The security agreements they signed are sufficient to guard national secrets. It has nothing to do with whether they go to work for Raytheon, the Saudi Defense Ministry, or Goodwill in their retirement, their compensation packages, etc.

I'm not seeing how 'security agreements' can guard against them deciding to just stay in Saudi Arabia with the patronage of the princes.

Expatriates would still be subject to not disclosing national secrets. It's not like they're former second-rate steak salesmen.

Subject by whom? The Saudi Arabian government has their own agenda. And obviously the U.S. government cannot enforce laws or policies in Riyadh.

You honestly think an American flag officer would defect to Saudi Arabia? Really?

Russia, China, or Iran would be a far "better" choice for a number of reasons, chiefly the fact that the Saudis might turn the turncoat back over to the US for any number of reasons — like pulling American maintenance contractors out of KSA, which would ground their air force in a matter of days and leave them very vulnerable to Iranian aggression. Hell, without contractor representatives giving them cues I wonder if they can really run some of the gear we've sold them.

Besides, if I'm going to be stuck in one dictatorship for the rest of my life (because you could never safely travel again), I'd pick somewhere like Iran over KSA in a second.

I was originally responding to your comment that: 'The security agreements they signed are sufficient to guard national secrets.'

High ranking officers can just as much buy plane tickets as anyone else. Yes, including to countries that may not have entirely harmless intentions.

Signatures on a piece of paper are not the final arbiter of disputes between countries, as demonstrated by the previous administration. Even if they were, not everyone can be trusted 100% just because they made promises to that effect, actions speak louder than words after all.

And I was responding to the idea that a retirement package is a meaningful protection against espionage.

Even if a cleared military member gets nothing after their separation (perhaps do to a court martial or the like), there's still no justification in spying, especially not after the agreements and acknowledgements cleared individuals sign throughout their careers. Those documents are what put convicted spies in places like ADX Florence, and no degree of whining about one's pension changes that.

Okay, so then it seems you replied to the wrong comment with your prior comment. Since that is a different topic.

This is what I replied to:

>Non-competes should include compensation commensurate for the non-compete period. In the case of these individuals is the retirement package not sufficient to guard national secrets?

This was the strange comment I was referring to:

"You honestly think an American flag officer would defect to Saudi Arabia? Really? Russia, China, or Iran would be a far "better" choice for a number of reasons, chiefly the fact that the Saudis might turn the turncoat back over to the US for any number of reasons — like pulling American maintenance contractors out of KSA, which would ground their air force in a matter of days and leave them very vulnerable to Iranian aggression. Hell, without contractor representatives giving them cues I wonder if they can really run some of the gear we've sold them. Besides, if I'm going to be stuck in one dictatorship for the rest of my life (because you could never safely travel again), I'd pick somewhere like Iran over KSA in a second."

Which seems to be aimed at addressing a different topic.

Working for Raytheon vs working for KSA is like the difference between buying an index that has a bunch of AAPL and buying AAPL. You're "fractionally" working for KSA (and whoever else).

Your comment reminds me of a scene in the Rolling Stones' Altamont Concert film: Keith Richards is hanging out of his dressing room door and he answers a queston, "Yeah, we sold out, but it was for the money so that's okay! (laughter)" From Keith Richards, it was funny. A retired general claiming the military did not provide enough incentive to guard national secrets would also be laughable, but in a different sense.

Unrelated to the topic of this discussion and elsewhere in the film, Mick Jagger answers another question, "Am I satisfied? Sexually, yes. Philosophically, no." (Working from hazy memories here -- I last saw the movie in the 1970s, I think.)