60. Memoranda From Several DOD/ISA offices1
Washington, June 11,
1958
[Facsimile Page 1]
MEMORANDUM FOR THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PLANNING
SUBJECT
- US and Allied Capabilities for Limited Military Operations to 1
July 1961
This planning study was received on June 2nd and while the time element
imposed upon the Office of Department of Defense is appreciated, the
Regional Director, Far East would have preferred additional time for
thorough study of so important a matter and to allow more people to
express their views.
In general this is an excellent planning study and certainly a good
thinking exercise. It cannot help but be felt however that a succession
of limited wars or simultaneous limited wars on two far-flung fronts
could pitch the U.S. economy and way of life to a point where it might
become preferable to throw aside normal restraint and restrictions
defined for limited war in this study. Limited wars have brought the
UK and France to an economic crisis
that has only avoided catastrophy through extensive US support. Also it
is felt that the study could stand a little more emphasis on the
psychological, economic warfare phases. There is no doubt that limited
warfare is precarious at best and any use of nuclear weapons, “Tactical,
Minor or Clean”, can hardly but raise a doubt that the action will
remain a limited rather than an overt conflict.
Specifically, (1) On page 11, at the end of paragraph 2, after the word
“southward” recommend that the period be deleted and the following
added: “as a concurrent and supporting operation.” (2) It would appear
that the present version of US and Allied capabilities was prepared
before the recommendations submitted concerning appendix D were
considered. It is suggested that attention be invited to the Regional
Director, Far East comments on this subject. (3) Attention is invited in
conjunction with the immediately previous comment concerning the U.S.
capabilities together with strong loyal Vietnamese forces to reestablish
the independence and territorial integrity of Laos. This is not
considered possible with forces outlined in this study, especially in
view of the conclusion on page 3 that the U.S. cannot assume effective
employment outside their national territory of the Vietnamese. (4)
Another possible conflict exists in the
[Typeset Page 208]
statement on
[Facsimile Page 2]
page 13 that the provision of
airlift could present a major problem and the general conclusion that
the U.S. has the capability of dealing successfully with the situation.
It is suggested that conclusion #1 be hypothecated to some degree to
account for the present lack of adequate airlift to move ground
forces.
L.M. Stevens, II, Capt. USN for
B.A. Robbins, Jr. Capt. USN
Regional Director, Far East
Attachment
Memorandum From the Director of the Near East, South Asia and
Africa Region, DOD/ISA (Bergin) to the Director of the
Office of Planning
Washington,
June 11,
1958
[Facsimile Page 3]
SUBJECT
- U.S. and Allied Capabilities for Limited Military Operations
to 1 July 1961
Reference is made to I–14298/8, returned herewith.
This Regional Office has studied the attached document and, in
accordance with your request, desires to comment as follows:
This is a well-constructed study and the conclusions and
recommendations appear to grow logically from the facts used, the
assumptions employed, and the lines of action considered in the
formulation of the 12 hypothetical situations utilized in the
development of the study.
Although this Office has been asked to limit itself to major points
of substance, it feels obligated to comment on the methodology of
the study, since the results flow inescapably from it and their
validity depends directly upon it. At the outset, it is agreed that
the choice of the method of study—the use of a sampling of
hypothetical situations—was a reasonable one, probably the only
method applicable. The crux of the matter is stated in Para 5, page
10: “The military responses are hypothetical … and have not been
war-gamed to develop detailed plans.” This is understandable, but it
does not prepare one for the uncompromisingly self-satisfied tone of
Conclusion 1, page 2: “The U.S. has the capability to deal
successfully....” Somehow this is all too comfortable, and too
comforting, and scarcely squares up with what might well develop in
the way of “limited war”.
To cite just a single item: our performance to date in creating
adequate transportation capabilities for the “quick” application of
U.S. force—the sine qua non of a successful
response—has been anything but
[Typeset Page 209]
reassuring. One fears the
possible soporific effect upon the NSC of such an optimistic assessment as Conclusion 1,
page 2.
On the whole—and with the above reservation—the section labeled “III.
CONCLUSIONS”, on pages 2–6, is a very
well put-together and persuasive passage, and this Region is in
general agreement. It is difficult to conceive of how “nuclear
strikes deep into Communist China” will fail to bring on a general
war.
[Facsimile Page 4]
With the major caveat that Conclusion 1, page 2, may have mischievous
results in creating an unwarranted feeling of self-satisfaction
about our conventional forces, this Region feels the paper should
prove most interesting to the NSC.
Charles K. Bergin
Rear Admiral, USN
Director
Near East, South Asia and Africa Region
Attachment
Memorandum From the Director of the European Region, DOD/ISA (Guthrie) to the Director of the Office of
Planning
Washington,
June 10,
1958
[Facsimile Page 5]
SUBJECT
- U.S. and Allied Capabilities for Limited Military Operations
to 1 July 1961
The following comments on the study prepared by a
State-Defense-JCS Working Group
are offered in furtherance of your memorandum of 29 May:
GENERAL COMMENTS:
In view of the importance of a study on this subject, it is
considered extremely important that the generalized conclusions and
recommendations regarding our military capabilities to conduct such
operations must be supported by a detailed analysis and study within
the Department of Defense. A review of the attached document
indicates that there is no such documentation. Instead, the
discussion rests primarily on the views of the authors without any
factual backup. In light of this fact, it is considered most
important that the Department of Defense should not take a position
on this paper in the NSC until such
a time as the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been
formulated and considered by the Office of the Secretary of
Defense.
[Typeset Page 210]
SPECIFIC COMMENTS:
a. Conclusions:
1. The first conclusion that “The United States has the capability to
deal successfully with situations requiring limited military
operations” is not completely supported by the remaining conclusions
and the discussion. It would seem that the conclusion requires
qualification.
2. Reference Para. 4. The intent of the first sentence, i.e., “No
military tasks were found to be unique to limited military
operations,” is not clear. Certainly many of the tasks which may
have to be performed under such conditions would be vastly different
from those in the event of general war. This raises the question as
to whether the present trend of weapons is such that U.S. forces
will become increasingly more inflexible. In this connection, it
would appear that this Para. was written primarily from a viewpoint
of air operations and does not give due recognition to the problems
arising in connection with ground forces.
[Facsimile Page 6]
3. Reference Para. 7. It is noted in this Para. that “initial
reliance was placed upon Air and Naval forces because they were in
position and most capable of fast reaction.” While the Air and Naval
forces may be positioned and capable of fast reaction in certain
instances, there is a question as to their capability to react
effectively under all situations. In this connection it is pointed
out that in the early days of Korea the initial U.S. position was to
counter the aggression by use of Air and Naval forces. It soon
became evident that such action was not sufficient and that ground
forces had to be deployed to the Peninsula at an early date.
Although this Para. recognises that in many cases the intervention
of U.S. ground forces will be essential, the timely availability of
these forces is predicated on their proximity or on available
air/sea lift.
4. Reference Paras. 9 and 11. These conclusions indicate that for
U.S. forces to be most effective, they must be applied quickly. Yet
the rapidity with which ground forces can be committed to action is
dependent upon availability of sea/air lift, a questionable
capability.
5. Reference Para. 15. This conclusion raises a question as to
whether or not the U.S. stocks of “low yield weapons” and “clean
weapons” are available in sufficient quantities for use in the
operations as visualized to allow the U.S. to carry out defense
without generating adverse reactions referred to in Paras. 17 and
18. A more complete factual exploration and exposition of the
subject seems indicated.
b. Recommendations:
1. Reference Para. 2. This Para. points out that “even though nuclear
weapons are not used in limited military operations, public reaction
world-wide, based primarily on fear of general war, will be adverse
to U.S. military intervention.” This recommendation would seem to be
[Typeset Page 211]
based
more on a matter of opinion than on fact and in this connection it
is pointed out that the bulk of the free world applauded the
decision of the U.S. intervening in Korea at a time when the
prospects of World War III were equal to, if not greater than, might
be the case today.
2. Reference Para. 4 (See Para. 5., above). It is not made clear just
what degree of “cleanliness” will not arouse adverse world
opinion.
3. With reference to Paras. 6 and 7, it would appear that effective
and prompt U.S. response to limited military aggression requires
facilities and capabilities to a greater extent than that now in
existence.
In view of the above comments, it is believed that the first
conclusion and the first recommendation are not borne out by the
supporting
[Facsimile Page 7]
comments and recommendations. As pointed out above, it is believed
that ISA should suspend further
action on the document pending the receipt of the formal views of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff as to their professional judgment as to
any military capability to conduct limited operations.
No detailed comments are made with regard to the “hypothetical
situations” in view of the comments contained in Para. 8 of the
basic memorandum and of the earlier comments furnished your office
by this office.
John S. Guthrie
Brigadier General, USA
Director, European Region
Attachment
Memorandum for the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Comptroller,
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Supply and Logistics, the
Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy, and the
Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Special Operations
[Facsimile Page 8]
SUBJECT
- U.S. and Allied Capabilities for Limited Military Operations
to 1 July 1961
1. The inclosed study on the above subject, prepared by a
State-Defense-JCS working group
is scheduled for transmission to the National Secretary Council by
the Secretaries of Defense and State on or before 16 June 1958.
[Typeset Page 212]
2. Your comments on the study are requested not later than 10 June
1958 to assist the Secretary of Defense in determining the Defense
position on the study. It is desired that comments be limited to
major points of substance, and be related to the study itself rather
than to the attachments detailing the hypothetical situations and
hypothetical responses. It is also requested that you return the
inclosure hereto with your comments, if you have no particular
requirement for its retention.
3. It is requested that the study be handled on a limited
distribution basis with access restricted to those with a
“need-to-know”.
[illegible in the original]
Attachment
Memorandum to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security Affairs, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Military Assistance Program, the Military Advisor, the
Directors of the European Region, the Far East Region, and the Near
East, South Asia and Africa Regions, and the Director of the Office
of Foreign Military Rights Affairs
[Facsimile Page 9]
SUBJECT
- U.S. and Allied Capabilities for Limited Military Operations
to 1 July 1961
- 1.
- The inclosed study on the above subject, prepared by a
State-Defense-JCS working
group is scheduled for consideration by the National Security
Council at an early date.
- 2.
- Your comments on the study are requested not later than 10
June 1958. It is desired that comments be limited to major
points of substance, and be related particularly to the study
itself rather than to the attachments detailing the hypothetical
situations considered. It is also requested that you return the
inclosure hereto with your comments.
- 3.
- It is requested that the study be handled on a limited
distribution basis with access restricted to those with a
“need-to know”.
P.H. Greasley
Brigadier General, USAF
Director, Office of Planning
[Typeset Page 213]
Attachment
Memorandum From the Director of the Office of Planning, DOD/ISA
[Facsimile Page 10]
MEMORANDUM FOR MR. SPRAGUE
SUBJECT
- U.S. and Allied Capabilities for Limited Military Operations
to 1 July 1961
- 1.
- The study on limited military operations which the
State-Defense-JCS working
group has prepared is being reproduced by the Joint Staff and is
expected to be in our hands this afternoon.
- 2.
- General Cutler has indicated the desirability of having the
limited military operations study available on or before 16 June
so that it can be reviewed by the other members of the Planning
Board prior to its consideration on Friday 20 June. As you are
aware, the Planning Board is also scheduled to take up at that
time the residual problems in the basic policy paper. The close
relation between the two studies makes it desirable to speed up
the processing of the limited military operations study.
- 3.
- Attached for your signature is a brief memorandum requesting
comments from appropriate elements of OSD. The Joint Chiefs of Staff will be concurrently
reviewing the study as will the State Department. It is our
intention together with State and the Joint Staff to try to
produce shortly after 10 June a draft letter to the NSC which both Secretaries
McElroy and Dulles
would sign, reflecting their views and comments on the
study.
- 4.
- Signature is recommended.
P.H. Greasley
Brigadier General, USAF
Director, Office of Planning