« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
Mr. MAVROULES. Thank you.
I know my time has run out. But this is very important for the committee, the Investigations Subcommittee.
You emphasize military strategy development. Are we educating and training officers capable of fulfilling your strategy requirements, and are the capabilities of officers serving in joint assignments adequate? What changes are needed?
Mr. PACKARD. Of course there is the question of whether you are going to be able to get together a strong enough staff for the Chairman to be able to do these things properly. I would think that the chances are quite good. I think this assignment will be looked at with a good deal of enthusiasm by people who are interested in approaching these military problems from a joint and a unified basis, and I think we will be able to get good advice on this area.
I know that there have been some recommendations to require certain kinds of duty before they can serve in these assignments. I am inclined to feel that here, again, we are making a recommendation for a fairly major change. We are asking the Chairman to do something he has not been asked to do before. We have seen evidence in recent years that the Chairman has been very eager to try and do some of these things, and I am not too concerned about the ability. It will take time to develop this ability. It will require some teamwork with the Secretary. But I am confident that this will come out.
Paul, you would like to add something?
General GORMAN. It is a question of incentives, Mr. Chairman. If, in fact, budgets are going to be based on strategy and operational concepts, you can rest assured that the Services are going to take another hard look at who they send down to the Joint Staff to work on said operational concepts and strategies.
It isn't always the case that the best and most able officers go to the Joint Staff or to the other joint assignments, as all of you well understand. I have testified over here, for example, of my dissatisfaction when I was the planner for the Joint Staff-the J-5—the first assignment in which I had ever served in where I knew no other Army officer in my organization. The reason for that was simple. Those Army officers in J-5 came from a part of the Army totally divorced from the line outfits in which I was raised and trained and did my command service.
I think that will change under this. I think you will get the same kind of hotrod command types in the Joint Staff that you now find over in Army DCSOPS, and I think the same thing will be true in the Air Force and in the Navy.
I know Admiral Watkins told us that he was making a very definite effort to upgrade the quality of Navy officers in the Joint Staff for exactly the reason that he felt that the Navy's interests were best served by so doing. It is a question of incentives.
Mr. MAVROULES. I thank you, General. Mr. NICHOLS. Gentlemen, you have been very patient with us. We appreciate your tolerance, and we will try to conclude here, Mr. Chairman, in just a few minutes.
Let me first say I appreciate your critique of what we have tried to do as a committee. Constructive criticism is always welcome. We are dead serious about this thing. We don't want to mess up, and we value your judgment very much on matters like you just discussed.
Let me ask just a few questions here concerning the Chairman. As you know, we tried to strengthen the Chairman in the bill we passed last year. We have heard criticisms that, in strengthening the Chairman, we have, in some way, suppressed the chiefs—that they are not going to be able to make their advice heard. That was certainly not the intent of our committee. Would any of you care to comment on what we have done and any failures that we might have made, out of your experience?
General GORMAN. I am not concerned about that.
I know that some of the Chiefs would express themselves otherwise. I would tell you that the Chiefs are pulling together today better than I have seen them in all of my years of service. I have been in and out of Washington since the 1960's. I think one of the reasons for that teamwork, Mr. Chairman, is the interest that has been expressed by your committee and the existence of that legislation. You may be bringing about change in ways that you didn't anticipate.
Mr. Nichols. Let me ask you a follow-on question. We, in our legislation, have strongly suggested that the Chairman, because he is the Chairman-the No. 1 military officer in the U.S. militarybe a part of the National Security Council. We didn't do that entirely by law. That is the President's show. That is his committee, and certainly we would not want to impose on the President of the United States that sort of a directive if the Chairman is not welcome. So we leave that final discretion to others to extend that invitation, I would say.
Should the Chairman be a member of the National Security Council?
Mr. PACKARD. Maybe we ought to let Brent answer that question. General ScOWCROFT. Mr. Chairman, I think any such legislation like that is entirely unnecessary.
I have never been to, nor do I know of, a National Security Council meeting where the Chairman was not present. If, in fact, you legislate additional members on the National Security Council and the President doesn't want to have them at meetings, he will call an executive session, so he is going to have the people he wants to advise him. I can't imagine a case where that will not include the Chairman, and while a Chairman is technically an advisor, not a member, he is a participant in the discussion.
This is not a voting body. This is an advisory body. I really think it is unnecessary to suggest to the President something which, to my knowledge, has been a permanent fixture of the National Security Council system.
Mr. NICHOLS. Two final, real quick questions here.
Back to the Deputy Chairman-should he be a director of the Joint Staff?
General GORMAN. In my view, Mr. Chairman, that would be a serious mistake.
The director of the Joint Staff has more than a full-time job. He not only is the supervisor of the flag officers of the Joint Staff—the admirals, the commanders, the generals of Air Force, Army, and Marine Corps, that serve down there; he writes their efficiency reports, coordinates their work and lays down their priorities; he is also the chairman of the subcommittee of the JCS, which includes the operation deputies of the services. In it is a very difficult process dealing with those fellows. So saddling him with those additional duties, it seems to me, would be a mistake. The director really has two full-time jobs, and I think most directors of the Joint Staff, past and present, would agree with me on that one.
General ScoWCROFT. I concur wholeheartedly.
Admiral HOLLOWAY. I agree. I think they are two different functions, and you shouldn't try to combine them, as Paul has said. There just isn't room for them.
Mr. NICHOLS. Now the $64 question. Then I presume you would retain the three-star who is the director of the staff, and you would make the deputy chairman, which you recommended, a four-star.
General GORMAN. Yes, sir.
General GORMAN. I think that that is a matter for the Secretary and the Chiefs to iron out. It is going to be tough.
Mr. NICHOLS. What I am saying is, don't look to the Congress for it.
General GORMAN. I understand. That is why, again, I think that if the President will go after these recommendations he can effect those changes.
One answer might emerge from the recommendations where we urge reconsidering the unified command plan.
General ScowCROFT. You would still need the billet. Even if you made the deputy chairman the director of the Joint Staff, you still need another four-star billet.
Mr. NICHOLS. Where are you going to get it, General?
General ScowCROFT. I don't know. It is a recommendation in your bill, as well. So, I would presume in your bill you would provide it.
Mr. NICHOLS. We were going to get rid of that third star. We were going to move him on up to a four-star, and we would have the same number of general officers then. That is just a question I threw out here.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, let me make a general comment about this.
I think we are recommending what are some very major changes in this whole procedure. They will work to the extent that people over there want them to work. I think that is probably true whether you pass legislation or not. It seems to me the thing to do would be to proceed with the minimum amount of legislation at this time, do the essential thing, and then use your oversight responsibility to find out whether, in fact, the things that we are recommending here in our Commission report are getting done. If they don't get done, then you can do something about them. But it seems to me that would be the best way to approach this, and not try and put too many detailed restrictions on them. You will have plenty of opportunity to go back and find out whether these things are working, and that would seem to me to be the best procedure.
Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Lally.
Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Barrett.
Mr. BARRETT. I want to be sure that each member, each military member of the panel, has had a chance to give all of his comments on the CINC's bill that is before the Investigations Subcommittee and the joint officer capabilities bill. There have been some comments within the last hour. If you have any further comments to make, I think they should be made, gentlemen, because we will not be able to call you individually. You represent some of the foremost talent and thinking in this country on military affairs, and particularly defense organization. Also, if
you have further comments on the other two bills before us, the military department bill and the defense agencies bill, we would appreciate those also.
General ScowCROFT. I think in general, I would like to echo Mr. Packard's comments. Whatever happens, we are not going to, in one piece of legislation or in 1 year, solve all the problems of this vast operation. It seems to me what we need to do is leave open some flexibility. There is broad agreement within the Commission, within the Senate and the House, as to the kinds of things that need to be fixed. There are no great divergencies here. I think the greatest divergence is in the amount of legislation required in order to make the changes.
Now, legislation puts a greater burden on the executive branch to do these kinds of things. It should also allow the flexibility to adapt these to the exigencies of the moment. I would urge that you leave a maximum of flexibility within the broad changes that we all agree need to be made, and then exercise your oversight weight a bit and then see which ones need to be fixed.
After all, as you know, there were three major changes in the Defense Department after 1947, in the first decade. There was a major change in 1949, one in 1953, and another in 1958. Now, it has been about 30 years. So it seems to me we ought to start that process going again, and refine it, rather than to try to perfect it in one piece of legislation.
Admiral HOLLOWAY. Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with what my colleagues have said that too much detail at this point is probably not a good idea because we may not arrive at the best practical solution.
I think we should permit people to move ahead, and this committee would then, as has been pointed out, use its oversight responsibilities. I think that you will achieve the results that you seek without going into the detail, because the broader provisions of your bill, which shift responsibilities away from the service staffs to the Joint Staff, give more strength to the Chairman, more responsibility to the Joint Staff.
As I think General Gorman observed, that is going to be an enormous incentive to the services themselves to assign their best and brightest people. Because that is where the service impacts on their futures and the future of the military establishment is going to be made. So, I think it will work itself out, and in my own view it is better than legislating the details of promotion rates and things of that nature.
General GORMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to state that among the beneficial influences that have been exerted by the Congress on the services and the unified and specified commands, have been the writings of the committee staffs, including those of Mr. Barrett, John Collins, and some of the other experts who have devoted a great deal of time in recent years to the matters that have led to your legislative concern.
I think that if there is one common thread running through all of those writings, it is precisely that we altogether too frequently address ourselves to defense issues without asking ourselves the first questions: what are our national objectives, and what should be the strategy we should pursue in following that. I believe that the Commission has picked up that very valuable thought and put it in front of the President. I believe that if somehow or other in your legislation, in the preamble or otherwise, you could reinforce that notion we would be doing, collectively, the Nation a great service.
Mr. NICHOLS. Gentlemen, you have been with us better than 3 hours, and we are indebted to you.
Some of us met 10 days ago with Chairman Packard. I said to him then that when the report was released, it would have a great deal of clout to it because of the people that serve on this panel. Each of you in your respective way, carries a lot of respect in this town. I say that in all sincerity. So, as we close this session I want to thank you, and I am sure the President will thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of your committee. I want to thank you on behalf of this committee for the services you have rendered and the testimony you have given us here today.
Mr. PACKARD. Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you here today. We appreciate it, all of us.
Mr. NICHOLS. Let me announce that the next meeting of the subcommittee will be in the morning at 9 a.m. At that time we will hear from Gen. David C. Jones, U.S. Air Force, retired, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Gen. John H. Cushman, U.S. Army, retired, and author of "Command and Control of Theater Forces". With him will be Prof. Anthony Oettinger of Harvard University. Then we will here from Gen. John Vogt, U.S. Air Force, retired, and former Commander of the Allied Air Forces in Europe.
The latter three are in the afternoon. We will hear from General Jones in the morning.
I would think that after hearing all of these prestigious people, the committee will be able to make some sort of a rational decision.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.]