What a lot of people seem to forget that the military generals described here have each been the beneficiaries of millions of dollars of taxpayer-funded executive perks while in the service. These perks, ranging from personal chefs, house servants, pilots and drivers to government-funded housing & transportation on a grand scale are unknown to the rank and file. Their cost is staggering. Those benefits imply a responsibility to their military subordinates and the nation as a whole. To leave a plush taxpayer-funded military sinecure and retire to the lecture/corporate director circuit while in the prime og life may be be legal, but it is immoral in an environment in which the military nickels and dimes the average non-com or enlisted soldier including thousands wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. In World War I, World War II, and Korea there were less than 10% of the current number of general rank officers, and the pay and perks were considerably lower, while the devotion to duty were considerably higher. You didn't see Mark Clark, George Patton, or Omar Bradley quitting a year after the war started and start joining corporate boards. Thats what Franks and Meyers did.

Put it this way, if a 4-star general in his 50s and good health had retired in the midst of WWII, he wouldn't have been totally focused on making millions of dollars, while soldiers continued to die. He would have done what thousands of celebrities and high profile personalities did in the 1941-1945 period--fund raise for worthy causes, including the USO, war bonds, etc. But leaving their commands during wartime is exactly what Tommy Franks, Richard Meyers and the rest of these greedhead generals mentioned in the Arkin blog have done. Compounding the hypocrisy, these are the same generals who wholeheartedly supported the Bush Administration's rush to war, including the false claims of WMDs, Iraqi ties to terror, etc.

Like Bush, they embody an ethic of grab all you can get while you can get it, and avoiding all responsibility for the consequences of their decisions. There is a problem with that system of ethics and consequent behavior: reality will come up and bite you on the ass every time.

And your point is? ( about General Franks). Does he give speeches people like to pay to hear? If he informs or rallies American's is it worth the $25,000? Who gave him the check? Did it go through a fair process? These are the first questions your story poses and you did not even attempt to answer them. You wasted my tme.

Opinions and Observations reality check.

How about Equal Opportunity Speaking Fees for NonComs?

Or does history only listen to those with High Rank, High Pay & Commissions.....

----------------------------
Published: Oct 27, 2005
Modified: Oct 27, 2005 3:00 AM
Time for sergeants: the noncoms' world

By ROBERT D. KAPLAN, The Los Angeles Times

Whether in New Orleans or Baghdad, at home or abroad, the real workhorses of our post-9/11 military have not come from among the generals and colonels, or even the captains and lieutenants, but from the enlisted ranks of sergeants and corporals.

As any West Pointer or Annapolis-educated officer will tell you, these noncommissioned officers -- NCOs or noncoms in military lingo -- are the heart and soul of the U.S. military, the repository of its culture and traditions.

They are a poorly paid, blue-collar corps, many of them just high school graduates. Two-thirds of all Marines are noncommissioned and in their first four-year enlistment. Nearly 90 percent of Army Special Forces soldiers, or Green Berets, are sergeants of one grade or another.

The average American has not worn a uniform since the draft ended more than three decades ago, so perhaps we may be forgiven for clinging to the stereotype of the growly sergeant hovering over a recruit doing push-ups, as in the 1960s comedy series "Gomer Pyle, USMC."

But the truth is that the sergeant of today (or chief petty officer in the Navy) is generally a technical expert and corporate-style manager who may speak several exotic languages. One Special Forces master sergeant with whom I recently traveled in Algeria, who grew up on a family farm in New Hampshire, had handled military and humanitarian emergencies in 73 countries in the course of a 17-year Army career.

• • •

Never before in military history have noncommissioned officers -- who deal at the lowest tactical level, where operational success or failure is determined -- been so critical. This is because of the changing nature of conflict.

As the age of mass-infantry warfare closes -- and the battlefield disperses and empties out over vast deserts, jungles and poor, sprawling cities -- armies increasingly operate unconventionally in small, autonomous units, at the level of the platoon and below, where sergeants reign supreme.

NCOs are a particularly American species, perhaps because the ever-expanding frontier of Western settlement in North America was all about doing, not imagining: clearing land, building shelters, obtaining food supplies. Though the family farm is dying across the continent, almost half of the 12-man Special Forces A-team with which I was embedded in Algeria had grown up on family farms.

This fine NCO corps is also a product of America's middle-class society. In many a Third World army, the gulf between officers and enlistees is that between aristocrats and peasants. Because such class distinctions do not really exist here, the consequence is an NCO corps that deals confidently with its superiors, so that lieutenants revere and depend upon their sergeants. It is that bond that is at the core of a military that gets the greatest possible traction out of the worst possible policies.

But NCOs are not sufficiently listened to. The three most desperately needed items in Iraq today are ones that NCOs have long been emphasizing: armored Humvees, "blue-force" trackers for situational awareness of the battlefield and SAPI plates (small-arms protective inserts for flak vests).

NCOs now complain about the heavy equipment they have to carry: all the latest gizmos merely make it easier for an insurgent in flip-flops and armed with an AK-47 to outrun the fittest Marine. NCOs keep the military focused on basics -- the overlooked stuff that wins wars.

• • •

Although reinstituting ROTC at elite universities is central to healthy civilian-military relations, the far more pressing issue today is providing more NCOs with educations at state and community colleges during their time in the military, and further invigorating NCO leadership courses at places such as Fort Benning, Ga., and Fort Bragg, N.C.

NCOs will not become proficient at foreign languages until such study is integrated into their training schedules and becomes relevant to their rank promotion.

Despite all the buzz about "transformation," policymakers forget that real transformation is about human beings, not weapons systems. It's about the lowliest grunts.

(Robert D. Kaplan, a correspondent for Atlantic Monthly, is the author of "Imperial Grunts: The American Military on the Ground.")
[Source: News & Observer http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/columns/story/2825425p-9274441c.html]

What narrow attempt at damage thru bias...
Just read Tommy Franks book American Soldier & you will find an amazing & honorable career from the bottom to the very top, hard working parents that mostly scraped by, & yet quietly preached wholesome values that he understood almost subconsciencely, and if I owned a big company or ran a big organization with the goal of success thru smart creative judgement, well, I would jump to pay this man $$$$$, in an effort to help my group or company explode prosperously!! Tommy Franks is truely too unhearlded a hero from THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! His book will make you smile understandingly at what a truely great country this actually is... Enjoy the money Tommy, you above most deserve it !!

So many folks are in denial. But the truth is constantly revealed via leaks, media, and internet. We are a pathetic bunch who has limited attention span and will take anyone's word for anything as long as the majority agrees. You can think what you must or what you may but one day, even in denial, you will be affected by the corruption. Some people talk too much and some people don't talk enough!

No problem with these guys earning money. It is their right. However, I do have a problem when taxpayer dollars go to someone for a speech they give and they can limit access to printed press only.
If this is the true case, I think an investigation should be conducted.

Left or right wing aside, it could be an improper use of taxpayer dollars.

In the column you seem to think that the ex-officers are abusing the system. Does it occur to you that the system [read administration] is using them? There are military retirees that oppose the current policies. Do they get speaking enagements, & fees, and PRESS? 'tis a puzzlemenmt.

Why havent you included General W. Clarke in your column on military retirees?

Doesn't anyone care that these people who have a direct interest in war and war supplies still have undue influence in the government?
To the person who suggested that the "real criminals" are the NBA....I throw it back at you that the fans who pay the obscene amounts for tickets do NOT get a say in how the game results. There's your difference.
And to those people who want to know what these people are supposed to do when they retire, my comment to that is, STAY OUT OF UNETHICAL ARENAS, of which this is clearly one of conflict of interest. I mean, they didn't get to be general because they're stupid. Maybe a little foggy in what they should or shouldn't do for money, but not the rest of it.
This whole administration makes me sick to my stomach, the challenged "ethics" that they must rely upon to propagandize a war. Democracy can never be forced upon someone.....Treaty of Versailles, anyone? Of course, most people of today are so damn ignorant about history, does anyone even know what the Treaty of Versailles is?

Cross-post reading for:

OD's Oct 23, 2005 7:56:25 PM excellent post about political appointees & the "Rent a Retired General Flag Officer to Lobby in Favour of the Iraq War Progamme" that Mr. Arkin discusses in this blog segment.

OD let's not forget the public affairs and public relations assistance those political appointees would have from Bush W's WHIG.
WHIG is described well by a project of the

Center for Media & Democracy 's link:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=White_House_Iraq_Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The White House Iraq Group (aka, White House Information Group or WHIG) was the marketing arm of the White House whose purpose was to sell the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the public. WHIG Members:

Karl Rove
Karen Hughes
Mary Matalin
James R. Wilkinson
Nicholas E. Calio
Condoleezza Rice
Stephen Hadley
I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby
-------------------------------------------------------------------
And here is a further 'Newsflash tidbit' from that site:

On 20 October 2005, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) introduced a formal Resolution of Inquiry to demand the White House turn over all white papers, minutes, notes, emails or other communications kept by the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), stating that "This group, comprised of the President and Vice President's top aides, was critical in selling the
Administration's case for war.

We now know that the Administration hyped intelligence and misled the American public and Congress in their effort to 'sell' the war. After over 1,900 American troops have been killed in Iraq, it is long past time for this Congress to ask serious questions about WHIG and its role in the lead up to the war."
------------------------------------
Here was WHIG's tasking according to Pat Buchanan:

"To stampede us into a war neoconservatives had been plotting for a decade, Douglas Feith, the Pentagon's No. 3, set up an Office of Special Plans. Its role: Cherry-pick the intel that Saddam was acquiring weapons of mass destruction and was hell-bent on using them on the United States. Then, stove-pipe the hot stuff to the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) and ignore the contradictory evidence."

Find the quote in this article which passes the blame for the war around:

October 24, 2005 Media, Democrats Complicit in Rush to War by Patrick J. Buchanan

http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=7736
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More on the Neo-Con CABAL:

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 10, 2003
Neo - CONNED !
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm
--------------------------------

And for what this has to do with Retire Generals Officers; a coming week to be posted audio interview from Sunday 23 Oct 05 from journalist Ian Master's:

Brig. General Janice Karpinski, ed by late Monday or Tues. In this interview, the ABU GRAIB SCAPEGOAT FALL-GAL, tells in her own words just how very political the U.S. military General Flag Officer Corps has now become under the NEO-CON's political leadership.

Look for the interview of BG Karpinsky will be posted @: http://www.ianmasters.org/ Here is the book info:

ONE WOMAN'S ARMY
by Janice Karpinsky
Miramax Books, 1401352472

An outspoken memoir from General Janis Karpinski, telling the real story of the tragic and shameful events of 2004 from first-hand experience. Karpinski was the first and only female General Officer commanding troops in a combat zone in Iraq: although she had received no training in handling prisoners, she was selected to run Abu Ghraib. She takes readers inside the walls of the notorious holding facility, describing in unflinching detail the corruption within the armed forces and accompanying private firms. Co-written with Newsweek correspondent Steven Strasser. A timely and powerful account of these events.

Anti-OD, maybe you should check your facts before accusing me of getting mine wrong. I never said Rumsfeld ran General Dynamics, I said he ran a General Dynamics subsidiary. Rumsfeld was a director of Gulfstream when GD took it over, paying Rummy $11 million in the deal. He also formerly ran General Instrument, which sold electronics to DoD.

As for Wolfowitz, he was indeed an arms industry consultant, and spent years working for Northrop Grumman.

It's true that Rumsfeld has kept his hands cleaner than most - but then he's the one who appointed all the others.

In fact, the people who really did run General Dynamics did indeed get jobs running DoD...from Rumsfeld.

Here are the senior posts he filled when he came to the Pentagon:

Deputy secretary of Defense - Paul Wolfowitz - Northrop Grumman consultant

Undersecretary of Defense - Michael Wynne - Senior VP, General Dynamics

Undersecretary for Policy - Doug Feith - formerly Northrop Grumman's senior lawyer

Secretary of the Army - Thomas E. White - former Vice chairman, Enron Energy Services, a major Army contractor

Secretary of the Navy - Gordon R. England - former Executive vice president, General Dynamics

Secretary of the Air Force - James G. Roche - former President, Northrop Grumman electronic sensors and systems

Undersecretary of the Air Force - Peter B. Teets - former President, Lockheed Martin

Under secretary for personnel and readiness - David Chu - Former VP Rand Corp (makes nuclear weapon parts)

Under secretary for acquisition, technology and logistics - Edward C. Aldridge Jr - former CEO, the Aerospace Corporation

Assistant secretary for installations, environment and logistics - Nelson F. Gibbs - former Controller, Northrop Grumman

Quite a list, eh, anti-OD? These are the people who ran the Pentagon when it started the Iraq War. Now there's a group of men who would bust their balls exploring every diplomatic option before resorting to violence, don't you agree?

Yes, the same thing happens on a smaller scale in Britain. And in France, Russia, and China. The permanent security council members are the very people who are clogging up the planet with arms. America is merely the worst offender, responsible for half the world's military spending and arms exports.

But while arms dealers have far too much influence in Britain, at least they're not running the foreign and defence policy establishment.

The US government is run by PNAC, an organisation set up by the arms industry to counter the terrible threat of global peace that reared its head with the collapse of the Soviet Union. It's true PNAC also contains input from the oil industry, who back America's policy of insinuating itself into every nook and crannie of central Asia. With Rice's appointment, a PNAC member has now also taken over the State Dept. Another runs DoD, another is Vice-President. Both US ambassadors to Iraq were signatories of the PNAC papers.

Being a nationalist yourself, you assume I'll be offended when you criticise Britain. But I already knew Britain was a banana republic. If Britain were an independent functioning democracy, it wouldn't have been dragged into the Iraq war by its puppet government against the clear wishes of the British people.

Judi, nobody is forcing these organizations to pay those speakers fees, so how is that a problem? Hello, if a private organization wants to pay a private individual to speak, what's wrong with that?

The main problem I see here is that we the people are still paying fees for these speakers who are no longer employed by us in a public service capacity as military personnel! How many of you people out there are still getting paid by ANY of your previous (operative word here) employers?? HELLOOO is there any intelligent life out there??

Oops! Sorry, wrong column! My bad!

Another crucial part of the interview:

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Ritter, does Iraq still have prescribed weapons?

Mr. Ritter: "Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability."

WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.: Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability. There needs to be a careful distinction here. Iraq today is challenging the special commission to come up with a weapon and say where is the weapon in Iraq, and yet part of their efforts to conceal their capabilities, I believe, have been to disassemble weapons into various components and to hide these components throughout Iraq.

I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measure the months, reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program.
-------------
So in August 1998 it didn't matter to Ritter that there might be no WMD weapons PER SE in Iraq; it was the CAPABILITIES of Iraq to, in a short timeframe, reconstitute the WMD production that mattered to him..........an position identical to the 'hawk' position on Iraq in 2002 and 2003!

What about the criminal awarding of the Medal of Freedom to Franks, Tenet and Bremer for collectively supporting a corrupt administration? Outrageous!!

Tommy Franks has spent his life protecting the citizens of this country - including your worthless butt! To begrudge him making a few bucks and to imply some kind of unethical behavior because he does so displays your contempt and hatred for the members of the military that defend your right to trash them.

By the way, where's your outrage when public universities use public money to pay speaker fees to Michael Moore and others of his ilk?

John, in addition to being too dumb to spell "taxpayer" correctly, you are obviously too dumb to see that he's not ONLY making an issue of Tommy Franks getting taxpayer money. Otherwise he would have stopped writing after the second paragraph.

Most of the article isn't even about Tommy Franks - it's a list of generals and admirals who work in industry, which Comrade Arkin *clerarly* expects us to conclude is somehow wrong.

From the posts about this article it seems a lot of people were to dumb to see that you only made an issue of the TAX PAYOR paid money. The mention of other sources of income was merely to show us how well corporatists pay those that tow their line

OD, you don't even know what you're talking about. The administration is "largely" made up of arms dealers, and they determine policy? Balderdash. Just so you know, Rumsfeld was NOT the CEO of General Dynamics! When he was in industry, he worked in the pharmaceutical world, not in military contracting. Wolfowitz was primarily an academic from 1993-2001, he was not in industry.

The military industrial complex controls US policy? A childishly simplistic assertion. US industry responds to government policy, it does not determine it.

The neocons want a Cold War with China? Gee, don't you think those 800 missiles the Chinese have aimed at Taiwan are any cause for concern?

"Well speaking as a Brit, I'd say that kind of war profiteering makes your government look sick and rotten to its core. That's banana republic stuff."

Gee, what do British generals and admirals do when they retire? Hmmmm, Air Commodore Ron Cook works for L-3 communications in London. Air Marshall Christopher Colville works for Westland Helicopter. General Jack Deverell works for EDS. Admiral Boyce works for Vosper Thorneycroft. For more, take a look at this:

http://www.againstcorruption.org/BriefingsItem.asp?id=13093

Oh my God, British ministers move from MOD to the British arms industry! What are you guys, a banana republic? This war profiteering and revolving door between the UK government and British industry makes your country look sick and rotten to the core!

Wake up and smell the coffee, sucker. Retired officers work in private industry in EVERY country, so don't get all self-righteous and look down your nose at America.

If the real issue is making obscene amts of money, how about the sports stars making salaries that blow your mind for simply throwing a ball at a hoop. If Franks is a capitalist then he pales in comparison to the thugs that make up the NBA. Those are the real criminals.

This Bush yahoo is still spreading his lies and half-truths. I have stopped counting where what Tommy Franks was saying was different from the military on the front lines in Iraq. We have also seen where many who spoke out were punished in one way or another. What Franks said was more political than truth and that is probably why some part of his speaking fees is being paid with our tax dollars. Bush is just rewarding him for continuing to spread half-truths and lies.

Did we miss Bill's 2nd paragraph, " . . . veterans were angered and initially taken aback when they learned that almost $25,000 in taxpayer money was being used to help pay Franks's $75,000 speaking fee for an upcoming October 29 appearance in Camden."? I believe the operative here is "taxpayer money".

and your point is, what? that retirees should not be allowed to parlay experience and education to lucrative jobs after serving the in the military, theoretically protecting the people for 30-40 years of thier lives. we can't all be Cinncinattus and return home to the farm.

I live in Camden County, New Jersey. I am a homeowner and taxpayer. I am also an active duty veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, a veteran of the New Jersey Army National Guard, and an admirer of Gen. Franks. But this is not a proper use of taxpayer money. The Camden County Board of Freeholders gets its taxpayers with death by a thousand cuts. I'm tired of this.

There is nothing wrong with Franks being paid to speak.

What is wrong is when he is paid $25,000 in TAXPAYER MONEY for ONE SPEECH. Who knows how much we have paid this guy to spread propaganda?

For high crimes and misdemeances and murder-IMPEACH!

Regarding William Arkin's article on Tommy Franks, his opening statement on "having his hand in the cookie jar" appears dubious at best. How organizations pay for Franks' speaking fees should not be of paramount concern to him. He speaks. He gets paid. That's it.

By mentioning the "cookie jar" reference, Arkin is implying wrong doing by Franks, which he clearly doesn't support in his article. He should retract it.

Regarding William Arkin's article on Tommy Franks, his opening statement on "having his hand in the cookie jar" appears dubious at best. How organizations pay for Franks' speaking fees should not be of paramount concern to him. He speaks. He gets paid. That's it.

By mentioning the "cookie jar" reference, Arkin is implying wrong doing by Franks, which he clearly doesn't support in his article. He should retract it.

Well it seems as though making money on the speaking circuit is okay for the former Commander-in-Chief.

Former president still commands hefty speaking fees
By Edward Walsh / The Washington Post
WASHINGTON -- Late February and early March of 2002 was a very good time for former president Clinton. He spent eight days in Australia, delivering seven speeches in five cities. His fees for the whirlwind speaking tour: $1.175 million, not counting travel and lodging reimbursements.

Details of Clinton's 2002 speaking engagements, released Friday in the annual financial disclosure statement of his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., suggest the former chief executive is as popular with audiences in his second year out of office as he was in his first. He earned $9.5 million for 60 speeches last year, slightly more than the $9.2 million he was paid for speaking engagements in 2001.

http://www.detnews.com/2003/politics/0306/18/politics-192566.htm

So really what is the big deal? After sacrificing 30 years of their lives they are entitled to make some money off of their expertise. Besides, the market supports it.

What a truly silly post by Mr. Arkin.

irvglick.blogspot.com

Shocking!
Sounds like these retired warriors keep their weapons, in retirement, and use them as part of their kick in the door tactics to gain better paid employment. Those poor, helpless, corporations. Looks like Jesse rainbow is not the only exortioner.

Bill

Ohhh please. Ridiculous post.

I guess all you pundits refuse to take speaking fees.

My first and last visit to your log.

Bill

Ohhh please. Ridiculous post.

I guess all you pundits refuse to take speaking fees.

My first and last visit to your log.

What after serving for decades for peanuts with great responsiblity. These military people are"cashing in"? Oh the horror! What idiocy, this is america, more power to them!

Literary hacks have been around awhile. Political hacks have too and conspicuously litter the landscape at the present time. What Gen. Tommy Franks (ret) represents is an example of a "Military" hack !
What Bush et al needed for their Iraqi adventure was a General who would devise and execute their "pie in the sky" plan to remove and replace Saddam Hussein. Sober minded Generals had already gone on record as to the force requirements for the mission and Franks was the Neo-con's guy who would close his mind to the military realities involved and go in short-handed.
All these speaking honorariums and Board seats are just the sotto voce payoffs for his hand in the whole scheme.

In the Post today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/21/AR2005102100243.html

Bill, do you think it is ok for a former DNC Chairman to make money because of his background? 7 figure advance? Oh, the hypocrisy. Where is the objectivity in journalism today...gone forever I guess.

BIll Arkin needs to tell us how much money he makes. I have seen him describes as a former military analyst. So, isn't he making money from his military background? Who decided he is an expert to voice opinion? He accuses a man who actually served his country in war. I trust that the general cares more about the troops that the weenie Bill. Let's face it, Bill Arkin got picked on in elementary school because he kept telling everyone else they were wrong and he was right.

You never did say where this $25,000 in taxpayer money was coming from, i/e local, state, federal funds?

Aj,good catch on Clark. Duane F, have you ever served in the military? When these guys have doctorate degrees and masters degrees and serve their country for 30 years and only make $100 grand a year in the last few years don't talk about them like they are money hungry theives. Money hungry - maybe. They should be money hungry for not getting paid enough while serving their country instead of people like you who get to complain all day because of people like them.

Den of thieves. A travesty of Abe Lincoln's vision of America:".......government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

neo-con jerks? carpetbaggers? And I suppose Hillary Clinton belongs in NY as a Senator? Just another ill-informed liberal hypocrite. It's fine for liberals to get tons of money for speaking fees...notice the Post leaves out GEN Clark from this list. What a joke.

Call me old fashioned but since when did military and public service become nothing more than just another corporate ladder to fame and fortune?

These professions were never supposed to be a stepping stone to wealth and riches. People who entered these professions were supposed to be motivated by service to the community, not by money. Now we find many so-called religious conservatives expressing their ridicule and amusement at such simplistic and naive concepts.

These neo-con jerks are not patriots; they are simply low-life carpetbaggers masquerading as Americans. The American people deserve to be protected and served by real men and women that are not motivated by money and wealth.

Tommy Frank spent 30 years working for his country when he could have been in the private sector making much more. I hate these "hate the military" jerks. Do you have a problem with Bill Clinton begging the Saudi's for millions for his library? Getting $2 million for a speech in CHINA? Of course not, he is a democrat. Just like journalists, or writers like Bill Arkin, used their notoriety to sell books by bashing the president and the military on TV and in the newspaper, ex-military men and women have a right to a second career. Shame on you for insulting them. They are ten times smarter than you and have more class by far. I live in a military community and have seen the reaction when Bill comes on TV. They laugh. He is a joke.

OD,
You are just like the Brit Journalist that now works for Al Jazeera. You twist words. I never defended Dick Cheney in any of my posts. I didn't say I wasn't disgusted. I just want to know what these retired officers are supposed to do now that they are retired. Second, I didn't say I didn't care what foreigners think. I said I don't care what the guy from Holland thinks.

O RLY??

These generals pale into comparison with Dick Cheney, who was actually recieving a salary from Halliburton - while Vice President - as as he drove forward the war project that has since made Halliburton's fortune.

In fact I don't know the figures for the last two years, but in 2002-2003 his annual pay from Halliburton, just over $200,000, was slightly bigger than his salary as VP.

That seems appropriate in hindsight, since his war served Halliburton a hell of a lot better than it the United States.

Chris Williams says he doesn't care what foreigners think. Well speaking as a Brit, I'd say that kind of war profiteering makes your government look sick and rotten to its core. That's banana republic stuff.

Naturally, Halliburton has since been busted countless times ripping off the taxpayer and the soldiers. And of course pretty much everything Cheney ever said about Iraq has been revealed as garbage.

It's just depressing that so many Americans tolerate and even defend their serving Vice-President getting regular pay from a military contractor. He debases the dignity of his office and damages the credibility of the US government.

I would still like Mr Arkin to answer the question of what does he want the retired military officers to do. Are they just supposed to disappear? Why focus on just them? Why not focus on the retired troops who become teachers on the Troops to Teachers program? Maybe we should investigate them for corrupting childrens' minds in our school systems! Oh. I forgot. We have PETA to do that by distributing pamphlets saying that mommy killed a bunny and milk is bad for you.

Burton and Bojangles hit the nail on the head. Franks happens to be a greedy person who did a lot to give the US a bad name, but the real problem is the financial conflict of interest at the heart of the military-industrial complex.

When you have a market where the buyer and seller are both interested in maximising sales, and never spend their own money, and the same people are jumping back and forth between the two roles, you have a recipe for a permanent one-sided arms race.

The US spends as much on arms as the rest of the world combined, yet Americans are only 4% of the world's population.

The worst of it is that people who make their living out of the defence industry are also those who 'estimate' the threat posed to America by other countries. The architects of war in Iraq, like Wolfowitz and Perle, are all longtime arms industry consultants. Donald Rumsfeld himself was CEO of a General Dynamics company. And Cheney, famously, came from the US military's biggest service contractor.

No wonder these guys could identify a deadly menace from Iraq, a country whose defence budget was way less than 1% of America's. They'd identify a deadly threat from Belgium if they couldn't find anywhere else to drum up a war.

Having burned their fingers with hot war in Iraq, Rumsfeld, the neo-conservatives, the generals, and their arms industry pals would really like to settle down with a nice, relaxing Cold War against China. Why does Rummy consistently try to make trouble with China, even as State Dept tries to smooth things over? Because he wants to keep some trouble in reserve, just in case peace breaks out.

Tom Paine said: "That there are men in all countries who get their living by war, and by keeping up the quarrels of Nations is as shocking as it is true."

The only people who can't see it are those blinded by nationalism, and those manipulated by fear.

Pshaw, if it's "pinko" to accuse the military-industrial complex of pushing the US government to massive arms spending and paranoia, then I guess you can call Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur "pinkos" too, because they said the same things.

"It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear... Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear - kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor - with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it. Always there has been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real."
~General Douglas MacArthur

"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."
~General DD Eisenhower

Eisenhower's fears, expressed in his presidential farewell address, finally came true when the arms industry took over the government in the form of the Bush Administration, a government made up largely of arms dealers and arms industry gofers and office boys.

Thus is the mystery of America's baffling foreign policy explained. To a normal person outside the Administration, US policy may seem utterly stupid, but if you work for the arms industry, it's actually pretty smart.

For one thing, equipment is getting through its life cycle gratifyingly quickly in the sands of Iraq. For another, the country with the world's most inflated military has just been convinced it needs an extra 30,000-odd soldiers (when really, of course, all it needs is to stop occupying foreign countries).

Best of all, when this current mess sputters to its ugly end, today's young Republican arms dealer can look forward to a bright tomorrow full of potential threats from all the new enemies America is making.

It's not just an issue of retired generals making money. Franks has questions to answer. He spent time on the Bush-Cheney campaign trail in 2004 saying that the lack of troops was not a constraint in catching Osama at Tora Bora. He even claimed that it was not certain that Osama was there. Yet subsequent revelations from Gitmo detainees show that he was. So Franks has some "what did he know and when did he know it" questions. The gravy train doubtless helps keep him onside.

First, who cares if someone retires from the military and gets a job. After retirement what are they supposed to do? Answer that question in your next blog. What do you want them to do? Then maybe someone will listen to you complaining. Don't be jealous that they make more money than you. Second, for the bozo who used the word "cabal", quit reading other people's articles and then think you can pass it off as yours. Third, I don't mind disagreement among AMERICANS. I think it is healthy and natural. However, who cares what the guy from Holland thinks? Your country will either fall or be invaded before ours ever will. Even if it takes centuries.

Lotta talk, but no action. The next election will see the same crooks re-elected, and everything will remain, business as usual.

Lotta talk, but no action. The next election will see the same crooks re-elected, and everything will remain, business as usual.

Speaking of Brown and Root a Haliburton subsidiary, remember that Lyndon Johnson had to sequester his holdings In that company while in office. By some coincidence, Brown and Root built the US base at Camron Bay. To top it off they bought the steel from the Chinese because it was cheaper and upped their profit! God bless America!

"I'd certainly rather see more paid patriots than paid pinkos like William Arkin."

I love these archaic insults - it's like retro furniture - so strange to think that calling someone a 'pinko' has any weight left. I mean how many years has it been since we've really felt even the slightest threat from a communist?

It's both completely legal and ethically acceptable for retired officers to go into private industry.

It's also a guarantee that our budget priorities - and hence our actual priorities - will remain skewed towards high-cost high-tech systems. If these were the best solution to the existing geopolitcal conflict climate, no problem.

But they're not.

Globalization continues to spread the open-source-warfare meme. This networked mutation of fourth-generation warfare will lead to an increased reliance on infrastructure attacks. Our defense posture is the weakest in these areas. Without large contracts and the ability to hire retirees at exceptional salaries, companies in this space will continue to have problems finding space at the table.

The solutions to these issues are likely to come from small, emergent entrepreneurial networks if they are to be solved at all. This is the good news. The bad news is that billions will continue to be wasted. The worse news is that any success by the entrepreneurial nets wil paradoxically weaken the power of the state in the very act of saving it.

We must realize that the military industry is an industry just like any other. There is no "conspiracy theory" in pointing this out. We all know how industries generally influence our government, they hire big money lobbyists, form PACs, and donate money to politicians' campaign funds and in return they get special access/treatment/tax loopholes, etc. These activities have been very successful. Our recent energy bill was written, ver batim at times, by the energy industry. No Child Left Behind is the creation of the publisher (McGraw-Hill) of the testing materials that the program requires. Social Security privatization would hugely benefit the financial industry. The medicare bill was a boon for big pharma. On and on... The point is that if you were to believe that our foreign policy were NOT dictated, at least in part, by the military industry it would be the EXCEPTION of policies in this government.

Now let's look at the military industry. They hire retired generals and politicians like crazy. The Carlyle Grp, for instance, had Bush #41, his sec'y of state James Baker, and former PM of GB John Major working for them all at once. Now consider all the generals, admirals, and former members of congress the military industry has working as salespeople/lobbyists/consultants, etc. They have the best access to and expertise in government of any industry of all.

Additionally, the natural forces of capitalism do not apply to them. The military industry has no substitute industries. If the peanut industry, for instance, gets a sweetheart deal the cashew farmers have lobbyists to point out the unfair practice. Every industry is sort of kept in check by their competition, but not the military industry. Their only competition is peace. There is no peace industry.

So we have an unchecked industry with more influence than any other, actually lobbying for ....(enter your own word here- conflict, war. I don't want to turn anyone off by getting too political, this is economic. But I don't think you can argue the point that having an industry constantly pushing us to war is the definition of anti-social.)

The military industry needs to be put in check somehow or we will never know peace. I am not advocating elimination, it is an essential industry, but it operates with very little resistance and advocates policy that is inherently problematic to our continued respect and influence in the world (to put it very mildly).

Thanks if you made it this far.
http://www.bernards.blogspot.com

Oh, no Mr. Bill!

Why shiver me timbers!!!!!!!!!

Could it possibly be:

PROMOTING MILITARY PRIVITIZATION AND MILITARY ACQUISTIONS THROUGH RELATIONSHIP MARKETING AND THE USE OF GENERAL (FLAG) OFFICER ROLE MODELS??????

Say what??????

It is about INFLUENCE baby, political lobbying and influence.....

"In the military, you are immediately confronted with a role model: your Drill Sgt.
He personifies violence and aggression." [And he projects strength and authority; usually the male macho variety.].
"Along with military heros," [and those 'military's own jet-setting glitterati': the General Flag Officers bedecked in their personal finery and metals just ooze power] and they "have always been used to influence the young and impressionable minds."
(source of quote David Grossman, "Trained to Kill" Christianity Today 10 Aug 98 ---added quotes in brackets by zz.)

Here are some cross-posts about the bi-Partisan efforts in the:

"Lease a Retired General Flag Officer for to Promote Influence Scheme" ---can others find more stories?

"Almost thirty years ago, a prominent group of neoconservative hawks found an effective vehicle for advocating their views via the Committee on the Present Danger, a group that fervently believed the United States was a hair away from being militarily surpassed by the Soviet Union, and whose raison d'être was strident advocacy of bigger military budgets, near-fanatical opposition to any form of arms control and zealous championing of a Likudnik Israel. Considered a marginal group in its nascent days during the Carter Administration, with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 CPD went from the margins to the center of power.

Just as the right-wing defense intellectuals made CPD a cornerstone of a shadow defense establishment during the Carter Administration, so, too, did the right during the Clinton years, in part through two organizations: the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Center for Security Policy (CSP). And just as was the case two decades ago, dozens of their members have ascended to powerful government posts, where their advocacy in support of the same agenda continues, abetted by the out-of-government adjuncts from which they came."
[Source: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020902/vest posted August 15, 2002 (September 2, 2002 issue) "The Men From JINSA and CSP by Jason Vest in: the Nation"

OR For more Revolving Door Fun:

"The push to privatize war got its start during the administration of the elder President Bush. After the Gulf War ended, the Pentagon, then headed by Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, paid a Halliburton subsidiary called Brown & Root Services nearly $9 million to study how private military companies could provide support for American soldiers in combat zones. Cheney went on to serve as CEO of Halliburton -- and Brown & Root, now known as Halliburton KBR, has since been awarded at least $2.5 billion to construct and run military bases, some in secret locations, as part of the Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program.

In March, the Pentagon hired Cheney's former firm to fight fires in Iraq if Saddam Hussein sabotages oil wells during a U.S. attack.

Pentagon officials say they rely on firms like Halliburton because the private sector works faster and cheaper than the military. When U.S. Marines distributed relief supplies in Somalia in 1992, for example, the military contracted with Brown & Root for logistical support. "They had laborers and vehicles at the Port of Mogadishu within 11 hours after we had given them notice," recalls Don Trautner, who runs the Army logistics program.

The use of private military companies, which gained considerable momentum under President Clinton, has escalated under the Bush administration. "There has been a dramatic increase in the military's reliance on contractor personnel to provide a wide range of support services for overseas operations," one Washington law firm advises its defense-company clients in a recent briefing paper. "

In addition, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, resulted in a rapid expansion of U.S. military activity in many areas of the globe, and President Bush's ongoing war on terrorism will likely require even greater contractor support for military operations in the future."

"Because the Geneva Convention expressly bans the use of mercenaries -- individual soldiers of fortune who fight solely for personal gain -- private military companies are careful to distance themselves from any associations with such hired guns. To emphasize their experience and professionalism, many firms maintain websites brimming with colorful PR material; the industry even funds an advocacy group, the International Peace Operations Association, which portrays military firms as more capable and accountable than the Pentagon."

"These companies want to run a professional operation," says the group's director, Doug Brooks. "Their incentive is to make money. How do you make money? You make sure you don't screw up."

"When the companies do screw up, however, their status as private entities often shields them -- and the government -- from public scrutiny."
[Source: Mother Jones "Soldiers of Good Fortune" By Barry Yeoman May/June 2003 Issue "http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/05/ma_365_01.html]

Hey for yesterday's blog Readers: don't miss Brian Wheeler's Excellent Flame War Blog piece on the Flamin' Plame Gate war in D.C.:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-wheeler/plamegate-and-the-missing_b_9146.html
And the front page WP story is a great read too:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/19/AR2005101902431.html

Ain't it MILLER time yet????

Oh, no Mr. Bill!

Why shiver me timbers!!!!!!!!!

Could it possibly be:

PROMOTING MILITARY PRIVITIZATION AND MILITARY ACQUISTIONS THROUGH RELATIONSHIP MARKETING AND THE USE OF GENERAL (FLAG) OFFICER ROLE MODELS??????

Say what??????

It is about INFLUENCE baby, political lobbying and influence.....

"In the military, you are immediately confronted with a role model: your Drill Sgt.
He personifies violence and aggression." [And he projects strength and authority; usually the male macho variety.].
"Along with military heros," [and those 'military's own jet-setting glitterati': the General Flag Officers bedecked in their personal finery and metals just ooze power] and they "have always been used to influence the young and impressionable minds."
(source of quote David Grossman, "Trained to Kill" Christianity Today 10 Aug 98 ---added quotes in brackets by zz.)

Here are some cross-posts about the bi-Partisan efforts in the:

"Lease a Retired General Flag Officer for to Promote Influence Scheme" ---can others find more stories?

"Almost thirty years ago, a prominent group of neoconservative hawks found an effective vehicle for advocating their views via the Committee on the Present Danger, a group that fervently believed the United States was a hair away from being militarily surpassed by the Soviet Union, and whose raison d'être was strident advocacy of bigger military budgets, near-fanatical opposition to any form of arms control and zealous championing of a Likudnik Israel. Considered a marginal group in its nascent days during the Carter Administration, with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 CPD went from the margins to the center of power.

Just as the right-wing defense intellectuals made CPD a cornerstone of a shadow defense establishment during the Carter Administration, so, too, did the right during the Clinton years, in part through two organizations: the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Center for Security Policy (CSP). And just as was the case two decades ago, dozens of their members have ascended to powerful government posts, where their advocacy in support of the same agenda continues, abetted by the out-of-government adjuncts from which they came."
[Source: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020902/vest posted August 15, 2002 (September 2, 2002 issue) "The Men From JINSA and CSP by Jason Vest in: the Nation"

OR For more Revolving Door Fun:

"The push to privatize war got its start during the administration of the elder President Bush. After the Gulf War ended, the Pentagon, then headed by Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, paid a Halliburton subsidiary called Brown & Root Services nearly $9 million to study how private military companies could provide support for American soldiers in combat zones. Cheney went on to serve as CEO of Halliburton -- and Brown & Root, now known as Halliburton KBR, has since been awarded at least $2.5 billion to construct and run military bases, some in secret locations, as part of the Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program.

In March, the Pentagon hired Cheney's former firm to fight fires in Iraq if Saddam Hussein sabotages oil wells during a U.S. attack.

Pentagon officials say they rely on firms like Halliburton because the private sector works faster and cheaper than the military. When U.S. Marines distributed relief supplies in Somalia in 1992, for example, the military contracted with Brown & Root for logistical support. "They had laborers and vehicles at the Port of Mogadishu within 11 hours after we had given them notice," recalls Don Trautner, who runs the Army logistics program.

The use of private military companies, which gained considerable momentum under President Clinton, has escalated under the Bush administration. "There has been a dramatic increase in the military's reliance on contractor personnel to provide a wide range of support services for overseas operations," one Washington law firm advises its defense-company clients in a recent briefing paper. "

In addition, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, resulted in a rapid expansion of U.S. military activity in many areas of the globe, and President Bush's ongoing war on terrorism will likely require even greater contractor support for military operations in the future."

"Because the Geneva Convention expressly bans the use of mercenaries -- individual soldiers of fortune who fight solely for personal gain -- private military companies are careful to distance themselves from any associations with such hired guns. To emphasize their experience and professionalism, many firms maintain websites brimming with colorful PR material; the industry even funds an advocacy group, the International Peace Operations Association, which portrays military firms as more capable and accountable than the Pentagon."

"These companies want to run a professional operation," says the group's director, Doug Brooks. "Their incentive is to make money. How do you make money? You make sure you don't screw up."

"When the companies do screw up, however, their status as private entities often shields them -- and the government -- from public scrutiny."
[Source: Mother Jones "Soldiers of Good Fortune" By Barry Yeoman May/June 2003 Issue "http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/05/ma_365_01.html]

Hey for yesterday's blog Readers: don't miss Brian Wheeler's Excellent Flame War Blog piece on the Flamin' Plame Gate war in D.C.:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-wheeler/plamegate-and-the-missing_b_9146.html
And the front page WP story is a great read too:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/19/AR2005101902431.html

Ain't it MILLER time yet????

I love the "aha, gotcha!" tone of this post. What on earth is supposed to be wrong with retired generals and admirals earning money for public speaking? They are worth what people are willing to pay, no more and no less, and if people are willing to pay a lot, so be it. If they had nothing worthwhile to say, people would not pay them to say it.

I am even more puzzled by the attitude that it is somehow wrong for retired generals and admirals to serve in industry. They have absolutely indisputable leadership skills, discipline, education, experience, and expertise. They are worth every penny they get paid, or, quite simply, industry would not hire them or retain them.

I'd certainly rather see more paid patriots than paid pinkos like William Arkin.

I love the "aha, gotcha!" tone of this post. What on earth is supposed to be wrong with retired generals and admirals earning money for public speaking? They are worth what people are willing to pay, no more and no less, and if people are willing to pay a lot, so be it. If they had nothing worthwhile to say, people would not pay them to say it.

I am even more puzzled by the attitude that it is somehow wrong for retired generals and admirals to serve in industry. They have absolutely indisputable leadership skills, discipline, education, experience, and expertise. They are worth every penny they get paid, or, quite simply, industry would not hire them or retain them.

I'd certainly rather see more paid patriots than paid pinkos like William Arkin.

I love the "aha, gotcha!" tone of this post. What on earth is supposed to be wrong with retired generals and admirals earning money for public speaking? They are worth what people are willing to pay, no more and no less, and if people are willing to pay a lot, so be it. If they had nothing worthwhile to say, people would not pay them to say it.

I am even more puzzled by the attitude that it is somehow wrong for retired generals and admirals to serve in industry. They have absolutely indisputable leadership skills, discipline, education, experience, and expertise. They are worth every penny they get paid, or, quite simply, industry would not hire them or retain them.

I'd certainly rather see more paid patriots than paid pinkos like William Arkin.

I love the "aha, gotcha!" tone of this post. What on earth is supposed to be wrong with retired generals and admirals earning money for public speaking? They are worth what people are willing to pay, no more and no less, and if people are willing to pay a lot, so be it. If they had nothing worthwhile to say, people would not pay them to say it.

I am even more puzzled by the attitude that it is somehow wrong for retired generals and admirals to serve in industry. They have absolutely indisputable leadership skills, discipline, education, experience, and expertise. They are worth every penny they get paid, or, quite simply, industry would not hire them or retain them.

I'd certainly rather see more paid patriots than paid pinkos like William Arkin.

Oh, no Mr. Bill!

Why shiver me timbers!!!!!!!!!

Could it possibly be:

PROMOTING MILITARY PRIVITIZATION AND MILITARY ACQUISTIONS THROUGH RELATIONSHIP MARKETING AND THE USE OF GENERAL (FLAG) OFFICER ROLE MODELS??????

Say what??????

It is about INFLUENCE baby, lobbying and political influence!!!

"In the military, you are immediately confronted with a role model: your Drill Sgt..
He personifies violence and aggression." [And he projects strength and authority; usually the male macho variety...].
"Along with military heros," [and those 'military's own jet-setting glitterate': the General Flag Officers bedecked in their personal finery and metals, just ooze power] and they "have always been used to influence the young and impressionable minds." (Source of Quote David Grossman, "Trained to Kill" Christianity Today 10 Aug 98 ---added quotes in brackets by zz.)

Here are some cross-posts about the bi-partisian efforts in the:

"Lease a Retired General Flag Officer for to Promote Influence Scheme" ---can others find more stories?

"Almost thirty years ago, a prominent group of neoconservative hawks found an effective vehicle for advocating their views via the Committee on the Present Danger, a group that fervently believed the United States was a hair away from being militarily surpassed by the Soviet Union, and whose raison d'être was strident advocacy of bigger military budgets, near-fanatical opposition to any form of arms control and zealous championing of a Likudnik Israel. Considered a marginal group in its nascent days during the Carter Administration, with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 CPD went from the margins to the center of power.

Just as the right-wing defense intellectuals made CPD a cornerstone of a shadow defense establishment during the Carter Administration, so, too, did the right during the Clinton years, in part through two organizations: the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Center for Security Policy (CSP).

And just as was the case two decades ago, dozens of their members have ascended to powerful government posts, where their advocacy in support of the same agenda continues, abetted by the out-of-government adjuncts from which they came." [Source: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020902/vest posted August 15, 2002 (September 2, 2002 issue) "The Men From JINSA and CSP by Jason Vest in: the Nation"

And More Political Revolving Door Fun:

"The push to privatize war got its start during the administration of the elder President Bush. After the Gulf War ended, the Pentagon, then headed by Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, paid a Halliburton subsidiary called Brown & Root Services nearly $9 million to study how private military companies could provide support for American soldiers in combat zones.

Cheney went on to serve as CEO of Halliburton -- and Brown & Root, now known as Halliburton KBR, has since been awarded at least $2.5 billion to construct and run military bases, some in secret locations, as part of the Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program.

In March, the Pentagon hired Cheney's former firm to fight fires in Iraq if Saddam Hussein sabotages oil wells during a U.S. attack.

Pentagon officials say they rely on firms like Halliburton because the private sector works faster and cheaper than the military. When U.S. Marines distributed relief supplies in Somalia in 1992, for example, the military contracted with Brown & Root for logistical support. "They had laborers and vehicles at the Port of Mogadishu within 11 hours after we had given them notice," recalls Don Trautner, who runs the Army logistics program.

The use of private military companies, which gained considerable momentum under President Clinton, has escalated under the Bush administration. "There has been a dramatic increase in the military's reliance on contractor personnel to provide a wide range of support services for overseas operations," one Washington law firm advises its defense-company clients in a recent briefing paper.

"In addition, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, resulted in a rapid expansion of U.S. military activity in many areas of the globe, and President Bush's ongoing war on terrorism will likely require even greater contractor support for military operations in the future."
Because the Geneva Convention expressly bans the use of mercenaries -- individual soldiers of fortune who fight solely for personal gain -- private military companies are careful to distance themselves from any associations with such hired guns. To emphasize their experience and professionalism, many firms maintain websites brimming with colorful PR material; the industry even funds an advocacy group, the International Peace Operations Association, which portrays military firms as more capable and accountable than the Pentagon. "These companies want to run a professional operation," says the group's director, Doug Brooks. "Their incentive is to make money. How do you make money? You make sure you don't screw up."

"When the companies do screw up, however, their status as private entities often shields them -- and the government -- from public scrutiny."

[Source: Mother Jones "Soldiers of Good Fortune" By Barry Yeoman May/June 2003 Issue
"http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/05/ma_365_01.html]

-------------------------------------
Hey for yesterday's blog Readers like Bah Humbug:

Don't miss Brian Wheeler's Excellent Flame War Blog piece on the Flamin' Plame Gate war in D.C.:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-wheeler/plamegate-and-the-missing_b_9146.html

And the front page WP story is a great read too:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/19/AR2005101902431.html

Bill, ain't it MILLER time yet????

I love the "aha, gotcha!" tone of this post. What on earth is supposed to be wrong with retired generals and admirals earning money for public speaking? They are worth what people are willing to pay, no more and no less, and if people are willing to pay a lot, so be it. If they had nothing worthwhile to say, people would not pay them to say it.

I am even more puzzled by the attitude that it is somehow wrong for retired generals and admirals to serve in industry. They have absolutely indisputable leadership skills, discipline, education, experience, and expertise. They are worth every penny they get paid, or, quite simply, industry would not hire them or retain them.

Considering that Gen. Franks was one of the achitects of the post-war fiasco, and apparently couldn't wait to get out of the military before when the post invastion went to pieces, I think it's important to know how he's cashing in on this disaster.

Considering that Gen. Franks was one of the achitects of the post-war fiasco, and apparently couldn't wait to get out of the military before when the post invastion went to pieces, I think it's important to know how he's cashing in on this disaster.

Excuse me for saying this - but the real story regarding millitary personell and the defense dept. is the "cabal" led by Cheney and Rumsfeld, whereby they co-opted others such as Libby, John Hannah, and CIA personnell to forge, place, and "find" the niger documents claiming Saddam bought yellowcake Uranium, and then later ran a secret army made up of contractors and CIA intelligence officials inside iraq to tortuere abu garab prisoners for "intelligence"

That is what we should be talking about - not Franks' low consequnce cash-in on our wallets, rubber-chicken speaking circuits, etc.
BTW I got all of that info from the pages of the POST ;)

A lot is becomming clear as the work of the republicans over the last five years is coming back to haunt many of them, and us. Its clear that the republicans cannot be entrusted with the power the people provide. Of course there are a few "good" republicans, but as we have seen and continue to see, most republicans efforts are aimed at enriching themselves and their cronies but not aimed at the service of the American people. As a Party they have failed America and its principles.

Not one vote for a republican. Not this year, not next year, not ever.

Actually, this article doesn't go much of anywhere. An easy feed for people who want to rant about conspiratorial military-industrial revolving doors, but the segue from an apparent flap over inapproriate use of taxpayer funds fades into a lazy googled listing of retired military people serving on the boards of various private companies.

There are 2 seperate stories here, neither of which has been fleshed out:

1-Who was involved in the decisions around the "upcoming October 29 appearance in Camden."? Who's opposed to it, and why? Is there any reason to mistrust Retired Gen. Tommy Franks' agenda, and those who are paying him to speak?

2-Former military officials participating in private ventures isn't inherently wrong. It's actually legal. Why are the present affiliations of former military leaders an issue worth reporting?

This is an incredibly important topic.

We all know how industries donate money to politicians' campaign funds and they get special access/treatment, whatever. They can get a tax loophole or a change in regulations with the access they buy. They hire big money lobbyists, form PACs, and they get results.

Now let's look at the military industry. They hire retired generals and politicians like crazy. Carlyle Grp, for instance had Bush 41, his sec'y of state James Baker, and former PM of GB John Major working for them all at once. Now consider all the generals, admirals, and former members of congress the military industry has. They have the best access to the government of any industry of all.

The military industry also has no substitute industries. If the peanut industry gets a deal the cashew farmers raise hell. Every industry is sort of kept in check by their competition, but not the military industry. Their only competition is peace. There is no peace industry. The natural forces of capitalism do not apply.

So we have an unchecked industry, with more influence than any other, actually lobbying for ....(you enter your own word - conflict, war. I don't want to turn anyone off by getting too political, this is economic.)

Even if you think this is good, I think you must realize that the military industry is an industry just like any other. Our recent energy bill was written, ver batim at times, by the energy industry. No Child Left Behind is the creation of the publisher of all the testing material that the policy requires, McGraw Hill. Social Security privatization would hugely benefit the financial industry. The medicare bill was a boon for big pharma. On and on... The point is that if you were to believe that our foreign policy were NOT dictated by the military industry it would be the exception of policies in this government, and most other administrations for that matter.

The military industry needs to be put in check somehow or we will never know peace. I am not advocating elimination, it is an essential industry, but it operates with very little resistance and advocates behavior or policy that is inherently problematic to continued respect and influence in the world (to put it very mildly).

Thanks if you made it this far.
http://www.bernards.blogspot.com