... As "senior mentors," as the military calls them, the retired officers help run war games and offer advice to former colleagues. Some mentors make as much as $330 an hour as part-time government advisers, more than triple what their rate of pay was as high-level, active-duty officers. They earn more - far more, several mentors said in interviews - as consultants and board members to defense companies.
Retired generals have taken jobs with defense contractors for decades, reaping rewards for themselves and their companies through their contacts and insights. But the recent growth in the use of mentors has created a new class of individuals who enjoy even more access than a typical retired officer, and they get paid by the military services while doing so. Most are compensated both by taxpayers and industry, with little to prevent their private employers from using knowledge they obtain as mentors in seeking government work.
Nothing is illegal about the arrangements. In fact, there are no Pentagon-wide rules specific to the various mentor programs, which differ from service to service...
More at USA Today.
Old Soldiers Never Cash Out - New York Times editorial.
For all the stars of ranking generals and admirals in Washington, it turns out there's still a higher grade - "senior mentor." These are retired brass enjoying lucrative compensation as part-time Pentagon advisers, who, in most cases, also draw VIP pay from companies seeking defense contracts. The mentor cohort has quietly grown in recent years from a handful to at least 158 ranking retired officers - 80 percent of whom hire on at the same time with defense contractors.
There is nothing illegal about the double-dipping. But few people in Congress or elsewhere knew about it until now because there is no requirement to tell anyone, even the Pentagon. As Pentagon advisers, mentors are paid hundreds of dollars an hour for offering counsel to former colleagues on war games and other specialties. As defense contract consultants, they can make considerably more. It's time to closely manage the retirees' good deal, documented in a report by USA Today...
More at The New York Times.
Retired Generals Getting Rich from Conflicts of Interest - Tom Ricks, Foreign Policy's Best Defense.
... There will be a bunch of outraged responses about 30 years of dedicated service and how dare people question their ethics. My test on this is easy: Would George C. Marshall have accepted such payments? I doubt it. (Remember, he declined to write a memoir that would have made him wealthy because he thought it would have been improper to get into the failings of some of his comrades.)
By the way, if the New York Times can win a Pulitzer for its story about generals going on TV too much, this one should win two.
More at Best Defense.
The Greed of the Generals (II): Two Questions - Tom Ricks, Foreign Policy's Best Defense.
I'm interested that in all the e-mails I've gotten, and responses posted on this blog about triple-dipping retired generals getting paid to "mentor" the active duty military while at the same time working in the defense industry, and also collecting their pensions, not a single person has contended that, yes, George Marshall would approve of this behavior. As a friend of mine says, this is a good gut-check: WWGMD?
Also, another friend points out that one of the dangers of this whole "mentoring" this is that if you are not careful, you wind up bringing in people who simply reinforce existing prejudices, instead of challenging them...
More at Best Defense.
Comments
In January 2009 the Harvard Business Review published a report of a survey on executive coaches. According to Diane Coutu of HBR blog, "To keep the field growing, however, coaches will increasingly need to provide hard quantitative data about their added value. To date, very little exists. That's disconcerting when you think that it costs on average $500 an hour to engage a coach, about the price of a top-notch psychiatrist in Manhattan. Not small potatoes" (from HBR blogs, "What Coaches Can Do For You," December 2008).
Coaching isn't the same as mentoring. However, I thought the pay rate would be a good comparison. If you compare the $500 an hour for an executive coach to the rate of $300 paid to the senior mentors mentioned in the USA Today article, I don't think the pay of the senior mentors is exorbitant. I also don't think there's a conflict of interest for them to serve as senior mentors and defense contractors. The issue should be whether they are influencing military strategy when on active duty to benefit their career prospects as defense contractors when they retire. I doubt that most active duty military people start their careers for the end game of becoming lucrative defense contractors. The senior mentors need to be compensated for their time and knowledge.
Ive (and the organizations I was a member of) used military senior mentors (many of whom were mentioned in the USA Today article) for almost 10 years as part of wargaming, seminars and workshops that I have been associated with. Overwhelmingly their participation was value added and we would not have reached many of our objectives without their participation. For example, when wargaming a "whole of government" approach to a CJTF operation there was no way to get to the issues that needed examined without participation by those who actually held billets as ambassadors, combatant and JTF commanders, etc. I also found that they were quite open and honest on lessons they learned the hard way and were able to offer insights that no amount of observation or research by those who have not filled these shoes could offer up. In ten years Ive not seen any attempt to influence on behalf of any defense contractor they might be associated with - not once. For those senior mentors who might not have met all our expectations in regards to what they offered our programs we had a very simple process - we did not invite them back. And it is my understanding, and correct me if Im wrong here, the pay they get as senior mentors is well below what they would get - or get - serving as senior leadership in the private defense sector. In a nutshell, and maybe Ive just been lucky, the senior mentors Ive associated with are honorable and sincere in what they do in that role. Should there be more restrictions on this and similar programs? The answer to that question is well beyond my level of expertise - but I do caution against throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Matt,
You said:
"We also don't want their paid agents influencing the structure and outcome of exercises to ensure we ask them to provide whatever it is they'd like to sell us."
I have not seen that in the experiments and exercises I've supported where there have been senior mentors.
I have seen contractors who were not employed as senior mentors, but who were representing their company's specific product and as such would tell me why their product was better than another - but that is what they were being paid to do, and that is what I expected them to do in that capacity. In that regard those products were competing and I was free to judge the merit and submit my report to my leadership as to what I thought. In my experience a former 05 or 06 who is employed as a materiel advocate is not the same as someone who is mentoring on the concepts of force generation and employment.
My experience is limited to some of the Army experiments and exercises, a few from JFCOM, and some from OSD. I have not participated in any sponsored by the Navy or the Air Force - so I can't speak to those.
Again, I think you'll get what you pay for.
Best, Rob
Rob Thornton, et al.:
4) Ask the old farts to work at their last active duty pay grade.
5) Prohibit the old farts from receiving compensation from any entity doing business with the federal government within two years of any paid period of service as a senior mentor.
No, we don't want the defense industries "guessing." We also don't want their paid agents influencing the structure and outcome of exercises to ensure we ask them to provide whatever it is they'd like to sell us.
If the senior mentors are truly impartial public servants, just like they were when they were on active duty (...), they certainly won't object to 4) above, which might go some way to giving us assurance that they aren't simply paid agents, even if we don't implement 5).
Once again, I'm with Rob. What I don't see in the articles is "what are the alternatives?" As I mentioned on the topic of contractors on the battlefield, build me an alternative to evaluate.
In the case at hand, I would propose the existence of three alternatives:
1) Conduct the seminars and wargames with the blind leading the blind. Like Rob, I have benefited immensely from the interaction with mentors in these scenarios.
2) Pull a dozen otherwise under-employed active duty flag officers in on all of these exercises. That might work for one or two, but we exercise a lot, and the model would break down.
3) Ask the old farts to work pro bono.
What are the others?
Ken, no arguments here. I think there needs to be some thought given to who we ask/invite to provide mentorship.
Some I've met may have more subject matter expertise in one area than another - the task I think is to know who knows what, and select/pay accordingly. Often I've been surprised at just who knew what.
There was an issue of service raised in one of the pieces. All of those I've met have been generous with their experience outside of what I suspect they were being paid to do. I've never had one unwilling to sit down for a beer after hours and share their thoughts, or make themselves unavailable for reviewing something outside of a specific contract. I suspect if they make time for an 04, they probably are fairly accessible to most who would ask. I've never gotten the idea it was about the money for them, many have sons, sons-in-law or other family members serving, and they have a blood interest in helping to get it right.
That said, another thing occurred to me. In addition to retired GOs, I've also met some retired ambassadors and non-military associated professionals who have provided senior mentorship. Their perspectives and thoughts have really opened eyes on multiple occassions, and I suspect have provided the military a conduit back to their former agencies and departments to promote understadning. Given that most of our non military partners do not have the capacity to support our experiments and excercises, and most of our uniformed folks don't have the requisite experience to supply those perspectives, these folks are valuable.
Some unfamiliar with military excercise and experimentation as of late may be surprised by how a chosen COA was deflated when an ambassador from a given region told the military folks why said COA might not be a good of an operational approach as it seemed to brief. For those who don't know, the excercises and experimentation play a significant role in how we think about what we are doing or may be asked to do. This includes everything from what the problem(s) are, to the conditions which exist around/or as a result of the problem, to the tasks we must do and ultimately to the capabilities and capacities required to do those tasks. In this light, expanding the types of senior mentors to include all relative experience makes sense.
Having access to the senior mentors helps us through this process I think. So far I've seen the services balance the roles these folks play so that there is a mix of perspectives and experience be that by grade, area of expertise, service, componet etc. where due consideration to the problem at hand informs who is invited - be they retired or wearing a suit or uniform.
I'd hate to see something I thought was valuable in multiple ways (and somethng I'm not sure you can qualitatively assign a set price tag for (individual talent and expertise is sort of like that) be cast aside out based on folks in the media who may only partially understand the range of things we may be called upon to do, and the far reaching capability set required to keep all of those potential glass balls up in the air at one time. If anything wrt to compensation, there are many out there who are making a pretty good living based on defining expertise through publication, etc. I've nothing against them, as I said they often have valuable perspectives, but only they can testify as to their own motivation for doing so.
Best, Rob
Robert:
You say:<blockquote>"...Had his vanity not prevented him from sharing that wisdom, perhaps the U.S. would have made fewer strategic and military errors in the 1950s, 1960s, and beyond."</blockquote>I very strongly doubt that it was vanity. It is, though, interesting that you presume that was the driving factor in his failure to write memoirs. He lived in an era with moral formulations quite different than today's norms and not wanting to criticize one's peers is totally understandable to me. I've heard similar statements by many others from that and the next generation. Nowadays the norm seems to be a desire to engage in peer bashing...
For Marshall and many others who you do not address, the operative principle is that if you are not going to tell the whole truth, you probably should not write anything. To do so and to hedge the truth to avoid everything from an upset spouse (your own or that of the subject of a paragraph or two) to a stupid lawsuit is to do less than justice to the issues and can possibly do more harm than good.
This after all is a Secretary of State who apparently told the President "Mr. President, I serve at your pleasure but you do realize that if you recognize Israel, I will not be able to vote for you in the next election..."
As for his wisdom and the potential for fewer strategic and military errors through the 50s and later, always possible. Highly improbable, though. All those failures lie with a host of politicians, the majority of whom would have -- have and do, in fact -- looked askance at Marshall's moral code as unfathomable. As apparently do others.
That said, I also agree with Rob Thornton but only to an extent. Flag Officers are like every other group; some do good work, some do not -- all are accorded a level of respect predicated on where they are / what they were, not their capability. That has some very negative aspects...
I agree completely with Rob Thornton. Since he said it so well, I will not add to his words.
Instead, I will attack the notion that General of the Army George Marshall provides the proper ethical standard to which retired flag officers should aspire. By not writing a memoir of his time at the top of the pyramid, Marshall may have done grievous harm to his country (I don't consider the Pogue interviews a substitute for the introspection that would have come from writing). I don't know how much mentoring he did to later general officers, but whatever amount it was, it should have been more.
By not writing his memoirs, Marshall left a huge hole in the historical record. Later generations of officers and policymakers could have benefitted from his wisdom on formulating grand strategy, managing large organizations, selecting and supervising subordinates, and assessing and working with fallible peers. Had his vanity not prevented him from sharing that wisdom, perhaps the U.S. would have made fewer strategic and military errors in the 1950s, 1960s, and beyond.
Paying Marshall some book royalties plus $300 per hour as a consultant would have been a tiny price in exchange for the sums and lives the country may later have saved.
I know people have different feelings about this, but as a someone who believes there is benefit in the senior mentor program Id like to bring up just a couple of things.
Most of the senior mentors Ive met at experiments and exercises or seminars have provided insights and observations that I think proved beneficial to the outcome. Arguably, if you believe our system does select those best qualified to serve at high levels (as our system perceives what is best) then these folks are unique. Their service usually spans 30+ years. That means they have seen numerous political cycles, numerous budgets, numerous changes, numerous fads, etc, in other words they have an institutional memory beyond what most of those either wearing a uniform, or in a DoD civilian role have. They also have had some time to reflect - a luxury most serving do not have as they struggle to feed the wolves at the door.
That they get paid handsomely for that knowledge does not bother me at all. I lump it under what I consider the provision of the common defense - specifically the insurance that we remain the best military possible. Id much rather see part of my tax dollars going to the provision of that political and military knowledge and judgment than many other things I can think of. I do not see it as an ethics issue either. What these senior mentors get paid in addition to whatever they collect as being employees of a contractor should be based on the services they provide. The last experiment I participated in had an opportunity to critique the value of the senior mentors there - I thought this useful, and in my view provides a way of determining who amongst the group was most beneficial and should be sought out for other related events.
I do not consider it a conflict of interest that they go back and tell their other employers what we are interested in - would we prefer the defense sector guess? Since in my mind the road to military efficiency is paved through military effectiveness, I believe finding ways to tell the people who provide the goods and services what we are thinking about the future is good, and I think most of the senior mentors Ive met will communicate it effectively.
While I believe that think tanks populated by former field grades & people with advanced degrees in security or related fields, and the range of people we think of as the media are beneficial to providing unique and often valuable perspectives, I place greater value in those who have seen it, done, lived it, and thought about it many times over. All too often the perspectives I see from think tanks and the media varies with the interest of the moment, they strike me as consistent only so far as current conditions support. While that is useful, it can also be dangerous. It may also be the best they can provide.
Consider that these mentors could retire totally - which in effect would seal off accrued knowledge and experience that you can track to a specific source and scrutinize based on the range of conditions they faced. I know two senior mentors, one a retired Marine LTG, and one a retired Army MG (whose experiences go back to surviving Nazi death camps as a child, and whose military service picks up in the Korean War) who I think have specifically helped us get it more right for the war we are in and the ones we have yet to fight - their thoughts may well have provided us the means to resist those who believe that effectiveness and efficiency are the same thing. Out of the many things that we can pay for, there are a few I think where the returns justify the expense - this is one of them. Do we want to sustain a program that may provide us access to the likes of General Petraeus, or General Mattis in the 10-30 years, or do we believe that well get all we need from our own uniformed ranks, from think tanks, and the media? What you get is often what you pay for.
Best, Rob