zlacker

>>aspenm+(OP)
This strikes me as very odd. First of all, what's in it for the execs. Surely pay is worse so there must be some insider benefit. Or can they hold both positions? That just screams conflict of interest.

Secondly, why execs instead of people with actual technical skills. Surely military execs are already better prepared at managing military than some tech execs.

Lastly, as a non-U.S. citizen the optics seem horrible to me. Fire generals/people who served "the normal way" and bring in tech execs...that's gotta piss of just about anyone who ever served as a storyline or am I totally off base here?

>>kriro+MB1
Maybe this gives US gov an extra leash on them? Surely the standards of what's approaching treason are different for people in service, so maybe it's just a way to trick execs into getting personally under government control, so they'll not be able to shield behind the whole "free enterprise" / "private business" thing when they want to trade with China or EU against the US Gov preferences?