Editing 78-10-B7 (section)

=== Transcript ===
For more than 200 years our nation has followed a policy of civilian control
over the military. The President is the Commander in Chief; he appoints as
Secretary of Defense a civilian and then come the uniformed Admirals and Generals.
The system was designed to guard against military dictatorship and it has
served us very well. I'm sure no American, including those in uniform, would
want to change it. Presidents have the counsel and advice of top military experts
in the decisions they have to make with regard to our national safety, but
Presidents in the final analysis make the decisions.

Several weeks ago we watched on TV as one Chief of Staff, General Brown,
stepped down. In his farewell remarks the General warned us of danger ahead
if we did not add to and strengthen our military capability.

A short time later on the TV screen we saw the President (who was not present
at the previous ceremony) announce the appointment of a new Chief of Staff. He
made this the occasion for remarks about our defense stature that were contrary
to the warnings of the outgoing Chief.

It is no secret that this President has over-ridden the advice of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff or ignored their opinion on several occasions. What happens if a
President using his command authority appoints as Chiefs of the various services
men who will tell him what he wants to hear rather than their best considered
military opinion?

We have the case of General Singlaub who was transferred for expressing his
opinion against withdrawing American troops from South Korea. Then later when he
expressed a contrary view regarding the Newton war head decision he was -- QUOTE--
"allowed" --UNQUOTE-- to take early retirement.

In the case of the Korean withdrawal he had been informed that there was
"no announced decision" as yet. Indeed the South Koreans had been told they would
be consulted before any decision was made. In truth they were not.

Now in retirement and free to express himself the General says we weren't
honest with the South Koreans . He also says there was --QUOTE-- "no authentic
military input concerning the decision to withdraw" --UNQUOTE--. North Korea
incidentally has a two-to-one advantage over South Korea in artillery, armor and
combat aircraft. Their military forces are stronger than the combined American
and South Korean forces before we withdraw.

The decision to withhold the Newton weapon was made with no attempt to get
military advice . But most telling with regard to the President's unwillingness
to take or seek advice was the word to the military regarding the Panama Canal
treaties. The Joint Chiefs were told they could feel free to disagree with the
treaties--and resign if they did so.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">