That may be true, but I say that “bad thing” is oughtweighed by the value of having Saudi Arabia as a trade partner (oil), strategic (military) partner, and supporter in international affairs. It would be nice if we could pressure Saudi Arabia into being a western-style, human-rights loving democracy. Or even just the human rights part. I think that’s manifestly impossible as the country would sooner move to Russia or China’s sphere. I would rather have Saudi Arabia as it is now, human rights abuses included, than another Al-Queda, ISIS, Iraq, or Iran.
Plus, as pointed out by MrDibble and others, the United States in its official capacity is committed to provide training to Saudi Arabian forces. We have had active military on the ground training Saudi military for nearly half a century. I refer you to this PDF,
"In practice, USMTM advisers are paired with individual units at different echelons of command from brigade to the Ministry of Defense. As such, they form direct relationships with that unit’s key officers, serving as something vaguely similar to a member of the commander’s personal staff."
It would be the height of hypocrisy to prohibit retirees from providing training services because the Saudi government is tyrranical, or because U.S. tax dollars pay for their training. All of the reasons you give are directly countered by our continued training of Saudi defense forces.
If their job builds personal connections in the Saudi Arabian military, it’s no surprise some of them leverage that into their next job.
Now, if you think these ex-military trainers are reducing KSA’s incentive to work with (buy from) the U.S. military, or if you think they are instilling defense forces with outdated or bad habits, you might have a point…
Depends on what you did, and what rank you retired at. Generally speaking, an E-7 tank/infantry/artillery platoon sergeant, or even an E-8 1st Sergeant of a similar Company, is not going to have the same civilian world job opportunities and an O-6.
You’re not wrong; the vast majority of U.S. Servicemembers do not serve until retirement. Even in the early 90’s, the “cut-off” (the move-up-or-get-out threshold) had become so steep in certain branches (esp. Armor) that even being able to stay in for 20 years, if that was your intention, was doubtful. I saw plenty of Enlisted, NCOs, and Officers being forced out anywhere from the 8-year to 16-year mark because there literally was nowhere for them to go “up” any higher rank-wise.
The tail-to-tooth ratio in the U.S. Military is about 9:1. Most military jobs are supply, logistics, admin, intelligence/counter-intelligence, maintenance, transportation, communications, I.T., etc.; even business admin, communications, and engineering degrees have military applications. By your rationale, I would then also preclude any civilian who took government assistance in students grants and/or loans from any civilian institution for any degree/technical certification from working overseas/abroad for People We Don’t Like Today. After all, I paid for it.
No.
A 30 year timer starts when you start your serve. If you retire before 30 years, you automagically are enrolled in the reserve, and can be called up… until it’s been that 30 years. Then they send the retirement letter, and you can no longer be called to active duty.
There are many many regs which no one is enforcing, unless you piss someone off (look what happened to General Flynn, and even then they didn’t get for the foreign work, they got him by tricking him into lying about it). Broad enforcement would be problematic, IMO.
Seems like a very fine distinction. I was paid by tax dollars, part of which came out of my own paycheck every month. In return, I was trained in a trade, provided housing (and meals when deployed), medical care, tools and clothing. In exchange for all of that, I went where I was told to go, and did what I was told to do. So basically, money from my employer (US taxpayer) to do a job. If that had suddenly been taken away, I would have quit at the first opportunity.