Probably not, or that would be what they do. If the process is needlessly bureaucratic, with lots of unnecessary red tape, then it is a bad law that enforcing will have no positive effects.
Changing it to a law that does make sense and keeps US trained personnel from taking a 7 figure job training North Korean troops in US tactics is more useful and practical, IMHO.
Personally, I’m fine with either.
Turkey was an ally until they weren’t. The people who would be most impacted by a ban are the ones who are older and so, probably, higher in rank and more knowledgeable of things that we’d probably prefer to not have floating around outside the nation.
In general, there’s no strong need to have former US military acting independently around the planet. The best reason that I can think of is because it allows us to send out agents of the state without admitting that they’re still, secretly, working for us. The individuals themselves should leave the military with plenty of opportunities that are peaceful or US-military adjacent.
I would lean towards a soft ban - restricting them from working in certain nations, subject to change - but I wouldn’t have any strong objection to a full ban.
So, your issue is with any US citizen who has a college degree, been a long term civil servants. or a military retiree going to work for “tyrants”.
Who gets to define a “Tyrant”?
See, that is the issue.
The difficulty in defining “tyrant” and the extent to which the US itself may act tyrannically is among the many reasons I would support a “retired pay = no foreign pay” provision. My interest in this topic extends beyond mere US interests to a broader humanitarian concern.
Thank you for pointing this out, barring the Supreme Court overturning Afroyim v. Rusk or a constitutional amendment, the only way to lose US citizenship is to voluntarily renounce it. The government cannot strip US citizenship.
I think it would be an interesting SCOTUS case if a person could be stripped of their citizenship for treason. There the issue might be what constitutes an enemy as per the Constitution but let’s suppose Biden qua head of foreign relations declares North Korea an enemy and someone goes and works for the NK government.
Is that treason?
If so, can they be stripped of their citizenship (given this SCOTUS)?
That’s a very silly issue if that’s your issue. Obviously it’s defined by the State Department using guidelines in laws written by the legislature elected by citizens and influenced by lobbyists. That’s how it’s currently set up, although the word used isn’t “tyrant,” it’s something about “negatively affect foreign relations”. Obviously I’m suggesting that the current implementation of the law sucks and should change.
I’m assuming you’re talking about senior officers, because enlisted “retirement” is crap. Right now, an E-7 retiring after 20 years gets just under $28K/year, which is not much more than what I got when I retired over 30 years ago. I would likely have happily gone to work for a foreign government if the pay had been high enough.
Not to hijack, but this is on top of social security benefits, yes? These days, any pension based retirement income is far from crap. $28k plus my social security and I’d be a happy camper.
Considering that one can retire from the military at age 40 or even younger, there is a 25 year gap between then and when SS kicks in. While a senior officer may retire at age 40, an enlisted man would have a hard time of it. I went to work the day after my military service ended, and finally stopped working nineteen years later (and only because my wife had a good income).
And there is no way we could have stopped you, unless we want to turn the U.S. into a prison like North Korea.
There also is no real way we could, or should, prevent you from coming back to your country of birth to visit friends and family.
However, I don’t think you should have been able to keep receiving U.S. military retirement pay when you you are now acting as if loyal to the foreign government giving you that “high enough” pay.
I said before that, if someone like yourself had gone this path, you should have been required to renounce your U.S. citizenship. Thinking about it more, that goes against international norms and was impractical.
P.S. In the same spirit, perhaps members of Congress, who subsequently become lobbyists, should also be stripped of their government pension.
I’m skeptical of the notion that the interests of an employer or its shareholders count for much after the relationship has ended.
My question remains unanswered - what’s so special about retirees, when your active duty military personnel happily are deployed to do that very same thing?
Please don’t take what I’m saying as an apology for US military adventurism–but at least if they’re currently deployed then the US citizenry can exercise some restraint over their actions. When they retire and take the skills we paid for to bona fide tyrannies like Saudi Arabia, that’s even worse.
So, do what I say, not what I do.
And what mechanism can you use to enforce this rule? You can’t take away their citizenship. Are you going to take away their health care, passport, benefits? Fine them? Charge them with a crime? All of these actions make the US look like hypocrites, punishing the little guy while defense contractors make billions.
You pay for the skills of those training Saudis whether they’re active or retired, so I don’t understand that emphasis.
And it’s a nice idea that the citizenry can exercise restraint over US missions. But my concern is that they don’t - as shown by the fact that your military is currently training Saudi military personnel.
Basically, why should I care that the Americans training the Saudi regime’s baby killers are active duty or retired? Why should their victims? It makes no difference in the end.
If you don’t care, you needn’t post in a thread discussing it.
As for mine opinion, I’d charge every one of these advisors for violating export restrictions. If some technicalities of the laws currently prevent that, I’d fix those loopholes.
The U.S. government has a tight rein on what the military-industrial complex does in foreign countries. Freelance advisors subvert that. Foreign policy should be under the control of the government, not individuals.
There should be targeted, detailed restrictions on specific information that is covered by regulations, not some blanket ban on working for whoever isn’t in favor by the current US government.
Take your junior modding somewhere more appropriate.
The thing I I don’t care about is not the overall topic, it’s the distinction being drawn between active and retired activities. Perfectly on-topic.
LHoD is trying to make a case that these retirees are somehow doing something particularly bad, when they’re doing the exact same thing active duty military do with US blessing.
MODNOTE: Please, both of you, stop your Jr. Modding and stay on topic.