8 ms·
Well, they are free people, not slaves. If they want to take a job in the private sector, they should have the freedom to do it, including working for a soverei
by credit_guy 4y ago
Well, they are free people, not slaves. If they want to take a job in the private sector, they should have the freedom to do it, including working for a sovereign state that is not an enemy. Of course, they have knowledge of classified stuff, but I'm sure there are protocols around that, and they are aware of it.
It would be more scandalous if they were to take jobs with Russia, or Iran. But Saudi Arable is a US ally, so what's the problem?
- sschueller 4y agoI would not count of SA being an ally for ever. I find this highly inappropriate especially for someone with sich high rank. Very very dangerous territory that could end up with a treason charge.
- mjevans 4y agoNon-competes should include compensation commensurate for the non-compete period. In the case of these individuals is the retirement package not sufficient to guard national secrets?
- aerostable_slug 4y agoThe security agreements they signed are sufficient to guard national secrets. It has nothing to do with whether they go to work for Raytheon, the Saudi Defense Ministry, or Goodwill in their retirement, their compensation packages, etc.
- MichaelZuo 4y agoI'm not seeing how 'security agreements' can guard against them deciding to just stay in Saudi Arabia with the patronage of the princes.
- thrill 4y agoExpatriates would still be subject to not disclosing national secrets. It's not like they're former second-rate steak salesmen.
- MichaelZuo 4y agoSubject by whom? The Saudi Arabian government has their own agenda. And obviously the U.S. government cannot enforce laws or policies in Riyadh.
- aerostable_slug 4y agoYou honestly think an American flag officer would defect to Saudi Arabia? Really? Russia, China, or Iran would be a far "better" choice for a number of reasons, chiefly the fact that the Saudis might turn the turncoat back over to the US for any number of reasons — like pulling American maintenance contractors out of KSA, which would ground their air force in a matter of days and leave them very vulnerable to Iranian aggression. Hell, without contractor representatives giving them cues I wonder if they can really run some of the gear we've sold them. Besides, if I'm going to be stuck in one dictatorship for the rest of my life (because you could never safely travel again), I'd pick somewhere like Iran over KSA in a second.
- MichaelZuo 4y agoI was originally responding to your comment that: 'The security agreements they signed are sufficient to guard national secrets.' High ranking officers can just as much buy plane tickets as anyone else. Yes, including to countries that may not have entirely harmless intentions. Signatures on a piece of paper are not the final arbiter of disputes between countries, as demonstrated by the previous administration. Even if they were, not everyone can be trusted 100% just because they made promises to that effect, actions speak louder than words after all.
- aerostable_slug 4y ago
- dsfyu404ed 4y agoWorking for Raytheon vs working for KSA is like the difference between buying an index that has a bunch of AAPL and buying AAPL. You're "fractionally" working for KSA (and whoever else).
- mek6800d2 4y agoYour comment reminds me of a scene in the Rolling Stones' Altamont Concert film: Keith Richards is hanging out of his dressing room door and he answers a queston, "Yeah, we sold out, but it was for the money so that's okay! (laughter)" From Keith Richards, it was funny. A retired general claiming the military did not provide enough incentive to guard national secrets would also be laughable, but in a different sense. Unrelated to the topic of this discussion and elsewhere in the film, Mick Jagger answers another question, "Am I satisfied? Sexually, yes. Philosophically, no." (Working from hazy memories here -- I last saw the movie in the 1970s, I think.)
- maxbond 4y agoIn the United States, the charge of treason only has meaning within the context of a declared war (due to it's specific definition within the constitution). Given that wars are no longer declared, I don't foresee even literal traitors being charged with treason until either a law is passed creating a different charge with different criteria, or Congress decides to check the Executive regarding the declaration of war. No reason to believe either are on the horizon; it's entirely possible no one will ever be charged with treason in the United States ever again.
- Guy2020 4y agoWow, I can't believe the "free market" argument is being used to justify top military leaders serving other countries. I guess we aren't a country anymore. Just one big (free) market. Truly late stage capitalism here.
- basementcat 4y agoThis sort of thing isn’t all that unusual. John Paul Jones, whom many regard as the "father" of the United States Navy, served as a rear admiral for the Imperial Russian Navy after he retired from the US Navy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Jones https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Jones
- hef19898 4y agoBack the day Napoleon, from Corsica, actually whantedbto join the British Army before he settled to become an Artillery Officer in the French Army. The rest is, quite literally, history. We don't live in the 19th century anymore so.
- basementcat 4y agoFidel Castro wanted to play for the Washington Senators baseball team but wasn’t signed due to an underwhelming tryout. https://sabr.org/bioproj/topic/fidel-castro-and-baseball/ https://sabr.org/bioproj/topic/fidel-castro-and-baseball/
- lern_too_spel 4y agoTLDR; he didn't try out for the Senators. The story is a myth.
- neaden 4y agoDo you have a citation for that? My understanding is he went to boarding school in France at the age of 9 and then directly entered the French military academy. The hero of his youth, Pasquale Paoli, was in exile in England for much of that time and so maybe he wanted to join him until the revolution happened and Napoleon no longer supported Corsican independence.
- edgefield 4y agoPerhaps not unusual, but ethical? That’s a different matter. A former US general working for a theocratic, monarchy with a deeply concerning history on human rights raises some serious red flags in my mind.
- idontpost 4y ago
- Dawnyhf5 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- marshray 4y agoMy dim understanding is that once you are enrolled in General- and Admiral-level security clearances, you are not quite free free to freelance your experience globally without significant limitations. The key questions raised would seem to be: did they in fact obtain the required signoffs, and are the current requirements sufficient or do they need some adjustment?
- google234123 4y agoThe saudis are allies and we sell them many of our top weapon systems.
- marshray 4y agoYes, and there are a lot of signoffs involved.
- unethical_ban 4y agoIt seems the ethics and wisdom of that is the debate.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago>did they in fact obtain the required signoffs, You don't get official "signoff" when you're at that level. You get plausibly deniable permission with the understanding that the powers that be reserve the right to pull the rug out from under you should doing so be politically expedient.
- europeanguy 4y agoSaudi Arabia hasn't really been a us ally since about 2016 when Saudi Arabia tried dumping oil price to ruin the us shale industry. Ever since the USA has been preparing to strike back. Look up the NOPEC bill. It looks like the USA plan is to charge Saudi Arabia with manipulating oil prices (being a cartel is literally the stated goal of OPEC). SA knows this and they're aligning themselves with Russia and China (with whom they're ideologically closer anyway). Also just a comment, the dichotomy "they are free not slaves" is entirely useless to this discussion. There are countless examples from elsewhere in society of where a person isn't a slave but still has constraints on how they can earn money.
- exhilaration 4y agoAren't there literally American military bases in Saudi Arabia? https://militarybases.com/overseas/saudi-arabia/ https://militarybases.com/overseas/saudi-arabia/ How much more allied can you get?
- europeanguy 4y agoLike I said, this is a story in development now. Yes, there are bases in SA, and the US has threatened to pull them out. [1] https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/10/06/oil-dispute-prompts-call-remove-us-troops-saudi-arabia-uae.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/10/06/oil-dispute-p... [2] https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-democrats-slam-opec-cuts-threaten-pull-missile-systems-saudi-arabia-uae https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-democrats-slam-opec-cu...
- credit_guy 4y ago> Saudi Arabia hasn't really been a us ally since But then who has "really" been an ally since whenever? All sovereign nations have national interests, and they are not 100% allied with the US interests. Still, in the case of Saudi Arabia, their most important security concern is Iran. And there, they are aligned with the US. Also, the US is the most important security partner of Israel, and, according to wikipedia [1], Saudi Arabia has quite a good working relationship with Israel reports have surfaced in recent years indicating extensive behind-the-scenes diplomatic, intelligence, and security cooperation between the two as part of a larger Arab-Israeli alliance against Iran (see Iran–Israel proxy conflict and Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict) and, more recently, Turkey under Erdoğan. At the same time, the Saudi relationship with the Palestinian National Authority is deteriorating. A former general working for Saudi Arabia is in no way traitorous. It absolutely makes sense, both in their personal interest, but also in the general US national interest. Yes, I know about Kashogi. But those guys are not going there to tell MBS to kill more disidents. They are going there to give security advice. And that security advice will benefit the US, not hinder it, because it will result in a stronger ally, not a stronger enemy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_re...
- bigbacaloa 4y agoSure, no one has any responsibility for what his employer does or where the cash comes from. Mafia mentality has taken over the tech world apparently.
- yucky 4y agoRussia and Iran weren't behind 9/11, Saudi Arabia (or at least key parts of the current ruling royal family) was.