MAJORITY REPORT-MILITARY COLD WAR EDUCATION AND SPEECH REVIEW POLICIES

I. INTRODUCTION

This subcommittee was appointed as a result of a resolution adopted by the Senate Committee on Armed Services on September 20, 1961, which provided that a subcommittee, to be appointed or designated by the chairman of the full committee, should "be authorized and directed to study and appraise the use of military personnel and facilities to arouse the public to the menace of the cold war and to inform and educate armed services personnel on the nature and menace of the cold war."

On September 21, 1961, Senator Richard B. Russell, the chairman. of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, announced the appointment of the special subcommittee with Senator John Stennis, as chairman, and Senators Stuart Symington, Henry M. Jackson, Strom Thurmond, E. L. Bartlett, Styles Bridges, Leverett Saltonstall, and Margaret Chase Smith as the other members. After the death of our esteemed and respected colleague, Senator Bridges, Senator Francis Case was appointed to fill the resulting vacancy on the subcommittee. Senator Case himself passed away after the completion of the hearings and prior to the preparation of this report.

At the outset of the investigation, it was decided to subdivide the subject matter of the inquiry into three major phases, these being:

1. A study of the practices and procedures relating to the policy review or censorship of public speeches of military personnel for the purpose of determining whether they are established and administered properly and whether there have been abuses or improper practices in the administration thereof.

2. An examination of the military troop information and education program to determine the effectiveness of the existing program, the scope of the desired program, and the question of what can and should be done to strengthen the program and make it more effective.

3. A study of the proper role of military personnel in informing, educating, and alerting the civilian population as to the menace of the cold war, including the participation by the military in cold war or anti-Communist seminars and the military external information program in general.

In addition to the specific matters listed above, the very nature of the assigned jurisdiction of the subcommittee necessitated a consideration of the nature of the Communist threat, the fundamental question of the proper and appropriate role of military personnel in modern day government, and the broad field of civil-military relations.

The staff of the special subcommittee, which consisted of the staff of the regular Preparedness Investigating Subcommittee plus sub

1

stantial augmentation for the purposes of the special inquiry, spent approximately 4 months before the commencement of the hearings in making an exhaustive investigation and study of all relevant aspects of the subjects involved. Hundreds of witnesses were interviewed and several filing cases of documents and other written materials were collected, researched, and analyzed. Investigative field trips, with more than 50 military installations being visited, ranged from coast to coast.

In the discharge of its duties the subcommittee held hearings on 36 days and the printed transcript totals 3,347 pages. Sixty-seven witnesses testified in person before the subcommittee and, in addition, 29 written statements were filed and inserted in the record. A list of the witnesses, in alphabetical order, is attached hereto as Appendix A and a list of the statements placed in the record in chronological order is attached as Appendix B. With one very minor exception all hearings were open to the public.

This report is based upon the sworn testimony given at the hearings, the written statements inserted in the record, the official documents in the files of the subcommittee, and other data and material developed and accumulated by the staff.

In many of its phases, this investigation dealt, not only with facts, figures, and other tangibles, but also with conflicting personal creeds and philosophies, with differing convictions, ideologies, and issues, and, perhaps all too often, with unadorned and unsupported personal opinion. The deep, fundamental, and heated emotions, issues, and ideologies which were always in the background of the inquiry are, it is clear, symptomatic of the difficult times in which we live.

The subcommittee has made no effort to resolve or pass upon all of these basic conflicts and issues. Such an effort would have been both impossible and far beyond the subcommittee's jurisdiction.

This report will not contain a detailed analysis of the voluminous evidence in the record. Any attempt to do so would extend the report to impossible lengths. The report will focus upon those considerations and issues which are of major and substantial importance within the subcommittee's jurisdiction as outlined in the authorizing resolution.

Throughout this inquiry we have kept in mind constantly the fundamental proposition that the primary and basic purpose of our military services is to be prepared for war and to fight and win if war should come. The Military Establishment exists only to enforce our national policy. Other considerations must be considered in the light of the importance of their contribution to the attainment of the primary goal.

II. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

The subcommittee deems it appropriate to commence its report with a summary of its major conclusions and recommendations which are discussed at some length later in the report. These follow:

(A) Civil-Military Relations

CONCLUSIONS

1. One of the truly great bulwarks of our system of government is the principle of civilian control of the military through the executive branch of the Government of which the military is a part. This is clearly established by the Constitution which provides that the Chief Executive Officer of the Government, the President, "shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." There is no ambiguity in this provision and, in keeping with our traditions, it has been consistently adhered to as being essential to our form of government. The best traditions of the military uphold this principle and the military profession has adhered to it, in letter and in spirit, almost unanimously.

2. The importance of civilian control should be kept constantly before the people since danger can arise if it is neglected. We have only to look at France, Argentina, Peru, and the Communist bloc countries to see the difficulties which arise when the military attains or threatens to attain a dominant position.

3. The role of professional military men in matters of military competence should be honored and respected, not debased or downgraded. Within the proper channels, their advice must be freely sought and given in the course of the decisionmaking process on such

matters.

4. Although war, if it comes, can be conducted successfully only by professionals in that art, and, therefore, strategy and tactics should not come under the control of amateurs, once a decision has been made by the properly constituted authorities, the military has the obligation to support it loyally and without public dissent.

5. In the field of civil-military relations, we must rely to a large extent upon the professional pride, loyalty, dedication, self-discipline, and self-restraint of our military people. The military profession can well point with pride to their high standards in this field.

6. The traditional concept of noninvolvement in partisan politics by the military must be rigidly adhered to. This involves two propositions: (1) Military personnel must not engage or participate in politics, and (2) political considerations should not control or affect military assignments or appointments.

7. No legitimate question of "free speech" is involved here. A man in uniform necessarily accepts some abridgement of his right of free speech and in the great majority of cases duty, loyalty, and professional standards will impose their own limits even if self-restraint and good taste do not.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the traditional principle of military subordination to civil authority be given unwavering adherence and that it not be weakened in any particular.

2. That, within proper channels, freedom of expression and even dissent by military men during the decisionmaking process on matters of military competence be both countenanced and encouraged.

3. That we continue to place strong reliance upon the dedication, skill, and competence of career military officers and upon their loyalty, judgment, self-restraint, and self-imposed standards of proper conduct.

4. That, to avoid problems in the field of civil-military relations while at the same time maintaining inviolate the principle of civilian supremacy, alertness, clear thinking, mutual understanding and cooperation is required of the Congress, the executive department and the military.

(B) Review and Clearance of Military Speeches

CONCLUSIONS

1. The executive branch of Government has the inherent power to require that military officers submit public statements for policy review prior to delivery.

2. A responsible and properly administered review system is necessary and desirable in the best interests of the Nation.

3. A system of prior review is helpful to the military since not even the best informed officer can be aware of the many facets of everchanging international affairs.

4. If foreign policy is to have force and weight with our friends and our enemies our responsible officials must speak in unison.

5. Adherence to established national and foreign policy can be assured only by a system of prior policy review since even a well intentioned official can inadvertently or unknowingly make a public statement which might result in substantial harm.

6. The major problems in the review process have arisen in the field of actual operation and administration.

7. In many respects the actual operation of the review system has been inadequate and has left much to be desired. Many of the changes defy logical explanation. There is evidence of inconsistency, caprice, personal judgment, and even irresponsibility.

8. Too often speeches of even high level officers were reviewed routinely by a relatively low-ranking military or civilian official. 9. In many cases policy was not clearly enunciated, specifically identified, or widely disseminated.

10. There is no essential difference in the review process between the present administration and its predecessors.

11. There was little liaison between the Defense Department reviewers and their counterparts in the State Department until recent months and a mutual understanding of what is essentially a common. problem was lacking.

12. Notwithstanding the inadequacies in the review system all military witnesses who testified on the point agreed that the changes and deletions did not keep them from getting their messages across.

13. Harsh and vigorous statements about communism and strong statements about our own military strength were not invariably deleted from military speeches.

14. The prior review by the Department of State of statements of military officials for delivery to the Congress in executive session is highly objectionable. However, witnesses representing the Defense Establishment should clearly set forth the policy of the ad

ministration concerning the subject matter of their testimony. Conversely, the Department of Defense should not censor or change those portions of such statements which represent and are identified as personal judgment, opinion and conviction. The Congress, in the discharge of its constitutional functions, is entitled to a free and unrestricted flow of information.

15. In order to nurture and stimulate professional thought and to encourage free and unrestricted discussion of professional topics, a heavy handed or rigid review or censorship of professional, technical, and scientific articles appearing in professional journals is neither justified nor desirable.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the prior review system be continued but that reviewers be instructed that changes and deletions, whether suggested or mandatory, be limited to those which are essential and that mandatory changes, in particular, be confined to those required by major policy considerations.

2. That the policy review of military speeches, particularly those of high level officers, be performed at the highest, most experienced, and most qualified level possible, and be assigned the highest possible order of priority.

3. That senior officials be assigned to the speech review and clearance process and that consideration be given to the establishment of a top level review board to consider promptly appeals or reclamas from the action of a reviewer.

4. That every effort be made to provide for the prompt and expeditious review of speeches and for the disposition of appeals from the reviewers' decisions.

5. That, for the guidance of persons preparing speeches and persons reviewing them, there should be a clear enunciation of policy, a specific identification of it as policy, and a wider dissemination of it to persons affected. Particularly is it important that notice of any change in existing policy be given promptly.

6. That, for the guidance of all concerned, when speeches are returned the grounds or reasons for all changes and deletions should be furnished.

7. That Defense Department reviewers be furnished with definite and complete guildelines as to what does and what does not constitute foreign policy.

8. That there be fully developed close and continuous liaison and contact between the Defense Department and State Department reviewers for the purpose of bringing about a mutual understanding of common problems.

9. That reviewers in both the Defense Department and the State Department be instructed to refrain from making or suggesting changes merely for literary style and content.

10. That the practice of submitting to the Department of State for prior policy review statements of military officers for presentation to congressional committees in executive session be discontinued; further, that statements of witnesses representing the Defense Establishment clearly express the policy of the Defense Department concerning the subject matter of the testimony and that the Department of Defense discontinue the prior censorship of those portions of such