Natalia,
All the below is true enough. You ask about our attitude to our own
generals. Yes, we make fun of them -- usually as bumbling
incompetents. As for what we think of US generals, most of us
couldn't name a single one. I imagine that most of US top chiefs are
as dim as ours if Petraeus is any example.
Keith
At 18:34 13/12/2012, you wrote:
Shining a spot light on how the military defends corporate
interests, as long as their own are well met, at the top.
With nearly 1000 military generals and admirals, the Pentagon has a
stunning cast of lobbyists. Seemingly better trained at
strong-arming congress than terrorists. I guess because there aren't
more than a handful of terrorists ever to practice on locally, and
there's scant need to practice overseas when poor enlisted men and
women and drones and bombs do all the work. As it turns out, they're
chiefly in Washington because there's money to be rounded up for
their lavish lifestyles--which include entourages, palatial
residences, 234 (official) golf courses world wide.
When it's time for retirement, 70% of 3-4 star generals are hired by
private industry, all too often helping to drive up weaponry costs.
Britain has its royals. The U.S.has its top brass. But we never hear
late night talk show jabs about the latter. Perhaps in Britain--but
only about the US?
Natalia
7 Shocking Ways the Military Wastes Our Money
Hint: none of them have anything to do with national defense.
December 11, 2012 |
<http://www.alternet.org/economy/8-absurd-ways-military-wastes-our-money?akid=9790.4337.ZW5AfG&rd=1&src=newsletter759415&t=3&paging=off>http://www.alternet.org/economy/8-absurd-ways-military-wastes-our-money?akid=9790.4337.ZW5AfG&rd=1&src=newsletter759415&t=3&paging=off
The David Petraeus scandal has shined a light on the luxurious,
subsidized lifestyle of the U.S. military's top generals. But so
far, what the media has uncovered only scratches the surface of the
abuses. Here are eight absurd ways the military wastes our
money--and none of them have anything to do with national defense.
1. A whole battalion of generals? The titles "general" or "admiral"
sound like they belong to pretty exclusive posts, fit only for the
best of the best. This flashy title makes it pretty easy to say, "so
what if a few of our military geniuses get the royal
treatment--particularly if they are the sole commanders of the most
powerful military in human history." The reality, however, is that
there nearly 1,000 generals and admirals in the U.S. armed forces,
and each has an entourage that would make a Hollywood star jealous.
According to 2010 Pentagon reports, there
are<http://www.ciponline.org/research/entry/myths-vs-realities-of-pentagon-spending#_ftn2>
963 generals and admirals in the U.S. armed forces. This number has
ballooned by about 100 officers since 9/11 when fighting terror--and
polishing the boots of senior military personnel --became
Washington's number-one priority. (In roughly that same time frame,
starting in 1998, the Pentagon's budget also ballooned by more than
50 percent.)
Jack Jacobs, a retired U.S. army colonel and now a military analyst
for MSNBC, says the military needs only a third of that number. Many
of these generals are "spending time writing plans and defending
plans with Congress, and trying to get the money," he explained. In
other words, a large number of these generals are essentially
lobbyists for the Pentagon, but they still receive large personal
staffs and private jet rides for official paper-pushing military matters.
Dina Rasor, founder of Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog
group,
<http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/5920:the-pentagons-biggest-overrun-way-too-many-generals>explains
that this "brass creep" is "fueled by the desire to increase
bureaucratic clout or prestige of a particular service, function or
region, rather than reflecting the scope and duties of the job itself."
It's sort of like how Starbucks titles each of its baristas a
"partner" but continues to pay them just over minimum wage (and a
caramel macchiato per shift).
As Rasor
<http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/5920:the-pentagons-biggest-overrun-way-too-many-generals>writes,
"the three- and four-star ranks have increased twice as fast as one-
and two-star general and flag officers, three times as fast as the
increase in all officers and almost ten times as fast as the
increase in enlisted personnel. If you imagine it visually, the
shape of U.S. military personnel has shifted from looking like a
pyramid to beginning to look more like a skyscraper."
But the skyscraper model doesn't mean that the armed forces are
democratizing. In fact, just the opposite; they're gaming the system
to allow more and more officers to deploy the full power of the U.S.
military to aid their personal lives--whether their actual work
justifies it or not.
2. The generals' flotillas. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates
appointed Arnold Punaro, a retired major general in the Marines, to
head an independent review of the Pentagon's budget. Here's the
caution
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/us/27generals.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>he
came up with: "We don't want the Department of Defense to become a
benefits agency that occasionally kills a terrorist."
So, just how good are these benefits? For the top brass, not bad at
all. According to a Washington Post
<http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-11-17/world/35505221_1_robert-m-gates-commanders-joint-chiefs>investigation,
each top commander has his own C-40 jet, complete with beds on
board. Many have chefs who deserve their own four-star restaurants.
The generals' personal staff include drivers, security guards,
secretaries, and people to shine their shoes and iron their
uniforms. When traveling, they can be accompanied by police
motorcades that stretch for blocks. When entertaining, string
quartets are available at a snap of the fingers.
A New York Times
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/us/27generals.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>analysis
showed that simply the staff provided to top generals and admirals
can top $1 million--per general. That's not even including their own
salaries--which are relatively modest due to congressional
legislation--and the free housing, which
<http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/5920:the-pentagons-biggest-overrun-way-too-many-generals>has
been described as "palatial." On Capitol Hill, these cadres of
assistants are called the generals' "flotillas."
In Petraeus' case, he didn't want to give up the perks of being a
four-star general in the Army, even after he left the armed forces
to be director of the CIA. He apparently
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/pentagon-to-review-perks-for-top-brass-8395457.html>trained
his assistants to pass him water bottles at timed intervals on his
now-infamous 6-minute mile runs. He also liked "fresh, sliced
pineapple" before going to bed.
3. Scandals. Despite the seemingly limitless perks of being a
general, there is a limit to the military's (taxpayer-funded)
generosity. That's led some senior officers to engage in a little
creative accounting. This summer the (formerly) four-star general
William "Kip" Ward
<http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/U-S-Army-general-probed-over-perks-3797303.php>was
caught using military money to pay for a Bermuda vacation and using
military cars and drivers to take his wife on shopping and spa
excursions. He traveled with up to 13 staff members, even on
non-work trips, billing the State Department for their hotel and
travel costs, as well as his family's stays at luxury hotels.
In November, in the midst of the Petraeus scandal, Defense Secretary
Leon Panetta demoted Ward to a three-star lieutenant general and
ordered him to pay back $82,000 of the taxpayers' misused money. The
debt shouldn't be hard to repay; Ward will receive an annual
retirement salary of $208,802.
Panetta may have been tough--sort of--on now three-star general
Ward, but he's displayed a complete refusal to reevaluate the
bloated ranks of the military generals. Unlike his predecessor,
Robert Gates, who has come out publicly against the increasing
number of top-ranking officers and tried to reduce their ranks,
Panetta
<http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/15/15166642-panetta-orders-review-of-ethical-standards-amid-allegations-of-misconduct-among-high-level-military-leaders?lite>has
so far refused to review their numbers and has yet to fire a single
general or admiral for misconduct. He did, however, order an "ethics
training" after the Petraeus scandal.
4. Warped sense of reality. After the Petraeus scandal, the
million-dollar question was: Did the general who essentially built
the world's most invasive surveillance apparatus really think he
could get away with carrying on a secret affair without anyone
knowing? Former Secretary of State Gates
<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-15/panetta-asks-for-review-of-officers-ethics-amid-turmoil.html>has
floated at least one theory at a press conference in Chicago: "There
is something about a sense of entitlement and having great power
that skews people's judgement."
A handful of retired diplomats and service members have come out in
support of Gates' thesis. Robert J. Callahan, a retired diplomat who
served as U.S. ambassador to Nicaragua, wrote
<http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-22/news/ct-perspec-1122-military-20121122_1_military-officers-sons-and-daughters-military-academy>an
op-ed in the Chicago Tribune explaining how the generals' perks
allow them to exist on a plain removed from ordinary people:
"Those with a star are military nobility, no doubt, and those with
four are royalty. Flying in luxurious private jets, surrounded by a
phalanx of fawning aides who do everything from preparing their
meals to pressing their uniform trousers, they are among America's
most pampered professionals. Their orders are executed without
challenge, their word is fiat. They live in a reality different from
the rest of us."
Frank Wuco, a retired U.S. Naval intelligence chief, agrees.
"With the senior guys and the flag officers, this is like the new
royalty," he said on his weekly radio show. "We treat them like
kings and princes. These general officers in the military, at a
certain point, become untouchable... In many cases, they get their
own airplanes, their own helicopters. When they walk into a room,
everybody comes to attention. In the case of some of them, people
are very afraid to speak up or to disagree. Being separated from
real life all the time in that way probably leaves them vulnerable
(to lapses in moral judgement)."
Sounds like a phenomenon that's happening with another pampered
sector of society (hint: Wall Street). Given the epic 2008 financial
collapse, do we really want to set our security forces on a similar
path of power, deception and deep, crisis-creating delusion?
5. Military golf. Of course, generals and admirals aren't the only
ones who get to enjoy some of perks of being in the U.S. armed
forces. Although lower ranking service members don't get private
jets and personal chefs, U.S. taxpayers still spend billions of
dollars a year to pay for luxuries that are out of reach for the
ordinary American.
The Pentagon, for example, runs a staggering 234 golf courses around
the world, at a cost that is undisclosed.
According to one retired Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force, who
also just happens to be the senior writer at Travel Golf, the very
best military golf course in the U.S. is the
<http://www.worldgolf.com/courses/usa/colorado/coloradosprings/blue-at-eisenhower-golf-course-military.html>Air
Force Academy's Eisenhower Blue Course in Colorado Springs, CO.
He
<http://www.travelgolf.com/departments/travelfeatures/ontheroad/military-golf-courses.htm>writes,
"This stunning 7,000-plus yard layout shares the same foothills
terrain as does the legendary Broadmoor, just 20 minutes to the
south in Colorado Springs. Ponderosa pines, pinon and juniper line
the fairways with rolling mounds, ponds and almost tame deer and
wild turkey." (The Department of Defense did come under fire a
number of decades ago when it was discovered that the toilet seats
at this course cost $400 a pop.)
And the number of golf courses is often undercounted, with
controversial courses in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and Mosul, Iraq, often
<http://www.alternet.org/story/82009/the_military-leisure_golf_complex>left
off the lists, which makes assessing the total costs difficult.
Yet some courses rack up staggering expenses as they become far more
than mere stretches of grass.
According to
<http://www.alternet.org/story/82009/the_military-leisure_golf_complex>journalist
Nick Turse, "The U.S. Army paid $71,614 [in 2004] to the Arizona
Golf Resort -- located in sunny Riyadh, Saudi Arabia... The resort
actually boasts an entire entertainment complex, complete with a
water-slide-enhanced megapool, gym, bowling alley, horse stables,
roller hockey rink, arcade, amphitheater, restaurant, and even a
cappuccino bar -- not to mention the golf course and a driving range."
DoD's Sungnam golf course in the Republic of Korea, meanwhile, is
reportedly valued at $26 million.
For non-golfers, the military also maintains a
<http://www.fpif.org/articles/too_many_overseas_bases>ski lodge and
resort in the Bavarian Alps, which opened in 2004 and cost $80 million.
6. "The Army goes rolling along!" Vacation resorts aren't the only
explicitly non-defense-related expenditures of the Department of
Defense. According to a Washington Post investigation, the DoD also
spends $500 million annually on marching bands.
The Navy, the Army, the Air Force and the Marine Corps
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/06/AR2010090603018.html?sid=ST2010090603042>all
maintain their own military bands, which also produce their own
magazines and CDs.
The bands are [pun intended] "an instrument of military PR,"
according to Al McCree, a retired Air Force service member who owns
Altissimo Recordings, a Nashville record label featuring music of
the service bands.
The CDs are--by law--distributed for free, but that doesn't mean the
private sector can't profit off these marching bands. According to
the
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/06/AR2010090603018.html?sid=ST2010090603042>Washington
Post article, "The service CDs have also created a private,
profitable industry made up of companies that obtain the band
recordings under the Freedom of Information Act. They then re-press
and package them for public sale."
As if subsidizing the industry of multibillion-dollar arms dealers
weren't enough, the record industry is apparently also leeching off
the taxpayer-funded military spending.
7. The Pentagon-to-Lockheed pipeline. While the exorbitant costs of
private planes and hundreds of golf courses may seem bad enough, the
most costly problem with the entitlement-culture of the military
happens after generals retire. Since they're so used to the
luxurious lifestyle, the vast majority of pension-reaping
high-ranking officers head into the private defense industry.
According to William Hartung, a defense analyst at the Center for
International Policy in Washington DC, about 70 percent of recently
retired three- and four-star generals went straight to work for
industry giants like Lockheed Martin.
"If you don't go into industry at this point you are the exception,"
Hartung said.
This type of government-to-industry pipeline, which he said was
comparable to the odious Wall Street-to-Washington revolving door,
drives up the prices of weapons and prevents effective oversight of
weapon manufacturing companies--all of which ends up costing
taxpayers more and more each year.
"I think the overspending on the generals and all their perks is bad
enough, but the revolving door and the ability of these people to
cut industry a break in exchange for high salaries costs more in the
long run," said Hartung. "This can affect the price of weapons and
the whole structure of how we oversee companies. It's harder to
calculate, but certainly in the billions, compared to millions spent
on staff per general."
Laura Gottesdiener is a freelance journalist and activist in New York City.
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
