Beating Up the Retired Generals - Again

The NY Times has joined Tom Ricks and the USA Today in sternly lecturing retired general officers and flag officers (GOFOs) on their ability to get paid as mentors to active duty officers in addition to pensions and often jobs on boards of directors or consulting firms. They call it shameful - I call it well-earned compensation for recognized service and ability. The NY Times editorial says:

There is nothing illegal about the double-dipping. But few people in Congress or elsewhere knew about it until now because there is no requirement to tell anyone, even the Pentagon. As Pentagon advisers, mentors are paid hundreds of dollars an hour for offering counsel to former colleagues on war games and other specialties. As defense contract consultants, they can make considerably more. It’s time to closely manage the retirees’ good deal, documented in a report by USA Today.

Okay, now all you NY Times editors, re-read what you typed there. "There is nothing illegal about the double-dipping." First of all, it's not double-dipping. The GOFOs get a pension based on more than 30 years of military life, moving from town to town, being separated from their families for extended periods. It's what they deserve. Now if a retired military person of any rank can get a job consulting for the government - as many of them do - it's during his/her retirement period. We call it a "second career." There is nothing illegal about telling active duty officers how they were successful in a given situation. You might not be able to tell that from the USA Today articles. The first one was actually pretty balanced - considering.

Marine Gen. James Mattis is the commander of Norfolk-based Joint Forces Command, which pays at least 34 senior mentors to train active-duty generals and admirals. He confirms that mentors who also work for defense clients may pick up information that benefits their private employer, but he believes that's the only way to ensure that top experts are teaching officers.

"If your concern is that we're exposing them to things that would allow them to have an advantage for their company, I doubt if that can be refuted," Mattis says. "I believe that's a reality. The only way to not have that would be to have either amateurs on their boards of directors, or amateurs in our thing."

Imposing "an assumption of distrust and firewalls," could sour retired generals on the mentoring program, Mattis says. "Ultimately it comes down to trust."

What a crime, that active duty officers might want some advice from very qualified and experienced professionals in their field. There's two arguments that the critics put forward. First that because these retired GOFOs are from the military, these people should be giving their knowledge and expertise for free - because the military is a noble, selfless duty to the nation. I think that's bunk. While you're in the military, sure, none of us are thinking "wow, some day we'll cash in on all the miserable conditions and hard work." We do it because we enjoy the challenge, we enjoy the company. 

The second argument is that, of those retired GOFOs who are mentors and are working for defense firms, obviously they are benefitting their firms through their continued contacts with the active duty officers who they mentor. Now the same critics who say that retired GOFOs ought to be noble about offering their services for free say that the same GOFOs can't be trusted to serve on a board of directors and mentor active duty officers. As the article notes ret General Zinni saying, the officers police themselves, and if they were soliciting business or trying to sell something to their contacts in the mentor program, they'd be tossed out of the office. It's not a large community, and everyone bumps into everyone else. 

But now Congress wants to jump in and police the situation. "There has to be some disclosure rules about potential conflict," says Sen. Jack Reed, (D-RI), a former Army ranger. Yeah... I'm going to listen to congresspersons talk about disclosure rules. How many former politicians and former administration officials float through the revolving door from federal service to lobbying firms? How quickly do they run back to their buddies in Congress, begging them to bend the legislation, put in a few lines for their clients? 

Attack the retired GOFOs for their desire to continue working in the defense field? Give me a break. This is a baseless accusation and ridiculous to boot. Show me any evidence of retired GOFOs who are mentors and using that information to benefit their firms, where that firm wouldn't have had a shot at a government contract. Such evidence doesn't exist. And let's not pretend that this lack of transparency doesn't exist for other other advocates and pundits. Time to move past this sniping.

Comments

[AndroidBoy]

Generals are the least of our problems in this arena. How about resticting the ability of those in the civilian governmet to become executives in the defense (or any other) industry, say for 3 years. The country would be well-served by keeping these folks from becoming lobbyists, too. This is a clear cut case of "whomever smelt it dealt it".

[Publius]

J., although I strongly disagree with you about the ethical minefield this seamy operation presents, I think you should consider what this says about active duty general officers. Despite the fact that the Army now has more generals on active duty than it did at the height of WW2, it seems that just isn't enough. The uniformed leaders of a relatively small defense establishment need "mentoring." One can only wonder how such officers as Marshall, MacArthur, Eisenhower, Patton, Ridgeway, et al, ever made it without "mentors."

You should also consider that the serving officers and their mentors are the same officers described by now-BG McMaster in his devastating critique of the Army's general officer corps. This seems to be a case of the blind leading the blind.

No, J., this is yet another black mark on the military. It's all about the military circumventing legally mandated officer strength ceilings; it's also about good old boys. It's just plain old back scratching. You took care of me, now you come hang out with me and I'll take care of you and your boys. No more, no less. And it has nothing to do with the issue of retirees working for defense contractors.

If they weren't ashamed of it, they wouldn't have hid it so well.

[J.]

Pub, I respect you and your views, but I think you're off here. It isn't the 1950s anymore, things are more complicated these days, and there are some good retired generals who are worth listening to. But it's a market economy today, and while the retired generals probably don't need it, why shouldn't they get a fair price for services?

Of course they're helping each other. They're an elite group, and they're not hiding it. There's no reason or law to reveal it either. It's peanuts compared to the commercial sector "mentoring" or life coaching or whatever you want to call it. Nothing illegal about it, and if it makes the active duty GOFOs get better results, I can't see being against it.