“Senior Mentors” are high-ranking, retired military officers (usually generals and admirals) who use their skills and experience to advice active duty military in conducting various military exercises, war games and other operations.
Some of these senior mentors make as much as $340 an hour as part-time government consultants.
In addition to drawing their military pensions, some also work and/or consult for defense contractors (sometimes as full-time executives of such companies), sit on the boards of defense contractors and—at least in one case—even lobby the Defense Department, all at the same time.
USA TODAY reported extensively on this issue last week.
Subsequently, Senator John McCain and other members of Congress called for reviews and possible changes in such practices that could pose potential conflicts of interest and the perception of impropriety.
Last Friday, USA TODAY reported that a Senate oversight panel was launching an investigation into the Pentagon’s use of retired admirals and generals as paid advisers, and that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that defense officials were also reviewing the practice.
Also, according to USA TODAY, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight, said that she will investigate this issue and that the retired generals may provide a valuable service, “but until we know everything about what they’re getting paid and what services they are providing, I think the public has the right to raise eyebrows about what could be a very big conflict of interest,” she said.
In my “Are Pentagon “Senior Mentors” Pushing the Envelope?”, I expressed the opinion that while there could be the perception of impropriety and perhaps the possibility of conflict of interest, “the vast majority of our former flag rank officers are doing what is in the best interest of our military and the nation with honor and integrity, albeit the taxpayers’ generosity and credulity are being sorely tested in the face of such ‘triple, quadruple dipping.’”
Today, in its Opinion pages, USA TODAY provides its Editorial view and an “opposing view,” on this issue.
USA TODAY’s view is summarized by its leader and starting paragraph:
Our view on military mentors: Close loopholes that allow retired brass to triple-dip
Pentagon program rife with conflicts of interest, inflated pay.
Sometimes, something smells so bad that just about everyone recognizes it. That’s how it has been in the week since USA TODAY broke a story about retired admirals and generals being rehired by the services as highly paid “senior mentors,” even as most also get paid by defense contractors.
As outraged voices — from members of Congress to commentators — quickly recognized, the whole racket carries an odor of insider dealing and blatant conflicts of interest. Tellingly, details of the mentoring program came as a surprise to the congressional committees that oversee the Defense Department.
Those details: Not only are the retired officers being paid some $200 to $340 an hour (two or three times as much as top active-duty brass earn), they are also receiving six-figure pensions from the Pentagon. On top of that garden-variety double dipping, many are also being paid large sums by defense contractors that might benefit from contacts and information the mentors pick up at war games or other activities. In fact, at least 80% of 158 mentors whom USA TODAY uncovered have financial ties to military contractors.
USA TODAY concludes:
To be sure, the retired officers are patriotic Americans who have served their country well and can have much to offer today’s military. But these consulting arrangements reinforce some of the worst fears about the military-industrial complex and the bloated defense budget as gravy train.
When the services hire a mentor — defined by Webster’s as a “wise, loyal adviser” — there should be no confusion about where his interests lie. Mentors who wear too many hats leave an otherwise valuable enterprise reeking like Thanksgiving stuffing left too long in the refrigerator.
Robert Thornton, an active duty Army Major who serves at the Joint Center for International Security Forces Assistance at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, provides the opposing view, in part:
A valuable part of [developing the military's capabilities for its missions] is the senior mentors program, which invites and pays retired senior military officers, ambassadors and other professionals for the observations, insights and lessons gained over their service.
The senior mentors are selected based on their performance and expertise. They have spent their lives accruing vital knowledge and experience…They have also had unique experiences that few currently on active duty attain. They have the added benefit of post-service reflection — something hard to come by in today’s tempo.
Recent news stories might give the impression that these senior mentors are using their status to peddle expensive hardware or contracts. I have never seen that — ever.
All the mentors I’ve met have a love of country and the military. Many have sons, daughters and close family members and friends who are serving on active duty and have a connection to the outcome that has no price tag. Taxpayers are getting their money’s worth, and perhaps then some.
Anyone with connections to profits from warring who sits at a level of influence in the military is what is called “a fox in the hen house”.
Buyers [American taxpayers] beware..
The blurring between a mentor, consultant and lobbyist crosses over to other areas of government besides the military. Oh, and those juicy board of director positions in corporations that are designed to be rubber stamps are also interesting.
The amount of spending (and in fact, misspending) and debt by the Democrats more than eclipses what what was done before this year. The Bush people cannot be blamed (and people like Andrew Sullivan and Timothy Geithner, who actually have the temerity to blame Bush now, at the end of this year, would be stunning were this not a commonplace degenerate phenenomon on the Left, including bogus rightists like Sullivan.
It's also ironic (and hypocritical of the lefty whining) that the worst things we've seen so far are in the civil sector, namely the inbreeding and incest of the Dems running Washington with General Motors and Chrysler, as well as, even more notoriously, the financial sector (managing a consolidation whose final members will benefit even more enormously than they already have at taxpayers' lavish expense). We've also known for ages about corruption by Democrats in cities, and in Washington, and it won't surprise knowledgeable people in the least when politicians and other apparatchiks in Washington with suitable connections will benefit from future “stimulus” [sic] spending, or with financial and political ties to the intermediary function and corruption to develop with future energy policy (not limited to the “cap and trade” energy rationing scam and coming scammers in and out of Washington), as well as health care “reform,” to name the two best and most obvious examples (to those with an IQ above 50, at least).
“those juicy board of director positions in corporations that are designed to be rubber stamps”
Just wait for more
And if the Demmies revisited Reinventing Government, from the Nineties? Contracting and outsourcing would likely be as bad, dwarfing Halliburton and Blackwater follies, as the Dems this year have dwarfed deficit spending and debt (they see little or no limit, even probably begging China not to set up a debt trap or forestall future inflation yet, something else these people will treat us to if permitted to, or will try anyway).
“Visualize federal government and the larger private sector in the USA run like Chicago or Philadelphia.”
Its definately an issue, along with members of Congress earmarking their own pet projects in legislation involving national defense and veteran's bills.