Document created: 26 March 04
Air University Review, March-April
1971
Lieutenant Colonel Carl H. Carey, Jr.
What are the basic elements of our total national security? The answer, I think, is clear. First, the power of the weapons of our armed forces. Second, the quality of the training and leadership of those forces. Third, the unity of the American people. The most modern of weapons will be inadequate to insure our survival in today’s world unless our society is keyed to the steady improvement of our political institutions and concerned that all our people participate and share in the benefits of that society.
I submit that the Department
of Defense is not doing enough to promote in a positive way those aspects of
our national life which are so essential to the preservation of our fundamental
institutions . . . I submit that . . . a department which consumes nine percent
of the gross national product of our nation, a department which employs four
and one-half million Americans, has a deep obligation to contribute far more
than it has ever contributed before to the social needs of our country.
CLARK CLIFFORD
Speaking before the National Security Industrial Association, on 26 September 1968, former Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford pointed the Department of Defense toward a program to help alleviate pressing domestic social problems in the United States. His original frame of reference was “total national security.” We know the program today as “Domestic Action.”
In this address Mr. Clifford assured his audience that he had no intention of turning the Department of Defense into something that it should not be. It was not his intention that the Department of Defense should take over the responsibilities of other government or private agencies; he did not regard the Department of Defense primarily as an instrument of social welfare. He made it very clear that nothing should be permitted to interfere with the performance of the department’s historic mission to defend the nation. He was just as adamant in his conviction that we have the opportunity and the responsibility to make a greater contribution to the social needs of the country—and that the nation will be the better and the stronger for it.
There is little doubt that our nation has tremendous social problems today. The rioting, the burning, and the unrest that exist in cities across the country are not the result of a satisfied populace. The rising crime rate, the quantum leap in drug addiction, the poverty and the prejudice that still abound—all provide us with irrefutable evidence that our society is not as healthy as it could be. The question is: How can the Department of Defense contribute to solutions for these difficult problems?
Although the Department of Defense may not be able to solve the nation’s social problems unassisted, it can certainly help in many ways. In searching for ways, Mr. Clifford turned to his staff and to the service secretaries for ideas. Within the Air Force, the challenge was directed to all major commands. The response was overwhelming. In spite of a relatively short suspense time, which would ordinarily have led to the old standby reply, “Negative input,” field units responded with no fewer than 2500 suggestions. It was an extraordinary response and gave clear indication that many Air Force people not only shared Mr. Clifford’s concern for the nation’s social problems but were eager to contribute their ideas for solving them.
Naturally, there were many duplicate ideas and closely related suggestions. When committees on the Air Staff completed their review and evaluation, 66 general proposals remained for submission to the Department of Defense. To handle all the ideas that came into DOD, Mr. Clifford appointed a special assistant, Mr. George Elsey, to head an interim planning committee to process them. The committee completed its work and submitted to the Secretary a very comprehensive report, outlining specific courses of actions and responsibilities for implementing projects that would help alleviate domestic problems. The committee’s report was never officially released to the public or to the services, but Secretary Clifford commended it to his successor, Mr. Melvin Laird, for further consideration.
Just before leaving office in January 1969, Secretary Clifford released a statement announcing five steps that were then being taken by the DOD to increase its contributions to the total national security. Some of these steps evolved from the 66 general proposals that had been submitted. The new actions were: (1) Increased defense contracts for ghetto areas; (2) Modified rules for contract requirements in ghetto areas; (3) Federal contract research centers to apply skills to domestic problems; (4) Allowance of training costs in pricing defense contracts; and (5) Job Corps recruiters to assist military service rejectees.
It may be noted that the bulk of these actions concerns how Defense dollars are spent. This is in keeping with the concept of doing business in ways that will help alleviate social problems without committing additional Defense dollars or people to the effort. The objective was to redirect the flow of some Defense dollars to areas that were experiencing high unemployment or had a dearth of unskilled workers.
In the Job Corps recruiter project, the Job Corps helped by implementing a new referral program at selected Armed Forces Examining and Entrance Stations. Men who are rejected for military service are given counseling and offered immediate enrollment options that will provide them with training and employment assistance. This project, like the other actions, could be implemented without incurring increased costs to the Department of Defense.
In addition to announcing the five new projects that were getting under way, Secretary Clifford recounted five other actions that had been directed since the previous September. They consisted of the following:
(1) Testing new methods of home construction in a military family housing project at George AFB, California; the lessons learned in reducing military housing costs would be applicable to certain types of civilian housing. The project is being monitored by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
(2) Hospital construction and administration costs can hopefully be reduced through modernization. A contract was awarded to develop plans for more modern military hospitals; civilian hospitals should also benefit from the work. The project is being closely coordinated with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
(3) Project VALUE was undertaken with the Department of Labor to provide remedial education, specialized counseling, and on-the-job training for approximately 5600 hard-core unemployed people who lacked normal beginning job skills. They were hired in entry-level jobs at Defense facilities across the nation. The Departments of Labor and Defense shared the cost of the program.
(4) Model School System Design for educating military dependents is under way and being coordinated with the Office of Education of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
(5) Project REFERRAL is a computerized service which will match the skills of the 64,000 military personnel who retire annually after a career of 20 to 30 years in uniform with job opportunities available in the civilian sector; the average age of retiring military personnel is 45. Project REFERRAL, which commenced in June 1970, can help these highly trained men and women find positions where they can contribute to the nation’s productive capacity.
Shortly after taking office, Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird appointed a special body of key members from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the services to provide direction for the department’s efforts. This body was named the Department of Defense Domestic Action Council and was chaired by the Honorable Roger T. Kelley, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. One of the council’s primary functions is to work with other governmental departments and agencies as well as with the President’s Domestic Council (formerly Urban Affairs Council) on social problems that the DOD effort will be coordinated.
The Domestic Action Council held its first meeting in May 1969 and, as a first order of business, developed guidelines for Defense involvement. The council was concerned with ways it could commit Defense resources, facilities, and equipment to help alleviate problems at the base/community level as well as at the national level.
The various projects and programs that comprise the Domestic Action Program fall into two broad categories: those that are centrally directed and controlled and those local programs that exist to satisfy local needs.
The first category includes such projects as Project 100,000, Project TRANSITION, Project HIRE, Project REFERRAL, Project VALUE, etc. Each has been established with definite objectives and goals, and specific instructions have been issued through normal staff functional channels. The special housing project and the hospital organization and administration project mentioned earlier are other examples of efforts being centrally organized and directed from Department of Defense level. The scope of these projects is truly national or “domestic” in nature.
The second category is more community-oriented. The extent of USAF involvement depends upon the needs of local communities and the resources an installation commander may muster to help satisfy those needs. Participation therefore varies from base to base. The authority for these programs and projects is to be found in directives that have been with us for some time; AFR 190-20 governs the Community Relations Programs and AFR 215-8 governs support of the President’s Youth Opportunity Program. Perhaps this category of Domestic Action is more properly called “Community Action” because the emphasis is on community problems, not those of the nation in general.
Anyone who has been in the Air Force very long realizes that all installations have become involved in problems of neighboring communities in one manner or another. In addition to bases’ providing organized programs to hire youth for the summer, recreation facilities for the disadvantaged youth of the community, and community assistance in general, many officers, airmen, dependents, and civilian employees take an active part in the affairs of their communities. They, too, are contributing to solutions for our social problems.
At Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, for example, an airman has spent much of his off-duty time working with underprivileged children. He devotes an evening each week to tutoring a 13-year-old boy as part of Arizona State University’s ACTION Program. The airman learned of the ACTION Program in South Phoenix and decided he wanted to help youngsters who were having difficulty. “I’ve always wanted to do something like this,” he said, and his assignment to Luke gave him the opportunity.
A similar community-help program has been undertaken by a group of volunteers at Newark Air Force Station, Ohio. Under Project STEP UP, volunteers conduct remedial adult-education programs for disadvantaged citizens of the community. At L. G. Hanscom Field, Massachusetts, volunteer tutors, both military and civilian, work with black children from ghetto areas. At Webb AFB, Texas, the Junior Officer Council initiated a project to develop a school playground. Together with help of military volunteers and local city and county commissioners and PTA groups, they have succeeded in giving the community a facility it needed.
These examples are just a few of many that could be cited. Throughout the Air Force, concerned individuals and organized groups are giving of their time and energies to make their communities better places in which to live and work. There can be little doubt that people are our most important asset and most valuable contribution to the Domestic Action Program. It is up to base commanders to encourage individual participation and create an atmosphere where it can flourish.
With his many on-base problems, the base commander may be slow to recognize community responsibilities. With the pressure of day-to-day mission accomplishment, tight budgets, “703” personnel cuts, and the seemingly endless major and minor problems of all descriptions, one can understand how a commander may see only the immediate problems facing him on the base. The time he spends helping the community with its problems gives him less time to solve his own. It is sometimes difficult to realize that the fewer problems that exist outside the gate the less he will have to contend with inside it. As long as most of his officers and airmen live off base, this may be the case. The community’s drug problems are not going to leave his people untouched. The community’s racial biases and discrimination will affect not only those members of his command living off base but those on base as well. We may build chain link fences around our installations, but they do not give us immunity to the community’s problems. As long as our people travel two ways through those gates, the pollen of disillusionment, dissatisfaction, and dissent will have its chance to affect our military population, too.
Many commanders are quick to recognize this fact. Some are also quick to realize that they can help, too, fund shortages or not. A DOD appropriation is not the only solution to a money problem. Other government agencies, federal, state, and local, also have funds. Charitable organizations, religious groups, and local merchants have a deep interest in the welfare of their communities and are not going to ignore their problems. Many commanders know that community problems can best be solved by a coordinated community effort. They become part of that effort; they do not try to shoulder the entire burden, since they have neither enough resources nor time. The mission must come first; military readiness is paramount.
The summer youth program at Offutt AFB, Nebraska, is an outstanding Air Force example of community cooperation and base dedication to a community problem. It is also an outstanding example of how to organize a successful program without using federal funds or taking people off their jobs to support a community action project.
Project REC, as it was called, was conceived in 1968 by the base civilian personnel officer to complement and enhance the Equal Employment Opportunity Program at Offutt. Project REC (Recreation, Employment, and Counseling) soon gained support from the Offutt base commander, the mayor of Omaha, and many Omaha civic leaders.
Although the program began on a relatively limited scale, it expanded greatly in 1969 as a new source of funds was found. With true community spirit, the Nashua Corporation, which operates two plant facilities in the Omaha area, donated $ 11,000 to underwrite the cost of hot lunches and transportation so that 2000 youngsters from disadvantaged families could enjoy a week of recreation at Offutt. The money also provided specialized instructors to train the youths in arts and crafts. Another 700 young people were given employment; all received counseling.
Many gave their time to plan, coordinate, and work with the youngsters while they were on the base. For the most part, the effort was voluntary. Many airmen participated in their off-duty time. Others, such as those at the base fire station, explained the workings of fire trucks and entertained the youngsters on a tour without detracting from their primary duty. Men in the dining hall had to work extra to serve the children after the regular meal hour, but they obviously enjoyed the work.
The Offutt program is the result of imagination, dedication, cooperation, and hard work. The community could not have done it without Offutt, but neither could Offutt have done it without the help of the community.
Another outstanding community action program is at Robins AFB, Georgia. Robins personnel contributed selflessly to the May 1969 Macon, Georgia, CLEANUP campaign, which was featured in an Air Force Now film used for Commanders Call in February 1970. Less well known are the excellent summer youth programs and extensive contributions to the welfare of Warner Robins and other surrounding communities.
Other bases have fine programs, too, but those cited are recognized for their particular excellence.
In an effort to expand the good work being done and encourage greater participation, Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr., Secretary of the Air Force, established a Domestic Action Policy Council within the Air Force. It is chaired by the Under Secretary of the Air Force, Dr. John L. McLucas. Membership includes General John C. Meyer, Vice Chief of Staff; Mr. Richard Borda, Assistant Secretary for Manpower and Reserve Affairs; Lieutenant General Robert J. Dixon, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel; and Major General H. L. Hogan III, Director of Information. The council maintains liaison with the DOD Domestic Action Council and serves as the focal point for receipt and review of suggestions from within the Air Force.
High-level interest notwithstanding, there are those quick to challenge Department of Defense involvement in the domestic social problems of the nation. After all, we do have the Department of Labor and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare with responsibility for these problems.
The Department of Defense is not trying to assume responsibility for these programs. As Mr. Elsey pointed out in his 17 January 1969 Interim Planning Committee Report to the Secretary of Defense:
It is important that the Department of Defense does not substitute its policy judgment on domestic matters for that of the President and the other Executive departments and agencies which have primary responsibility for the particular areas of domestic concern. . . the Department of Defense should clearly and explicitly undertake programs in these areas only in cooperation with other elements of the Administration.
The DOD is adhering to this principle. It is one of the prime reasons for establishing the Domestic Action Council. The council, in close coordination with other governmental agencies, committees, and councils, can stay informed of national objectives and priorities and coordinate DOD efforts with them.
It must also be realized that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the Department of Defense to justify to the Congress a need for funds and personnel solely for the purpose of relieving domestic problems. Critics would contend that any such investment should be more properly made through the interested domestic agencies of the government. But this is not to say that the DOD cannot or should not use its unique facilities, equipment, and personnel which other government agencies do not have and which would provide the most practical and economical method of attacking certain domestic problems. Even so, programs should be undertaken in cooperation with other interested federal agencies, and their funds should be used to reimburse the DOD when feasible; projects should cause no significant additional expenditure to the DOD. In all instances, the primary mission of the Department of Defense must remain paramount. Only projects that will not interfere with the mission should be undertaken or supported.
These guidelines have been distributed to all Air Force commands having bases in the continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii. Naturally, there are those who believe that they cannot support Domestic Action unless they get appropriations. If the commanders at Webb, Offutt, and Robins had had that attitude, their adjoining communities and the nation as a whole would have been the losers.
Positive attitudes and sincere concern for the problems of the community will help to solve those problems. The community benefits from the opportunities that a base can provide for its underprivileged and disadvantaged citizens. The simple act of sharing what we have makes it possible for youngsters to enjoy themselves in recreation programs, learn to become independent members of society, and learn to work with others in a dignified and meaningful manner. Our summer employment opportunities for youth also help to alleviate deprivation, and a taste of success whets the appetite for more serious endeavor. Satisfactions brought about by changes in environment, treatment and opportunities can do much to relieve tensions and create a more harmonious social atmosphere.
As the community benefits, so does the base. The increased goodwill and community understanding are invaluable. So are the personal satisfactions of the Air Force personnel involved. Much is said and written about the aspirations of youth today. They speak with sincerity and enthusiasm about making their country and the world a better place to live; they cry out for an opportunity to do something. An organized community action program can provide that opportunity; it can use dedicated, enthusiastic young people. Most of our Air Force population is just that, under 25 and eager to get involved. Many have felt so strongly that they have become individually involved, just as the airman did at Luke; they do not necessarily wait for the’ to organize a program that can make use their particular talents and aspirations.
To harness this energy and desire, commanders and supervisors should take a good look at their local communities and ask themselves if there are ways that the base and its people can do more to help make those communities better places to live and work in. They should take inventory of their assets and look for ways that they can be used to alleviate the community’s social problems.
The purpose of the DOD Domestic Action Program is to generate more consideration for, and involvement in, the affairs of our local communities and the nation as a whole. The objective is not incompatible with our primary mission of defense. As Mr. Clifford pointed out, the unity of the American people is just as basic to total national security as the power of weapons in our arsenals. It behooves us then to share whatever we can with those less fortunate members of our society.
As individuals, every man and woman in uniform can contribute to the betterment of our nation. As citizen-soldiers, we share responsibilities with all other citizens for improving our society. History has shown that American citizen-soldiers have never shirked this responsibility. From George Washington to the hard-working officers and airmen who helped the unfortunate victims of Hurricane Camille in 1969, military men have demonstrated their concern for and acceptance of civic responsibility.
It is therefore quite fitting and proper for other government agencies to look upon the Department of Defense and its people as partners in meeting the social challenges of the nation. By acknowledging and developing this partnership, the Department of Defense can help insure the total national security that is so essential to our nation’s survival.
Headquarters USAF
Lieutenant Colonel Carl H. Carey, Jr., is Air Staff project officer for the Domestic Action Program in the Programs, Resources and Technology Division, Directorate of Personnel Training and Education, Hq USAF. Commissioned from flying training in 1950, he flew in the Korea War. Colonel Carey is a graduate of Squadron Officer School, Air Command and Staff College, and the Academic Instructor Course. He managed the USAF Foreign Language Training Program and helped establish the Defense Language Institute.
Disclaimer
The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.
Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor