Red:
I may be among them because my understanding is that (1) sitting USIC people, particularly the top level principals, need former holders of those positions to have clearances so that their predecessors' experience and insights can be plumbed and (2) the nation loses neither continuity nor institutional knowledge.
To wit, the last "deliverable" I completed prior to fully retiring from my comparatively insignificant final position as a senior principal in a management consultancy called for me to compose a career spanning (both before and after my firm was acquired by the one from which I retired) "brain dump" of lessons learned -- what worked, what didn't, and, in each case, why and why not -- thoughts about key client contacts, impressions about up-and-comers in the firm, and more.
Hell, even after completing my retirement process, I get a call or three a week asking for input about "this or that." "Can you go into a bit more detail about the culture at XYZ firm?" "I'm finding it tough to develop and ideal rapport with "Mary" at "XYZ. Would you have a few minutes to talk about her style and what things I might try to improve upon the relationship?" Quite simply, try as one might, there's no way one's going to recall and record every nuance of context that may be pertinent, but an in-person interaction jogs all manners of memories.
Just as such is so in my professional realm -- managing and implementing change -- it is so too in the intelligence arena. That it is is why former leadership-level officials in the intel community retain their clearances. The "formers" have left; they don't need to have clearances. The folks who follow them need them to have clearances because without them, the successors can't discuss certain matters, or elements of certain matters, with them. It's for their successors' benefit not their own.
...But that's my comprehension of the matter. What is the nature of the matter that you presume many folks don't understand?
