The Pentagon’s relationship with supposedly independent military analysts became even more explicit during the post-9/11 era.

Carpenter points to a major New York Times investigation from 2008 that examined retired military officers appearing on television as “military experts.”

To ordinary viewers, these men appeared to be independent commentators whose military careers gave them special insight into America’s wars.

But the Times investigation found that some were connected to a Pentagon information operation designed to generate favorable coverage of the administration’s wartime performance.

The distinction was enormous.

A retired general appearing on television as an outside expert carries credibility precisely because viewers believe he is speaking independently.

If that same analyst is simultaneously receiving information, guidance or access from the Pentagon, the relationship becomes something very different.

The Times found that some of these analysts were advocating weapons systems favored by military leaders and promoting policy initiatives supported by the Pentagon.

There was also a major financial issue.

According to the investigation, the commentators represented more than 150 military contractors as lobbyists, executives, board members or consultants.

So the audience was not merely hearing from “experts.”

It was potentially hearing from people with deep institutional and financial connections to the policies and weapons programs they were discussing.

Carpenter argues that this history makes today’s influencer controversy look less like a new scandal and more like the latest version of an old system.

@americanmajority