MESOP INDEPTH : In Praise Of Flynn & “Defense of the democracies” (Walid Phares / Tony Badran & friends)

By Michael Ledeen,  Contributor – I write about Italy, Iran and fascism.

FORBES  – 25 Nov 2016 –  There’s been plenty of vitriol aimed at Donald Trump’s national security advisor, LT. General Michael T. Flynn, with whom I co-authored the best-selling The Field of Fight;  How We Can Win the Global War against Radical Islam and its Allies.  He’s been accused of financial improprieties, softness on Russia, an embrace of Turkey’s tyrant Erdogan, and of intemperate leadership .

No doubt there will be many questions asked about Gen. Flynn’s business activities since resigning as the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014.  These questions are proper and normal.  Not so with regard to Putin’s Russia, about which considerable nonsense has been issued, including some very nasty slurs from people who should know better.

The signal fact about Mike Flynn is that he revolutionized American intelligence.  General Barry McCaffrey has called him the outstanding intelligence official of  this generation.  These are strong words from a 4-star general, and this high opinion of Flynn’s performance in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is obviously shared by his peers;  you don’t get a third star’s retirement pension without the concurrence of the other three- and four-stars.

Flynn’s transformation of American intelligence was very unusual, as it shifted the center of gravity of our war fighting system from the top ranks of both military and  civilian leaders, into the hands and brains of low and mid-level analysts, battlefield decision-makers and intelligence collectors such as interrogators.  Here’s how that process in Iraq is described in our book:

Intelligence had to drive operations, if possible within a single day, because the terrorists were very fast…there simply wasn’t time for the information to move through the various bureaucratic levels, nor could our fighters wait for guidance…the intelligence people had to be linked together with our operators, and they had to get the results of their fighting almost immediately.

It worked (cf. “the surge”), and later was employed successfully in Afghanistan.  Flynn and McChrystal bemoaned our military’s excessive concentration on the major terror groups and their leaders (aka “high value targets).  They insisted that we needed a fuller picture of the “environment,” a richer understanding of the thinking and passions of the various sects, groups, and tribes, and the variations from one town or village to the next.  Flynn laid this out in a celebrated article in 2010, “Fixing Intel,” published by the Center for a New American Security.  He wrote it with two relatively low-level colleagues.

It caused a bit of a stir, especially from senior ranks who felt that Flynn’s strategy—to get our intelligence collectors out of our big bases and into the towns and countryside, and to empower them, and the analysts at headquarters, far more than the standard bureaucratic approach had permitted—diminished their control.  There are echoes of this unhappiness in some of the criticism presently aimed at Flynn.

“Fixing Intel” is textbook Flynn, documenting both his ability to think outside the box, his willingness to ignore rank and give greater authority to men and women below traditional decision-making levels of the system, and take his case to a broader audience.  Finally, it underscores Flynn’s rare willingness to bring bad news to his superiors.  McChrystal welcomed it;  top brass and the White House not so much.

Finally, there’s the question of his view of Putin.  He attended a conference in Moscow, and ended up sitting next to the Russian dictator.  This led to accusations that the general was somehow soft on Russians.  Yet Flynn publicly criticized Russian policies, and anyone who cares to read “Field of Fight” will find this, which is hardly generous to Putin:

Although I believe America and Russia could find mutual ground fighting Radical Islamists, there is no reason to believe Putin would welcome cooperation with us;  quite the contrary in fact. So the charges are false.  Certainly Flynn has his shortcomings, but his strengths, as Gen. McAffrey says, are extraordinary.  I think Donald Trump made an excellent choice, and I think we’re fortunate to have such a straightforward and unconventional man in the White House to advise the new president.

UPDATE:  And he’s got himself a dandy deputy, K.T. McFarland.  I worked with her at Reagan NSC and she was excellent.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelledeen/2016/11/25/in-praise-of-flynn/2/#72ad9f5c7830