The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies

by Michael T. Flynn, Michael Ledeen

The Instant New York Times Bestseller

Ten years ago we found evidence that al-Qaeda was far more organized and adept than we had previously given them credit for. It took us nearly that long to locate and execute their leader, Osama bin Laden, and we are far from finished. Al-Qaeda has morphed into a much more dangerous, menacing threat: ISIS. A war is being waged against us by radical Islamists, and, as current events demonstrate, they are only getting stronger. This book aims to inform the American people of the grave danger we face in the war on terror—and will continue to face—until our government takes decisive action against the terrorists that want nothing more than to destroy us and our way of life.
Lt. General Michael T. Flynn spent more than 33 years in Army intelligence, working closely with Generals Stanley McChrystal and David Petraeus, Admiral Mike Mullen, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and other policy, defense and intelligence community, and war-fighting leaders. From coordinating on-the-ground operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, to building reliable intelligence networks, to preparing strategic plans for fighting terrorism, Flynn has been a firsthand witness to government screw-ups, smokescreens, and censored information that our leaders don’t want us to know. A year before he was scheduled to retire, Flynn was sacked as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency for, among other things, telling a Congressional Committee that the American people are in more danger than we were just a few years ago. Why?
The Field of Fight succinctly lays out why we have failed to stop terrorist groups from growing, and what we must do to stop them. The core message is that if you understand your enemies, it’s a lot easier to defeat them—but because our government has concealed the actions of terrorists like bin Laden and groups like ISIS, and the role of Iran in the rise of radical Islam, we don’t fully understand the enormity of the threat they pose against us.
A call to action that is sensible, informed, and original, The Field of Fight asserts that we must find a way to not only fight better, but to win.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Military Fiction, Middle East, Terrorism, History, Islam

208 pages, Hardcover

First published July 12, 2016

About the author

Lt. General (Ret.) Michael T. Flynn spent 33 years as an intelligence officer. Before he was terminated from government service, he served as the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Senior Military Intelligence Officer in the Department of Defense. He has since founded the Flynn Intel Group, a Commercial, Government, and International consulting firm. He lives in Virginia.

(source: http://us.macmillan.com/author/lieute...)

Reviews

[Jim Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

MUST READ, MUST READ, MUST READ! The world is changing and you may not even understand or know just how much it is changing and why. It is impossible for me to recommend General Michael Flynn's book, The Field of Fight as much as I could put into words. General Flynn not only lays out the problems the world and more specifically America faces, he provides solutions and some of the solutions you may not like but often times unlikable solutions are exactly what is needed. READ THE BOOK, READ THE BOOK! You will hear about names, places and battles of the past, why they happened, the results and what could have been done more effectively. Far more important is the well documented failure of the Obama Administration to even recognize the severe problems facing America and the free world and President Obama's failure to recognize and honor the truth of his most senior officers and advisers. It is a truthful but very disgusting read when you understand the layers of governmental interference in fighting wars and battles that will ultimately affect our futures.

[Nick Ziegler · Rating 1 out of 5]

It's difficult to know where to begin criticizing this jingoistic, paranoid, calculatedly-inexact discussion of US foreign policy. Because the book is short and Flynn will now be the President's National Security Advisor, I thought it wise to read this book. Knowing that Flynn has a reputation for running afoul of political correctness when discussing present US national security, I remained open minded that a military professional might have both a nuanced understanding of what I have no problem calling an enemy (though to what degree the US military is the instrument with which to fight it is debateable) and a respectable, programmatic set of recommendations for addressing it (i.e., at this particular moment, ISIS).

First, the least ridiculous aspects. The authorial voice of Flynn and Ledeen repeatedly urges that Islamists like Al Qaeda and ISIS not be underestimated. They are intelligent, well-connected, tactical, strategic, and motivated. This is all good, and the public sometimes pretends this is not the case; but all military professionals must believe it to be the case. That is to say, merely stating this truism does not tell us anything in particular about Flynn's fitness to make policy or combat decisions in his new role. The authorial voice is also very hung up on the issue of political correctness. Again, if we approach this book wanting to understand what Flynn will do, a sermon against political correctness does not clearly help us. While it is true that certain liberal people and institutions are wary of addressing fascistic political Islam directly (for the good reasons that they hope to avoid a conflation between these political movements and all Muslims, in an atmosphere of resurgent nationalism and hostility between religions), this is not the case of the White House (except, perhaps, as presented by the Press Secretary). Yet this is "Flynn"'s claim: that US policy under Obama is guided by political correctness and a willful ignorance of the dangers of Islamic terror groups, and is therefore weak and likely to make Americans unsafe. One only need to look at a timeline of Obama's drone strikes and other military actions, or the steadfastly jingoistic rhetoric coming from his administration, to know this is not true. While many politically correct Pollyannas may count among Obama supporters, this tells us nothing about actual policy or combat decisions. And this is what Flynn will be in charge of.

Yet these two threads, that of a competent and motivated hostile force and that of a weak Democratic government, are elements of many engineered red state bestsellers. And this is why it's best to read this book as the performance of an attitude concocted by the two named authors, but presumably mostly Ledeen, rather than as a serious discussion by a military professional of what America might do to "deal with" ISIS (i.e. to prevent Americans from being attacked, to deprive them of resources and territory, to aid somehow in Syria and Iraq having secular democratic governments, etc).

Yet the character, Flynn, constructed by the authorial voice is not one to tell us much of use. The book starts with a hamfisted, classic story of bootstrapping American redemption under patriarchal authority (something familiar to anyone accustomed to the American biographical tradition, but here told at a third grade reading level). Much like Malcolm X, Flynn spent A WHOLE NIGHT in a juvenile institution and was released on a year's probation for his "hoodlum" activities (unspecified). As "Flynn" puts it, "Saved!" And he was, not only because of unaddressed aspects of his background that might've helped him receive lenient treatment, but because of "my father's steel hands and mother's piercing eyes of disappointment." Punishment deters, the nuclear family is the source of values. We are told that Flynn's father, Charlie, was a "disciplinarian," and that it was thanks to Charlie's "good seargeant's counsel and near-daily physical interactions" that Flynn has got along so swell in life. "Physical interactions" can be nothing other than a euphemism for child beating. I wonder if an editor objected to "enhanced parenting technique"? (Trick question: the book is clearly unedited).

We are told in excessive and irrelevant detail about Flynn's wholly inconsequential military premier during the wholly inconsequential (in geopolitical terms) invasion of Grenada. Though Flynn is entirely open that nothing was accomplished in Grenada, the theodicy of stopping communism is enough for him to never question its necessity. We are treated to a tale of Flynn rescuing some of his colleagues who, after lounging on the beach of the resort island they invaded, went for a swim and nearly drowned. Kind of a good metaphor for America's foreign policy postwar, but I don't think such a literary device was intended. This feat of derring-do is more likely meant to fill us with awe at Flynn's good will and readiness to risk his life for other good boys like himself. Flynn also explains how the US tapped into Grenada's communication systems; and while Flynn offers no evidence that anything of value was learned from this helping of ourselves to Grenadian information, the episode is hoisted as an apologia for any and all further invasions of privacy on behalf of the war effort. (Since Islamic terrorism is a global phenomenon, the point is that all global information can rightly if not legally be accessed by the US security establishment).

Flynn's discussion of recent Middle East history is a fantasy. For example, Flynn refers obliquely to some indications that al-Zarqawi had been in Iraq during 2002 as a way of insinuating the preposterous idea that radical Islam's arrival in Iraq was not made possible in any direct way by the US invasion. We are told that Baathism was not secular and was at best latently Islamist; the implication is we'd have to invade sooner or later, why not 2003? While Flynn (in a mood of political correctness) acknowledges that the main victims of Islamism are Muslims and that not all Muslims are Islamists and all that, by denying that Pan-Arab Nationalism is at least DIFFERENT than what's going on with Al Qaeda and ISIS, Flynn effectively flattens all the distinctions he limp-wristedly invokes. The only good Muslim, it seems, is an apolitical subject of an American client state. (Flynn's overwhelming zeal for military solutions, his willful ignorance of history, and his disinterest in respecting either national sovereignty or the dignity of non-Americans has him bemoaning the fact that the US did not invade Iran during the Green Movement -- in Flynn's ahistorical perspective, it's possible to gloss over tragedy and move straight to farce).

Finally, Flynn's recommendations (pp. 116-118) are unlimited military spending, worldwide military deployment, and complete disregard for international law and public sentiment. Flynn fancifully concocts an "Axis of Evil" spreading from Pyongyang to Russia to Tehran to Havana (Havana?? Really?). This Axis vaguely includes actors like the Assad regime in Syria, but it is all in service of ISIS and like groups. He points out the absurdity of this claim, but then asserts that it is nonetheless true, without spelling out how all the contradictions (let alone lack of evidence of any kind of serious cooperation) resolve themselves. That's one way of preempting your critics, I guess.

When it comes to actual supporters of ISIS and like groups, like US ally Saudi Arabia, Flynn says the US must offer Saudi Arabia "evidence" of its official and well known policy of support for radical Islamist terrorist groups, and then give it an ultimatum to "arrest" terrorists or face the "consequences." Presumably, Flynn wants to skip levers like, you know, no longer giving Saudi Arabia tons of money or using sanctions (the weak strategy Obama used against Iran rather than invading it like a man who was the object of "physical interactions" as a child would) and move straight to an actual war with Saudi Arabia. This is how the character created by Ledeen thinks, and maybe how America's new National Security Adviser thinks.

And yet, behind all the rhetoric, don't we just get a continuation of the same? There will not be a war with Saudi Arabia; this is the right wing version of virtue signalling, in which an impossible demand or stipulation is presented more for self-expressive than for programmatic ends. The US will maintain its alliances, maintain or increase military spending, continue to disregard international law, and generally go along with Flynn's global contention in this book: everything that was once done in the name of the Cold War can now be done in the name of the war on Islamic terrorism. There are no limits, no prices too high.

I began this book with an open mind. I had no idea it would be so poorly written (it actually is painful, and so despite its brevity and the fact that its ostensible subject is now a major figure in American politics, I don't recommend anyone try to read it), but more than that I had no idea it would be such a vacuum of ideas. One expects high ranking military officers to be jingoistic and maintain some of the naive American exceptionalist notion that the US is "always surprised by war" (a paraphrase of something Flynn actually writes in this book) and never seeks it out or does anything to make it more likely. Yet even if one expects the innocence-of-America narrative to be relatively unquestioned by lifelong military professionals, one expects that, simply to do their jobs correctly, they have to have a nuanced view of the world and an appreciation of contingency and the limits of military power. The question then becomes: is Flynn emblematic of his profession, or is he really the "maverick" (he actually calls himself this, illustrating the point with reference to an Apple commercial) he claims to be? One hopes it's the latter, if only because that means there are fewer Flynns in the world.

[Gavin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I confess that I came to this book with a few prejudices, but I came away after reading it thinking that General Flynn and Michael Ledeen have it exactly right. We face an existential threat from Radical Islamists.

Four key points in how to win:

"1. Destroy jihadi armies, and killing or capturing their leaders;
2. Discrediting their ideology, which will be greatly helped by our military victories, but which requires a serious program all its own;
3. Creating a new set of twenty-first-century global alikeness. This, too, will emerge naturally from the military and political campaign;
4. Bringing a direct challenge to the regimes that support our enemies, weakening them at a minimum, bringing them down whenever possible."

Some people say this means going back to Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Syria. Well yes and no. As General Flynn points out we defeated the Soviet Union without a major war. It was ideological war and I believe that President-elect Trump will be a master of this despite what many say, has the advisors to make a real dent in something we have allowed far too long.

At 180 pages this is a fairly quick read. I actually plan to go back over it before taking to the library. I love the library, but I like to underline and annotate. Have to resist...

[David Firester, Ph.D. · Rating 4 out of 5]

To begin with, I will say that the book is not exactly what one might expect from a recently retired General. For starters, there were numerous spelling errors, an assortment of colloquialisms and some instances in which the prose took on a decidedly partisan tone. The means of documenting sources was something akin to a blog-posting, in that he simply copied and pasted links to pages, right into the body of the work. I would have liked to have seen a more thoroughly researched and properly cited work. All of this was likely due to the fact that General Flynn released his book in the days leading up to Donald J. Trump’s announcement of his Vice Presidential pick. As Flynn is apparently a close national security advisor to Trump, I can understand why his work appears to be somewhat harried. Nonetheless, I think that the book’s timeliness is useful, as the information it contains might be helpful in guiding Americans’ election choices. I also think that despite the absence of academic rigor, it makes his work more accessible. No doubt, this is probably one of Mr. Trump’s qualities and one that has catapulted him to national fame and serious consideration for the office he seeks. General Flynn makes a number of important points, which, despite my foregoing adverse commentary, gives me the opportunity to endorse it as an essential read.
In the introductory chapter, General Flynn lays out his credentials, defines the problem, and proceeds to inform the reader of the politically guided element that clouds policy prescriptions. Indeed, he is correct to call attention to the fact that the Obama administration has deliberately exercised its commanding authority in forbidding the attachment of the term “Islam” when speaking of the threat posed by extremists who advocate and carry out violence in the religion’s name. As one who suffered at the hands of the administration for speaking truth to power, he knows all too well what others in the Intelligence Community (IC) must suffer in order to hold onto their careers.
In chapter one, he discusses where he came from and how he learned valuable lessons at home and in service to his country. He also gives the reader a sense of the geopolitical context in which Radical Islamists have been able to form alliances with our worst enemies. This chapter also introduces the reader to some of his personal military heroes, as he delineates how their mentorship shaped his thinking on military and intelligence matters. A key lesson to pay attention to in this chapter is what some, including General Flynn, call ‘politicization of intelligence.’ Although he maintains that both the present and previous administration have been guilty of this, he credits the Bush administration with its strategic reconsideration of the material facts and a search for better answers. (He mentions this again in the next chapter on p.42, signifying this capability as a “leadership characteristic” and later recalls the president’s “insight and courage” on p. 154.)
Chapter two of The Field of Fight features an excellent summary of what transpires in a civil war and the manner in which Iraqis began to defect from al-Qa’ida and cooperate with U.S. forces. In this task, he explains for the layperson what many scholars do, but in far fewer pages. Again, this makes his work more accessible. He also works through the process of intelligence failures that are, in his opinion, produced by a superordinate policy failure housed in the upper echelons of the military structure. In essence, it was a misperception (willful or not) that guided thinking about the cause of the insurgency, that forbade an ability to properly address it with a population-centric Counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy. He pays homage to the adaptability and ingenuity of General Stanley McChrystal’s Task Force 714, but again mentions the primary barrier to its success was bureaucratic in nature.
The main thrust of chapter 3, aptly named “The Enemy Alliance,” is geared toward tying together the earlier assertion in chapter regarding the synergy between state actors like Iran, North Korea, Syria, and the like. It has been documented elsewhere, but the Iranian (non-Arab Shi’a) connection to the al-Qa’ida (Arab Sunni) terrorist organization can’t be denied. Flynn correctly points out how the relationship between strange bedfellows is not new in the Middle East. He briefly discusses how this has been the case since the 1970s, with specific reference to the PLO, Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, Bosnia and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s. He also references President Obama’s “curious sympathy” (p. 92) for enemies in places such as Venezuela and Cuba.
General Flynn then reminds readers of some facts that have either been forgotten, or virtually unknown, by most Americans. Namely, the role that Saddam Hussein actually played with regard to the recruitment of foreign terrorists, the internal policies of appeasement for Islamists in his army and the support he lent to Islamists in other countries (e.g., Egypt, Sudan and Afghanistan). He also reminds the readers of the totalitarian mindset that consumes Islamist groups, such as al-Qa’ida and the Islamic State. All the while, and in contrast to what his detractors might opine, General Flynn is speaking of Radical Islam as a “tribal cult,” and not taking aim at the religion itself. This chapter is perhaps the most robust in the book and it is the sort of reading that every American should do before they engage in conversations about the nature of political Islam.
Chapter four is a blueprint for winning what used to be called the ‘global war on terror.’ Although such a phraseology is generally laughed at in many policy circles, it is clear, as General Flynn demonstrates, that some groups and countries are locked in combat with us and our partners in the West. Yet, as he correctly points out, the Obama administration isn’t willing to use global American leadership in order to defeat those who see us, and treat us, as their collective enemy. General Flynn’s prescription includes four strategic objectives, which I won’t recite here, as I’m not looking to violate any copyright laws. The essence of his suggestions, however, starts with an admission of who the enemy is, a commitment to their destruction, the abandonment of any unholy alliances we have made over the years, and a counter-ideological program for combating what is largely an ideologically-based enemy strong suit. He points to some of the facts that describe the dismal state of affairs in the Arab world, the most damning of which appear on pages 127-128, and then says what many are afraid to say on page 133: “Radical Islam is a totalitarian political ideology wrapped in the Islamic religion.” Nonetheless, Flynn discusses some of the more mundane and pecuniary sources of their strength and the means that might be tried in an effort to undermine them.
The concluding chapter of General Flynn’s work draws the reader’s attention to some of the works of others that have been overlooked. He then speaks candidly of the misguided assumptions that, coupled with political and bureaucratic reasons, slows adaptation to the changing threat environment. Indeed, one of the reasons that I found this book so refreshing is because that sort of bold introspection is perhaps the requisite starting point for re-thinking bad strategies. In fact, that is the essence of both the academic and practical work that I have been doing for years. I highly recommend this book, especially chapter 3, for any student of the IC and the military sciences.

[Glen Stott · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lt. General Michael Flynn spent most of his career in Army Intelligence. He worked with Generals McChrystal, Patraeus, and other men who fought the war on terror from its early days. They saw the war in Iraq falling into defeat, and they developed the programs and policies that turned it into an astounding victory. I thought the surge in Iraq was merely an increase in men and materials that overwhelmed the enemy by sheer numbers. That was not the case. McChrystal and the others learned from the mistake of waging conventional war in a guerrilla situation. From that experience they created warfare that depended on overwhelming intelligence instead of overwhelming manpower and materiel. The surge was to provide the manpower needed to follow through with the intelligence that was being developed. With this intelligence, the military was able to effectively focus resources on the problems and win over the noncombatants to help by providing even more intelligence.

All this was made possible by President Bush’s trust of the military and his willingness to admit a mistake was being made in the prosecution of the war. In 2006 the needed changes were implemented. Not only were we winning the war in Iraq by 2009, but we had policies and programs in place that would have suppressed organized terror into the future. Then Obama took over. He had his own deep-seeded ideology that would not accept the things Bush and his generals had developed. He began a systematic withdrawal from the war on terror, refusing to even listen to his highly experienced and successful generals. As a result, the Middle East has slid into an abyss of chaos and death which is spreading worldwide as terrorist organizations grow and expand. Obama rejects anything that conflicts with the narrative he developed before he became President, making the same mistakes time after time to the detriment of the United States and world peace. Though intelligence gathered from Ben Laden’s files in Pakistan showed Al Qaeda was growing, the information was submerged because it conflicted with Obama’s narrative that, with the killing of Ben Laden, Al Qaeda was on the ropes. From as late as November 16, 2015, talking about the war on terror, Obama said, "What I'm not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning."

In the twentieth century we battled Nazism in Germany and Communism in Russia. These wars were not fought just with bombs and bullets but with words denouncing the ideologies, which played an important role in our victory. The war on terror is based upon and sustained by the ideology of Radical Islam. So-called Radical Islam comes directly from the Qur’an, the Hadith, and the Sira, the three holy books of Islam. This means that denouncing the ideology of Radical Islam requires denouncing parts of the Islamic faith. To ignore this removes the important part of the ideological debate from the table. To deny that Radical Islam is the problem, as Obama insists, is suicidal. Peaceful Muslims should join in the condemnation of the ideology of global jihad. Many are reluctant to do that because Radical Islam is a part of Islam.

“Field of Fight” is a short book, but it is jammed with information and historical insight.

[Jonathan Tennis · Rating 2 out of 5]

Having worked for Mike Flynn in a couple assignments, I can say that he is a leader that cares about the intelligence community. The book is a short read and for the most part (outside of some stories about early deployments) he stays on his target – the fight against radical Islam.

Flynn details his coming to intel and the problems with modernizing the approach to its collection faced in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Whoever wins the White House will be facing this situation in their administration and will hopefully read this book as it comes from a man who spent 30+ years of his life working in intelligence gathering.

“Most Americans mistakenly believe that peace is the normal condition of mankind, while war is some weird aberration. Actually, it’s the other way around. Most of human history has to do with war, and preparations for the next one. But we Americans do not prepare for the next war, are invariably surprised when it erupts, and, since we did not take prudent steps when it would have been relatively simple to prevail, usually end up fighting on our enemies’ more difficult and costly terms.” – p. 7

[Anne · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think it's important to read the direct source instead of summaries by the news networks, as this man may become our National Security Advisor.

He's experienced, tough, opinionated, and efficient. He's also quick to see the world as black and white, and not the endless shades of gray it truly is.

As a soldier, this makes him an effective warrior. As a security advisor, more diplomatic approaches will be necessary if the US is to be a well respected leader.

I found he oversimplifies certain histories in order to make his point. For example, he thinks Reagan was a strong leader, whereas Carter was a disaster for foreign policy. He criticizes Carter for being weak on the Middle East, but seems to gloss over Iran Contra and the fact that our training and arming of Osama bin Ladin happened in the 1980s.

Again, as a tough military commander, this might not be a big deal...but as someone who serves as an advisor to an inexperienced President with little knowledge of political and military affairs, it may be a significant problem.

[Jeff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ran through this pretty quick & was an easy read. Never having been in the military, some of the jargon and all the alphabet soup departments were a little dizzying at times. Other than that I found the background story interesting since Mr. Flynn is now part of the new administration. Also the info in battlefield situations involving information gathering, communication, & the disappointments connected with that were eye opening to me. I found myself not only informed but at times hopeful. It seemed that finally I was hearing some of the things that will cause us to win this war. I've seen where some were critical of the editing or lack thereof, in light of the topic I personally didn't care so much.

[Jonathan · Rating 1 out of 5]

really disappointing. while his overarching argument might be valid, he does a terrible job of creating any sort of coherent (or original) strategy. and even though he has a "professional" co-author, the book just seems poorly written and edited--it jumps around so much in time and topic, and that makes the narrative hard to follow. plus, the guy clearly seems to have serious sour grapes towards the current administration (they fired him, after all) and a prejudice against Islam itself rather than radical militants using the religion. suffice to say, I got next to nothing out of this book.

[Joseph Stieb · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'm reading a lot of right wing books on terrorism for a book project. Some of them are worthwhile, and others are just bad. Put this in the latter category. This book is poorly edited, poorly written, highly simplistic, totally lacking in "actionable" ideas, and myopic. It's a little insight into Flynn just on the cusp of his descent into extremism, full-on Christian nationalism, and conspiracism. He is fast and loose with language and the truth in this book, presaging his later political descent. For example, he repeatedly states that Obama tried to form an alliance with Iran, which is not remotely true. Trying to sign a nuclear deal with Iran is nowhere near the same thing as an alliance, as the US still recognized that we and Iran would still have tons of conflicting interests.

Flynn, like many conservatives, believes that fighting terrorism is largely a matter of 1. understanding the problem correctly and 2. summoning the will and resources to sustain the fight. Even in the mid-2010s, he still sees terrorism as the main threat to US interests in the world (although he's surprisingly hawkish about Russia too, given his later connections to the regime). As for the understanding part, Flynn argues (as conservatives have done for almost half a century) that terrorism is A. the latest version of the totalitarian menaces we defeated in Communism and B. a unified global network united by its shared hostility to the US. This is extremely simplistic: yes, radical Islamism is a totalitarian ideology, but it is highly dispersed and internally divided, as are most terrorist movements. This is also a massive over-hyping of the threat. Flynn claims, for example, that 20k people died from terrorism in 2015, which counts (I assume) people killed in the war against the Islamic State, who shouldn't really be counted as victims of terrorism.

Lastly, the book is disorganized and sloppily written. It just kind of ends, and in the last 2 chapters he blasts you with takes on terrorism without any particular order. The book's obsession with Iran reflects the longstanding obsessions of its co-author, Michael Ledeen. Overall, this book, and Flynn in general, is a cautionary tale about over-extended wars. Flynn was an intelligence and special ops expert who helped create effective kill/capture machines in multiple theaters. But over time he radicalized as those wars stagnated or reversed into even worse conflicts, and he seems to think that doubling down on the war on terrorism is the only thing that can save America. And yes, the stakes for Flynn are that high: even though AQ and IS are a shadow of their former selves, and the main terrorist threat to the US now is white supremacism, Flynn literally sees the struggle with Islamist terrorism as an existential threat to the United States. We got lucky that he was never able to serve as National Security Advisor, but he remains a paranoid, radical influence on the American right, having taken his War on Terror mindset into the domestic political realm.

[William Struse · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Crossroads of Our Republic –

Several times in its nearly 250 years of existence our Nation has been at a crossroads. Looking back on our War for Independence, the Civil War, and WWII we know the decisions made in those tumultuous times forever altered the destiny of our Republic.

We are once again at one of those crossroads where the battle lines have been drawn, only this time in an asymmetrical war between western democracy and the radical Islamists and nation states who nurture them. In his timely book Field of Fight, Lt. General Michael T. Flynn provides a unique perspective on this war and what he believes are some of the steps necessary to meet this foe.

Field of Fight begins as an autobiography in which the author gives you a sense of who he is as a man and a soldier. This background information then provides the reader with a better perspective through which to evaluate his analysis of the challenges we face as well as the course of action he believes we need to take to meet those challenges.

The following are a few of the guidelines General Flynn proposes for developing a winning strategy in our war with radical Islam and other potential foes:

1. Properly assess your environment and clearly define your enemy;
2. Face reality – for politicians, this is never an easy thing to do;
3. Understand the social context and fabric of the operational environment;
4. Recognize who’s in charge of the enemy’s forces.

In Field of Fight General Flynn makes the case that we are losing this war with radical Islam because our nation’s leadership has failed to develop a winning strategy. Further he opines that our current leaders lack the clarity of vision and moral certitude that understands American democracy is a “better way”, that not all forms of human government are equal, and that there are principled reasons worth fighting for – the very basic of those being, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

I’ll admit I’m concerned about the future of our country. As a husband and a father of five I wonder about the world we leaving for our children to inherit. I fear we have lost our moral compass thus creating a vacuum in which human depravity as exemplified by today’s radical Islamists thrives.

Equally concerning to me is what happens when the pendulum swings the other way. Will we have the moral and principled leaders to check our indignation before it goes too far? When that heart rending atrocity which is sure to come finally pushes the American people to white hot wrath who will hold our own passions in check? In a nation where Judeo-Christian moral absolutes are an outdated notion what will keep us from becoming that which we most hate?

As I stated at the start of this review, today we are at a crossroads. Once again our nation needs principled men and women in positions of leadership who understand the Field of Fight as described by General Flynn and have the wisdom and courage to navigate this battlefield.

* * *

In summary, although I don’t agree with everything written in this book I found it to be an educational read which will provided me with much food for thought over the coming months. As a representative republic choosing good leadership requires that we as citizens understand the problems and challenges we face as a nation. Today radical Islam is one of those challenges and General Flynn’s book Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies gives a much needed perspective on the subject.

[Tim Cardenuto · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you are used to reading books on current affairs by academic authors or journalists, be prepared for a rough read. This is not a history book. This is not a *detailed* analysis and prescription for solving our current geopolitical problems. Wild with accusations and should have's of the past administration, Flynn does not clearly convey that *he* has a consistent philosophy on what US foreign policy should be in the same situations. In some cases he seems to advocate for the US backing of totalitarian leaders to promote order above chaos, yet in others he decries the lack of US intervention in support of political uprisings. This isn't to say that seemingly contradictory attitudes *can't* coexist - they can, given a nuanced assessment of each situation - but Flynn does not acknowledge the apparent hypocrisy or provide his rational with enough detail for me to believe that he is, in fact, a thoughtful and entirely rational person.

I wouldn't expect a former military officer to be the best writer, but Flynn's attempt to convey his experiences and the world philosophy that comes from them is rambling at best and sometimes painful. I would have hoped *the* former head Intelligence Officer would be more interested in the serious and dispassionate analysis of world events that the public discourse desperately needs. If you are interested in books like that, read Lt. Col John Nagl's "Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife". While it does not discuss problems of religious or political ideology, it is a terrific book on counterinsurgency, based on an academic analysis of the way the British successfully adapted to problems of non-traditional warfare during the Malayan Emergency, compared with the similar but unsuccessful American attempt during the Vietnam War. Reading THAT book, you will actually feel like you learned something, and may have some intellectual faith restored in our military institution.

[Alejandro Heracles al-Mu'minin · Rating 4 out of 5]

To quote Hillary Clinon/Saul Alinsky, "There is only the fight"

The book focuses on modern military strategy. I was hoping for and expecting a profile on ISIS, summaries given are brief meant to supply context.

Most important is Flynn's recognition of the ideological battle that must be one. This is a very important distinction that has been ignored but must be made before any force can become victorious.


An expanded review focused on military strategy:
Flynn brings us through developments in intelligence gathering beginning with his experience in as a troop on the ground.

American war in the middle east 2003 to present is heavily profiled.

Affirmation of Obama administration's politics over military goals creating/allowing terrorism to resurge (2012 campaign lies ie 9-11-2012 + pulling troops out of afganistan without any military endorsement)

The US militaries utilization of technology and sharing communication is virtually non-existent.







The field of fight is all around us. In today's world it is either kill or be killed. Live free or eventually die.

America's highest ranking general makes it very clear. The culture wars are real. What intellectuals say and our actions can be more important than wars. They can prevent them or in maybe in the future finally end them.

[Jim Mccormick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Exceptional military intelligence perspective. Lots of compelling facts and war stories. Not sure I disagree with his observations and criticisms, but my initial reaction is that, as with Gen MaCarthur, I'm kinda glad there was a civil leadership there to rein him in. While it might be effective in the short term, I just can't believe a global judeo-christian jihad would be a good move, no matter how sophisticated and organized the global radical muslim jihad may be. We should strengthen our values, which I believe ultimately did win the cold war, not adopting our adversaries' values. It all sounds easy until you start picking out the bad guys, which is exactly what they want us to do. His penetrating insight seems to evaporate in front of the possibility that America's decisions may have involved more than just what he believes. Fascinating study of loyalty. Of course I may be biased by his recent political alliances, but it's hard to miss the emotionally charged proposition behind the vivid observations of the truly horiffic threat we face.

[Steve Atkinson · Rating 5 out of 5]

In his insightful and well-researched treatise on the global war against radical Islam, Lt General Michael T. Flynn lays out the history of our fight, a bit of the history of terrorism and what we can do to win. He explains how a good leader is willing, no, most willing to change strategy when the current strategy employed is not working.

This book should be required reading for all Americans who don't understand our enemy or why we seem to be losing this totalitarian foe. Wishing it away or giving in to your fatigue over hearing about this war and turning off the TV just won't cut it if our civilization is to continue.

This is a short book and though it's packed with information, you can spare the few hours it will take to make your way through it. If we don't understand our enemies we are bound to fail. Think about how that would ruin your day.

[Yasmine Flodin-Ali · Rating 1 out of 5]

Pretty crazy. A few interesting thoughts here and there about military operations, but these occasional coherent sentences are undercut by paragraphs filled with a delusional clash of civilizations narrative and other paranoid Islamaphobic ramblings. Worth reading though to learn more about the soon to be President's National Security Advisor. A very, very quick and surprisingly interesting read (although not for the reasons Flynn intended). The depths of Flynn's anger with "PC culture" is fascinating.

[Kate · Rating 4 out of 5]

He lays it out---how the fighting the Middle East has gone, how it's going now and how it can go much better. He says it like it is-he is critical of both parties. His main point is if we are going to commit US troops overseas then let's get the job done not keep retreating.

[David Gillespie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating read by Lt. Gen. Flynn. Succinct, yet deep. Please read

[Love · Rating 2 out of 5]

I picked up this book after Flynn was named Trumps national security advisor, wanting to learn more about his thinking. After finishing it I have to say that he comes off as a fairly reasonable guy.

[Timothy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't know where to start with this book. I believe Lt Gen Flynn makes a decent case for WHO America's enemy is and generally WHAT needs to be done to defeat them. But I felt like the book was almost a tirade or rant against administrations' (primarily Obama's) handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I felt like the book lacked a solid organization. Rather, it was more like a steady stream of thought rather than a thoughtfully constructed argument. For instance, I feel like he discussed transnational criminal organizations as a side note in the "How to Win" chapter rather than in "The Enemy Alliance" chapter where they were introduced. Additionally, North Korea and China were more like "notable mentions" than full-fledged members of the alliance. Even so, his illustrations, examples, citations, and discussions provide good evidence and support for his arguments which make it compelling. I especially appreciated his links to history - it's the same thing that's been going on for the last 100 years, only the enemies have different faces…only slightly though…

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/...

https://www.theatlantic.com/internati...


That said, I felt his goal was to reach the average American and paint the picture that there is a very real and existential threat (the WHO) to America and we need to do something about it (the WHAT). Unfortunately, both of those items deserve an answer to "Why?" Why is Iran and some other people like Russia, North Korea, China, and violent extremists (correction, radical Islamic extremists) a very real and existential threat to America? Why will the strategies proposed make any difference or why do we need to do something different? These questions are not very easy to answer and while I applaud his effort to make an incredibly complex environment simple, I feel like the lack of solid organization detracted from his exposition. It almost seemed at times as though he said more in his mind than what made it into the book, which may be the case, given his exposure to intelligence and the open-source nature of the text.

One of the items I appreciated was Flynn's honesty and lack of political correctness. Regarding "radical extremists" vs. "radical Islamic extremists," I happen to agree with him that we cannot separate Islam from the problem (and I really appreciated him using quotes from Muslims who happen to believe the same). It is central to the issue and it needs to be addressed by the Muslim community at large through intentional reformation. He also points out the painfully obvious - to defeat ISIS we must defeat their ideology. That begins with reformation, but it takes a focused information campaign to truly make it happen. I don't feel enough policy-makers are being honest with themselves or the American people in this regard in an effort to "not offend" Muslims. It also made me ask myself the question "is radical Islamic extremism an existential threat to America?" I think this is a very important question that every policy maker and every American needs to ask themselves. It’s a question that demands a hard, long thinking. This argument should be the focal point when asking ourselves how much national treasure (blood and money) we exert in its eradication. Another difficult question he forces you to ask yourself is, "What are America's national interests (is the spread of democracy or leader of the democratic world truly one of them) and to what extent should we spend national treasure to see them through?"

Another item I appreciated is Flynn's open criticism of how leadership receives palatable information rather than honest and raw information. I've seen it done. In reality, this is not a phenomenon unique to the military. Dr. Goleman's discussed the "Blind CEO" in his work, "Primal Leadership." Many CEOs are blind to the realities affecting their institutions - the military industrial complex is not immune to these leadership failures. Nobody likes bad news, receiving it or giving it and if bosses are prone to explosive reactions when receiving it, it makes it all the less likely they'll receive it at all! Or worse, they choose to ignore the signs because they're too busy believing what they want to believe.

In sum, Lt Gen Flynn, through this book, forces me to ask myself some hard questions regarding our national security while doing a good job of explaining a very complex environment along with the historical context and current examples to justify his claims on what should be our concern, and priority, when it comes to America’s national Security. The book made me think and helped connect some dots regarding historical events in my mind. Plus, he gave me a laundry list of other reads to keep me thinking. For these reasons, I gave the book 4/5. If it would have had a better structure and organization, I’d have no problems giving it 5.

[Tony | Outwork · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is not a traditional review of the book but I enjoyed LTG (R) Flynn's thoughts on the subject of Radical Islam. Here is an excerpt from www.outworkindustries.com:

I followed LTG Flynn a bit during the Trump campaign as he served as Senior Military Adviser. His thoughts then were immensely interesting to me because he was able to say exactly what needed to be done in order to gain a victory in the Middle East.

However, his words were not Politically Correct and the basis of his argument involves the reformation of Islam as a whole. It just seems to extreme. But then, we are reminded that Christianity has gone through a similar reformation and the norm for many Christians today is a moderate adherence to its core values. So why do we feel so strongly against LTG Flynn's thoughts on the reformation of Islam? Especially his strong arguments against Radical Isalm and Sharia Law? Mostly because people are too narrow minded to see truth, even when Flynn, once the highest ranking Military Intelligence officer in the Government espouses solid arguments for the truth.

After reading this thought provoking book, it is clear that one thing will persist in our society: We will continue to support Islam as a religion because it seems like the right thing to do, we will not publicly take a stance against Muslims because that seems like a wrong thing to do, we will continue to fight proxy wars, waste money, and essentially dabble in Middle Eastern conflicts until they eventually become strong enough to challenge us head on. People will die in this eventual circumstance but then we, the liberal society, will finally have enough evidence and reason to take a stance at those that persistently preach "Death to America."

r/Onward
www.outworkindustries.com

[Audrey · Rating 1 out of 5]

My dislike of this book is not based on the writing but rather the content. Flynn rants against the Obama administration and political correctness. In all fairness, he also describes failures of the Bush administration in the Middle East. Not surprising since we have been involved in many snafus in the Middle East for years. However, I do believe Flynn misses the mark on just how gullible his reading public is. Flynn is obsessed with Iran and believes it is the biggest contributor to terrorism. He believes the U.S. should have kept the "tyrant" Shah in place and praises Reagan's commitment to promoting democracy everywhere. He mentions Saudi Arabia in a brief comment in which he states we should not play the "blame game" with them. Oh, dear..... How many of the terrorists on the planes that hit on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia? He mentions bin Laden several times but doesn't mention that he comes from a very prominent Saudi family. Nor does he mention the money or trips to Pakistan/Afghanistan training camps made by the Saudis. Some of our problems in the Middle East are due to the fact that we have in the past had a tendency to support tyrants who aren't loving to their people and those people hold that against us. (As we hold others meddling in our countries affairs against them). He doesn't even mention Reagan's back door dealings with Iran during the Iran/Contra affair. He proclaims Russia a long-term and very viable threat and yet worked for a President who was quite chummy with Putin and he himself has some explaining to do regarding his ties with Russia. All in all this felt like a propaganda piece that fell short of its mark.

[Julius Evans · Rating 2 out of 5]

Maybe I'm reading too many generals' books. Also, I just finished reading 'American Radical,' the true story of an FBI agent who infiltrated a terrorist cell and averted a couple of terrorists attacks. So I was in the mood for what Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn had to say. Not to mention, last year, I read 'True Faith and Allegiance,' another real kick-ass book -- if you like that sort of story.

So Flynn was a rabble-rouser when he was coming up. I get that. He saved a couple of lives as a young guy. Got it. Fast forward, he served with our nation's finest (well, at the time) several of whom were also fired (General David Petraeus, General Stanley McChrystal). I guess the take-away there is if you aren't getting fired (at some point in your career), then maybe you aren't doing it right. Anyway, back to the review. The book just petered out to me. Maybe it will appeal to some folks and I'm certainly not going to bad mouth it. I have certainly read worse. Listen, the book is like 200 pages. You can't go wrong with that, right?

[فيصل اللنقاوي]

The ‏Author is very talented on fabricating lies in order to make the story more realistic,

In chapter 4 Iran : he claimed that the ALQAEDA IN AFGANISTAN AND IRAQ were recruited an supported by Iran's regime which is funny because we knew how the ALQAEDA was created in the 80's

He also claimed that the Communism and the Nazi has affected the Radical islamic which is silly because after WW2 the arab Communists did not adopt the armed struggle in the Plalestinian case and that's why the Arab has adopted other political movement like Baath party and Nasirism

In the book black flag the author didn't mention anything regarding Iran involved on communicated with Zarqawi he just manipulated the feelings of the American society
He had quoted Natinyahoo speech in Congress and made as a reference regarding Arab co operations with the Nazi in WW2 era which is hard to be truth
No one can guarantee this kind on communication
Furthermore Natanyahoo is full of lies .

[Ken · Rating 5 out of 5]

I saw Lt. General Michael T. Flynn on a TV news show and while talking about how to defeat radical Islam he mentioned his book "The Field of Fight - How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies" which I read. He details how to do that, why the then current administration (Obama's) in Washington is not up to the task. I enjoyed reading it. He wrote about what was working in Iraq with the importance of intelligence and working with local people. If they think outsiders will help defeat the extremists they will work with us to defeat them. If they think they will be stuck under the oppressive sharia law extremists afterwards they will expect to be executed for opposing them. When the Obama administration pulled out and began removing our effective military leaders it started falling apart in Iraq and we couldn't manage to start making the same kind of progress in Afghanistan. Yes. I think everyone should read it.

[Shawn Brands · Rating 1 out of 5]

I've never had such low expectations when starting a book, yet somehow this failed to meet even those. His supposition that the American people are made ignorant of national security issues by their political leaders is frankly unsupported on every issue he attempts to raise. His main point that Iranian involvement in Iraq and throughout the Middle East has been "hidden" for political expediency is frankly news to me...I thought that was pretty clear back in 2006. An understanding of Clausewitz is also lacking (shocking for someone who attended a senior staff college) as he repeatedly is unable to comprehend that wars are inherently political. Disturbing at best...but thats par for the course.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

Flynn overviews his life and career fighting terrorism in the middle east. The book provides insight on the terrorism, strategy, tactics and policies. Understanding the enemy and setting a clear strategy to defeat the enemy are key tenants of this book. Flynn's strategy is summarized well in his book. "we must engage the violent Islamists wherever they are, drive them from their safe havens, and kill them or capture them" - Page 105

The basic strategy sounds simple but the implementation is more complicated than Flynn alludes.
International laws and restrictions for foreign policy create significant blockades to Flynn's strategy. I look forward to Flynn's next book about the Russians & Trump!

[Sean · Rating 3 out of 5]

Utter crap, a terribly cited indictment of the influence of the Israel lobby on US foreign policy and an illogical screed against the supposed supporters of ISIS and other 'Radical Islamists'. The Ledeen family has their hooks in, and accuse Iran and Russia of aiding their cause. If that is the case, why is it that the cease fire of 8 October 2016 violated by the Israeli airstrikes in an act that helped Assad's own enemies - ISIS?

Read between the lines and replace Syria and Russia with the US, Turkey, the Gulf States and associated players, and a more accurate picture forms. Sibel Edmonds is a better source, and F. W. Engdahl is right about this clown. Dangerous!

[Craig Fiebig · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's hard to square recent events and accusations against Gen. Flynn with his writings in this book. Clearly no friend of the Russians, assuming his book reasonably reflects his world view, it's a wonder that he stands accused of paid collusion. Whether guilty or not his book warrants reading for any student of the conflict with Al Queda / ISIS. Flynn articulates a need for an honest appraisal of the opponent ... analysis unsullied by political consideration ... and a sober strategy reflecting realities on the ground. The strategic underpinnings absent for a string of administrations needs to be addressed.

[Mike Lisanke · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was an important true story by the author, but; here's what Colonel Flynn didn't tell you... our government is supporting and coordinating with Radical Islam Communists to promote Communism in our own country... our political leaders are NWO WEF Global Communists and they use radical Islamist Communists to create an enemy to fight to waste our resources and mental energy to fight, I suspect that Colonel Flynn knows this and does Not support this But instead fears the reaction of We the People knowing that our own government Is Corrupt Communist Controlled. Somebody, beyond Diane West must tell this story More.