I I if   mf `ff   if   `FIFFI I Emi Eli I Di       JEFF il I
 I I~   i   el e II   II I III   le  »“   I I   I   4-++   ~ Iml——i—I   I .
I l I I I I ` l I l l · I I I ’ ·  
I "  
REO RG/\N IZI NC-3 U.S. DEFENSE  
 
@6;.
© Five generals came. So did an speech made by U.S. Air F0rCe Gen. discover the strengths and weaknesses sti
admiral. The head of the House David jones, then chairman of the of various reform proposals as well as , mi
Armed Services Committee was joint Chiefs of Staff, in early 1982. the degree of consensus behind specific pa
there. So were two former U.S. jones proposed a major shakeup of the ideas _ _   sh
secretaries of defense and several jCS, the nation's top uniformed "Onee Davey jones blew the rop off ’ U
former Defense Department officials. military body. He said the country`s top with his volcano-like speech, various   le.
Top military personnel from Britain, military officers need to spend more people got involved in various study ~
Canada, and Israel were also on hand. time developing joint strategies and groups," Davis said. "We were by no . "a
They were among nearly 60 civilians fighting capabilities, and he proposed means the only game in town, but we l ta
and top military officers who strengthening the chairman’s authority. felt in a good position to get important "c
participated in a conference at the "Unless the basic long-term people_" vt
University of Kentucky Patterson shortcomings of the system are Davis invited two friends and T
School of Diplomacy and Interna- corrected, the severity of their colleagues to join him in the project: U
tional Commerce. The meeting was consequences will continue to increase piofossot Roboit j_ Att, donn of tho A co
aimed at examining the way that U.S. as the national security environment Graduate School at Brandeis lit
national security policy is made and becomes m0r€ CO1'HPl€X,n jones said. University, and Professor Samuel P. ex
implemented. "We need to spend more time on our Huntington, difectojj of tho Center for bt
As one of the participants joked, "A war fighting capabilities and less on an [ntotnntionni Affnits at Hntvatd ot
war better not start while all of us are intramural scramble for resources." "I didn’t know how much money we bc
in Lexington, because this group 'The speech triggered an avalanche Would got fiom Ford _ _ _ and i knew
represents the entire high command of of discontent," recalled Davis, who was Sum (Huntington) had moto money no
the U.S. defense establishment." in Washington doing consulting work than we`ve got. I asked if Harvard pi
Not only did the tiny Patterson for Defense Secretary Casper would pay for the first conference," cl·
School host such a world-class event, Weinberger and the joint Chiefs. Davis said. As it turned out, the fo
L but its director, Vincent Davis, Members of Congress, authorities in foundation came through with enough fo
persuaded his colleagues at Harvard the Defense Department and elsewhere money to finance both conferences. cc
University to co-sponsor the began to criticize the organization of Davis said Harvard and UK w
conference, splitting it into two the jCS and of the office of secretary of Complomontod ouch othot, "Hntvntd is m
sessions, one at Cambridge, Mass., and defense. House and Senate committees a famous oid Ptivuto university _ _ _ wo do
one at Lexington. began holding formal hearings. are a land grant university out in the ja
That in itself may be another first. It had been more than 25 years since middle of America. I wanted to get ag
"To my knowledge, it is the first time the last major reorganization, and somo Poopio to Como out hgfg to soo A
Harvard and UK have been paired on during that time, changes had been what`s here." Davis said he also liked wI
a project of this kind," Davis said. piecemeal. No one had taken a the idea of a change of location, saying re
The conference had its origins in a comprehensive look at the operation of it msdo tho Puit of oonfotonoos moto (ji
the whole system. So Davis asked the fli
Ford Foundation for a grant to "help
I   I  IIII  
L 1 , j I E III I II  I I    
IIIII I IIIII III I  if
run IIIII IIIIIIIIIHIQ III I I- I
I nd I nd wa! . _ A I
I * l i x I
r·l ·   It II} W i
A ’ A I I I   l
I I I ! “ " _ |'¤"‘ . I ‘
j . 7. . E I,
I · I In Ea uid  e i
i I . . I It   III - oi I         Id- E I
I I l I I I I I 1 I l A I
`l  i i i   l l       Er   I rlkrrjrrllé   rriin Alu g   W
` . . . I .. . .-.. . --.;.1, New of WL-   » l  .... ,.- .2 I -