One Man’s Military-Industrial-Media Complex

David Barstow had this lengthy story in the New York Times on Sunday, One Man’s Military-Industrial-Media Complex. It's a followup to previous stories about how retired generals, with ties to the defense industry are often on news programs stating opinions and don't disclose their business interests. Glenn Greenwald has a summary of the articles so far and some, um, opinion on the matter in The ongoing disgrace of NBC News and Brian Williams.

So here's what the Times said: "Within [4] days of hiring [retired] General McCaffrey, the Defense Solutions [15 page] sales pitch was in the hands of the American commander with the greatest influence over Iraq’s expanding military [General David Petraeus]."

That's not really the problem, other than the Eisenhower military-industrial complex thing. Here's a problem:

"General McCaffrey did not mention his new contract with Defense Solutions in his letter to General Petraeus. Nor did he disclose it when he went on CNBC that same week and praised the commander Defense Solutions was now counting on for help — “He’s got the heart of a lion” — or when he told Congress the next month that it should immediately supply Iraq with large numbers of armored vehicles and other equipment." He also criticized a Pentagon plan to use a competitor.

The article goes through a long history of similar events. During the war he was a consultant for another defense contractor Veritas. He supported the war, but afterwards criticised Rumsfeld's handling of it. Rumsfeld yelled at him and cut off access, so McCaffrey did what many pundits did and caved. In June 2003 he said "I am 100 percent behind what the administration, what the president of the United States, is doing in Iraq.”

McCaffrey made many media appearances, learning to state criticisms in more politic ways. The Pentagon gave him access and trips to Iraq. While it's good to inform the media, I suspect it was more to get a critic to be quiet. While talking with military leaders on the ground he didn't mention his defense contractor employer, supposedly to avoid a hint of conflict of interest. So which is worse? Hiding potential bias or admitting it and letting the parties take it into account?

I'm not sure when it comes to generals and contracts but when it comes to journalism I prefer to be informed. Here's my biggest issue with what the article raises. "General McCaffrey is not required to abide by NBC’s formal conflict-of-interest rules, [the president of NBC News, Steve] Capus said, because he is a consultant, not a news employee. Nor is he required to disclose his business interests periodically" So why don't consultants count? They're giving their opinions as news, why not disclose the biases?

It's similar for contractors too. When we count how many troops we have in Iraq we say 130,000, which doesn't count the other 130,000 contractors we have there who aren't subject to US military or Iraqi law (well maybe that's changing). Companies don't count contractors as employees, don't have to provide health care to them and can more easily fire them and find interesting tax loopholes for them. Something seems wrong here.