Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Public Papers of JFK 1961

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Public Papers of JFK 1961

    New ideas from 1961

    http://www.jfklink.com/speeches/jfk/...jfk205_61.html

    Nation building

    We would be badly mistaken to consider their problems in military terms alone. For no amount of arms and armies can help stabilize those governments which are unable or unwilling to achieve social and economic reform and development. Military pacts cannot help nations whose social injustice and economic chaos invite insurgency and penetration and subversion. The most skillful counter-guerrilla efforts cannot succeed where the local population is too caught up in its own misery to be concerned about the advance of communism.
    But for those who share this view, we stand ready now, as we have in the past, to provide generously of our skills, and our capital, and our food to assist the peoples of the less-developed nations to reach their goals in freedom - to help them before they are engulfed in crisis.
    This is also our great opportunity in 1961. If we grasp it, then subversion to prevent its success is exposed as an unjustifiable attempt to keep these nations from either being free or equal. But if we do not pursue it, and if they do not pursue it, the bankruptcy of unstable governments, one by one, and of unfilled hopes will surely lead to a series of totalitarian receiverships.
    Expanding the Network

    The center of freedom's defense is our network of world alliances, extending from NATO, recommended by a Democratic President and approved by a Republican Congress, to SEATO, recommended by a Republican President and approved by a Democratic Congress. These alliances were constructed in the 1940's and 1950's - it is our task and responsibility in the 1960's to strengthen them.
    Security Force Assistance

    The main burden of local defense against local attack, subversion, insurrection or guerrilla warfare must of necessity rest with local forces. Where these forces have the necessary will and capacity to cope with such threats, our intervention is rarely necessary or helpful. Where the will is present and only capacity is lacking, our Military Assistance Program can be of help.
    But this program, like economic assistance, needs a new emphasis. It cannot be extended without regard to the social, political and military reforms essential to internal respect and stability. The equipment and training provided must be tailored to legitimate local needs and to our own foreign and military policies, not to our supply of military stocks or a local leader's desire for military display. And military assistance can, in addition to its military purposes, make a contribution to economic progress, as do our own Army Engineers.
    Nice prose, sounds great, but we saw all this in practice during the Vietnam War and since. Much more at the site.

    Modernization

    In line with these developments, I have directed a further reinforcement of our own capacity to deter or resist non-nuclear aggression. In the conventional field, with one exception, I find no present need for large new levies of men. What is needed is rather a change of position to give us still further increases in flexibility.
    Therefore, I am directing the Secretary of Defense to undertake a reorganization and modernization of the Army's divisional structure, to increase its non-nuclear firepower, to improve its tactical mobility in any environment, to insure its flexibility to meet any direct or indirect threat, to facilitate its coordination with our major allies, and to provide more modern mechanized divisions in Europe and bring their equipment up to date, and new airborne brigades in both the Pacific and Europe.
    And secondly, I am asking the Congress for an additional 100 million dollars to begin the procurement task necessary to re-equip this new Army structure with the most modern material. New helicopters, new armored personnel carriers, and new howitzers, for example, must be obtained now.
    Third, I am directing the Secretary of Defense to expand rapidly and substantially, in cooperation with our Allies, the orientation of existing forces for the conduct of non-nuclear war, para-military operations and sub-limited or unconventional wars.
    In addition, our special forces and unconventional warfare units will be increased and reoriented. Throughout the services new emphasis must be placed on the special skills and languages which are required to work with local populations.
    Fourth, the Army is developing plans to make possible a much more rapid deployment of a major portion of its highly trained reserve forces. When these plans are completed and the reserve is strengthened, two combat-equipped divisions, plus their supporting forces, a total of 89,000 men, could be ready in an emergency for operations with but 3 weeks' notice - 2 more divisions with but 5 weeks' notice - and six additional divisions and their supporting forces, making a total of 10 divisions, could be deployable with less than 8 weeks' notice. In short, these new plans will allow us to almost double the combat power of the Army in less than two months, compared to the nearly nine months heretofore required.
    Finally, to cite one other area of activities that are both legitimate and necessary as a means of self-defense in an age of hidden perils, our whole intelligence effort must be reviewed, and its coordination with other elements of policy assured. The Congress and the American people are entitled to know that we will institute whatever new organization, policies, and control are necessary.
    History may not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
    Last edited by Bill Moore; 12-26-2012 at 05:59 AM.

  2. #2
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Nice find Bill. So after all your experiences in SF which of our past and present administrations have had the best Policies with regard to UW/COIN/IW or what ever it is being called now.

  3. #3
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    In JFK's era we were focused as our primary mission on stopping the spread of the Sino-Soviet sphere of influence. That focus totally biased how we thought about and how we approached the many nationalist movements that took place in the contested spaces of the "third world."

    Today we are excessively focused on AQ in a very similar way; and equally it has placed a bias on our understanding and our approaches to the many nationalist movements underway in the contested spaces and populaces.

    When one seeks to leverage someone else's nationalist insurgent energy for their own larger purposes, it rarely works out well for the people who's movement has been hijacked by these outside forces. But there is indeed a "rhyme" between to two eras; Now to find a better "reason" that has been largely missing. (as in "no rhyme nor reason...")
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  4. #4
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Nice find Bill. So after all your experiences in SF which of our past and present administrations have had the best Policies with regard to UW/COIN/IW or what ever it is being called now.
    Slapout,

    A quick response at the end of my lunch break. First off I think that is a great question that deserves more than a quick response, but until I can dwell on it longer the quick answer is President Bush Sr. For every administration it is easy to find fault in many decisions in hindsight, so I try to focus on I think they knew at the time and their rationale for making the decision. President Bush Sr was very cautious and deliberate, and in my opinion professionally managed the Kuwait and Panama scenarios. Avoiding a quagmire in both scenarios, and a couple of smaller contingencies. Obviously a bit of mis-step in Somalia (or maybe the military mis-stepped by proposing we take sides and diverted a humanitarian assistance mission into something else).

    Both President Bush Sr and President Carter saw combat during WWII, but in my opinion Carter didn't make decisions based on global realities, but rather the way he hoped the world was, and he was constantly disappointed. Bush Sr was a realist.

    Reagan did a lot in the UW realm, and while there were victories, especially in Afghanistan, I'm not convinced it was as well done as it could have been if we looked beyond the short term goal of ousting the Soviets, but then again that all seems so clear in hindsight.

  5. #5
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default President Carter

    He certainly served during WWII (midshipman at Navy, 1943-1946), and then active duty until his father's death caused his return to Plains in 1953; but I see no combat (link and link). From the second link:

    Entertainment was hard to come by in the rural Georgia of the 1930s, and for Jimmy his mother's brother offered a glimpse of the outside world. Uncle Tom Gordy had joined the United States Navy, and sent postcards to the Carters from around the globe. His nephew was fascinated with all the exotic places depicted in the cards and began to tell his parents that someday he'd be in the Navy, too. Before he even entered high school he had written the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, to ask for a catalogue. In 1941, he graduated as class valedictorian of his tiny high school.

    Navy Career and Marriage

    The events of World War II (1939-45) motivated many American patriots like Jimmy to enter the military service. There was stiff competition for admission into Annapolis and thus, Carter flung himself into his coursework, studying for a year at Georgia Institute of Technology in 1942. Carter was admitted to Annapolis in 1943 and graduated in the top ten percent of his class in August 1946, just after the end of the war.
    Regards

    Mike

  6. #6
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    Mike,

    Thanks for popping my bubble . The good news is that his lack of combat experience helps explain his naivism to some extent. The bad news is my memory is failing me. I could of swore I saw commercials during the election of him manning a AAA weapon and firing at Japanese Zeros. That begs the question how many Presidents have actual combat experience? I'm thinking at a minimum you have George Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, Ike commanded in combat, not sure he saw any, JFK, and Bush Sr.

    Definitely not a requirement, and the impact of the experience doesn't seem to be consistent. Washington and Bush emerged from combat and other life experiences more cautious and mature politically, while both Teddy Roosevelt and JFK remained risk seekers while serving as President.

  7. #7
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Combatant Presidents

    I have to mention our first 100% Scots-Irish president, Andrew Jackson (parents from Carrickfergus, County Antrim), who had a lot of combat experience - in and out of military service - starting as a 13-year old militiaman in the Revolutionary War.

    My memory conflates a lot of things, but it's been doing that for a number of decades.

    Regards

    Mike

  8. #8
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    Mike,

    Thanks for popping my bubble . The good news is that his lack of combat experience helps explain his naivism to some extent. The bad news is my memory is failing me. I could of swore I saw commercials during the election of him manning a AAA weapon and firing at Japanese Zeros. That begs the question how many Presidents have actual combat experience? I'm thinking at a minimum you have George Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, Ike commanded in combat, not sure he saw any, JFK, and Bush Sr.

    Definitely not a requirement, and the impact of the experience doesn't seem to be consistent. Washington and Bush emerged from combat and other life experiences more cautious and mature politically, while both Teddy Roosevelt and JFK remained risk seekers while serving as President.
    There's also Grant (2 wars), Garfield, McKinley, Truman...

    Eisenhower was a politician in uniform...one of the reasons he was selected to command Allied ground forces in Europe. His foreign policy judgement was always hazy, and we continue to pay for how he framed issues to this day. TR's risk seeking is in some ways over-emphasized, as he seemed to have a good instinct for when NOT to get involved with overseas things.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  9. #9
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    Slapout,

    A quick response at the end of my lunch break. First off I think that is a great question that deserves more than a quick response, but until I can dwell on it longer the quick answer is President Bush Sr.

    Yes, when you get some time I look forward to your longer answer. Bush the first was the only President ever to be Director of CIA before becoming President, do you think that helped his more realistic world view?

  10. #10
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Yes, when you get some time I look forward to your longer answer. Bush the first was the only President ever to be Director of CIA before becoming President, do you think that helped his more realistic world view?
    He also served two terms in the House, was U.N. Ambassador, and envoy to the PRC prior to becoming DCI. I think it is fair to say that he was/is the best prepared U.S. President as far as experience goes.
    If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)

  11. #11
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Yes, when you get some time I look forward to your longer answer. Bush the first was the only President ever to be Director of CIA before becoming President, do you think that helped his more realistic world view?
    President Bush Senior was well groomed to lead the nation based on his military experience, assignment to China, Director of the CIA, and 8 years as VP. Just finished reading the chapter in Kofi Annan's book "Interventions," that stated the first part of the mission to Somalia (under President Bush) went off very well. I was the subsequent mission under Clinton that was problematic. He didn't describe it that way, but on the other hand he didn't hold back when discussing Clinton and Albright. Anyway I think Bush did O.K. with Somalia policy.

    JFK wrote and spoke well about special warfare, but in practice I didn't see his administration as very effective based on my studies. Maybe given more time he would have proven himself to be strategically competent. His flame was exguished pre-maturely.

    I don't know if you can look at each administration strickly from optic of UW/FID/IW, but you have to look at their foreign policy as whole. In some cases avoiding engagements proved to be a good decision and of course in others we probably needed to get involved but failed to do so. Those good at miniminizing our involvement were Ike and President Bush Sr. Bush Sr. When Bush Sr did engage he almost always ensured the military objectives were clear and achievable.

    He learned as he went, but overall I'm fan of President Reagan for a lot of reasons. Although Congress did the heavy lifting he authorized the formation of USSOCOM which literally transformed our Special Operations Forces which significantly enhanced our ability to conduct FID/UW/IW. I doubt we would have seen the successes that SOF has had if it wasn't for Reagan.

    Bush Jr aggressively employed SOF, but it is still debatable (in my opinion) if his strategy was effective or simply made the problem worse? He certainly didn't have an end game in mind.

    Obama in the future when we have the ability to look at his administration with less emotion may prove to be one of the best for effectively waging FID/UW/IW. I know that comment will draw fire, but I'm calling it the way I see it.

  12. #12
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Thumbs up Good Job

    Bill, very thoughtful response. You did a pretty Objective analysis IMO.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 05-08-2012, 01:15 AM
  2. Public Diplomacy and National Security
    By SWJED in forum Government Agencies & Officials
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-01-2008, 12:32 PM
  3. Obsolete Restrictions on Public Diplomacy Hurt U.S. Outreach and Strategy
    By Cannoneer No. 4 in forum Media, Information & Cyber Warriors
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 12-30-2007, 07:57 PM
  4. US Public Diplomacy
    By Jedburgh in forum Media, Information & Cyber Warriors
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-12-2007, 01:06 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •