_IS COMMUNISM A MATTER OF POLITICS?_
The 1958 directive of the National Security Council ordered the
military into the cold war. In their participation in the cold war
they had to deal with the history, the philosophy, the strategy and
the tactics of communism. Since communism had endeavored to extend
its influence throughout the world in a thousand and one ways, their
tactics also involve the use of individuals, who are not Communists, to
extend their influence whenever possible. An analysis of their tactics
certainly involves analyzing how they have worked through the united
fronts, the communist fronts, through infiltration and in other ways.
Since communism does not work in a vacuum void of people, some people
who were not Communists were unwittingly involved in certain aspects of
the manifold operations of the Communists.
Would it be political to take an actual case history and to show
how the Communists have operated? Of course, such an analysis would
take on a different hue if the analyzer impugned the _motives_ of
the individuals who were involved. But the point here is that it is
impossible to show fully how the Communists work without giving some
concrete cases. When it is shown that even patriotic Americans have
been duped—and surely the Senator would not say that none of them have
been duped—it emphasizes the care which all need to exercise lest we in
turn be duped.
We are not contending that the military become a spokesman for varying
points of view in American politics. The 1958 directive did not
authorize “political propaganda”. As Senator Thurmond said: “I think
our people in uniform generally should not speak promiscuously on all
subjects, but they are entitled to tell their own military personnel
and entitled to tell the civilian population the aims, the methods
of operations, and the dangers of the enemy. The enemy today is
communism.”[188]
And yet some have raised a false issue, whether they are conscious
of it or not, and have said that Senator Thurmond is in favor of the
military educating America on politics. The _Arkansas Gazette_ said in
an editorial on August 4, 1961, that: “Mr. Thurmond, we are compelled
to observe, has not examined the implications of his doctrine that the
military should assume responsibility for the political education of
the American people—nor have Senator Goldwater and Karl Mundt.”
“Senator Fulbright just about said it all when he remarked to Senator
Thurmond recently in a Senate debate:
‘The Senator from South Carolina, who opposed federal aid to education
because he feared federal control of education, apparently wants the
military to educate the people.’
“There you have it. The right wing evangelists—the Thurmonds, the
Goldwaters, the Mundts, and the Alfords, who daily preach the dangers
of central control—are prepared to concede the point which has in so
many places resulted in dictatorial government: That the military is
and ought to be a means of political control and influence.”[189]
Is not the _Arkansas Gazette_ implying that communism is just a matter
of politics, and that Senator Thurmond is wanting the military to
educate the public in politics just because Senator Thurmond wants the
military to help educate the public with regard to the dangers, aims
and tactics of the enemy, communism?
Senator Fulbright has stated that his memorandum was directed against
the involvement of the military in partisan political propaganda. “For
all these reasons I strongly oppose political propaganda activities by
military personnel directed at the public. If we are to maintain our
political freedom and the Constitutional system which distinguishes
us from totalitarian dictatorships, we must retain civil control over
the military. This principle lies at the very core of our heritage of
freedom and Constitutional government.”[190]
If engaging in the cold war, in obedience to the directive of the
National Security Council, is engaging in political propaganda, the
military not only has no right to educate the public, but it also has
no right to educate the troops in any subject pertaining to the cold
war.
No one who knows the nature of the Communist menace can say that
instruction in this area is dabbling in partisan politics. Furthermore,
Senator Fulbright himself in his vote for the Peace Corps Act voted for
an amendment made by the Senate. “The Senate amendment, section 8(c),
included a provision that ‘training hereinabove provided for shall
include instruction in the philosophy, strategy, tactics, and menace of
communism.’
“The House bill did not contain a similar provision.
“The managers on the part of the House accepted the Senate language.
The Peace Corps officials have given assurance that such training
is already required in every Peace Corps training curriculum. There
appears to be every reason to give statutory recognition to this
requirement.”[191] The Peace Corps, the Senator says, is “part of the
cold war.”[192]
If the military in teaching the public concerning these matters is
engaging in partisan politics, then the Peace Corps is giving partisan
political indoctrination to members of the Corps. Unless Senator
Fulbright is willing to say that the Peace Corps should become a
center of partisan politics, he must say that such instruction is not
political. If this is partisan politics, towards what party would the
head of the Peace Corps, the President’s brother-in-law, be expected
to slant this “partisan political” indoctrination? But if it is not
political when done by the Peace Corps, why is it political when done
by the military?
We wonder why the Senator is involved in this basic contradiction? He
voted for training the Peace Corps in the above matters, will he vote
for the military to do the same? No, he will not, for his memorandum,
in effect denies them this right. If he says that it is right for the
troops to be taught the above, but not for the military to teach the
public—because they should not engage in political propaganda—then why
teach political propaganda to the troops? Yet his memorandum, which he
says was against political propaganda by the military, was against
the 1958 directive of the National Security Council. But the National
Security Council basically did not authorize instruction in any fields
other than those covered in the above instructions to the Peace Corps.
Although the Senator may not be aware of it, it is a part of the
Communist Party line to view anti-communism education conducted by the
military as partisan politics. It so happens that the Communists are
wrong about this. Communism, in both its internal and external aspects,
is not a matter of party politics.
We remind the reader that the Senator does not object to radical
statements only, but the entire concept of the military’s participation
in the cold war. He objected to the directive of the National Security
Council which put the military into the cold war.
The policy of the President is against the recognition of Red China.
Does the Senator think that it would be dabbling in politics for a
military spokesman to oppose the recognition of Red China and to give
reasons for his opposition?[193]
The author is against the military educating the public or the troops
in partisan politics. When a military official oversteps the proper
bounds, his mistake can be dealt with without abolishing, in effect,
the 1958 directive of the National Security Council. In curing a cold
the doctor does not decide that one must kill the patient. That would,
of course, get rid of the cold, but we can’t say that it helps the
patient. One can throw out dirty bathwater without throwing out the
baby with it.
FOOTNOTES:
[188] _Congressional Record_, August 17, 1961, p. 15030, col. 2,m. Also
in “Excerpts from Speeches by Senator Strom Thurmond on Efforts to Gag
Military Anti-Communist Speeches and Seminars,” p. 35, col. 1,t.
[189] _Arkansas Gazette_, August 4, 1961, p. 4A.
[190] “Statement of Senator J. W. Fulbright Relating to a memorandum
submitted by him to the Department of Defense,” p. 6.
[191] House of Representatives, 87th Congress, 1st Session, Report No.
1239, _Peace Corps Act_, September 19, 1961, p. 21.
[192] _Arkansas Democrat_, November 28, 1961.
[193] Both the Senate and the House have more than once gone on record
as being opposed to the recognition of Red China. For example see 87th
Congress, 1st Session, S. Con. Res. 34, July 28, 1961.