Reply #41: JFK wanted smart commanders, ordering his generals to read a variety of sources of info...

[Octafish]

From The President Wants to Know: Memos from the President's office, 1961-1963 by Edward B. Claflin (pp. 281-284):

President In November 1963, after Paul nitze took over as secretary of the navy, Kennedy sent a detailed memo describing what he viewed as the military and political responsibilities of the chiefs of the armed forces, the importance of education and languate training, and the role of Special Forces units. The memo was also addressed to Admiral David L. mcDonald, chief of naval operations.

7 November 1963

MEMORANDUM FOR:
Secretary Nitze
Admiral McDonald

I recently sent to the Senate the nomination of (Rear) Admiral (Charles C.) Kirkpatrick (Superintendent of the United States Naval Academy) as Chief of Naval Personnel. When I did so I was reminded that I have transmitted to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Chief of Naval Operations a number of thoughts during the last two and one-half years, many relating to personnel matters. It might e well to summarize them for your information.

I believe that military and political factors are so interwoven that they cannot be separated into clear, well-defined categories, and that both must be mastered as a prerequisite to sound military and naval concepts. High ranking officers who hold positions of responsibility in the military departments must be thoroughly aware of the delicate sensitivities involved throughout the broad spectrum of international policy. The education, outside reading, duty patterns, and promotion processes of the officer corps must be designed to achieve this result.

It seems to me that service as an attaché is extremely valuable for preparing officers for high command positions. It gives them much of the political breadth so necessary in senior officers if our military and political policies are to form an integrated national policy. Furthermore, attaches can make both short- and long-term contributions of major significance. In the short term, a valuable assessment of the political and military situation in a country can be made by attaches because of their access to information resulting from respect held by most foreigners for our military power. This will be particularly true where the military of the country have a prominent role.

To exploit this advantage they must be bilingual to verify what they hear. Otherwise they will be merely an information channel for what the government to which they are accredited wants us to believe In the long term, the admiration attaches earn for the United States and the bonds of friendship they forge with the coming leaders of these countries can be of inestimable value to this country. For these reasons, I believe that only our best officers should be assigned as attaches, that they and their staffs must be language qualified, and htat their creditable performance in this billet must carry added weight in the promotion process.

In August and September of 1961 I had an exchange of correspondence with the Secretary of the Navy concerning an officer whom the Secretary called “the finest scientist in uniform”; yet this officer had been passed over by the selection board for the grade of Rear Admiral. At the time I inquired if there were not values other than technical achievement which carried greater weight with selection boards. I was advised that there was in process a reorientation of thought throughout the Navy relative to the demands of the times for greater education and specialization in science, technology, and other fields. I said then that I would be glad to write a letter to selection boards, or take any other course of action you deem necessary, to emphasize this need. I still stand ready to do so. I would like to assure that officers who devote the time and energy to improving their capabilities through study do not lose promotion opportunity. Not only would such losses waste the resources that such trained officers represent, but they would discourage our bright young officers from so applying themselves.

One of the best ways for one to expand his horizons is through a regular reading program. That is why I have been so interested in the Service programs. The books proposed, and provided, must cover the full range of national security policy—not just professional military subjects.

I know that much weight is placed on military assignments for developing the decision-making processes and sense of responsibility of our officers. Equally important is the need to serve in a staff capacity—particularly joint staffs—where the officer will be required to analyze, study, and prepare position papers on acute problems. I, therefore, support the present requirement that an officer must have served on a joint staff or an equivalent billet to be eligible for flag rank.

When I was in Norfolk in 1962 I noted particularly the members of the Seal Team. I was impressed by them as individuals and with the capability they possess as a group. As missiles assume more and more of the nuclear deterrent role and as your limited war mission grows, the need for special forces in the Navy and Marine Corps will increase.

I could summarize my thoughts by saying that an officer’s career must not consist of four years’ education and thirty years of experience. Throughout his career her must continue to study and to grow mentally if he is to provide the base upon which balanced decisions can be made. Personnel policies must be specifically pointed and administered to this end.

Since many of these points were raised with your predecessors as much as two years ago, I would appreciate your views on the following:

1. Has the quality of our attaches increased during this time? As a group how would you compare them with their contemporaries?

2. What percent of naval personnel assigned to attaché staffs are bilingual?

3. To what degree has there been a reorientation of thought on the need for special training for officers? Is this reflected in their promotion success?

4. Do you have any quantitative measure of the success of th reading program?

5. What is the status of your Special Forces?

/s/ John F. Kennedy

The United States once had an intelligent, compassionate, well-traveled, well-read and charismatic leader for President.