FOLLOW US

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.