The Pentagon's revolving door is not exactly a new problem. A couple of months ago, there was this. A year ago, USAToday wrote about it here. The activist-investigators at the Project on Government Oversight wrote about it six years ago here. The Government Accounting Office has written numerous reports on the subject for decades, such as this one from 1986.
Today, the Boston Globe's Bryan Bender has the latest rendition of this story, which, truth be told, dates back to before Dwight Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial complex in his presidential farewell speech half a century ago.
When a general-turned-businessman arrives at the Pentagon, he is often treated with extraordinary deference — as if still in uniform — which can greatly increase his effectiveness as a rainmaker for industry. The military even has name for it — the “bobblehead effect.’’
“We are changing the perception and maybe the reality of what it means to be a general,’’ said retired General Robert “Doc’’ Foglesong, who retired as the second-ranking Air Force officer in 2006.
“The fundamental question,’’ he said, “is whether this is shaping the acquisition system and influencing what the Pentagon buys. I think the answer is yes.’’
What? You mean an active-duty colonel might want to put a smile on the face of his retired commanding officer - now working at Lockheed or General Dynamics - by pushing a weapons system inside the Pentagon with the hope that his efforts might also someday get him a cushy job after retirement at said military contractor? Nah. Couldn't be. Surely there are rules to prevent that sort of thing?
Over the decades, new laws tinkering and tweaking with the worst excesses of the revolving door have been passed. These have focused on officials heading for the private sector regardless of whether they uniformed or civilian employees of the Defense Department. But every year, sometimes several times a year, we are informed of some new example of the problem.
For instance, participants in a secret 2009 Army meeting dedicated to developing a new tank, had to sign nondisclosure agreements. Defense contractors were not allowed access. But that didn't really keep them out:
At least six retired generals invited by the Army were also consultants or executives of defense companies that would bid on the new tank contracts, according to a meeting roster obtained by the Globe. The roster did not list their private-sector affiliations. Each was listed by the Army only as “distinguished participant.’’
Some active-duty officers at the tank-development meeting had been subordinates to one of the civilian participants, a retired general working for a company that would be bidding to build any new tank.
But surely only a few retired seniors officers join defense firms? Nah. The Globe's survey of 750 of highest ranking generals and admirals found otherwise. In the period 1994-1998, 50 percent did went to work for defense firms. In the period 2004-2008, 80 percent did. In 2007, 90 percent did.
Some top-level officers do choose not to become consultants after retiring. Navy Admiral William J. Fallon decided he wouldn't do so when he found out that the companies that wanted him as a consultant wanted him to provide “tactical’’ information about dealing with othersinside the Pentagon. “I didn’t want to be a walking Rolodex,’’ Fallon said.
The Globe also reports that there's a relatively new approach being taken by some retirees, setting up their own equity investment firms. That means generals and other senior officers own stock in companies that will make or already making weapons and other military equipment that they may have a hand in persuading their previous subordinates at Pentagon to buy.
Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark chalks it up "the militarization of the economy." That's been going on since well before President Eisenhower made his speech in 1961. But, it's different now with the military component making up a larger proportion of the U.S. manufacturing base. That makes the revolving door a bigger problem than ever before. Fixes can be enacted. But there's something in the way. When Ike wrote one of the earlier drafts of his farewell speech, he recognized this by calling the term that would soon become iconic the military-industrial-congressional complex. In the final version, the reference to Congress was removed. It's still the biggest obstacle to serious revolving-door reform.