(2 of 5)
A. I wasn't negotiating anything. But if better relations are to be achieved, the military should participate in and contribute to the process. If you say that only the State Department can talk to the Soviets, then, given the stakes, the multiplicity of contacts and the complexity of the issues, I must disagree. You know, senior military commanders deal all the time in diplomacy. The commanders in Europe and the Pacific go to country after country and are welcomed by heads of state and government officials and talk about a lot more than military affairs.
Q. It's widely said you are the most powerful military figure in U.S. peacetime history. Is this a fair judgment?
A. I'm an "adviser." The implication of your question is that I'm making all these decisions and directing everything. In fact, in our system, my military advice is rendered, but it is always only one element. I must defend my views; I don't get a free ride because of my office. There are a lot of disappointments, even for the Chairman.
Q. You seem to be much more than a military adviser. With your Princeton Ph.D. and negotiating experience, you're the classic "diplomat-warrior."
A. The No. 1 thing I took from my graduate education is that there are political dimensions to everything. Akhromeyev mentioned that he came to office without any political training. He suggested that my broad background must be helpful as Chairman. That was his perception, and he's right.
Q. Did the widespread criticism of the Persian Gulf reflagging operation distress you?
A. Not the opposition per se, but the shallow understanding of what we were trying to do. There were a lot more political merits than was widely understood by critics. In testifying before Congress, I found myself focusing more and more on the political ramifications. That wasn't my original intent. But -- and that's the whole point of this diplomat-warrior business -- there was no way to separate the political from the military.
There are no solely military solutions. So we need warriors who can operate in the policy world as well. It's the same within the military. We need broad- based fighters. We need managers too. The Pentagon spends huge sums developing and producing new weapons systems. That has to be done well. Our challenge is to develop leaders who can fight and manage and fighters who can contribute to policymaking. We have to develop a promotion system that recognizes all those talents. A man can be a first-class warrior, but if he can't function in the policy arena, that's a serious deficiency in higher commands.
Q. But the system doesn't recognize initiative.
A. That's not necessarily true. I am always looking for innovative people. In Viet Nam I was running the riverboat operation, and two kinds of people showed up. One asked for the tactical doctrine on how to operate those boats. When we said there wasn't any, he froze. That man was useless. Another type would say, "You mean nobody knows how to do this?", and "I know as much as anybody?" And when I said yes, he'd say, "Hot dog!" and go off and do it. That guy was great.
Q. How does an Oklahoma kid become a Navy admiral?