Chronological list of assignments

U.S. DECORATIONS

Distinguished Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster).

European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal (with six campaign stars). American Campaign Medal.

World War II Victory Medal.

World War II Occupation Medal (Germany).

National Defense Service Medal.

Korean Service Medal (with two campaign stars).

FOREIGN DECORATIONS

Grande Official, Order of Military Merit (Brazil).

Medalha de Guerra (Brazil).

Grand Star of Military Merit (Chile).

Citation and Medal of Cloud and Banner (Republic of China).

Grand Officer of the Order of Boyaca (Colombia).

Medal for Military Merit, 1st class (Czechoslovakia).

Order of Melnik (Ethiopia).

Legion of Honor, Degree of Commander (France).

Croix de Guerre, with Palm (France).

Honorary Companion of the Most Honorable Order of the Bath (Great Britain). Honorary Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (Great Britain).

Military Order of Merit (Italy).

Cavalier of the Great Cross, Royal Crown of Italy (Italy).

Knight of the Grand Cross, Military Order of the Republic of Italy (Italy).

Grand Cordon of the Order of the Rising Sun (Japan).

Order of Military Merit Taeguk (Korea).

Order of Military Merit Taeguk with Gold Star (Korea).

Presidential Unit Citation (Korea).

Legion of Honor, Degree of Chief Commander (Philippines).
Gold Cross of Merit with Swords (Poland).

Most Exalted Order of the White Elephant (Thailand).
Royal Order of the White Eagle (Yugoslavia).

FOREIGN SERVICE MEDALS

United Nations Service Medal.

Distinguished Marksman.
Parachutist.

QUALIFICATION BADGES

PERSONAL BACKGROUND MATERIAL

Interests and hobbies: General Lemnitzer's pastimes include golf, fishing, photography, and corresponding with his many friends around the world. As a cadet at the U.S. Military Academy, he was catcher on the Army baseball team, and has maintained an enthusiastic interest in that sport. During the early years of his career he was known as one of the Army's outstanding marksmen. Group affiliations: General Lemnitzer is a 33d Degree Mason and a Shriner. He is a member of St. John's Lutheran Church, Honesdale, Pa.

Honors other than military:

Doctor of Military Science, University of Maryland.
Doctorate of Humanities, University of the Ryukyus.
Doctor of Laws, University of Scranton.

Doctor of Laws, Gettysburg College.

Senator STENNIS. General, our valued friends, the photographers, have voluntarily put a 1-minute limitation on themselves. They will want to get a picture of you actually testifying. But in 1 minute they are going to leave.

So you may proceed, sir, in your own way.

TESTIMONY OF GEN. LYMAN L. LEMINITZER, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

LEMNITZER STATEMENT

General LEMNITZER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to respond to your request to come before you this afternoon and offer for your consideration my views on the important matters to be appraised by your committee during this session of Congress. There has been extensive coverage of these matters in news media over the past several months which has led to a great deal of discussion. One of the elements of our great national strength is the confidence of our people in the integrity, complete loyalty, dedication to duty, and devotion to country that has been, and continues to be, characteristic of military service. My appreciation for the opportunity to appear before you stems from my desire to help you in your appraisal of factors which relate to this element of our national strength.

Even though the matters into which you are inquiring fall largely in the so-called gray area where it is difficult to make flat, positive statements, there are a few rather basic principles which have served me well in my 44 years in the uniform of my country, and I propose to review these principles for you. In doing so, I shall respond to your interests as they have been identified to me by your chief counsel, as well as to the three broad areas-that, is-policy review of speeches, seminars, and troop information program-in which you have announced the scope of your inquiry.

Men in uniform have certain obligations-obligations which stem from their solemnly sworn oath of office, or in certain cases, from the obligations assigned by law to officers appointed to high positions by the President with the confirmation of the Senate. Looking broadly at the committee's interests, it seems to me that you want to know whether there have been exerted any pressure infringing upon the ability of the military to live up to their sworn obligations.

I have not-and I repeat-not been subjected to any pressures which have interfered with the performance of my duties and the discharge of my obligations. The fact is exactly the opposite. I have been given every opportunity to make my views known in the highest councils, and I have done se. That is my duty, that is what my superiors regard my duty to be, that is how I have performed my duty, and how I will continue to perform it. Anything less would involve a compromise of my sense of duty and my obligations and you may be assured that they cannot be compromised in any degree. This is the first of my basic principles.

One of the matters which has been discussed in connection with the broader aspects of your inquiry relates to the relationship of the military to their civilian superiors. In my opinion, the genesis of

the recent change of administrations-but in any change of administrations.

As the members of this committee know so well, the programing and budgeting for national security purposes is tremendously broad in scope and complexities. A new administration must quickly analyze the programs and budget prepared by the preceding administration, and transmit to the Congress those changes in programs which are essential to the new administration's goals. To do this, shortcuts and special techniques are required. This is not a new problem but as defense programs have become larger, the problem has become. bigger and more complex. Those of us who have been around over a span of several administrations recognize this, and we provide our fullest support to the new administration. We understand the problem.

It takes time for new personnel to get in the groove and have the executive machinery working with full effectiveness. You may recall that in my appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, I testified that never before in my experience have the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as a corporate body, been as intimately involved in the preparation of a Department of Defense Budget as was the case this year. On that occasion I told you that the Joint Chiefs of Staff held 38 scheduled meetings on fiscal year 1963 budget matters, and had an additional 18 meetings with the Secretary of Defense on the subject. This does not include a large number of meetings that the Joint Chiefs of Staff-in their individual capacity as service chiefs-had with the Secretary.

The question of policy review of public speeches involves the obligation of the military and civilian leadership of the Department of Defense as the public servants, which they are to report on their activities and on military matters associated with our national security. In doing this, it must be remembered that the military services are within the executive branch of the Government. The obligation of senior military officers in this respect is a particularly heavy one, for the prestige of high office adds to the import and significance of public statements.

There is a basic principle that applies to this facet. A public speaker must have a purpose. For me, that purpose can only be to support and help advance our national objectives with respect to the security interests of our country, and to do so as objectively and as factually as I can. Since this is my objective, I welcome assistance and consider the speech reviews which are certainly not an innovation of this administration-to be helpful.

Another aspect of this question involves the propriety of making statements that touch on subjects that are not strictly military subjects. Today, national security interests cut across the entire spectrum of Government operations, and to understand any one aspect of national security without having an understanding of the interwoven relationship of all elements is simply impossible. Any public statement should be a balanced statement, and to the extent that balance requires it, I consider that discussion of matters other than purely military is appropriate.

Again, the basic principle is that the objective must be support of

dent Kennedy in addressing last year's graduates of the U.S. Naval Academy hit the nail on the head.

The President had this to say:

Fifty years ago the graduates of the Naval Academy were expected to be seamen and leaders of men. *** Today we expect all of you— in fact, you must, of necessity-be prepared not only to handle a ship in a storm or a landing party on a beach, but to make great determinations which affect the survival of this country.

*** You must understand not only this country but other countries. You must know something about strategy and tactics and logistics, but also economics and politics and diplomacy and history. You must know everything you can know about military power, and you must also understand the limits of military power. You must understand that few of the important problems of our time have, in the final analysis, been finally solved by military power alone. When I say that officers today must go far beyond the official curriculum, I say it not because I do not believe in the traditional relationship between the civilian and the military, but you must be more than the servants of national policy. You must be prepared to play a constructive role in the development of national policy, a policy which protects our interests and our security and the peace of the world*** The question of the involvement of military personnel in partisan political matters is involved in both the second and third broad areas of your inquiry, that is, military participation in seminars and the adequacy of troop information and education programs of the services. I, therefore, would like to give you my general views on these areas. With respect to the military involvement in partisan political matters, I feel strongly that-beyond the right of each individual to participate as a voting citizen-there is no place in politics for an officer wearing the uniform. This is a basic service tradition and a very important one. We are schooled and trained in this principle. We like it this way because it is the right way. The principle of military subordination to civilian control is one of the most important foundations of our form of government. However, there are pressures to be resisted, and the military want to be, and must be, protected from these pressures. Both the executive and legislative leadership must continue to provide this protection.

With respect to seminar and troop information and education programs, there is another basic principle which applies. It is that a properly informed and well-informed person, be he military or civilian, is a better citizen with more purposeful motivation. Our basic national strength depends on the concerted efforts of all of us. toward goals which are commonly accepted. Therefore, in both of these areas the activity of the military should be carried out with this principle in mind. The question of knowing what is a purposeful motivation logically arises.

My answer is that if we are motivated to support our national objectives, then the motivation is purposeful, and activities, toward such an end should be carried out by all those in a position to do so. It follows then, that I believe that military personnel should participate in seminars whose purpose is further education and awareness of the security problems of the United States, and I specifically