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

ease.

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 a 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 JACKSON. 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.)

APPENDIX

EXHIBIT I

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 great 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 be called a revolution-particularly since it has some internecine characteristics. 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 responsibilities, 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

the phony or slanted economic theory or financial policy advanced in arguments. He must, of course, be adequately prepared to look askance at any exaggerated claims-whether for a weapon or a course of action-even when made in the exalted name of "scientific methods." It might, in such cases, be useful to remember the rather sly question, attributed to some doubting disciples, as to whether scientific methods applied to horse breeding to improve transportation could ever have produced the modern automobile engine. After all, human will, creativeness and talent must be given credit for something by somebody. Furthermore, the military officer should be ready to identify and evaluate the impact of the swings in politico-social emotions and fashions which are so frequently the affliction of our national security and foreign policy. It is these factors which so largely influence us and produce those weird reversals and grotesque lurches that give us a policy often referred to as "crisis oriented" but which can, I think, be more accurately described as the "Yo-yo system"that is, you throw it away one minute and snatch it back the next.

In short, the military career officer must be highly skilled in his own profession, but he cannot afford to become trapped in narrow professionalism. Nor, indeed, can his country permit him to do so.

General Eisenhower-a most distinguished predecessor in the Thayer Award— in his farewell message as President made a statement strangely overlooked by most commentators—who pounced so eagerly on his reference to the dangers of a "military-industrial complex"-yet neglected advice of equal or greater weight. He wisely-and also pointedly-said "in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."

The noted British writer, C. P. Snow, himself an eminent scientist, similarly warned against the danger of a scientific overlord-against a scientist in a position of isolated power.

What is true of the scientist is true of the military expert. It is not the unwarranted power of the scientist or of the military officer or of any other expert that is now cause for our concern. Isolation is what creates the real problemthat is, power insulated from competing skills or the claims of other groups for recognition of possible alternative courses of action. Consequently, if "knowledge is power", as the old axiom tells us, then insulated knowledge fails to meet fully our needs in the making of public policy.

I believe the time has come for a new Thayer-like break-out from the relatively narrow concept of the military profession and rigid doctrines held by my generation into studies of wider scope. In particular, we must develop a faster response to the technological and scientific revolution with its resulting impact on strategy and doctrine. I am convinced that this extension of proper military concern can best be built on the firm foundation of the military sciences and of the discipline and high standards of character based on the great traditions of this magnificent military Academy and those of its sister services. For the virtues nourished here are your priceless inheritance from The Long Gray Line and must remain one of the few unchanging values in a radically changing world. I submit, gentlemen, that only an expanding mind can deal with a world of expanding complexities; and that broadening your horizons will not diminish the value of your special military skills but will, on the contrary, enhance their validity and usefulness in those great Councils of Government where, as servants of the Republic, you will sit as keepers of the faith and guardians of the peace.