Vilka profiler vill ni se i Trumps administration runt honom?

We’re in a global war, facing an enemy alliance that runs from Pyongyang, North Korea, to Havana, Cuba, and Caracas, Venezuela. Along the way, the alliance picks up radical Muslim countries and organizations such as Iran, al Qaeda, the Taliban and Islamic State.

That’s a formidable coalition, and nobody should be shocked to discover that we are losing the war.

If our leaders were interested in winning, they would have to design a strategy to destroy this global enemy. But they don’t see the global war. Instead, they timidly nibble around the edges of the battlefields from Africa to the Middle East, and act as if each fight, whether in Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Libya or Afghanistan, can be peacefully resolved by diplomatic effort.

This approach is doomed. We have real enemies, dedicated to dominating and eventually destroying us, and they are not going to be talked out of their hatred.

http://nypost.com/2016/07/09/the-military-fired-me-for-calling-our-enemies-radical-jihadis/

We're fighting an alliance of radical Muslims and radical secularists. And they're in cahoots. They work together and their fundamental objective is to rule the world which requires eliminating us. So we are their prime candidate and it extends from radical Muslim countries like Iran and radical Muslim movements like ISIS and al-Qaeda and so forth all the way to people who are certainly not radical Muslims, Putin, North Korea, Cuba, so forth. These are people who are not radical Muslims but there's an alliance between them and the Jihadis. That's what we're fighting.

I highly recommend the just out book - THE FIELD OF FIGHT - by General Michael Flynn. How to defeat radical Islam.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/756697615509688320

We're in a world war, but very few Americans recognize it, and fewer still have any idea how to win it.

This administration has forbidden us to describe our enemies properly and clearly: they are Radical Islamists. 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.

Michael Flynn, Trump’s new national security adviser, loves Russia as much as his boss does

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn was fired from his last job in the military, sat next to Russian President Vladimir Putin after giving a paid speech in Moscow, called for Hillary Clinton to be imprisoned, and said President Obama was a “liar” with no plan for defeating ISIS.

As of Thursday, there’s something new to say about him: Flynn will be moving into the West Wing as President-elect Donald Trump’s national security adviser.

The move will immediately make Flynn one of the most powerful people in the US government and give him enormous influence over the Pentagon, State Department, and CIA — the very organizations he clashed with publicly and privately during his final years in uniform.

Flynn har kallat islamofobi ”rationellt

Flynn himself allows that in some areas, it's possible for the U.S. to cooperate with Russia in the larger war against radical Islam.
In this sense, the authors are not really arguing that America should be in a shooting war with all of the countries that don't like America, and with radical Islam. Instead, they call for a kind of two-track approach. On the battlefield, they call for more tactical alliances with regional countries against the Islamic State and al Qaeda. But another component is a political war. Specifically, they say the next president should wage an ideological campaign to discredit both radical Islam, but also the dictatorships that oppose the west.

Flynn would basically be a neocon if he stuck with his core argument: tyrannies of all stripes are arrayed against the United States so the United States should destroy them. But some tyrannies are less worthy of destruction than others. In fact, Flynn argues there’s a category of despot that should be excluded from his principle, the “friendly tyrants” like President Abdel-Fatah el-Sissi in Egypt and former president Zine Ben Ali in Tunisia. Saddam Hussein should not have been toppled, Flynn argues, and even Russia could become an “ideal partner for fighting Radical Islam” if only it would come to its senses about the threat of “Radical Islam.” Taken alone, these arguments would make Flynn realist, not a neocon.

The book thus offers two very different views of how to exercise American power abroad: spread democracies or stand with friendly strongmen. Neither is a sure path to security. Spreading democracy through the wrong means can bring to power regimes that are even more hostile and authoritarian; standing with strongmen risks the same. Absent some principle higher than just democracy or security for their own sakes, the reader is unable to decide between Flynn’s contradictory perspectives and judge when their benefits are worth the risks.

It’s strange to find a book about strategy so at odds with itself. Perhaps the dissonance is due to the co-authors’ divergent views (Ledeen is a neocon and Flynn is comfortable dining with Putin.)

"When it is said that Russia would make an ideal partner for fighting Radical Islam, it behooves us to remember that the Russians haven't been very effective at fighting jihadis on their own territory, and are in cahoots with the Iranians. In Syria, the two allies have loudly proclaimed they are waging war against ISIS, but in reality the great bulk of their efforts are aimed at the opponents of the Assad regime," Flynn and Ledeen write.

But all of this raises questions about the central theme of "Field of Fight," that countries like Russia are in an alliance at all with radical Islam. If the Russians have fought ineffectively against jihadis, are we also to believe they are in an alliance with them? When I spoke with Flynn over the weekend, he said why he chose to call it an alliance: "It was a simpler way to explain the relationships."

So what binds these countries and movements together, then? The authors say the countries and revolutionary movements in this alliance share a fondness for totalitarianism, and perceive America as their chief threat. In this sense it's similar to how Stalin and Hitler had a brief pact in World War II.

"The countries and movements that are trying to destroy us have worldviews that may seem to be in violent conflict with one another," they write. "But they are united by their hatred of the democratic West and their conviction that dictatorship is superior."

Stabskapten skrev

Michael Flynn erbjuds posten som National Security Advisor:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us...=Homepage&_r=0