Chances are good these US ex-military are not loyal to Saudi Arabia. They're only doing it for the money, not fanatical idealisms. We have the Logan Act and Espionage Act to protect us, and we benefit from these activities through income taxes.
Not all laws.[1]
> Legal acts do about as much to deter desertion and security leaks as speed limit signs keep people from speeding.
Seems to be working well so far.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gr...
Incidence matters. If intentional classified information leaks were commonplace and unsurprising, then sure, we could say we expect retired military officers to routinely follow the example of Trump, Snowden, and Assange when it comes to classified information. But I don't think any of us can make that claim.
Intentional classified information leakage is relatively uncommon, and, for the most part, is punished when it happens and a perpetrator can be identified and caught. Obviously in the case of Trump, that potential punishment is politically fraught, as was/is the case with Assange. The US government would love to punish Snowden if they could get their grubby hands on him. I guess look to Chelsea Manning if you want an example of when the government has successfully brought down the hammer on someone doing things with classified material that they didn't like.
To bring it back to the topic at hand, I expect that the retired military officers now taking employment with the Saudi Arabian military will most likely protect any secrets they're legally bound to protect. Why? Because that's what seems to happen most of the time, and punishments for failure to do so can get pretty severe. And someone who wanted to sell secrets might have a difficult time if their chosen country of exile is SA. If found out, they'd have to contend with the strong possibility that the SA government would extradite them to the US, depending on what kind of pressure the US might bring to bear.
> That's an awfully bold statement.
Worse, it is entirely false on its face because it not only completely ignores enforcement as well as social contract, the purpose of law is not "to keep honest people honest," nor is law "paper veneer." Laws are rules to regulate behavior, and as such fundamentally they are ideas, therefore they are intangible and only recorded to medium like paper, digital storage, stone tablets, what have you.
This was (still is?) a classic of French influence in Africa, for instance.
Here my interpretation is that the US keep a close watch on the Saudis...
In this case, the US and the Saudis have been 'tight' for 70 years so one can imagine it is all very friendly...
> do things against the wishes of the Pentagon
I'm betting that the Pentagon prefers their retired senior staff don't whore themselves out to potential adversaries. But unless and until they cross a formal line, what are you gonna do? If the Pentagon comes across as punitive, e.g. by revoking any latent security clearances, there'll be a huge backlash. This form of consulting and liaising with international groups by retired military is nothing new, and there are legions of retired staff leveraging their status one way or another. It's a perk of the job. It's also not new that it can sometimes be rather unseemly, to say the least. What might be new is the amount of money being thrown around.
These relationships are quite valuable because while it may not seem that way in our social media bubbles and among our international cosmopolitan peers, the day-to-day cultures and administrative machinations of various governments and militaries can be extremely opaque simply because of the huge differences in presumptions and expectations. And this is true even among allies with seemingly similar cultures, which is why even a country like the U.S. with veritable armies of intelligence analysts do ridiculous *hit like bug Angela Merkel's cellphone. Retired personnel don't need to divulge secrets to provide extremely valuable and timely insights, especially as between countries like the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.
Just the opposite, it's those ties and connections that the Saudi's are buying.
I’m not saying that there’s going to be a bunch of treasoning or anything, just that the laws you’re citing wouldn’t be particularly useful if said treasoning did happen.
I wouldn't be so sure. SA depends on the US for a significant amount of military equipment and training. They might turn over a US traitor if they got even a whiff of that help being threatened.