Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Mattis and the Revolving Door

For the military-industrial-congressional complex, it doesn’t get much better than this.

Lobelog

In 1953, President Dwight Eisenhower nominated former General Motors president Charles Erwin Wilson as secretary of defense.

That sparked a controversy during his confirmation hearings based on his large stockholdings in General Motors. Reluctant to sell the stock, valued at the time at more than $2.5 million, Wilson only agreed to do so under committee pressure. During the hearings, when asked if he could make a decision that would be adverse to the interests of General Motors, Wilson answered affirmatively. But he added that he could not conceive of such a situation “because for years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa.” This statement has frequently been misquoted as “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country.”

Nearly 40 years later in 1989, Carlyle, the private equity firm, took off when it hired Frank Carlucci, a former defense secretary and deputy director of the CIA. Carlucci was able to open doors in Washington, allowing Carlyle to participate in many lucrative deals.

And now, 27 years later, Donald Tump has nominated retired Marine Corp general James Mattis, the former director of General Dynamics, as the next secretary of defense. For the military-industrial-congressional complex it doesn’t get much better than this.

As this article in International Business Times notes:

Financial filings reviewed by International Business Times show that since taking the position in 2013, Mattis has been paid $594,369 by General Dynamics, and has amassed more than $900,000 worth of company stock. While on the General Dynamics board, Mattis testified before Congress, where he called caps on defense spending — known as the sequestration— a national security threat. “No foe in the field can wreak such havoc on our security that mindless sequestration is achieving,” he said during the 2015 hearing.

Much of the commentary regarding Mattis’s nomination to date has focused on his admirable military career. Many commentators assume, rightly or wrongly, that he is more moderate than, say, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who has been nominated to be Trump’s national security advisor.

But that ignores the dual role of a secretary of defense. Although he is expected to weigh in on national military and security strategy, his mandate does include running the Pentagon. The text of the original 1947 National Security Act which, among other things, created the position of secretary of defense, stated that his duties include running the “National Military Establishment,” which meant establishing, directing, and supervising the funding of its general policies and programs

Even though he has a deputy secretary of defense, who is traditionally expected to focus on the day-to-day management of the Pentagon bureaucracy, the secretary still bears primary responsibility. And, as The Washington Post recently reported, there is a lot to be responsible for, including staggering amounts of waste. The Post article noted that the Pentagon hired an outside consulting firm to identify ways to streamline its bureaucracy and found $125 billion worth of unneeded spending.

For even the most qualified person, running the Pentagon is daunting. There is not much in Mattis’s record to suggest that he is up to the challenge. Admittedly, it has just been a bit over three years since he retired from the Marine Corps, and there is not an extensive record of his dealings with corporate America. But what’s there suggests that his interest in and ability to stand up to corporate pressure may be lacking. His connections to Theranos, a Silicon Valley biotech company involved in blood-testing technology, suggests that he will go to great lengths to use his military connections to help his corporate buddies. He pushed the new technology while serving in the military and then, on retiring, joined the company’s corporate board. Theranos currently faces various lawsuits and regulatory compliance issues.

Mattis is far from the first flag rank officer to retire and take up a far more lucrative career in corporate America. Once upon a time it was considered unseemly for a high-ranking officer to do so, but those days are long gone. What this really reflects is the reality and allure of the revolving door.

One of the more harmful, albeit under-appreciated, aspects of the revolving door is how it affects those who begin their careers unassociated with the military sector. As one scholarly analysis noted:

Not only can it be individually profitable to enter the revolving door, but a future revolver is incentivized to conform to the system in order to create the necessary political connections that define his future value. Those who are unable to conform will not maintain their value as they will not be able to maintain their connections. 

James Mattis has already demonstrated how well he has conformed to the system. If he becomes the head of the Pentagon, he will only further reinforce the connections between the military and corporate sectors.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


Falsely demonizing all Muslims, their beliefs, and their institutions is exactly the wrong way to make Americans safer, because the more we scare ourselves with imaginary enemies, the harder it will be to find and protect ourselves from real ones.


Division in the ranks of the conservative movement is a critical sign that a war with Iran isn’t inevitable.


Donald Trump stole the headlines, but the declaration from the recent NATO summit suggests the odds of an unnecessary conflict are rising. Instead of inviting a dialogue, the document boasts that the Alliance has “suspended all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia.” The fact is, NATO was a child of the Cold War, when the West believed that the Soviets were a threat. But Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and there’s no way Moscow would be stupid enough to attack a superior military force.


War with Iran may not be imminent, but neither was war with Iraq in late 2001.


Donald Trump was one of the many bets the Russians routinely place, recognizing that while most such bets will never pay off a few will, often in unpredictable ways. Trump’s actions since taking office provide the strongest evidence that this one bet is paying off handsomely for the Russians. Putin could hardly have made the script for Trump’s conduct at the recent NATO meeting any more to his liking—and any better designed to foment division and distrust within the Western alliance—than the way Trump actually behaved.


RightWeb
share