Senator SALTONSTALL. Now, in that connection, this question occurred to me as I listened to you and to Admiral Burke yesterday. Can a soldier like yourself, you have just come back from Greece, keep up with and be informed on the national policy beyond security matters alone?

In other words, if you wished to make some remarks, for instance tomorrow or the next day. Our national policy on certain questions, without going into detail, such as Africa, Central America, and so on may be changing, and what might have been perfectly proper for you to have said yesterday would not be proper for you to say tomorrow, beyond security matters.

General TRUDEAU. I do not think that that has the impact, Senator, that might appear at first, because, by and large, we are not talking about national policy. Consequently, in any speeches we make to the public, we are not trying to interpret, or need we reflect the latest changes in national policy, even if we were aware of it.

As a matter of fact, it is not our function to state or to deliberately influence national policy, and this is recognized. But a difference between national policy and recognizing and energizing our people on the threat of world communism are two different things. They may be related, but they are not the same thing.

Senator SALTONSTALL. What, in substance, you have tried to do in your speeches, to use your words, is to energize the American people as to the dangers of communism?

General TRUDEAU. My speeches, my general plan, very frankly, that my young assistant, Lieutenant Colonel Smith, helps me with here, is this:

The basis of my speeches are to inform the American people, American industry, the Association of the United States Army, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, anyone else who wants to know about it, of what we are doing in research and development.

Here is a billion dollars of the people's money. They want to know how it is being spent. I try to tell them, and I try to energize our laboratories and people in industry to get behind it and support it, and I think the results over the last 2 or 3 years have shown the impact. In addition to that, I do try to point up that there is tremendous danger from world communism. This is the challenge. This is why we are spending our money.

I like to point out to them, too, that a second phenomenon peculiar to our times is the rising tide of ethnic nationalism, which also is another term that is not viewed with favor in some places-the rising tide of ethnic nationalism. It goes on with this and, were there no communism in the world today, this would still be one of man's greatest challenges. The third thing that is peculiar to our times is this phenomenon occurring concurrently-and this has never happened in any generation or era before the explosion of science and technology, where 90 percent of all the men who are knowledgeable in this field are alive today and where 90 percent of all the technological progress made in this world has been made in the last 2 percent of recorded time, meaning 5,000 years, 50 centuries of history, for instance.

The people need to understand these things if they are going to sup

energize them to do so, in the closing paragraphs of my statementsand you will see it is a pattern-I try to bring them back to the fundamentals of our society and the great principles of our country.

Senator SALTONSTALL. So that, from your point of view, there is no danger inherent in the question of whether the national policy should change on certain areas of the world from day to day or week to week, because these great, fundamental problems of which you are talking are going to go on anyway?

General TRUDEAU. That is right, sir.

As far as policy is concerned, I do think that the awakening of the people to support strong policy in this country-and I do not mean strong warlike policy-I mean dynamic policy. There is no status quo in history. This business of let's stand fast today, boys, things are going to be better tomorrow-this does not happen The record of history does not show this.

Senator SALTONSTALL. And you are willing to stand on your judgment on that question and take any criticism or admonitions from your superior officers if they think you have violated any question of that character?

General TRUDEAU. Yes, sir.

And, beyond that, I recognize they have got the right to relieve me or to do anything else that is necessary in the best interests of the country.

REVIEW SHOULD BE CONFINED TO MATTERS OF SECURITY

Senator SALTONSTALL. So your thought is that any changes in your speeches should be confined to maters affecting the security of the United States; is that a fair statement?

General TRUDEAU. Yes; that is a fair statement. That is a fair statement.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Now, if I have time, may I ask

General TRUDEAU. I would be the last, Senator, to state, and as I did state, that any of us human beings are perfect, that there would not be some things said to which some people would take objection, and which perhaps in a second case might not, or should not, be said again.

This is true of all of us in the statements we make.

But I do say that nothing that would have been said in those statements would have been injurious to the overall efforts or position of our country, and I defy anyone to point one out.

Senator SALTONSTALL. May I change the subject briefly? Have you anything to say on another part of this committee's undertaking about the instructions to our troops; for instance, the Korean problem and the lack of instruction of our soldiers in Korea that was brought out!

Do you have anything to say on that subject? It was not mentioned in your prepared statement.

General TRUDEAU. I would rather delay on that. I understand that this may be a subject for some discussion before the committee, so, with your indulgence, since I have not had time to bring myself

Senator STENNIS. Very well, General, if it is all right with you, Senator Saltonstall.

Senator SALTONSTALL. That is all I have.

Senator STENNIS. All right.

Senator Jackson?

LACK OF JUDGMENT AND GUIDANCE AT LOW LEVEL OF REVIEW:
DOWNGRADING OF THE MILITARY

Senator JACKSON. General Trudeau, would you not say that much of the feeling on the part of our senior military officers with reference to the review of speeches stems from the feeling that junior subordinates are reviewing their remarks, and their proposed speeches really do not get to the higher authority where they really should go? Do you not think this is a lot of the trouble?

General TRUDEAU. No, I really do not, Senator.

Senator JACKSON. Well, I would resent some very junior person going over my remarks, who may not be as familiar with the problems that we face-some clerk, for example, who has reviewed a three-star or four-star general's speech.

I would resent it. I think this is much of the trouble.

General TRUDEAU. I think this is true, that they are. But I think what we suspect more is in the error of the judgment of these people, or of the position or attitude they take, or of the lack of instructions that they have, than just because they are in junior positions.

We would like to have matters considered, of course, by people with our-I will not say relative competence; their competence may be greater than ours-but at least the same experience in living through some of these tough situations to which our military people are inured. As far as the education of the military, let me say here that I submit that there are probably more people, more officers in the U.S. Army who have advance degrees in international relations or closely related degrees than there may be even in the State Department. This can be checked by anyone who wants to check it. I have never checked it.

Senator JACKSON. General Trudeau, I agree with you. In my talks to the National War College over the years, I have pointed out that, at least in my judgment, the Department of Defense has done a better job of indoctrinating and training our officers in the broad area of national security than

General TRUDEAU. I do not in any way

Senator JACKSON (continuing). Than has the State Department. I refer to the fact that we have a very fine National War College, we have an Industrial College of the Armed Forces, we have an Army War College, we have a Navy War College, we have an Air War College, and then the college at Norfolk, and others as well. I agree with you on this point.

General TRUDEAU. The essence of what I am saying is to that point: That I object to any statement that downgrades the competency of any of our military personnel in any of our services regarding their knowledge about international affairs. It is quite astounding as to the competency that has been developed in this field due to the fact that we have lived in the most difficult situations around this world in some

I will not accept the criticism that the military man is not prepared by education to have a competence in this field.

Now, to finalize the question that you asked me, I do not take exception to the fact that the juniors are making these, per se, because I find, or there is evidence, that in most-not on paper, but evidence comes back that the speeches that I have prepared, in a considerable number at least the personal stamp of approval has been placed on the deletions made or to be made by no less personages than the Assistant Secretary of Defense and Assistant Secretary of State.

Consequently, I cannot say that competent people have not had these speeches in their hands at least. Their actions, I do not know. Senator JACKSON. That is true.

It would be something different, if the Assistant Secretary of Defense or Assistant Secretary of State actually looked at the speech, but, as I gather from what little has come to our attention so far, this has not been the practice.

As an officer, a man, for instance, of your background, and others, who have had training by education and experience as generals in the broad area of national security, I would resent the fact that I found out later that some very minor individual, who has not had this background, has been actually doing the work in reviewing the speeches. The fact that they go to someone supposedly at a higher level does not mean much, if it is merely going there on a formal basis.

That is what I am trying to get at.

General TRUDEAU. This is true, Senator Jackson, and what you say is a fundamental characteristic of human nature and exists right within our military structure.

I know, as a subordinate general officer-and that is still a fairly high grade, even if you are talking one-star-that I frequently objected to the fact that decisions were being made by lieutenant colonels above me, on a staff level above me, without an opportunity to discuss it with people of at least my own relative position on that higher staff.

And, normally, in the Army that is done.

The best commander in the field is the one who puts the greatest reliance on his subordinate commanders and not let his staff run away with the show.

Senator JACKSON. Well, a lieutenant could write a good speech, but you would want to look it over as to judgment?

General TRUDEAU. Yes, sir.

Senator JACKSON. I mean you would direct him what to do. In my judgment, at least from what we gather here, these people are supposed to exercise judgment relating to the national policy of the country as a whole.

And I do believe-and I think the chairman has been interrogating in this area-that this is much of the trouble, and there is a feeling of resentment and I do not blame some of them for feeling that waywhen they find out what the real process is; not what it is on paper, but what it is in fact.

General TRUDEAU. Yes, sir, I concur with that.

Senator JACKSON. Now, let me

Senator STENNIS. Senator Jackson, would you yield to me for one

General, I notice you refer to the downgrading of the military and their knowledge of certain matters. I heard expressions from you, and this committee does not know about any downgrading of the military. I have not heard anything from responsible people about accusing the military of being downgraded. What do you refer to when you talk about downgrading the military?

General TRUDEAU. Well, I refer to statements that are made from time to time, and apparently by various people, that the military lack competency in this field, in the field of international relations, for instance, and this, as a former Deputy Commandant of the Army War College, where I helped to reestablish it after it was dormant for 10 years, I object to, because I feel that we had a very comprehensive program there.

Senator STENNIS. I certainly object to any general downgrading of officers. I know you may have some that are not versed in particular fields.

General TRUDEAU. We accept that.

Senator STENNIS. Including that one, I am sure you do.

General TRUDEAU. Of course.

Senator STENNIS. I am sure you do.

General TRUDEAU. Of course.

Senator STENNIS. That is one reason why I think you have to have some coordination as to principles that apply and should be administered in the right way.

General TRUDEAU. Yes, sir.

Senator STENNIS. I thank the Senator for yielding. I do not want to take up further time, but I appreciate your comment.

SUPPRESSION OF DISSENTING VIEWS IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Senator JACKSON. Let me turn to another area because I have known you for many years and I have always admired your candor. I have been disturbed in recent years by the tendency to suppress within the military-that is, within the military organization itself—the views of junior officers or subordinate officers on various positions taken by them.

In other words, all through history there has been the problem of an officer speaking out-he does so with the fear or realization that his promotion might be affected.

Turning specifically to the area of research and development where you need people who are not necessarily conformists, who have differing points of view than others, because they are in an area of research and development, do you think there is anything that could be done to improve the climate and to make it possible for officers to speak more freely without being disrespectful, of course, or disloyal, but to speak out and convey their message and their contribution to a given problem without fear of being penalized later?

I realize this is a tough question.

General TRUDEAU. Yes.

Senator JACKSON. But it is one of great concern to me, especially in view of the fact that the military is engaged in a lot of projects that require creative and original thought, where people have to be dissenters and nonconformists. I think that is within the scope of