HARVARD UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
DEFENSE STUDIES PROGRAM

2 DIVINITY AVENUE
CAMBRIDGE 38, MASSACHUSETTS

9 October 1957

Mr. Robert R. Bowie, Director
Center for International Affairs
Graduate School of Public Administration
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

Dear Bob,

I know that it is much too early for you to have
arrived at any opinions about the future of the Defense
Studies Program and the manning of the same. I also
realize that these are dependent upon the success of
fund-raising enterprises and the action of various adminis-
trative bodies within the University. But I still think
that I should place before you the personal problems of the
permanent staff of the Defense Studies Program and call
your attention to the desirability of fairly early decisions
as to 1958-59 and subsequent years.

The problem is raised at this_moment by a letter from
the National War College to Ed Katzenbach repeating an
offer, made last year, to take a professorship at a sub-
stantial increase over what we pay him. He received other
good offers last year, and this pattern will probably be
repeated. I have advised him to temporize with the National
War College by putting off a decision until January 1.
But, at some time not too far distant, he will want to know
whether he has an alternative here at Harvard before he
makes up his mind as to his own future.

Harry Ransom is in the position where he must protect
his income and employment by going shopping for other
academic work; and, in the nicest possible way, he has told
me that he will have to do this. In reply I have said to
him that I hope he will make no firm commitment elsewhere
until (a) the future of the DSP at Harvard is determined or
(b) a decision on this matter is delayed beyond the safety
point for Harry's future.

Maury Feld has a similar problem, but at the present
time is taking no action about it.

2 December 1957

Dear Bob,

With relation to a couple of brief conversations which you and I have had, as well as to your talk with Ed Katzenbach, I should like to record some views. (I think it is useful to put these things on paper as we go along.)

1. The Defense Studies Program is a going concern, in its fourth year, with an established scale and direction of operations. In its present type of activity it has received the internal approval of the University Committee and the external approval of DOD and the military departments as well as the flattery of imitation from other universities. Students are being sent here by the Army and Air Force for pre-instructor training at the service academies, by DOD, and by other government agencies such as NSA; this does not preclude us from doing anything we like, but it does suggest that we should approach with caution any project for reducing the Program. I believe it can properly be said that we have established a Harvard leadership in development of civilian education in defense matters; and I for one feel like Churchill when he said that he "did not become the King's first minister to preside at the liquidation of the British Empire."

2. The future of the Program is necessarily bound closely to the person who is to lead it. Whoever that person is should have the maximum opportunity to make of it what he can and wants to. His hands should not be tied by decisions now made by persons who will have no direct responsibility for operation of the Program. If there are difficulties of financing at any particular level of activity, the chosen leader should have an opportunity of solving those difficulties, or cutting the Program to the cloth of available money.

3. In viewing the future of this Program I believe we should think in terms of increasing its usefulness, not retrenching its activities. Perhaps you would care to

- 2 -

read again pages 2 to 4 of our Ford Report for 1955-56, which seeks to convey the notion of our mission and what types of activity we are engaged in to carry it out. Specifically I think we should continue both the main Seminar and the Advanced Seminar. Also, at the earliest time that our personnel situation permits, we should re-establish History 138b (Emergence of the United States as a World Military Power). As the Center for International Affairs develops there will undoubtedly arise opportunities for seminars in the foreign/defense policy area.

4. We are developing in our readings for students a literature, for academic purposes, on national defense. This is a continuing process in which students participate; it has the advantages for our students that the Law Review has for law students and is part of the educational process. However, we cannot expect that our students will be able to do the independent type of work that is possible in the Law Review due to the three-year law course and the selectivity of Law Review editors. It may be that at some future date other universities may acquire the capability of putting out acceptable materials of this kind, and when that time comes we can establish cooperative enterprises. But no other university now has this capability. Their attempts to put out materials do not result in a product that would be acceptable here.

5. The collections of materials by Maury Feld are essential to (a) our production of readings, (b) student papers, and (c) the literary product of the staff and the staff's general education. I see no substitute for this collection or for Feld. The cost does not exceed $8000. annually. It is important that this collection be immediately available here in the custody of a man who is familiar with its content and with the technique of using it.

6. As the Program goes on from year to year we ought to follow a "learning curve" which will reduce our cost in man-hours to give the presently programmed courses. This saving should give us the flexibility to (a) engage in serious research and writing and (b) give additional courses that may prove desirable. As you doubtless know the Program has, at the invitation of the editors of "Public Policy", offered a series of chapters for their next volume -- one each by Katzenbach, Ransom and Feld (plus two other by Huntington and Wrinch for

11 December 1957

Prof. Robert R. Bowie
Director, Center for International Affairs
Littauer
Harvard University
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

Dear Bob,

As Chairman of the University Committee on the DSP, it would be a good idea for you to become informed of the proposal (now in process of execution) for re-locating the Program. As you know our present quarters are being taken over by the Harvard-Yenching Institute and we are being re-located on the second floor of the Semitic Museum, adjacent to our present building on the north side.

I suggest you take a walk over fairly soon and see for yourself what these quarters look like. There are certain minimum physical requirements to give any organization a chance to operate effectively, and I doubt that the proposed quarters achieve this minimum. We are being sandwiched into an enormous museum room containing display cases which occupy large amounts of space and are apparently too expensive to remove. These big display cases have spaces between them for visitors to walk in and out; and it is in these spaces that our offices are being located.

Anything can be accepted as a temporary expedient, provided that the arrangement is really temporary and that better days are assured. My worry stems from the fact that the University is spending $10,000 or more in producing this jerry-built job; and there seems to be no indication that anything else will be available for the academic year 1958-59.

I am not clear what can be done about this, but I do believe that it is a matter of legitimate concern and that your direct connection with MacBundy ought to be utilized as appropriate.

WBL:has

19 December 1957

Dr. Henry W. Kissinger
Center for International Affairs
Littauer
Harvard University
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

Dear Henry,

Harry Ransom has talked to me about his
future plans. His heart is in the right place, but he
has an understandable sense of insecurity in view of
recent developments on (a) Katzenbach, (b) quarters for
the Program, (c) financing. I think you can count on
him.

However, he makes the point, which seems to
me a reasonable one, that if he is to take on additional
teaching and/or administrative duties, this ought to be
reflected in his title, as well as an appropriate salary
adjustment. His present status is Research Associate.
I don't know what can be done about this, but I should
think that the minimum would be to include him on the
Faculty List in the GSPA catalogue.

You will recall that I suggested he be named
Associate Director of the Defense Studies Program.
This would not only be well received by Harry, but you
would find it convenient. You will discover that, as
Director of the Program, there are a lot of people to
meet and minor chores to do. You can't turn these over
to just any old person; but if you have someone handy
with a title such as Associate Director, you give him
protocolary standing which could enable him to stand in
for you.

WBL:has

Copy to Professor Bowie

27 December 1957

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Littauer 125
Graduate School of Public Administration
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Henry,

In making up your budget for the Defense
Studies Program for the year 1958-59, there
need be no salary item for me. But there should
be an item of $1800. for my secretary.

There is a limit on what the Law School
will pay for salaries of professors' secretaries;
and the limit is well below what is needed for
a good secretary. Some of the professors
handle this by doubling up on a secretary; but
I do not consider this feasible under present
conditions. It is quite clear that there will
be a sufficient carry-over of activity on my part
to justify this absorption of overhead.

WBL:has

LAW SCHOOL
MEMORANDUM

FROM Leach

To Kissinger

You should know that on Feb. 10
the Harvard University Press accepted for
publication Harry Ransom's book on
"Central Intelligence and National
Security." This is relevant (a) in
dealings with Ford as an indication that
the Program is producing and (b) in
dealings with the administrative author-
ities in the matter of title and
salary for Ransom.

6
DIVINITY AVENUE
CAMBRIDGE 38, MASSACHUSETTS

17 February 1958

Dear Henry,

I have taken care of the inclusion of the Defense Policy
Seminar in the Law School Catalog. I suggest that you should
(a) talk with Gertrude Manley about getting it in the GSPA
Catalog in the right way, and (b) talk with the Dean of the
Business School about how it should appear in the Business
School Catalog.

My name appears in the Law School Catalog because it is
desirable that the Law students should know that there is a
law professor who participates in the Program, but I do not
think my name should appear either in the GSPA catalog or the
Business School announcement.

My Dean at the Law School had a talk with me the other day
in which he emphasized that, since I am returning to the Law
School budget on a full-scale basis he expected that I would
devote full-scale performance to law courses. I responded that
this was a reasonable attitude on his part, but I called his
attention to the fact that law students comprise a significant
membership in the DPS and that I would do a certain amount of
work with the Seminar in addition to other duties.

WBL:has

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Assoc. Director
Center for International Affairs
Littaur 125

February 17, 1958

Professor W. Barton Leach
Langdell Hall
Harvard

Dear Bart:

Here are a few unrelated notes, dictated over the
telephone during the blizzard, to help us get started on
obtaining Air Force officers to do advanced work at the
Center.

The purpose of the Center is described in our prospectus
as follows:

The Center for International Affairs is designed to serve
both the need for knowledge and the need for men.

Its program is based on the premise that a Center at Harvard
can fruitfully combine basic research in foreign affairs with
advanced study by experienced individuals. Free from the pressures
of day-to-day concerns, the Center should be able to provide an
environment fostering sustained and systematic analysis of funda-
mental issues. The joint participation of scholars and mature
practitioners should make the research more penetrating and signi-
ficant. At the same time, a period of such work should enable the
practitioners to deepen their understanding and broaden their
perspective. Those are the convictions on which the Center rests.

Obviously, everything depends on the quality of the
personnel we can attract. From the military services they should
be preferably at the Colonel level with prospects of achieving
higher rank. We would afford them an opportunity to work with
colleagues from other departments and a few outstanding academic
people in seminars which will probably not exceed 7 or 8 men.
I will direct the work of the group in the defense field. The
areas we propose to cover are defined in the prospectus as follows:

(3) The Role and Control of Force

Military policy and its relation to diplomacy have never been
more complex. The revolution in modern weapons has undermined many
traditional notions as to the role of force at a time when political
conditions are in flux and international schisms are extremely deep.
The changing situation poses many difficult issues in strategic
doctrine, military policy and structure, the role of force and its
control, etc. The purpose of the Center will be to analyze these
interrelated problems in relation to foreign policy and evolving
technological and political developments.

technological and boffitcy developments.

interrelated problems in relation to foreign boffel and enlisting
control, etc. The purpose of the Center will be to acquire these
documents, military boffel and armature, the role of force and its
The changing situation does not call for a new issue in strategic
conditions are in flux and international situations are extremely geed.
traditional notions as to the role of force at a time when boffels
more complex. The revolution in modern weapons has undermined men
military boffel and its relation to defense has never been

(2) The Role and Control of Force

area we probe to cover are defined in the prospectus as follows:
I will direct the work of the group in the defense field. The
decide in advance which will properly not exceed 3 or 8 men.
collaborate from other departments and a few outstanding segments
higher rank. We would afford them an opportunity to work with
the betterment at the Commissioner level with probes of achieving
benefit we can attract. From the military services side should
Operation A, everything depend on the draft of the

barbarous. Those are the convictions on which the Center rests.
barbarous to geeken their understanding and proceed their
toent. At the same time, a period of and work should include the
barbarous should make the research more benefiting and afien-
mentsl issue. The joint participation of acrobats and mature
environment scattering anastomized and systematic anastomize of tugs-
ot of play-to-day concerns, the Center should be able to provide an
advanced study of experienced individuals. Free from the premises
can profitably compile paste research in foreign affairs with
its program is based on the premise that a Center at Harvard

The Center for International Affairs is designed to serve
as follows:

Center.

observing Air Force officers to do advanced work at the
distance quiting theissnd, to help us get started on
Here are a few unrelated notes, dotted over the

Dear Bert:

Harvard
Langdeff Heff
Professor W. Burton Lesop

February 13, 1988

Professor W. Barton Leach

2.

February 17, 1958

The procedure would be that the faculty chairman of the group would lead the discussion for perhaps 3 or 4 sessions and that each of the participants would be responsible for one or two topics which would be fitted into his own major interests. From time to time the groups working in the defense field will meet jointly with other groups working under the following topics: Europe and the Atlantic Community, Economic and Political Development, International Order and Conflict and Far Eastern Problems.

We have not yet settled the question of academic credit or of degrees. If it were thought essential, however, I would feel quite confident that we could arrange something.

I may add that we have taken up this matter at the Department of the Army and have had a very encouraging reception. Do see what you can do.

Good wishes.

Henry V. Klaarberg

Sincerely yours,

Good wishes.

Do see what you can do.

Department of the Navy and have had a very encouraging reception.
I may add that we have taken up this matter at the

feed due confidence that we could arrange something.

or of degrees. It was thought essential, however, I would
We have not yet settled the question of academic credit

International Order and Conflict and Far Eastern Problems.
Europe and the Atlantic Community, Economic and Political Development,
jointly with other European working under the following topics:
time to time the Grobe working in the defense field will meet
topics which would be fitted into his own major interests. From
that end of the barbicans would be reasonable for one or two
Grobe would lead the discussion for periods 3 or 4 a session and
The procedure would be that the twenty-one chairman of the

Professor W. Burton Leech

S.

February 13, 1958

6

X DIVINITY AVENUE
CAMBRIDGE 38, MASSACHUSETTS

24 February 1958

Dear Henry,

I have yours of February 17, but this is just not
enough. I don't want a turn-down from the Air Force on
the ground that there is not enough information from
authoritative sources to evaluate the proposal; and that
is what is risked by anything I could write on the basis
of your letter.

I will gladly place a fully-developed proposal in
hands which will assure its sympathetic consideration;
but the information must be such that, when it is
referred for recommended action to (a) education con-
tracting officers and (b) personnel assignment officers,
they will have what they need to go on. Obviously this
is not a matter which will get much personal attention
from the Chier of Staff or one of the Deputies; the most
he will do will be to write a memo saying something
like "Submit to staff. I favor this project." But the
staff must do the work. Furthermore, this may be a matter
which will have to be submitted for approval to the
Director of Personnel Policy in OSD; and you should know
that this is an admiral. Thus the need for a carefully
developed prospectus is obvious.

Normally a course is described in a catalogue where
the conditions of taking the course are specified; but this
must be supplied in this case. Furthermore, it must
come from someone who has authority to commit the
University (Bowie or you, as his deputy) on such matters
as moving expense, office space, travel expense during
the year, secretarial service, academic recognition by
degree or otherwise, and the like.

It should further be borne in mind that the
prospectus must appeal to the officer who is being con-

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

March 13, 1958

Dear Buster:

The Dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Public Admin-
istration got hold of me the other day and said that, although
the usual number of applications for Army officers had come in,
there were none from the Air Force -- and especially no pre-
instructors from the Air Force Academy. He asked me whether
I knew the story on this, and of course I did not. But I said
I would try to find out.

I am personally interested in this because the Defense
Policy Seminar thrives on having substantially equal represen-
tation from the three Services. The GSPA does not want to
become known as an "Army" graduate school.

Could you or one of your people drop me a line at Harvard
and let me know whether there is a plan to have any of your
people come to us next year?

My family is putting the heat on me to spend some time in
the Rockies this summer -- and they usually succeed in this
type of project. Consequently, I may be paying you another
visit this year. I remember most pleasantly our trip to the
Academy last year.

Maj. General James E. Briggs
Superintendent
U. S. Air Force Academy
Denver, Colorado

HARVARD DEFENSE STUDIES PROGRAM

*Memorandum*

FROM: Leach

To: Kissinger

31 March 1958

Here is the reply to my letter
to the Air Force Academy. I
suggest you keep this copy.

enc.

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY
OFFICE OF THE DEAN OF FACULTY
DENVER 8, COLORADO

24 March 1958

Professor W. Barton Leach
Harvard Defense Studies Program
2 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

Dear Bart:

I am answering your letter of 13 March for General
Briggs, who is out of town.

To explain why we are sending no pre-instructors to GSPA this year I must first explain the build-up of our cadet strength. For the past three years we have entered classes of 306 cadets. This coming July we are going to enter a class of 448 cadets. Starting in July 1959 we will enter 712 cadets for the next four years, at the end of which time we should be up to our authorized full strength of 2496 cadets.

The build-up of our faculty must, of course, correspond to the build-up of our cadet strength. Thus, the freshman Chemistry course will require a full complement of instructors starting in September 1959 following the entrance of the first class of 712 cadets. On the other hand, the International Relations course taught in the senior year will not require a full complement of instructors until 1962.

Now my explanation becomes a bit complicated because we have recently instituted a curriculum change. (A copy of the new curriculum is attached.) When you visited last Spring the courses in Government, International Relations, Military History and Defense Policy were all scheduled in the senior year. With the instructors on board and those graduating from the GSPA program this coming June, we would have had enough instructors to meet our requirements for these courses until the class of 448 cadets entering in July 1958 became seniors in 1961. Thus, we had no requirement to enter pre-instructors in the GSPA program this coming Fall.

(L)

Under the revised curriculum approved on 3 March 1958 the courses in Government and Military History will be taught during the sophomore year, and the courses in International Relations and Defense Policy remain in the senior year. Thus, our instructor requirements will rise sooner. For the coming year we have managed to fill our vacancies with instructors who have already completed their graduate training under other Air Force programs. Therefore, we shall not send any pre-instructors to the GSPA during the academic year 1958-1959. During the following year, however, we will send some pre-instructors to the GSPA to meet the build-up for the first entering class of 712 cadets.

I have given you this lengthy explanation lest there be any misunderstanding that we at the Air Force Academy are in any way unhappy or dissatisfied with the GSPA or its program for pre-instructor training. I regret the hasty action that Colonel Frisbee took in removing Captain Crabbe from the GSPA when he was turned down on his request for doctoral candidacy. I fully understand the circumstances behind the case and assure you that the incident in no way prejudiced my feelings towards the school, its administrators, or its program.

I am pleased to know that you are planning on coming to Colorado this summer. I wonder if you would mind taking one or two days off from your vacation to serve as a consultant on our Social Sciences program. We shall be in the midst of developing an integrated course in International Relations and Defense Policy, and Lt Colonel Posvar would appreciate very much having the opportunity to discuss the course plan with you. If this would not upset the vacation plans of your family please let me know the approximate dates of your visit.

Very sincerely yours,

ROBERT F. McDERMOTT
Colonel, USAF
Dean of Faculty

1 Incl.
USAFAM 20-1

2

March 31, 1958

Comments on Draft Outline of March 27, 1958
Harvard Defense Policy Seminar, 1958-59

I am suspicious of a heading entitled "Basic Concepts and Issues." I don't think there is anything more "basic" or "conceptual" in numbers 1 to 4 than, for example, 7 and 9.

I don't understand the difference between numbers 3 and 6. Once we start talking about organization I think we should carry it through in sequence. This year we found that two sessions did not exhaust the subject; we had a third session, mostly on organization; and the organizational problem was always emerging collaterally in the discussion of other subjects. I do not find any consideration of proposals for organizational reform. I expect that next fall the organization question may still be current in Congress. If it is, the sessions on this subject should be built around the controversy as it then exists. There will unquestionably be committee reports, presidential messages, testimony and debates on organization this spring; these should be made available to students in a serial and should be the subject of a session. I should be glad to give that session.

As to No. 7, I should be glad to participate, but I feel that we should get somebody in Congress as a lecturer. I think we had very good luck with Congressman Ford, Mr. Blandford, and Senator Saltonstall.

There should be two sessions on the military budget process. I think they should come in December and should focus upon the

budget for FY 1959. This will give the students a basis for
understanding the budget for FY 1960 when it comes out in
January. The President's Budget Message and budget summary should
be reproduced as a serial, and it might be desirable to spend
another half-session discussing it. One of the lecturers on the
budget should be a man actually working in the Pentagon.

I don't see why No. 11 is put where it is. I would make
this one No. 3.

As to No. 13, if I were in the Navy, I should consider the
questions offensive. They all seem to me to be loaded and to
assume a position hostile to the Navy.

I assume that in 12, 13 and 14, it is expected that the
lecturer will be a person so close to the services that he can
express service views without being subject to the inhibitions of
current Pentagon position. Gavin is a good choice for the Army,
Doolittle for the Air Force (though I can serve if necessary); we
must find an equivalent in the Navy.

How does 15 differ from 1?

As to 16, I would leave Civil Defense out. There are enough
subjects within the scope of activity of the Pentagon to occupy
our attention. Discussions of Civil Defense always end in complete
futility for budgetary reasons.

I would like to add a session on the conception of civilian
control as applied in various countries at various times.
"Soldiers and Governments" provides good reading, and I feel that
we need a comparative view of defense structure.

- 3 -

I do not see the difference between No. 18 and No. 4.

I suspect that in No. 19 the title ought to be "Logistic Requirements, Procurement, and Industrial Potential." I also suspect that a two-hour session on this subject can become uselessly theoretical unless it is focused on a particular problem, the best being aircraft procurement for all three services.

Two sessions on disarmament are one too many.

No. 25 is pretty vague. I should hate to be given that paragraph and requested to give a lecture on it. I could talk five minutes or perhaps ten and then I would have to think of something else to talk about.

Having said the foregoing, I wish to express general approval of the outline. I think it is a good thing to have an outline, but a bad thing to make a fetich of sticking to it. In a course like this the important objective is to sustain student interest at a high level. This is not done by a cogent outline or by no outline at all. Interest is sustained when the students feel that they are (a) dealing with subjects of great immediate importance, (b) treating them realistically and (c) meeting as lecturers men who really know what they are talking about. Therefore, I believe that the outline established should be kept flexible to accumulate subjects which emerge as currently important and to meet the convenience of the outside lecturers whom we want.

I assure that a survey of existing serials has been made to determine whether we are making use of those ideas in our existing literature which are particularly good. I personally feel that the

military air transport problem provides an excellent case study
in a large number of problems of the Pentagon; we have readings
on this which need revision but which can provide a stimulating
session when revised. It is also a good subject for a student
presentation.

I like the idea of a session on the Korean War (we had two
sessions this year); but perhaps it should come earlier in the
year for the practical reason that the readings are very extensive --
and it is hard to get students to do much reading in late April.
I also assume that the outlines at Wisconsin and Ohio State have
been examined to determine whether they have any ideas that we
could usefully adopt.

W. Barton Leach

WBL:has

Law School of Harvard University

Cambridge 38, Mass.

20 May 1958

Dear Henry,

There is a danger in your Seminar for which you have asked the services to nominate officers. I am sure you have thought of it, but it will do no harm to spell it out.

I assume you are going to have this Seminar concentrate on a subject of real significance and bring to it the wisdom and experience of the varied backgrounds of the students. The subject might be very broad ("A Strategic Concept for 1965") or less broad ("Reassignment of Roles and Missions") or rather limited ("Military Airlift").

But whatever the group studies (and even if each student studies a different thing) the risk is that each officer will feel that, to protect his future, he must adhere to his service party line. Furthermore, if your group comes up with a paper which proves distasteful to one or more of the services -- and it is impossible to deal with a significant subject without being distasteful to somebody -- you may discover that, next year, the offended service or services are likely to take the attitude that they won't assign officers to an outfit that comes up with this kind of junk. You will then discover that you have a one-year program which collapses through later years from lack of service support.

I believe these two dangers (student adherence to a party line, and offense to a service by the ultimate product) can be avoided if they are anticipated by raising the issues directly with the services and negotiating an understanding.

You may discover that the price of such an under-

28 May 1958

Dear Henry,

I am glad to hear from Harry Ransom that you
can find a little money for an honorarium for Norman
Gibbs. For the past four years we have followed a
policy of giving no honorariums. But I don't think
we should try to continue; and I do think we should
follow the customs of the trade. For example, it
looks just too eccentric for Bill Elliott to give
Bob Amory an honorarium for the same lecture for which
we pay him nothing. To some people it makes absolutely
no difference; to the service people we continue to
pay nothing; but to some of our speakers an honorarium
is welcome -- at least as an expression of appreciation.

I have been thinking further about your proposed
faculty seminar. My personal guess is that it will
flop if it is described as a faculty seminar. I doubt
that any faculty member other than Bowie, you, and DSP
personnel will attend regularly. Further, if you try
to get them to attend more often than their natural
inclination dictates, you will make a nuisance of your-
self and bring the project into disrupt. I think you
can build a working group around yourself, Bowie,
Ransom, Feld, Balch, and the three officers sent by the
services. Add Ernie May if he is here; but you may
have to woo him, for he has rarely attended DPS
sessions and his one contribution as a lecturer was not
of the highest quality and did not give evidence of
careful preparation.

WBL:has

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Associate Director
Center for International Affairs
Littauer 125

Cambridge 38, Mass.

PERSONAL

14 July 1958

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Director, Harvard Defense Studies Program
Littauer 125
Harvard University

Dear Henry,

I enclose copies of two letters to Larry Norstad. I need not emphasize the importance of treating these as top secret. We must not permit someone else whom we may choose to invite to think that he was a third or fourth choice.

I talked about the Norstad proposition to Bob Bowie and I would now like to suggest that you permit me to write a letter similar to the short Norstad letter to Tommy White. I have the greatest regard for him as a real military brain -- unquestionably the best man on the JCS at this time. He has all the qualifications, intellectual and experiential that would qualify him to work here. White became Chief of Staff in '57 for two years. His record is such that he will probably be re-appointed in the summer of '59; but we ought to get in a plug now (if we want him) so that if I am wrong and he is available in '59, he has us in mind. And anyway it looks as if he was through in '61, unless possibly he would be made U. S. Member of the Standing Group. I should not think that we would want two U. S. Air Force men in succession; hence White would be in my mind a substitute for Norstad instead of a successor.

When Dupuy gets here you and he together might want to sound out Max Taylor, who is terribly good but still in my judgment not up to White. I really can't see Arleigh Burke as being in the same class, but we may hope that somebody might emerge from the Navy whom we would want to have.

I could put a letter to White in such a way that I would be sure that he would not disclose it to any of his colleagues; and you and Dupuy would have to do the same thing with Taylor. The reason is obvious: we would all be

PERSONAL

in bad with the Navy if it were known that we had made
approaches to Montgomery, Norstad, White and Taylor -- and
to no Navy Man.

We might meet this problem in another way: by
making an approach to Radford. I haven't any idea what he
is doing and, of course, he is a first-class mind.

I hope you don't think I am running wild on this
thing. If you do, send me a bottle of aspirin. But my
experience leads me to believe that aiming at the top pays
off. Who, for example, would have ever thought we could
get Montgomery to come here and give a lecture?

WBL:has
enclosures 2

✓ Coda: Dr. Henry V. Kieisingen

New York, New York
APO 22
Supreme Commander Allied Powers Europe
General J.antoin Moratad

W. E. Barton Beach

Very sincerely,

Subsequent services were the same.
That I am sure I could arrange another trip if even more
to the University, and this was much a disappointing success
since a trip once to invite the Field General to lecture

PERSONAL

Cambridge 38, Mass.

W. BARTON LEACH - VACATION SCHEDULE AND ADDRESSES -

JULY 21 TO AUGUST 19, 1958.

July 21 and 22 - enroute to Montana

July 23 to August 1 - E Bar L Ranch
Greenough
Montana

August 2 - enroute to Jasper Park, Alberta

August 3 to August 8 - Jasper Park Lodge
Jasper Park
Alberta

August 9 - enroute for return to E Bar L Ranch

August 10 to August 18 - E Bar L Ranch
Greenough
Montana

August 19 - enroute to Weston, Massachusetts

August 20 - Weston, Massachusetts, indefinitely.

ALLIED-POWERS EUROPE
SUPREME COMMANDER

7 August 1955

Dear Bart:

Monty was away for a week or ten days at the time I received your letter of 10 July, so I asked his staff to forward a copy of it to him so that we could get an answer back in reasonable time. I have just now received his reply, copy of which is attached. Should you be interested in a week in the fall of 1959, I suggest that you communicate directly with him. A better thought might be to try to catch him for a day some time when he's in the United States on other business, thus leaving the date open.

As for "Norstad, Future of", only time will tell. When I decide to take off the uniform, you can be sure that I will consult Leach as to any plans that I may have in mind at that time. This is not too long in the future as you know. I enjoyed the "Twentieth Century Horse Cavalry", which I'm circulating around the staff. It's a very useful thing for our backroom boys to read such a study.

I had the pleasure of seeing Bob Bowie and Link Gordon here a few months back. They're both very fine, able people, and I'm delighted that Bob is working in the Foreign-Defense Policy fields at Harvard. Kissinger, I've known from his book, which is interesting, provocative, and like other books, sometimes wrong. But he is certainly an outstanding star in his field, and you are indeed fortunate to have him at Harvard.

My warmest regards to you both,

Brigadier General W. Barton Leach
Graduate School of Public Administration
2 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

LAW SCHOOL
MEMORANDUM

FROM Helen Sorrentino

To Dr. Kissinger

22 August 1958

Mr. Leach has not read over
the letters to Quarles and
Phillips attached. Therefore,
they may be subject to change.

21 August 1958

Brig. Gen. Thomas R. Phillips
Washington Bureau
St. Louis-Post Dispatch
1028 Connecticut Avenue
Washington 6, D. C.

Dear General Phillips,

I am just back from vacation and find your letter of July 30. Thanks very much, and I will certainly accept your invitation to have a lunch together when I am next in Washington.

You will shortly receive a letter from Henry Kissinger asking you to come up and lecture at our Defense Studies Program sometime in the coming academic year. I do hope you can find it possible to accept. We have had pretty good luck in maintaining a high level of professional competence for the benefit of the rather sophisticated audience of students and faculty members who take part in the Program -- Field Marshal Montgomery, Tom Finletter, and Jim Gavin to indicate the spread of interests that have been represented. On the press side we have had the late Bob Ginsberg and George Norris.

I think everyone who has been here has had the impression that he was making a worthwhile contribution to an audience which had worked hard to prepare for the session and which was capable of appreciating the wisdom they were receiving.

WBL:has

c.c. Henry Kissinger

Cambridge 38, Mass.

22 August 1958

MEMORANDUM TO HENRY KISSINGER

Your letter to McNeil is magnificent. I would offer
the following suggestions:

Would it not be a good idea to prepare a one-page
"Information for Guest Lecturers" which would contain the
information about the Program and also would give a list of
previous lecturers -- not all of them -- but a list of
perhaps 20 with whom anybody would be glad to have his name
associated?

In a postscript in the letter to McNeil you might do
two things: (a) point out to him how he can do all this at
the cost of only half a day by taking the midday non-stop
flight on American Airlines (leaves Washington at 12:20) and
returning to Washington on the Federal that night; (b) assure
him that no prepared lecture is expected or desired, but
what we want him to do is talk off the cuff for such period
as he wishes and then to respond to the questions which we
will ask. Naturally, a chart of the budget cycle would
probably prove useful -- and you might point out to him that,
if he happens not to have one, Major General Frank Bogart
(who talked on this subject last year) has one all prepared.

You will note that the above suggestions are designed
to prevent McNeil from being reluctant by showing that he
doesn't have to spend any time in preparation and that he can
do the whole job in half a day.

Musn't you say something about honorarium and expenses?
A mimeographed sheet is a delicate way of doing this.
In McNeil's case we hope, of course, that he can come on
orders. Can we offer him a token honorarium? In other years
we have always offered to pay the expenses of the wives of
our lecturers. Few have accepted, but those who did greatly
appreciated the gesture. As you know, someone like
Mrs. McNeil can never go with her husband when he travels
by military aircraft; and this is an opportunity for her to
get out of Washington on a trip with the old man.

I will be in the office on Monday morning to discuss