Military Cold War Education and Speech Review Policies

transacted with our Armed Services Committee. It left a mighty good impression with all of us.

You had a distinguished military career up until the time that you became Chief of Staff, and you certainly added great luster and wonderful service to it after that time. We certainly wish you well in retirement, where I know you will continue to render a great service to the country.

I have read and heard many times the saying "country first," and I can certainly testify that that is your attitude. We are pleased to have you here as a witness, too, on this matter that is of concern to us, and I know it is to you. We want to have it better understood; we must have it better understood; and out of these hearings we certainly want something constructive to come to strengthen the military, trengthen the country, and strengthen the Government in every way. I think you are a very appropriate witness to have.

General White, in keeping with our unbroken custom, will you stand and be sworn as a witness, please.

Do you solemnly swear that your testimony before this subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

General WHITE. I do.

Senator STENNIS. I believe you have prepared and will read a brief statement that discusses some of the questions. Then you will submit yourself for examination.

All right, General, you may proceed, sir.

TESTIMONY OF GEN. THOMAS DRESSER WHITE, U.S. AIR FORCE, RETIRED

WHITE STATEMENT

General WHITE. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, when I retired from active service last June 30, I had thought my appearances before committees of the Congress were at an end. So I can say that being here this afternoon seems like old times and I am happy to be one of your witnesses in this hearing.

Your subject today is, in my opinion, an important one. The "use of military personnel and facilities in cold war education activities and the alleged 'muzzling' of military officers" needs clarification, not only for the American public but for the military as well.

It is my firm opinion that cold war education of military personnel is a necessity. The role of the military in educating the "public" is in my view not readily definable and needs special exploration.

I believe that military officers' public speeches and writings are controlled-and should be. The chief question here is how and to what extent that control is exercised.

I have given a thumbnail statement of my feelings on these subjects and am prepared, to the best of my ability, to go into the matter further under your questioning.

Thank you, sir.

STATEMENT FROM WHITE

Senator STENNIS. All right, General White.

Members of the subcommittee, I have here a letter from General White, addressed to our committee, dated the 16th day of January

date, when General White was not certain that he could be here to testify.

I ask that this be made a part of the record at this point, please. (The letter referred to is, as follows:)

Hon. JOHN STENNIS,

U.S. Senate.

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 16, 1962.

DEAR SENATOR STENNIS: This is a somewhat delayed response to your re quest of November 3 for my views on the role of the military in cold war education activities and the alleged "muzzling” of military officers.

My views are perhaps orthodox and I comment first on the second part of your question. The Department of Defense has established procedures for the clearance of public speeches by military personnel on active duty. Because such personnel are part of the executive branch of the Government, it is proper to have established such procedures.

The U.S. Government is certainly the largest and most complex "business" organization in the free world. No commercial business corporation would permit members of its executive staff to make public speeches on matters concerning the company not governed by specific or general company policy. It seems to me that the Government has an even greater need to assure conformance to its policy, particularly in foreign and military affairs.

Motivational education of troops is another matter. Indoctrination of the soldier in an understanding of what his country stands for, its virtues, its heritage, and for that matter, its weaknesses, is a vital part of military training. The informed soldier is a better soldier. Moreover, there seems to be a vacuum in respect to this type of training in the average American family and in many schools. As a leader, the officer or noncommissioned officer must, as part of his duty, take a part in this educational process.

Here again basic data and guides are furnished by the Department of Defense. If the procedure governing such training or if these materials are inadequate, inaccurate, or deficient, it does not take long for the Congress to become aware and the constitutional balances of our form of Government come into play.

When a man enters the military career he knowingly enters a field which with respect to politics is a narrow one. I consider that in this connection the military career represents almost a polar extremity from that of the politician's career.

If the military man is compelled by conscience to speak out, either in contravention of policy or the propriety which must govern the man in uniform, let him leave the service. This often is a hard choice but I see no alternative under our system of government. Such a man can be, indeed, a patriot and a fearless leader; public opinion will at a minimum applaud his courage even though it might not be converted to his views.

It seems to me that the key to both these problems lies in the maintenance of the sound and historic fact that our Military Establishment is subordinate to the civil administration and that it is an instrument of policy and not a formulator of public opinion. This seems to me to be fundamental to our whole system of government and to preserve our way of life it must continue so. Let us not forget that license opens the door to abuse and that even freedom in some respect can become a two-edged sword.

I recently discussed with you my intention to publish a column on one phase of this problem in Newsweek magazine with which I am connected. While I have no objection to your publishing this letter I believe that much of it would be repetitious.

In accordance with your request I am at your committee's disposal to appear as a witness.

Respectfully,

THOMAS D. WHITE, General, USAF (Retired).

WHITE'S NEWSWEEK ARTICLE

Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, in the current issue of Newsweek there is a one-half page statement by General White on this very subject. If there is no objection, I wonder if that might not be put in

Senator STENNIS. Without objection, the article from Newsweek will be admitted for the record at this point.

(The article referred to is, as follows:)

'IF THE MILITARY MAN IS COMPELLED TO SPEAK. .

(By Gen. Thomas D. White, U.S.A.F., Retired)

A senatorial subcommittee under the chairmanship of Senator John C. Stennis of Mississippi begins this week its investigation of the alleged “muzzling" of military officers. Because a fundamental principle of our form of Government may be involved it is heartening to know that under this distinguished chairman the Nation is assured of a comprehensive and objective report.

Military officers are restricted in their public utterances. The Department of Defense has established policies and procedures for clearing public speeches and writings whereby certain sensitive international, political, or service topics are controlled. In principle it is proper that this should be done because active-duty officers are part of the executive branch of the U.S. Government.

The U.S. Government is certainly the largest and most complex "business" organization in the free world. Moreover its "product" is the well-being of the entire Nation and therefore transcends the mission of any business or corporation. Yet no commercial business corporation would permit members of its executive staff to make speeches on matters concerning the company which were not governed by company policy. Surely the Government has a vital need to assure conformance to its policies, particularly in foreign and military affairs.

The key to the current problem seems to me to lie not in whether military officers should be controlled in their public utterances but how and to what extent. The Department of Defense must cover by appropriate policy or specific editing what may not be said. But conversely it must not order what will be said else the military could be converted to a propaganda agency.

In case of abuse of authority there is recourse for all concerned. Within the Department of Defense there are established procedures for policy development and revision. The Congress has the right to investigate such matters and is exercising it. The electorate, like the stockholders in a corporation, can change the "management." The individual officer can choose his subject discreetly or refrain from making speeches or he can retire or resign.

I know very few military men who enjoy making speeches or consider that doing so is vital to the military mission. Officers cannot divorce themselves on such occasions from their official position, and, in fact, it is generally their aura of authority and the knowledge that they are privy to special information which causes them to be sought as speakers or writers.

But if the military man is compelled by conscience and conviction to speak out, either in contravention of policy or the propriety that must govern the man in uniform, let him leave the service. This is often a hard choice but I see no alternative under our system of Government. Such a man can be, indeed, a patriot and fearless leader; public opinion will applaud his courage, though it might not be converted to his views.

It seems to me that the central issue lies in the maintenance of the sound and historic fact that our Military Establishment is subordinate to the civil authority, that it is an instrument of policy and not a formulator of public opinion. This appears fundamental to our whole system of Government and to preverve our way of life it must continue so. License opens the door to abuse, and even freedom in some respects could become a two-edged sword.

Senator STENNIS. All right, counsel, we recognize you in the usual way, for such questions as you may wish to ask the general.

Mr. KENDALL. Mr. Chairman, as the background for examination of General White, I would like to put into the record an abstract showing the data concerning clearance of General White's speeches for the period from September 21, 1960, to April 25, 1961.

Senator STENNIS. Without objection, these excerpts from the speeches will be printed.