Roosevelt president and VP with their panelists, looking stately

Last Thursday was the Roosevelt Institute’s annual policy forum on the topic of the future of the U.S. defense industry. Never one to miss a good panel discussion, we sent defensive defenestrator Julia Goodman to report.

In case you’re unaware, the Roosevelt Institute is a nonpartisan think tank with chapters on college campuses across the nation. The Columbia chapter, among other things, knows how to put together a good panel discussion–they organize at least one forum a year. This year’s focus was the American military-industrial complex, which Eisenhower famously warned against in his 1961 farewell speech before leaving the White House.

The panel was an interesting group of people, and considering that there were only three speakers, the Institute leaders did an impressive job of capturing the diversity of experience within the defense industry. The speakers were Austin Long, a professor and consultant for various defense engineering companies; Ken Nevor, an executive from one such company; and John Schiffer, a GS student who served in the Marines. The dynamic between the three was quite interesting–as the youngest (and lowest-ranking) speaker, Schiffer seemed to carry less respect with the two older panelists, who frequently whispered loudly over him. Nevor, meanwhile, insisted on reading from a prepared sheet of responses. (He initially said this was because he was tired, but then said that he “ha[d] to,” which added to the sense that he was toeing the company line.)

Nevertheless, all had insights to share. Responding to questions about how they view the relationship between the military and private companies, none of the three speakers seemed to have any moral qualms with it. Nevor explained that, from his perspective, Eisenhower was warning against a nation in which the government would spend all of its time and energy on military technology (as Soviet Russia was perceived to be doing at the time) and thus outsourcing such work to private companies is actually in line with what Eisenhower would want. He also pointed out that side the military is “designed and tailored to meet the needs” of the U.S. government, outsourcing work to private companies does not mean the military will suddenly be doing things the government, or taxpayers, wouldn’t be okay with.

Long had a less uniformly positive perspective, saying of private defense contractors, “Sometimes they’re helpful, sometimes they’re not, sometimes they’re just really weird.” To corroborate this statement, he shared the story of the private contractor whose job it was to make all the keys on one base Long worked on. When he needed a new key, Long had to go to the edge of the base to visit this man, known only as “The Keymaster,” and listen to him tell strange stories for a while before eventually getting his key. Schiffer added that because private contractors are nonmilitary personnel, they can technically choose not to work whenever they want, and can’t be ordered to go into the field. He occasionally witnessed significant problems with this, especially when private translators in Afghanistan would refuse to accompany a mission.

These idiosyncrasies in the system seem to be an inherent feature, or at least not something any of the three speakers had an easy solution for. Long, though, pointed out that a lot of good has come out of the government contracting private engineering companies. Two examples he offered are GPS, which, lest we forget, is technically owned by the government, and ARPANET (a Department of Defense-funded project that eventually led to the Internet as we know it). Schiffer, however, suggested that sometimes the military can be too focused on new technology at the expense of its personnel. Rather than train soldiers with new skills, military leaders will often search for technology that makes it easier for a less-trained individual to perform the task. He added that the military is increasingly in need of translators and cultural experts to help with most interactions in other countries. One option is to hire more private experts and try to fix the issues with the way they fit into the military hierarchy. But another suggestion he offered is that the military spend more time training its personnel to be knowledgeable of the culture in the country where they will be stationed, especially in places where interactions can quickly turn violent.

The conversation next turned to PMCs, private military contractors, otherwise known as the security-for-hire services of companies like Blackwater Xe Academi. Long noted that the use of private security dates back to the Crimean War (which, for those of you keeping score, was in the 1860s). Other than a brief note from Long that the military sometimes uses these companies when they don’t have enough soldiers to guard specific assets, all three men were unsurprisingly quiet on the subject. They were less reticent, however, on the subject of foreign military sales (selling weapons and defense technology to other countries). Nevor was all in favor, pointing out that selling our weapons to others allows us to know what they’re doing and how they’re doing it. Schiffer disagreed, expressing worry about what can happen when countries we sell weapons to are no longer our friends (cough–Iran–cough). Long offered perhaps the most nuanced view: he was not concerned about the U.S. taking on its allies-turned-enemies, but rather the situations that can arise when an American-armed government begins using those weapons to abuse its own people (Egypt being a recent example).

Finally, the panelists were asked to speak about the future of the military. All predicted an increased use of drones, which, though controversial, is not unexpected. Schiffer said that since pilots can fly drones from an American base by day and be home with their families at night, most lower-level military personnel consider it a no-brainer. Long cited the government’s biggest future challenge as keeping military influence at a reasonable level. Though pervasive military use of private companies may be a concern, the recent revelations about the NSA suggest that we have other things to worry about as well. Schiffer seconded this, and added that because most upper-level military personnel are no longer on the front lines, they can’t forget to take into account the opinions of those experiencing these issues firsthand. That may be wishful thinking given the power dynamics in the military, but the fact that these three speakers could interact in a respectful manner gives some hope that compromises are possible.