SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
michael flynn
The Curious Case of Two Generals Named Flynn
An insider says Mike Flynn's brother lied about the Pentagon's response to the Capitol riot.
Dec 10, 2021
Time flies whether one is having fun or not: it's now almost a year since insurrectionists worked to nullify your vote in a violent storming of the Capitol. Investigations of the attempted overthrow of the government thus far have proceeded with all the urgency of an interagency review of the price structure of cafeterias in federal facilities.
Michael Flynn's brother, involved as he was in the decision to delay mobilizing the National Guard, shortly thereafter received a promotion to head U.S. Army Pacific: a prestigious field command.
Politico now reports that a former District of Columbia National Guard officer, Colonel Earl Matthews, has written a 36-page memo blasting the Pentagon inspector general's review of the Army's response to the January 6th insurrection. Colonel Matthews also suggests that congressional oversight of the incident has been stymied by senior Army officials lying in their testimony.
As for the inspector general's survey of the Capitol riot, the Matthews memo concludes that the survey's deflecting of blame from the Army was "worthy of the best Stalinist or North Korea propagandist." This is not implausible, given the history of inspectors general finding few problems in the agencies they oversee.
The memo's biggest tell is that it brands as "absolute and unmitigated liars" among the Army's congressional witnesses one General Charles Flynn, who at the time of the incident was the service's deputy chief of staff for operations. On January 6, he was stationed at the Pentagon, a couple of miles from the Capitol.
Does that name strike a chord? He is the brother of the ever-charming Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, President Donald Trump's national security adviser, fired and then sentenced for lying to the FBI about unofficial communications with the Russian ambassador during the 2016 presidential transition. He was subsequently pardoned by Trump. Here is Mike in happier days among his congenial Russian hosts.
Flynn's subsequent career has been varied. Throughout the Trump presidency and beyond, he has acted as a tireless spokesman for Trump's interests, publicly advocating martial law to overturn the 2020 presidential election. He has also sworn an oath to QAnon, the bizarre conspiracy cult that has created a whole new form of contagious mass mental illness.
To be sure, Colonel Matthews's memo does not mention Michael Flynn, directly or indirectly. For a military observer like Matthews, who almost certainly had no personal knowledge of the relationship between the two brothers, it would have been improper for him to speculate.
But he has already denounced General Charles Flynn for lying to Congress. If that charge can be substantiated by evidence, one would likely conclude he was covering up an inappropriate response by the Army to the riot. What other rocks might be turned over?
It certainly bears investigation. After all, CNN host Chris Cuomo's assistance of his brother, former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, to manage media fallout over accusations that the latter engaged in sexual harassment, was covered up for months. The recent revelation of their collusion was a media sensation.
While that story certainly had legitimate news value, why, for eleven months, has the Flynn fraternal connection virtually lain fallow? Charles Flynn was a key figure in the delay of the response to an attempted overthrow of the United States Government; his brother Michael a beneficiary of Trump's pardon who might have "owed" the president. And Trump, of course, was the one who most of all would derive advantage from a successful coup.
Clearing up this question is not only crucial to a proper investigation of the Capitol riot. Michael Flynn's brother, involved as he was in the decision to delay mobilizing the National Guard, shortly thereafter received a promotion to head U.S. Army Pacific: a prestigious field command. The posting indicates, among other things, the Army's evaluation of his performance in situations where sound judgment is critical.
It also comes at a time when military veterans--and also serving military personnel--are being recruited by extremist groups, Both categories were disproportionately represented in the mob that attacked the Capitol. It is imperative that military and civilian leadership understand the domestic extremist threat and take action against it.
America's two-decade "forever war" in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in a U.S. military force enduring multiple tour of duty. It has unquestionably left at least some of the force, officers and enlisted alike, cynical and ripe for politicization.
History, of course never repeats itself exactly, but eerie parallels exist. There were masses of German soldiers who returned from World War I embittered and estranged by their pointless sacrifice, and inclined to blame the politicians for losing the war. They were readily recruited into the Freikorps militias, theoretically ad hoc formations to defend Germany's fluid border with a newly-created Polish state.
But they became increasingly involved in attacking the left political opposition in Germany's streets, developing a profound hatred of the democratic institutions of the Weimar Republic. Their activity helped pave the way for the Third Reich.
A correspondent of mine, a Vietnam combat veteran and former Marine, wrote this about the potential recruitment of extremists from the military: "... We have lost the ideal of what we wanted in a military reflecting our society, our right-wing society has captured the military... If you walk the Pentagon halls there will be not ONE TV tuned to anything else but FOX."
If that description even approaches reality, it clearly explains the military's wretchedly miserable intelligence about the war in Afghanistan. It does not require inordinate cynicism, however, to suppose the officer corps knows all about the War on Christmas.
To be certain, there were many people in the military and civilian chain of command on January 6th, and a coincidence of family ties is not proof. But it and everything else connected with the event bear close investigation, both in view of an insider's accusations of perjury, and the knack of inspectors general for minimizing or whitewashing government dysfunction.
I am struck by how few people in our civilian government seem to be aware that it was sheer luck that an overthrow of the government miscarried, and that the danger has not gone away. On the contrary: unaddressed, the peril will only increase. Like the politicians of Weimar, they behave like rabbits mesmerized by a cobra.
Keep ReadingShow Less
It's Time to Talk About Michael Flynn and His Cronies
At this point, he should clearly be disciplined, and severely—so why isn't he?
Jun 25, 2021
It's time to talk about Lieutenant General Michael Flynn.
The modern phenomenon he represents, though it had its precursor standouts like Generals George McClellan and Douglas MacArthur, was initiated when Admiral William J. Crowe--a recently retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--publicly endorsed Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential election. As payback, Crowe got the ambassadorship to the Court of St. James's. Since that time, flag officers have been increasingly more willing to violate over a century of practice and protocol by speaking out publicly on political matters.
Still, Flynn and his counterpart, Lieutenant General William Boykin, break the mold, since--unlike McClellan, MacArthur and Crowe--both men lack intellectual stature. Boykin, after all, previously proclaimed--in uniform--that his (Christian) God was better than the Islamic God because his was real and the other an idol. This from the man then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence. If this were not so deadly serious, it'd be fit for a clown show.
Both Flynn and Boykin hail from the US Army's Special Operations contingent, hardly known as a bastion of intellectual distinction. In fact, in the 1980s, when Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA) agitated fiercely for a stand-alone command for such forces, many of us in the military warned of bad things to come once the special operators were removed from adult leadership, i.e., the conventional forces to which previously they had had to report. "Be careful what you wish for, Senator..." was an oft-quoted aphorism by conventional military officers. Today, US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) not only controls these forces, but provides them with their own separate budget: dollars fueling what often equates to policy lunacy.
Flynn's latest egregious comments, suggesting the need for an American coup d'etat not unlike that which recently occurred in Myanmar, set a new low.
All that said, when Flynn took the stage at the Republican Convention in 2016 and chanted "Lock her up!"--referring to Hillary Clinton--the military leadership should have intervened. Doubly so, when Flynn only added fuel to his personal political fire--including, of course, twice pleading guilty for lying to the FBI, and his relief as Trump's first national security advisor.
But Flynn's latest egregious comments, suggesting the need for an American coup d'etat not unlike that which recently occurred in Myanmar, set a new low. At this point, he should clearly be disciplined, and severely--so why isn't he?
It's really quite simple. The military, particularly the Army's leadership, is worried about two things: (1) a third or more of the rank and file, and perhaps a quarter of the officer corps, agree with Flynn politically; and (2) the All-Volunteer Force (AVF) is spending huge amounts of money and time recruiting--still often falling short--and one of its most reliable recruitment pools has long comprised young men and women who also tend to share Flynn's worldview. The AVF cannot afford to alienate these people.
Yes, the uniformed leadership, plus its political and press supporters, instead describe the ostensible difficulty of prosecuting retired officers, but that's a legal smokescreen for a lack of moral and political courage related to the other political and recruiting factors.
In 1930s Germany, the same reluctance prevailed, in a general sense, with regard to the rise of Hitler. The German army--the Wehrmacht--was dominated by its Prussian flag officer corps. They thought, largely to a man, that they could handle Hitler, that he would be a short-lived political phenomenon. Some even sympathized with his stated desire to "clean up" Germany; others were sympathetic to his then-latent but widely-realized anti-Semitism.
Other political parties--the Communists, the Social Democrats, the Catholic Center Party--though together they outnumbered the Nazis, thought similarly--that the Nazis were a flash-in-the-pan, would soon wear out their welcome and disappear. We all know how that worked out. A riveting rendering of this period is provided in a modern work of fiction, Babylon Berlin (and subsequent books), by Volker Kutscher--later adapted as a Netflix series.
With Flynn and his cronies left largely unchecked, Congressional Republicans having blocked an investigation of the January 6th events at the Capitol, Trump still lingering powerfully in the wings, Christian nationalism rampant in what constitutes a veritable Third Great Awakening, Republicans--my own political party--looking crazier by the day, the Biden Administration mired in the political disaster Republicans have been organizing and funding ever since Lewis Powell gave them the road map and Charles and David Koch the money to implement it--the coming catastrophe could be unparalleled.
If we could find some courage amongst the Army's leaders, an initial antidote would be throwing the book at Michael Flynn.
Trump Reportedly Floated Michael Flynn's "Martial Law" Suggestion During White House Meeting
"A week ago 126 of my Republican colleagues violated the Constitution by supporting Trump's attempt to steal the election. How many support Trump's discussion of military dictatorship?" asked Rep. Bill Pascrell.
Dec 19, 2020
During a meeting at the White House on Friday, President Donald Trump reportedly asked his advisers about retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn's recent suggestion that the administration impose martial law and use the military to conduct a "rerun" of the November presidential election.
According to the New York Times, which first reported the discussion Saturday, Trump's advisers pushed back against Flynn's proposal and other ideas the president floated during the meeting, including his suggestion that notorious right-wing attorney Sidney Powell be named special counsel for an investigation into baseless allegations of widespread "voter fraud." Flynn, who Trump pardoned last month, was reportedly present at the White House meeting.
In a tweet early Sunday morning, Trump--who is set to leave office in a month--denied that he raised Flynn's call for martial law, dismissing the Times story as "fake news" and "knowingly bad reporting."
The Associated Press reported that during the Friday meeting, the president's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani "pushed Trump to seize voting machines in his hunt for evidence of fraud."
While Trump is unlikely to do anything resembling what Flynn and Giuliani suggested, observers warned that the lame-duck president's willingness to entertain such proposals highlights the threat he still poses to democracy on his way out the door.
\u201cThe President of the United States actually sat in the Oval Office and discussed the possibility of a military coup to change the outcome of the election he lost.\n\nReflect on that.\u201d— Charles Booker (@Charles Booker) 1608413144
"A week ago 126 of my Republican colleagues violated the Constitution by supporting Trump's attempt to steal the election," tweeted Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-N.J.), referring to GOP support for a Texas-led lawsuit that the Supreme Court rejected earlier this month. "How many support Trump's discussion of military dictatorship?"
Axios reported Saturday that senior Trump administration officials, whom the outlet did not name, are growing "increasingly alarmed that President Trump might unleash--and abuse--the power of government in an effort to overturn the clear result of the election."
"Their fears include Trump's interest in former national security adviser Michael Flynn's wild talk of martial law; an idea floated of an executive order to commandeer voting machines; and the specter of Sidney Powell, the conspiracy-spewing election lawyer, obtaining governmental power and a top-level security clearance," according to Axios.
In response to the Axios story, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) dismissed the Trump advisers' supposed alarm as "all for show," given that they've repeatedly enabled the president's past abuses.
"They have empowered him as he destroys democratic institutions and embarrasses the U.S. globally," Omar tweeted. "They are shameless."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular