains to be seen: the fact that he is at least willing to risk it is admirable, and deserves some praise, rather than the ankle biting of people like Flynn by the apparatchiks and careerists who dominate what passes for America’s political and media culture.

Print Friendly

10 Comments »

  1. Flynn’s affiliation to Turkey is very worrying for us. I had hope that with Trump administration something would change, they they could say STOP to the Turkish bully of the whole region.

    Comment by Nick Markakis — November 22, 2016 @ 1:11 pm

  2. This moralizing about Putin being a “thug” is really depressing. Americans have their heads so far up their a**es that any possibility of a peaceful existence of other powerful states seems nonexistent. Our presidents killed far more people and caused far more injustice over the past 20 years than Putin ever will and yet all our media talks about is how he is the thug, but not guys that illegally invaded countries waaaay before he did and caused far more suffering and injustice in the process than Putin will ever do. It is obvious that this has nothing to do with Putin and everything to do with utter refusal to even consider the possibility to stable and powerful Russia. The drivel about Putin’s supposed intention to invade Baltic countries that permeates our deranged media makes RT look balanced and sane by comparison.

    Comment by Depressing — November 22, 2016 @ 3:17 pm

  3. “Putin is a totalitarian dictator”: but one elected on a larger share of the popular vote than any American Prez since….?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_presidential_election,_2012

    The answer would seem to be ‘one elected on a larger share of the popular vote than any American Prez EVER’.

    Of course I don’t know whether the Russkis are as good at faking the vote as the Dems.

    Comment by dearieme — November 22, 2016 @ 3:25 pm

  4. Godwin’s Law and all that, but “[Trump] is willing to have outspoken subordinates. This represents a stark contrast with Obama, who surrounded himself with unimpressive toadies and political partisans” implies that Trump is like Churchill, Obama like Stalin. Or Hitler.

    Comment by dearieme — November 22, 2016 @ 3:28 pm

  5. There seems to be two Flynn effects.
    One for IQ
    And another for leftists.

    Comment by bloke in france — November 22, 2016 @ 5:19 pm

  6. Need I remind all of those who tend to have any positive opinion of Putin that he is a KGB officer. He had joined KGB voluntarily, on his own volition.

    That is all one has to know about him. The man has moral convictions of a doorknob. He is a commie through and through. Giving him even the slightest pretense of equal status is already a big mistake.

    Comment by LL — November 22, 2016 @ 8:58 pm

  7. This Flynn dude drags a trail of shady fundraising behind him that could make HRC proud.

    Comment by aaa — November 22, 2016 @ 10:03 pm

  8. That he is a KGB thug is not all that one needs to know about him. That he appears to be intelligent and rational, cautious and calm, seem to me to be important too, especially since the US has had three Presidents in a row without such characteristics. If you want to outmanoeuvre the man the first step is to stop under-rating him. The notion that you must not do business with an enemy is sentimental, juvenile tripe, and dangerous to boot.

    Comment by dearieme — November 23, 2016 @ 5:27 am

  9. SWP:

    One correction in Pp13. The correct abbreviation for Washington Post is WaPoo, since that is what most of the editorial positions have done to their [alleged news] ‘stories.’

    Respectfully, as always,
    VP VVP

    Comment by VP Vlad — November 23, 2016 @ 9:09 am

  10. Depressing indeed. “Supposed intention to invade the Baltics” is suspected after no longer “supposed” intentions to invade Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine. If anything, this should be called “painfully slow learning” on the part of the US and NATO.

    Comment by Ivan — November 25, 2016 @ 3:04 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress