Army public affairs officer Gary Tallman reminds the USA Today journalists that it is, in fact, not illegal to hire retired general officers acting as individuals and not as a company representative. It's not something he ought to have to say, but for some strange reason, some people seem to think that retired general officers are morally obligated to serve their country for free in their second career.
"We followed ethics rules that had been on the books since 1978," said Gary Tallman, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon. "Those rules, as they are currently written, allow a former government employee to become a direct contractor with the government within one year of retirement."
The Army spokesman said [GEN Dan]McNeill and [LTG John] Vines were hired because of the up-to-date knowledge of counterinsurgency warfare. They are both former commanders of the 82nd Airborne Division and Fort Bragg and the 18th Airborne Corps. They have both commanded task forces in Afghanistan. As a four-star general, McNeill commanded NATO forces in Afghanistan.
USA Today quoted Danielle Bryan as saying their hiring "flagrantly violates the spirit of the revolving-door rules." Bryan is executive director of the Project on Government Oversight.
"As long as they didn't represent a third party, it was legal," Tallman said. "The rules are within a year of retirement you cannot represent a third party to the place where you used to work. What you can do is represent yourself."
The revolving door is when a retired military officer tries to lobby a government agency as an employee of a defense firm within the first year or two of his hiring date. When the Army asks a retired military officer to come back as an individual, it's not the same. It's legal, just as it is with any Federal employee. I know some of you will still disagree, and I understand your point of view. But these guys are uniquely talented. I'm glad that they're still interested in building national security.
UPDATE: I meant to add as a comparison the actions of industry persons with respect to political positions within the Dem and Repub administrations who oversee the food industry. See the movie "Food, Inc," and you'll understand why I'm really not worried about retired general officers working as defense consultants - to improve the military - as much as I am big industry reps who get to work as political appointees to degrade regulations in their respective areas, regardless of the effect on the public.
Bottom line - worrying about conflicts of interest is appropriate, but blind accusations of potential malfeasance without any evidence of direct benefit to the person (other than reasonable salary and related costs) is just bullshit.




Recent Comments