Ike was Right-- Don't Trust Anyone

Eisenhower warned us to beware of the military industrial complex almost 50 years ago and now we have all his unheeded warnings come to raw fruition. The New York Times reported Sunday on the multitude of retired military officers who have acted as television "analysts" during the run-up and early stages of the Iraq war and occupation. According to emails recently released only after NYT sued the Defense Department through the Freedom of Information Act, many of these analysts were also on the payroll of defense contractors in addition to being wined and dined by the Pentagon in order to be fed pro-war propaganda-- which some have conceded after the fact was misrepresented-- as well being paid by the networks for their appearances.

This should make your blood boil.

From the NYT:

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

Critics I have read in various comments sections have made remarks about the veracity of the NYT, and I will be gracious enough to give voice to those misgivings. However, the damning accusations by the Times article, if untrue, would surely elicit defamation lawsuits by the networks and retired officers. These retired military men are 1) getting tax-supported pensions, 2) being paid by main stream media outlets for appearances as supposedly objective observers 3) receiving payment from defense industry lobbyist firms or the companies directly, and in one instance-- General Marks-- is a CEO of a defense contracting company who was actively negotiating contracts with the Pentagon while he is beating the war drums on CNN as a paid "analyst", and 4) accepting tax-supported air fares and dinners to receive talking points directly from Donald Rumsfeld from 2003 to 2006.

Nobody is innocent in this affair if the NYT's piece is to be believed. The networks never questioned the "analysts" about industry ties and accepted their "analysis" as objective. The retired military lost Pentagon access if they failed to promote the war strongly enough, which would have threatened their lucrative jobs lobbying and negotiating defense contracts. So they continued to dance.

Some network officials, meanwhile, acknowledged only a limited understanding of their analysts’ interactions with the administration. They said that while they were sensitive to potential conflicts of interest, they did not hold their analysts to the same ethical standards as their news employees regarding outside financial interests. The onus is on their analysts to disclose conflicts, they said.

[snip]

CNN, for example, said it was unaware for nearly three years that one of its main military analysts, General Marks, was deeply involved in the business of seeking government contracts, including contracts related to Iraq.

General Marks was hired by CNN in 2004, about the time he took a management position at McNeil Technologies, where his job was to pursue military and intelligence contracts. As required, General Marks disclosed that he received income from McNeil Technologies. But the disclosure form did not require him to describe what his job entailed, and CNN acknowledges it failed to do additional vetting.

“We did not ask Mr. Marks the follow-up questions we should have,” CNN said in a written statement.

In an interview, General Marks said it was no secret at CNN that his job at [defense contractor] McNeil Technologies was about winning contracts. “I mean, that’s what McNeil does,” he said....

...General Marks said his work on the contract did not affect his commentary on CNN. “I’ve got zero challenge separating myself from a business interest,” he said.

Whew! That makes me feel a whole lot better. A guy whose salary of several million dollars depends on the occurrence of a war goes on television to use Rumsfeld's talking points to "sell" the war to me-- but he says he can separate all these competing conflicts. Sure, I believe him.

How about this... instead of interviewing Mark McGuire and Frank Thomas about whether they juiced in order to hit home runs, what if our astute Congress hauled these snake oil salesmen before the hot lights and cameras and grilled them about the obvious conflicts involved in the orchestration of this war? Is that too much to ask? Get the retired generals and colonels, but also the Pentagon officials who planned the dog and pony shows, and most importantly the network executives who either willingly took part or failed in their obligation as purveyors of information. I want to see them at least squirm.

We have perpetrated a criminal war, slaughtered civilians, maimed and killed our own soldiers, exhausted our treasury, empowered terrorist leaders, destabilized the world's supply of oil-- and why? Because craven "analysts" sold us this war and occupation for apparent financial gain and the press allowed it.

Perhaps the retired military guys are true believers who somehow feel that a great service is being done by our war machine and defense contractors, but that does not release them from the responsibility of submitting possible conflicts of interests. Fox News I understand: they are unrepentant warmongers and have been from day one; we all know their "analysis" has always been a commercial for Rummy's magical mystery tour. But what the fuck was going on at CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS?

No hell is hot enough enough for this lot.