- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
This is, on a different level, indicative of the snowballing of militaristic jingoism that came right after 9/11 and hasn't stopped. The reality is that it does not matter that he has ties to defense contractors. People who watch NBC don't care; they probably, for the most part, don't understand precisely what that entails. Nor would they understand that top positions at the Pentagon are occupied by former heads of intel/defense/security contractors, and that former DoD honchos likewise go the opposite route. It's an incestuous little system that's skirted around the public's perception for decades, and thus has become "entrenched" as the article put it. I'm a pessimist by nature, so I don't see any way out of it.
The Pentagon (and likewise NBC) would be hard-pressed to find a high-ranking retired official who hasn't engaged or does not have current ties to contractors, and that would leave them high and dry (which, of course, it should.)
None of that matters to Johnny-NBC-Viewer, who sees those "shiny medals" you talk about and assumes all the things that NBC and the DoD shallowly want him to assume. What he represents -- what this whole case, this whole circumstance represents -- is the chance for a very public debate over the complex to begin.
