8 ms·

When 80 percent of US generals go to work for arms makers

paulddraper 3y ago
Okay. Where do you expect US generals to get jobs? Foreign militaries? McDonald's? Blackwater? I understand the military-industrial complex, I just don't know if senior military officer job selection is really the thing to be surprised about or get upset over.
- pknomad 3y ago
  Let’s also not forget that congressmen/women also work for consulting/law firms afterwards. Chris Dodd is an example I can think of top of my head. Point is - it’s common for people in public service to get gigs in private sector after their stint
- catgary 3y ago
  If they are being paid a generous pension, I can’t see why it’s unreasonable we expect them to simply be retired.
  - maximilianburke 3y ago
    Because three star and four star tanks are temporary, officers will retire at the end of their term to finish their career as that highest rank, rather than revert to a two star rank until they are required by law to retire. But the type of person who makes it that far isn’t going to be the type of person who wants to stay idle for long, especially if they are still feeling pretty young.
    - rendaw 3y ago
      There are two, conflicting images being painted in this thread. 1. Poor generals who can't do anything other than military need these cush jobs or else they'd be out on the streets. 2. Generals are energetic and capable and would want to try something new even with a pension. If they have enough energy to not stay idle, then certainly they don't need these arms jobs? If they're worn out and can't do anything else, then we should give them pensions enough so they don't feel forced to work for arms manufacturers.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- kamranjon 3y ago
  From the article: "One practice that introduces bias into the shaping of defense policy is the revolving door between the U.S. government and the weapons industry. The movement of retired senior officials from the Pentagon and the military services into the arms industry is a longstanding practice that raises serious questions about the appearance and reality of conflicts of interest. Mostly because employing well-connected ex-military officers can give weapons makers enormous, unwarranted influence over the process of determining the size and shape of the Pentagon budget." This seems to answer your confusion about why they are concerned about this. The article also seems to suggest that they aren't trying to ban former Generals from getting jobs, they would just like to regulate it better, the first two proposals seeming to be pretty important: - Bar four-star officers from going to work for companies that receive $1 billion or more in contracts with the Pentagon annually. - Extend “cooling off periods” before retired officials can go to work for the arms industry to four years. This would ensure that key contacts or key information that the official may have been privy to while serving would not provide an outsized advantage.
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    So .... McDonald's?
    - WaxProlix 3y ago
      These are retirees, they have pensions, this isn't a McDonalds situation and you know it.
      - paulddraper 3y ago
        > The article also seems to suggest that they AREN'T trying to ban former Generals from getting jobs
        kamranjon 3y ago
        You purposefully left off the end of the sentence? You know, the part about regulation? Cause nowhere in the article does it say they are trying to stop retired generals from taking these jobs, just that they would like to regulate it to prevent conflicts of interest. I get the feeling that maybe you haven’t read the article yet?
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  Pay them a decent retirement and encourage them to teach at AWC or similar institutions.
- clintonb 3y ago
  > I understand the military-industrial complex, I just don't know if senior military officer job selection is really the thing to get upset over. Why not? The article provides a few cases of this situation leading to wasteful spending. Limiting this revolving door can eliminate waste. > Where do you expect US generals to get jobs? I'd pay them not to work. Same for retired Congress members. You get 100% of your salary for four years to help close the revolving door. That's the deal you make for taking the job. This can be enforced on military officers, but would probably be deemed unconstitutional for Congress.
- bglazer 3y ago
  I’m sure there are plenty of places that would be happy to have people with experience running life or death operations involving the most complex infrastructure imaginable. The fact is that defense contractors are not employing them for their transferable skills. They just want a direct line into the pentagons (i.e. the public’s) pockets.
liquidise 3y ago
I’m more surprised that 80%+ of generals feel they need to work after their discharge. The presumption that employing former generals impacts the military spending budgets is, if true, a failure of the legislature and the budgetary councils, not these former government employees moving onto private sector jobs.
- AustinDev 3y ago
  You get 2x-4x salary. Your military retirement + full healthcare and your mid 6 figs from Lockheed and friends. Why wouldn't you?
- ajcp 3y ago
  The type person who makes O-9 or O-10 is one that just needs to always be working. It's no different than C-suite executives in any other field: they go insane if they're not doing *something*, so why not do something they've spent 30+ years being successful at.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  > I’m more surprised that 80%+ of generals feel they need to work after their discharge. Would you be surprised if I told you that tech CEOs don't base their employment on financial need?
psunavy03 3y ago
This is like complaining that someone like Vint Cerf or Guido von Rossum isn't quitting technology to go to law school. When you have 30-40 years of experience up to literally the executive or C-suite level in a field, your best bet in your 50s is to stay in that field. And for General Officers or Flag Officers, that field is the defense sector. Sure, it's always needed to have ethics safeguards when people involved in contracting switch jobs, but domain expertise is a thing that's valued. And as much as it's an uncomfortable truth for some people on the internet, working in defense is not a dishonorable career. And while corruption in the so-called "military-industrial complex" exists, based on my 20 years in uniform, I'm not sure it's worse than in other sectors of the economy.
- clintonb 3y ago
  > And while corruption in the so-called "military-industrial complex" exists, based on my 20 years in uniform, I'm not sure it's worse than in other sectors of the economy. Your response to the corruption is whataboutism? Should we aim to end corruption regardless of what happens in other sectors?
  - nononoenono 3y ago
    a more appropriate interpretation (according to the site guidelines) is that the poster was implying corruption in the us economy is very low and that military corruption, being no worse, is also very low. aiming to eliminate corruptoin is a bit pie in the sky.
    - psunavy03 3y ago
      Exactly this. If the Fat Leonard fiasco had been a "dog bites man" story, it wouldn't have been such a scandal. Again, looking back on a 20-year active and reserve career in uniform, my personal opinion is that a lot of the waste and inefficiency in DOD is precisely because of all the ethics rules. Not that I don't approve of ethics rules, but there are times it seems the hoops you have to jump through to spend government money are based on the assumption that A) everything has to be above board and B) all contractors involved are inherently a bunch of flim-flam artists who will fleece the government given half a chance. And this is precisely why the Pentagon bureaucracy is so infamous, and why companies want to hire retired Generals and Admirals to help them navigate it.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
w0z_ 3y ago
Same thing happens in China.
OrvalWintermute 3y ago
There is a problem with this. Generals and Admirals in the know have very current knowledge about capability gaps, and how to better serve the customer. Given that they already have a 1 year cooling off period for any contract they directly oversaw (most weapons programs are overseen by O6 & O5s, or junior SES). We're in this very sensitive time where you want senior Warfighters and planners are vitally needed for a massive modernization campaign as we shift US Defense away from counter-terrorism and towards peer nation-states. US Defense was lulled during Iraq and Afghanistan, thinking counter-insurgency is what we'll be fighting forever. The military way of thinking and planning battle campaigns, and knowledge of Order of Battle, both our own, but also of our enemies - that is perishable knowledge in these senior officer's heads. Additionally I would like to bring up one other thing - although troops matter a great deal, and so does training, much of combat comes down to weapons systems. Weapon Systems - Better, faster, cheaper, more accurate, more lethal, more mass-producable, less resource intensive, more logistically mobile - is what wins wars.
- dantheman 3y ago
  Sounds like they should go to a think tank that can work with all defense contractors instead of favoring the one who will pay them the most.
  - OrvalWintermute 3y ago
    Think Tanks can be a good place for a flag officer too, but generally they don't have as much money. I think I'd actually prefer to see the generals and admirals getting new gigs with the smaller side of defense industry - there are tons of medium and small sized companies that could use their help.
    - devilbunny 3y ago
      > there are tons of medium and small sized companies that could use their help Yeah, but how many can pay something equivalent to the big boys? A friend's father retired from the Navy as a former boomer captain and went into industry as an inspector for power plants, working for one of the large insurers. Not a job that's going away, not a small company that might or might not make it. Just steady employment for the next 15 years or so (which, given how long ago it was, he's well beyond) until he wants to retire for good.
refurb 3y ago
By this same logic we should ban anyone working for the government from taking on a private sector job in the same field, and vice versa. Silicon Valley executives shouldn't be allowed to take a role in the government's technology group 18F?

Okay. Where do you expect US generals to get jobs? Foreign militaries? McDonald's? Blackwater? I understand the military-industrial complex, I just don't know if senior military officer job selection is really the thing to be surprised about or get upset over.

pknomad 3y ago
Let’s also not forget that congressmen/women also work for consulting/law firms afterwards. Chris Dodd is an example I can think of top of my head. Point is - it’s common for people in public service to get gigs in private sector after their stint
catgary 3y ago
If they are being paid a generous pension, I can’t see why it’s unreasonable we expect them to simply be retired.
- maximilianburke 3y ago
  Because three star and four star tanks are temporary, officers will retire at the end of their term to finish their career as that highest rank, rather than revert to a two star rank until they are required by law to retire. But the type of person who makes it that far isn’t going to be the type of person who wants to stay idle for long, especially if they are still feeling pretty young.
  - rendaw 3y ago
    There are two, conflicting images being painted in this thread. 1. Poor generals who can't do anything other than military need these cush jobs or else they'd be out on the streets. 2. Generals are energetic and capable and would want to try something new even with a pension. If they have enough energy to not stay idle, then certainly they don't need these arms jobs? If they're worn out and can't do anything else, then we should give them pensions enough so they don't feel forced to work for arms manufacturers.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
kamranjon 3y ago
From the article: "One practice that introduces bias into the shaping of defense policy is the revolving door between the U.S. government and the weapons industry. The movement of retired senior officials from the Pentagon and the military services into the arms industry is a longstanding practice that raises serious questions about the appearance and reality of conflicts of interest. Mostly because employing well-connected ex-military officers can give weapons makers enormous, unwarranted influence over the process of determining the size and shape of the Pentagon budget." This seems to answer your confusion about why they are concerned about this. The article also seems to suggest that they aren't trying to ban former Generals from getting jobs, they would just like to regulate it better, the first two proposals seeming to be pretty important: - Bar four-star officers from going to work for companies that receive $1 billion or more in contracts with the Pentagon annually. - Extend “cooling off periods” before retired officials can go to work for the arms industry to four years. This would ensure that key contacts or key information that the official may have been privy to while serving would not provide an outsized advantage.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  So .... McDonald's?
  - WaxProlix 3y ago
    These are retirees, they have pensions, this isn't a McDonalds situation and you know it.
    - paulddraper 3y ago
      > The article also seems to suggest that they AREN'T trying to ban former Generals from getting jobs
      - kamranjon 3y ago
        You purposefully left off the end of the sentence? You know, the part about regulation? Cause nowhere in the article does it say they are trying to stop retired generals from taking these jobs, just that they would like to regulate it to prevent conflicts of interest. I get the feeling that maybe you haven’t read the article yet?
anigbrowl 3y ago
Pay them a decent retirement and encourage them to teach at AWC or similar institutions.
clintonb 3y ago
> I understand the military-industrial complex, I just don't know if senior military officer job selection is really the thing to get upset over. Why not? The article provides a few cases of this situation leading to wasteful spending. Limiting this revolving door can eliminate waste. > Where do you expect US generals to get jobs? I'd pay them not to work. Same for retired Congress members. You get 100% of your salary for four years to help close the revolving door. That's the deal you make for taking the job. This can be enforced on military officers, but would probably be deemed unconstitutional for Congress.
bglazer 3y ago
I’m sure there are plenty of places that would be happy to have people with experience running life or death operations involving the most complex infrastructure imaginable. The fact is that defense contractors are not employing them for their transferable skills. They just want a direct line into the pentagons (i.e. the public’s) pockets.

liquidise 3y ago

I’m more surprised that 80%+ of generals feel they need to work after their discharge. The presumption that employing former generals impacts the military spending budgets is, if true, a failure of the legislature and the budgetary councils, not these former government employees moving onto private sector jobs.

AustinDev 3y ago
You get 2x-4x salary. Your military retirement + full healthcare and your mid 6 figs from Lockheed and friends. Why wouldn't you?
ajcp 3y ago
The type person who makes O-9 or O-10 is one that just needs to always be working. It's no different than C-suite executives in any other field: they go insane if they're not doing *something*, so why not do something they've spent 30+ years being successful at.
paulddraper 3y ago
> I’m more surprised that 80%+ of generals feel they need to work after their discharge. Would you be surprised if I told you that tech CEOs don't base their employment on financial need?

psunavy03 3y ago

This is like complaining that someone like Vint Cerf or Guido von Rossum isn't quitting technology to go to law school. When you have 30-40 years of experience up to literally the executive or C-suite level in a field, your best bet in your 50s is to stay in that field. And for General Officers or Flag Officers, that field is the defense sector. Sure, it's always needed to have ethics safeguards when people involved in contracting switch jobs, but domain expertise is a thing that's valued. And as much as it's an uncomfortable truth for some people on the internet, working in defense is not a dishonorable career. And while corruption in the so-called "military-industrial complex" exists, based on my 20 years in uniform, I'm not sure it's worse than in other sectors of the economy.

clintonb 3y ago
> And while corruption in the so-called "military-industrial complex" exists, based on my 20 years in uniform, I'm not sure it's worse than in other sectors of the economy. Your response to the corruption is whataboutism? Should we aim to end corruption regardless of what happens in other sectors?
- nononoenono 3y ago
  a more appropriate interpretation (according to the site guidelines) is that the poster was implying corruption in the us economy is very low and that military corruption, being no worse, is also very low. aiming to eliminate corruptoin is a bit pie in the sky.
  - psunavy03 3y ago
    Exactly this. If the Fat Leonard fiasco had been a "dog bites man" story, it wouldn't have been such a scandal. Again, looking back on a 20-year active and reserve career in uniform, my personal opinion is that a lot of the waste and inefficiency in DOD is precisely because of all the ethics rules. Not that I don't approve of ethics rules, but there are times it seems the hoops you have to jump through to spend government money are based on the assumption that A) everything has to be above board and B) all contractors involved are inherently a bunch of flim-flam artists who will fleece the government given half a chance. And this is precisely why the Pentagon bureaucracy is so infamous, and why companies want to hire retired Generals and Admirals to help them navigate it.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

w0z_ 3y ago

Same thing happens in China.

OrvalWintermute 3y ago

There is a problem with this. Generals and Admirals in the know have very current knowledge about capability gaps, and how to better serve the customer. Given that they already have a 1 year cooling off period for any contract they directly oversaw (most weapons programs are overseen by O6 & O5s, or junior SES). We're in this very sensitive time where you want senior Warfighters and planners are vitally needed for a massive modernization campaign as we shift US Defense away from counter-terrorism and towards peer nation-states. US Defense was lulled during Iraq and Afghanistan, thinking counter-insurgency is what we'll be fighting forever. The military way of thinking and planning battle campaigns, and knowledge of Order of Battle, both our own, but also of our enemies - that is perishable knowledge in these senior officer's heads. Additionally I would like to bring up one other thing - although troops matter a great deal, and so does training, much of combat comes down to weapons systems. Weapon Systems - Better, faster, cheaper, more accurate, more lethal, more mass-producable, less resource intensive, more logistically mobile - is what wins wars.

dantheman 3y ago
Sounds like they should go to a think tank that can work with all defense contractors instead of favoring the one who will pay them the most.
- OrvalWintermute 3y ago
  Think Tanks can be a good place for a flag officer too, but generally they don't have as much money. I think I'd actually prefer to see the generals and admirals getting new gigs with the smaller side of defense industry - there are tons of medium and small sized companies that could use their help.
  - devilbunny 3y ago
    > there are tons of medium and small sized companies that could use their help Yeah, but how many can pay something equivalent to the big boys? A friend's father retired from the Navy as a former boomer captain and went into industry as an inspector for power plants, working for one of the large insurers. Not a job that's going away, not a small company that might or might not make it. Just steady employment for the next 15 years or so (which, given how long ago it was, he's well beyond) until he wants to retire for good.

refurb 3y ago

By this same logic we should ban anyone working for the government from taking on a private sector job in the same field, and vice versa. Silicon Valley executives shouldn't be allowed to take a role in the government's technology group 18F?