Dear Les:1 Thank you for your thoughful letter.2 I have lived through most of the struggle for unification of the Services and know, from firsthand experience, of the misgivings some members of Congress have had in respect to Service "merger" and its alleged concomitants, a single military chief over all the armed forces and an over-all general staff system with command powers. I therefore welcome the opportunity to make clear just what is and is not intended by the new defense re-organization plan now awaiting Congressional approval.3
I suggest this initial thought to your colleagues, for it is basic to this entire problem:
The defense structure is wholly dominated--as indeed it should be--by civilian authority. This is a legal fact. It is also an administrative fact.
You will recall that under the law, as the Congress amended it four years ago, the Defense Secretary was given "direction, authority and control" over the entire organization, and specifically, "direction and authority" over the Joint Chiefs of Staff as a group and over their Chairman individually. In addition, the Secretary of Defense, prohibited by law from being a military man, is designated by statute as the President's "principal assistant" on all matters relating to this department of the Government.4
Moreover, the President's relationship to all elements of the department, military and civilian, is one of direct command, so that his control over the military, as that of the Secretary and superceding his, is untrammeled within the terms of the Constitution and the law.
I need hardly to add that the power of the Congress over the defense establishment, exercised through appropriations, statutes, investigations and Congressonal hearings, exists under our system at all times, and this certainly is not an idle, irresponsible thing easily subjected to the domination of the military or any other element of the Executive Branch.
Frankly, with such a panoply of civilian authority reigning over any would-be military chieftain in the Pentagon, there appears to me to be no reasonable ground for concern that any military person would be able to function in an arbitrary, violent manner, endangering the foundations of unification as firmly established by Act of Congress, as conscientiously administered by the President and Secretary of Defense, operating at all times under the scrutiny of the Congress.
Even, however, were such an outcome a possibility despite these clear-cut civilian controls over all Defense activities, I think any fair appraisal of the reorganization plan will quickly reveal that the plan cannot conceivably accomplish such an end. The plan does not give the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff command powers over the other three members of that body; it does not give him a vote in their proceedings; it does not equip him with a large general staff with command functions; it does not dilute the civilian authority over him; it does not arrogate to him the military planning duties vested by law in all four members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; it does not make him alone the principal military adviser to the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Council and the President, this duty remaining in all four members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as prescribed by law. Neither does the Plan greatly enlarge the Joint Staff--the essential pre-requisite to the establishment of the over-all general staff5 (which is also specifically forbidden by the law)--nor does the Plan remove the statutory injunction that the three military departments be separately administered.
In short, just as not one of the prerequisites for the single military commander with a super staff exists today, so none can exist or be established under the proposed reorganization. I wish to add that it is certainly not my intention that such occur. Neither, I assure you, is it contemplated by anyone in authority in the Executive Branch.
The Reorganization Plan, in my judgment, will improve the efficiency of the Defense Department and will also make it possible for the Joint Chiefs of Staff to devote more of their time to their fundamental and grave responsibilities. For these reasons, I am very hopeful that Congress will soon approve it.6
I well recall your strong endorsement of Admiral Radford for the post of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and, of course, am gratified, as I am sure he will be, to know of your approval of his nomination.7 Sincerely
