Chapter IX: 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.