Defense firms lure retired generals

January 10, 2011 1:49 PM

From the Pentagon to the private sector - In large numbers, and with few rules, retiring generals are taking lucrative defense-firm jobs

BONUS
Meet General Warbucks - Warfare and corporate welfare
What Ike Got Right - Why his warning against the military-industrial complex still matters
Eisenhower's 'Military-Industrial Complex' Evolution - Documents released by the National Archives shed new light on the genesis of the phrase "military-industrial complex"

posted by kliuless (56 comments total)

Working in the defense industry, all I can do is nod and say "yep." And for what it's worth I also work with some foreign militaries, and the same thing happens there. Yeah, these other countries are basically imitating the US's defense industry -- these are all Westernized countries -- but it happens for a reason; the contractors get "inside info" to help them navigate increasingly complicated and bureaucratic procurement processes, and the military gets to have more influence on what industry's doing than just writing a check.
posted by olinerd at 2:03 PM on January 10, 2011 [6 favorites]

Eisenhower's warning:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

posted by Kirth Gerson at 2:04 PM on January 10, 2011 [19 favorites]

Same goes for lobbying firms hiring ex-congressmen and senators. For the companies, it's a smart investment. They purchase not just a bold faced name to put on the company's press materials, but they also get their rolodexes. Golden.
posted by jng at 2:08 PM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

It's hard to even imagine that 75 years ago the US did not have a standing army at all. This concept of having a huge army assembled at all times during peacetime is completely new.
posted by inedible at 2:12 PM on January 10, 2011 [2 favorites]

They purchase not just a bold faced name to put on the company's press materials, but they also get their rolodexes.

I also believe it buys 'em bodies that get the post-office perks like access to the Congressional Gym.


75 years ago... is completely new.

75 years is not new.
posted by rough ashlar at 2:14 PM on January 10, 2011

I almost feel bad for all the shit talk that revolving doors have to put up with. They're oh so elegant plus efficient! And environmentally friendly to boot.
posted by jng at 2:18 PM on January 10, 2011

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. ... Is there no other way the world may live?"

--Dwight D. Eisenhower.

They don't make Republicans like him anymore.
posted by entropicamericana at 2:19 PM on January 10, 2011 [92 favorites]

Agreed, Retiring generals and congresspeople should just while away their golden years as gentleperson farmers. Occasionaly dispensing wisdom on how to catch tadpoles and when the best time to plant milo is. Maybe the more spry among them can run a little apothecary, the kind with peppermint sticks and the best root beer floats ever.
posted by Ad hominem at 2:21 PM on January 10, 2011 [8 favorites]

Don't see my agency mentioned there, but here goes: We're one of the biggest buyers around. They used to say if we were a publicly traded company we'd be in the Fortune 100. Newspaper reporters usually get it wrong when they talk about Pentagon procurement. Weapons systems come from the Pentagon, and they costs big bucks.

We buy the food, clothing, medical supplies, fuel and spare parts. Business has been pretty good for the last decade or so. The dollars are mind boggling. Ms Sparky covers it pretty well and links to MSM sites like the Wall St Journal with more coverage. Long story short is guys like Dan Mongeon who used to be commanding general where I work and Gen Dail who was the boss of our parent organization do what they are hired to do. They grease the skids. No one where I work takes bribes or throws contracts to favorite vendors - that just doesn't happen, and don't believe people who tell you it does. But multi-billion dollar firms don't hire these guys because they tell good stories. It's all about the access.
posted by fixedgear at 2:22 PM on January 10, 2011

Yes, nominally, they are leaving the public sector and entering the public sector. This is semantics. In reality, they are being transferred from one division of the company to another, the equivalent of Jack Donaghy being transferred from microwaves to NBC.

The military-industrial complex is not just a phrase, but a reality. These are effectively wings of the same megacorp, War Incorporated, whose reach spans the globe, and has no major competitors. (War Incorporated is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sheinhardt Wig Company, part of the Phillip Morris family) There are some upstarts like North Korea's military, or boutique operators like the Swiss Army Knife guys, but these are usually dealt with, either with market warfare, diplomatic warfare or the traditional kind of warfare.

I'm sorry if my posts as of late have tended toward the tinfoil hat end the spectrum, but much smarter and more respected people than me, as evidenced above, have thought that this kind of oligarchical power hoarding and in-our-face corruption are a bad idea.

I hope that Assange's theory that constant highprofile infodumps will cripple these kinds of secretive organizations by making it impossible for them one hand to communicate with another. If they're tapping our phones without asking, we shouldn't have to ask to tap theirs.
posted by LiteOpera at 2:23 PM on January 10, 2011 [9 favorites]

In large numbers, and with few rules, retiring generals are taking lucrative defense-firm jobs

What are they supposed to do after they are forced to retire at age 62 or because they didn't meet their promotion targets?

In almost any other realm it would seem a clear conflict of interest — pitting his duty to the US military against the interests of his employer

I'm sorry, I don't see the conflict of interest. Presumably this general has no "duty" to the US military. He or she is retired. It's not a "revolving door" if generals who become contractors can't take back their general-ing job. It's just a regular one-way door.
posted by muddgirl at 2:30 PM on January 10, 2011 [2 favorites]

Obligatory "War is a Racket" link.
posted by adipocere at 2:30 PM on January 10, 2011 [3 favorites]

“When I was an officer in the 1970s, most general officers went off to some sunny place and retired,’’ he added. “Now the definition of success of a general officer is to move on and become successful in the business world.’’

Yes, this is true - can anyone afford to retire at 55 anymore? My mom is 51 and just got a pension job that she plans to work at for 20 more years.

If we don't want retired generals moving on to the private sector (as LiteOpera says, just the other side of a thin partition), then we need to pay them not to.
posted by muddgirl at 2:33 PM on January 10, 2011

Umm...

An hour after the official ceremony marking the end of his 35-year career in the Air Force ... He said yes to both offers ... In almost any other realm it would seem a clear conflict of interest.

Hey, writer person? Private citizens can take whatever job they like. You already said he retired; in fact, you explicitly pointed this out in the first sentence.

A conflict-of-interest would have occurred if this all went down before he retired.

Besides, I fail to see how this is any different from any federal employee anywhere leaving federal employ and going to work in a related field. Are you telling us it's a crime when Department of Agriculture employees consult for Cargill, ConAgra, Monsanto and Archer-Daniels-Midland?
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 2:33 PM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

I mean, Jesus, the shoddy journalism. It doesn't even get past the first three paragraphs without some whopper logic bombs.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 2:35 PM on January 10, 2011

"I had offers from, oh, half a dozen people who wanted to pay me a great big salary. One in particular told me that he wanted to give me a hundred thousand dollars a year to be chairman of the board of his organization and I said to him 'Why didn't you make that offer to me when I was working out on the farm for ten years? I'd have been happy have it' – and then he left, he knew very well where I'd put him. He was trying to exploit the presidency of the United States and that I wouldn't stand for."
--Harry S. Truman

They don't make Democrats like him anymore. (Previously)
posted by jng at 2:39 PM on January 10, 2011 [18 favorites]

Are you telling us it's a crime when Department of Agriculture employees consult for Cargill, ConAgra, Monsanto and Archer-Daniels-Midland?

It probably should be, yeah. I have trouble believing that the prospect of future employment in the private sector incentivizes public officials to work for the public good.
posted by OverlappingElvis at 2:42 PM on January 10, 2011 [14 favorites]

It's hard to even imagine that 75 years ago the US did not have a standing army at all. This concept of having a huge army assembled at all times during peacetime is completely new.

Eh, wot? The United States established a standing army during the Revolutionary War. The size may have changed, but we didn't lack a standing army until 1935.
posted by Justinian at 2:42 PM on January 10, 2011 [3 favorites]

Hey, writer person? Private citizens can take whatever job they like. You already said he retired; in fact, you explicitly pointed this out in the first sentence.

The author doesn't imply that the conflict of interest arises because he used to be a general. It arises because, on retirement, he accepted two concurrent positions - one with the Pentagon and another with a contractor. From Page 1:

But almost as soon as he closed the door that day in 2005 his phone rang. It was an executive at Northrop Grumman, asking if he was interested in working for the manufacturer of the B-2 stealth bomber as a paid consultant. A few weeks later, Martin received another call. This time it was the Pentagon, asking him to join a top-secret Air Force panel studying the future of stealth aircraft technology.

Martin was understandably in demand, having been the general in charge of all Air Force weapons programs, including the B-2, for the previous four years.

He said yes to both offers.

posted by Roach at 2:44 PM on January 10, 2011 [4 favorites]

He said yes to both offers.

This sort of "conflict of interest" is staggeringly common in the defense industry - I have seen consulting firms hired to write a Request for Proposal, who then turn around and bid on the project through a shell company. More generally, every single defense contractor out there, from 1-man consulting firms to the Big Three, attempts to put themselves in a position where they are writing the specification or procurement documents that they will be bidding against.

Limiting the activities of generals who may not be able to afford to completely retire won't stop the underlying disfunction.
posted by muddgirl at 2:50 PM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

I don't think he's contesting the point that it is common practice. In fact that is precisely the point - this sort of thing is endemic in the defense industry. This is how it's done. You seem to be saying that this is common knowledge, but I disagree. And I work in the industry myself, albeit on the civil side.
posted by Roach at 2:54 PM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

The author doesn't imply that the conflict of interest arises because he used to be a general.

Uhh, yes it does ... right here:

In almost any other realm it would seem a clear conflict of interest — pitting his duty to the US military against the interests of his employer

Note the word "duty." He no longer has a "duty." He's retired. It's over. Done. Kaput. Are we to say that retired people can't enjoy certain privileges? You can retire from the military at a very young age and still want to work. You have valuable skills. Are we supposed to just say, "Oh no. To the golf course with you, old man!"
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 2:54 PM on January 10, 2011

Gil Scott-Heron spoke of this.
posted by timsteil at 3:00 PM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

Are we supposed to just say, "Oh no. To the golf course with you, old man!"

Can't they just write a memoir or something, instead of making the world a poorer place and getting rich in the process?
posted by entropicamericana at 3:01 PM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

The Pentagon Wars
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 3:03 PM on January 10, 2011

instead of making the world a poorer place and getting rich in the process

If they're making the world a poorer place in their post-military activities, then they were almost assuredly doing it on an even broader level as a sitting general.
posted by muddgirl at 3:04 PM on January 10, 2011

Yes, this is true - can anyone afford to retire at 55 anymore?

Well, people in the military can. IANAA (I am not an American) but a friend of mine recently retired at age 41: he went straight from university into the Canadian Forces and did his minimum twenty years for a full pension. He then cashed out at twenty years and six weeks, and now has an indexed pension for life which annually pays him more than I have ever made in my life (his annual compensation as a major was staggering from my point of view). Of course, he went on to work for a company which has but a single client: the Canadian military.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 3:12 PM on January 10, 2011

> Are we supposed to just say, "Oh no. To the golf course with you, old man!"

The article explains very clearly why this is a Very Bad Idea - because the taxpayers get massively ripped off because of the revolving door - because instead of there being the productive sort of friendly/adversarial relationship there is between purchases and suppliers in all other industries, it's a cozy old boy's club where countless billions are bilked from the taxpayer.

It used to be illegal, it should still be illegal, and it's certainly unethical.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 3:16 PM on January 10, 2011 [2 favorites]

Note the word "duty." He no longer has a "duty." He's retired. It's over. Done. Kaput. Are we to say that retired people can't enjoy certain privileges? You can retire from the military at a very young age and still want to work. You have valuable skills. Are we supposed to just say, "Oh no. To the golf course with you, old man!"

The now-retired general is simultaneously working, in separate roles, for the Pentagon and for a defense contractor. This is the conflict of interest. It has nothing to do with his past performance or roles. I do agree the author is a bit sloppy using the word "duty" to refer to his current obligation to the Pentagon.
posted by Roach at 3:17 PM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

> If they're making the world a poorer place in their post-military activities, then they were almost assuredly doing it on an even broader level as a sitting general.

Not at all. As a general, they have no direct way to profit financially from their military connections - after retirement they do. As a general, they simply have no way to directly act on their greed with committing crimes; once retired, the current system lets them be as venial as they like.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 3:18 PM on January 10, 2011

er, WITHOUT committing crimes.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 3:20 PM on January 10, 2011

and now has an indexed pension for life which annually pays him more than I have ever made in my life

My uncle in the US armed forces was not a general, but he hit his 20 years and was "asked" to retire. His pension is set at 50% of his base pay, and he's just turned 50 years old with two step-kids in college. So yes, while his pension may be "more than I have ever made in my life", it is much less than he was making last year, and at 50 he's way too young to move to Boca Raton and play golf every day. You can read all about US military retiree compensation here.

The now-retired general is simultaneously working, in separate roles, for the Pentagon and for a defense contractor.

I dispute the idea that they are "separate roles". In each case he is acting as a consultant with intimate knowledge of what the military needs in a stealth bomber. The reporter takes it as fact that the defense contractor is paying him to lobby to the Pentagon, but in my experience (a) the Pentagon is aware of the connection, or (b) he is not actually being paid to lobby the Pentagon.
posted by muddgirl at 3:21 PM on January 10, 2011

As a general, they have no direct way to profit financially from their military connections

Bryan Bender would disagree with you

The generals are, in many cases, recruited for private sector roles well before they retire, raising questions about their independence and judgment while still in uniform. The Pentagon is aware and even supports this practice.

Their actions as generals may directly impact their financial position post-retirement.
posted by muddgirl at 3:25 PM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

his sort of "conflict of interest" is staggeringly common in the defense industry

Dude, come on, that doesn't make it right. Imho, these generals should fall under Title 18, section 207 as "very senior personnel" (currently, I believe, applied mainly if not only the executive).

Very senior personnel must comply with several restrictions:

a lifetime ban (which covers all executive employees) on 'switching sides' to represent any organisation on a matter on which they directly worked as an executive employee

a two-year ban in cases on which they may not have directly worked but for which they had 'direct responsibility'

a one-year ban on representing any organisation to any current representative of the executive, regardless of what portfolio they are with, and

a one-year ban on representing a foreign entity 'before any department or agency of the United States' and on aiding or advising a foreign entity.

I don't think this is too much to ask for, and I'm kind of shocked anybody anywhere can't see the destructive potential conflicts of interest like this represent, simply by dint of it being so commonplace.

posted by smoke at 3:31 PM on January 10, 2011 [4 favorites]

So yes, while his pension may be "more than I have ever made in my life", it is much less than he was making last year,

Well, then, surely this is a problem with retirement pensions or some such, rather than a defence of post-position lobbying.
posted by smoke at 3:34 PM on January 10, 2011

BTW...such practices aren't just for high-ranking folks. There are thousands of military folks who retire from active duty, and the next day they are back at their now-civilianized job, doing the same thing they were before (largely). Not inherently wrong, of course, but...still...something about it just sort of rankles.
posted by davidmsc at 3:47 PM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

If they're making the world a poorer place in their post-military activities, then they were almost assuredly doing it on an even broader level as a sitting general

The US is so much better at acquiring weapons than it is at winning wars... perhaps more generals should work for arms dealers?
posted by pompomtom at 3:48 PM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

In the old days, you could influence Defense Department decisionmakers by buying them hookers and blow. "We'll be keeping a chair warm for you at Lockheed, wink wink" is a little more subtle, but the principle is the same.
posted by killdevil at 3:51 PM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

Agreed, Retiring generals and congresspeople should just while away their golden years as gentleperson farmers. Occasionaly dispensing wisdom on how to catch tadpoles and when the best time to plant milo is. Maybe the more spry among them can run a little apothecary, the kind with peppermint sticks and the best root beer floats ever.

Sounds pretty good, actually. They'd be invested in middle America for their entire careers, rather than arcing towards the gated mansion community. A comfortable pension coupled with a ban on private employment would keep the bloat out of procurement, and the brass honest.

_{Reducation camp for you, though.}
posted by clarknova at 4:16 PM on January 10, 2011

He was trying to exploit the presidency of the United States and that I wouldn't stand for."
--Harry S. Truman

They don't make Democrats like him anymore.

Well, Lyndon Johnson pretty much just retired to his ranch I think, and Jimmy Carter doesn't appear to have exploited the presidency for personal gain. Clinton just does speeches for $$$ I think, so it's not like there's a whole lot of Democratic ex-presidents chairing companies after they leave office. (Not to take away from Truman)
posted by Hoopo at 4:20 PM on January 10, 2011

Harry S. Truman

I visited his home and presidential library over christmas. He had a big, fancy home for a small town, but not a mansion. He accepted no sinecure, consulted and opined for free to anyone who would listen, and took his meals in a humble kitchen painted with surplus paint.

He wouldn't even accept a secret service detail until Johnson twisted Mrs. Truuman's arm following the Kennedy assassination. He thought it would cost us too much money. And this from a president who had lived through his own assassination attempt.

I couldn't help thinking, "Huh. The last, greatest, American political hero. What a rube."
posted by clarknova at 4:41 PM on January 10, 2011

1 of the things I like most about metafilter, is the fact that it makes me feel bad about my job . Tor all the right reasons ...
posted by djrock3k at 4:51 PM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

Dude, come on, that doesn't make it right

Did I ever claim that it was right? My point is that focusing on the very small percentage of generals who go into contracting after they retire (compared to the vast number of ex-military personnel who go into contracting, or contractors who get a job with the military, or to the military civilians who favor certain certain contractors, or contractors who set up a large number of different companies to get around conflict of interest rules, etc etc etc) is missing the forest for the trees.
posted by muddgirl at 5:12 PM on January 10, 2011

Clinton just does speeches for $$$

Clinton somehow became a multimillionaire giving "speeches."
posted by ennui.bz at 5:16 PM on January 10, 2011

Very senior personnel must comply with several restrictions:
This isn't the same part of the code, but it is a related concept and interesting (I hope).

My dad is a bureaucrat. He's the guy at the window in the Social Security office that you have to talk to when you retire. This is a Federal job with a big, fat, upper-case "F." And therefore it comes with certain responsibilities and restrictions on what he can do during and after his employment. He cannot accept bribes, and once was reprimanded because he was so helpful that an old lady brought him some homemade pasta salad, which he had for lunch. He can't run for partisan political office. Notice the partisan part, because that means offices which are theoretically non-partisan, like our City Council, would be A-#1-OK, even if he were to receive campaign assistance from the local party headquarters. He's not allowed to wear political buttons or boater hats while he is doing his job. Until very recently, he wasn't allowed to have political bumper stickers on the car he drove to work. I think it's technically against the regulations for him to read or pass along those chain joke emails that were a real gas in 1998 on his work account. I wish this last one were better-enforced.

The more important restriction, though, is that he can't also work as a consultant for a lawyer who prepares the paperwork for Social Security claims and filings. He would be very good at this job, because he already knows what all the relevant procedures are. He also can't do this for a certan amount of time after he retires (or quits, or is fired). I think it's two years, but of course these regulations and procedures, which are not Acts of Congress, but handed down from a building somewhere in Baltimore, will by then have changed subtly in enough ways that would almost impossible to catch up again. New hires spend years getting up to speed, and if they miss two years of changes, they would be lost.

If we impose these pretty serious restrictions on a guy, like my Dad, whose area of expertise is helping retired teachers and machinists get a Social Security check each month, then shouldn't we pose much greater ones on people who are engaged in procuring Billion Dollar (with a big, fat, upper-case "B") weapons systems?
posted by LiteOpera at 5:18 PM on January 10, 2011 [15 favorites]

Did I ever claim that it was right?

Well, I kind of feel you did, in implying that generals can't afford to retire, and therefore no one else can, and also, that the problem of generals doing this is trivial compared to the greater numbers of more lowly ranked individuals doing it.

I would contend that that's wrong - Generals have much more scope to influence the workings of their former employers in government than a lower-ranked schlub, with little power, responsibility or contacts. I'm not saying schlubs should be able to do whatever they want, but a former general (or minister, or departmental head, or anyone senior) has far more resources at their disposal upon employment in the private sector.
posted by smoke at 5:34 PM on January 10, 2011

Clinton somehow became a multimillionaire giving "speeches."

Hey, I'm not defending Clinton's pricing, just saying what he does is not really relevant to the discussion of post-"retirement" conflicts-of-interest, nor is it really the type of thing Truman was talking about as far as I can tell. Anyways, it's not exactly unusual these days for anyone in the American political class to be multi-millionaires, Democrat or Republican.
posted by Hoopo at 5:34 PM on January 10, 2011

Hey, I'm not defending Clinton's pricing, just saying what he does is not really relevant to the discussion of post-"retirement" conflicts-of-interest, nor is it really the type of thing Truman was talking about as far as I can tell. Anyways, it's not exactly unusual these days for anyone in the American political class to be multi-millionaires, Democrat or Republican.

no, this is exactly what Truman was talking about. Clinton's post-presidency shows exactly what the rewards are for being a friend of wall street.
posted by ennui.bz at 5:47 PM on January 10, 2011

I have a great-uncle who was some kind of general in the Australian army. I asked him if he was going back to work as a "consultant". He said, "No way mate*, I've got lots of money. I'm going to relax and put my feet up - maybe play a little golf." But he's one of those retirees who has interests outside of work and more money; lots of retirees don't know any different.

*Ok, he didn't actually say "mate". But he could have.
posted by sneebler at 6:40 PM on January 10, 2011

Ps. Is it time to repost "What Barry Says" yet? Because this is the public face of war corporatism.

And that goes nicely with Butler's War is a Racket speech linked above.

Smedley Butler: "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism."

I remember seeing Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex" speech on tv when I was a kid, and 50 years later I think we're more committed than ever to keeping war as a cornerstone of our economy. Which may not be in the long-term interests of society, as war has a rather large footprint.
posted by sneebler at 7:04 PM on January 10, 2011 [2 favorites]

Almost a derail, but note that Clinton's autobiography sold a lot of copies. Perhaps he makes a lot more giving speeches, but it's nothing like retired generals (and others) using their contacts and assumed "loyalty" to get favorable government contracts. At least Clinton largely gives his speeches in public...

(By "loyalty" I mean that his former comrades will presume he has their and the country's interests at heart and wouldn't sell them crap or unnecessary things.)
posted by R343L at 7:59 PM on January 10, 2011

So, after you've had a job for twenty years in the military, what sorts of jobs do you think you're qualified for?
posted by garlic at 9:18 PM on January 10, 2011

Hey, they even have a school for it. ICAF.
posted by Xoebe at 11:58 PM on January 10, 2011

Go Tigers!
posted by clavdivs at 12:29 AM on January 11, 2011

According to this DOD retirement calculator, a brigadier general (one star; O-6) would retire with a gross monthly pay of $3,749 ($44,988/year), a major general (two stars; O-7) would retire with a gross monthly pay of $4,865 ($58,380/year), a lieutenant general (three stars; O-8) would retire with a gross monthly pay of $5,262 ($63,144/year), and a general (four stars; O-9) would retire with a Illegal division by 0. No results to display.

The term was originally "military-industrial-congressional complex" but Eisenhower changed it to avoid pissing off the legislative branch.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:00 AM on January 11, 2011

Yes, he can retire. They don't call it "double dippin'" for nothin'.

I have a relative that was Air Force. And then later civil service. And while civil service, in the reserves. At retirement he has a nice pension. And is triply covered for health insurance. And somehow I have problems with one layer of coverage for my family.
posted by readyfreddy at 9:07 AM on January 11, 2011