Introductory Note By Senator Henry M. Jackson Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security and International Operations The Departments of State and Defense are the two departments of the government which play the chief roles in formulating and executing national security policy. It should be obvious that State and Defense are dealing with different aspects of the same problems— often with identical aspects-and should work in closest cooperation and understanding. Yet this was slow to be recognized. Dean Acheson recently put it this way: Today it seems plain that the responsibilities of the Departments of State and Defense are as interrelated as their problems are different facets of the same problem. Yet it may surprise you to know that not until the end of 1950, when General Marshall was Secretary of Defense, had the Secretary of State with his senior aides ever sat down with the Secretary of Defense and the Chiefs of Staff to take counsel on a common problem-then the situation in Korea. In the course of those meetings General of the Army Omar Bradley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of State entered into a secret treaty. They agreed that henceforth between them the phrases, "from a purely military point of view" and "from a purely political point of view", would be forbidden as utterly meaningless. Since the end of World War II, both departments have made progress in recognizing the interdependence of military and foreign policy and the importance of developing competent staff in the two departments for handling politico-military issues. To this end, the State Department instituted a number of interdepartmental programs, including the State-Defense Officer Exchange Program, the assigning of Political Advisers to the staffs of major U.S. Military Commanders (POLADs), and a program_of assigning officers as faculty advisers, and representatives to War Colleges and other military training institutions. In the subcommittee's continuing study of our country's national security methods, staffing and processes, we recently issued two publications: "The State-Defense Officer Exchange Program-Analysis and Assessment", and "Political Advisers to U.S. Military CommandersAnalysis and Assessment." We thought it would also be useful to have a review of the faculty adviser program. Therefore, in April this year, I requested the Departments of State and Defense to give our subcommittee a current analysis and assessment, along with a list of State officers who have participated in the program. The main intent of this publication is to make public the responses we received from Secretary of State William P. Rogers and Secretary of Defense Melvin R. Laird. The program of assigning Department of State faculty advisers to War Colleges, Service Schools and Academies was started shortly after the establishment of the National War College in July 1946. It has developed over the intervening years so that today officers from the State Department serve on the faculties of eleven military training institutions the National War College, the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, the Naval War College, the Army War College, the Air University, the Defense Intelligence School, the Armed Forces Staff College, the U.S. Army Special Warfare Center, the U.S. Military Academy, the U.S. Naval Academy, and the Air Force Academy. The State Department personnel are expected to strengthen the faculties of these institutions by contributing their special knowledge and skills drawing particularly on their diplomatic experience. As a general rule, the State Department officers are fully integrated into the operation of the military institutions, sharing in decisions affecting the institutions' operation, in active teaching, and in the preparation of parts of the curriculum. During the past academic year there were sixteen Foreign Service Officers on the faculties of the eleven military institutions-two Career Ministers, ten senior officers (FSO-1 and 2), and four mid-career officers (FSO-3 and 4). As the materials included here indicate, the faculty adviser program is judged notably successful by the State and Defense Departments and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and also by the participating War Colleges and other military training institutions. We cannot of course take for granted the on-going success of even such firmly established arrangements. A key element in their continuing usefulness is the assignment of high quality State Department officers with good judgment and the kind of experience that enables them to relate one field to another. This is easier said than done, considering the pressure on the department to assign its most capable, seasoned officers to fill the many critical posts in the State Department and around the world. We are pleased that the letter from our subcommittee sparked an up-to-date review of this program by the new Administration. Perhaps our expression of interest in these arrangements will help sustain their future usefulness to our government. JUNE 27, 1969. LETTER FROM SECRETARY OF STATE WILLIAM P. ROGERS OF JUNE 3, 1969, COMMENTING ON ARRANGEMENTS FOR STATE DEPARTMENT ADVISERS TO MILITARY TRAINING INSTITUTIONS AND ENCLOSING AN ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT OF THE PROGRAM THE SECRETARY OF STATE, June 3, 1969. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In reference to your letter of April 10, I am enclosing an analysis and assessment of the Department's program of detailing officers as faculty advisers, and representatives to War Colleges and other military training institutions. I am also enclosing a list of officers who have served at these institutions, the dates of their tours and the post to which they were assigned at the end of their tours. The program of assigning select officers from the Department of State to the War Colleges and Service Schools and Academies reflects the Department's continuing interest in strengthening interdepartmental relationships in the politico-military field. I strongly believe that the advanced interdisciplinary training received by military and Foreign Service officers at these institutions is a most important ingredient in developing them to assume increasingly responsible positions in the national security and foreign policy structures. I support, therefore, the concept of detailing highly qualified Foreign Service officers to the staffs of these institutions. Moreover I am gratified that their role is appreciated and highly regarded by the responsible officials of the War Colleges, Service Schools and Academies. We will continue to give this program our support in order to sustain its usefulness to the Government. We believe that the program's contribution to national security merits the continued attention and support of your Subcommittee. Sincerely yours, Enclosures: 1. Staff Analysis and Assessment. 2. List of Faculty Advisers to date. WILLIAM P. ROGERS. Analysis and Assessment of Faculty Advisers to War Colleges, Service Schools and Academies The program of assigning select Foreign Service officers to the War Colleges, Service Schools and Academies complements the Department's other inter-departmental programs in the politico-military field: the State-Defense Exchange Program, the assigning of Foreign Service officers as Political Advisers to major U.S. Military Commands (POLADs) and the annual assignment of Foreign Service officers to training at the war colleges. These three programs reflect the intimate link between military policy and foreign policy and the critical need to develop personnel and machinery with the capability to deal with issues affecting national security. Analysis The program's inception followed closely the establishment of the National War College in July 1946. It has evolved in the course of the last two decades and presently encompasses State Department representation on the faculties of 11 military training institutions(1) the National War College, (2) the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, (3) the Naval War College, (4) the Army War College, (5) the Air University, (6) the Defense Intelligence School, (7) the Armed Forces Staff College, (8) the John F. Kennedy Army Special Warfare Center, (9) the U.S. Military Academy, (10) the U.S. Naval Academy, and (11) the Air Academy. Since 1946 a total of 85 officers from the Department of State have participated in this program. Among the participants were nine Career Ministers and 57 Senior Foreign Service officers of Classes One and Two. Of the 69 officers who completed assignments in these institutions, 12 retired immediately after. Among the onward assignments for the remaining 57 officers there were the following: seven Ambassadors, five Deputy Chiefs of Mission or Counsellors of Embassy, one Deputy Assistant Secretary, one Director of the Policy Planning Staff and four Special Assistants to the Secretary or the Under Secretaries of State. In order to provide a maximum contribution to the attainment of the educational training missions and objectives of the various institutions, the officers assigned are selected on the basis of their diplomatic experience, maturity and special knowledge and skills in wielding the available tools of statecraft. To assure this, the Department, in addition to careful screening of candidates and continuous audit of the program through annual performance reports on the participants, in 1968 initiated in-depth evaluation by Foreign Service Inspectors. Evaluation The program is held in high regard within the State Department and the various institutions. The Director General of the Foreign Service, who personally approves assignments and monitors the program, is fully satisfied that it has maintained its value through the years. The 1968 evaluation by the Foreign Service Inspectors underscored the usefulness of the contributions of the program. For example, one Foreign Service Inspector, completed his evaluation on the faculty adviser to a service Academy with the comment: that he "has fulfilled his teaching and public relations role. . . with full satisfaction to his superiors and certainly a credit to himself and the Foreign Service ... He has functioned very effectively as a highly cooperative member of the teaching staff..." In addition, the commanding officers and heads of these institutions have annually provided a critique of the program and have continuously praised its contribution to the achievement of the educational training missions |