Page images
PDF
EPUB

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chairman HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington

KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota SAM J. ERVIN, JR., North Carolina

JACOB K. JAVITS, New York EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine

CHARLES H. PERCY, Illinois ABRAHAM RIBICOFF, Connecticut

ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan FRED R. HARRIS, Oklahoma

TED STEVENS, Alaska
LEE METCALF, Montana

EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida
EUGENE J. MCCARTHY, Minnesota
JAMES B. ALLEN, Alabama

JAMES R. CALLOWAY, Chief Counsel and Staff Director

ARTHUR A. SHARP, Staff Editor

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington, Chairman EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine

KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota ABRAHAM RIBICOFF, Connecticut

ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan FRED R. HARRIS, Oklahoma

CHARLES H. PERCY, Illinois
EUGENE J, MCCARTHY, Minnesota

EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida
DOROTHY FOSDICK, Staff Director
ROBERT W. Tufts, Chief Consultant

JUDITH J. SPAHR, Chief Clerk
RICHARD E. BROWN, Research Assistant
WILLIAM O. FARBER, Minority Consultant

U

Introductory Note

By Senator Henry M. Jackson Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security and International Operations

The Departments of State and Defense are the Cabinet departments most concerned for the requirements of national safety and survival. And today, perhaps the most important issues of national security are joint State-Defense issues, requiring joint action by the two departments. These range from the overriding need to properly relate military means to foreign policy ends, through the development and execution of military aid projects, and arms control planning and negotiation.

Efforts are constantly being made to improve the State-Defense partnership by formalizing new structures and setting up new agencies, committees, and clearance procedures. Sometimes such moves help; sometimes they hinder. In any event, they are no panacea.

In national security policy-making there is no substitute for able people who, through training and experience, have developed sound judgment. And sound judgment seems to depend heavily on broad experience in dealing with people in a variety of situations in Washington and in the field, on overcoming the narrowness of department viewpoints, and on looking at issues from several perspectives, including jobs in more than one agency.

In this connection, our subcommittee had the good fortune to contribute to the start of the State-Defense Officer Exchange Program. Secretary of State Christian A. Herter's testimony to our subcommittee on June 10, 1960, set the stage for this new program.

Prior to 1960 the subject of an exchange of officers between State and Defense had been mentioned in a number of publicationsincluding our subcommittee's initial report in the fall of 1959. Also, the matter was under discussion between the two departments, with certain differences of view, and no decisions taken. In informal

alks between State Department officers and our subcommittee in connection with the testimony Secretary Herter would be giving before our subcommittee it seemed that his testimony would be an opportune occasion to launch the exchange program.

When Secretary Herter appeared before our subcommittee on June 10, 1960, he said in some precise words:

The functional and organizational aspects of StateDefense relations are, of course, important. More important, however, is the continuing development of personnel in both departments who share understanding and perspective in the gray area where foreign policy and military policy come in contact or overlap. In this regard, the common experience shared by personnel of the two departments who attend the War Colleges and the Foreign Service Institute, is very helpful. In addition, I

think it would be worthwhile to have a greater exchange
of personnel between the two departments. The men
loaned would function as an integral part of the host
agency, contributing their own special knowledge, and
would return to their parent agency at the end of the
tour with the broadened perspective which is acquired
through shoulder-to-shoulder work. We might, over a
period of years with such a program, develop a nucleus of
highly trained senior officers within the two departments,
each having a profound and comprehensive understand-
ing of the subject matter and viewpoint of the other de-
partment. If this understanding were regularly and con-
sistently brought to bear on the solution of problems of
mutual concern, much more good would be accomplished
than could result from efforts to adjust and refine the
respective responsibilities of the two departments. I
should add that the broadening of personal contacts
among senior officers resulting from such an interchange
would be a major asset in insuring the continuity of a
productive relationship between the Departments of

State and Defense. After this statement, it is my understanding that Secretary Herter told Secretary of Defense Thomas S. Gates what he had said to us. Three days later, on June 13, when Secretary Gates appeared before our subcommittee, I asked him:

Secretary Herter suggested to this subcomınittee that it would be worthwhile to have a greater exchange of personnel between the Departments of State and Defense. He suggested that “the men loaned would function as an integral part of the host agency, contributing their own special knowledge, and would return to their parent agency at the end of the tour with the broadened perspective which is acquired through shoulder-to-shoulder

work.” What are your general comments on that? Secretary Gates replied:

We agree completely. I have been discussing this with him. This is an objective we both have and hope to put into effect, at least in a preliminary pilot plant manner, to see how it will develop. I think only good can

come from it. In a letter to Secretary Gates, on June 21, 1960, Secretary Herter quoted his own remarks to the subcommittee and proposed an exchange of ten military officers and ten Foreign Service officers-on July 9, 1960, Secretary Gates replied, advising Secretary Herter that he looked forward to implementing the program.

The State-Defense Officer Exchange Program went into operation on January 9, 1961.

In our subcommittee's ongoing study of the effectiveness of this country's national security methods, staffing and processes, we have from time to time audited the operation of this program. In early January this year, as the exchange program marked its eighth anni

* For the texts of these two letters, see appendix, pp. 15-16.

*

« PreviousContinue »