SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
joseph dunford
Next Stop for Most Retired US 4-Star Military Officers? Arms Industry C-Suites
"The revolving door is a problem because it creates the appearance—and in some cases the reality—of conflicts of interest in the making of defense policy and in the shaping of the size and composition of the Pentagon budget."
Oct 04, 2023
A report published Wednesday revealed that the vast majority of four-star U.S. military officers who have retired over the past five years went to work for the arms industry, a revolving door that drives soaring profits and near-record military spending.
The report—entitled March of the Four–Stars: The Role of Retired Generals and Admirals in the Arms Industry—was published by William D. Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, and intern Dillon Fisher. They found that 26 of 32 four-star generals and admirals who retired between June 2018 and July 2023 "went to work for the arms industry as board members, advisers, executives, consultants, lobbyists, or members of financial institutions that invest in the defense sector."
"Too often when it comes to military spending and policy, special interests override the public interest."
Fifteen of the retired officers were hired as board members or advisers for small and medium–sized weapons contractors, while five took similar jobs at one of the top 10 arms companies. Five retired four–star officers became arms industry consultants, five were hired as lobbyists for weapons companies, and four joined financial firms that invest in the arms sector.
"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, to the detriment of our national security," Hartung said in a statement. "Too often when it comes to military spending and policy, special interests override the public interest. The revolving door is a major contributor to this process."
According to the report:
Among the most prominent four–stars who have gone through the revolving door are former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford, who joined the board of Lockheed Martin five months after leaving the military; Gen. Mike Murray, former head of the U.S. Army Futures Command, who went on the boards of three defense tech firms—Capewell, Hypori, and Vita Inclinata; Gen. Terrence O'Shaugnessy, former head of the U.S. Northern Command, who is now a senior adviser to Elon Musk at SpaceX...; Gen. Richard D. Clarke, former commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, who joined the boards of General Dynamics, defense tech firm Shift5, and drone maker General Atomics; and Gen. John W. Raymond, former head of the U.S. Space Command, who went on to be a managing partner at Cerberus Capital Management.
The report's recommendations include:
- Barring four–star officers from going to work for firms that receive $1 billion or more in Pentagon contracts per year;
- Extending "cooling off" periods before retired Pentagon officials and military officers can go to work on behalf of the arms industry; and
- Increasing transparency for post–government employment and activities on the part of retired Pentagon and military officials working on behalf of arms contractors, including reporting on their interactions with Congress and the Executive Branch.
"The revolving door is a problem because it creates the appearance—and in some cases the reality—of conflicts of interest in the making of defense policy and in the shaping of the size and composition of the Pentagon budget," Hartung and Fisher wrote. "The role of top military officials is particularly troubling, given their greater clout in the military and the government more broadly than most other revolving door hires. Their influence over policy and budget issues can tilt the scales towards a more militarized foreign policy."
The new report comes amid soaring profits for weapons-makers, near-record levels of U.S. military spending, and increasing American domination of global arms exports.
As one arms industry executive said at last month's Defense and Security Equipment International trade show in London, "War is good for business."
"Too often when it comes to military spending and policy, special interests override the public interest."
Fifteen of the retired officers were hired as board members or advisers for small and medium–sized weapons contractors, while five took similar jobs at one of the top 10 arms companies. Five retired four–star officers became arms industry consultants, five were hired as lobbyists for weapons companies, and four joined financial firms that invest in the arms sector.
"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, to the detriment of our national security," Hartung said in a statement. "Too often when it comes to military spending and policy, special interests override the public interest. The revolving door is a major contributor to this process."
According to the report:
Among the most prominent four–stars who have gone through the revolving door are former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford, who joined the board of Lockheed Martin five months after leaving the military; Gen. Mike Murray, former head of the U.S. Army Futures Command, who went on the boards of three defense tech firms—Capewell, Hypori, and Vita Inclinata; Gen. Terrence O'Shaugnessy, former head of the U.S. Northern Command, who is now a senior adviser to Elon Musk at SpaceX...; Gen. Richard D. Clarke, former commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, who joined the boards of General Dynamics, defense tech firm Shift5, and drone maker General Atomics; and Gen. John W. Raymond, former head of the U.S. Space Command, who went on to be a managing partner at Cerberus Capital Management.
The report's recommendations include:
- Barring four–star officers from going to work for firms that receive $1 billion or more in Pentagon contracts per year;
- Extending "cooling off" periods before retired Pentagon officials and military officers can go to work on behalf of the arms industry; and
- Increasing transparency for post–government employment and activities on the part of retired Pentagon and military officials working on behalf of arms contractors, including reporting on their interactions with Congress and the Executive Branch.
"The revolving door is a problem because it creates the appearance—and in some cases the reality—of conflicts of interest in the making of defense policy and in the shaping of the size and composition of the Pentagon budget," Hartung and Fisher wrote. "The role of top military officials is particularly troubling, given their greater clout in the military and the government more broadly than most other revolving door hires. Their influence over policy and budget issues can tilt the scales towards a more militarized foreign policy."
The new report comes amid soaring profits for weapons-makers, near-record levels of U.S. military spending, and increasing American domination of global arms exports.
As one arms industry executive said at last month's Defense and Security Equipment International trade show in London, "War is good for business."
Obama Does Have a Strategy in Iraq: Escalation
Even as Obama admits there's no military solution in Iraq, the Pentagon is pouring more U.S. troops and weapons into its floundering war on the Islamic State.
Jun 11, 2015
Almost nine months after President Obama admitted that "we don't have a strategy yet" to challenge the Islamic State -- and just days after he said he still has "no complete Iraq strategy" -- the non-strategy suddenly has a name: escalation.
According to reports in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, the Obama administration is poised to send 400 to 500 additional troops to Iraq immediately and to build a new U.S. military base in restive Anbar province to house them -- and potentially many more.
"If anything, the ongoing air war -- and the flooding of the region with arms -- is making a diplomatic resolution less likely."
These troops would not be limited to the officially narrow training mission of the 3,100 U.S. troops already on the ground in Iraq. They would still be considered trainers and advisers, but their mission, according to the Times, would be "to help Iraqi forces retake the city of Ramadi and repel the Islamic State."
The escalation isn't exactly the massive deployment of ground troops called for by some hawks in Congress and by neo-conservative commentators, who continue to blame the rise of the Islamic State on Obama's earlier withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq -- rather than on George W. Bush's initial invasion and occupation of the country, which actually led to the creation of the group in 2004.
But the Journal still recognized that "the new plan is a marked if modest expansion of the U.S. military role in Iraq. It would expose American forces to greater risk of being drawn into direct combat with Islamic State forces that already control territory around likely sites for a planned U.S. training base."
A Series of Setbacks
The official reason is linked to the Islamic State's recent seizure of Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province and a key city only 70 or so miles from Baghdad. (As Business Insider so nicely put it, Ramadi is closer to Baghdad than New York is to East Hampton.)
Obama and other top U.S. officials initially attempted to downplay the significance of Ramadi, describing the inability of the Iraqi military to defend it as simply a "tactical retreat." But there's no question that the loss of the city, followed quickly by the Islamic State's seizure of the strategic Syrian city and ancient ruins of Palmyra, reflected a serious consolidation of the group's military power.
Since then it's been a rough few weeks for Obama's war on ISIS.
On June 2, news broke that the Iraq military had managed to lose 2,300 armored Humvees, at least 40 M1A1 tanks, 74,000 machine guns, and 52 or more howitzers, mainly to the Islamic State. Weapons were abandoned by fleeing troops, captured on the battlefield, and in some cases likely sold to ISIS and other militias. In a Reuters article caustically titled "Dude, Where's My Humvee?" Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi admitted blithely, "we lost a lot of weapons."
The Reuters writers were equally direct: "The United States is effectively supplying the Islamic State with tools of war the militant group cannot otherwise hope to acquire from its patrons."
Despite the bluster of hawks who crave a deeper war in Iraq and Syria, it isn't true that Obama has no strategy against the Islamic State. There is a strategy -- but it's wrong, and it's losing.
The Obama administration has so far been unable or unwilling to act on its own oft-repeated understanding that "there is no military solution" to the so-called ISIS crisis. Instead, the U.S. strategy has relied almost solely on military action, with little or no investment in the funds, personnel, or political capital to wage the kind of powerful diplomacy that's so desperately needed. If anything, the ongoing air war -- and the flooding of the region with arms -- is making a diplomatic resolution less likely.
Same Old Mistakes
As the war escalates, Congress is largely sitting on the sidelines.
A new measure sponsored by Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy calls for a prohibition on ground troops being sent to Iraq or Syria. But while symbolically important, it would have a very limited impact on the ground, particularly since -- on paper at least -- Obama has already staked out a similar position. Murphy has made clear that his real goal is to limit potential troop escalations by a post-2016 Republican president.
For now, the latest escalation -- like those before it -- is taking place without any congressional authorization, indeed without even any discussion or debate.
And it could get a lot worse before anything gets any better.
Martin Dempsey, the Pentagon's top general, is retiring soon. He will be replaced by Marine General Joseph Dunford, who commanded U.S. troops in Afghanistan and is credited with persuading Obama to slow down the U.S. withdrawal from the country. His appointment as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may signal a broader new commitment to escalating Obama's global war on terror.
That would mean repeating many of the same mistakes we've already made.
In May, the Pentagon said it was sending 2,000 anti-tank rockets to the Iraqi military to use against ISIS car bombs. In response to Iraq's recent loss of U.S. tanks and Humvees, the Pentagon announced its intention to send 1,000 more anti-tank weapons to the Iraqi military -- to use against the same tanks it had sent previously, now in ISIS hands.
Bookmakers haven't yet announced their predictions for how long it will be before those rockets end up in the Islamic State's hands as well. But at the current rate of escalation, they won't be the last things to blow up.
Most Popular