Institute for Policy Studies  –  www.ips-dc.orgPolitical Research Associates

Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Edward Aldridge “Pete”


  • Lockheed Martin: Member, Board of Directors
  • Department of Defense: Former Undersecretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

As Donald Rumsfeld's undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics from May 2001 to May 2003, Edward C. "Pete" Aldridge Jr. held the purse strings at the Pentagon, overseeing the Department of Defense's contract decision-making process. Aldridge came from the defense industry before taking over the Pentagon position and promptly returned to his corporate stomping grounds after leaving his post. His decision to become a board member at Lockheed Martin-the Pentagon's largest contractor-caused broad criticism. Seth Morris of the independent nonprofit Project on Government Oversight commented: "[Aldridge] was making some very major decisions dealing with a lot of money for Lockheed and defense companies in general. I don't think he should take a position with any company he had dealings with while in that position" (Washington Post, June 27, 2003). The disapproval did not persuade Aldridge to leave Lockheed.

Not long after, Aldridge again came under fire for another apparent conflict of interest. In January 2004, President George W. Bush selected him to chair the Commission on the Implementation of U.S. Space Exploration Policy, a policy that aimed to complete the International Space Station by 2010, develop and test a new spacecraft by 2008, and "return to the moon by 2020, as a launching point for missions beyond," as Bush put it at the time (NASA, January 14, 2004). Bush described his new commission as a group of "private and public sector experts to advise on implementing the vision that I've outlined today." Aldridge's past work at the Pentagon, coupled with his post at Lockheed Martin, caused Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to call for him to step down: "Aldridge's position on the commission presents a potential conflict because Lockheed could benefit from the space panel's recommendations, McCain said" (Washington Post, January 30, 2004). Once again, the criticism did not cause Aldridge to step down.

Given Aldridge's strong background in and ties to industry, it is perhaps unsurprising that his commission's June 2004 report recommended that " commercialization of space should become a primary focus" for NASA. "We must challenge and rely heavily upon the private sector-major corporations, small business, and entrepreneurs-beyond anything that has ever been attempted in a major government-run program. The government must execute only those activities that are too risky for private sector involvement. The government must change its focus to provide incentives for the commercialization of space, and to create, nurture, and sustain a robust space-based industry," the commission wrote.

"The Commission recommends NASA recognize and implement a far larger presence of private industry in space operations with the specific goal of allowing private industry to assume the primary role of providing services to NASA, and most immediately in accessing low-Earth orbit. In NASA decisions, the preferred choice for operational activities must be competitively-awarded contracts with private and non-profit organizations and NASA's role must be limited to only those areas where there is irrefutable demonstration that only government can perform the proposed activity." Such an evolution at NASA would naturally create massive opportunities for Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and other aerospace contractors, just as McCain predicted.

The senator's early 2004 critique actually stretched back to Aldridge's Pentagon days: "McCain also has criticized Aldridge's decision as Pentagon procurement chief to approve the lease and purchase of Boeing Co. refueling tankers, saying the program was a waste of taxpayer money. E-mails released by Chicago-based Boeing to the Senate Commerce panel show that the company considered Aldridge an ally, McCain said .

"McCain claimed that Aldridge had a 'cozy relationship' with Boeing and now he is concerned that Aldridge's decision-making on the commission might be influenced by his position on Lockheed's board" (Washington Post, January 30, 2004).

Indeed, a 2005 report from the Pentagon's Office of Inspector General regarding a failed deal with Boeing determined that "The Defense Department's weapons-buying chief [Aldridge] and senior air force officials sidestepped regulations in a $23 billion proposal to lease and buy as many as 100 Boeing tankers . The report by the office of the inspector general, Joseph Schmitz, called the decision by Edward Aldridge, the Pentagon's former undersecretary for acquisition, to exempt the Boeing tanker program from specific regulations 'the major failure associated with managing and making decisions on the program'" (International Herald Tribune, June 8, 2005).

Responding to a July 2, 2003 opinion piece by Steven Pearlstein in the Washington Post about Aldridge ("A Revolving Door? So What?"), an irate reader said in a letter to the editor: "Although Pearlstein accurately describes the appointment of recently retired chief Pentagon weapons buyer Pete Aldridge to Lockheed Martin's well-compensated board as 'thoroughly unexceptional,' he is wrong to imply that this doesn't undermine public policy. The revolving door degrades policymaking and promotes cynicism about government. It is troublesome that future employment considerations may influence decisions by government officials who still ostensibly represent taxpayers. For example, in his last days at the Pentagon, Aldridge approved the controversial contracts for Lockheed Martin's F-22 and Boeing's V-22 aircraft. Both programs are severely over budget and continually fail to meet their technical requirements. Insiders report that Aldridge was unimpressed with these programs but approved them anyway. Was he rewarding these companies in order to keep his employment options open?" (Washington Post, July 19, 2003).

Aldridge has also been active in various nongovernmental advocacy groups, including the U.S. Space Foundation, which aims "to vigorously advance and support civil, commercial, and national security space endeavors and educational excellence." The foundation, of which Aldridge is an honorary member and a "life director," is heavily funded by all the major missile defense corporations. The foundation's list of corporate backers include the Aerospace Corporation, Boeing, Booz Allen Hamilton, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and SAIC.

According to his Department of Defense biography, "Mr. Aldridge has a long and distinguished record of achievement. His outstanding work has earned him numerous awards and honors, including the Secretary of Defense Meritorious Civilian Service Award, the Department of Defense Distinguished Civilian Service Award, and the Department of Defense Distinguished Public Service Award, among many others."

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

Please click the following link to bookmark this page:


If the link doesn't appear don't worry, your browser doesn't support this function.

Try pressing 'ctrl + d' on a PC or 'cmd + d' if your using a Mac.

Close
    Affiliations

  • U.S. Space Foundation: Former Director, Honorary Member, "Life Director"
  • Center for Security Policy: Participated in CSP's 2002 Keeper of the Flame award ceremony along with Douglas Feith, Peter Rodman, Dov Zakheim, William Luti, Richard Perle, and James Schlesinger
  • American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics: Former President and Fellow
  • Air Force Association: National Director and Life Member


  • Government Service

  • Department of Defense: Undersecretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, 2001-2003; Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategic Programs, 1974-1976
  • Strategic Arms Limitation Talks in Helsinki and Vienna: Adviser
  • U.S. Air Force: Secretary, 1986-1988; Undersecretary, 1981-1986
  • Office of Management and Budget: Former Senior Management Associate
  • Defense Science Board: Former Member


  • Private Sector

  • Lockheed Martin: Member, Board of Directors
  • Aerospace Corp.: Former CEO, 1992-2001
  • McDonnell Douglas Electronic Systems Co.: President, 1988-1992
  • LTV Aerospace Corp.: Former Senior Manager
  • Systems Planning Corp.: Former Vice President of the National Policy and Strategic Systems Group
  • United Industrial Corp.: Former Member, Board of Directors


  • Education

  • Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University: B.S. in Aeronautical Engineering, 1960
  • Georgia Institute of Technology: M.S. in Aeronautical Engineering


Edward Aldridge “Pete” News Feed

Right Web is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

The Right Web Mission

Right Web tracks militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy.

Sources
Department of Defense, E.C. "Pete" Aldridge Biography, http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/aldridge.html.

Department of Defense News Release, "Edward C. 'Pete' Aldridge to Retire," March 31, 2003.

"President Bush Announces New Vision for Space Exploration Program," NASA Headquarters, January 14, 2004.

Renae Merle, "McCain Calls for Change on Space Panel," Washington Post, January 30, 2004, p. E3.

Michelle Ciarrocca and William D. Hartung, "Axis of Influence," World Policy Institute, July 2002, http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/axisofinfluence.html.

Report of the President's Commission on the Implementation of U.S. Space Exploration Policy, "A Journey to Inspire, Innovate, and Discover," June 2004.

"Lockheed Adds Director Fresh from the Pentagon," Washington Post, July 27, 2003.

Lockheed Martin, Biography: E.C. 'Pete' Aldridge Jr., http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&prfr=false&ci=15600&sc=400&ti=&mm=&dd=&yy=&cpi=&bs=&es=&fti=&rsbci=15600&rsbi=.

Bloomberg News, "U.S. Officials Criticized on Boeing Deal," International Herald Tribune, June 8, 2005.

Space Foundation, Board of Directors, http://www.spacefoundation.org/about/boardofdirectors/board.shtml.

Space Foundation, Corporate Supporters, http://www.spacefoundation.org/about/membership/corporateMembers.shtml.
Latest Feature Articles
Whither the Liberal Hawks?

Jim Lobe | January 31, 2012

Tehran's threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, coupled with mounting threats from hawks in Israel and the United States, has brought the possibility of war sharply into view. But a number of influential members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment—including several prominent liberal interventionists who supported the invasion of Iraq—are warning against further escalation.

Rise of the Vulcans Redux

Peter Certo | December 19, 2011

The purported “end of the neocon consensus” has hardly meant an end to hawkishness in the GOP fold. With the Republican candidates virtually all gunning for Iran, backing right-wing Israeli policies toward the Palestinians, and stabling a passel of neoconservative advisers (Ron Paul excepted), voters have plenty of clues about what the foreign policy of a new GOP administration would look like. And while some of the candidates have expressed wariness with neoconservative notions of armed democracy promotion, all the signs indicate that if a Republican wins next year, we will likely be in for a bit if George W. redux.

Turning the Tide on the “Pro-Israel” Debate

Michael Flynn and Peter Certo | December 13, 2011

With key members of the "Israel Lobby" acknowledging the importance of providing a broader space to Israel’s critics, the indelibly beltway Politico recognizing the influence of such critics in a full-length feature, and core Democratic organizations showing an increasing sensitivity to inappropriate uses of the anti-Semite charge, is the United States finally willing to undertake a real debate on what are the best U.S. interests in the Middle East?

The China Divide and the Future of the GOP

Robert Farley | November 08, 2011

The issue of whither U.S. relations with China is an important test case for observing the divide between the free market and neoconservative wings of the Republican Party. Thus far, the GOP presidential candidates have largely failed to articulate a vision of China that comes anywhere close to reflecting the complexity of U.S.-Chinese relations. Among the leading candidates, Mitt Romney has arguably been the most aggressive in his discussion of China policy. Yet, his embrace of a hawkish line towards Beijing would appear to indicate that President Obama’s would-be challengers have not yet found an alternative vocabulary for talking and thinking about one of the critical foreign policy issues of the 2012 election. It seems clear that even though neoconservatives lack grassroots support, they offer what is effectively the only option for an “establishment” GOP candidate, a fact that could have lasting impact both on the viability of any Republican Party foreign policy platform as well as future U.S. decision-making vis-à-vis other hotspots like Iran, Israel, and North Korea.

Right Web | rightweb.irc-online.org


1112 16th St. NW, Suite 600,
Washington, DC 20036
USA
|
|
202-234-9382

Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

Right Web is a project of the Institute for Policy Studies; www.ips-dc.org