Congress ‘Concerned’ About Military Retirees’ Foreign Employment
Shockingly, the Defense Department doesn't keep up with former employees.
WaPo (“Lawmakers press Pentagon for answers about veterans’ foreign jobs“):
Members of Congress said they were alarmed by a Washington Post investigation that revealed hundreds of retired U.S. military personnel have taken high-paying jobs as contractors and consultants for foreign governments, mostly in countries known for political repression.
Citing concerns about undue foreign influence and risks to national security, several lawmakers from both parties said they will push the Pentagon and the State Department to improve their transparency and oversight for veterans who work for foreign powers.
“The American people put significant trust in our military leaders and deserve to know when they take lucrative jobs advising foreign governments, especially those with known human rights abuses,” Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.) said in a statement Monday. “Given the eye-opening reporting from The Washington Post, the administration has several questions to answer around how these waivers are approved, how potential conflicts of interest are addressed, and why enforcement is rarely undertaken.”
In a joint letter sent to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called The Post’s findings “disturbing” and said they “demand explanation.” The senators requested that the Pentagon provide a decade’s worth of data regarding retired military personnel who have sought jobs with foreign governments and more details about the Defense Department’s efforts to regulate such work.
“The apparent lack of internal policing in this matter is gravely troubling given the national security interests at stake,” the senators said in their Nov. 30 letter. Grassley is the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Warren is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
J. Todd Breasseale, a Pentagon spokesman, declined to comment on the senators’ letter to Austin. “The secretary responds to congressional correspondence directly,” he said in an email.
In a multipart series titled “Foreign Servants,” The Post reported that more than 500 retired military personnel — including scores of generals and admirals — have taken lucrative jobs working for foreign governments since 2015. Almost two-thirds of the positions have been in the Middle East and North Africa, where governments pay top dollar for U.S. military expertise.
Under federal law, retired troops are permitted to work for foreign governments if they first obtain approval from their branch of the armed forces and the State Department. But federal agencies have fought to keep virtually all details about the arrangements a secret. The Post had to sue the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps and the State Department under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain more than 4,000 pages of documents that shed light on the matter.
The State Department and the armed forces have wide latitude to deny any application they think would undermine U.S. foreign policy. But The Post found that the review process effectively amounts to a rubber stamp. Since 2015, about 95 percent of all requests have been granted.
The Post also found that enforcement of the law is almost nonexistent. Many military retirees don’t bother to apply for permission to accept jobs from foreign governments, in part because there is little danger of being caught. Defense officials said they have imposed financial penalties on fewer than five people for failing to obey the law.
I responded to the “Foreign Servants” story in my October post “Retired Flag Officers Cashing In As Foreign Agents.” For the most part, I see the story as a nothingburger. The main issue, for me, is recently-retired generals and admirals, not rank and file retirees, and even then, cashing in on public service is the norm for retired Congressmen and former cabinet officials.
Beyond that, it’s just odd to expect the Defense Department to spend a lot of effort policing how its massive number of retirees earn their living once they hang up the uniform. Expand the Foreign Agents Registration Act and have DOJ, which does investigations for a living, handle the process.
It’s not a good look for American retired military to be working for thug states. Though I suppose these are our thugs – the Saudis, Emiratis, Qataris, Jordanians. . .
I wonder how this plays out going forward if the US pulls back from engagement with our faithless Arab friends. How would retirees justify taking blood money if Saudi were no longer seen as friendly?
Seems smart on the part of the flag officers.
Collect a nice military pension AND command a lucrative salary working for foreign governments?
That’s a no-brainer.
There are only so many cush pundit jobs on TV.
Seems like military leaders should spend time doing a little introspection on the question, Why do our “democracy-defending” retirees end up working for dictators? If you spend a decade or more protecting the US, ending up on the payroll of MBS looks like a pretty significant ethical miss.
DOJ contracts out a lot of the work. DOD’s budget is approaching a trillion dollars a year. Seems entirely reasonable that DOD contract out the job to keep track of their own using a tiny fraction of that budget rather than dumping the job on the civilian government.
Let’s not open up the can of worms about DOD accounting for that near-trillion…
Most retirees working overseas are working for American contractors hired by foreign governments. The number (500) working directly for foreign governments is pretty small. What is the difference? May be pretty small.
@ptfe: You’re assuming ethics that aren’t situational. Try it this way: “I spent my career using my expertise protecting the interests of my government even when I disagreed with those interests as expressed. Now, I do the same for a different government.”
There’s no moral quandary. Governments live in a natural state where survival is the primary focus just like lions and antelope.
I assume that high ranking military officers have access to information about US technology and strategy; this is an obvious tautology. Working for a foreign government is putting this knowledge to use for the other guys. I can’t see how that can be good.
@Slugger: I see it as “good” in the sense that helping whatever regime is in place in whatever nation is under discussion is “good.” They’re willing to work to protect and defend “the constitution” of whichever government is paying them. We expect the same thing from employees here–do your job as described, follow the policies of the company. It’s not surprising that the skill set is fungible, nor that people seek employment after their usefulness to their former employer has lapsed. And, just like I did I would add, the generals go to places that will hire them. No mystery.
@Just nutha ignint cracker: I’m not sure what argument you’re making here. There’s a clear moral difference between supporting the Chinese government and supporting the Dutch government, even though they presumably have the same “purpose” – that is, the continuation of the state and government as it is currently implemented.
We’re not talking about low-level or even mid-level employees who are essentially a captive labor force. This isn’t “my only choice is to work for an oligarch”, this is “I answered the call from a former warlord halfway around the world and have chosen to work for him.” And as you say, part of accepting the position is do your job as described, follow the policies of the company, where these people absolutely should know those policies are likely to include anti-democratic (and probably violent) repression of at least some portion of the populous.
Again, that’s an ethical miss.
@ptfe: It’s only an “ethical miss” to the point that any of them are following an ethics code beyond “I will seek to advance my interests by whatever means are available.” Of course, I start from the standpoint that sociopathy may well be a default condition in humanity and that we learn not to yield to that impulse. Some people clearly don’t learn. Such people can work for the Netherlands or China with equanimity–it’s only a job after all.
ETA: And yes, my inner Manichaean rises to the task on this kind of question/subject.
@Just nutha ignint cracker: Unfortunately I think you’re right on that point – and the military certainly isn’t keen on disabusing people of their sociopathy, especially if that can be exploited to ensure “mission success” over all else.
The article and the representatives come so close.
At no point is criticism even mentioned of multiple decades of American foreign policy of… INTENTIONALLY BEING AN ALLY of those countries with known human rights abuses.
Last I saw, US is allied with 73% of the world’s dictatorships. Of course, those countries are “Our” abusers, right? Or.. perhaps the other country doesn’t give two snaps about the US and just takes the money because some things are good for their leaders [and nothing about the people of the country]?
The reason why this is frustrating is that retired leaders would have substantially less chance at taking a position with a questionable foreign government if that government wasn’t already a US ally.