7/27/2019 Schlesinger, James R. - January 1976, 102-1-875

1/2

108 U.S . Naval Inst i tu te Proceedings , J anua ry 1 976

A Sense of History . . .A Sense of Values . .(James R. Sc hlesinger in aDepartment of Defense news release,10 ovember 1975)

Th e rime has co me to say farewell .In so doing I should like to return

to chose larger issues of nat ional purpose, raised in my remarks at the welco me ceremony so me 28 months ago.I do this for several reasons. First, thevitality of the nation's military es tablishment, its perception of itself, itsprecision of mission , ow fro m a senseof purpose deriving from chat largernatio nal unity and spiri t. Second, in ourWes tern democracies we face a testingtime. Around the world the number ofscares with a vibrant faith in the valuesof freedom co nt in ues to fall. Among theremainder there has in recent yea rs beenan ev ident malaise. Vision and co nfi-dence have diminished ; a vacuum of rhespirit has appeared. t has become agrave question whether national unitycombined with freedom, st ill elicits aresponse sufficient chat, in Lincoln'sphrase, nations so co nceived and sodedicated can long endure.

Necessary in no small meas ure ro therestoration of that larger vision is arevitalized sense of hisrory for it is thatse nse of history chat defines us as anation, that defines the values chat werepresent , and also underscores thedifferences between these values and thecustoms and values prevailing in ot hersocieties. That perception conveys ro ourcitizens why it is that we seek to defendthis particular national entity.

In a period of cultural relativism,observers comment on the problemscommon to all societies. Each, it is alsosa id , has its distinct ive advantages andweaknesses. Everything seems complexand gray. International trends maytherefore appear to be of lesser signifi-ca nce. Th e critica l distinction betweentotali car ian and free states becomesblurred.

We need again to sharpen our senseof val ues. Perhaps in chis Bicentennialyear we shall rekindle an historical feelfor that which defines this nation ulti-mately recreating that sense of nationalpurpose and national destiny that in-spires uniry.

Toda y along with so me seriousthought , there is a widespread pickingat our national institutions: government, industry unions the ArmedForces. A national mood of skepticismhas gone roo far. While a judiciousskepticism indeed is always necessary, amood of undiluted skepticism forcesco ncentration on the inconsequentialand ignores the permanent and the va l-uable. Institutions are indispensable;they organize men for co mmon purposes. Wi thout them we would haveunproductive conflict and no pooling ofeffort .

This larger social vision bears on thehealth of the nation 's Armed Forces. oinstitution, no more t h ~ any nation orman, can live by bread alone. Unless wearticulately redefine our values identifying those we are prepared to fight for,the health of the nation's military forceswill ultimately suffer.

The Department of Defense is sustained by the general hea lth of the society but it, in return, contributes inmany ways to sustaining that socialhealth. I cite but one. In the politicaland constitutional difficulties of recentyears, the nation's military establishment served as a pillar of stability. All

of us were impressed and reassured byits steady pe rformance, and from it thenation drew confidence in troubledrimes.

But will the Department 's ability toperform its miss ion display equal stability) ln parr, its continued strengt h willrequire redefinition of the overall rela-tionship among foreign policy, defen seposture, and public support. Changeshave occurred. From Pearl Harbor, re-inforced by the Korean war, until themiddle of the Vietnam war there wasonly limited public debate regarding ourforeign poli cy. Perhaps there was roolittle. onerheless support for the de-fense es tablishment derived from thatconsensus regarding foreign po licy - andfrom the es tablished premise chat politics shou ld stop at the water's edge.

Plainly there is no emotional or political base for that attitude roday. Th ebroadest elements of foreign poli cy willinevitably and properly b e debated.T he rise of the third world, the disper sion of power, the brea kdown of political bipolariry imply complexities thatmake unanimiry about foreign policyunatt ai nable. Since policies can nolonger be counted on ro stop at thewater's edge, a major element of supportfor the nation's military establish ment,derivative from chat older attitude hasceased.For it we mu st substitute a broaderunders tanding of the role of our militaryestablishment abstracted from almos t

ll foreign policy alternatives. Withoutchar understanding, our own militarystreng th will co ntinue to dwindle, per-haps absolutely but certainly in relationto that of the Soviet Union. Irrespectiveof foreign policy debates and foreignpolicy alternatives, this nation's military es tablishment plays a critical role.Whether we are successful in pursuingdetente or whether we hedge against thepossible failure of detente, a militarybalance remains necessary. Debate re-garding specific foreign policy actions orproposals will and should continue. But

7/27/2019 Schlesinger, James R. - January 1976, 102-1-875

2/2

unless we are prepared to withdraw intothe North American continent, thecontribution of the United States to theworldwide military balance remains indispensable to a other foreign policies.

We must establish public understanding and public support on thatbasis. We must make this Departmentimmune to partisan attack. To earn support , we must keep our defense establishment stable and reliable, characterized by high morale and by high ethicalsense.

The nation's military structure represents the shield of the republic and theunderpinning of our foreign policy. Itrepresents the security of all our people.It is not an issue of left or right orcenter; the nation's military establishment must protect all and should seeksupport from all quarters. We must becaptive of no particular political element. On the Hill we seek the understanding of moderates and liberals andconservatives , Democrats or Republicans freshmen or seniors.

We must correct this misleadingimpression reflected in headlines, "ThePentagon demands," which suggeststhat the Pentagon somehow is an organism detached from the rest of theUnited States or from the Americanpublic. We must co nvey that the military establishment is the shield of all andwarrants the support of all. It is not aninstitution demanding something for itsown purposes separate from the nationalpurpose. We must seek support nor onthe basis of what it will do for thePentagon but what it will do for thisnation.

The adverse trend in military power,in the production of military hardware,military manpower, military expenditures has repeatedly been underscored.It is not a matter of theory; it is a matterof simple arithmetic. A continuation ofthis trend will inevitably bring a drasticand unwelcome alteration to the preferred way of life in the United Statesand among our Allies.

Th ough we should pursue detentevigorously-we should pursue it withoutillusion. Detente rests upon an underly-ing equilibrium of force, the maintenance of a military balance. Only theUnited States can serve as a counterweight to the power of the Soviet Union . There will be no eus x machina

there is no one else waiting m thewings.

A democratic electorate has the right,every right, to allow the military balanceto deteriorate. It is a decision that canbe made unconsciously though by rightit should be made consciously . Giventhe character of the modern world, thatdecision wou ld be a mistake, which inthe nature of things the American de-mocracy wou ld be denied the opportunity to repeat.

In the 1930s there was a similar dis-inclination to face up to reality-etchedin Churchill's volume While EnglandSlept." Let not such lethargy and, thistime, irreversible developments be cap-tured in some future volume entitledWhile America Was Self-Abso rbed."

The problem faced by all our democracies was put most eloquently by deTocqueville more than a century ago:

" it is especially in the condu ctof their foreign relations that democ-racies appear to me decidedly inferiorto other governments" . a democracy can only withgreat difficulty regulate the derails ofan important undertaking, perseverein a fixed design, and work our itsexecution in spite of serious obstacles.It cannot combine its measures withsecrecy or await their consequenceswith patience."I have referred to this as de Tocque

ville's challenge. Let us be sure that itis not an epitaph.

America today remains the most re-silient nation in the world. Its sourcesof strength are deep-seared. I acknowledge her defects, which bur reflect thecommon limitations of mankind. Bur Icontinue to see the generosity, the dedication, and the glory.

Our destiny, forged in the aftermathof World War II , lies before u -beckoning, demanding. There can be noquestion regarding our ultimate moraland political responsibiliry. The onlyquestion that remains is whether weacquit ourselves well or ill. The ultimateanswer, I hope, is foreordained. Therefore, let no one here or abroad believethat this great nat ion will fail in irshistoric destiny as the principal guardianof freedom.

Good luck and God speed

Notebook 109

Kids like thisare justwaste ofmoney

Kids who want work butcan't get it are costing youmillions of dollars in we lfaremoney a year.That's why the Nat io nalAlliance of Businessmenwants you to help educate andmotivate a nd encourage kidsto get going on the right track,instead of on the wrong one .That's why we want youto give kids sk ills and training,part-time , and summer jobs.So if you have a job to give ,call the National Alliance ofBusinessmen.Be cause if there's onething worse than wasting yourmoney, it's wasting someoneelse's life.

Help merica workheNationalllianceof Businessmen

r t A Publ ic Service of This Publ ationThe Advertising Council