“…for retired generals who represent defense corporations to be included in decision-making on major military programs”

I’m trying to think of the appropriate response to such an overwrought exaggeration. Spencer, I do hope that you’re able to tell the difference between a highly qualified defense expert with 30-35 years experience who is advising the active duty military and/or govt civilians on acquisition-related issues and the few bad apples who abuse the priviledge of their military experience. I’m personally disappointed that Bender has joined the USAToday team who have been breathlessly reporting on the idea that retired general/flag officers have no right and no place to advise their active duty colleagues on important defense issues.

Jack Keane is a frightening example of a general who has no respect for the chain of command, and is willing to bend or break whatever rules are necessary to accomplish whatever he deems necessary.

A commanding presence at 6 foot 5, Keane, 66, turned in his fatigues seven years ago for a pinstriped suit. He is now one of the most influential retired generals in Washington, holding a seat on a high-level Pentagon advisory panel, the Defense Policy Board, and counting among his defense industry clients McAndrews and Forbes, the New York holding company that owns AM General.

His continued presence on the DPB, dating from the Bush years, is supremely disturbing.

On the other hand, Gen Keane was smart enough to turn down the CSA position when Rummie offered it to him. Not wanting to be a lackey to the Devil, he let Gen Casey take that job (and the disintegration of the Army continued…).

Keane’s got a very strong opinion on defense issues, he’s a major force in DC not because he wants or craves influence but because he’s a very smart man who is willing to push hard to make the military a better force. That kind of an attitude bothers some people, but wanting to see actual progress in the defense world will irritate the Villagers.