NECESSITY FOR SECURITY REVIEW Mr. KENDALL. General Trudeau, what is your frank opinion of the necessity for the review process? Do you believe in the case of a senior officer such as yourself that he should be required to submit his public utterances for review and clearance? General TRUDEAU. You mean submit them to higher authority within the defense or within the Government? Mr. KENDALL. Yes, sir. General TRUDEAU. I think from a security standpoint, as so ably stated in ex-President Eisenhower's speech, which I read this morning, that the question of security unquestionably necessitates some further review. As to how high that question should go, I am not sure. As a onetime security chief of the Army, I am aware that there are security elements in defense who live with this problem continuously and who might be aware of dangers to our security that even a well-informed individual in a senior position might not think of in the preparation of his speeches. Consequently, from a pure security standpoint, I agree that this can be a very wise move. POLICY REVIEW Mr. KENDALL. What about from the standpoint of policy review? General TRUDEAU. From the standpoint of policy review, it seems to me unfortunate in many respects if subordinates at several levels below those who have the responsibility of the review, and perhaps several levels below those who are making and preparing the speeches or presentations, are to be the controlling factor. It is too easy, even when a policy exists and when directives and procedures have been established, to have the purpose of such official documents vitiated intentionally or unintentionally by people who may not understand them. As a matter of fact, we know that it is not possible to make a statement and have it interpreted similarly by any 10 people. Consequently, there is a danger in this. CIVILIAN CONTROL NOT AT ISSUE It seems to me that the principle of civilian control which we all accept-and I know of no military officer that has rejected this principle should be operated through the military channels and it is not necessary for someone of subordinate rank in the civilian hierarchy to be checking on everyone of equivalent or even higher rank in the military hierarchy. This does not appear to me to be the system that we are discussing when we all agree to civilian control of the military. Mr. KENDALL. Then you are associating yourself with Secretary Lovett's statement that the review process could and should be improved by having higher level speeches reviewed at the highest and most knowledgeable level available; is this it? General TRUDEAU. Well, as a matter of fact, I am not fully cognizant with Mr. Lovett's speech, and I cannot say that I am associating myself with it, therefore, because I am not aware of the real But I have explained my position as best I can, and it seems to me that the very worthy purpose of this committee, in determining exactly what that policy and what those procedures should be, is why we are here today, and I am glad to make any small contribution I can to your deliberations and your eventual decisions. WHETHER SPEECH REVIEW LESSENS CHANCE OF UNINTENTIONAL DAMAGE Mr. KENDALL. Do you believe that there is a possibility that a military man who does not get his speeches cleared, to make sure that they conform to the national policy, might unintentionally say something that might be of harm to the Nation? General TRUDEAU. There is always the possibility- Mr. KENDALL. That the level of review is high enough. General TRUDEAU. I will have to ask you to repeat the question. I thought you were giving the liberty to the senior military personnel without the necessity of review. Now you have confused me slightly. Mr. KENDALL. No, sir. I was asking you if you believed that there was a possibility that if a military man did not get his speeches cleared, to make sure that they conformed to national policy, that he might unintentionally say something that might damage the country? General TRUDEAU. Well, if he did not, he would be the only element of our population who failed to do so. In other words, human nature being what it is, I do not know anyone that does not say something at one time or another that annoys someone else or some element of the population, or the Government, or whatnot. So, since we are not perfect in this regard, it is entirely possible that can happen. But this is not the thing, it seems to me, that has made nations rise and fall. Mr. KENDALL. My question, General, goes to the point of whether or not you disbelieve in the review and clearance system itself, or whether your objection, if any, is to the manner in which the system is implemented and operated at the level of the actual reviewers. General TRUDEAU. I only say this: I think speeches should be reviewed for their security. I do not think that they should represent the opinion of some possible subordinate operating at a higher level, if it is only opinion, against a senior official of Government, whether he is military or civilian. As far as I am concerned, I have always been able to control properly the individual subordinate to me, and I doubt if I would find necessity more than once to make the necessary correction of anyone subordinate to me who I thought seriously violated the national security or policy. HIGHER LEVEL AND LOWER LEVEL OFFICIALS DEFINED Senator STENNIS. You referred to lower level and higher level. I think we will have to specify just what we mean by higher level officers. At the lower level for general officers that might begin with one-star generals. That occurs to me in regard to the questions and answers. General TRUDEAU. My reference to that is whether a general officer of the Army-I will confine my remarks to the Army-whether a general officer of the Army, aside from security review, needs to have his preparations checked by a GS-11 or a major who happens to be serving at a higher level. Senator STENNIS. All right, proceed. General TRUDEAU. Now, may I add here that if this is to be the case, then policy and procedure need to be clearly spelled out. As far as I am concerned, except for the broad statements that have been made and a policy statement from the Secretary of Defense, I am not certain whether there exists a higher level directive for this; or, if so, how well it is spelled out, so that the people that have to implement it are really able to do so on a sound and consistent basis. Mr. KENDALL. Do you feel that sufficient guidelines have been made available to you to inform you clearly and accurately as to whether or not a proposed statement of yours might or might not contravene national policy? SPEECH REVIEW INCONSISTENCIES General TRUDEAU. I would not say so, because I cannot construct a positive pattern in the deletions suggested or mandatory that have been made and, consequently, I do not know whether they are in support of policy directives or whether they represent the opinion of an individual. There is a degree of inconsistency sometimes, probably due to the fact that different individuals are studying the same mode of expression I have in two speeches, but coming up with opposite decisions as to what should be deleted or what should be retained. There is a lack of consistency here that is one of the things that needs clarification. Mr. KENDALL. But you did state that there has been little difference in the policy review procedures between this administration and the last? General TRUDEAU. That is correct. Mr. KENDALL. I take it, therefore, whatever difficulties you have encountered, you have encountered over the years, substantially? General TRUDEAU. Well, that is very interesting, of course, because it indicates, since there has been a complete change of administration, that this apparently is not a political problem, and I do not want to be accused here of getting into politics by saying this, because that is one of the things I have very carefully avoided. But it shows that it is happening at lower echelons. This is the important place, at levels where people are not replaced, at places where they may not be checked. This (gesturing) is a very small one, but it is indicative of what I am speaking about. This refers to a speech given by me to the Now, in this speech there was stricken-I used the words that we needed a reawakening of the pioneering spirit— a reawakening of the pioneering spirit is needed today as we of the free world grapple with the vicious challenge of world communism. Now, in this case the word "vicious" was stricken and the word "world" was stricken. Aside from expressing qualifying words used by an individual—in this case being myself-I do not know what in policy would have caused that. The next sentence, which was also amended, begins: Whatever the merits of Communist claims, if America is to continue as heavyweight champion of the world, this is the time when our leaders in industry, business, and government and all walks of life must with the utmost seriousness and dedication engage the challenging problems facing us, our Nation and the free world. Now, the interesting thing here is that the initial clause in that statement, "whatever the merits of Communist claims," was stricken. Senator STENNIS. General, would you pardon me here on another matter? General TRUDEAU. Yes, sir. Senator STENNIS. All right, proceed. General TRUDEAU. The month before that, Mr. Chairman, in my presentation to the Nebraska State Legislature made at the request of Governor Morrison, the statement was used as to the position we should take, and then the sentence read: If it doesn't, we can be extinguished in the toxic darkness of world communism. Now, in this case "world" was all right. To get to a third one, which seems to fit in, in late November of this year in one on Veterans Day to the American Legion in Cleveland, I used a statement that: It is particularly appropriate, then, as we gather today with feelings of gratitude, reverence, and patriotism for those who bravely served, to look to the major trial which challenges this great Nation today, in this decade of the 1960's, and on toward the turn of the century. And here I used "world communism," but the word "world" was stricken in this case and "Sino-Soviet" was substituted for it. I have tried to pick out a simple example so that I would not have to quote at too great length. But this shows an inconsistency. What is communism? Is it world communism? Is it Sino-Soviet communism? Is it Russian communism, or what kind, and is there quibbling as to what word should be used to better define it? LACK OF POLICY GUIDANCE Mr. KENDALL. This goes back, then, to your statement that you are not able to find any consistent application of official policy for the reviewers handed down from above, but, rather, that changes seem to reflect generally the individual judgment of the reviewer, is this right? General TRUDEAU. As far as I know. I do not know because I do not know what the policy-and not only the question of policy, but, more importantly what are the di the subordinate officials who actually exercise the censorship judgment? I do not know. So it can be either policy, if that exists, or it can be their personal opinion, and I am sure that is one of the answers you are seeking. TRUDEAU DID NOT PROTEST DELETIONS But I am unable to answer it. As I said before, I have never protested one of these opinions. I have lived with it and I have done the best I could to improve further presentations. Mr. KENDALL. But limiting it solely to your experience with the material in your speeches, you have not been able to determine that there was a consistent policy? General TRUDEAU. That is correct. Mr. KENDALL. As far as it appears to you, then, it is the individual judgment of the man who reviews particularly the speech insofar as the changes that come back to you indicate? General TRUDEAU. Yes; that is right. DISCUSSION OF COMMUNISM ITSELF IS NOT FOREIGN POLICY: NEED FOR AWARENESS Mr. KENDALL. General, do you believe that discussions of the nature and extent of the Communist threat and the values of our way of life, the aims and objectives of world communism, the measures which we should and must take to meet the threat, are in the field of foreign policy? General TRUDEAU. I will have to ask you to restate it. I do not understand your question. Mr. KENDALL. Is it your judgment that a discussion of the nature and extent of the Communist threat, together with a discussion of the values of our way of life, the aims and objectives of world communism and the measures which we must and should take to meet the threat, are in the field of foreign policy? General TRUDEAU. Not of communism itself. The tenets of communism have been well known by man, some men, for a hundred years. They are not well known by a lot of our people right now and they should be understood. I know of nothing that has ever emanated from the Kremlin that has refuted their belief in the tenets of Marx or of Lenin. Stalin, as an individual, they repudiated, but, as far as I know, there has been no change in what comes out of the Kremlin. I think the conspiratorial nature of this threat is well recognized by everyone. At least statements to that effect have been made by President Kennedy and Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, a great American, for whom I have the highest admiration, and, consequently, I cannot see any change there that justifies our not taking the position of thoroughly indoctrinating our people in what communism is and what its dangers are. Now, neither I, nor, to my knowledge-there may have been exceptions some time ago-any military man who is advocating preventive war. There is no military man that I know who is advocating aggres |