GANTZ STATEMENT Senator STENNIS. Colonel, I understand you have a short prepared statement. TESTIMONY OF LT. COL. KENNETH F. GANTZ, CHIEF, AIR UNIVERSITY QUARTERLY REVIEW DIVISION, AND EDITOR, AIR UNIVERSITY QUARTERLY REVIEW Colonel GANTZ. I do, Senator. Senator STENNIS. You may proceed, please. Colonel GANTZ. I am the editor of the Air University Quarterly Review, which position I have held since the summer of 1949. Air University Quarterly Review is the professional journal of the Air Force, established in 1947 to provide a vehicle for professional writing on Air Force and military topics and to disseminate advanced information on aerospace strategy, tactics, and related military techniques at the interest level of the senior officer. These purposes are considered essential for the professional enhancement of the U.S. Air Force Officer Corps. The Quarterly Review has a maximum official distribution of 16,600 copies throughout the Air Force, for staff reading and reference work in furtherance of the Air Force and Air University's professional education mission. The Quarterly Review is a nonclassified publication. It can be purchased by the public through the Superintendent of Documents or from the Air University Book Department under grant from the Public Printer. It has a small public subscription list. That is all of my statement, Senator. Senator STENNIS. Thank you, Colonel. Mr. Kendall, do you have questions? QUARTERLY REVIEW SUPPORTED BY APPROPRIATED FUNDS Mr. KENDALL. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Is the Quarterly Review supported by appropriated funds, Colonel? Colonel GANTZ. Yes, Mr. Kendall. SUBJECT MATTER AND SOURCE OF ARTICLES IN QUARTERLY REVIEW Mr. KENDALL. And, in general, what is the nature or subject matter of the articles which are included in it for publication? Colonel GANTZ. The articles are generally directed to the execution of aerospace strategies and tactics through operations of the U.S. Air Force. Related topics are those which contribute to a further understanding or the development of professional opinion upon weapons systems, organizations developments and doctrine and training programs and the like which will further the combat mission. Mr. KENDALL. How do you obtain the articles which are to be included in the publication? Colonel GANTZ. I beg your pardon? Mr. KENDALL. How do you obtain the articles which are to be included in the Review? Colonel GANTZ. The articles come to us from several sources. One source, of course, is the contribution, the voluntary contribution of one with an opinion to express. Other articles are written at our invitation in the manner of-customary manner of professional journals. These are on subjects that are of particular current interest, and in which we seek the most eminent authority available to write the material. Mr. KENDALL. Do you sometimes have to twist their arms to get them to write these articles? Colonel GANTZ. It is at times a problem, but generally speaking our contributors have been most kind to us. Mr. KENDALL. Are these both military types and civilian types or do all the articles come from the military? Colonel GANTZ. Mr. Kendall, we have no restriction on the contributorship to the Quarterly. That is, it does not have to be Air Force officers. We welcome contributions from any informed source. But, naturally, arrangements we make are usually with Air Force military or civilian. Mr. KENDALL. And I assume that the contributors receive no pay for the articles, is this correct? Colonel GANTZ. There is no payment. SCREENING OF ARTICLES SUBMITTED FOR QUARTERLY REVIEW Mr. KENDALL. Now when an article is received by your office, what procedure is followed to review it and determine its merits from the standpoint of general interest, literary content, and technical content? In other words, just how do you go about determining whether or not it is the type of article that you want to use? Colonel GANTZ. This is substantially my function in the initial stage, what we might call the preliminary screening. At this time the article may be sent for technical review to certain resources, in Air University or other places in the Air Force. It may be sent back to the author for further development in certain parts as the result of this. In essence a final determination is then made for tentative inclusion of the article on the list, and this again is my responsibility as delegated by an editorial board, of which I am the executive officer. REVIEW CHANNELS FOR ACCEPTED ARTICLES Mr. KENDALL. After the tentative determination is made that it is suitable for publication, is it sent elsewhere for review and clearance, and if so, where? Colonel GANTZ. This is true, Mr. Kendall. Before proceeding to publication, all of our materials are submitted to the Department of the Air Force for the customary review for security and policy. Mr. KENDALL. Do you know whether all of the articles are submitted to the Directorate for Security Review for policy clearance! Colonel GANTZ. I would assume that all, or very nearly all are. My submission channel is directly to the Office of Information in the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, who proceeds with the clearance procedure after that. Mr. KENDALL. But as far as you know, the articles go through the regular and usual review channels, is this right. Colonel GANTZ. Yes, sir. Mr. KENDALL. Including review by the Department of State in the case of an article which might contain foreign policy implications? Colonel GANTZ. We have had articles reviewed there. QUARTERLY REVIEW SPECIAL ISSUE-"AEROSPACE FORCE IN THE 1960's" Mr. KENDALL. Let me direct your attention to the issue of the Quarterly Review which is entitled "Aerospace Force in the 1960's.” You are familiar with that, I am sure? Colonel GANTZ. Quite familiar, sir. Mr. KENDALL. Prior to this particular issue, had you had any difficulty with the review and clearance of articles either by the Department of Defense or Department of State? Colonel GANTZ. If by difficulty you mean objections to passages or suggested revisions to be made as a condition of clearance, we have had. Mr. KENDALL. What was the nature of that difficulty? Colonel GANTZ. During the process of assemblying Mr. KENDALL. I am talking about prior to this particular issue. Colonel GANTZ. For working purposes I prepare a program of something in the neighborhood of 50 articles or chapters per year. I expect an attrition of perhaps 10 percent of this material through changes or suggestions or mandatory changes coming through the clearance process, one thing or another which would lead us to abandon that particular material. This has been about our condition over the past 10 years or so, a normal attrition of 1 out of 10 pieces. This attrition does not come about always at the level of Department of Defense or above, but as a result perhaps of comments by the Air Staff in coordination, which would indicate that the material was not suitable for our purpose. Mr. KENDALL. Colonel, I understand that planning was initiated by the Air Force for this particular issue in about November 1959, is this correct? Colonel GANTZ. That is correct. Mr. KENDALL. And what was the planned publication date or the target publication date? Colonel GANTZ. At that time we were talking the following summer issue. Mr. KENDALL. 1960? Colonel GANTZ. That is correct. Mr. KENDALL. As I understand it, the initial plan called for approximately 29 articles, is this correct? Colonel GANTZ. Yes, sir. SUBMISSION AND REVIEW OF ARTICLES FOR SPECIAL ISSUE Mr. KENDALL. And one of those was "Estimate of the Situation in 1960's" by General Smith. Colonel GANTZ. Yes, sir. That was its original title. Mr. KENDALL. And that is Brig. Gen. Robert N. Smith, Director of Intelligence of SAC, is this right? Colonel GANTZ. Yes, sir. Mr. KENDALL. Another of those articles was entitled "The Air Force of the Future" by Brig. Gen. Robert C. Richardson III, who was then Chief of the Long-Range Objective Group of the U.S. Air Force, is this right? Colonel GANTZ. Yes, sir. Mr. KENDALL. And another one of those was an article entitled "The Price of Survival" by Gen. Thomas S. Power, who is Commander-in-Chief of SAC, is that right? Colonel GANTZ. Yes, sir. Mr. KENDALL. And another was an article entitled "Strategic Reconnaissance" by Maj. Gen. William H. Blanchard, is that right? Colonel GANTZ. Yes, sir. Mr. KENDALL. Were the articles for that special issue submitted for review to the Office of Information of the Air Force? Colonel GANTZ. Yes, sir. Mr. KENDALL. When were they first submitted? Colonel GANTZ. They were submitted at varying dates, Mr. Kendall. It became apparent almost immediately that the summer of 1960 date was unrealistic. The first materials received and submitted as I recall were submitted in May 1960. The materials continued to be submitted I believe up until the close of that year. ARTICLES CLEARED BY JANUARY 1961-SECOND REVIEW ORDERED Mr. KENDALL. But in any event, by January 31, 1961, all of the articles had been cleared both by the Air Force Information Office and the Directorate for Security Review. Is that right? Colonel GANTZ. This is right. Mr. KENDALL. Were you thereafter advised that a second review of the material would be required? Colonel GANTZ. I was so advised. Mr. KENDALL. How did you receive this information, and when? Colonel GANTZ. I was advised by telephone on February 21, 1961, that a second clearance might be required, and as a result of that, of that call, I canceled work on the issue. Mr. KENDALL. Who did that call come from? Colonel GANTZ. That call came from the Office of Information. Mr. KENDALL. Did they give any reason why it would have to be resubmitted? Colonel GANTZ. The reason given was that it was possible that a second review would be required in the light of a change of administration and possible change in policies. Mr. KENDALL. All right, sir, then what happened? Colonel GANTZ. At this time I was instructed to send forward a suitable copy for this review, which I did. Mr. KENDALL. And, you say when you originally received the information, you halted the process of the publication? Colonel GANTZ. Yes, sir. We were on press at the time, and obviously if even minor changes were to be made, this operation should stop. TWO ARTICLES DISAPPROVED AND ACTION WITHHELD ON TWO OTHERS Mr. KENDALL. What was the result of the second review? Colonel GANTZ. The result of the second review was the clearance for publication of 25 of the 29 articles. This information was received in May, May 17. At that time it appeared that of the four articles remaining, two might be reconsidered. Mr. KENDALL. All right, sir, they had cleared 25 by mid-May. The four that they did not clear at that time was the one by General Smith that you referred to, is this right? Colonel GANTZ. Those were the four that you have named. Mr. KENDALL. General Smith's was disapproved entirely, is this correct? Colonel GANTZ. Yes, sir. Mr. KENDALL. And General Blanchard's was disapproved, is this correct? Colonel GANTZ. General Blanchard's article was disapproved in the form that it was in, with provision for reconsideration if General Blanchard revised the article again. The Air Force determined that this would not be done. Mr. KENDALL. And General Power's article was not returned at that time either with clearance or disapproval, is that right? Colonel GANTZ. That is correct. Mr. KENDALL. And the same thing was true with reference to General Richardson's article? Colonel GANTZ. Yes, sir. Mr. KENDALL. It was not returned at that time with either clearance or disapproval. As a result of this, what did you decide to do with reference to this particular issue, Colonel Gantz? Colonel GANTZ. I decided to continue with the issue in part on press, in the hope that the Power and Richardson articles would be available before I came to the point in the process that I must decide to stop again or abandonment. This date occurred on or about July 10, at which time I decided to go ahead with the issue without those two articles. Mr. KENDALL. You, of course, went ahead without the four we have mentioned? Colonel GANTZ. Yes, sir. Mr. KENDALL. The two that had been disapproved and the two that were on probation or whatever status they were in? Colonel GANTZ. That is correct. SECOND REVIEW CONDUCTED BY DEFENSE Mr. KENDALL. Do you know what agency performed the review and disapproved the two articles that were disapproved and held up the other two? Colonel GANTZ. Did I know that Mr. KENDALL. Did you know what agency performed this second review? Colonel GANTZ. It was my understanding that the Department of Defense performed the second review. 88735 O-62-pt. 2-22 |