The Soldier and the State
Page 63
11. For a trenchant criticism of the Kennan philosophy, see Joseph and Stewart Alsop, “That Washington Security Curtain,” Saturday Evening Post, CCXXVII (Feb. 19, 1955), 128.
12. For further analysis of the relations among budgetary policy, foreign policy, and strategy, see this author’s “Radicalism and Conservatism in National Defense Policy,” Journal of International Affairs, VIII (1954), 206–222.
13. For text of the speech, see U.S. News and World Report, XXXII (March 28, 1952), 84–86, and for Baldwin’s comments, New York Times, April 2, 1952, p. 20. See also Burton M. Sapin and Richard C. Snyder, The Role of the Military in American Foreign Policy (Garden City, N.Y., 1954), pp. 46–49.
14. New York Times, April 27, 1951, p. 4; Dulles, War or Peace (New York, 1950), pp. 233–238.
15. George Barrett, “That’s the Way the Ball Bounces,” New York Times Magazine, Nov. 23, 1952, p. 14; Peter Braestrup, “Korea: The New Professional,” in Yale Daily News, Seventy-Five — A Study of a Generation in Transition (New Haven, 1953), p. 81; Bill Mauldin, Bill Mauldin in Korea (New York, 1952), pp. 10–11; John Groth, Studio: Asia (Cleveland, 1952).
16. Hearings before Senate Committees on Foreign Relations and Armed Services on Military Situation in the Far East, pp. 380–381.
17. New York Herald Tribune, Jan. 20, 1953, p. 1.
18. The Korean War and Related Matters, Report of the Internal Security Subcommittee, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2 (1955); Mark W. Clark, From the Danube to the Yalu (New York, 1954), p. 81; Matthew B. Ridgway, Soldier: The Memoirs of Matthew B. Ridgway (New York, 1956), pp. 219–220.
19. See Angus Campbell, Gerald Gurin, and Warren E. Miller, The Voter Decides (Evanston, 111., 1954), ch. 4, esp. pp. 65–67; Samuel Lubell, Revolt of the Moderates (New York, 1956), pp. 39–45.
20. See John McDonald, “The Businessman in Government,” Fortune, L (July 1954), 68–70.
21. Charles J. V. Murphy, “Strategy Overtakes Mr. Wilson,” Fortune, XLIX (January 1954), 80.
22. Merlo J. Pusey, Eisenhower the President (New York, 1956), p. 129.
23. Report of the Rockefeller Committee on Department of Defense Organization, p. 3 (1953). For further elaboration of the philosophy behind this, see H. Struve Hensel, “Changes Inside the Pentagon,” Harvard Business Review, XXXII (January-February 1954), 102–103; Paul L. Davies, “A Business Look at the Army,” Military Review, XXXIV (December 1954), 41–42.
24. “Method of Operation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Their Relationships with Other Staff Agencies of the Office of the Secretary of Defense,” Department of Defense Directive No. 5158.1, July 26, 1954.
25. M. B. Ridgway, “My Battles in War and Peace,” Saturday Evening Post, CCXXVIII (Jan. 21, 1956), 46.
26. “Defense and Strategy,” Fortune, XLVIII (September 1953), 75, (December 1953), 77–78; New York Times, Oct. 14, 1953, p. 18, Oct. 15, 1953, p. 21.
27. Hearings before Senate Committee on Appropriations on Department of Defense Appropriation Bill for 1955, 83rd Cong., 2d Sess., p. 83 (1954); New York Times, Dec. 15, 1953, p. 31, Jan. 22, 1954, p. 12, Apr. 5, 1955, p. 1; New York Herald Tribune, Mar. 17, 1954, p. 1; Army Navy Air Force Journal, XCII (Jan. 29, 1955), 630. Compare Ridgway’s views, Soldier, pp. 271–272.
28. See Marquis Childs in the Washington Post, June 15, 16, 1954; Chalmers Roberts, “The Day We Didn’t Go To War,” The Reporter, XI (Sept. 14, 1954), 31–35.
29. See Stewart Alsop, New York Herald Tribune, Jan. 26, 1955; Chalmers Roberts, “The Battle on ‘The Rim of Hell’: President vs. War Hawks,” The Reporter, XI (Dec. 16, 1954), 11–14. For analysis of Radford’s earlier views, see Arthur Krock, New York Times, May 14, 1953, p. 28. For Admiral Carney’s opinion, see his speech before the National Security Industrial Association, May 27, 1954, New York Times, May 28, 1954, p. 2. Any conclusive judgment as to the role played by military and civilians in the defense policy decisions of the Eisenhower Administration must, of course, wait upon the availability of more extensive and better documented evidence.
30. Militant Liberty: A Program of Evaluation and Assessment of Freedom (Washington, 1955). See also W. H. Hale, “Militant Liberty and the Pentagon,” The Reporter, XIV (Feb. 9, 1956), 30–34.
Chapter 15 — The Separation of Powers and Cold War Defense
1. Pendleton Herring, The Impact of War (New York, 1941), pp. 115–117; Elias Huzar, The Purse and the Sword: Control of the Army by Congress through Military Appropriations, 1933–1950 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1950), pp. 46–52, 133–156; Lawrence H. Chamberlain, The President, Congress, and Legislation (New York, 1946), ch. 5.
2. See Carey Brewer, “An Analysis of Defense Legislation and Congressional Committee Jurisdiction,” Report prepared for the Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, 82d Cong., 1st Sess., August 24, 1951; Francis Shackelford, “The Separation of Powers in Time of Crisis,” in Harvard Law School, Government Under Law (Cambridge, Mass., 1955), pp. 174–180.
3. Organization of the Armed Services Committee, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 9–10 (1949); Title IV, Act of Sept. 28, 1951, 65 Stat. 365–366; Act of Apr. 4, 1944, 58 Stat. 189. For a good summary of the Committee’s investigatory activities in the Eighty-second Congress, see Report on Investigations by Armed Services Committee, H. Rept. 2489, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. (1952).
4. See, for example, H. Rept. 307, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. (1951); H. Rept. 857, 83rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1953); and Francis Shackelford’s comments, Harvard Law School, Government Under Law, pp. 166–167.
5. See Huzar, The Purse and the Sword, pp. 398–407; Arthur Smithies, The Budgetary Process in the United States (New York, 1955), pp. 139–142, 163–164, 183ff.; Edward L. Katzenbach, Jr., “How Congress Strains at Gnats, Then Swallows Military Budgets,” The Reporter, XI (July 20, 1954), 31–35.
6. See Arthur A. Maass, Muddy Waters: The Army Engineers and The Nation’s Rivers (Cambridge, Mass., 1951).
7. Sec. 206, Act of June 10, 1921, 42 Stat. 21.
8. Hearings before House Committee on the Armed Services on Unification and Strategy, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., p. 604 (1949).
9. Hearings before House Committee on Appropriations on War Appropriation Bill (Military Activities) for 1936, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 18 (1935), quoted in Huzar, Purse and the Sword, p. 147.
10. Quoted in Mark S. Watson, Chief of Staff: Prewar Plans and Preparations (Washington, 1950), pp. 21–22; Huzar, Purse and the Sword, p. 128.
11. Sec. 202(c) (6), National Security Act, Act of Aug. 10, 1949, 63 Stat. 578.
12. Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Unification and Strategy, H. Doc. 600, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 10–12, 45, 53 (1950).
13. Hearings before Senate Armed Services Committee on JCS Nominations, 83rd Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 15–16 (1953).
14. Hearings before Senate Committee on Appropriations on Dept, of Defense Appropriation Bill for 1955, 83rd Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 43–44 (1954); Hearings before Senate Committee on Appropriations on Dept, of Defense Appropriation Bill for 1956, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 211–212, 215–219 (1955). For an acute analysis of this problem, see E. L. Katzenbach, Jr., “Should Our Military Leaders Speak Up?” New York Times Magazine, April 15, 1956, pp. 17ff.
15. See this author’s “Radicalism and Conservatism in National Defense Policy,” Journal of International Affairs, VIII (1954), 206–222.
16. See Lawrence J. Legere, Jr., “Unification of the Armed Forces” (Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard Univ., 1951), p. 344.
17. Cong. Record, XCVIII (May 16, 1952), 5347.
18. Hearings before Senate Committee on Armed Services on S. 758, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 100, 113, 209, 211 (1947); Hearings before House Committee on Armed Services on Army Organization Bill, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 6013, 6023, 6036, 6046ff., 6125, 6128, 6202, 6208, 6235 (1950).
19. Cong. Record, XCV (Oct. 18, 1949), 14922.
20. H. Rept. 1797, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 309–311 (1950); H. Doc. 600, 81st Cong., 2d Sess.,
pp. 49–50 (1950); Hearings before House Armed Services Committee on Unification and Strategy, pp. 97–99, 300–301; Hearings before House Committee on Appropriations on Department of Defense Appropriations for 1951, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 50–62 (950); J. D. Williams, The Impounding of Funds by the Bureau of the Budget (University, Ala., ICP Case Series: No. 28, 1955).
Chapter 16 — Departmental Structure of Civil-Military Relations
1. Public Law 253, 80th Cong., 61 Stat. 495 (July 26, 1947), amended by Public Law 216, 81st Cong., 63 Stat. 578 (Aug. 10, 1949), Public Law 416, 82d Cong., 66 Stat. 283 (July 22, 1952). Reorganization Plan No. 6 of 1953 tended to modify the previous theory in some respects.
2. On the origins and background of the NSC, see Hearings before Senate Committee on Military Affairs on S. 84, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 588 (1945); Report by Ferdinand Eberstadt to Secretary of the Navy Forrestal on Unification, Senate Committee on Naval Affairs, 79th Cong., 1st Sess.; Walter Millis (ed.), The Forrestal Diaries (New York, 1951), pp. 19, 61–63, 315–316; E. R. May, “The Development of Political-Military Consultation in the United States,” Political Science Quarterly, LXX (June 1955), 161–180. On the comparable British institution, see Maurice Hankey, Government Control in War (Cambridge, 1945), pp. 22–31, and Diplomacy by Conference (New York, 1946), pp. 83–104; Franklyn A. Johnson, “Defense by Committee: The Origin and Early Development of the British Committee of Imperial Defense, 1885–1916” (Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard Univ., 1952). On the operations of the NSC, see: J. and S. Alsop, “How Our Foreign Policy Is Made,” Saturday Evening Post, CCXXI (Apr. 30, 1949), 30ff.; S. W. Souers, “Policy Formation for National Security,” Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev., XLIII (June 1949), 534–543; H. P. Kirkpatrick, “The National Security Council,” American Perspective, VII (February 1949), 443–450; The Brookings Institution, The Administration of Foreign Affairs and Overseas Operations (Report to the Budget Bureau, June, 1951), passim; John Fischer, Master Plan USA (New York, 1951), ch. 2; W. Y. Elliott et al., United States Foreign Policy (New York, 1952), pp. 83–96; J. S. Lay, Jr., “National Security Council’s Role in the U.S. Security and Peace Program,” World Affairs, CXV (Summer 1952), 37–39; Cabell Phillips, “The Super-Cabinet for our Security,” New York Times Magazine, Apr. 4, 1954, pp. 14ff.; G. A. Wyeth, Jr., “The National Security Council,” Jour, of International Affairs, VIII (1954), 185–195; Anthony Leviero, “‘Untouchable, Unreachable, and Unquotable,’ ” New York Times Magazine, Jan. 30, 1955, pp. 12ff.; Dillon Anderson, “The President and National Security,” Atlantic Monthly, CXCVII (January 1956), 42–46; Robert Cutler, “The Development of the National Security Council,” Foreign Affairs, XXXIV (April 1956), 441–458. For other reports on the evolution of the NSC, see the New York Times: Apr. 22, 1949, p. 14; Apr. 2, 1951, p. 1; Mar. 12, 1953, p. 22; Mar. 24, 1953, p. 24; May 4, 1953, p. 9; Sept. 4, 1953, p. 1; Mar. 18, 1955, p. 24.
3. Hearings before Senate Committee on Armed Services on S. 758, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 491ff. (1947); Sherman Kent, Strategic Intelligence (Princeton, 1949), p. 79; Public Law 110, 81st Cong., 63 Stat. 208 (June 20, 1949).
4. Hearings before Senate Committee on Armed Services on S. 758, pp. 215–216.
5. See, for example, Commission on Organization, The National Security Organization (Report to Congress, February 1949), p. 11; Hanson Baldwin, New York Times, Aug. 15, 1951, p. 10, and April 23, 1953, p. 16; Robert A. Lovett, Letter to the President, Nov. 18, 1952, pp. 5–6; Vannevar Bush, Address at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., Sept. 26, 1952, p. 8; L. E. Denfeld, “Why I Was Fired,” Collier’s, CXXV (Mar. 25, 1950), 47.
6. Hearings before Senate Committee on Armed Services on National Security Act Amendments, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., p. 209 (1949).
7. Frederick C. Mosher, Program Budgeting: Theory and Practice with Particular Reference to the U.S. Department of the Army (Public Administration Service, 1954), pp. 184, 216–217.
8. See Hearings before Senate Committee on Armed Services on National Security Act Amendments, p. 195; S. Rept. 366, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. (1949); Secy, of Defense, First Report, 1948, pp. 3–4, 40–42; Mosher, Program Budgeting, pp. 31–42, 46, 220.
9. Mosher, Program Budgeting, pp. 180–185, 192; Francis Shackelford, “The Separation of Powers in Time of Crisis,” in Harvard Law School, Government Under Law (Cambridge, Mass., 1955), p. 146.
10. New York Times, Nov. 6, 1952, p. 15; Charlotte Knight, “Mystery Man of the Pentagon,” Collier’s, CXXXIII (Jan. 22, 1954), 30ff.
11. See Unification and Strategy, Report by House Committee on Armed Services, H. Doc. 600, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 52–53 (1949), for an example of congressional support of the Comptroller against the Management Committee.
12. Knight, Collier’s, CXXXIII (Jan. 22, 1954), 32–34.
13. CLXXII (Aug. 28, 1954), 639–640.
14. Hearings before House Committee on Appropriations on Second Supplemental Appropriation Bill for 1951, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 17, 20, 53–54, 62–63 (1950); Hearings before Senate Committee on Appropriations on Second Supplemental Appropriation Bill for 1951, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., p. 88 (1950); Secy, of Defense, Semiannual Report, Jan. 1–June 30, 1951, p. 70.
15. Hearings before House Committee on Armed Services on Unification and Strategy, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., p. 624 (1949).
16. Charles E. Wilson, Address, Secretaries’ Conference, Quantico, Va., July 23, 1953, p. 14; P. R. Leach, Boston Daily Globe, Apr. 17, 1953, p. 18.
17. J. and S. Alsop, New York Herald Tribune, Jan. 26, 1953, p. 17; Lovett, Letter to the President, p. 5; Walter Millis, New York Herald Tribune, Nov. 24, 1952, p. 14; P. R. Leach, Boston Daily Globe, Apr. 17, 1953, p. 18; Fred Seaton, quoted in D. Norton-Taylor, “The Wilson Pentagon,” Fortune, L (December 1954), 96; “Defense and Strategy,” Fortune, XLVII (June 1953), 89.
18. Hearings before House Committee on Armed Services on Unification and Strategy, pp. 305–306, 357–358, 608–609, 624.
19. Hearings before Senate Committee on Appropriations on Department of Defense Appropriation Bill for 1954, 83rd Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 36, 38–39, 216, 230–231, 340–342, 355, 561–562 (1953); New York Times, Mar. 21, 1953, p. 1.
20. Commission on Organization, Task Force Report on National Security Organization (Appendix G, 1949), p. 38; Millis, Forrestal Diaries, p. 435. Except where otherwise indicated the sources for this description of the formulation of the 1950 budget are Millis, Forrestal Diaries, ch. 13 and pp. 435, 450, 500–506, 510, 535, 537, and Hearings before House Committee on Appropriations on Department of Defense Appropriation Bill for 1950, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 12, 16, 205ff. (1949).
21. Hearings before House Committee on Appropriations on Department of Defense Appropriation Bill for 1953, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 1, 57, 87–90, 97, 110–111, 142–145 (1952); Hearings before Senate Committee on Appropriations on Department of Defense Appropriation Bill for 1953, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 1, 5, 145–151 (1952).
22. Secretary of Defense, First Report, 1948, pp. 30–31; Semiannual Report July 1-December 31, 1949, p. 31. For Forrestal’s views on the necessity of a permanent cadre of trained civilian personnel upon whom successive secretaries may rely on coming into office, see James Forrestal, “Managing the Public’s Business,” in Joseph E. McLean, The Public Service and University Education (Princeton, 1949), pp. 236–237.
23. Millis, Forrestal Diaries, pp. 314, 317, 335, 352, 404, 415, 434, 497, 500, 502, 519ff.; New York Times, Feb. 12, 1949, p. 1.
24. Lovett, Letter to the President, pp. 2–8.
25. Lovett, Letter to the President, pp. 3–4; Report of the Rockefeller Committee on Department of Defense Organization (1953) p. 2, Appendix A.
26. Hearings before Senate Committee on Armed Services on National Security Act Amendments, p. 20.
27. Commission on Organization, Task Force Report on National Security Organization, pp. 37–38; Vannevar Bush, “What’s Wrong at the Pentagon,” Collier’s, CXXX (Dec. 27, 1952), 32.
28. Commission on Organization, Task Force R
eport on Departmental Management (Appendix E, Jan. 1949), pp. 16, 51–54.
Chapter 17 — Toward a New Equilibrium
1. The best concise summary and classification of American conservatism, past and present, is Clinton Rossiter’s Conservatism in America (New York, 1955). Among the better expressions of the more conscious conservatism are Peter Viereck, Conservatism Revisited (New York, 1949), Francis G. Wilson, The Case for Conservatism (Seattle, 1951), Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind (Chicago, 1953), and Gordon Harrison, Road to the Right (New York, 1954). Profound statements of a fundamentally conservative viewpoint will be found in the writings of Reinhold Niebuhr, particularly his magistral The Nature and Destiny of Man (New York, one vol. ed., 1948), the poems, plays, and essays of T. S. Eliot among which The Idea of a Christian Society (New York, 1940) is the most explicit, and Eric Voegelin’s The New Science of Politics (Chicago, 1952). Niebuhr’s Christian Realism and Political Problems (New York, 1953) applies neo-orthodoxy to current issues. Among Catholic political analyses are Ross J. S. Hoffman, The Spirit of Politics and the Future of Freedom (Milwaukee, 1951), Martin Hillenbrand, Power and Morals (New York, 1949), and Thomas P. Neill, The Rise and Decline of Liberalism (Milwaukee, 1953). Will Herberg’s Judaism and Modern Man (New York, 1951) and the volumes of Commentary eloquently express conservative elements in the Jewish tradition. Gordon K. Chalmers’ The Republic and the Person (Chicago, 1952) ranks high among the many critiques of Dewey’s educational philosophy. Thoughtful defenses of American political institutions will be found in Arthur N. Holcombe, Our More Perfect Union (Cambridge, Mass., 1950), Ernest S. Griffith, Congress: Its Contemporary Role (New York, 1951), and the essays of Don K. Price. Hans J. Morgenthau, Scientific Man vs. Power Politics (Chicago, 1946), and John H. Hallowell, The Decline of Liberalism as an Ideology (Berkeley, 1943) and Main Currents in Modern Political Thought (New York, 1950) are analyses of political theory by conservative political scientists. Representative of what one critic has described as “the economics of self-congratulation” are John K. Galbraith, American Capitalism: The Concept of Countervailing Power (Boston, 1952), A. A. Berle, The Twentieth Century Capitalist Revolution (New York, 1954), and David Lilienthal, Big Business: A New Era (New York, 1953). Penetrating analyses of the American political tradition reflecting the new stress on the uniqueness of the American experience and the dichotomy between American ideas and institutions include Reinhold Niebuhr, The Irony of American History (New York, 1952), Louis Hartz, The Liberal Tradition in America (New York, 1955), and Daniel J. Boorstin, The Genius of American Politics (Chicago, 1953). Lippmann’s views are expressed in The Public Philosophy (Boston, 1955). Some recognition of the coherence of the new conservatism as an intellectual movement is afforded by the reaction against it expressed in that stimulating periodical, Dissent. For further references to the literature of American conservatism, see the comprehensive bibliography in Rossiter’s book.