« AnteriorContinuar »
sponsibility and perhaps the best example is the arrival of Mr. Hitch, supported by Dr. Enthoven whom this committee might like to talk to sometime.
Senator JACKSON. I have talked with him. By the way, he comes from my home area, Seattle, Washington.
Colonel LINCOLN. You will find Dr. Enthoven has some very interesting ideas on the topic that we are here discussing. I think that he would support most of the things that have been said here. This method of placing outside thinkers in positions of authority is one way to do it. This method causes strains, which have been reported in the press. The method, however, at times may be the least worse way to handle the matter.
You, of course, are not often going to get these people full-time and you are not going to keep them very long.
Another way is the consultant or board of consultants. If military leadership wants to use these individuals, the board can be a very powerful
consulting, reporting organization, or very useful in pushing forward ideas, in analyzing proposals, and in requiring that the broader view be taken.
Senator Javits. I would hope that our staff, in preparing what will result from these hearings, would give consideration to the actual state of the utilization of civilian brains by our whole defense establishment, and make comparisons with the NIH in its war on disease and so on.
Other agencies of Government have rather elaborate set-ups for advice of that kind, including the National Security Council let us see if we should make some recommendation for a formalization of a really high-level consultative body to deal with our armed forces, and endeavor to bring the impact of the best national thinking that we have on their problems.
Senator JACKSON. Just as a point, in the area of science we do have a lot of advisory committees made up of extremely competent, professional people. We have the Science Advisory Committee to the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Army, as well as one in the Defense Department. The Armed Services have many ad hoc groups that are brought in from time to time—there is a long list of such committees and groups. But we will check on that.
Senator Javits. I think it is well worth looking into, as well as the contract arrangements with universities and so on.
Senator Jackson. There is of course the Rand Corporation, and similar groups.
Senator JAVITS. I think that there is some remarkably good thinking in the country. I have always worried about whether in this indispensable, critical area, we were really delivering to the point of contact everything that we have available back in the zone of the interior.
Colonel LINCOLN. Could I make another comment to this, sir! I think a most desirable way for the introduction of this resource comes through easy interplay between military people and the minds that we are speaking about here.
That comes about as the individuals know each other, or the categories know each other. Now, the officer who has been personally acquainted with this type of individual, maybe not the specific in
dividual, but this type of individual, is not reluctant to ring him up on the telephone and say, "What do you think”, or if the Congress, in its wisdom, has provided the funds, call him up and say, "How about coming down to Washington for three days and working on this problem with us."
I have worked in this way. I can cite individuals who have done this a great deal. One was General Norstad. He made a practice of calling on the best civilian minds on problems for which he was responsible
Another such individual was General Gavin, when he was a staff officer in the Pentagon. This way of operation is a very desirable way of operation, but it presumes, again, that the two-way street is open.
Now, I will go on and say that with the increasing number of officers coming to top-level positions, who have had graduate school, they tend to take the type of action that I am talking about with greater
Senator Javits. You have put your finger exactly on what I have in mind, because what you have just described is the traditional practice, and it is not satisfactory because it gives the military people the final say as to what goes into the process and what doesn't. It does not get the benefit of what we have here, which is debate. If you fellows might not like some of the thinking that these fellows you call up give you—then you can reject it, and as a matter of fact, the man who is giving you the thinking knows you can reject it and it may never be heard of again.
I don't think that that is right. I think that you ought to have to justify in the national domain on some major question your attitude as against the best civilian thinking attitude. It shouldn't be confined to the officials of the Defense Department.
For example, I am a Senator and I have to vote on whether to continue to spend billions of dollars on manned bombers. Now, Barry Goldwater tells me that the missiles are unreliable and that we need a lot of manned bombers. He is a patriotic American. A lot of other people tell me, including the Secretary of Defense, that that is all wet and we had better spend our billions on missiles, and that the manned bomber on the whole is already obsolescent and why waste your time and money on that.
Now, I don't know who is right. I rather suspect the missile fellows are right, but that is only my instinct, because I am inclined to look ahead instead of backward. But I only mention that although it may not be germane, as a kind of a problem which should be cast in the national debate with both sides having equally substantial and reputable backing-if there are two sides. If there aren't, so much the better, then we would stop wasting our time about a debate which isn't a debate. I only give you that as an example because you point up exactly what I hope the staff will look into.
Sure, there is this cross-reference of ideas, and communications, and there always was, and there is more now because as you say, more officers have graduate degrees and feel at home in the intellectual community and that is great. Nobody could be more pleased than I at that development but I don't think that that is entirely the point. I think that the point is that the whole enterprise is now so big, and so
vital, and so much beyond the strictly military equation that I think we really need to have some better way than we have of bringing to bear the whole weight of the national capacity for thinking, if possible and it may not be possible to do this, you know—without hurting morale. But I would hope our staff would have a look at it. I think your testimony on that has been tremendously helpful.
Colonel LINCOLN. I think, sir, that I failed to communicate completely. First, I recognize your problem, but there is a second point to what I have been talking about. That is, that this consultation can and should happen at any level. The specific problem that you raise is a White House level problem in the end, rather than the sort of problem I was thinking about, for example, that of a colonel heading à staff division who has to send an officer out to Rwanda-and wants to know what language they speak there. Maybe G-2 can tell him. Perhaps he would like to chat with a professor of Columbia who has been there.
Senator JAVITS. Thank you very much.
Senator JACKSON. On behalf of the Committee, as you can gather from the questions and comments, we are extremely appreciative of your fine statement and the responses that you have given to the many questions.
I know that you have made a very valuable contribution.
Colonel LINCOLN. I feel very privileged and complimented to be asked to appear before the Committee.
Senator JACKBON. We will hold this hearing record open for a number of items which are being submitted at our request as additions to the testimony. Also, in connection with issues touched on today, we are requesting from present and former government officials certain memoranda which will not be available in the immediate future. I suggest that when we receive these papers they be printed as a sequel to this hearing. The subcommittee will now be in recess.
(Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.)
ADDRESS BY THE HONORABLE ROBERT A. LOVETT, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, AT UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY, WEST POINT, N.Y., MAY 2, 1964, UPON THE RECEIPT OF THE SYLVANUS THAYER AWARD
General Lampert, General Groves, Graduates of West Point, gentlemen of the Corps of Cadets, ladies and gentlemen :
Few events in my life have given me as great pleasure and certainly none is more deeply appreciated than the Award of the Sylvanus Thayer Medal. I thank you most sincerely for it. I am keenly aware of the honor thus done me by the Association of Graduates. I am most grateful to all of you for your generous thought of me, and I am profoundly touched by today's events and your heartwarming courtesies.
I must confess my enjoyment is heightened by knowing the honor comes from a group with whom I have been closely associated in my several periods of government service. My first experience with West Point graduates occurred some 47 years ago in France in World War I. Since then I have observed graduates of this Academy as they met the crucial tests of three wars. I have seen them in battle, worked with them in the field and at the conference table, and I have sat with them as participants in the councils of peace. Against such a background, measurements can be made with some assurance, and I must say to you that I have never met a group of men more dedicated to the service of their country, more dependable and faithful to their trust, or more competent and capable of discharging the responsibilities vested in them. And to these characteristics, I must add generosity of spirit—a quality of which I am the fortunate beneficiary today as I have been in other circumstances in the past.
In three tours of duty in Washington, I came to know many of these fine officers in a manner made possible only by shared problems and frustrations, heavy responsibilities and endless hours of working together. I acquired for the code and discipline which molded them a feeling of esteem and respect and, for the men themselves, a trust and friendship for which I will be grateful until the day I die. For these very personal reasons I am especially moved by today's ceremonies.
In this center of military education which, under Sylvanus Thayer, became the fountainhead of American technology, I would like to take note of the increasing tempo of the revolution now taking place in military professionalism and, with your indulgence, make a few observations on it.
I will be as brief as possible, partly because I recognize that boring you excessively would be a poor return for your kindnesses to me; and partly because every time I get ready to sound off about something, a few lines of a light-hearted prayer by an unknown author pop into my head. The prayer is entitled, with chilling aptness, "Prayer for those growing old;" and the lines are "Keep me from the fatal habit of thinking I must say something on every subject. Release me from craving to straighten out everyone's affairs. With my vast store of wisdom and experience, it seems a pity not to use it all, but thou knowest, Lord, that I want a few friends at the end."
I have been trying for years to think of some nice and uncritical things to say about growing older. I can only think of three: First, is the judgment attributed to Maurice Chevalier who, when asked on his seventieth birthday, how it felt to be that old, replied with Gallic realism, “it is better than the alternative." Secondly, and seriously, there is the advantage of seeing matters in better perspective. Many things a younger generation takes for granted actually represent major achievements frequently running contrary to previously accepted doctrine. For example, it seemed unlikely that an army could be ready at one and the same time for nuclear war, as well as conventional war of all types-yet, this is ex
actly what Army units are being trained for. I would have predicted that the lengthy assignment of U.S. troops to stations in foreign countries would create more problems than it would resolve and I would have been wrong. I compare your current curriculum with mine in college and wonder whether I ever would have graduated in these days. In short, the sense of values grows more acute with time, and I conclude from a clearer perspective, that the current achieve ments of the Army and of yours should be a matter of pride to everyone-and not taken for granted.
And thirdly, with the accumulation of experience over the years, it is easier both to identify and to evaluate change. The thoughtless person is apt automatically to identify change with progress. Yet, we all know that what is new or different is not always for the better. Change and relatively rapid change at that-is inevitable. Since it is the first law of nature, we must reckon with it but in doing so it is essential that we see not only the gains to be made but also the price to be paid. If we do that, we frequently reduce the price by preserving more of the things that are worth preserving. High among the latter, I put the grent traditions of West Point. And I include in the list, mutual confidence and respect between civilian officials and military officers which have proved to be essential to real progress under our system of government.
The military profession is currently experiencing so rapid a change it can fairly he called a revolution-particularly since it has some internecine char. acteristics. Some unsung modern Thayers have seen the wider horizons which must now concern the professional military officer with the result that the Army curriculum already reflects increased emphasis on non-military areas of study and on post-graduate work. This is, of course, a response to the dilemma which confronts all professional men; namely, that there is "much too much they need to know and too little time in which to learn it." Dr. Vannevar Bush, of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says "the doctor, the architect, or the chemist cannot possibly know all he needs to know for his professional work. Hence, he needs to know how he can find out. More important, he needs to be able-genuinely, honestly, and generously—to collaborate with those who know inore than he on diverse aspects of problems as they arise."
In the difficult professional career on which you have already embarked, you will never be finished with learning. Indeed, it seems clear that demands on you in the future will be more varied, responsibilities heavier and the need for breadth of training and experience greater because decision-making today involves the use of a wider diversity of special skills and knowledge than ever before. Much of the decision-making is in fields where there is no tested, actual experience. Much of it is a question of assessing economic, social, political and ideological considerations.
In the Cold War, the devising of proper action depends on the contribution of many types of experts—not just one. The military professional is a most important contributor to the discussions of our problems for a reason not always recognized by the government and the public he serves. The professional career officer, owing to his skills and his commitments, accepts a higher degree of responsibility than other citizens and voluntarily gives up certain of the privileges of a private citizen. You serve in an ancient profession with special disciplines because, as Lieutenant General Sir John Hackett has said, "the function of the profession of arms is the ordered application of force to the resolution of a social problem."
This fact places you in a unique category of public servants and in a most select rank of profession. Because of the nature of your duties and responsibili. ties, you are, in effect, trustees and custodians of the armed power of the American people. You are, therefore, in a fiduciary relationship by reason of having this awesome power entrusted to you. No greater evidence of confidence and faith could be reposed in you. No greater compliment could be paid you.
Military advice is only one although, on occasion, the most necessary—type of guidance needed today and the decision-making process involves a system of checks and balances in the Executive Branch deliberately designed to keep any one economic or social group or any one governmental department from becoming dominant. Therefore, every judgment made at the decisive level requires a weighing of several often conflicting and competing factors.
For these reasons, the ability of the military expert to give wise advice and to get it listened to by policy-making officials depends in great measure on his possessing knowledge in key nonmilitary fields and in seeing issues in broad perspective. For example, the military expert should be able to spot instantly