Is that you're never really ex-. Former maybe, but for most, ex- is out of the question.
ARTICLE: "Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand: Courting Ex-Officers Tied to Military Contractors," by David Barstow, New York Times, 20 April 2009, p. A1.
Some impressive reporting by Barstow. Then again, these guys are all talkers.
Still, it's kind of stunning how most don't see any conflict of interest.
The basic story is that the Pentagon recruits 75 ex-officers in what amounts to being a psyop, or psychological warfare operation designed to win the info war inside the U.S. They were given special access, briefings, trips, and basically fed what the administration wanted them to say. And they basically delivered. The biggies highlighted are Allard, Downing, MacInerney, Scales, Meigs, Sheppard, Ralston, McCausland, McCaffrey, Eads, Bevelacqua, Cowan Maginnis, Vallely (been on his show myself), Greer, Babbin, Nash, and Marks. These guys typically get $500-1000 to go on TV nets where they serve as military analysts.
Robert Scales comes off badly.
Some e-mail messages between the Pentagon and the analysts reveal an implicit trade of privileged access for favorable coverage. Robert H. Scales Jr., a retired Army general and analyst for Fox News and National Public Radio whose consulting company advises firms on weapons and tactics used in Iraq, wanted the Pentagon to approve high-level briefings for him inside Iraq in 2006."Recall the stuff I did after my last visit," he wrote. "I will do the same this time."
Later in the piece Scales declared that "None of us drink the Kool-Aid."
The height of the effort seemed to be in the earliest months of the war and occupation, when there got to be--several months in--a huge disconnect between the government's story and reality on the ground. Generals would be brought in, fed the talking points, taken on special trips, sit down for special meets with Rummy and Hadley and others, and then they'd all appear on the news shows repeating a lot of what they were fed. The piece pictures Tori Clarke, mastermind, as being very pleased with the result.
Hmmm. You have to wonder how much such efforts contributed to the slowness of the change in tactics, and how many lives that cost.
It's a tricky being in that club, that fraternity. But you can see the temptation. Hell, with the frequency some of these guys commanded the airwaves, you could be talking a lot of money per month. Add in the business relationships you cement as a result, plus the buzz of being a near-peer again in the military realm--all very heady stuff.
I had always wondered how these guys got such amazing access. Now we know the price tag attached.
Tricky business indeed.
Yet another reason why I think it's not a bad thing I'm not former military. I know myself too well. I would give into those temptations. I would retain the service allegiance and too much us-them mentality. I imprint easily, and as a result, I don't think I'd be any good at this stuff today.
Still, it takes all kinds and you don't want to paint everybody with this brush. Still, 75 is a big crew, a clearly ambitious information operation.
It's good this finally came out publicly. People have to understand that when they listen to ex-officers, very few of them can really manage the ex- part. Very few indeed.
For the record, I've never received any money for any U.S. television or radio appearance, although I think I took some Japanese money once for a PBS show there. I've also never been approached by the government for special trips or access. I guess I just don't rank, and that's okay.
I prefer the transparency and the freedom.
| Permalink |
Comments (12)
Free independent media? Scary stuff indeed, what should ordinary people belive in.
Posted by Mr Jim | April 22, 2008 3:56 AM
Tread lightly, Tom, on the conflict of interest stuff. Or have you forgotten the many intersection of Enterra, Esquire trips, Pentagon pals, Oak Ridge, Speaking Tours, Books, Columns, and even one or two old War College staffers? Ah, and all from a single PowerPoint Presentation. From little slides do grand strategists grow!
Posted by Joe Brenner | April 22, 2008 8:25 AM
this is very admirable.transparancy means the truth,and freedom means ;not being brain washed.unfortunetly,that is a very rare,and
it is sad that we are fed bunch of lies,and it has to take years before
the truth gets to the public,and slowly of course.it is amazing how
corp.media along with the politicans coordinate these lies,and present them as reality.it makes you wonder who really runs the show.I remember,at the start of the Iraq war 75% of vehicles had the support the troops stickers,but now you don't even see 2% in
the streets.that speaks a thousand words.
Posted by farhad | April 22, 2008 8:38 AM
Aww, C'mon Tom, You, of all people, have to know that anyone who spends 20 to 30 years in the Government or the Military is going to be totally indoctrinated in the train of thought that maintains that entity . .
A 30 year General Officer might not share his politics with the next, but they're all Brothers of the Sword and believe in the general concept of the Military . . Free thinkers don't last long enough to retire in the Military, often as not!
Posted by large | April 22, 2008 9:45 AM
Interesting that these high ranking officers clearly don't feel their opinions are honest or helping the country but just revealing that their price is $500 or $1000. What is the joke "Well now that we have established what you are (man to woman at bar) now the only question is price."
Sorry but if the level of financial desperation is that high in the retired, but subject to recall ranks, perhaps there is a very fundamental flaw in the system of compensating officers. This gives real insight into the competence and quality of the officers involved. Glad they no longer actively serve. Probably also on boards of companies that abuse enlisted ranks through shoddy financing and insurance. Corruption has many faces.
Posted by William R. Cumming | April 22, 2008 11:11 AM
When Bush 1 used information warfare it was relatively simple in nature and target audiences. Even then, few noticed the cooperation of Russia and China, or their failure to disclose to Saddam what their satellites showed on our real troop deployments and status. Bush 1 used a former chairman of Joint Chiefs and a prominent Democrat to raise doubts on our ability and willingness to act, and to cause Saddam to wait one day too long in Kuwait.
Bush 2 has a much larger IW resource base and a lot of niche domestic and foreign target audiences with overlapping relationships. So his IW efforts are more like a complex shot on a pool table.
My real concern is that the public will lose trust in the political and media establishments when they really understand IW.
Posted by Louis Heberlein | April 22, 2008 3:11 PM
Joe,
The key is to be transparent to all. When I speak, I speak for myself, unless I say I'm speaking for Enterra. I take trips from the military all the time to give them speeches for free or small honorarium. What I don't do is have them feed me talking points and then pretend to deliver them as an independent observer.
If anything, I tend to put Enterra at risk on a regular basis. Ask Steve.
Posted by Tom Barnett | April 22, 2008 7:23 PM
As someone who works for a networked digital media organisation I can tell you that the problems getting worse, and that’s coming from the relatively quite backwater of Australia.
There used to be a time when the journalist would seek out the General to ask them a questing, probe, research and then deliver news to the public. What we see now, and will see more and more if the people I talk to around the water cooler are being honest, is a case of the Generals seeking out the journalist and ‘imparting’ crucial and highly selective pieces of information that then turn up on the opinion pages and security pages of our major dailies an their associated websites.
Posted by David Sutton
|
April 22, 2008 8:51 PM
I'm really disappointed by this as a general Bush administration supporter. Here I am trying to argue a point of view all these years that I believe in and it turns out the information I was getting and trusting was hardly objective in these cases, making me look like an idiot. A selfish view, I suppose, but how do they expect to win the PR game by pulling BS like this?
And shame on the media, too, for falling for it.
Posted by Kevin from Minneapolis | April 22, 2008 9:33 PM
These hacks just blew the credibility of other veterans who may favor reform because they too will be seen as part of partisan agendas.
"My real concern is that the public will lose trust in the political and media establishments when they really understand IW."
The public shouldn't trust the politicians or media, nor (now) the sock-puppet retired officers. We know that all politicians are free of conventional ethics, we know the MSM only care about their own agendas and selling advertising. Now we have a visible culture of retired officers who betray public trust. Nice.
Posted by Anonymous MSgt | April 22, 2008 9:35 PM
I think Ralph Peters in the NY Post: http://www.nypost.com/seven/04222008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/pentagon_payola_retired_generals_tv_grif_107555.htm is a little more blunt about it.
Posted by Bob | April 23, 2008 8:20 AM
My concern: That this extends to the active duty force of officers -- who may be positioning themselves for future corporate/media jobs.
Posted by Bill C. | April 23, 2008 9:04 AM