This is a machine-generated transcript. Text is unformatted and may contain errors.
I am Clark McGregor a member of Congress from the state of Minnesota serving on the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives our discussion this morning which I am privileged to moderate is centered about the topic is America becoming a militaristic society are very distinguished panel includes names which I believe you have before you I will introduce each of them just preceding his remarks but for your benefit let me in the K. to you our panelists will be the very distinguished mayor of the city of Gary in the end of the honorable Richard G. Hatter Mr Marcus Raskin co-director of the Institute of Policy Studies Mr Gus Tyler assistant president International Ladies Garment Workers Union Mr Jack Valenti president Motion Picture Association of America former personal advisor to the president of the United States Daniel Walker lately much in the News vice president general counsel and director of Montgomery Ward and Company Incorporated and Edward Stokes director of African Affairs for the United States of the National Student Association our panelists to be introduced and to speak in the order in which I have given their names will explore the extent to which the needs the thinking the priorities of the military and related institutions have shaped our nation's economy society and foreign policy the question is of particular importance because large segments of American society are demanding a dramatic shift in national priorities and additives. The pal reflects the funds concern for the domestic political and social forces which shape the United States foreign policy each of us has been provided in advance of this morning's session with certain guiding questions that will give direction to our panelists comments and hopefully to your subsequent questions these guiding questions are as follows First what is the extent and power of the military industrial complex and can it be controlled secondly can the military make a useful contribution to solving domestic problems through training social science research and so forth is there an American inclination to try to solve problems by hardware technology and force and forth and finally what arrangement of forces could bring about a reorientation in American attitudes and priorities starting off our panel discussion is the co-director of the Institute for Policy Studies Mr Marcus Raskin. Mr Raskin was a consultant to the Office of Science and technology education advisor to the Bureau of the budget and a disarmament advisor to the National Security Council in the Kennedy administration he also served on the U.S. delegation to the one nine hundred sixty two eighteen nation Geneva Conference and as secretary to the congressional liberal project he is a trustee of Antioch College a former contributing editor of Ramparts and with Bernard Fall co-edited the Vietnam Raider to begin our panel discussion is America becoming a militaristic society it's my pleasure to introduce to you Mr Marcus Raskin Thank you. Mr Chairman members of the panel and members of the conference. I'm pleased to be here and from hearing what I've done in the past I want to add one or two more things so that it should be clear where I stand on various issues. I was also indicted by the government for a conspiracy on the question of. Aiding and abetting on the draft although I was able to I don't know rightly or wrongly I ended up being shown not guilty whether that's a good or bad is another question. When I do want to speak to today is. Not the question Is America more militaristic and so forth because I think the facts will show that basically America is in the interest society since one thousand nine hundred five since the end of the Second World War the United States has spent. Approximately thirteen hundred fifty billion dollars in defense in defense related items the Department of Defense has available now to spend that is in terms of obligations and money that the Congress has voted approximately one hundred fourteen billion four hundred million dollars. There are approximately three and a half million people. Who are on Act three million three hundred fifty thousand people who are on active duty in the military plus approximately another three million people directly dependent on the Department of Defense for. For their income size that they're proximately two million seven hundred fifty eight thousand people who are. Who can be counted as members of reserve personnel So in effect what we are talking about at least in terms of numbers and people directly affected directly involved reasonably large a large segment of American society now the fact that a society is militarist doesn't necessarily tell you that the society is bellicose there are distinctions to be made. The militarist society is one that believes in preparing for war in part and also in a command ethic that is if the president the United States can't really handle things at home because it really takes a very great deal of persuasion he knows that if he calls up the Department of Defense and ask them to bring over a memorandum at a certain time as Mr Valenti I'm sure will testify they will do that which is probably unlikely from other departments of the government so in effect what you can count on is a sense of command which indeed as part of an authoritarian ethic turns out to be very important in a society which both swings between authoritarianism and a mock sense of anarchism in terms of bellicosity of course the United States in my view turns out to be reasonably bellicose that is the According to the Department of State since its inception the United States is involved itself in one hundred twenty five conflicts this of course includes cleaning up the Indians and so forth but but it gives you a sense of the fact of the United States as as a nation that views warrior ism as an important aspect of its culture now the question then becomes what is the nature of the social contract. Which all of us have entered into that is Have we entered into contract with a national security state which has at its beck and call huge resources to spend on military or defense or military related items My guess is that as the society changes either in part because of technology in part because of the sense of self control time as well as dissonance which people feel with their own lives we will find that more and more people will not want to feel that they are contracted into a national security state where most of the resources of the public resources of the society are spend for military hardware and for command and activities of Imperium So that means that in effect what we are on is on one level a long term series of confrontations in the society in terms of a situation where in the basic allocation in terms of human resources and military restore and material resources will have to be made or will be made away from the National Security State. Now the question immediately comes about who are the groups that in fact will do this that is will participate in attempting to reallocate. The resources of the society Well first of all we will begin to see that clearly mad necrophiliac activity such as anti-ballistic missiles nuclear weapons and so forth which can very clearly be identified as. As related to a very powerful sense of madness will begin more and more to be questioned in the society. Such things as chemical and biological warfare will begin to be questioned. And indeed will have as its base the idea that we should not be spending money or indeed people will begin striking in a taxpayer suit against paying for such such activities that's one thing Secondly we will begin to see more and more people saying why should monies be spent in this way when indeed our local communities are rotting where in fact we have a situation where pollution is impossible we're no community really in fact exists in a neighborly sense and so forth so that more and more people will begin attempting to reach out not internationally in an imperialist way but indeed to their neighbor to begin to figure out how to build from the bottom up the idea of neighborhood community it will be found that that will take a very great deal of resources both intellectual and material and the result of that again will be and it a series of confrontations between the national security state and the idea of city and neighborhood community that will be a second thing. Third what we will begin to see is that the Democratic and the Republican Party more and more and. I don't mean to do battle here with my brethren but that more and more there will be some sort of sense that the democratic in the Republican Party turns out to be in an impossible bag that they in fact have built a national security state and that they cannot really in fact be expected to go about dismantling it and analyzing it analyzing it in such a way as to reconstruct a community in a society which more and more has become a national security state my judgment is that that will require most likely. The beginnings of a new party of a new political party of a new direction in the country and the result of that will not necessarily mean. The sense of things falling apart but finally the channeling of energies which many thousands and millions of people feel into a direction that will in fact fill fit back into the political spectrum because the fact of the matter is that that the in my view while it is necessary to have confrontations and so forth they should stem from an existential base and that the anthropology which now exists between the police and demonstrators in the street in which every few months there is some sort of rumble is not really anything beyond that and what we have to do is now begin to build solidly in an intellectual and in a political way to begin dismantling the national security state and to begin seeing how in fact the society can. See how the society itself has fed into a system which is allowed resources and authority to so mismanage and mis allocate the resources of the society. As well as individuals lives I'd like to say something finally about that the idea of the national security state is that in effect people are not citizens that they're hostages and that in fact it doesn't matter what class individuals are in that in fact they are used as hostages for activities that they have no control over now the result of that is that finally when people feel enough dissonance with what it is that's going on in a political way they stop being hostages and they become citizens which means they become reasoning people and political people on that basis I think it is possible barely possible to begin talking about the dismantling of the National Security State thank you very much thank you. Thank you. Thank you thank you very much Mr Marcus Rascon ladies and gentlemen our next panelist is the assistant president of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union Gus Tyler is director of the Wu Department of Education and secretary treasurer of the National Center for Education and politics he has written extensively on the labor movement politics education law enforcement and a variety of social issues he has conducted courses for foreign trade unionists at Columbia University and at the International Labor Studies Center at Annapolis Maryland it is my great pleasure to introduce to you Mr Gus Tyler. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU Congressman MacGregor. Fellow panelists ladies and gentlemen may I follow the pattern of stablish by Mark rescue. Establishing my prejudice at the outset I have one. I am firmly convinced that a free society must be eternally vigilant to preserve its freedom against the evitable and months of a military establishment we have too many instances in the world where the military power is openly and blatantly the decisive power in the society there are numberless Latin American republics where as a pattern of government the military establishment allows the political parties to play out some kind of democratic charade until such a moment where the military establishment feels that its ideology or its income may be threatened whereupon the military step in and the Clare of the government at an end. And within recent days in such normally on militaristically nations as Syria and southern states that were a via military merely steps in and takes over full and open governmental power in my time the memorable moment was General Franco the military toppling the Republic of Spain and remaining in power. Indonesia is a somewhat similar case in Red China it was the military that in the final analysis was given the responsibility for suppressing Mousa tongues factional opponents and when the Red Guard get out of hand it was the military became the decisive power in Red China in the Soviet Union it is the military that was of the size of force in resolving the relationships of the Salvi a Union to its satellite states and may I had in all likelihood it was the military plated the size of rolled in ousting if when it felt that he was turning to Western. I mentioned these other states because I think we have to ourselves the responsibility of not using terms loosely and simply stating that because of the fact that the American military may have undue influence in our democratic society that therefore we and sometimes by implication we alone suffer from this universal malignancy what has happened in other free countries can happen in the United States hence the need for the eternal vigilance to give us further perspective in the discussions that will follow up panel presentation. May widen my prejudices my prejudices are not narrow they reach out in many directions I think that there is need for eternal vigilance against any overwhelming aggregation of power whether it be the church. Finance oil those T.V. cameras that are trained on us the press unions educators political parties and the government itself as one looks at the military establishment one can easily see the danger of a militarist society by focusing on other stablish Ment's other isms come forward some of the slick there are a number of years ago wrote a great book in which you described America as the not militarist but laboris society dominated by the unions Jim Burnham wrote a book called The managerial revolution in which you said this country was dominated not by the military but by the managerial technicians John Kenneth Galbraith recently wrote a book the new industrial society in which he for see is the moment when America will be run by the educators and the educated hopefully in that book under the leadership of Ken Galbraith himself. If you read a book called Organized Crime written by Gus Tyler I'm sure you will walk away with the impression that the single most powerful institution in the United States is the underworld and if you read the publications of the John Birch Society it's the communists the ant the semis the Jews and if you read Philip Roth you'll find out it's the mothers. Since the mothers of the world unite you have nothing to lose but your sons. But you and I know perfectly well that the people who dominate this country are the people who were described by Richard Root Beer not many years ago you were nine know that this country is run by the WASP establishment under the leadership of John McCloy. So one may view any one of these powers and should view any one of these powers as a potential menace to the growth of the proportions where they overwhelm the society and I count the military among them why this listing to provide perspective and balance. If by a militaristically society we mean a society where all of the key decisions originate from and they're imposed by the military I do not think we live in a militarist exercise I am not impressed by the numbers game at all in one thousand nine hundred forty five sir he eight point three almost forty percent of our gross national product went toward military expenditures in one thousand nine hundred fifty three almost a decade later it went down to thirteen point eight of our gross national product and in one thousand and sixty five a decade later it went down to seven point four percent of our gross national product that is ninety three percent of our gross national product at the present time the best figure I have is ninety one percent does not go for military or military related or distantly a military associated goes for civilian purposes so I playing the numbers game I can prove that we are becoming a demilitarized to society I refuse to play the numbers game because I look upon it as somewhat irrelevant the amount of the expenditure generally flows with a degree of active involvement in how War Cold War On no war and does not go to the question of whether the military establishment has funk influence in determining the course of this nation I revert there is a sufficient military influence in the United States for us to big concerns to be alert to be shop Lee critical and to set up procedures whereby we can curb the military at the present time so this is more so problem today than ever. Reason the tradition of the United States was the Minutemen you make a nominee you fight a war and the war you and the army and that's the way it was up until World War two by virtue of America's role in the world for better or worse and the total tensions existing in the world for better or worse this country has found itself in virtually perpetual military involvement from one thousand nine hundred thirty nine to the present hence the problem is greater than it has been in the past but I wish to make a firm recommendation to one of them number one I think we need a permanent watchdog over the military in the United States I do not look upon the congressional committees as watchdogs I think they tend more to be black dogs too I do not believe. I don't not believe that the military budget should go through as it does now in one great untasteful lump that budget should be examined as tightly as any other budget. Certainly we have to examine it and through the problem of the relationships of brass big brass to big business and the halting of the process of the feathering of the military nest from the day when the military man leaves to join a corporation we have to look into the problem of troop indoctrination in the United States the use of military facilities for troop indoctrination politically one way or the other we have to look into the problem of the influence of brass generally acting on behalf of business with Congressman when they're in a position to place contracts and hence patronage we have to look into their role as advisors to government and their action as military governess one final thought I have my own pet project that's going on this year we started it last year I want to look into the human rights of a man in uniform I want to know one how is military justice couldn't got good Secondly what degree is a man allowed his own conscience within the framework of military responsibility and discipline and finally how all the international conventions concerning prisoners of war call of conduct and status of forces carried out the present time throughout the world. Thank you very much tighter for a provocative ten and one half minutes you only want thirty seconds over time ladies and gentlemen let me remind you that. Our overall topic of this panel is the question is America becoming a militaristic society we've heard two excellent panelists address themselves to some of the guiding questions presented by the sponsors of this convocation. We will shortly be introducing our next speaker but perhaps we might all bear in mind some of our guiding questions include the one Can the military make a useful contribution to solving domestic problems through training social science research and so forth is there an American inclination to try to solve problems by hard work technology and force our next speaker is the current president of the Motion Picture Association of America Mr Jack La Lanne he has served as special assistant to President Johnson and served in that capacity from one nine hundred sixty three to one nine hundred sixty six a former Texas businessman he is a member of the boards of trustees of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and the American Film Institute ladies and gentleman Mr Jack Valenti thank you. Thank you Congressman MacGregor. Ladies and gentleman. I think at the outset I should. Allow you to make a judgment about me that will color whatever I have to say whether you think I'm a brave plucky charming and true or some kind of an idiot engaging I hope I do not believe that America is becoming a militaristic society and I say that for some very personal reasons. I have great respect for the the intellectual spaciousness of Mr Ruskin and and I'm a I'm a reader of Gus Tyler so that since I buy his books I have the right to be critical. I'm looking at this not from the outside looking in on some vast and an opaque government but from the inside looking out for I would judge the dimensions of a militarist to society or at least its specifications not so much in numbers are in fact but in spirit for it is in the spirit of a nation that you must judge its future if indeed. By the Spirit you may also judge its past the achievement those play a part in that and I think by the definition of our of a militaristic society sometimes we we use we go on a swing in trip not on smack or acid but on some high blown prose injected mainline I might add I would rather define what I think a minute society is and at least if I set my objectives low enough I may persuade you but any rate I would judge it as one where the civilian authority is dominated by the military and where the military is unresponsive to the needs and the aspirations and the hopes and the yearnings of this country and where indeed the military set both the shape and the form of this country's move toward the future as one who served for three years and in a beleaguered government I wish to you that that is untrue is anything that I know it is true. That the military does have a kind of a mystic expertise which ordinary people like myself or find difficult to refute I.E. troop movements logistics deployments megatons a mine a tons many tons and it's very difficult some time to to answer this kind of technological bewilderment but in the final end of it all the judgments that I saw made in the three years that I sat in on every meeting it had to do with the making of a profound and significant decision which would affect the lives not only of the people in this room but of generations to come I saw not one jot of evidence that the military was dominant I say that you in all candor and I see it in all you military I'm not saying the decisions were right. God can only I can only pray to God that they're not too wrong but I can tell you that from the spirit of the discussion from the genesis of the meeting to its final conclusion there was never any time when the civilian authorities in that cabinet room would dominated by the military. Well I knew it was wired for sound but I didn't quite sure he had the recording of it. This is only one man's judgment and that only knows I've professional know clairvoyance and my judgement is frail is the next man but this is an opinion. I was there and I can only tell you how I felt about it I think there's several other reasons why in my judgment we're not a militarist exercise. First I I think it's quite obvious that it's long as you can have dissent in a country it is very difficult for the military to gain an upper hand and I don't need to dwell on dissent we're all aware of that second I think we have the draft I count the draft one of the greatest deterrents to military authority in this country that the world has ever known any man who is drafted as I was in so many others and who goes into the armed forces has one overriding ambition and that is to get the hell out and I find the draft one of the greatest assets that a civilian authority can have and that's why I'm opposed to the so-called volunteer army I think once you allow professionalism elite ism to become the dominant force in the military you have really quassia one of the great countervailing influences to militarism. Third I think there is a sense of despair in this country about policing the world using military force indeed I think one of the great problems facing the thirty seventh president and the thirty eighth and the thirty ninth is going to be not so much militarism but how to deal with the concept of politics as old as the rot it does call the balance of power in the world and the reluctance of the American people to commit the American presence anymore anywhere and force in the world I think this is going to be a problem for him because I think that other nations in the world are aware of this in the Gallup poll only four days ago showed that the number of people in this country who are isolationists who want to withdraw from the world has doubled in the last year and a half and fourth I think there is a proliferation. In both legislation and a thrust to the future to lift the level of living in this country God only knows we have a long way to go but I am very persuaded by the fact perhaps than. My own naive the I was persuaded by the fact that in the last five years we've increased the spending on education in this country from three billion to almost fifteen billion five times obviously not enough but a five fold increase is at least a start the same way in health and in medicine in this country we've gone from about three point two billion or most fourteen billion in the last five years again a start but at least the curve is upward the ascent is up and not down and finally I would I would just make this point I think that Gus Tyler's a suggestions I would go along with every one of them you can't have too many watchdogs in this country. You need it all the time I was impressed by one thing in my three years in the White House not the extent of the president's power but it's great for limits the limitations of presidential powers a thing that really impressed me more than any single force and so I would say that the greatest watchdog we have in this country and I would I would subscribe to what Gus says about all other committees and groups and commissions and so forth but the greatest watchdog we have is in the polling booth of this country and I personally and perhaps this is a a Bush middle class kind of alien the feeling that I have but as one whose grandparents came to this country as illiterate peasants from Sicily I'm constantly struck by the judgment the collective wisdom of the great On frightened majority of Americans in this land and. I saw this in action I saw president forced to the wall because of it and I have great faith in it. And I have great faith in him both young and old in this country I do not think that all wisdom resides in the young any more than I think that that all embarrassment in Arizona and their elders but I am convinced that the greatest asset we have is this this middle area in America this vast number of Americans who don't like to be pushed too far either way and that in the final into that all is the undergirding strength of this country thank you. Thank you thank you very much indeed Mr Valenti ladies and gentlemen our next panelist from Chicago Mr Daniel Walker I didn't mean to introduce him as if he were a pugilist about to enter the rain but I guess that's the way they do from Chicago Mr Daniel Walker sounds like he has had he has had something to do recently as you know with matters of violence in the city of Chicago last summer Mr Walker is director of the Chicago task force of the National Commission on the causes and the prevention of violence is also vice president general counsel and director of Montgomery Ward and Company Incorporated and attorney Mr Walker is president of the Chicago Crime Commission and earlier served as administrative assistant to Governor Adly Stevens he is a director. He is a director of the Chicago area's Leadership Council for metropolitan open communities ladies and gentlemen it is my great honor to present to you Mr Daniel Walker. Thank you Congressman distinguished panelists ladies and gentlemen. You know I was driving in New York City yesterday it's a pleasure to drive in a city where I do not have to keep such a close eye out for the police. I thought I might tell you a little story which is not apropos at all relate to the panel discussion so far as militarism is concerned but but I think makes a point at my gun reward we have a limousine that is available to the officers of the company when the chief executive officer is not using it of course and a couple of weeks ago the chauffeur who's a young black man very religious young man dropped the Chief Executive Officer up at the airport and then drove the limousine home directly because it was quite late at night he was anxious to get home and undoubtedly want a couple of miles over the speed limit and was stopped by a policeman and Jesse got out of the limousine and walked back to the squad car and the policeman asking them Do you work for Jesse said I work for Montgomery Ward the policeman said Well isn't there a guy named Walker that works for Montgomery Ward and Jesse said well yes the there is a Mr Walker that's with the company and the policeman said Well was it that guy Walker that you just dropped off at the airport and Jesse said no no no no it was not Mr Walker and the policeman would not let it drop at that he said well does that guy Walker ever ride in this limousine. Jesse turned to me when he told the story as I say deeply religious young man and he said Mr Walker for the first time in my life I felt like Peter I had to disown you. I am not going to speak about the military today. Perhaps in view of the some of the panelists views about the military this explains why it was not remarked upon in my biography that I'm a graduate of the United States Naval Academy I am going to speak a little about the public mood today and about the need to look forward in reordering our priorities in our society towards the end of the war in Vietnam I think we have a bad thanks I think we have a bad mood abroad in the nation today it is unpopular in entirely too many circles to be rational about problems it is unpopular to talk seriously about the causes of these problems and the need to search for rational solutions I think this is a very bad omen for the future I do not think that we can make the one nine hundred seventy S. a decade of progress if we subscribe to this kind of thinking in one nine hundred sixty nine I want to give you an example of this from the field of crime with which I work considerably at the Crime Commission in Chicago you see reams of published in this nation at quarterly intervals about our national increase in crime rates each quarter the F.B.I. releases along with ominous statements by J. Edgar Hoover statements which show higher rates of murder rate burglary and robbery as a result I submit to you that the nation is on the verge of hysteria about the crime problem and I think that unfortunately. And this is a good example of what I'm talking about too little attention is being paid to the true dimensions of this crime problem. The reason that we have an increased crime rate in this nation have had it every year since one nine hundred sixty one and we'll have it I promise you for the next six years is primarily because there are more young people in our society every year and young people have higher crime propensities than older people because of the wave of post World War two babies that were born in the years one thousand nine hundred sixty one nine hundred fifty and now going through this fifteen to twenty five age period I think it is highly probable that the crime rate will increase every year until about one thousand nine hundred seventy five regardless regardless of what we do there are other factors worth considering about the crime rate the F.B.I. really says very rarely point out that eighty five percent of all major crime reports are for property offenses only about fifteen percent involve personal violence did you know that most murders rapes and aggravated assaults are committed not at all by strangers but by friends and relatives of the victims unfortunately there are large segments of the public and some politicians who cater to those views that do not try to understand these dimensions of the crime problem the inevitable result is emotionalism on the part of the public and a call for repressive measures I think a good example of this is this proposal for preventive detention for refusal of bail for persons who have been arrested but not yet convicted this proposal is a bit and advanced for New York state and for the District of Columbia. Now there are interminable delays between arrest and trial in all of our large cities and it is quite true that hardened criminals are likely to repeat offenses when they are out on bail but I ask you is discriminatory discretionary denial it really turns out to be discriminatory denial of bail the answer to this problem my point today is not the due process merits of this proposal it is that it's a simplistic and popular solution it is part of the beat them up lock them up hysteria that is abroad in the nation today I think the same analysis can be applied to the problems of campus dissent too many people ignore the need for real changes in our university structure and instead call out for repressive measures. And it is becoming It is becoming and you all know it increasingly unpopular in America today to talk about the justification for much of the demonstrations that are taking place on campus Now this leads me to my second point which is more directly related I promise you to the subject of the panel discussion I think that the public's preoccupation with crime with campus dissent is impeding the development of new and constructive measures for eliminating poverty in this nation and solving the problems that are strangling our big cities. There is very little planning taking place for new domestic programs that can be implemented when the war in Vietnam is in. During World War two you will all recall much thought and much planning was devoted to developing a post-war program a post-war machinery for keeping the peace and for implementing world order this was a nice little project that was led by the president of the United States and involved progressive thinkers throughout the nation I suggest to you that we do much the same thing today I think that the Nixon administration should commence immediately the drafting of a new and comprehensive legislative program to deal with our social problems. I think I think that in developing this program the administration should draw on not only on the expert talent within the government but that that exists in our universities and our large foundations and other institutions and finally and this I think is the most important step this program I should met submit should be given to the Congress for consideration right now and and a national debate should be commenced on it the funding of the program can await the end of the war in Vietnam but we can start to debate on specific measures now in Congress without the obstacle without the counter argument that the nation cannot afford the program we are being told that there is today a period of national response from action programs a period when Americans can taste normal say and men of good will as it has been said can quietly reason together. I do not think we can afford this luxury not when just last week ladies and gentleman urban America and urban coalition reminded us that one year after the Kerner report we are a year closer to two societies black and white increasingly separate and scarcely less equal I do feel this very strongly that decadent of the seventy's will not be a decade of progress towards the goals of peace plenty and social justice for all people if in one thousand sixty nine America stops braving the fires of controversy in the continual search for thoughtful solutions to difficult problems like thank you ladies and gentlemen our final panelists this morning assuming that Mayor Richard Hatcher is unable to join us is Mr Edward Stokes Mr Stokes is director of African Affairs for the United States National Student Association Edward Stokes coordinated the N.S.A. tutorial assistance center coordinating services in ten southern states he developed a program for a Vista student organization and mobilization and served with the Peace Corps in B. Africa he was graduated from Georgetown University in one nine hundred sixty six ladies and gentlemen it is my privilege to present to you Mr Edward Stokes thank you thank you conk Thank you Congressman Gregor ladies and gentlemen. I think it is all too clear that the United States is if not a militaristic society at least a military and thus trialist society it seems to me that the entire nation is geared towards supporting this military industrial complex the schools and the government are functionary parts of that establishment. Students are expected. To conform to a framework in which they are trained up to become part of that military establishment young men are expected to be educated and then drafted to go fight wars over small patches of territory which are conceived somehow to be part of the balance of power and. To do that unflinchingly. Without without dissent and if there is dissent then the means of coping with dissent is again military power or paramilitary power in the form of police now we've seen an increasing amount of this over the last two years and. It's developed into paranoia on both sides paranoia on the part of students and younger people who now believe that the older generation is out to get them and paranoia on the part of the older generation who think the students don't want anything but anarchy. That has reached the ludicrous heights this year that. Black students demanding to study their own cultural history are more often than not met with the National Guard rather than the administration and this is this is a growing situation rather than a static one. We had an example is this microphone working. I believe it is. We had an example. At the University of Wisconsin. Just a few weeks ago where. Students were demanding black studies program and it was a relatively small number of students less than a thousand I believe and the National Guard was called in now the next day there were ten thousand students demonstrating those other nine thousand students were very concerned with the basic issues involved but they certainly were concerned with the fact that the administration saw fit to meet their legitimate demands with military force and I ask you what kind of a society is it that meets student dissent with military force and allocates. One hundred fourteen billion dollars a year to military expenditures but cannot find the money necessary to reconstruct its cities and take care of its social problems and to feed the starving people in the southern parts of this country as well as in the cities one of my special areas of concern happens to be the country of the offer and as you probably know there's been a great deal of death and be offered because of a disease known as kwashiorkor which means protein starvation. Now this year within six blocks of the White House in Washington D.C. cases of kwashiorkor were diagnosed. I find that shocking in light of the vast resources and capabilities of this country that we can afford to devote most of our economy to military related expenses and yet we can't take care of the basic social issues and I would attribute that to the fact that the government is very largely in control of the industrialists who. Find it in their best interest to keep a military situation going which soaks up lots and lots of defense expenditures and I don't think that the end of the war in Vietnam is going to alter that situation if the war in Vietnam ends which I find a little doubtful. There will be a new war there will be new reasons for increasing military expenditures the size of the military stablish When the size of the industrial component of our economy which is devoted to supporting that military establishment will not easily be decreased because there is a great deal of economic interest at stake on the part of probably the one hundred largest industrial corporations in the United States I think I'll end my remarks there and leave the rest of it for open discussion. Thank you Thank you thank you very much indeed Mr Stokes unlike many panels on which. These panelists may have served in the past and you ladies and gentlemen may have participated in this panel is right on time we now have a period of approximately forty five minutes for the purpose of entertaining your questions directed to our panelists there are according to my vision two microphones within the audience and those of you who would like to propose a or propounding question to any or all of our panelists will you be please prepared to make your way to one of the two microphones during the course of the opening comments of each of our panelists I was asked if opportunity would be given to one or more of the panelists to rebut a comment a statement or an assertion made by a panelist who succeeded him on the program my answer was I'm sure you can find rebuttal time in the time you take to respond to a question which will be asked of you before we entertain the first question let me remind you that our topic is is America becoming a militaristic society we will be pleased to entertain any questions that you may have please proceed either to the microphone on the left or the microphone on the right the gentleman. At the microphone is recognized the question is substantially as follows during the course of the panelists discussion. The definition of military supremacy tended to deal with the military industrial complex. The question was posed as whether or not the military is dominant. Or whether or not the civilian authority is subservient to the military the question was Shouldn't the question be whether or not the military and the civilian authority are working in concert who would endeavor to respond to that question just tighter I'll offer one. Possible answer I hope that the military authority and the civilian government are working in concert if they're not they're not walk but we come back to the same question in this matter ridge between military and business between military and government who wears the pants and in my presentation I was primarily concerned to see to it that the civilian authority continue in the great American tradition of civil control over the military establishment a second point this is no guarantee at all that the United States will not therefore become involved in wars nor is it a guarantee you know all that the civil authority will not make Arus while we are here focusing our fire on the military and properly so in terms of our purpose the Smalling I think it would be a great mistake to conclude that wars the invention of the military. The great was of mankind were not brought on by the military for military reasons the Great was of mankind have been either ideologic that is religious or political was bloodless and without end or economic for material power the military has been the invention of idea lots and people seeking material power and has been their weapons throughout all history Nigeria and the Africa have no great military establishments but they are presently engaged in the most merciless genocidal war on the face of the earth Mr. Mr Mark Rask and his indicated a desire to respond also to the question about the civilian and the military civil military authority working in concert what you can find your answer to one minute please Mark Yes My point is that there is a national security state. That means and in some sense this attempts to duck the question of uniformed military as against the civilians with a military cast of mind which goes to another point asked by Congressman Gregory The fact is that basically the way questions of international affairs for example in Vietnam are solved is through force that is how many megatons will be dropped in Vietnam this year the number chosen is two and a half megatons for this coming year how many troops should we send the number we have there now is five hundred sixty thousand troops and in this of course the civilians first press the military to engage themselves in such war but then indeed after institutions are tach to the war into the military themselves it becomes very very difficult for the civilians to get out of the war once they have engaged the military presence there the gentleman at the microphone on my right. Many people who now question the military direction of our society also favor an end to the present Selective Service System and the introduction of a voluntary army would not a purely professional army further the militarist militaristically direction of our society question Would not a purely professional army further the militaristic directions of our society we have already had during the general presentations of comments on that question by Mr Jack Valenti do any of our other panelists wish to respond to the question. I'm in agreement with Jack Valenti and if you want to read a full statement get the debate its head look for the year which you'll have two thousand words from Gus Tyler on what's wrong with a voluntary army. We have a very shy author ladies and gentlemen Mr Gus Tyler. I get no joy. The gentleman on my left I like to ask a question directly to the whole panel and particularly to you Congressman one of the greatest put on today is the so-called peaceful atom. Under the Atomic Energy Commission Act of one nine hundred fifty four we have set up a system whereby the Atomic Energy Commission guided by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy has power to place anywhere in the United States so-called peaceful nuclear reactors where right now in the process of having one hundred eight of these deadly machines come in John funny in the time speculated that the real reason for this was to maintain a healthy nuclear reactor capability industry for the military under the present Congress it's impossible to get hearings on this question and it's a particular concern to the people of New York because on March twenty fifth a third nuclear reactor is going to be committed at Indian Point it will contain after it operates at least one hundred ninety times the radioactivity that would be released if an A.B.M. Meshal accidentally went off what can we do to get this matter out in the open how can we get it discussed when one of our most eminent scientist Dr Cole of Cornell has said I am convinced that the rush to blanket the northeast with nuclear power plants is one of the most dangerous and misguided steps ever taken by man. If I may restate your question or simplify it it is how can we get out into the open the feeling on the parts of many people that the proliferation of emplacement of so-called peaceful nuclear reactors is a deadly dangerous development for the health and safety of the American people question answer from you answer for me is. About as follows. People like you posing the questions which you opposed go the Congress and particularly the Joint Committee on atomic energy of the Congress to consider this question obviously it's a question which can should be considered in open hearings not closed hearings because it deals with the question of the health and safety of the American people not with the national security of this country I know that the Joint Committee on atomic energy is conducting hearings at the present time a representative of general starboard testified yesterday I do not know whether that subject is a topic on the agenda of the current hearings of the Joint Committee on atomic energy island never to find it out I think it should be I endeavor to see that there are such hearings that they're open in nature and I enlist the support of each and every one of you because it's popular pressure that gets the Congress to do things thank you. I would like to challenge Mr Valenti's statement that he knows of no case that the military don't mean it that the civilian authorities government of the United States and my question goes to Mr Ruskin But I he knows from his study and he such cases I am For us know deep in the research and I know the seven eight specific cases of each of which I will mention only two. But one and spend President Kennedy came into office in January nineteenth sixty one he was immediately confident that by and Dulles and the military to go in today Cuba mentions the be all fakes landings he had to skinny if dollars I do not give here long details but he was false because in a national interest he was told he has to carry out this was false prepared for a year before hand by the military or the Pentagon and by the CIA eight the second case that I know off is to you to case we had a president had no dislike this idea that the tool weeks before this summit conference in nineteen. Sixty in Paris. The CIA and the Pentagon send the mission this Washington out the night publication and the president then later on after he had the clear to the State Department and the by Congress that he had not the slightest knowledge of this and the price he was forced to acknowledge that he has all about the U. two flights dolling us all think we really are playing I think you know you suspect a military they don't mean it that the civilian thought the I think its own case for one policy in the United States I think you. Could give your question well I think it's well understood I did not mean to be rude and cut you off but we are do have a terminal point in there are a number of people waiting to ask questions your question was prefaced as a challenge to Mr Jack Valenti an invitation to Mr Marston rat Marcus Raskin to also comment Mr Maloney do you wish to respond to the challenge I have my knowledge extension November twenty. Second one nine hundred sixty three two May six thousand nine hundred sixty six. No I want to give it all a case of you couldn't be more like two and a heart you're the same courtesy that I hope you'll accord me. Maybe I would like to dissent and I would hope you would allow me to have that same privilege. I did not interrupt you my point is simply this everything that all of us in this room know is what we read or hear I'm saying that I was privileged for three years as Mr Raskin was privileged for some years to be actually involved in a discussion so at least I have some personal I witness comment to make when I say my knowledge stands I mean my personal certain knowledge extends obviously all the other things I know emerges from the same sources that most of you have I don't know anything what happened in one nine hundred sixty one except what I read in The New York Times which as we know is a vastly accurate newspaper. And therefore I can't comment all I can tell you is this that in the turned I was privy to the actual conversations Mr McNamara Mr Vance Mr Rusk Mr catch and back Mr BALL Mr Bundy with the chief advisers of the president of the United States all of whom Mr rescue his colleagues in the years that he was involved so I think his comments would be pertinent what I am saying as simply as I know how it is that none of these gentlemen to my certain knowledge is either a minute to risk to be dominated by the military and three actuated by any other movie of except what is best in the long range interest of their country as they see it they can be wrong because they are more holes. But I claim no divinity of inspiration any more than I would according to you therefore I can only tell you that and so for as I was able to hear and to see under speak not one of these man advise ing the president and surely not the president himself was dominated subordinated to or involved in a minute to restrict approach to a problem. In the quotation they had two items mentioned by the person responding to the question. Occurring respectively in the summer of one nine hundred sixty in the early part of one nine hundred sixty one. Mr Aspin would you like to comment yes. I think first of all I would like to go back to the idea not of military uniform military person but rather to respond in the way that Mr Valenti suggested to a spirit or a framework or a frame of reference in terms of a national security way of looking at problems which meant that the way you define the defined them and decided that was in the context basically of force as it turns up now the reason for this is that a coup that that the president the United States if he has the best motives in the world is a pacifist would never raise his hand against anyone either bureaucratically or any other way is responsible now for a vast empire the United States is an empire and that means that there are hundreds of thousands and millions of people operating across the country across the the world for the United States for supposedly the United States government it is impossible for for any of us right now to know what it is that our dearest and loved ones are doing for the most part let alone a case in point where you are attempting to run a government across the world now the United States in fact has commitments of some for two for some forty five nations it has military missions in these nations it has CIA missions in these in some something like seventy or so nations those people to a very great extent even if they are are kept under the closest scrutiny in fact turn out to some extent to be independent operators at. Particular moment the president or his staff can either go along with what it is that those groups have undertaken in the field or disown them there is invariably some sort of battle some sort of problem which emerges in this sort of structure of decision making Now the point I'm attempting to make here is that we are not only talking about the military we are talking about a whole cast of mind a whole situation in which in effect America has become an empire and it's impossible to have even the best men with the best will in the world control what is going on as a result of the structure and function that governing in the United States has become now finally in response specifically to the gentleman named the fact of the matter is that in many instances those people who are civilians turn out to be more hawkish than those people who are the military except once the war begins then they are undertake the civilians undertake to cop out so the real question that we've all got to face is not just the uniformed military who are easy targets but indeed the whole structure of governing which allows a military system a national security state to indeed end up surrounding and engulfing the United States as a society Thank you OK. Thank you Mr ask and the lady at the microphone to my left. I do the whole panel I think and indeed to the national competition for the challenge of building a peace I think that the most important thing should be for the government of the United States or rather for the Congress to name a secretary of peace. The secretary of these we'll have should naturally he will have the. The research the money to do research and to talk to other nations as well as to let us know all of us why we should do to build that. I don't believe the comments were in the form of a question but might I just take one moment to respond there are a great many proposals pending as I'm sure all of you know in both the House and the Senate to establish a Cabinet level department of peace these proposals are not new in origin and most of the Congress has over the past one hundred years so her proposals have been introduced I would hope that these proposals would receive a suitable hearing by the committees on government operations of both the House and the Senate committees which must consider the structure of the exactly branch of the government question on my right you know it's it's been said that communism and capitalism are no wife and death struggle and it appears that there are many millions of people in the world and a number of nations who believe that there can be no compromise compromise. Both in in this country for those who favor the capitalist system and other countries in favor of the communist system and my question addressed to the panel at large is how how can the United States curb the military. Given the current situation in which in which we do we live in a world of military and it is a logical confrontation what can be done Mr Walker or Mr Stokes would you undertake to respond to the gentleman's question well I am afraid I am not generally in sympathy with the with the notion that somehow we have to curb the military. I I believe with with Jack Valenti that the individuals who are running the nation are trying to do the best job they can and regardless regardless of a particular militaristic viewpoint I think the question like much of the discussion here is is very good but it's on a philosophical note and perhaps I'm too much of a pragmatist and I would respond by saying that if there is a need to curb the military I would do what I would do it by allocating our national resources by the people of this nation demanding of their Congress and of their government that we do fund the programs that can restore the proper balance of interest in domestic problems as opposed to wars abroad in this nation and it is a practical reallocation of resources that I plead for. Mr Stokes I think that. When we are in that position where we have to plead for reallocation of resources the priorities it seems to me are set for military expenditures before they're set for social expenditures. Then in fact we do have a situation where the military has the upper hand. That Congress much more readily responds to military expenditures than it does to. Social problems to starvation to poverty to. Joblessness. Well you know man Mr Chairman I'm sorry I do not believe I simply do not believe that it is the military forces in the United States that is preventing or impeding this reallocation what is impeding it is the majority of people of the people in the United States who are much more concerned about other things than solving the problems that we have in our large cities and in our society it's a problem of the majority of the people in the nation not a problem in my opinion of the control exercised by the militarists OK I'd just like to make one last point thank you second Mr Stokes OK. I think that's I think it's a delusion to think it's the people involved because it seems to me more real A to be a situation where. Handful of industrialists probably not amounting more to more than several thousand or possibly fifty thousand have the bulk of the influence and control over the United States government and at the voice of the people is on the F.A.Q. echo occasionally that voice and those interests what Mr Stoke just saying is thank you Mr Stokes and I live in on different planets I think is one hundred eighty degrees out of phase that this is the popular Mirage and now the now the land some third rate Hollywood movie script writer who comes up with the idea that a handful of people contain this government it only tells me and I say this. With affection and respect that you really aren't knowledgeable about how the things really work Clarke McGregor can tell you Marcus reskin God only knows we don't agree on a lot of things and he can tell you that's not the way it works it's just simply isn't and this this ideal and idea of a small group of people dominating this government is just errant nonsense Mr Stokes don't think me rude but I have promised Marcus Raskin that he could speak and his name has been taken several times by Mr Holiday not in vain to be sure I recognize Mr Raskin Well I'm really caught in the back because after having been. Complimented by Mr Deland to you I'm going to have to somehow duck out of the compliment if you if you time it happened I sure thank you. If one undertakes a study as we've done of the national security managers we find that in the top in the top jobs which includes assistant secretaries and above in all areas. That would include Treasury State CIA. Defense and and one other agency some four hundred ten people have held those jobs continuously and changed over those jobs over twenty seven year period that is since the beginning of the Cold War So the problem is that that although it's the case that you can't pin it individually on particular people the fact you know in part it is that the same habit or cast of mind is carried over in that group of snapshot security managers but more important and here I agree with Mr Valenti it is the institutional structure of the society a pyramid structure in which in effect you have a situation where. Where more and more people think that they're participating in governing but in fact they are not participating in governing that that really turns out in my view to be very much of an illusory thing finally in terms of the business classes of the United States there is a distinct just there is a very great difference between them and gum reward which attempts at least in part to compete in the open market as against state socialism which has been built since one thousand nine hundred thirty nine in the United States in the defense industries specifically in the southwest the south parts of the north and parts of the West in terms of aerodynamics country companies those happen to be different casts of mine as against the business commercial class. I promise. I promised Mr Gus Tyler thirty seconds but before Gus you take that thirty seconds we have only about fifteen minutes and a number of our people have been waiting for some time to ask questions so I will ask both questioners and panelists to be brief in their questions and in their responses Gus Tyler and I thought the thirty seconds was going to be thirty minutes I was taking notes terrible oversimplification to assume that the United States is the founder of capitalism versus communism and that is the nature of the world problem if a third world war to break out within the next year I would assume that it would stop in a conflict between Red China and the Soviet Union I referred to today's papers and that's a conflict between two communist states if another world war to break out the Arjen might be the Near East in a conflict between Israel and the United Arab Republic both of which claim to be socialist societies I think the statement of capitalism versus communism is a little bit old fashioned somewhat irrelevant and doesn't realistically go to the problem a second point. I am for a reallocation of resources I'd like to see less money spent on the military and for better purposes and I don't think the military too often realizes that it is merely being the cat's paw for financial elements in our society eighty billion dollars The Washington Post reports went down the drain in a bad military investment I assume military men like guns that can shoot in the same way as a jockey likes a horse that can run but somebody saw something. To somebody and it was not the military it was this industrial complex final point in the RE allocation of resources please I beg of all of those here who are concerned with Americas in the US that you do not think that when you really allocate military resources you are getting the necessary funds to deal with the problems of America I am for reducing military expenditures but I must tell you that according to one expert friend of mine we loans through tax loopholes in the United States for he billion dollars a year. And we are giving away billions in subsidies to those who don't need subsidies and we are allowing monopolies to grow and grow and grow and pose their automatic taxes on the American people if we want to reallocate resources let's reallocate some of that military stuff but then let's go from the war on poverty to a war on riches in the United States. Thank you Mr Tyler the young lady on my left I'd like to address Mr Valenti and possibly Mr Walker who is a prime minister on. Your well yeah I if I'm right I understood you. Said that you were against the draft because it was a great hindrance towards the Army and then you said the you're against a volunteer army because. The greatest asset the civilians could have was in the draft system how do you reconcile this contradiction and could you provide us a good and I'm sorry I'm lacking army my prose sometimes gets a bit muddy and even defies explanation by me what I said was in the spirit of an ant time in a terrific society the best thing we have going is the draft because nobody wants to go in the army and everybody wants to get out of the army with some minor exceptions so that I think that as long as you have a draft you have people who will be anti Army Second I think if you build a professional elite which is Sturrock Lee is the seed bed from which springs coups and military dictatorships and overwhelming militaristic power comes from professional elitism and therefore I think if you build a volunteer army you isolate it from the general public and that per se in my mild judgment is bad for the society Walker I would only add with respect to the voluntary Army concept one point that has not been made here and that is that most of the people who look at the reenlistment rates and the composition of the Armed Forces voluntary versus draftees predicted if we go to a voluntary army we will end up with largely a black army which I think would be a very unfortunate thing for the nation. Gentlemen on my right I like to I seek responses from two of the palace from most of the Lanny and Mr Rascon. Mr Filani attempt to understand racism I went to Mississippi and talked with leaders in the power structure of one of the towns there and I was very struck by the fact that the leaders there appeared a very reasonable man and they did not put they did not present a spirit of racism and they felt that they were doing the best they possibly could for their people and for the state now. I'm wondering if you would agree that. A man's motives and his sincerity may be good but the results of his actions may be very destructive this is what I found I found it very destructive in terms of racism there in Mississippi and in that town and yet they cannot see the consequences of their actions and I'm wondering if their leaders in our government could be sincerely motivated people many of them might Dean Rusk and Johnson and yet still the consequences of their actions are to have involved wars around the world to have more bases around the world than in other nations and so on and then I'd like to ask Mr Rascon since I think I've been this is what you've been getting at that the institutions and the mindset is what gets us into the situation we are rather than the motives of men if that is the situation Mr Rask and how do we change the mindset in this country how do we change the institutions so that we will not be victims of this militaristic system Mr ask and thank you well I think you. Got exactly what I had in mind the fact is that you will generally find situations where individuals are better than the system or the situation if they find themselves in but that institutionally this if you start from the row. Assumptions you're going to come out with the wrong answers so in effect you can have the most brilliant people in the world working on the question of how to destroy China and the Soviet Union and they would be fairly accurate in terms of the numbers of millions killed but the result of that is just madness and and the death wish it's not a good thing and you start from the wrong assumptions and that is the result you come up with now in terms of how it seems to me you go about changing it first of all. You have to go about talking for reasserting legitimate power that is really reasserting the idea of what are the limits by which men undertake to commit other people to activities how is it possible for example that a president the United States is able. At one point to commit as many as a half a million people half a million men to war and therefore there is a problem in terms of the the the the whole power relationship within the congressional executive structure so that has to be corrected but beyond that is the more the more basic point that we are going to see a situation where in my view where millions of people will say the system itself in its present formulation needs new input new energies to somehow extend and change that system otherwise it's going to be a situation where indeed everything in the society is going to collapse and so therefore one possible solution one possible direction to go is to talk seriously about the formation of a new political party about about the possibility indeed of of watching very closely not only in a watchdog sense what goes on in Congress but to make it perfectly clear that the Congress has got to respond to new sorts of budgetary allocations that the people themselves want to make and one could conceive of a situation for example where Congressman would begin to pull their districts and have hearings in their districts in ways which would show how the people of their district wanted to spend the tax dollars and in effect that would then begin to suggest a reallocation of resources from the grassroots so the congressional hearings would be held from the bottom up to begin to talk about what the budgetary requirements of the nation really should be. And this would I think be begin to open up the sorts of questions we've been talking about this after this morning now finally I think that what we what we are faced with this is a situation where indeed people are on different planets that is Mr Valenti has one view of reality Mr Stokes has another and let me tell you. Both of you that you see both of you stand in the middle believe it or not that there are people in this is Sidey who aren't here who indeed have never been heard from who are not part of a surplus self-control time upper middle class or upper class who feel themselves totally without power who have no illusions about their commitment to the United States or this structure and indeed my suggestion and warning is that we better damn well begin to fly right or the whole thing is going to fall apart. Was. The. Question heard directed his question not only to Mr Marcus Rascon but also to Mr Jack Valenti Mr Valenti very briefly the the one thing that I got from my government service was a great humility the fact that I found out how little I do know and how much there is to find out I abandoned arrogance you work in the government at least that's what I got out of it and I think that one of the things that I'm both amused and sometimes. Frustrated about. Is the air of divinity that I find in so many people who who talk about these cosmic problems I cannot ever assume that for having lived. In trouble and not walking on water I find it so difficult to say I know except where I actually was present in heard and say something and can report it as it was said and second I think we ought to remember one thing if we are going to be intellectually honest with ourselves and with those around us and that is this history is a callous arbiter and that which we believe is white today turns gray tomorrow and perhaps few share the week afterwards in politics twenty four hours is a very long time and all I can say is this I don't know whether we are right or wrong and many of the things that have been done I have some judgments about it now certainly I've changed my own personal mind on Vietnam I don't mind saying that but I will say this history is going to record I don't know when and sometime in the future as to whether or not the courses of action taken by President Johnson for example over the past five years are either stupid or mildly objectionable or very right. Ladies and gentlemen we have remaining in our panel discussion approximately five minutes which probably means we only have time for one more question depending upon the length of the question and the length of the answer I recognize the gentleman on the left well this this question is directed to you Congressman what are you and your fellow congressman doing to promote peace and to build peace when you delay many months in ratifying the nuclear nonproliferation treaty which has not yet been ratified and when you when you proposed to spend tens of billions of dollars on a worthless A.B.M. system which would do nothing to promote peace and help on schedule. First let me say that I think your questions are entirely appropriate I wish I could respond for quote the Congress unquote I sometimes wish I could act for the Congress I could I cannot but I will not hesitate to express to you my own personal views nor do I wish to dodge your first question by saying that I serve in the House of Representatives and not in the Senate and the Senate is the only body which has the opportunity to consider the nuclear nonproliferation treaty I agree that there has been too much delay in Senate consideration of this particular matter I think many of you will be hearing this noone from Senator Bill Fulbright a senator full rights committee and a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Armed Services is moving ahead at the present time with hearings Senator Fulbright has indicated to me that he hopes to bring this matter to the floor of the Senate within approximately two weeks time and hopefully ratification would follow soon thereafter on the second question about the A.B.M. this is an easy one for me I'm opposed to the deployment of the i've listed mosquitos. One sentence question from Gus Tyler in a one sentence answer for me and then I'll be obliged to wrap up if the Congress of the United States the feats the A.B.M. proposal does that prove that we are not militaristic. No I certainly wouldn't still contend there are different reasons for opposing the deployment of the and I've listed missile systems and I would suggest to you that there are some very militaristic Congressman indeed who oppose the deployment of the anti-ballistic missile system I'm don't happen to be one of them but there are different points of view which come out at the same point but for different reasons ladies and gentlemen it has been my great privilege to serve as chairman of this first panel on the national convocation on the challenge of building peace we have heard many stimulating and provocative thoughtful remarks by our panelists but more than that we've heard some very excellent questions by those of you in the audience I have heard myself described as a member on occasion of an institution composed primarily of lapdogs instead of watchdogs I'm a pretty big lapdog I think we have heard about. The national security state we have had sharply conflicting opinions on the question is the military in America dominating civilian authority those who so graciously prepared the program for this panel discussion post some questions some of which have not been answered one of those questions can the military make a useful contribution to solving domestic problems through training social science research and so forth I doubt that the military can but I am absolutely sure that the military should. Mind. Is is there an American inclination to try to solve problems by hardware technology and force instead of by human understanding yes I'm afraid there is ladies and gentlemen this patent was made possible through the generosity of the Sara and Matthew Rosenhaus piece foundation and corporate.