The President, in a special message to the 78th General Conference of the National Guard Association of the United States at Spokane, Wash., on October 10, 1956, read to the conference by the Under Secretary of the Army, said, and I quote: "As Commander in Chief, I subscribe fully to the statutory declaration that now and in the future we must maintain and assure the strength and organization of the National Guard as an integral part of the first line of defense of the Nation, to the end that your organization shall be ready to discharge their historic role at the very outset of any national emergency." The National Guard has realized, especially since the end of World War II, that its level of training must be raised in order for it to be prepared for its time-honored role; consequently, it has encouraged and urged its men who are eligible to volunteer for the 6 months' active-duty training. For various reasons, the number so volunteering has not been as large as desired. In North Carolina, however, our monthly input showed a substantial increase in January, when we sent 78, and present indications are that we will send between 65 and 70 during February. Our January input was more than twice as many as our input in any previous month. We are very glad to know that present members of the National Guard who have not had prior service and who were ineligible for 6 months' active-duty training, and who are under 25 years of age, may now volunteer for this training. We hope many of our National Guard men will do so, but some of them will be prevented from doing so for compelling reasons. It is the considered judgment of the Adjutant General's Department and the officers of the North Carolina National Guard that the requirement for all enlistees without prior active-duty service who enlist on and after April 1, 1957, take 6 months' active-duty training will make it impossible for the National Guard to maintain its acceptable minimum strength of 400,000. In opposing this new requirement, we feel that we should submit a program of basic training that will accomplish the desired objective and enable the National Guard to have men trained so that it is prepared for its emergency obligation. The program which we now urge with all the force of which we are capable and which is based on our experience is as follows: 1. All men age 182 to 25 years who enlist on or after April 1, 1957, be required to take 6 months' active-duty training as a mandatory condition to their enlistment. 2. All men age 17 to 181⁄2 years who enlist on or after April 1, 1957, be required to take 11 weeks of active duty for training as a mandatory condition of their enlistment, and may volunteer for the 6 months' active-duty training. 3. All men age 17 to 181⁄2 years who may have enlisted before April 1, 1957, be permitted to choose either 11 weeks' or 6 months' active-duty training on a volunteer basis. 4. That there be no ratio imposed upon the National Guard as to the number of men to participate in either the 11 weeks' program or the 6 months' program. This is our program, and we are very definitely of the opinion that this program cannot become a reality without congressional action, as representatives of the Department of the Army have stated emphatically that the Department of the Army would not change the recently announced policy. The Department has not yet said when the 6 months' active-duty training must begin after enlistment. In the present 6 months' program, there are 4 nonproductive weeks-the first one for processing; 2 weeks' leave after the 8 weeks' basic training; and the last week; no training is scheduled on Saturday. When subject hours allotted to training not essential for a well-trained soldier in basic subjects are eliminated, the training period can be reduced to 11 weeks. The Air National Guard has found an 11 weeks' course productive of very satisfactory results. Thousands of officers received commissions upon satisfactory completion of a 3 months' course in officer candidate school. Why then should it require 6 months to produce a soldier trained in basic subjects? Upon completion of 11 weeks he may go to service schools for further training in his military occupational speciality, as many of them have been doing. We are definitely of the opinion that our program outlined above will receive the cooperation of parents, educators, parent-teachers associations, ministers and religious groups, and the National Guard can easily maintain its required strength with trained men. On the other hand, we are confident that the new policy will not only meet with the continued opposition of parents, educators, parent-teacher associations, ministers and religious groups, but that the National Guard cannot maintain its minimum acceptable strength. I urge you to give the contents of this memorandum your most thoughtful consideration, and our National Guard would be most happy if you conclude that you can and will support legislation to make this program a reality. JOHN H. MANNING, Major General, the Adjutant General. Hon. MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. STATE OF MAINE, DEAR SENATOR SMITH: I am taking the liberty of writing to you concerning the recent announcement by the Department of Defense that the National Guard, effective April 1, 1957, may no longer enlist from the manpower pool unless the enlistee is a prior-service man or, if between the ages of 17 and 181⁄2, agrees to take 6 months' training with the Army. I am very much concerned that this mandatory 6 months participation for training will undoubtedly result in reducing the recruiting capabilities of the Maine National Guard, which is, as you know, completely dependent on voluntary enlistments for the maintenance of its numerical strength. Any program which might terminate the continued accomplishment of a satisfactory strength posture must be closely examined. It is recognized that the problems of State and National defense are complex and ever changing. Certainly a program designed to increase the state of training readiness of the National Guard is desired; however, if the adopted program should jeopardize the numerical strength of the organization being trained, it would logically appear to create doubt as to the overall merit of the program proposed to effect the increased state of training. The National Guard of this State is, according to the reports of the First Army commander, at a very high state of training readiness. The mandatory 6-months program imposed on the National Guard by the Department of Defense appears incompatible with the National Guard organization. The implementation of this program would cause the individual either an interruption of high school, between the third and fourth years, a midterm entry in college, or his being placed in the position of seeking employment during the low point in the labor year. These factors are of prime importance to a State concerned with raising its educational level and, also, the retention of its youth by employment in industries within the State. This does not mean that the National Guard neither desire nor needs greater training. On the contrary, a basic training period at a Regular Army establishment is desired for National Guard enlistees. I am informed that our Air National Guard enlistees perform a period of basic training with the Air Force for a period of 11 weeks. Their advanced training is accomplished in the Air Force Service Schools of the United States Air Force. A similar program could be considered for the Army National Guard. For the past 2 years, the Maine Air National Guard has been enlisting men from the nonprior service group, only if they agree to take the 11-week basic training course. The Air National Guard has found that this program is not only acceptable to the young men, but also that the training of this group in this manner has improved our Air Guard. I have read the resolution adopted by the several adjutants general concerning the enlistment ages and periods of active service. There is also a suggested means by which the quality of the National Guard may be even more increased by allowing 18% to 25-year-old men to enlist for the 6-months program and be further deferred by Selective Service, so long as their service in the National Guard is satisfactory thereafter. The citizens of the State of Maine, and, most certainly State government, would be most appreciative of your becoming interested in this matter, to the end that the program of enlistment and service as adopted by the adjutants general might become a reality. I would appreciate any comments you might have pertaining to this matter. Sincerely yours, Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Governor of Maine, August, Maine. EDMUND S. MUSKIE. UNITED STATES SENATE, Washington, D. C., February 1, 1957. DEAR GOVERNOR MUSKIE: Your letter of January 30, 1957, concerning the recent Department of Defense announcement which would require National Guard enlistees to receive 6 months of basic training, and urging in lieu my support of the plan recently adopted by the adjutants general, was received today and I hasten to reply. This latter plan, so I understand, would require among other things that after April 1, 1957, as a condition for National Guard enlistment, men between the ages of 17 and 182 would complete 11 weeks of training and those between the ages of 181⁄2 and 26, 6 months of such training. I appreciate receiving your views in support of the proposal of the adjutants general as being more helpful in improving the readiness of the National Guard. It is my real hope that this matter will be resolved in a way which will serve the best interest of both our national defense and the National Guard. With respect to the last paragraph of page 2 of your letter. I believe my record on Reserve affairs speaks for itself both in the House and the Senate and refutes any inference that I have not become interested in this matter. My complete support has always been extended to measures which would strengthen the Reserves and enable them to be ready to perform the tasks they are always called upon to perform in every national emergency. In this present controversy I believe that the goals of both the Department of Defense and of the National Guard officials are the same-that is, to improve the state of combat readiness of our National Guard, which we know is vital to our national defense. There are the honest differences of opinion as to the means for achieving this aim. As has been so aptly observed by some in Maine, the real question is whether the new order about 6 months active duty for recruits will in fact strengthen or weaken the Nation's total posture for defense. I have reached no firm conclusion as to the relative merits of the proposals of the Department of Defense, and the National Guard and I would hesitate to make a decision on this complex question until all parties have been heard. We can be assured, however, that this matter will be carefully considered by both the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services. Mr. Brooks, chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Reserve Affairs, has indicated that hearings will begin this month. Senator Russell has noted that the Senate Armed Services Committee plans to make a careful study of this matter after the completion of the committee's joint hearings on the Middle East proposal. As you know, this matter has not been formally referred to the Congress and somewhat detailed and careful hearings will be required in order to consider the merits of the two proposals. From a procedural standpoint the executive branch could probably insist on its 6-months training proposals without any legislation since historically the military departments have possessed the authority to prescribe the standards for enlistments in the Reserve components. It is probable that new legislation will be required if the Army is required as a matter of law to recognize 11 weeks of basic training as sufficient for enlist ment in the guard. ! I would also like to emphasize that consideration should be extended to the view of President Eisenhower, who as we know has had a lifelong experience in dealing with military matters. I note that you are in disagreement with President Eisenhower and oppose him on the position he has taken in this matter. On the same date of your letter, January 30, President Eisenhower announced his support for the 6-months training requirement for the National Guard. He stated that this is a day of terrible weapons which would involve a kind of warfare that places a premium on skill and training and that the National Guard is never going to be the kind of force we need until it gets recruits who have had at least 6 months of good basic training. I am taking the liberty of sending copies of your letter and my reply to Representative Brooks and Senator Russell, so that your views and position in this matter will be given the fullest consideration by the arms of Congress considering this important matter. I am also scheduling this matter for consideration at the meeting of the Maine congressional delegation Monday, February 4. Sincerely yours, Hon. CARL VINSON, MARGARET CHASE SMITH, United States Senate. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C. January 29, 1957. Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, United States House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Secretary of Defense Wilson's statement before your committee as reported in the press is a grievous injury to the men of the 31st Infantry (Dixie Division) who were called to active duty in the Korean war. Ten thousand five hundred National Guardsmen from Alabama and Mississippi, the great majority of whom enlisted before the Korean hostilities began, entered the Federal service with the division. I am told that this is the largest group of volunteter soldiers ever to enter the Federal service as a unit at any time in the history of the United States. Although the division as such did not see service in Korea, the great majority of its officers and men were transferred to units that saw combat in Korea. Mr. Wilson's comment is a particularly grevious insult to those who were killed in action after first entering the service with the 31st Division or other National Guard units. I will appreciate your making this letter a part of the record of your current hearings. I hope the committee will not allow this careless comment by Secretary Wilson to go unanswered. Cordially, FRANK E. SMITH, Member of Congress, HEADQUARTERS 29TH DIVISION ARTILLERY, (MARYLAND PART) MARYLAND NATIONAL GUARD, Pikesville, Md., February 1, 1957. The Honorable J. GLENN BEALL, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR BEALL: You have probably heard and seen something of the differences of opinion that have emerged regarding the current directive by the Department of the Army to the National Guard of the several States and Territories to accept new members, beginning April 1, only on condition that they serve 6 months on active training duty. I would like to tell you of our views here in the Maryland National Guard. The guard believes, and I think I fairly represent the opinion of a great number of members in Maryland, that the 6-month active-duty training requirement, in the form proposed, will be destructive to the guard by hindering recruiting, and thus impair our national defense setup materially. We do very much respect the opinion of the professional soldiers that today's conditions require a higher standard of training for the guard, and we are anxious to cooperate. Highly capable guard officers, representing us as official members of an Army General Staff advisory committee and as officers in our National Guard Association, have proposed alternate means to achieve the desired objective, but have seemingly run against a blank wall on the matter. We therefore appeal to you to give us your help in what we honestly believe is a cause that will generally enhance rather than damage our national defense structure. The 6-month active-duty proposal has been tried by the Army Reserve and has failed miserably to meet expectations in numbers of men obtained. The imposition of the same thing on the National Guard will undoubtedly slow down recruiting tremendously, although we will do our best whatever happens. Our main proposition is that the guard consists of real military units in being, that most of the first 3-month training of men would be of tremendous value, but that the last 3 months of training in the proposed 6-month program is not needed for our purposes. The basic training of a soldier is all contained in the first 3 months, and the latter 3 months cover infantry specialties and infantry small-unit training. Incidentally, there is a wastage of 1 month, 4 weeks, as we see it; one at the start of orientation and equipping, and 3 weeks' leave in the middle. All this may be necessary for a recruit in the Reserves who, after the 6 months, settles back to being a name on a sheet of paper, or to attending 2-hour lectures or movies occasionally as his subsequent training activity, but it is not necessary for a National Guard man who returns to an active company, troop, or battery which can give him his unit and basic special training in the 48 weekly drills per year, with occasionally added weekends in the field, and a 15-day summer training encampment. In fact, the last 3 of the 6 months as proposed of specialty and unit training so called, is all in the infantry and is “fluff" so far as other branches, such as the artillery, are concerned. We honestly think that one summer of 11 or 12 weeks covering the truly basic subjects are enough to properly start a youngster for the guard, and would be a wonderful adjunct to the guard's training. If the Pentagon insists on more, then we suggest that it be a second period of 3 months, or whatever is required, given in a subsequent summer. In brief, we advocate summer training "packages" for this program and this is our second main proposal. The reason the 6-month program has failed to attract young men so far is the simple fact that it does not fit into any normal program of life for young people. It forces a young man to wait until he finishes or quits high school to take his active military training. This usually comes at a time at about age 20, when it conflicts with ideas of a job, college, or marriage. Summer training "packages" would let the young men do this active duty training primarily during summers of their high school years. Most parents are looking for something for these boys to do during the summer anyway, as I çan testify from the applications we received for summer work in my business. In short, this program would swing with the human tide or cycle of life rather than directly against it. However, we would like to have the 6-month alternative period available by choice if a man wishes, or under certain special circumstances. Before World War II thousands of young men, 16 years and up, volunteered for summer training with the old CMTC (Citizens Military Training Corps). It was a favored occupation during high school summers. The value of this backlog of military training to our Army in World War II can never be fully estimated. Why not take a lesson from the past? We are sincerely trying to "keep the light on and the heat down" in discussing this subject. Believe it or not, we think we know something about the American volunteer-the guard has had to raise them locally now for some 200 years-and make our suggestions solely to keep our volunteer system working with the best results for the good of these United States. Your support of our stand will be sincerely appreciated. If I can be of any service or help to you further on this or any other matter, please call on me at any time. Very truly yours, JOHN P. COOPER, Jr., Brigadier General, Maryland National Guard, Commanding. P. S.-My regular office is at 320 St. Paul Place, Baltimore, 2 Md. (the C. & P. Telephone Company of Maryland), LExington 9-9900, extension 761, and my residence is at 325 Seminary Avenue, Lutherville, Md., VAlley 3-1446, in case you want to reach me at any time. Hon. CARL VINSON, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., February 4, 1957. Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: At the request of Maj. Gen. Irving O. Schaefer, the adjutant general of the Colorado National Guard, I am enclosing herewith a copy of his recent communication to me in order that the membership of your committee may have his thinking on the 6 months' basic training program. I shall appreciate it if his letter is made a part of the committee's hearings. Thanking you for this courtesy, I am, Sincerely yours, WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Member of Congress. |