I have a theory about why General Flynn had to go. And it isn’t the reasons that we’ve been told.
I believe the Deep State had their own reasons for wanting Flynn gone – and they almost got away with it, but one publication let slip something which turns their whole game tits up. This is just a theory, but it seems to me to be quite plausible.
Before I continue, let us be clear on what the Deep State means in this context. I’m not talking about a conspiracy theory. I’m talking about the US Intelligence Community and arms manufacturers, and anyone else who benefits from having an endless ‘terrible threat’ to the United States out there somewhere. If you want to know more about the Deep State, look at the beginning of this article by Caitlin Johnstone. Now, let’s move on to what Flynn did that scared the living shit out of the Deep State.
Take a look at this article: Michael Flynn had a plan to work with Russia’s military. It wasn’t exactly legal.
It’s not a commonly read article. Maybe the Deep State assumed very few people would see it, and that given the source, that anyone reading it would be anti-Trump and anti-Flynn by association. But I ran into this article by accident, and it got me to thinking.
Here is the gist of that article. The NDAA is an act which, as I understand it (bearing in mind that I am not a lawyer), authorizes the military of the United States of America. Now, you would think such an authorization would basically say ‘The US can have a military, and it can do what’s best for America.’ However, as it turns out, Washington does NOT go with such an act. Instead, the act comes with lots of caveats. One of those caveats currently is: under no circumstances can the US cooperate with Russia, or even coordinate with them, not even against a common foe, no matter what, period. If necessary the US must cut off its nose to spite its face to avoid any sort of coordination with *shudder* Russia.
Now, if you have studied any military history, and I have, you’ll think ‘Well, that’s a load of bollocks. Who the hell knows whether we might find ourselves needing to team up with Russia?’ But the politicians in Washington apparently don’t grasp this, or, more likely, don’t care.
Enter General Flynn. Here was a man who was a true military man, who looked at threats on a military level, and tried to solve them as problems to be handled on a military level. He looked at ISIS in Syria, and he noticed something: Both the US and Russia had an interest in fighting ISIS. So, he wanted to cooperate with the Russians against a common threat. He had no specific plan for this, just a general idea. To quote the article:
Accordingly, Flynn, through the NSC, began suggesting the Pentagon embrace Russia in Syria. A senior defense official summarized Flynn’s entreaties as: “Well, we should work more with the Russians, so we’re fighting the same enemy in Syria.” Although Flynn never communicated a formal plan or articulated an actual series of steps, he wanted the Pentagon to use the deconfliction channel to explore what the Russians considered possible for a team-up against ISIS.
If put into effect, such a proposal would clearly violate the NDAA prohibition on cooperation with Russia. A cadre of Pentagon lawyers had already aggressively reviewed the provision and provided guidance to keep the Pentagon on the right side of the law. That contributed to Pentagon opposition to a 2016 proposal from John Kerry to expand intelligence sharing with Russia over Syria in order to keep the Russians aboard a ceasefire.
You will notice the article tries to paint this suggestion as highly illegal, maybe even treason – but this kind of idea goes back to both sides of the aisle, since Kerry had proposed something similar. And yes, it would probably technically violate the NDAA – but it would likely have 1. worked and 2. been in the interests of the people of the United States, not to mention Syria. As such, although the article tries to frame this as tantamount to treason, it actually seems like the most sensible plan to come out of Washington in a decade. But herein lies the true problem with it: it would actually stand a chance of defeating ISIS and bringing peace to a big chunk of the middle east.
In other words, General Flynn was proposing we actually team up with a potential ally and kick ISIS’ ass once and for all. It was, from a military point of view, pretty much a no-brainer. It had a decent chance of succeeding in permanently crippling and perhaps ending the threat of ISIS.
This is anathema to two groups in particular: weapons contractors and the US Intelligence Community.
See, after the fall of the Soviet Union, these two groups realized something: they needed there to be a permanent threat against the United States in order to make money (in the case of weapons contractors) or justify their continued violation of our rights and their bloated budgets (in the case of the IC). In other words, these two groups needed endless war, or, best of all, the threat of endless war, along with lots of proxy wars to fight abroad (after all, if war came to America’s shores, or became a world war, citizens would demand that it actually be resolved). Thus, a couple of years after the end of the Cold War (which was a gift of ambrosia to both the weapons contractors and the IC), they pushed us into war in Iraq. But it ended quickly and did not lead to any long-term threats. Then a decade later, they pushed for war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and, with the help of the MSM, were able to garner support for wars that continue to this day. But those wars were getting harder and harder to justify and maintain – until ISIS just happened to spring up (doubtless, the IC, and Hillary’s State Department, had nothing to do with planting the seeds for ISIS to take root, and this was a coincidence).
What Flynn was suggesting was a way to end the conflict with ISIS, or at least deal that conflict a devastating blow, in addition to leaving Assad, a secular ruler who largely maintained peace for the various sects in Syria, in charge. Which was bad, because Assad is 1. not totally committed to shafting Russia on a pipeline, and 2. has refused to allow a Rothschild bank to tank over his nation.
The Deep State could never allow such a successful military operation. So Flynn had to go. Unlike Kerry, whose proposal could simply be shut down, Flynn was too highly placed, and his influence went too far. So the Deep State had to find a way to get rid of Flynn, and thus, they pressured him away with Trumped (excuse the pun) up Russian connections.
Remember this, the next time some politician gets accused of some kind of impropriety. Politicians commit improprieties all the time. Comey’s testimony revealed that Lynch obstructed justice in the Clinton investigation, and his previous statements confirm Clinton violated the Espionage Act. So remember, when a politician gets in actual trouble for a supposed impropriety, it is never about the law. Instead, ask cui bono? ‘Who benefits?’ And remember, the one who benefits will be in the Deep State. And then ask yourself, what was this person doing to subvert the interests of the Deep State? In Flynn’s case, that was trying to implement a military solution to a military threat, not just to the United States, but to the world – but for the Deep State, it was a threat to their wallets, and so he had to go.