Compromised general?

ARTICLE: One Man's Military-Industrial-Media Complex, By DAVID BARSTOW, New York Times, November 29, 2008

I was stunned by the level of reporting on this piece on McCaffrey. The jump section extended across virtually two full pages, which is a huge investigative effort on the NYT's part.

Clearly, this is a follow-up to the piece months back on the generals being paid, secret spokesmen for the administration ("message multipliers") whereby Barstow found enough out about McCaffrey to justify what must have been a huge reporting effort on his part.

It will be interesting to see if this hurts McCaffrey at all. He is sort of a King Kong figure. You read his reports and they always reference his West Point status, but I was really surprised to see how many commercial entities he works for.

The phenomenon of retired generals doing this is well known. Some refuse the temptation of such synergy, and others go whole hog. McCaffrey, on all levels, seems to be in a class by himself.

What constitutes wrong here? Not easy to say. But clearly, McCaffrey loses the perception-of-conflict-of-interest battle here.

(Thanks: Thaddeus Jankowski)

Comments

[Tony]

Tom,Thanks for commenting on this item; I had wondered what you thought of these apparent conflicts of interest. To me, this and the story from last April, smacks of the most craven and dangerous elements of the military-industrial complex, whereby we went to war in 2003 due in large part to the constant drone of pro-war rationalizations from guys like McCaffrey, et al.

I am a physician and we are no longer allowed to take so much as a pen or paper pad from a drug company for fear that it will cloud our management of patients-- and I have always been in favor of such ethical standards-- and now I hear that retired military are taking large quantities of revenue from defense contractors all the while getting federal pensions and doing media blitzes that directly benefit their business interests.

Is this as craven as I am beginning to feel it is? Your opinion is valuable because you seem like a well-informed straight-shooter and also because of the fact that you are not a member of the military elite and come at the issue from the civilian side. (BTW: do you disclose any ties to defense industry interests-- business or otherwise? Not accusing, just wondering.)

[William R. Cumming]

Simple solution of mine and probably crazy (I am a retired civil servant) is that any income gained in retirement should be used by retired civil servants and military to off-set at least up to 1/3 of their federal pension. Expect howls on this one but otherwise the policing of post-employment conflicts is almost impossible because there are really none that have a basis in law. I am not suggesting criminal enforcement but simple restitution for violations or other enforcement of setoff. Mechanical match of federal pension recipients against their post-retirement 1040s. The one thing that does bother me is that the electronic media should have a crawl line for each speaker revealing who else other than the media is paying them. Equivalent for paper media.

[Tom Barnett]

I don't like the networks begging off any conflict of interest cares because these guys are technically contractors. The implication of presenting them is clear.

I am with William; I'd like disclosure like in print.

The more worrisome thing to me is the clear granting of extraordinary privilege and the quasi-designation of speaking-for-us status that he gets. If that were tied solely to speaking, writing, and esp. his West Point status, then I say he's a public intellectual and no harm. But when tied so clearly to companies who want him primarily for access, that gets awfully obvious and seems fairly greedy on his part.

I mean, a four-star pension is big money, plus all the TV money, plus, plus, plus. How much money does the guy need?

[Tony]

Agree. Tom, do you have a list of your paying clients or boards you sit on anywhere?

Not accusing, just wondering.