Getting to know incoming National Security Advisor Gen. Mike Flynn. From Friedman's report, he appears pretty savvy and could have a major impact on US strategic thinking about MENA and jihadism. He also visited Russia at their invitation during the campaign and met with President Putin, which would indicate that he is already aware of the Russian position.
Geopolitical Futures
The National Security Adviser
George Friedman, founder and chairman of Geopolitical Futures and retired chairman of Stratfor
9 comments:
That's a bad sign. If Friedman thinks someone is savvy, that's a sure sign that they're little more than a cretin.
He appears savvy since he is saying identify and attack the cause rather than the symptoms. This would amount to a reversal of US strategic thinking, which is superficial and therefore largely ineffective.
It's actually pretty obvious where this is stemming from and being supported — the Wahhabi and Salafi oil states. Cut that off and the problem withers for lack of support.
Well, given that Flynn's on record as saying that the problem is not Wahhabism or Salafism but Islam itself, that's a good sign that we have an idiotic maniac on our hands. None of this bodes well.
It's also contradictory. If Islam per se is the problem, why is the Trump line to intervene to help the Syrians and Iraqis to crush this menace? Washington policy has been schizophrenic for some time now because the problems Dubya and the neocons left behind are a real mess, but this is schizophrenia squared by having people like Flynn in positions of power.
And given that the institutions of state are behind the Saudi jihad, what exactly is the plan?
Well maybe because Assad is the only one over there who has figured out how to run a nation with all religions there....
It's not schizo we have had elections so those results matter... new prez new policy...
Time domain analysis....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_domain
Matt, we've always knows Assad or someone like him is the only person who can keep a country like Syria from sectarian strife or defending it from the Saudi jihad. But the Saudi jihad is not only supported by Washington but is a nonstarter. The jihad is Washington's jihad, just like in Afghanistan during the eighties. That's Washington's policy. Not a Dem or a Rep policy but an institutional Washington policy that reflects State, DoD and all the others.
Hopefully Trump will put an end to it. The only reason Washington may go along with it is because the strategy isn't working, even a danger to national interests, not because the institutional interests will respect the office of the presidency.
By schizophrenic, I didn't mean that policies will change with a new president. Policies may change at the margins, but that's all that happens with changes in the executive. What I meant was that the State Department is supporting one group of actors in Syria, the DoD is supporting opposing forces, the CIA is supporting yet other forces, all of whom are fighting each other or actively aiding ISIS, etc. And month by month the White House jumps from one policy to another. That's not because they're indecisive. It's because the problems are so awful and are now out of Washington's control.
Not to worry. Bibi will fill The Donald in on what the agenda is.
Tom, that's the ultimate fucking nightmare. Trump is surrounding himself with wackos galore, so Bibi as Trump's adviser may well come true - as will World War Three.
Post a Comment