First of two articles:

IN THE SPRING of this year, Martin Burke, Gilbert Bauer and David Figlestahler, pupils of the Holy Redeemer Elementary School in Portsmouth, Ohio, wrote a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara. In the event of war, Russian troops “will be landing inside our borders,” they told the Secretary. If that comes to pass, “the American people will defend this country in a last ditch, to the death stand, along with the military.” The civilian population must train itself for this future. “Please send us any available weapons,” the schoolboys asked. They listed recoilless rifles, antitank guns, bazookas, mortars, machine guns, browning automatic rifles and submachine guns. Martin, Gilbert and David said the weapons would help them learn about arms and would “help us prepare ourselves for our future military service.” The boys closed with a compliment: “We the senders of this letter are in full accord with your conduction of your duties so far as Secretary of Defence” [sic].

Although the schoolboys had not learned their spelling, they had learned other lessons well, for they are growing up in a time when all the channels of communication and education overflow with images of war and might and glory, images that tend to obscure the views of death and destruction that linger from other times and other lands. Many teachers have inspired Martin, Gilbert and David to a call to arms and taught them the certainty of war.

Perhaps a brother, uncle or cousin, fresh home from a troop-indoctrination course in the Army, has taught them to feel the tentacles of communism gripping their country. Perhaps Elvis Presley, in the movie G.I. Blues, has taught them that military life offers pleasure at the same time that it demands duty. Perhaps their comic strip hero, Steve Canyon, has taught them the terrible price a country must pay if it lets down its guard for a moment by cutting its defense budget. Perhaps a trip to a nearby military base has taught them the thrill of touching a weapon or hearing the thunderous whistle of a jet. Perhaps their newspapers or magazines or television have taught them the imminence of war. Perhaps an admiral or a general has come to Portsmouth and taught them to beware of effeminate, easily duped diplomats who may try to make us disarm.

IN ITSELF, the letter of the schoolboys does not contain much that is objectionable. The boys wanted to affirm their faith in their country and recall the spirit of the Revolutionary Minuteman. But the letter could not have been written in any other peacetime period of American history. In no other time of peace has the military ascended to such influence and power. “The warlords ... are now more powerful than they have ever been in the history of the American elite,” C. Wright Mills has written. “They have now more means of exercising power in many areas of American life which were previously civilian domains; they now have more connections, and they are now operating in a nation whose elite and whose underlying population have accepted what can only be called a military definition of reality.”

To a country which spends 59 per cent of its more than $80 billion budget on national security, Dwight D. Eisenhower gave this farewell warning as President: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought by the military-industrial complex.” He added that “the total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government.”

THE path to these heights of power and influence is cleared for the military and its industrial allies by a public relations establishment that has no equal in American public or private life. This establishment uses the press, television, movies, comic strips, civic organizations, veterans groups, schools and troops to sell the military point of view to the American people. No other point of view, save that of the President alone, can reach the people from so many sides at once. Without this military public relations establishment, three Ohio schoolboys would not have picked up their pens to write a letter to the Secretary of Defense.

Public relations is among the newest of U.S. military weapons. Although military commanders and the War Department issue battle reports that were printed or elaborated by the press during the Civil War and the Spanish-American War, the United States military service did not issue its first formal press release until 1904. Even then, military public relations was a minor activity until World War I, when General Pershing set up a press section at his headquarters in France. After the war, public relations in the armed forces lapsed, although the Army Air Force named Major Henry H. Arnold to head its information division in 1925 (his skills are credited with helping to sell Congress and the nation on the need for a separate Air Force). During World War II, the military services, with Arnold’s Army Air Force leading the way, built huge propaganda machines. These machines never have ceased grinding. “The information officer has become a key man whose advice is sought and depended upon in the communication of ideas to both the public and the troops,” said an Army bulletin issued in 1957. “If there ever was a propitious time for officers to apply for specialization as an information officer, it is now.”

During the Korean War, the Pentagon budget listed more than $10 million for public relations. In peacetime, this seemed too high to Congress and, after the war, vague limitations were written into defense appropriation bills, cutting the amount of money the Pentagon could spend on public relations. It is difficult to determine, however, how close the military services are adhering to the limitations.

ON APRIL 20, the Associated Press reported these budget and personnel totals for the 1960 fiscal year: the Department of Defense, which coordinates and, to some extent, supervises all public relations of the three services, has an $824,000 public relations budget and employs 73 civilians and 52 military personnel; the Army has a $387,850 budget and employs 50 civilians and 65 military personnel; the Air Force has a $295,700 budget and employs 39 civilians and 66 military personnel; and the Navy has a $111,000 budget and employs 39 civilians and 67 military personnel. In total, this meant the Pentagon spent $1,600,000 and used 451 men on public relations during the last fiscal year. But the AP noted that there were two unknown quantities: the budgets did not include the pay of the 250 military personnel; and neither the budgets nor the personnel totals included any military public relations activities outside Washington.

Military pay, particularly in the officer-stuffed Pentagon, could add well over a million dollars to the total public relations budget. The public relations work outside the capital could multiply that several times. Every Army or Air Force base and Naval district has its own public relations operation. In addition, base personnel assigned to other duties sometimes are asked to devote part of their time to public relations. The total military public relations budget is not $1,600,000, but many millions.

At first glance, these millions appear to be spent on a simple mission. Arthur S. Sylvester, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, put down the chief responsibility of a Pentagon public relations program in a recent directive: to “initiate and support activities contributing to good relations between the Department of Defense and all segments of the public at home and abroad.” Admiral Arleigh A. Burke, the former Chief of Naval Operations, has said: “There is a vital need for us to have a determined public working with us — an alert citizenry that is conscious of the magnitude of the struggle our country is presently engaged in, and aware of the contributions the military services are making to our nation’s cause.”

BOTH statements are candid as far as they go, but neither makes clear that vast sums of money also are spent not so much in selling the public on government defense policy but in drawing the public into the inter-service struggles that make that policy, as well as into the individual service rebellions against that policy once it is made. While debate over Department of Defense reorganization goes on, Air Force public relations men work to convince the public and Congress of its value, while Navy public relations men work to convince them of the opposite. After both Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy cut back the B-70 bomber program, Air Force public relations men work to convince the public and Congress of the danger and foolishness of that decision. The channels of communication are manipulated each day with taxpayers’ money, first, to implant the general military view of life on the American people and then to sell them on the peculiar prides and prejudices of the individual services.

The services have various targets for their propaganda, and the first, because it is so close, comprises the 2.5 million men and women in the armed forces and the million civilians employed by the services and the Department of Defense. But more than just 3.5 million Americans are affected by this direct propaganda. Short-term enlistments and selective service make the composition of the services fluid: there are always additional young men coming in to soak in the military point of view and others going out to spread it among the people. Then there are the four million men and women in the Reserves, and millions of servicemen’s families who read every tidbit of military news they can find.

Almost every Army and Air Force base and Navy district or fleet has a newspaper supplied with weekly news, features and editorials by the Armed Forces Press Service. Magazines like The Airman, All Hands, Army Aviation Digest, Army Information Digest and Naval Aviation News also feed the military line to servicemen. But more important for molding a young man’s way of thinking are the troop indoctrination courses that fill up a good part of military life.

THREE years ago, President Eisenhower and the National Security Council decided on a policy designed to concentrate all the resources of government on the cold war. Under the policy, directives were issued to enlist the Department of Defense in the psychological aspects of the battle. The directives are still classified, but Cabell Phillips, in an illuminating article in The New York Times last June 18, said the directives ordered officials “to take positive steps to alert the troops under their command and the public at large to the issues of national security and the ‘cold war’.’’ Phillips added: “It is known that commanding officers were allowed wide latitude in applying the directives within their commands.”

This latitude permitted officers like Major General Edwin A. Walker to attempt to smother their men with views identical to those of the John Birch Society. Walker, commander of the 24th Infantry Division in Germany, created a “pro-blue program” to indoctrinate troops with an “understanding of American military and civil heritage, responsibility toward that heritage and the facts and objectives of those enemies who would destroy it.” Walker, like many other combat officers of the Korean War, had wanted to find out “what went wrong with some of our fighting men in Korea.” The answers found by Walker became clear January 24, 1960, when he addressed 200 men of his division and their dependents. An Army report said that Walker made “derogatory remarks of a serious nature about prominent Americans, the American press and television industry and certain commentators, which linked the persons and institutions with communism and Communist influence.”

The Overseas Weekly, an independent newspaper for servicemen, said Walker described former President Harry S. Truman, former Secretary of State Dean Acheson and Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt as “definitely pink” and CBS commentators Eric Sevareid and Edward R. Murrow (now director of the United States Information Agency) and columnist Walter Lippmann as “confirmed Communists.” Walker continued his “pro-blue program,” including the distribution of right-wing material for more than a year after the speech until an article in The Overseas Weekly drew attention to his activities. The Army then admonished him and canceled his assignment to command VIII Corps headquarters in Austin, Texas.

The Department of Defense moved no further than this admonishment, hoping that the example would prevent other generals and admirals from going too far in their zeal against communism. But all military commanders are still operating under the National Security Council directives to indoctrinate their men for the psychological battle of the cold war. The Walker case may have taught them that John Birchism is too far Right, even for the Pentagon; but they are free, within this limitation, to employ their own political views in molding the troops under their command.

THE SERVICES like to use movies in troop-indoctrination programs. Most of the films are made in Pentagon studios; but two, purchased from outside sources, won favor among commanders in the past year until angry cries from liberal groups forced the Department of Defense to put some reins on their use. The movies are Operation Abolition, the attempt by the House Committee on Un-American Activities to pin a Communist label on the student riots in San Francisco last year, and Communism on the Map, an attempt by the ultra-rightist National Education Program to show how communism dominates Western Europe and certain positions of power in American government, labor, the press and education. Communism on the Map, was produced by Glenn Green, a member of the John Birch Society.

Soon after Operation Abolition was released, the Department of Defense and the services bought copies. John Broger, the Department’s Deputy Director of Information and Education said he authorized the purchase after he noted what he called the resemblance between the demonstrations in San Francisco and the leftist student riots in Tokyo that prevented the visit of President Eisenhower in 1960. The Army alone bought thirty prints. The National Education Program, in a brochure on Communism on the Map, quotes laudatory comments from several admirals and claims the Navy bought fifty prints. In a protest to Secretary McNamara last April 18, Norman Thomas noted that the movie had been shown at the Naval Air Base in Seattle; the Naval Air Stations in Brunswick, Ga., San Diego, Calif., Memphis, Tenn. and Corpus Christi, Tex.; the Navy Air Intelligence Reserve Unit at Floyd Bennett Field, Brooklyn; the Bureau of Naval Weapons in Washington; the Naval Auxiliary Air Station at Whiting Field, Fla.; the Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego; the U.S.S. Midway; and the California Air National Guard in Compton. As the two movies reached more and more military audiences, more and more protests began to filter into the Pentagon.

McNamara reacted to the criticism in two ways. First, he removed the two movies from the list of approved educational materials — though leaving them in military libraries throughout the world for use by individual commanders if they wish. Next, the Secretary speeded up production of two films designed to supplant the controversial movies.

One, The Challenge of Ideas, was released in July. Cabell Phillips of The New York Times described it as a “sober, moving and non-glutinous portrayal of what America is and the kind of threat it faces from communism.” McNamara evidently hopes this will prove a non-controversial substitute for Communism on the Map. The second movie, not yet released, will be based on Communist Target — Youth, a report by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. Since the report’s views on the San Francisco riots differ little from that of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, it seems futile to hope for a “sober, moving and non-glutinous” substitute for Operation Abolition.

The same Eisenhower administration directive that ordered commanders to alert their troops to the Communist menace ordered them to alert the public as well. As a result, commanders have spent much of the last few years hopping off base to instill militant anti-communism into the residents of nearby communities. They have participated in, sponsored, even created “Schools on Anti-Communism,” “Alerts,” “Seminars,” “Freedom Forums,” “Strategy for Survival Conferences,” “Fourth Dimensional Warfare Seminars” and “Project Actions.” Often held on base, complete with showings of Operation Abolition and Communism on the Map and speeches by the local commanders and by imported professional anti-Communists like Herbert Philbrick, these meetings follow a John Birch line. Under the guise of anti-communism, they cry out against all social legislation and mock anyone with different views. The Navy, whose Naval Air Station commanders have been particularly zealous at taking part in such programs, often denies official sponsorship, but it is difficult for any audience to watch a man in uniform declaim against communism and welfare state legislation without assuming he is spouting an official line.

Of late there has been some attempt to hold these militant militarists back, particularly after Sen. J. William Fulbright (D-Ark.) sent an angry memorandum about them to the department. In a July 11 directive, McNamara delegated authority to Assistant Secretary Sylvester to “provide policy guidance to the commands ... for... the conduct of any informational programs directed in whole or in part to the general public.” McNamara also banned any military-sponsored use of Operation Abolition and Communism on the Map in any public function. His ban is so strict that the Navy refused to let the 11th Naval District band play at a “Coast Cities Freedom Program” rally in Santa Monica, Calif., July 26, because the sponsors planned to show the two movies.

McNamara’s aides have announced the start of careful screening for all material used in community-relations programs. “But,” as one department official told Cabell Phillips of The New York Times, “this sort of screening doesn’t directly affect General X if he wants to make a speech about communism in the schools or play footsie with the Birch Society people. ... Who is to tell a three-star admiral how right wing — or how left wing — his political outlook can be?” In addition, as another official made clear, timidity often rules the civilian leaders of the Pentagon — they don’t want to be tagged as “being against anti-communism.”

Another problem along the same line involves the top generals and admirals who always seem to be on a foreign-policy lecture circuit. “The talkativeness of American military men, most of them reading speeches written by professional speech writers who are paid by the government, is an international scandal,” says Walter Lippmann. Waldemar A. Nielsen of the Ford Foundation points out that “Defense officials, civilian and in uniform, make several times as many speeches and write several times as many articles bearing on foreign policy as officials of the Department of State.” In the four weeks between July 5 and August 2, Pentagon officials scheduled forty-five speeches to groups ranging from Syracuse University to the Texas Bar Association. Such speeches, while clear of any John Birch tinge, often stress the futility of disarmament and of negotiating with the Russians. “The question must be asked,” Nielsen writes, “whether a systematic bias is not being introduced by this branch of government into the stream of American public opinion.

THE Kennedy Administration has made some attempts to tone down these speeches. Soon after Inauguration Day, Admiral Burke tried to see how far his new Pentagon bosses would allow him to go. He asked for clearance on a speech bristling with his usual truculence toward the Russians. Sylvester demanded revisions and the White House backed him up. The situation was repeated three months later, when Rear Admiral Samuel B. Frankel, Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence, planned a speech in Austin, Tex., implying that both former Presidents Eisenhower and Franklin D. Roosevelt had been deluded into negotiating with the Russians. Sylvester again forced revisions. The Assistant Secretary’s authority to revise these speeches presumably has been strengthened by the July 11 directive giving him the responsibility of “policy guidance” over all informational programs directed at the public. A new “guideline” — but not an order — issued by McNamara says:

“In public discussions, all officials of the Department should confine themselves to defense matters. They should particularly avoid discussion of foreign-policy matters, a field which is reserved for the President and the Department of State. This long-established principle recognizes the danger that when Defense officials express opinions on foreign policy, their words can be taken as the policy of the government.”

But even if the Pentagon could quiet the militant right-wingers who often command installations and admirals and generals who try to mold foreign policy, this would not stop the military point of view from flowing to the public, particularly to communities near bases. In his textbook, Public Relations, Bertrand R. Canfield presents a community-relations case study supplied to him by the Army. It involves the Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Ga., and clearly represents one of the prideful achievements of the Army publicity men.

At Fort Benning, a Citizens-Military Council has been created to maintain continuous ties between the base and nearby communities. Representing the citizens are the mayors of Columbus, Ga., and Phoenix City, Ala.; the chairmen of the commissioners of the two surrounding counties; officers of the local Chambers of Commerce; the president of the Columbus-Phoenix City Ministerial Alliance; the superintendents of schools; the local newspaper and radio officials; the secretary of the Columbus YMCA, and others. Representing Fort Benning are the Commanding General, the chaplains, the Public Information Officer (who is council secretary), and others.

Canfield lists some of the council’s accomplishments. The Kiwanis and Rotary clubs invite four military guests to every meeting. A Boy Scout camp is held at Fort Benning. The Army post supplies an average of a speaker a week to the local civic clubs. A group of soldiers helped Union Springs, Ala., build a church. An Army major organized the Great Books discussions at the Columbus Memorial Library. Servicemen receive reduced rates for local high school and professional sports events. Fort Benning furnished “walkie-talkies” to the local Soap Box Derby so there could be communication between the start and finish lines of the race.

SCHOOLS are a prime target of the military. The Department of Defense offers film strips, records and discussion guides to school systems asking help in teaching about the nature of communism. The Navy Fleet Home Town Center in Great Lakes, Ill., has a High School News Service Division that supplies news and feature stories about the Navy, Army and Air Force to editors of school newspapers and magazines. In 1960, material was mailed to 16,000 high schools. Last May, the Navy provided the destroyer escort De Long for a program called “First Annual Day in the Navy”; forty-five high school boys from Westchester County, N.Y., boarded the warship for a forty-mile cruise on Long Island Sound. The trip was a brilliant piece of long-range planning. “Most of the boys are studying journalism and we want them to understand how the Navy operates,” said Lieutenant Commander William J. Roach of the Naval Reserve. The dividends presumably would reach the Navy five to ten years from now, when the boys landed newspaper jobs.

THE MILITARY establishment, of course, does not confine its influence to the communities that surround bases and naval stations. It courts key Americans wherever they live. Since 1948, the Pentagon has invited men in positions of power or influence to Defense Orientation Conferences. The guests attend briefings at the Pentagon for a few days and then tour Army posts, Air Force bases, aircraft carriers, submarines and naval stations. The guest list for the first conference included Winthrop Aldrich, James B. Carey, Joseph M. Dodge, Al Hayes, David Lawrence, John L. Lewis, Daniel A. Poling, Nelson A. Rockefeller, Arthur Hays Sulzberger and Robert R. Young. Attendance at a conference entitles the guest to membership in the Defense Orientation Conference Association, a kind of alumni association that arranges refresher briefings several times a year. The association now has 1,900 members.

According to the official line, the conferences inform American leaders about military matters and solicit their views on the subject. But Maxine Cheshire, a woman’s page reporter for the Washington Post, perhaps came closer to the truth last October 1 when she began a chatty story:

“The Defense Department has a network of high-powered press agents across the country, and fortunately they work for free. It would take an enormous government appropriation to pay for the caliber of civilians who were assembled here this week for the ninth annual meeting of the Defense Orientation Conference Association.”

It also would take an enormous government appropriation to pay for the non-official organizations that act as cheering sections for the services. These include the Navy League, the Air Force Association, the Association of the U. S. Army, the Reserve Officers Association, the American Ordnance Association, and the National Security Industrial Association — all financed largely by defense contractors. With these and the various veterans lobby organizations, as Waldemar A. Nielsen has pointed out, “the Defense Department has a built-in system of communication with the American people unequaled in scale by anything available to other federal agencies.” Or to any private agency, either.

‍Mr. Meisler’s concluding article, to appear next week, will deal with the military’s use of the mass media, including the movies, comic strips and the press.

STANLEY MEISLER is a wire-service newsman stationed in Washington.