Colonel WILSON. No. This particular document does not embrace that. I think this particular point is taught very early in the training. You see, we have at Fort Bragg now a military assistance training advisers course, a 4 weeks thing, which goes deeply into the culture, traditions, and so on in Vietnam. If memory serves me correctly, this is one of the so-called teaching points covered in one of our lessons. There is material available in this area also, if you should like to see it, sir.

Senator THURMOND. And you think that is covered?

Colonel WILSON. Yes, sir, most assuredly.

Senator THURMOND. Are they impressed with the fact that the use of the French language by the westerners is exploited by the Communists to remind the Vietnamese of their years under French rule

Colonel WILSON. This is covered in instruction-I have heard this specifically in instruction given at Fort Bragg, for example. And the individual who goes to Vietnam learns this quite early, if he did not know it when he got to the country. It is one of the fairly obvious facts that can be spotted by the intuitive individual very quickly.

Senator THURMOND. Is any effort made to impress our troops with the fact that the attitude of the Vietnamese toward sex is totally without parallel in Western civilization; and that the Hollywood approach to sex is absolutely unacceptable in Vietnam?

Colonel WILSON. You have lost me on that one, sir, because I honestly do not know whether I have seen any documents in which this was covered. I imagine that some reference to his is made in current instruction in the military assistance training advisory course. However, I could not vouch for this.

Senator THURMOND. Colonel Wilson, if our troops being sent to southeast Asia are taught the basic facts, they are certainly not impressed with the importance of their observance to our cold war efforts. Actual on-the-scene films from southeast Asia shown on NBC last week showed conduct by American soldiers which would go far to substantiate Communist anti-American propaganda.

Does the Army realize the importance of training, education, and discipline in these matters, and if so, is it doing anything about it, to try to correct the situation?

Colonel WILSON. Sir, I think the Army is quite cognizant of the significance of this type of behavior. I would like to think that the instance to which you refer is in the nature of an exception, rather than a common example.

Senator THURMOND. Now, the special forces may receive that information. I am wondering about the other troops who go there. Colonel WILSON. I believe somewhere between half and 70 percent of the field grade personnel and higher who go to military assistance advisory groups, and including in this case Vietnam, go through the Military Assistance Institute. I am not too familiar with that institute, although I know that they give some extensive area coverage to the student concerning this area which-to which he is to be assigned.

Senator THURMOND. That is a school for the officers, I believe, not enlisted men.

Colonel WILSON. That is correct. The new courses at Fort Bragg, the military assistance training advisers course, on the other hand, is a non-special-force course. It is taking both noncommissioned officers

and officers through at an accelerated rate on sort of a mass basis, in order that they be trained and ready to function the moment they arrive in Vietnam. I think the efficacy of this program which began a little earlier this year is yet to be proven entirely. However, it would be in this area that our non-special-force personnel would receive the bulk of their training per your specific questions, the subjects which you question specifically.

Senator THURMOND. When was that course started that you refer to?

Colonel WILSON. I could check this. This is not classified. I believe it started the first course, I believe, began the first part of March. I would like, however, to doublecheck that, and if I am in error, I can convey this information to you. It is a 4 weeks' course. Senator THURMOND. You may make any correction and submit it to the committee.

Colonel WILSON. Yes, sir.

DISCUSSION ON TROOP MORALE IN VIETNAM

Senator THURMOND. Colonel Wilson, it is somewhat difficult for us to assess American troop morale in southeast Asia from this distance. We have heard much in the past 7 or 8 years, however, about the feeling of frustration experienced by commanders in Korea which allegedly stemmed largely from our policies which permitted the Communists a sanctuary beyond the Yalu River.

Now, quite obviously, we have a parallel, or perhaps an even worse situation in South Vietnam, for the 17th parallel on the Ben Hai River is the line of sanctuary for the Communists, so that anti-Communist forces cannot strike back at any Communist bases; while in Korea they could at least go beyond the 38th parallel into North Korea with counterblows. It is obvious that our commanders and advisory teams in Vietnam are forced to once again limit their activities in the larger sense to containment.

Colonel Wilson, we are all aware that you have nothing whatever to do with the determination of policies which dictates this course, and I would not even ask you to comment on the wisdom or lack of wisdom which underlies them.

I would like to have your opinion, however, as to how we can instill in our forces a determination to be victorious over the Communists when their activities are essentially limited to the narrow confines of the defensive policy of containment.

Colonel WILSON. This makes an already difficult problem, of course, much more difficult. I do not mean to engage in a platitude. Properly trained, properly indoctrinated-I still have a lot of confidence in our own forces to be able to handle this kind of situation.

Bear in mind, of course, that our forces in this instance are influencing, advising, guiding, assisting, and not handling the actual fighting. So not only are they the ones with the morale problem, but the indigenous troops as well, whose fight it really is.

DEFENSIVE AND OFFENSIVE GUERRILLA ACTIONS

Senator THURMOND. Colonel Wilson, my recollection is that General Heintges, who was formerly the head of the military advisory unit

80752-62-pt. 6- -8

in Laos, assured the committee last week that guerrilla actions, by their very nature, could not be successfully employed on a purely defensive basis. It is interesting, indeed alarming, that even while he was testifying the Communist guerrillas were overrunning Laos. Do you agree that our own guerrilla-trained forces and those of our southeast Asian allies are precluded from success so long as they can only be employed in a strictly defensive action?

Colonel WILSON. As far as Laos is concerned, the areas overrun were areas which were held by elements, I believe, sir, of the Royal Lao Army-not guerrilla forces. In other words, the postulate which you advance I support totally-that a guerrilla cannot continue to fight defensively and be successful. However, in the case of Laos and the events of the recent days, where troops have retreated, these troops in most instances have not been guerrilla forces; they have been forces of the Royal Lao Army who have come down from the northeast, and either crossed the Mekong River or retreated farther into Laos.

So in this case I would submit that this is not a completely apt example of the dictum that you have stated, and which I support. Do I make myself clear, sir?

Senator THURMOND. Yes, sir, thank you.

You can visualize the situation in which we might find ourselves, however, that could make it very difficult for us.

Colonel WILSON. Yes, sir. The guerrilla cannot afford to be pinpointed and stay in one place. He has to choose his own fight, and normally he will choose his fight only when he can win. This means he has to maintain initiative-he cannot defend. He can harass-but over an extended period, he cannot defend.

DISCUSSION ON NATURE OF COLD WAR VICTORY

Senator THURMOND. Colonel Wilson, I want to read you a statement that has been made, and then ask you a question about it.

The victory we seek will see no ticker tape parades down Broadway, no climactic battles, nor great American celebrations of victory. It is a victory which will take many years and decades of hard work and dedication by many people to bring about. This will not be a victory of the United States over the Soviet Union. It will not be a victory of capitalism over socialism. It will be a victory of men and nations which aim to stand up straight over the forces which wish to entrap and to exploit the revolutionary aspirations for a modern nation. What this victory involves in the end is the assertion by nations of their right to independence and by men and women of their right to freedom as they understand it. And we deeply believe this victory will come on both sides of the Iron Curtain.

Now, the question I want to ask you is this:

How can we win this conflict if we follow that type of statement or the attitude expressed in the type of statement I just read to you, which contains platitudes and niceties?

Colonel WILSON. Well, portions of it I certainly agree with, sir. that it is going to be a long, tough, uphill struggle to come out on top. And platitude or no, this is one thing we probably should recognize at the outset.

My only criticism of that statement is that somewhere along the line, if you are proceeding from this through the actual act of winning, you have got to be a little more precise and come up with some specifics

in terms of plans and action in order to get there. But as a sort of an introductory statement to the problem of what we are after, as I understood while you were reading it, I do not quarrel with the statement, sir.

Senator THURMOND. I might hand it down to you and let you read it again. I am not sure that you caught it. You can turn over to the front and see who made that statement.

Who made that statement, and where, Colonel?

Colonel WILSON. W. W. Rostow, at the U.S. Army Special Warfare School, June 28, 1961, sir. I must say, sir, as far as my own opinion is concerned, it is a high-sounding statement, and for it to have real practical meaning it might have to be brought down to a more practical level of precise thought. But as a general statement, I can find no major area with which I am in direct disagreement, sir. Senator THURMOND. Well, the statement is made here that

This will not be a victory of the United States over the Soviet Union. It will not be a victory of capitalism over socialism.

Well, if we are going to win, it will be a victory of the United States over the Soviet Union, will it not? And if we are going to win, it will be a victory of capitalism over socialism, will it not? Colonel WILSON. Yes. I was not focusing on the specificSenator THURMOND. I do not want to embarrass you

Colonel WILSON. I realize that, sir.

Senator THURMOND. But the point I am trying to emphasize is that if we are going to have victory in the cold war, it should not be a stalemate, but it should be a victory, should it not?

Colonel WILSON. Yes, sir. As I read, and as I scanned it-this in essence was my interpretation. It will not be so much a victory of the United States over the U.S.S.R., or so much a victory of capitalism over socialism, as a victory of principles-in other words, first and foremost a victory of principles. This is not to say that in finite terms it would not represent the United States and America coming out on top. But that emphasis was not being placed on this as much as on the winning out of principles, the principles which we stand on.

So this was simply the way I was interpreting-not so much a victory of one country over another country, as a victory of principles. That was purely the manner in which I was interpreting it, sir. Senator THURMOND. And knowing the goal of the Communists as you do, and you are an expert on this area, of course, and knowing their goal as world domination, and enslavement

Colonel WILSON. Yes, sir.

Senator THURMOND (continuing). They would have to completely change their goal entirely if this last sentence is true, which reads"and we deeply believe this victory will come on both sides of the Iron Curtain"-would they not? You cannot have victory on both sides. Colonel WILSON. You almost have to interpret this statement like a poem, and you come out-as I stated earlier, there is a certain imprecision here. You sort of have to draw your own meaning. I could see how someone might interpret it different from another person reading it right beside him. That particular statement to me means if principles will win out, that the first prisoners of communism, the Russian people themselves, wind up throwing off their shackles. And if that

is what he means, then fine, I can go along with it. If that is not what he means, then I, too, could not quite buy his statement, either.

Senator THURMOND. If you have victory on both sides of the Iron Curtain, then the goal of the Communists will no longer exist, will it because their goal is to dominate the world.

Colonel WILSON. That is true.

Senator THURMOND. And you cannot have a stalemate with the Communists and have victory, can you?

Colonel WILSON. No, sir.

Senator THURMOND. We did not win in Korea-it was a stalemate. And it is still a stalemate, is it not? If we had won in Korea, the prob ability is we would not be having the trouble that we are having in Laos and Vietnam now, don't you think?

Colonel WILSON. Very definitely it would have an influence. It is hard to crystal-ball it. But it would have a most decided influence. Senator THURMOND. I think that completes my questioning. Mr. Kendall?

Mr. KENDALL. I have no questions, thank you, Senator.

Senator THURMOND. Colonel Wilson, I want to thank you for your testimony today. You have brought us a lot of valuable information. You have made a fine contribution to these hearings.

Colonel WILSON. My pleasure, sir.

(Whereupon, at 6:45 p.m., the subcommittee stood in recess to reconvene at the call of the Chair.)