Names on its payroll include George Bush Sr and John Major. Describing itself as a "vast, interlocking, global network of businesses and investment professionals", it operates within the so-called iron triangle of industry, government, and the military.

In your view, how much of an impact do the actions of the Carlyle Group have on US foreign policy? What can we do, as active citizens, to prevent such a situation arising in the future? (Didn't both Gore and Clinton pursue investment banking activities after getting out of office?) Liz Wilp, Chicago

I think you have to look at the Carlyle Group along with all of the other companies with close ties to the administration. Between Carlyle, Halliburton, Bechtel, even Enron from before, you’ve got a very significant force that’s certainly capable of influencing foreign policy decisions. In some cases, that’s warranted, given that the US is looking out for its business interests abroad. But in the case of war, it’s absolutely not. And that’s where it becomes very treacherous territory.

The US has seen swings of power like this before. Remember that George H. W. Bush was enjoying the same kind of political capital that his son now enjoys after the Gulf War in 1991, but was soon unseated by an unknown by the name of William Clinton.

This is not my area of expertise.

This is an important point. Millions of Californians are invested in the Carlyle Group through CalPERS and they have no idea. In turn, in many cases it is the ordinary taxpayer who is lining Carlyle’s coffers, in that much of the money the company makes is through government contracting. Carlyle is thoroughly insinuated into the political and financial workings of not just the US, but the world.

First, I think there needs to be a full-blown congressional investigation of the activities of companies like the Carlyle Group in order to determine their ability to affect government policy. Then some more stringent legislation needs to be put in place, something that goes well beyond the nominal “cooling off period” that is now in place. Then I think it needs to be regulated and enforced. This is not lobbying, it’s a new breed of influence in Washington. And as such, it requires new laws.

Carlyle recently purchased a stake in Qinetiq, the research arm of the Ministry of Defence. Last month they completed a buyout of Fiat’s defence and aerospace division in Italy. And they are currently looking into a buyout of DaimlerChrysler’s aerospace division. They have really stepped up their European presence in the last few years.

I am not aware of anyone, but I’m sure there are some. My book is not the first piece of journalism that is critical of the company.

I certainly think so. There seems to be a growing acceptance over the past ten years of the comingling of politics and business in general. Throw defence into the mix and you have a recipe for disaster. But I think with the Halliburton/Cheney connection and Carlyle now in the news, we might be heading towards some kind of meaningful reform.

A very good question. There has been coverage of Carlyle sporadically over the past ten years, but not with the kind of aggressiveness the topic deserves. Certainly the fact that George H. W. Bush works for a company with such large interests in defence while his son is President and going to war is a bigger story than that of Richard Perle and the Defence Policy Board. It’s not clear to me why it’s not treated as such.

We need to regulate the process better here in the US. The legislation would have to be very delicate, however. On one hand, you don’t want former politicians taking advantage of their influence, connections, and possibly even the policies that they make while they are in office. On the other hand, you want them to be able to matriculate back into the regular citizenry and make a living for themselves. Any piece of legislation would have to be subtle, but firm and unambiguous.

A few too many conspiracy theories cropped up as a result, which is very damaging and tends to undermine the credibility of the real problem here, which is that the US has gotten too accepting of mixing business and politics. I think people were shocked at the extent to which the company stood to gain from the war on terrorism, and that all of the people involved, including Osama bin Ladin’s half-brother Shafiq, were together on the morning of September 11, at Carlyle’s annual investor conference.

That’s a good point. In fact, the criticism of McKinney was bi-partisan, though she had been the subject of many a Republican attack.