Image courtesy of the Wall Street Journal.
Pull Pin, Throw Grenade, Run Away: A provocative thought to kick off the weekend…
By Major Matt Cavanaugh
Should retired generals and admirals be allowed to “cash in” and keep their commissions? I realize this is thin ice, but as a commissioned officer and member of the Profession of Arms, I think there’s something to talk about here.
Last week I picked up an errant copy of the the Wall Street Journal, and as I turned past the “Mansions” section (typically “flyover” territory for me in a newspaper) – I came across a story about the sale of General (Retired) Alexander Haig’s home in Palm Beach, Florida – for $8.75 million. [Note: he passed away in 2010] That interested me, so I did some more digging, and found that his estate has another home up for sale for $5.5 million in McLean, Virginia (12,000 square feet). Though Haig did write a couple of books, it appears that the majority of his post-retirement wealth came from service on corporate boards: Commodore International, Newsmax Media, and America Online.
This reminds me of the flap a few years ago over hundreds of retired generals and admirals being (highly) paid as “senior mentors” for various parts of the military establishment. One example cited was General (Retired) Anthony Zinni’s corporate board work for Dyncorp which compensated him nearly a million dollars in 2008, while at the same time he was providing paid advice to a military command. To provide context, General Zinni’s military retirement pay was about $129,000 in that same year. Interestingly, the issue dried up overnight when a basic set of rules and monetary caps were put in place. Not to be cynical here, but it’s hard to miss the fact that this mentorship program essentially ceased when the pay was reduced and made transparent: not exactly selfless service for these generals and admirals.
I’m uncomfortable with the notion that senior members of the Profession of Arms, who have been granted access and privilege in order to perform service to the American public while on active duty, are then able to monetize this access in retirement to significant personal benefit. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with making money, but when the money becomes a windfall and particularly when they continue to publicly represent the military profession – that’s where I have a problem.
I’d suggest a simple test for all retired officers (i.e. lieutenant colonels as well as lieutenant generals):
- If post-retirement private sector work involves national security (i.e. defense contractor, public commentator), broadly construed…
- And when income from that work exceeds double the amount of military retirement pay, then…
- The individual should relinquish their commission, as private financial interests have clearly impaired their (mostly dormant) obligation to act on behalf of the nation’s interest.
- Instead of “General (Retired)” or “General (Ret.)” as a honorific, such an individual might be listed as “General (Former)” or “General (Fmr.).” This would enable the individual to maintain their title, while at the same time publicly announcing that the official commission is no longer held.
- Note: this would have no impact on military retirement pay or financial benefits – only the commission as a symbol of the military profession.
We don’t allow active duty officers to profit from their access and privileges – to simultaneously represent private and public interests – why shouldn’t the self-policing Profession of Arms set some reasonable boundaries for retired members?
Would politicians be required to have the same rules? No. I don’t think it is right for the senior militiary to be denied working in the industry they know best. It would be a great loss for private industry.
Good recommendation, face saving but still symbolic. The Navy is no exception. Admiral Harry Ulrich of 6th Fleet spent years pushing maritime domain awareness tech in uniform and then promptly joined Enterra Solutions who provided such software to DoT and US Navy. Questionable at the least.
I don’t think that Matt is advocating for senior military personnel being involved with private industry; rather, he wants to deconflict the conflict of interest.
Perhaps the approach should be more along the lines of a non-compete clause where by, as a condition of being promoted to GO, an individual can’t serve as a responsible officer in a commercial entity for 5 years (or the period of time that he/she was a flag officer, if longer than 5 years) that generates more than 5% of its revenue from the USG.
Secretary Haig, except for his short time with United Technologies (which in the 70’s paid well but not the extraordinary compensation we see today) , got most of his wealth from sources that where not DOD/USG related (AOL, Commodore, and Newsmax). Likewise, I don’t think most of us have an issue with Tommy Frank’s former service on the board of Chick Fila