With technological advances in such things as nuclear energy, jet propulsion, and guided missiles staggering man’s imagination, concepts of war and means of attaining national objectives are in a period of great transition. In spite of unprecedented progress in the development of weapons, an increasingly important school of thought holds that destructive weapons have extremely limited utility in assuring the accomplishment of national objectives today. With the perfection of high-speed, mass-destruction weapons, the arms picture has in many respects reached an impasse. More and more thought is being devoted to the means of pursuing national goals without the immediate use of arms.
In the last quarter century the world has seen the Soviet Union employ techniques aimed at the sole objective of achieving global domination. Instead of presenting clearly defined alternatives of war or peace, which would bring into play the Free World’s superior arms, the Soviet Union and the Communist movement have been successful in manipulating circumstances to offset military advantage. Our problem is how to stop this cancerous growth when conventional therapy fails. We have reached the point where our individual and collective talents and resources must be fully brought into play to preserve our way of life. What we do in the battle for men’s loyalties, as individuals and as Navy men, may well determine whether freedom ends with our generation, or is shared by all mankind.
By emphasizing our efforts to protect ourselves against armed attack, the Communists have striven to picture Americans collectively as warmongers. It is difficult, however, to make this picture believable if it is focused on individuals who are like other individuals the world over in their desire for peace. As President Eisenhower declared last year in a speech at Baylor University, “People are what count. A sympathetic understanding of the aspirations, the hopes and fears, the traditions and prides of other peoples and nations is essential to the promotion of mutual prosperity and peace. Such understanding is a compulsory requirement on each of us if, as a people, we are to discharge our inescapable national responsibility to lead the world in the growth of freedom and human dignity.” How can we, a large democratic nation, translate this concept into action? Can we meet the challenge of dealing with the other peoples of the world with sufficient tact, humility; and friendliness to promote understanding and cooperation?
There is reassurance in the fact that the Free World has had successful experience in stopping Communism dead in its tracks. From these experiences much can be learned on which to base our future efforts. One of the most recent and dramatic examples took place in the new state of Vietnam. Certainly no nation had a more difficult beginning, and the Communists have never had a more fertile field for exploiting glaring vulnerabilities. Chaos reigned at every level. Organizational difficulties were compounded by internal revolt. Upwards of a million refugees from Communist territory needed resettlement; pitched battles were fought between and against religious sect leaders, each with his own armies. The constabulary was in the hire of a vice syndicate that paid an annual tribute in millions to an absentee playboy emperor and the country was threatened by open Communist aggression on its borders and by subversion within. Desperate measures were in order. The military and economic aid provided by the United States was vitally important, but there was an equally great need to rally the people to the side of the government. Assistance came from an unexpected quarter—the Junior Chamber of Commerce International, spearheaded by the chapters in the Philippines. The Filipino members individually contributed an average of 35 dollars for aid materials; medicines and relief clothing came in from other Asian chapters. With funds and medicines assembled, doctors and nurses were recruited in the Philippines and “Operation Brotherhood” was launched in October, 1954. Medical teams flew into Saigon from Manila and quickly dispersed to the countryside. Entering villages that were dominated by the Viet Minh, they were greeted with suspicion and fear. Slowly, they ministered to a few that were desperately in need of medical assistance. A smile and an attitude of genuine humility overcame existing language barriers between doctor and patient.
After their initial successes, the fame of the medical teams spread in direct ratio to their activities. There was no semblance of propaganda, but news of the activities of these strangers spread by word of mouth throughout the country. Patients journeyed for weeks on foot to reach these teams, even crossing over from the Communist side. Viet Minh propaganda and efforts at intimidation were no match for the direct, personal efforts of the Filipinos.
The efforts of “Operation Brotherhood” continue in Vietnam. Its founder, the former Vice-President of the “Jaycees” for- Asia, claims that “Operation Brotherhood” is a pattern for all of Asia. This humanitarian effort could well serve as a pattern for the entire Free World, because “Operation Brotherhood” developed techniques for selling democracy.
The basic lesson of “Operation Brotherhood” is that a program reaching individuals on a person-to-person basis has a fiber of strength that cannot be matched by an impersonal government-to-government arrangement, whether an exchange of ideas or direct material assistance is involved. The strength of any country rests with its people. Where people have a right to voice their desires, their governments must eventually satisfy them. It follows therefore that the official attitude of Free Vietnam toward the Philippines must, for the foreseeable future, be one of friendship, because that is the desire of the many Vietnamese who benefited from “Operation Brotherhood.”
The Communists fully appreciate the value of person-to-person contacts, and their program is in high gear. Because they have no scruples, the Communists have an advantage over us. For example, consider an exchange program between this country and the U.S.S.R. Although we may recognize the Communists’ ostensible purpose in such a program as fraudulent, can we afford to decline such invitations and find ourselves accused before a world audience of being afraid of peace? The onus is on us, and we cannot excuse inadequacies by saying that the other side is not playing fair, or that we are not quite ready to engage on their terms.
Virtually armies of political robots are pouring forth into the Free World in the guise of agricultural experts, athletes, musicians, dancers, and the like, and Soviet ships are visiting Free World ports. This peaceful invasion from behind the Iron Curtain is part of a carefully conceived, well organized program to further the political ambitions of the Soviet Union. The traditional tools of democracy are being brought into play by non-democratic powers, and the Free World must meet the challenge or else allow the world to draw the conclusion that our philosophy and policies have been hypocritical. The day is not far off when every American on foreign soil will be subject to challenge to defend his country’s position and principles of government.
The experience of our allies, such as the Filipinos, shows clearly that there is no substitute for person-to-person contacts to break down barriers of distrust and misunderstanding. By virtue of their diversity of backgrounds, skills, interests, and national extractions, the American people have a great potential for winning friends and influencing other peoples. On the other hand, the job of harnessing all of these resources to a national effort, consistent with true democratic processes, will be difficult. We do not want political parrots. We want salesmen for democracy who are thoroughly familiar with their product, who are sold on its merits, who have a natural bent for meeting people, and who are a credit, by personal example, to the cause they represent. The job will not be easy. Minor irritations will have to be ignored. Personal convenience and group prerogatives will have to give way to national interests. We will have to recognize our shortcomings and overcome them.
Opportunities exist for contacts with foreign peoples on a large scale. More than half a million Americans tour foreign lands annually. Servicemen on foreign soil are numbered in the hundreds of thousands. The possible impact of these Americans abroad is staggering, but the results indicate that we are capitalizing on only a small fraction of our potential. Our deficiencies chiefly center on a lack of indoctrination and motivation. Our friends overseas detect these deficiencies and interpret them as stemming from lack of interest and weakness. Henri Cartier, who writes for one of Europe’s leading weekly magazines, Paris-Match, states: “A foreign land for an American is a land of anguish. . . A studious people, eager to see and understand when they are at home, sends out into the universe trembling individuals whose fear of contagion destroys their desire to know the very people that they are supposed to influence.”
This observation can probably be countered by many who speak from differing experiences, but the general impression is hard to refute in view of the many “Little Americas” set up in foreign areas where Americans are employed. Too many Americans have returned from overseas tours of duty boasting of the fact that they never once varied from a typical American diet and never had the need to deal with the local nationals. The resulting misunderstanding has been reflected in our use of unflattering names for foreigners and their similar unflattering names for our representatives—the most tolerant being “Stupid American.” Our thousands of tourists do no better in breaking through the barriers of isolationism. Tourists generally enter a country as strangers and depart in relatively the same status. In spite of our numbers, we follow the same well-worn path in each area—just as if we were directed to restrict our movements to the footsteps of the person preceding us from one tourist attraction to the next.
This apparent attitude of exclusiveness or isolationism provides the Communists with the opportunity for creating untrue stereotypes of Mr. and Mrs. American Citizen. The Communist-created image of our country and its people stresses that we are anti-intellectual, deficient in culture, superficial about our religious beliefs, and primarily concerned with military “hardware.” In this light, we appear as the chief proponents of war and destruction, which is a universal anathema.
Contrast this picture with the one created by Soviet representatives abroad. They go forth as paragons of sweetness and light, ostensibly anxious to exchange information, ideas, and contacts. Their real objective is to win support for their cause in the manner prescribed by Lenin, who wrote:
It is possible to conquer the more powerful enemy only by exerting the utmost effort, and by necessarily, thoroughly, carefully, attentively and skillfully taking advantage of every, even the smallest “fissure” among the enemies, of every antagonism of interest among the bourgeoisie of the various countries, by taking advantage of every, even the smallest opportunity of gaining a mass ally, even though this ally be temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional. Those who do not understand this, fail to understand even a grain of Marxism and of scientific, modern Socialism in general.
For years the Communists have concentrated on developing an effective appeal to the discontented massses of the world. To the more sophisticated observer, their efforts have been very transparent. But in many cases their efforts have been alarmingly effective. Soviet naval units have begun to visit ports of the Free World, bent on furthering a political line. “Normal liberty” for their crews has been a camouflage for putting on a series of programs designed to create maximum impact on the greatest numbers of Free World observers. In those areas where the dangers of Communism have been widely recognized, Soviet ingenuity has produced a most effective piece of counter-propaganda in the form of a visiting merchant vessel. Recently, in Beirut, Lebanon, the editor of a pro-Western newspaper reported the visit of a Soviet “freighter” to the port. General visiting was the order of the day for the curious who wanted to see a bit of Communism’s handiwork. The cargo of farm machinery from Russia was of natural interest, but there was even greater interest in the ship’s characteristics. The paper reported that the ship “reflected precious concern for its crew,” which was billeted in “most comfortable quarters, never more than two sailors to a cabin, and [provided with] abundant food—served by a charming hostess from Caucasia.” The Captain was a handsome, likable sort who was “overcome with joy at seeing foreigners aboard a Soviet Ship” and welcomed the opportunity to defend his country against propaganda. There can be little question that this whole episode was carefully staged. There is equally little doubt that it had the desired effect on the observers, some of whom—on the evidence of their own eyes—probably revised their beliefs about how the individual fares under Communism. Labeling the “evidence” a fraud and advertising this fact widely is hardly an effective counter for such imaginative efforts.
Recently, a Soviet ship with a dry dock in tow, destined for the Far East, stopped at Honolulu for fuel and provisions. The local authorities inspected the ship from stem to stern, including an underwater inspection to insure that the presence of this vessel would not endanger the safety of Honolulu residents. The Russians were restricted to the limits of their own ship, and an armed sentry patrolled in front of a steel wire fence. All was serene until the last day of the stopover, even though curious onlookers came in large numbers to view the Soviet “mystery ship” on the other side of the wire fence. By this time even the press was interested, and several enterprising correspondents got aboard for a series of interviews. As they looked from the other side of the dividing fence, their question was: “Who has the Iron Curtain—the U. S. or Russia?” This incident suggests that we are regrettably clumsy in countering Communist advances when the weapons are those of peace rather than those of war. But are we actually so uncertain of ourselves that we cannot unmask a fraud by techniques of democracy?
Since World War II the Armed Forces of the United States have spent billions of man-days on foreign soil. Of all the many resources available to our country for a person- to-person communications effort, the greatest are the military forces. The impressions they create, for good or bad, affect a large segment of the foreign community. We have recently seen how the presence of our military forces in Iceland became a political issue of major importance, seriously jeopardizing our national position. On the other hand, we have seen how U. S. Navy units played a primary role in the rescue of victims of a flood in Tampico, Mexico, last year. As a result of the Navy’s humanitarian efforts and of the Mexican people’s appreciation of them, the close bonds between the United States and Mexican governments have been strengthened to a degree never before attained.
For the foreseeable future, our armed forces will be the largest single American group in regular contact with foreign nationals. How these contacts are cultivated and maintained will determine whether the misunderstanding between ourselves and other countries of the Free World will widen, or whether the fissures will be sealed into a bond strong enough to withstand additional Communist subversive onslaughts.
The Navy is unique among the services because of its mobility and completely self- reliant units that have access to all populated areas of the world adjacent to deep water. The Navy is in a position to enter foreign countries as a guest and is able to retain that status because it can generally avoid clashes of interest over such things as adequate housing for dependents and competition for low-salaried wage earners. The Navy can show the human side of military “hardware” to advantage and can demonstrate how this equipment and our personnel are serving in the best interests of the Free World and democracy.
It could be argued that this role is the normal one of the Navy in peacetime—a cause already being pursued with adequate vigor. Certainly there have been many occasions that have resulted in high compliments on the conduct of U. S. Navy men ashore on foreign soil. But it is well for us to examine just what and how much we have actually accomplished and to determine how much more effective our efforts ought to be in the light of present world conditions. We cannot be content to say that we are doing all that we can or should. Where we are content to send our ships for normal liberty, the Soviets are eager to conduct a political operation. Where our men go in search of their own amusement, the Soviets will go in furtherance of their national objectives. Where we visit as friends, the Soviets will try to test the degree of that friendship. If there is a chance to capitalize on any of our mis-steps, these opportunities will be exploited. Today the normal Navy liberty that we have always known becomes a luxury we can ill afford. No longer can we step ashore and limit our activities to the satisfaction of our personal interests and pleasures. Rather, we must face up to the times and realize that our activities ashore can actually transcend in importance our operations at sea. The number of man-hours devoted to training and planning to achieve excellence afloat must be matched with equal effort for adequacy on foreign shores.
The individual Navy man has become very important in the conduct of our foreign relations. We know that the greatest influence on the individual is another individual whom he respects and trusts. Whether we recognize it or not, we are involved in a race between individuals representing democracy and those representing Communism. The stakes are the allegiance of the great mass of individuals who comprise the balance of power. If the balance shifts to the other side, military weapons will serve little purpose—unless the loser feels that global extermination is preferable to humiliation. For effective participation in this peaceful but deadly serious contest, no single organization is as ideally fitted as our Naval Operating Forces.
The first fact we must recognize is that an American, with no other qualifications, is not held in such high regard as we might desire. His presence on foreign soil is not in itself likely to impress observers favorably. As Navy men, we should know that when visitors’ permits for shipboard visiting are issued by local consular officials, we are only entertaining an already committed, pro-American segment of the local community. To be sure, such activity is desirable, but it must be expanded to encompass the doubting and uncommitted.
No visit to a foreign area should be judged a success because of an absence of embarrassing incidents and shore patrol reports. Such a visit reflects no special credit or discredit on the participants, for the accomplishment was really negative in total effort and effect. When our presence is felt at every level of the local society and the impression is one of great favor, then and only then will we have made the most of our personnel, their talents, and opportunities.
The men of our ships will have to know a lot more about their own form of government and its basic principles. They will have to learn enough about the mores and traditions of the countries that they are likely to visit so that when they go ashore they will know how to make a favorable impression. Coupled with this background information will be the need for a thorough indoctrination in the whys and wherefores of any situation that would make the ideology of Communism seem attractive.
Planning for activities ashore will have to take into account not only the numbers of personnel involved but also any peculiar talents they may possess. How many of the crew can speak the foreign language? Who has relatives or friends in this country? Who has talents or interests that might coincide with those of the foreign nationals? In general, the planner must ask, “What is there about this ship and its personnel that would be of interest or benefit to the local community?” Then he must plan accordingly. Specific ideas can be worked into a preplanned program of specific actions. Entertainment potential can be used for the benefit of shut-ins. Athletic talent can be the basis for sports contests—not only in the traditional American games but also in those of foreign origin. A variation on the sports theme could be the sponsorship of a local tournament, with a trophy or memento bestowed by the United States naval host. Such a project will have a lasting effect, not only on the local participants but also on the larger number of observers.
Shipboard visiting should be expanded so that in addition to the pro-American guests of the local consular officials, a complete cross-section of the community is included. The guests should be specifically invited guests of the men comprising the ship’s complement. Suitable guest criteria can be established, such as one youngster from every block of the port city, or persons in different age categories. The men of the ship can be detailed to spend a specific portion of their liberty hours in assigned area sectors so that their presence and contact with foreign nationals is used to the best advantage.
Visitors coming aboard ship as personal guests of an individual not only are more receptive to courtesies extended, but the sponsor develops a greater sense of responsibility and appreciation. It is inevitable that many, if not most, of such person-to-person contacts will ripen into friendship between representatives of the visiting and host nations. When invitations and accompanying actions are obviously based on sincerity and friendliness, the feelings are sure to be reciprocated.
The possibilities of success in these endeavors are limited only by the initiative, imagination, and energy of the personnel involved. It is conceivable that in the course of the deployment of a ship no larger than a destroyer, five thousand individual contacts can be established between foreign nationals and United States citizens. Five thousand important contacts can provide a basis for understanding United States citizens and our aspirations for world peace and the general improvement of the economic lot of our fellow-men. If this potential is multiplied by the numbers of ships serving in our Fleet, the result would appear fantastic. Nevertheless, the goal is attainable, and the result would be a Friendship Fleet.
Where the Communists are trying to accent our military preparedness as a sign of a war threat, we can use the same symbols of naval preparedness as an open hand extended in friendship. For the first time the United States would have a dynamic Cold War weapon, with complete flexibility for Hot War employment. For the first time the Free World would have salesmen in adequate numbers to strengthen the cohesiveness of our system of alliances and to reveal the fraudulent intentions of the competing Soviet political puppets. Units of the Friendship Fleet would be capable of going to areas of unrest and exerting a pacifying influence. They would be able to participate in exchange visits with countries of the Communist bloc. On such visits they could put the sincerity of the Communists’ avowed intentions to a real test by communicating directly with Mr. and Mrs. Communist Citizen over the heads of their government. Needless to say, such a tool for the Free World would meet an immediate need. Its value in the preservation of peace would rank these forces as the nation’s principal weapon in the battle of ideologies.
The policy makers who can decide whether the nation’s fighting forces should become involved in Cold War missions with Hot War weapons will have to weigh certain facts. First of all, it is widely felt that our combined national efforts in countering or containing Communist advances have been inadequate, and inadequacy in a political contest is just as fatal to the loser as in a shooting war. Secondly, the success of conventional operations and the effective use of military weapons depends on our ability to meet the Communist challenge where it is most prevalent— on foreign soil. For example, air bases are conventional military requirements, but whether we can hold onto those we already have, or develop and expand others to meet technological advances, will depend on how well we can meet and counter Communist programs in the ideological, economic, and political fields. Whether or not our naval units will continue to visit foreign ports for liberty involves the same question. Remember, it is the United States Ambassador in the countries concerned who must personally approve of United States Navy visits and arrange for the necessary diplomatic clearances. If he should feel that the naval units are incapable of doing anything to improve the local situation, but could easily worsen it, then the probable decision is obvious. A Navy with freedom of the seas, yet isolated from foreign shores, is not beyond the realm of possibility! If this should come about, we will have lost the country’s most flexible and powerful weapon in the Cold War struggle. If the balance of the previously uncommitted peoples of the world swings to the Communist side, it will not be that they liked the Soviets more, but that we appeared to care less.
The need for an effective sales force for democracy has never been greater, and the individuals or groups that can undertake a salesman’s role without sacrificing or compromising their principal missions will be in the vanguard of the Free World’s efforts in the psychological and political struggle. The Navy has never had opportunity so well suited for its talents and capabilities!