MG Flynn (on intell mainly)

[davidbfpo]

The last official interview given by MG Michael Flynn:http://breakingdefense.com/2014/08/f...ith-a-warning/

[davidbfpo]

A FP comment as Mr Flynn comments on policy and for some comes close to a "chalk line". For me viewable:https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/19...litical-fray/?

[davidbfpo]

Nothing like a headline to catch one's attention and yes again ret'd General Flynn sallies forth. This time in a 'Head to Head' interview on Al-Jazeera, due to be broadcast 31st July 2015. Meantime here is a "taster":http://pr.aljazeera.com/post/1242308...ood-al-jazeera

Asked if drone strikes tend to create more terrorists than they kill, Flynn replied:

I don’t disagree with that..I think as an overarching strategy, it’s a failed strategy. What we have is this continued investment in conflict....The more weapons we give, the more bombs we drop, that just… fuels the conflict. Some of that has to be done but I’m looking for the other solutions.

[davidbfpo]

His interview is now available, 47 mins long (yet to be watched here) after yesterday's broadcast:http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/...080342288.html

[Bill Moore]

For us folks in the U.S. this is the video link to the interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaqICPPokhw

Interesting interview, I always liked Flynn, but don't always agree with him. There is some truth to his comments that we invest in more conflict instead of strategic solutions. However, his claim that we could end these conflicts if just invest in developing a new economy in the region is a bit simplistic. Clearly, a growing youth bulge will need economic opportunity, but focusing on economic transformation ignores two key points. First, we don't have the power to transform their economic systems, we can only assist if they want to change. Second, it ignores the fact that these conflicts are being promoted by state and non-state actors seeking power, they're not interested in our efforts to help economically.

[OUTLAW 09]

For us folks in the U.S. this is the video link to the interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaqICPPokhw

Interesting interview, I always liked Flynn, but don't always agree with him. There is some truth to his comments that we invest in more conflict instead of strategic solutions. However, his claim that we could end these conflicts if just invest in developing a new economy in the region is a bit simplistic. Clearly, a growing youth bulge will need economic opportunity, but focusing on economic transformation ignores two key points. First, we don't have the power to transform their economic systems, we can only assist if they want to change. Second, it ignores the fact that these conflicts are being promoted by state and non-state actors seeking power, they're not interested in our efforts to help economically.

In some aspects he is correct--the original arguments of the supporters of the expansion of globalism in fact promised us exactly that--but in fact globalization only benefited the Top Global 1000 and the super rich and did nothing for a majority of the countries.

If one looks at the Arab Springs and the color revolts---outside of the standard demands of rule of law and good governance and pushing back on corruption was the not so subtle demands for economic development and financial security of the various civil societies.

I keep going back to a very long debate I had in Abu Ghraib with a 50 year old Iraqi supporter of AQI-- a shoe manufacturer that complained bitterly to me that the US should stop the importation into Iraq of "cheap Chinese sandals" as he with his 50s shoe manufacturing equipment and very cheap Iraqi labor could not match the actual cost of 1.50 USD in the local markets.

That is when the negative effects of globalization come home.

An American in Iraq hearing complaints from an Iraqi Sunni AQI business supporter about Chinese underpriced sandals being imported and we the US should do something about it.

But again just how many Americans ever get the chance to see those effects up close and personal in other countries?

How much of the US Top 500-1000 have billions parked in overseas accounts because they do not want to pay US taxes for their overseas business---lets say if they invested say just 25% of that into overseas verifiable business/job creation then X amount off their US taxes and the government does not get stuck with development.

It is those Top 500-1000 that have greatly profited from globalization so why cannot they reinvest into return?

If one really looks at that massive amount of migration these days it is from;
1. wars, civil unrest etc
2. economic migration--simply people looking for work and a better economic life

So does it not behoove us to stem the flow of economic migration simply by investing in their future?

In the long run it is probably cheaper that all the wars we have been in -in the last say 15 years.

[OUTLAW 09]

In some aspects he is correct--the original arguments of the supporters of the expansion of globalism in fact promised us exactly that--but in fact globalization only benefited the Top Global 1000 and the super rich and did nothing for a majority of the countries.

If one looks at the Arab Springs and the color revolts---outside of the standard demands of rule of law and good governance and pushing back on corruption was the not so subtle demands for economic development and financial security of the various civil societies.

I keep going back to a very long debate I had in Abu Ghraib with a 50 year old Iraqi supporter of AQI-- a shoe manufacturer that complained bitterly to me that the US should stop the importation into Iraq of "cheap Chinese sandals" as he with his 50s shoe manufacturing equipment and very cheap Iraqi labor could not match the actual cost of 1.50 USD in the local markets.

That is when the negative effects of globalization come home.

An American in Iraq hearing complaints from an Iraqi Sunni AQI business supporter about Chinese underpriced sandals being imported and we the US should do something about it.

But again just how many Americans ever get the chance to see those effects up close and personal in other countries?

How much of the US Top 500-1000 have billions parked in overseas accounts because they do not want to pay US taxes for their overseas business---lets say if they invested say just 25% of that into overseas verifiable business/job creation then X amount off their US taxes and the government does not get stuck with development.

It is those Top 500-1000 that have greatly profited from globalization so why cannot they reinvest into return?

If one really looks at that massive amount of migration these days it is from;
1. wars, civil unrest etc
2. economic migration--simply people looking for work and a better economic life

So does it not behoove us to stem the flow of economic migration simply by investing in their future?

In the long run it is probably cheaper that all the wars we have been in -in the last say 15 years.

Faced with rising wages and mounting costs at home, Chinese textile manufacturers opening mills in South Carolina (!) http://nyti.ms/1KIKHVT