From the article: "One practice that introduces bias into the shaping of defense policy is the revolving door between the U.S. government and the weapons industry. The movement of retired senior officials from the Pentagon and the military services into the arms industry is a longstanding practice that raises serious questions about the appearance and reality of conflicts of interest. Mostly because employing well-connected ex-military officers can give weapons makers enormous, unwarranted influence over the process of determining the size and shape of the Pentagon budget."

This seems to answer your confusion about why they are concerned about this.

The article also seems to suggest that they aren't trying to ban former Generals from getting jobs, they would just like to regulate it better, the first two proposals seeming to be pretty important:

- Bar four-star officers from going to work for companies that receive $1 billion or more in contracts with the Pentagon annually.

- Extend “cooling off periods” before retired officials can go to work for the arms industry to four years. This would ensure that key contacts or key information that the official may have been privy to while serving would not provide an outsized advantage.

It's not a revolving door though. People aren't going back into the military from contractor roles.

So ....

McDonald's?

These are retirees, they have pensions, this isn't a McDonalds situation and you know it.

> The article also seems to suggest that they AREN'T trying to ban former Generals from getting jobs

> Bar four-star officers from going to work for companies that receive $1 billion or more in contracts with the Pentagon annually.

You purposefully left off the end of the sentence? You know, the part about regulation? Cause nowhere in the article does it say they are trying to stop retired generals from taking these jobs, just that they would like to regulate it to prevent conflicts of interest. I get the feeling that maybe you haven’t read the article yet?

I was responding to:

> These are retirees, they have pensions

Retiring at 51 after a 30 year role is not conducive to survival on the pension.

So is the issue that they'd have to work at McDonald's or that they don't want to return to their pre elevation job? Or that they want a cushy retirement job somewhere? Something else? Be clear if you're trying to make a point please.

The idea that a government pension should sustain you from 50 onwards is not a good one.

And their pensions are way better than most everybody else: https://www.pogo.org/analysis/senator-questions-retirement-p...

> I understand the military-industrial complex, I just don't know if senior military officer job selection is really the thing to get upset over.

Why not? The article provides a few cases of this situation leading to wasteful spending. Limiting this revolving door can eliminate waste.

> Where do you expect US generals to get jobs?

I'd pay them not to work. Same for retired Congress members. You get 100% of your salary for four years to help close the revolving door. That's the deal you make for taking the job. This can be enforced on military officers, but would probably be deemed unconstitutional for Congress.

If they are being paid a generous pension, I can’t see why it’s unreasonable we expect them to simply be retired.

Because three star and four star tanks are temporary, officers will retire at the end of their term to finish their career as that highest rank, rather than revert to a two star rank until they are required by law to retire. But the type of person who makes it that far isn’t going to be the type of person who wants to stay idle for long, especially if they are still feeling pretty young.

There are two, conflicting images being painted in this thread. 1. Poor generals who can't do anything other than military need these cush jobs or else they'd be out on the streets. 2. Generals are energetic and capable and would want to try something new even with a pension.

If they have enough energy to not stay idle, then certainly they don't need these arms jobs? If they're worn out and can't do anything else, then we should give them pensions enough so they don't feel forced to work for arms manufacturers.

I’m sure there are plenty of places that would be happy to have people with experience running life or death operations involving the most complex infrastructure imaginable.

The fact is that defense contractors are not employing them for their transferable skills. They just want a direct line into the pentagons (i.e. the public’s) pockets.

Pay them a decent retirement and encourage them to teach at AWC or similar institutions.

Let’s also not forget that congressmen/women also work for consulting/law firms afterwards. Chris Dodd is an example I can think of top of my head.

Point is - it’s common for people in public service to get gigs in private sector after their stint