The all-too-smooth transition from general to arms salesman
An important piece of work from the Boston Globe:
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.
The Globe goes on to document that 80 percent of three-star and four-star officers now go immediately into consulting work with the defense industry. In many cases, they arrange the contracts well before they retire, a process that inevitably creates temptations. And when, once retired, they also serve as consultants to the Pentagon, they are not required to disclose that they are serving two masters nor how much they are being paid to do so.
The consequences — and advantages to defense contractors — can be significant, as the Globe reports:
“There was a clear sense of urgency as top Army officials and advisers converged on the National Defense University’s campus on the banks of the Potomac River for a high-level meeting in June 2009.
Their goal: develop ideas for the Army’s next ground combat vehicle. The Army badly needed to get a new tank program rolling after its previous effort resulted in an embarrassing, $14 billion flop.
A veil of secrecy surrounded the event. The Army did not publicly disclose the guest list for the meeting. It required participants to sign nondisclosure agreements.
And to block potential bidders from gaining an unfair advantage, defense contractors were pointedly excluded.
Yet, defense contractors had a robust presence inside.
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.’”
It’s hard to imagine such a system being accepted so blithely in any other line of government contracting. And that’s the larger point, I suppose: There is no other line of government contracting like Pentagon contracting.
Cost overruns, bidding scandals, the absence of competitive bidding, congressional meddling and expensive weapons systems that fail to perform are all more or less accepted features in that world, at great cost to the taxpayer and to those “at the tip of the spear,” where lives depend on weapons that work.
A half century ago next month, a man who knew a thing or two about such things left us a prescient warning:
“Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
I’m far from confident that we have heeded President Eisenhower’s warning.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
276 comments Add your comment
Granny Godzilla
December 29th, 2010
9:38 am
Joel
“We are ahead of everyone on stealth”
You were either leading us to believe you knew what you were talking about or you just telling a lie.
Which is it?
Admit you overreacted.
Left wing management
December 29th, 2010
9:38 am
Can you say crony capitalism?
Thing is, it seems to be the only kind there is.
Granny Godzilla
December 29th, 2010
9:39 am
Joel
“Explain to me how stealth applies in relation to a carrier killing weapon.”
see 9:27
i did my own homework
Normal
December 29th, 2010
9:40 am
TaxPayer
December 29th, 2010
9:34 am
Putting a stealth carrier in the ocean would be like the time I put my cammo jacket in the closet and was never able to find it anymore….
BlahBlahBlah
December 29th, 2010
9:40 am
Mr. Bookman, you forgot to include how Republicans are to blame for this. Please fix the article and re-post it. Thanks!
Ragnar Danneskjöld
December 29th, 2010
9:41 am
Dear Paul @ 9:25, so may double negatives. Let’s turn it into something all can understand: military contractors perform better if they know what they are doing (a concept generally-foreign to leftists.) To elevate the quality of their offerings, military contractors like to hire the people who have actually had to apply such weaponry, to ensure the quality of the real-world performance. Such skilled practitioners are also ideal creatures to advocate for such products.
Why do leftists hate salesmen?
Road Scholar
December 29th, 2010
9:41 am
Taxpayer; But how would our stealth planes find the stealth carriers to be able to land on them? (Tee Hee!)
Lil’ Barry: Who put a burr in your saddle this morning?
ken R
December 29th, 2010
9:42 am
We should put Barney Fife, oops! Frank in charge, he has done such a wonderful job.
Jay
December 29th, 2010
9:42 am
The “hiring of military expertise” argument would be more compelling if these generals were being used as internal experts to improve the weapons systems in question.
But that is NOT how they are being used. They are being hired as salesmen, pitchmen and lobbyists.
ken R
December 29th, 2010
9:43 am
Ragnar, they hate everybody, but themselves.
The all-too-smooth transition from general to arms salesman | Jay Bookman | Slinking Toward Retirement
December 29th, 2010
9:44 am
[...] The all-too-smooth transition from general to arms salesman | Jay Bookman. This entry was posted in Corruption, Military, Opinion and tagged Air Force, ajc, army, B-2, B-2 stealth bomber, Boston Globe, Eisenhower, federal government, General, huge industrial and military machinery, Jay Bookman, Korea, Military, National Defense University, National Defense University’s campus, Northrop Grumman, opinion, Pentagon, Potomac River, President, stealth aircraft technology, United States, USD, weapons systems. Bookmark the permalink. ← Caracas Country Club Is Counting Down Its Days – NYTimes.com [...]
Road Scholar
December 29th, 2010
9:44 am
Jay: Exactly! Why not place them on retainer as weapons appraiser experts?
TaxPayer
December 29th, 2010
9:44 am
Putting a stealth carrier in the ocean would be like the time I put my cammo jacket in the closet and was never able to find it anymore….
Well, I think it opens up all sorts of interesting technological challenges. For one thing, how do you assemble all those invisible parts, much less make them to begin with. And just imagine the looks from people that see you carrying one of these parts around.
Joel Edge
December 29th, 2010
9:45 am
granny godzilla@9:39
“i did my own homework”
I’m afraid you didn’t. Going by that definition. Training a B52 pilot to fly at low levels makes the plane a stealth weapon. Sorry, nice try.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
December 29th, 2010
9:45 am
Dear jay @ 9:42, thanks. Why do leftists hate salesmen?
Southern Comfort
December 29th, 2010
9:46 am
It’s amusing to see left-wingers outraged when Wesley Clark is both a lobbyist AND investment banker. He’s one of their darlings.
It may indeed be amusing. However, it is hilarious when someone on the right is critical of someone within their own camp and has to turn around and appologize for attacking that person. That’s the difference between the left and right. Criticism is allowed on the left without reprecussion, and on the right, if you criticize the wrong person, you have to grovel at their feet for forgiveness.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
December 29th, 2010
9:47 am
Dear Jay, apologies for my lack of manners. Hope you had a nice Christmas, and good to see you back from a well-earned vacation.
Road Scholar
December 29th, 2010
9:47 am
RD: Why do conserves hate intelligence? While we continue to hurl insults at each other, Rome burns!
james
December 29th, 2010
9:49 am
ranks right up there with Al Gore’s 100 million $ transistion to chief of the global warming hoax-
fascism at its finest
Granny Godzilla
December 29th, 2010
9:50 am
Joel
The chinese would launch them from subs…..it travels at MACH 2.6 and has a range oof 180 miles….no B52’s require…..unless you’re headed to the Love Shack…Love shack ba-a-beeee….
ken R
December 29th, 2010
9:50 am
” they are being hired as salesmen, pitchmen and lobbyists”
So Jay, do you want them to put a screwdriver in their hands and start tightening bolts?
The majority of these men & women have served their country courageously and honorably for over Twenty years and many have sacrificed everything, they are all very educated also, what have you and your liberal friends sacrificed Jay???????????????
G. AMERICAN!!!
December 29th, 2010
9:51 am
AND WE’RE GONNA TAKE THOSE B2 BOMBERS AND BLOW THE COMMIES TO SMITHEREENS!!!
NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU BED-WETTING, LONG-HAIRED, HIPPIES HATE IT!!!
TaxPayer
December 29th, 2010
9:52 am
Taxpayer; But how would our stealth planes find the stealth carriers to be able to land on them?
That could open up the need for stealth radar. I am starting to gain an appreciation for hiring all those generals and such because they have the experience and expertise to think through all these issues and develop a good strategy where upon an appropriately sized budget can be established and I’m seeing a big, really big budget. We’re gonna need more of everything. This calls for some serious tax cuts in order to reach the required level of funding.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
December 29th, 2010
9:53 am
Dear Road @ 9:47, “Why do conserves hate intelligence? While we continue to hurl insults at each other, Rome burns!” That would be a fair question but for the fact that it distracts from the core issue, “whether salesmen ought to exist in the acquisition of military hardware.”
But the question is asked in good faith, and deserves an answer. Conservatives hate intelligence, because the “state of intelligence” and or “cultism” is offered all too often as an “answer” to logical inquiry. The intelligence conservatives “hate” is the one that affirms, ” ‘Shut up’ he answered.
Swede Atlanta
December 29th, 2010
9:54 am
This is not a left – right or Democrat – Republican issue. This is an American issue which everyone should give careful consideration.
The U.S. military budget offers so much opportunity for profit that the procurement and contract process wouldn’t be acceptable to any other area of the federal or any state or local government and not by two civilian parties.
The weapons suppliers have enormous amounts of money at stake. Members of Congress have jobs and money to bring home to their constituents.
Short of a constitutional amendment that more precisely describes the role of the military and mandates open, fair and competitive contracting along with a prohibition on military to civilian lobbying, I don’t see this ending.
We spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. At some point we need to narrowly focus our military policy objectives, force our allies to “man up” and bear their proportional burden both in terms of manpower and money and substantially shrink our military footprint around the world and the size/scope of our military.
As long as we play policeman to the world we will continue to bear the burden of defense while our allies enjoy higher overall standards of living, greater longevity, etc.
It is only when we redefine the role of the military will the money faucet be shut off and the opportunity for blatant corruption be terminated.
ken R
December 29th, 2010
9:54 am
James, you are wrong, Al the Gore suckered the libs out of between 150 million and 300 million.
Doggone/GA
December 29th, 2010
9:54 am
“many have sacrificed everything”
home, health, happiness…all sacrificed for their country? Yeah, right.
josef nix
December 29th, 2010
9:54 am
Very interesting, to me anyway. Yesterday I took a facetious swipe on the looking back 50 years crowd and went back myself to see what we remembered of Eisenhower. Being of the RW school, I didn’t mention this one, but it was in mind. Thanks, Jay, for bringing it up. This, more than than golf during Little Rock, the Interstates and Mamie’s funky bangs is what we should have remembered. We didn’t.
This type of profiteering is nothing new. It goes back centuries. Virtually every survey of the events of virtually every conflict in history will turn up profiteering and charges of profiteering in abundance. What sets this apart from the previous ones is not event the cozy relationship the military industrial complex (i.e. profiteers) has with the government, but that the two are so intertwined that there is little to distinguish the one from the other. That is dangerous,
JDW
December 29th, 2010
9:56 am
Ragnar Danneskjöld
December 29th, 2010
9:41 am
“Dear Paul @ 9:25, so may double negatives. Let’s turn it into something all can understand: military contractors perform better if they know what they are doing (a concept generally-foreign to leftists.) To elevate the quality of their offerings, military contractors like to hire the people who have actually had to apply such weaponry, to ensure the quality of the real-world performance. Such skilled practitioners are also ideal creatures to advocate for such products.
Why do leftists hate salesmen?”
Ragnar, I have been in sales all my life. Managed sales forces up to 1000 people so to say I hate sales would be laughable. That said in all my experience I have never seen a situation where the salesperson responsible for an account also served as a consultant on the project for said account…seems like a clear conflict to me how about you?
ken R
December 29th, 2010
9:58 am
Doggone, do you think that these men & women just jumped to the rank of General overnight? They have sacrificed a lot for their country, what have you done?? Just askin.
Doggone/GA
December 29th, 2010
9:59 am
“They have sacrificed a lot for their country”
So now they have sacrificed “a lot” and not “everything” – keep at it, you’ll have it down to no sacrifice at all in a few minutes.
paleo-neo-Carlinist aka Joe the Plutocrat
December 29th, 2010
10:00 am
LBB, you missed the chance to give “W” credit for “creating two jobs”. your gaffee aside, your comments was funny. anyone familiar with my body of work knows how I feel about Ike’s farewell address and the MIC (I keep a copy on my desk, along with the Constitution and Thomas Paine’s Common Sense). but I see Ike’s warning as much broader. pork is pork, fraud is fraud, and “misplaced power” is misplaced power, and these threats to the Republic are not exclusive to the MIC. the Medical-Insuranace Complex (including Big Pharm), the Money – Interest Complex (big Bank, including the Federal Reserve) and even the Social-Environmental Complex are ALL infiltrated with former “civil servants” who now sell their influence and access to power as consultants and lobbyists. that said, $600 or $700 billion of a $1.4 trillion annual budget needs a closer look.
Paul
December 29th, 2010
10:00 am
Ragnar 9:41
I’ll submit the guys with the real ‘in the trenches’ experience are not the general officers. Let the major contractors hire the midlevel NCOs or officers for that. The whole point of a general officer is prestige and influence (there’s an old saying that there’s no such thing as a “retired” general).
Another point in the Boston Globe article is, this is a relatively recent phenomena. Not too long ago generals concluded their public service, took their pensions and moved to the sunbelt. Not the objective is to score big bucks. Which leads to the question: if retired generals as lobbyists provide such a vital service, critical to our defense, and if this is a recent development….
how on earth did we build up the best military in the world before we had retired generals as lobbyists?
Joel Edge
December 29th, 2010
10:02 am
granny godzilla@9:50
“The chinese would launch them from subs…..it travels at MACH 2.6 and has a range oof 180 miles….no B52’s require…..unless you’re headed to the Love Shack…Love shack ba-a-beeee….”
You’re kidding, right. You do understand that pilots have been trained to fly at low levels since right after radar was invented, right. The kamikaze pilots flew low trying to get under the depression range of the larger guns. Your definition of stealthy says that anything that flies low is a stealth aircraft.
The Yahont also requires a preliminary targeting point. Read: spotter aircraft. Could be fired from a sub. Do you think a carrier group moves without hunter-killer subs. Those ships are expensive.
ken R
December 29th, 2010
10:02 am
Doggone, I ask again, what have you sacrificed????????????????????
TaxPayer
December 29th, 2010
10:03 am
They have sacrificed a lot for their country, what have you done?? Just askin.
Probably helped pay them for their service via taxes. I think that call for another tax cut so we can afford to give them folks a raise.
Doggone/GA
December 29th, 2010
10:03 am
“I ask again, what have you sacrificed”
Everything
God Bless America... and no one else
December 29th, 2010
10:03 am
Jay, as a conservative, a serving reserve officer, and a civilian employee of the defense industry, I would like to say that your thesis is dead on. The problem is that many 3 and 4 stars forget the honor code, or think it doesn’t apply once you’ve achieved high rank. In the Army, we have a saying, “Good Colonels are the ones expecting to retire. Bad Colonels are the one expecting to make General”. That being said, the majority of General officers I’ve met are great people. Unfortunately, the few that jump from military to contractor make the majority (and the US Military Establishment) look dishonest and cause the American people to lose faith in us.
Bringing Ike’s MIC comment in was a little misleading, though. Carmakers can no longer convert to airplane manufacturing. Weapons systems are far to complex now, both the ones we use and the ones of our major enemies. Someone mentioned the Russian Yakhont. Imagine having to design and manufacture a response to that piece of equipment, while in wartime.
Oh, and Ike forgot that the US has funded national armories since the beginning of the nation, the only difference is that private business is making armaments now.
Del
December 29th, 2010
10:03 am
There has in fact been tremendous waste in defense contracting; however, pointing fingers at former senior command officers who accept defense industry consulting positions is disingenuous. Civilian government defense department officials have certainly played a major role. One of the biggest travesties was the rushed procurement of M-16 rifles during the Vietnam War. This involved Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara in Lyndon Johnson’s administration. In the midst of the Hill Wars during the spring of 1967, Marines turned in M-14’s for the M-16. They were issued M-16X’s. The “X” stood for experimental. During the balance of the Hill wars M-16’s repeatedly jammed Marine Corps infantryman were found dead with cleaning rods stuck in their rifles trying to clear 5.56 rounds from rifle chambers. None the less even after the defects were documented and reported Marines were still sent into the Que Son Valley campaigns of operations Union One and Union Two armed with defective M-16 rifles. Those operations May 67-November 67 resulted in the destruction of the 2nd. NVA Division but at the cost of 9000 Marines. Field commanders estimated that half of those casualties were a result of malfunctioning M-16 rifles.
ken R
December 29th, 2010
10:04 am
LOL
Joel Edge
December 29th, 2010
10:04 am
“anything that flies low is a stealth aircraft.”
Should have been stealth weapon.
@@
December 29th, 2010
10:04 am
SoCo:
Criticism is allowed on the left without reprecussion, and on the right, if you criticize the wrong person, you have to grovel at their feet for forgiveness.
Who’s asking Clark to grovel? Certainly not me. He is, and has always been what Andy would call “a squish”. An opportunist seeking political power.
Clark’s loyalty to the Democratic Party was questioned by some as soon as he entered the race. Senator Joe Lieberman called Clark’s party choice a matter of “political convenience, not conviction.” Republican Governor Bill Owens of Colorado and University of Denver president Marc Holtzman have claimed Clark once said “I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls.” Clark later claimed he was simply joking, but both Owens and Holtzman said the remark was delivered “very directly” and “wasn’t a joke.” Katharine Q. Seelye wrote that many believed Clark had only chosen to be a Democrat in 2004 because it was “the only party that did not have a nominee.” On May 11, 2001, Clark also delivered a speech to the Pulaski County Republican Party in Arkansas saying he was “very glad we’ve got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O’Neill—people I know very well—our president George W. Bush.” U.S. News and World Report ran a story two weeks later claiming Clark had considered some form of political run as a Republican.
^^^ A squish, changing directions with the prevailing wind. Feet of clay.
Normal
December 29th, 2010
10:05 am
G. AMERICAN!!!
December 29th, 2010
9:51 am
OH GAWD, I thought my father was dead….
james
December 29th, 2010
10:05 am
Joel Edge- you are stuck in an endless loop- when the non technical terms such as “love shack” come out it means you have won- simply (blog) walk away.
Granny Godzilla
December 29th, 2010
10:05 am
Joel
Yep, I know about B52’s – Pop was a pilot
I didn’t define stealth you big goose!
Admit you overreacted.
Love shack ba-a-bee…..
Paul
December 29th, 2010
10:05 am
ken r
Just an observation, but responding to a criticism of a group (lobbyist generals) with a personal inquiry against those who lodged the criticism is completely off the mark.
Kamchak
December 29th, 2010
10:06 am
The typical leftist….
And I stop reading.
Do you guys have a macro for that phrase? You type it so much. Just think of the hours that you could save.
Granny Godzilla
December 29th, 2010
10:07 am
james
always grateful for comments from the oeanut gallery…you’ll make it easier for Joel to admit he overreacted.
thanks
Soothsayer
December 29th, 2010
10:07 am
What are a red-neck’s last words? “Hay, watch ‘is shyte!”
A man has been hospitalized after police in South Carolina say he was hit by an SUV while playing a real-life version of the video game “Frogger.”
REALLY! You just can’t make this shyte up!
Granny Godzilla
December 29th, 2010
10:07 am
make that peanut gallery….
Ragnar Danneskjöld
December 29th, 2010
10:07 am
Dear JDW @ 9:56, “That said in all my experience I have never seen a situation where the salesperson responsible for an account also served as a consultant on the project for said account…seems like a clear conflict to me how about you?” No, no conflict. A conflict arises when the seller compensates the purchaser. Not the case in military procurement, at least not in the sense of the essay today. Today’s essay argues that people with real military expertise ought not be allowed, by law, to use that expertise for sales. No conflict, merely normal leftist envy.
Dear Paul @ 10:00, we would agree that you think your boss does not know what you do, nor whether you do it well, nor whether you run into any problems while doing it.
Joel Edge
December 29th, 2010
10:11 am
James@10:05
“Joel Edge- you are stuck in an endless loop- when the non technical terms such as “love shack” come out it means you have won- simply (blog) walk away.”
You’re right. She’s being intentionally ignorant now.
Maybe pop should have explained things better. Anyone that thinks low flying = stealth is off the mark. And shows a surprising ability not to admit a mistake.
TaxPayer
December 29th, 2010
10:11 am
I just hope that the Republicans came cut taxes far enough to fund all these things that are so desperately needed in order to protect us.
Granny Godzilla
December 29th, 2010
10:12 am
Joel
Richard D. Fisher, a defense analyst working for Rep. Chris Cox, R-Calif. Fisher….. (circa 1999) he says it’s a stealth weapon …
I see you don’t agree with the defense anaylst.
No skin off my nose
paleo-neo-Carlinist aka Joe the Plutocrat
December 29th, 2010
10:12 am
OK, don’t want to get picky, but “stealth” is both a tactic AND technology. an aircraft flying below radar is a stealth maneuver or tactic; a space-age composit material used to ‘absorb’ radar, or designing an aircraft a certain way (angles) in order to “deflect” radar is stealth technology.
Granny Godzilla
December 29th, 2010
10:13 am
Joel
Please backpedal slower, the breeze is mussing my hair.
Paul
December 29th, 2010
10:14 am
Ragnar 10:07
Did you read the Boston Globe article? These generals go to the planning meetings hosted by DoD to get their input on future weapons systems. The DoD is relying on their experience. However…. many of these same generals are being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by defense contractors to lobby for specific products. And the generals DO NOT notify DoD of their other employment.
Do you really think the staffers at DoD would view the generals’ advice any differently if they knew the general was being compensated by a contractor?
Your point directed to me at 10:07 – I generally interpret such silly remarks as “well, I don’t have a good answer, so I’ll go personal.”
Joel Edge
December 29th, 2010
10:16 am
Granny Godzilla@10:13
“Please backpedal slower, the breeze is mussing my hair.”
You can try to be clever and cute if you want. I’m done with you.
Thanks, James.
retired early
December 29th, 2010
10:18 am
Amvet
Once again, great blog. “Faketriotic”, “never-served heros”
You just nailed several on this blog ‘right between the eyes’.
How ’bout that @@. You feel anything…
TaxPayer
December 29th, 2010
10:19 am
Please backpedal slower, the breeze is mussing my hair.
Have you tried the new stealth hairspray. It’s all the rave on the battlefield. It even withstands 100 kmh sandstorms.
josef nix
December 29th, 2010
10:19 am
norm
St Elsewhere per Wounded Knee
@@
December 29th, 2010
10:19 am
When either party makes becoming a lobbyist for the defense industry contingent upon giving up retirement benefits (military), I’ll buy their concern. Until then, it’s just political GIGO for the masses.
Mick
December 29th, 2010
10:20 am
Well, in 2010 into 2011, it’s good to be a general, admiral about to retire. Great opportunities and a possible growth industry. As for the rest of us? Good luck….
Granny Godzilla
December 29th, 2010
10:20 am
Joel
Well it’s about damn time.
I’ll consider it your apology for overreacting.
And perhaps next time you make such a broad statement you will be able to back it up without all the dancing we have witnessed this morning and respond to questions without attacking.
Have a nice day!
Adam
December 29th, 2010
10:22 am
Mary Elizabeth @ 9:15 am: Your posts are always intelligent and often uplifting, like this one. I enjoy them and wish more people like you would speak up.
kayaker: I don’t mind paying for some military, but what’s wrong with getting the spending back down to Reagan era levels?
Paul @ 9:18: Anonymous inside sources say otherwise. But it is cute that you believe the military would actually take seriously an order to only build 2 1/2 of a particular ship this year. I’m not saying they don’t sort of follow along with where the money is supposed to go for appearance sake, but they damn well don’t follow it to the letter of the law like you’re describing, and they sure do continue to fund black projects even after congress wants them shut down.
LBB: I do. It makes them more self-reliant, rather than learning to be a spoon-fed, dependent loser libbtard.
If you consistently tell a child their question is meaningless they will STOP ASKING QUESTIONS ENTIRELY. And that will turn them into a sheep conservative follower. I thought you wanted leaders and entrepreneurs?
Swede Atlanta, well said
Joel Edge
December 29th, 2010
10:22 am
paleo-neo-Carlinist aka Joe the Plutocrat@10:12
““stealth” is both a tactic AND technology. ”
But what makes a stealth weapon? The technology. If you hide an Abrams in tree line, is it a stealth weapon? I don’t want to start another argument on this point. Both of your points are valid. This thing is just another anti-ship weapon.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
December 29th, 2010
10:22 am
Dear Paul @ 10:14, you wrote, “I’ll submit the guys with the real ‘in the trenches’ experience are not the general officers. Let the major contractors hire the midlevel NCOs or officers for that. The whole point of a general officer is prestige and influence (there’s an old saying that there’s no such thing as a “retired” general).” I then wrote, “we would agree that you think your boss does not know what you do, nor whether you do it well, nor whether you run into any problems while doing it.” Merely a personal application of your silly argument, to ensure you really understood what you argued.
As to your other argument, whether the DOD should solicit input from experienced practitioners, we would agree that leftists avoid seeking expertise when making critical decisions. We realize that leftists think they can drag in expertise without compensation, and that leftists think industry experts are not really experts at all but are mere shills. That is a stronger indictment of the quality of bureaucrats at DOD than it is of the character of the salesmen.
ml
December 29th, 2010
10:22 am
my God! did you look at the Living Vent today? ‘how you figure’ preaches trickle down economics, another idiot praises billionaires for our presnt America and still another one blames anyone that doesn’t have enough money because they were ‘living beyond their means’. I mean come on people when do we get to use our brains again? why is it so easy for ceo’s and politicians to program people’s thinking even as they watch the ship taking on a lot of water? none of the people that would say those things would ever be considered followers of Chrisitianity by Jesus, yet I bet they all call themselves Christians. just looking around it seems like the twilight zone. how did we get so far of course and so damned deceitful, uncompassionate and just plain looney?
Del
December 29th, 2010
10:22 am
It’s really a far out stretch to suggest that retired former senior military commanders would knowingly advocate weapon systems they new were suspect or seriously flawed.
TaxPayer
December 29th, 2010
10:23 am
As for the rest of us? Good luck….
There’s always hedge fund manager. It’s a dirty job but somebody’s gotta do it.
Adam
December 29th, 2010
10:23 am
This thread is going much to fast for me this morning. I’m taking a break.
Moderate Line
December 29th, 2010
10:23 am
Bravo Jay,
Defense spending will reach 19.4% of government spending by 2011 according to OMB which is 53% of discretionary spending. However, in 1962 defense spending was 49.2% of government spending. Non-Defense discretionary spending will be 17.5%. In 1962 it was 18.3%.
One of the interesting things to me is before WWII Republicans were against a big military and now they are the party which supports it.
Joel Edge
December 29th, 2010
10:23 am
“I’ll consider it your apology for overreacting.”
It wasn’t. Whatever makes you feel better.
@@
December 29th, 2010
10:24 am
retired early:
Didn’t feel a thing. No doubt AmVet got a tingle up his leg with this though:
Amvet
Once again, great blog.
He needs support…I don’t.
Granny Godzilla
December 29th, 2010
10:25 am
Joel
It sure seems like it…then again it might just be capitulation.
Whatever makes you feel better.
Soothsayer
December 29th, 2010
10:26 am
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.”
—Benito Mussolini
Joel Edge
December 29th, 2010
10:26 am
granny godzilla@10:25
“It sure seems like it…then again it might just be capitulation.”
You lost. Get over it.
Doggone/GA
December 29th, 2010
10:27 am
“It wasn’t. Whatever makes you feel better.”
“I’m done with you”
That didn’t last long
TaxPayer
December 29th, 2010
10:29 am
You lost. Get over it.
Now that’s cute. That one deserves at least an honorable mention for “Quip of the Day” award.
Common Sense isn't very Common
December 29th, 2010
10:30 am
Quick question for the conservatives here.
A lot of you have been complaining of the salaries of the gov’t employees especially the over $150,000 with all the benefits, retirement etc.
BUT where is the outrage at a retirement pay of a General officer making $160,000 in retirement pay?
Where is the outrage at the number of Admirals and Generals STILL on the payroll?
I guess they are just waiting for the right defense contracting job to come along to jump ship LOL.
And at their level they have not been in the trenches in a long time.
Granny Godzilla
December 29th, 2010
10:30 am
Joel
The Yahont is a stealth weapon not delivered by a B-52….
That makes me correct and the winner.
TA DA!
Joel Edge
December 29th, 2010
10:30 am
Doggone/GA@10:27
“That didn’t last long”
Still in effect. I just quit trying to explain. There’s no need arguing the point to someone who is bound and determined not to understand. Wrestling with a pig…..
paleo-neo-Carlinist aka Joe the Plutocrat
December 29th, 2010
10:31 am
again, folks. the business model is the same for the war on terrorism (or Cold War for us old timers) and the war on poverty or the war on global warming. you identify the “threat” and nuture (baseless) “fears” – then you “sell” the solution. well, you never really want to “resolve” the issue, because as I noted with AfPak and Iraq, ‘waging’ war is far more profitable than ‘winning’ a war. any of you folks remember H. Ross Perot? remember how in ‘92 he took America by storm because he was a ’successful businessman’ and he knew a thing or two about the bottom line. well, I am sure you are all aware the Perot’s company EDS made it bones on medicare/medicaid and social security data processing contracts. in essence, his company (along with IBM, his original employer) was an ‘arms merchant’ for the war on poverty. yep, the “Great Society” was pretty great to EDS, IBM and Perot, and I am sure we all agree, poverty has gone the way of polion. and for all you flag waving, chest thumping, “kill the bad guys” folks, ever hear of something called ROI (return on investment)? I don’t know how much of the $14 trillion national debt lies with the MIC, including the classified CIA/DIA and NSA budgets, but my guess is, it is at least 1/2. and yet, since 1980, Hammas blew up the USMC barracks in Lebanon, killing over 300 Marines, al Qeada attacked the WTC in 1993, Tim McVeigh blew up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, al Qeada attacked the USS Cole, and embassies in Africa, and of course 9/11. since 9/11 we have poured at least $3 trillion into two wars, with the expressed purpose of “finding/killing Ossama bin Laden” and wiping out al Qeada, and yet, we are no more “secure” (and some would argue, more “insecure” than we were when the Cold War ended in 1989). I am all for hunting and killing “bad guys” but let’s be honest; there’s no money in it. those who truly and objectively study history need to study Ike’s farewell address and study Ike’s relationship with JFK, and study JFK’s prescient realization that late 20th and early 21st century wars would be “low intensity” conflicts and “wars of national (or religious) liberation”. why do you think JFK authorized and championed the Army Special Forces (green berets) and Navy SEALs?
josef nix
December 29th, 2010
10:31 am
“I’m done with you”
Then by all means, remove from heat, garnish and serve…
Paul
December 29th, 2010
10:32 am
Ragnar 10:22
I’d say your assertion that General Martin (USAF-ret), as head of Air Force Systems Command, responsible for EVERY research, test, development, acquisition and major-level maintenance of EVERY weapons system in the Air Force has as much indepth knowledge of a particular weapons system as the NCO who maintained it or the midlevel officer who wrote the flight manual is what is silly.
Retired general officers are hired primarily for their rank, which causes a reflexive deference by active military at the Pentagon (don’t believe me? Ask what happens when, in a meeting, a Lt Col calls the retired general “Steve”) and access to those at the highest levels with whom the retired general has formed personal associations. In other words, influence.
“As to your other argument, whether the DOD should solicit input from experienced practitioners, we would agree that leftists avoid seeking expertise when making critical decisions.”
No, we wouldn’t.
Doggone/GA
December 29th, 2010
10:32 am
“Still in effect. I just quit trying to explain”
So in your lexicon “done” DOESN’T mean DONE. Do you have a whole dictionary of words that only mean what YOU say they mean?
Joel Edge
December 29th, 2010
10:33 am
See what I mean people. I never said that the Yahont was delivered by the B52. If you’re going to be intentionally ignorant….I’m not going to waste my time.
BehindEnemyLines
December 29th, 2010
10:33 am
Gracious, what a nightmare. How dare people who have knowledge of an subject actually work in a job related to that subject. If only the executive branch could face such a terrible situation.
Observer
December 29th, 2010
10:33 am
Paul @ 9:14 “@@ True, true. But the salient point is, General Clark is not lobbying for a major Defense contractor to sell ethanol.”
Do you really think it matters to people like @@ and the rest that blindly follow the talking points on both sides of the isle. As long as they can get in a shot …..
Paul, you seem to have a lot of patience in trying to reach people …. may I ask your occupation?
Granny Godzilla
December 29th, 2010
10:33 am
Pig?
Well I certainly fried your bacon!
Granny Godzilla
December 29th, 2010
10:34 am
Joel
Still mussing my hair…please stop.
Soothsayer
December 29th, 2010
10:34 am
We have been gradually disempowered by a corporate state that, as Huxley foresaw, seduced and manipulated us through sensual gratification, cheap mass-produced goods, boundless credit, political theater and amusement. While we were entertained, the regulations that once kept predatory corporate power in check were dismantled, the laws that once protected us were rewritten and we were impoverished. Now that credit is drying up, good jobs for the working class are gone forever and mass-produced goods are unaffordable, we find ourselves transported from “Brave New World” to “1984.” The state, crippled by massive deficits, endless war and corporate malfeasance, is sliding toward bankruptcy. It is time for Big Brother to take over from Huxley’s feelies, the orgy-porgy and the centrifugal bumble-puppy. We are moving from a society where we are skillfully manipulated by lies and illusions to one where we are overtly controlled.
JDW
December 29th, 2010
10:36 am
December 29th, 2010
10:07 am
“Dear JDW @ 9:56, “That said in all my experience I have never seen a situation where the salesperson responsible for an account also served as a consultant on the project for said account…seems like a clear conflict to me how about you?” No, no conflict. A conflict arises when the seller compensates the purchaser. Not the case in military procurement, at least not in the sense of the essay today. Today’s essay argues that people with real military expertise ought not be allowed, by law, to use that expertise for sales. No conflict, merely normal leftist envy.”
So let me get this straight. I employ a salesperson. I pay them salary, plus commission on what they sell and for good measure toss in a spiff based on company performance.
This salesperson is responsible for selling Stealth planes to the Military.
On the side my salesperson works a second job for the Military defining the requirements and need for Stealth bombers.
You don’t think that salesperson just might see the opportunity to further the cause of selling those planes to the Military in that second job?
Are you that obtuse…or just that committed to Partisan nonsense? I see no issue with this guy having one job or the other…doing both is a clear conflict of interest that anyone with eyes can see.
Normal
December 29th, 2010
10:37 am
Josef, back at cha…
Joel Edge
December 29th, 2010
10:37 am
Doggone/GA@10:32
“So in your lexicon “done” DOESN’T mean DONE. Do you have a whole dictionary of words that only mean what YOU say they mean?”
Do I have to explain everything now? I should have said: “I’m done trying to explain this to you”. That should be obvious. If someone is going to intentionally ignorant, I’m wasting my time. Twisting my words is just is just another trick.
Doggone/GA
December 29th, 2010
10:39 am
“doing both is a clear conflict of interest that anyone with eyes can see.”
I would put it slightly differently…not TELLING the purchaser of your association with the seller, when you are asked to consult on the project, is where the conflict of interest lies. The buyer might still be interested in your expertise on the subject, even after knowing your relationship with the seller. But by knowing that relationship has the chance to discount anything you might say, if they choose.
Kamchak
December 29th, 2010
10:39 am
I’m not going to waste my time.
I’m wasting my time.
Then why are you here?
Granny Godzilla
December 29th, 2010
10:39 am
Joel
Let me show you how this is done.
I won’t address this subject with you anymore today.
Doggone/GA
December 29th, 2010
10:40 am
“Do I have to explain everything now? ”
When you aren’t clear? Yes. If that applies to everything you say, then yes, you need to explain everything.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
December 29th, 2010
10:43 am
Well, I been trying hard to stay out of this fight. Except this Soothsayer that just had to make some joke about a “typical redneck.” I’d like to get behind him while he’s in his little librul sports car with the Obama sticker and I’m in my beer truck. Some people got no manners.
Anyhow, I don’t know much about generals. All I know is from my time in the army and when one went by with the little flag and stars on the front fender you had to salute. They’re mighty big about those flags and the saluting. I never knew the guy from Adam’s housecat but I had to stop what I was doing and salute a stupid car. And they’re even too lazy to drive theirselfs. They got to set in the back seat and get some grunt to drive them everywhere. I guess when you get that high in the ranks you get kind of dumb and forget how to drive. Me, I wouldn’t hire one to watch my dog.
Have a good day everybody.