Washington Babylon — August 14, 2007, 10:09 am

Confessions of a Defense Junketeer

Yesterday I posted an item regarding writer David Axe’s reflections on the Pentagon’s blogger outreach program. I’ll follow up today with his observations about a recent Boeing-sponsored junket for journalists, which was designed to promote the company’s KC-767 tanker. As Axe recently explained on his personal website, that plane is

squaring off against the Northrop Grumman KC-30 for a $40-billion contract to provide 180 planes to the Air Force to begin replacing its 50-year-old KC-135 Stratotankers. The Air Force calls the contest KC-X, and it is their number one weapons-buying priority at a time when money is seriously short.

Traditionally it was a fairly small circle of defense insiders and key figures in Congress who influenced how federal military contracts were awarded. But in recent years competition for big contracts has grown more heated and that circle has widened. Now, many more members of Congress are part of the process, and today defense contractors routinely run media campaigns in order to influence lawmakers and the general public. (Hence those full-page ads for various weapons programs that are regularly placed in Capitol Hill publications like The Hill and Roll Call.)

There is fierce competition between Boeing and Northrop on the tanker bid. Northrop has partnered with EADS, a European corporation formed in 2000 from the merger of French, German, and Spanish aerospace firms, and for Boeing, the stakes are particularly high. The company’s civilian business is strong but its defense business is on shaky ground. “Six years ago Boeing almost scored a non-competitive $20-billion lease deal for tankers, but an ethics scandal derailed the plan,” Axe has noted on his blog. “It turned out that a key Air Force procurement official, Darlene Druyun, had been offered a job in exchange for setting up an unnecessarily expensive lease.”

It was within this context that Boeing–which Axe said spends $2 million annually on its KC-767 media campaign–flew a group of about a dozen defense reporters to Everett, Washington, where the company has a factory. In addition to Defense Technology International, for which Axe writes, reporters from The Hill, Reuters, NPR, Inside the Air Force, the Weekly Standard, and other media outlets were represented.

Boeing flew the journalists to Washington state on a business jet of the type typically used by corporate CEOs. The jet was equipped with a DVD player, showers, and a queen-sized bed, where, Axe told me, Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard took a nap. Boeing refused to accept payment for the plane ride, but suggested that media outlets could, if they liked, contribute an amount equal to the cost of the flight to charity. Axe says NPR took that step, but he did not know if any other outlets did.

Upon their arrival, the journalists were whisked off to a backyard gathering at the lakeside home of Mary Foerster, Boeing’s vice president of communications. Axe said the food–grilled salmon, fried chicken, and corn bread–was first-rate and there was a generous open bar as well. A number of Boeing officials were on hand, but attention was mostly focused on food and drink. “There didn’t,” Axe told me, “appear to be much journalism taking place.”

Afterwards the media crew was driven to a hotel, where Boeing had arranged a special corporate rate of about $100 per night. The next day all were brought to Boeing’s plant for a guided tour, which included a rally by employees in support of the company’s tanker bid. Boeing managers were on hand, but they were surrounded by local TV crews that had also been invited by Boeing and thus could not take many questions. Members of the Washington state congressional delegation were also at the plant, and were briefly made available for interviews.

Then it was time to fly home on the Boeing jet, with a meal of beef cutlet and potatoes and chocolate cake for dessert. “The whole thing had a buddy-buddy atmosphere,” Axe said. “There was a sheer shamelessness to the whole thing and I willingly participated.”

Incidentally, it’s not clear what Goldfarb was doing on the trip (besides napping), as he long ago made his decision clear regarding the tanker matter. “Airbus is a European company, and worse, it’s closely connected to the French government,” Goldfarb wrote earlier this year. “[T]he folks in Congress can find a way to award the contract to Boeing without the appearance of any impropriety. But how could they explain sending our tax dollars to France?” Truly, this is a man who knows the taste of freedom fries.

Being invited on junkets of this sort is fairly common for defense trade reporters, who often are sympathetic to the industry’s perspective. Last year, soon after joining Defense Tech International (part of the Aviation Week family of publications), Axe was invited on a tour to “learn” about Deepwater, a Coast Guard program jointly managed by Lockheed Martin and Northrop. In essence, those two firms were hired to tell the Coast Guard how to modernize, what to buy, and where to buy it.

Not surprisingly, Lockheed and Northrop ended up providing much off the necessary “modernization” equipment. As a result, Deepwater has been a costly boondoggle. For example, Deepwater recommended that the Coast Guard stretch the hulls of its patrol boats from 110 feet to 123 feet, work that Northrop was picked to perform. But the first time the patrol boats were deployed the hulls buckled. Meanwhile, Deepwater awarded Lockheed a contract to build the electronics for the patrol boats. As the hull fiasco was unfolding, a Lockheed whistleblower named Michael DeKort stepped forward to reveal that the electronics gear the company was providing was riddled with flaws. All of this led to congressional hearings, Inspector General reports, and a Coast Guard decision to scrap Deepwater.

Axe went on the junket before the scope of the disaster was apparent, and before the companies and the Coast Guard had parted ways. He toured a Lockheed plant in New Jersey and while the frills weren’t as lavish as those on the recent Boeing junket, the same buddy-buddy atmosphere prevailed. Later, Axe spoke with Coast Guard officials (who also provided him with an exciting helicopter ride) to get what he thought at the time was the “other side” of the story. “It’s hard to write truthful defense trade stories because the company and government sources are in bed together,” Axe says. “The end result [of the New Jersey junket] was that I wrote the worst story of my life.”

Which leads back to Boeing’s tanker junket. Boeing, Axe said, might not have convinced everyone who went on the trip that it should win the contract. But it did perpetuate the idea that there are only two options: Boeing or Northrop. As Axe explains, there’s a third choice.

“All the Air Force is doing,” he said, “is buying a slightly better version of the current vehicle. But the supposed need to buy new tankers now is not well documented. There hasn’t been a tanker crash for decades and the current planes have a 90 percent reliability rate, which is good for a military plane. Maybe we don’t need to make a decision now. In ten years, robotic tankers will be a real possibility–the technology is already there.”

“Boeing is probably going to win the tanker competition,” said Axe. “All that accomplishes is that the Air Force will be feeding it money for the next few decades.”


David Axe on the Boeing junket: [Part 1] [Part 2]

War is Boring, the blog of David Axe

Share
Single Page

More from Ken Silverstein:

Commentary November 17, 2015, 6:41 pm

Shaky Foundations

The Clintons’ so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends.

From the November 2013 issue

Dirty South

The foul legacy of Louisiana oil

Perspective October 23, 2013, 8:00 am

On Brining and Dining

How pro-oil Louisiana politicians have shaped American environmental policy

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

February 2018

The Minds of Others

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Modern Despots

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Before the Deluge

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Notes to Self

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Within Reach

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Bodies in The Forest

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
The Minds of Others·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Progress is impossible without change,” George Bernard Shaw wrote in 1944, “and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” But progress through persuasion has never seemed harder to achieve. Political segregation has made many Americans inaccessible, even unimaginable, to those on the other side of the partisan divide. On the rare occasions when we do come face-to-face, it is not clear what we could say to change each other’s minds or reach a worthwhile compromise. Psychological research has shown that humans often fail to process facts that conflict with our preexisting worldviews. The stakes are simply too high: our self-worth and identity are entangled with our beliefs — and with those who share them. The weakness of logic as a tool of persuasion, combined with the urgency of the political moment, can be paralyzing.

Yet we know that people do change their minds. We are constantly molded by our environment and our culture, by the events of the world, by the gossip we hear and the books we read. In the essays that follow, seven writers explore the ways that persuasion operates in our lives, from the intimate to the far-reaching. Some consider the ethics and mechanics of persuasion itself — in religion, politics, and foreign policy — and others turn their attention to the channels through which it acts, such as music, protest, and technology. How, they ask, can we persuade others to join our cause or see things the way we do? And when it comes to our own openness to change, how do we decide when to compromise and when to resist?

Illustration (detail) by Lincoln Agnew
Article
Within Reach·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

On a balmy day last spring, Connor Chase sat on a red couch in the waiting room of a medical clinic in Columbus, Ohio, and watched the traffic on the street. His bleached-blond hair fell into his eyes as he scrolled through his phone to distract himself. Waiting to see Mimi Rivard, a nurse practitioner, was making Chase nervous: it would be the first time he would tell a medical professional that he was transgender.

By the time he arrived at the Equitas Health clinic, Chase was eighteen, and had long since come to dread doctors and hospitals. As a child, he’d had asthma, migraines, two surgeries for a tumor that had caused deafness in one ear, and gangrene from an infected bug bite. Doctors had always assumed he was a girl. After puberty, Chase said, he avoided looking in the mirror because his chest and hips “didn’t feel like my body.” He liked it when strangers saw him as male, but his voice was high-pitched, so he rarely spoke in public. Then, when Chase was fourteen, he watched a video on YouTube in which a twentysomething trans man described taking testosterone to lower his voice and appear more masculine. Suddenly, Chase had an explanation for how he felt — and what he wanted.

Illustration by Taylor Callery
Article
Before the Deluge·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In the summer of 2016, when Congress installed a financial control board to address Puerto Rico’s crippling debt, I traveled to San Juan, the capital. The island owed some $120 billion, and Wall Street was demanding action. On the news, President Obama announced his appointments to the Junta de Supervisión y Administración Financiera. “The task ahead for Puerto Rico is not an easy one,” he said. “But I am confident Puerto Rico is up to the challenge of stabilizing the fiscal situation, restoring growth, and building a better future for all Puerto Ricans.” Among locals, however, the control board was widely viewed as a transparent effort to satisfy mainland creditors — just the latest tool of colonialist plundering that went back generations.

Photograph from Puerto Rico by Christopher Gregory
Article
Monumental Error·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In 1899, the art critic Layton Crippen complained in the New York Times that private donors and committees had been permitted to run amok, erecting all across the city a large number of “painfully ugly monuments.” The very worst statues had been dumped in Central Park. “The sculptures go as far toward spoiling the Park as it is possible to spoil it,” he wrote. Even worse, he lamented, no organization had “power of removal” to correct the damage that was being done.

Illustration by Steve Brodner
Post
CamperForce·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

After losing their savings in the stock market crash of 2008, seniors Barb and Chuck find seasonal employment at Amazon fulfillment centers.

Amount Arizona’s Red Feather Lodge offered to pay to reopen the Grand Canyon during the 2013 government shutdown:

$25,000

A Brazilian cat gave birth to a dog.

Trump’s former chief strategist, whom Trump said had “lost his mind,” issued a statement saying that Trump’s son did not commit treason; the US ambassador to the United Nations announced that “no one questions” Trump’s mental stability; and the director of the CIA said that Trump, who requested “killer graphics” in his intelligence briefings, is able to read.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today