The Conflict of Interest between Generals and the Arms Industry

Generals and admirals that leave active service and get well-paid positions in companies producing weapons and military equipment are a conflict of interest that at the Pentagon has become routine, even though the rule states that a year must elapse between official retirement and taking up a task in the defense industry.

A long and articulate inquiry of the Boston Globe highlighted an embarrassing reality which puts into discussion the policy of the U.S. arms supply. This policy is approved or solicited by generals who have come into the payroll of the companies that produce these arms.

The East Coast newspaper has discovered that dozens of generals and admirals, as soon as they reach the age of retirement, are recruited by exactly those giants of the defense industry whose customers they were.

In particular, the Globe reports that, in the four years between 2004 and 2008, 80 percent of retired three- and four-star generals and admirals were co-opted as consultants of the big arms corporations. In 2007, 34 of the 39 upper officers of the U.S. Armed Forces who had retired were later employed by aerospace and defense companies.

Among many cases, the Boston Globe quotes that of a four-star-general (high military rank) of the Air Force, Gregory Martin. After having followed the projects of the “Stealth” aircrafts (invisible to radar), Martin retired in 2005 and accepted the role of consultant for Northrop Grumman, the aviation giant that produces the “invisible” “B2 Spirit” bomber. Only 21 of these bombers were made, at a cost of over one billion dollars each.

At the same time, General Martin has accepted the Pentagon’s offer to create a secret study group to develop the Stealth technology for future invisible aircraft. Obviously, the general’s proficiency is not a matter of debate. But the fact that he was paid by taxpayers for research on new technology and, at the same time, by a company which produces exactly that kind of technology represents an obvious conflict of interest.

Another case is that of Lieutenant General Joseph L. Yakovac, former deputy head of U.S. Army acquisitions — and supervisor of the project for a new ground combat vehicle within the program, stopped by the Pentagon in 2009 after six years and $14 billion in investments. Yakovac has retired and now works as a consultant for Bae Systems, the British giant of the defense industry that produces combat vehicles for the U.S. Army.

The Globe’s analysis is really detailed and surveys the post-military career of 750 U.S. highly-ranked officials who retired in the last 20 years, largely passed to the industry. It therefore seems very hard to control that “military-industrial complex” which was already denounced on January 17, 1961, in the farewell speech at the White House by Dwight D. Eisenhower, former general and president of the U.S.

The problem denounced by the U.S. newspaper is also present outside the U.S. It represents a custom in Italy, too, where almost all the high-ranking officials and the chiefs of defense and of the individual armed forces usually obtain significant positions in the companies of the field. The largest defense companies in Italy are those in the Finmeccanica group.

Presidencies, seats on boards of directors and consultations for retired generals and admirals represent a double conflict of interest. Unlike the U.S., where it is private, in Italy the defense industry is nearly completely under public control. The result is that a general, as well as receiving a lavish pension and a great amount of liquidation by the State, can gain another great amount of money from the defense industry after leaving the service, also paid by the taxpayer.