General TRUDEAU. Well, the human resistance to change is well known. In any society or any segment of the society, if you can find 10 percent of the people who are responsive to change, or 2 percent of the people and I am just using figures at large-who have the curiosity and the creativity to advocate change, this might be typical of any group. It is probably true; is it true in the military; I do not know whether it is more true than it is in other areas, but, after all, the price you make for a mistake in the military is perhaps increasing the number of casualties, the loss of a battle, or the loss of your country. So perhaps some degree of conservatism is wise here, and I do not criticize all of it. Nevertheless, one of the greatest jobs I have had in research and development-and it may have been my desire to see change and advances that was the primary reason for me having this job, plus some technical background-but the main thing I have tried to do is to energize all people in uniform, particularly the Army, to have this attitude. I have prepared articles and letters to go into our periodicals telling our people that if just one-hundredth of 1 percent of the men in uniform would come in with an idea, even if they were not all wonderful ideas, we might have substantial breakthroughs in the things we want to do in the future. I am sure that in many places an individual pays the penalty for this approach, and perhaps the only compensation you get for it is in self-satisfaction, which is something a man can hold to in life. But you have named a very big problem there, Senator, and I do agree with your analysis of it. Senator JACKSON. I know that you are the kind of officer that would respect the views of people you disagree with. General TRUDEAU. I seek them; I seek them. Senator JACKSON. Right. But do you not agree that this is an area that certainly warrants serious consideration, especially-I emphasize this-especially in view of the enormous undertaking that the services now have in the scientific field? General TRUDEAU. Right. Particularly in science and technology. Senator JACKSON. And the threat that we face is a total one. It is not just a military threat, as you point out. The challenge is on a broad front, and you do need people who will be willing to speak out within the service itself. General TRUDEAU. Well, actions such as these undoubtedly inhibit, inhibit or restrain, or, for a weaker person, might even prevent the statement of things that need to be said, in their opinion, at the risk of being wrong, at the risk of being wrong about the approach. And they are inhibiting, and they may, to some extent, restrain our junior officers and our subordinates from the willingness to accept more initiative. An individual should not be punished for exhibiting initiative. However, if he repeatedly does so without judgment, and you cannot depend on him because he has only poor judgment, then the thing 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: 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 General TRUDEAU. Well, the human resistance to change is well known. In any society or any segment of the society, if you can find 10 percent of the people who are responsive to change, or 2 percent of the people and I am just using figures at large-who have the curiosity and the creativity to advocate change, this might be typical of any group. It is probably true; is it true in the military; I do not know whether it is more true than it is in other areas, but, after all, the price you make for a mistake in the military is perhaps increasing the number of casualties, the loss of a battle, or the loss of your country. So perhaps some degree of conservatism is wise here, and I do not criticize all of it. Nevertheless, one of the greatest jobs I have had in research and development—and it may have been my desire to see change and advances that was the primary reason for me having this job, plus some technical background-but the main thing I have tried to do is to energize all people in uniform, particularly the Army, to have this attitude. I have prepared articles and letters to go into our periodicals telling our people that if just one-hundredth of 1 percent of the men in uniform would come in with an idea, even if they were not all wonderful ideas, we might have substantial breakthroughs in the things we want to do in the future. I am sure that in many places an individual pays the penalty for this approach, and perhaps the only compensation you get for it is in self-satisfaction, which is something a man can hold to in life. But you have named a very big problem there, Senator, and I do agree with your analysis of it. Senator JACKSON. I know that you are the kind of officer that would respect the views of people you disagree with. General TRUDEAU. I seek them; I seek them. Senator JACKSON. Right. But do you not agree that this is an area that certainly warrants serious consideration, especially-I emphasize this especially in view of the enormous undertaking that the services now have in the scientific field? General TRUDEAU. Right. Particularly in science and technology. Senator JACKSON. And the threat that we face is a total one. It is not just a military threat, as you point out. The challenge is on a broad front, and you do need people who will be willing to speak out within the service itself. General TRUDEAU. Well, actions such as these undoubtedly inhibit, inhibit or restrain, or, for a weaker person, might even prevent the statement of things that need to be said, in their opinion, at the risk of being wrong, at the risk of being wrong about the approach. And they are inhibiting, and they may, to some extent, restrain our junior officers and our subordinates from the willingness to accept more initiative. An individual should not be punished for exhibiting initiative. However, if he repeatedly does so without judgment, and you cannot depend on him because he has only poor judgment, then the thing |