There is no more patriotic an Editorial Board in any newspaper in America than the USA Herald. We are admittedly biased toward support of our military.  We stand with our troops and respect and honor their service and sacrifice. Yet despite this support, we believe it is time for Congress to act and require an even greater commitment and an elevated standard of behavior from our military’s highest leaders following their service.  Otherwise, questions will arise about the ethics of their eventual advocacy and employment.

Much has been written about the American Military Industrial Complex. It is not our intention here to delve into relationships of war, public policy and profit, but instead the ethics of those who serve our country only to retire and join the self-interested corporations that profit from war and the manufacture and sale of weaponry.

It is unfair and impossible to question the motivation of those that serve in the military.  Regardless of motivation, however, if the result of that service leads to employment immediately following retirement from service with a company that does business with the government, then legitimate questions should be raised about the ethics of such an arrangement.  If action is not taken to restrain or prohibit this practice, myriad questions will arise about decisions made by these leaders, especially those decisions made immediately preceding retirement.  Of course, this is the time when the power of those in question is at its zenith.

The military has long been one of the greatest networking, mentor-protégé type organizations ever established. It only makes sense that good leaders seek to find the best leaders to serve under them and promote their protégés along the way as they themselves are promoted. However, when one’s mentor leaves the military and becomes a highly paid consultant or lobbyist for a company from which their branch of service buys billions of dollars’ worth of goods and services, it amplifies and validates this practice of “cashing-in” as an appropriate one. When that that mentor recruits his protégé to join him at corporate America when the protégé’s service expires, it only perpetuates the potential for corruption and adds to the ethical dilemma for the next generation of leaders.

That very little attention, much less regulation, has been focused on this problem speaks volumes to the respect Americans’ hold for their military leaders.  Yet given the stunning statistics on the revolving door between the military and the industrial complex, Americans would be wise not to have their vision clouded by stars and stripes.

We believe that men still serve for the sake of service and we find it doubtful that anyone would sign up for military duty only for the possibility that they could one day become a consultant for a defense contractor. Yet it must be acknowledged that gone are the days when our generals returned home to quiet lives of retirement running family farms and businesses, teaching at universities and military academies, or other non-defense related businesses. Today, when Generals seem to always become high paid consultants the day they leave their posts, for companies from which they authorized billions in purchases, it tarnishes the perceptions the rest of us have of these men.  In fact, it relegates our retiring soldiers from a position of reverence to the same impression we have of retiring Congressmen, opportunists who simply take advantage of the profits from the revolving door.

What is stunning is the rapid and dramatic increase in the Generals retirement from the military and directly into the military industry immediately following their retirement.  The Boston Globe reported that from 2004 and 2008, 80% of retiring three- and four-star officers went to work as consultants or defense executives. That compares with less than 50% only a decade prior from 1994 to 1998.  These statistics don’t even mention or include the more frightening fact of the additional soldiers that have become consultants or advocates for foreign governments, reported, as required by law, or not.

The startling revelation and lack of initial disclosure that followed retired Lt. General Mike Flynn’s resignation as the Head of the NSA only underscore how little we know about our military leaders when they leave their service armed with vast knowledge of our American defense systems and policy. Their ability to influence policy makers and affect American foreign policy is still very strong upon their retirement, making any work they do for foreign governments  somewhat frightening.  Flynn’s work involved advocacy for a foreign government, something that should be an obvious disqualifier for any man about to become the head one of the nation’s most powerful intelligence agencies and a practice that should be altogether banned for retired Admirals and Generals.

Members of congress have long ignored the obvious conflicts of interests between the relationships of Generals and the industries with which the military does business, especially after their service ends. Perhaps Congressmen and women know better than to call out these generals for the very practice they themselves perform time and time again in their retirement. However, it is high time Congress act on this issue as the danger of the revolving door of the military is a far greater risk to America and its security than any member of Congress cashing in on his or her service.

If honor, duty and country and the generous retirement packages for generals are not enough to motivate men and women to serve and agree to live non-conflicting lives post-retirement, then Congress needs to mandate it. Our heroes who serve at the very highest levels of our military owe it to the men they leave behind in service to live their retirement years without bastardizing themselves as advocates for the manufacturers of the weapons they used in service  or countries interested in altering American foreign policy.

This standard is, admittedly, very high.  But such a standard is the only one worthy and appropriate for the men and women who hold the rank of General or Admiral. This may be the very highest standard in the world for post-employment conditions and it is exactly what our military leaders should demand of themselves, their predecessors and their successors.

We believe that if these steps are not taken and taken soon, the U.S military will merely come to replicate the disgusting prostitution of public service and the revolving door of Congress to K Street. The American people expect more from their military leaders. Congress should demand more from our military leaders and our military leaders themselves should demand nothing but the highest standards of themselves.