An hour after the official ceremony marking the end of his 35-year career in the Air Force, General Gregory “Speedy’’ Martin returned to his quarters to swap his dress uniform for golf attire. He was ready for his first tee time as a retired four-star general.
But almost as soon as he closed the door that day in 2005 his phone rang. It was an executive at Northrop Grumman, asking if he was interested in working for the manufacturer of the B-2 stealth bomber as a paid consultant. A few weeks later, Martin received another call. This time it was the Pentagon, asking him to join a top-secret Air Force panel studying the future of stealth aircraft technology.
Martin was understandably in demand, having been the general in charge of all Air Force weapons programs, including the B-2, for the previous four years.
He said yes to both offers.
In almost any other realm it would seem a clear conflict of interest — pitting his duty to the US military against the interests of his employer — not to mention a revolving-door sprint from uniformed responsibilities to private paid advocacy.
But this is the Pentagon where, a Globe review has found, such apparent conflicts are a routine fact of life at the lucrative nexus between the defense procurement system, which spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year, and the industry that feasts on those riches. And almost nothing is ever done about it.
The Globe analyzed the career paths of 750 of the highest ranking generals and admirals who retired during the last two decades and found that, for most, moving into what many in Washington call the “rent-a-general’’ business is all but irresistible.
From 2004 through 2008, 80 percent of retiring three- and four-star officers went to work as consultants or defense executives, according to the Globe analysis. That compares with less than 50 percent who followed that path a decade earlier, from 1994 to 1998.
In some years, the move from general staff to industry is a virtual clean sweep. Thirty-four out of 39 three- and four-star generals and admirals who retired in 2007 are now working in defense roles — nearly 90 percent.
You can also bet that for problems like this, our hired gun has the solution.
Raytheon Chairman and CEO William H. Swanson said in a written statement, ”General Cartwright’s deep understanding of defense and broad experience in military operations and matters of national security will be of great value to our Board.”
And, back to the Boston Globe piece:
The generals are, in many cases, recruited for private sector roles well before they retire, raising questions about their independence and judgment while still in uniform. The Pentagon is aware and even supports this practice.
2 comments:
Only speaking on Cartwright, he seems to at least have an insightful and strategic mindset to bring to the table.
For example, his premise nails it on the head in that over-emphasized concentration of investments on fancy, radical new platforms is part of the problem and rather, investments in regular superior systems upgrades at a fraction of the cost, should be the emphasis in a changing Defense scheme.
I guess that's something you can advocate in public once you're retired from service... and sure, especially once you're associated with an electronics, IT and systems related Defense corporation.
Both of the major political parties in Australia recently declined to institute tighter controls on the 4,000 lobbyists registered in Canberra. Many of course are retired senior military officers whose loyalties have changed. The dots are easily connected between some of them and recent hardware acquisitions.
Post a Comment