Box, Folder 12 – General Speeches
February 8, 1972, R & D Programs in Defense, Von Neumann Lecture Panel, IEEE Wincon, Los Angeles, CA
2/8/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech
Packard says “…defense R&D has provided about half of the federal government’s R&D support….I think if one looks back over the years a very good case can be made that defense R&D dollars have made a significant contribution to the progress of science and technology, and resulting commercial application in this country.”
“Now, while defense R&D contributions have had this important impact, the prime purpose of the R&D program is to support the national security policy of the country. I would like to talk with you about that for a minute or two, because I believe that some of the problems that have been troubling this country are in large part a result of foreign policies we followed prior to 1969.”
Packard says that some “very basic” changes have been made in America’s international security policy. “Actually, I don’t think this country yet recognizes what bold and imaginative leadership President Nixon has given this matter. The new course he has charted will have a significant impact on defense R&D directions and trends because these should be tailored to meet the defense requirement of the future.”
Packard recalls that since WW II the U.S., being the dominant economic power in the world, provided security for our NATO allies and well as for Japan and other countries in Asia. “In addition,” he says “we provided the countries in Europe, and Japan, economic aid and many other forms of assistance. In total I think that to a very large degree the troubles we have been experiencing result from the fact that this policy – while very effective and desirable and correct in perhaps the first two decades after World War II – reached the end of its usefulness in the 1960s. I believe we are fortunate to have a President who recognized this and who has been able to take some very significant steps to make a change.”
Packard explains that President Nixon initiated a study to assess just “what federal resources are likely to be available for all of our national goals, and how these resources might appropriately be reallocated between defense and the nation’s other priorities. From these studies, what has become known as the Nixon doctrine began to emerge.”
“First, the President said we will maintain a nuclear deterrent adequate to meet any threat to the security of the United States or to our allies.” Packard emphasizes that the President said “adequate nuclear deterrent,” not the “substantial nuclear superiority” he says we have had. “That is no longer possible in any real sense. Because it is not, it is absolutely necessary that we maintain an adequate nuclear deterrent, and the defense programs are designed to do that. The President also said that we will help other nations develop the capability of defending themselves. This simply says that in the future we will not take the full responsibility for the security of all our friends around the world. They should take a larger share of this load. The President also said we will honor all of our treaty commitments; we will act to defend our interests whenever or wherever they are threatened – but where our interests are not involved, our role will be limited. We will not intervene militarily.”
Along with the changes in the international security policies of the country, Packard says “The changes made in the defense policy including defense research and development programs, have been designed to implement this new overall policy.” He gives an example: “In 1968 the defense budget was 9.5 % of our gross national product. In 1973 the defense budget will be 6.5% of the GNP.” And he points out that this drop of three percentage points represents over $30 billion.
“This reduction in expenditures , and the reductions in manpower, make it imperative that we maintain an adequate nuclear deterrent. The President has also expressed this in saying that we should put more reliance on negotiation and more reliance on partnership, both based on a position of strength.”
Packard says negotiations are proceeding with the Soviets on reduction of strategic arms; and while he sees it likely that “some agreement” will be reached, he doesn’t think a substantial reduction in strategic nuclear forces on the part of either nation will result.
“It is going to be very important that this country maintain a strong effort in research and development relating to the strategic nuclear area, and that is recognized in the 1973 budget. We are continuing some important programs – MIRV [Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle]for example. This program received considerable criticism, but thank God we have it. If we did not, we would be in a very serious situation today with relation to the Soviet Union’s buildup of forces. We are also adding some money to increase and improve the command and control capability of our strategic forces And, we are recommending the development of the long range underwater missile….”
Packard says “We have reduced manpower in the military services by a substantial amount….We can afford the future lower level of forces, but we cannot afford to have lower level of forces with inferior weapons….Much has been accomplished already [to improve the capability of our armed forces], but I am convinced that significant improvements in the capability of these forces in the future can be had by further application of technology – a continued high level of research and development.”
“As you all well know, there are several facets to research and development. I want to say a word or two about the basic research program of the Defense Department, and then I want to talk about the problems of development – because a great deal of time and energy has been spent in determining how the country can get more for its dollars in new weapons development.”
“A few figures might help put this in context. The defense budget contains a significant element for what we call basic research. That number in 1973 will be $350 million. In 1965 it was $380 million.” When the effect of inflation is taken into account Packard says the actual reduction has been about 30%.
“In the area of exploratory development – here we find there has been some increase, but very little. In 1965 the figure was $1.099 billion, and in 1973 it will be $1.145 billion. This is slightly more, but in terms of level of effort and in terms of what it will buy – significantly less.
“Finally, I want to say a word about the management of research and development in the Defense Department. There are really two basic problems, that I think you recognize. The first is in deciding what is going to be developed, and these decisions must be made in terms of designing the forces for our future requirements. The decisions cannot be made in isolation, in any sense of the word. There are tremendous diversionary pressures at work. The Army very seldom steps up and agrees to reduce its manpower so that the Navy can have more ships and the Air force can have more airplanes – and vice versa. There are pressures by the industrial people for their pet programs, and these pressures come not only directly to the Services or the Pentagon, they also are directed to a considerable extent to members of the Congress.
“There are very difficult problems in making good decisions, and then problems in getting those decisions accepted. Generally speaking, if an organization doesn’t accept a program or a policy, it is not going to make it work. We found it was necessary to spend quite a bit of time getting programs accepted by the
Services. I feel we made good progress in this procedure because we tried hard to bring into this decision making process a combination of military experience, military judgments, and good objective analysis.”
“Another thing that was important to make sure that each of the Services had just as much voice in court as any one of the OSD offices. That had not been the case before….We tried very carefully to make it clear that Service recommendations carried just as much weight with us as did the recommendations of systems analysis or any other of the OSD offices. I hope this policy will be continued, because I think it was conducive to better decisions.
“The second problem that we have in all R&D is how to implement the programs that have been approved….One of the things that became evident to me early in the game was that there had been to much reliance on paperwork in these studies. One of the most important reasons I wanted to see the Services go to prototype programs is because I think it will help them develop some better habits and better approaches to these important development jobs.”
“We tried to cut back on directives. I made a check before I left Washington, and found that we were spending $135 million less on paper work in 1971 than we did in 1969. As far as I can see, nobody missed a bit of it. So at least some progress has been made.
“I believe there has been some improvement in the approach to the management of research and development in the defense Department during these past three years. I think most important of all, however, is the matter that I touched on at the beginning. There has been a significant change in the direction of our foreign policy – our international security policy – and this has provided a better base for future planning. In the long run, this new assessment of American foreign policy may turn out to be the most significant contribution of this period.”
“Now on some specific policies, I think one of the things that has happened during the past decade in the defense department is that there has been too much emphasis on systems analysis. There has been a trend to try and cost out the programs too precisely, and to try and make industry pay in one way or another for any benefit they might achieve in translating defense research and development into commercial programs. This attitude came to a head in 1969 when the general disillusionment with Vietnam – the anti-defense attitude – was at its peak. Senator Mansfield, as you know, said we couldn’t have any research programs unless they had a direct relevance to military requirements. He essentially said, you can’t do those things which would tend to enable research and development to be useful for other purposes than defense. The policies on independent research and development also have been poor. The attitude has tended to require that independent research and development , supported by companies, be directed only to defense requirements. Here again it will be much better if companies are encouraged to use some of their independent research and development funding to try and translate some of their defense technology into non-defense products. I hope this policy can be changed. I don’t think anything very specific is necessary except some expression at the higher levels that this is appropriate, and I would encourage that to be done.
“While the defense has, as I have said, supported the largest individual share of federal research and development , there are a great many areas where I believe better cooperation between the defense Department and other agencies of the government would be helpful. We tried to work together and I think that we did make some progress in better cooperation.
“There are many areas where development within NASA’s field also was useful in defense programs. We tried to get together on programs, for example on short takeoff aircraft, which would have both commercial and defense requirements. I hope that programs like these can move ahead.”
“So, in summary ladies and gentlemen, you might conclude that I believe we have had some very interesting problems to address these past three years. I think that some significant progress has been made, particularly in the all important area of recognizing that this country needed a new approach and a new policy for both its international affairs and also the way in which it handles some of its defense programs, including research and development. I am very encouraged to see the interest in this subject here, and I am sure that with the support and continued of people in industry and the continued fine work by your representatives here from the government, there can be some real progress made toward better solutions and better outcomes for these very important problems.”
2/8/72, Printed program for the Convention
1/26/72, HP memo from Dave Kirby to Dave Packard giving some information about press interest
1/26/72, Letter to Packard from H. A. Samulon, General Chairman, Wincon ’72 thanking him for agreeing to participate in their Convention, and giving some details about the schedule
1/31/72, Letter to Packard and two other principal speakers from Edward E. David Jr., from The White House, discussing speaking subject material
2/1/72, Letter to Packard from H. A. Samulon, discussing arrangements for breakfast on Feb. 8, 1972
2/11/72, Letter to Packard from H. A. Samulon thanking him for participating in the Convention
2/8/72, Copy of a speech given at the Convention by Dr. Lewis M. Branscomb, titled Environment for Innovation
Box 3, Folder 13 – General Speeches
February 15, 1972, Measurement Managers Symposium, Palo Alto, CA
Packard is just returning from his service with the Department of Defense, and was asked to speak at this Symposium on metrology sponsored by HP.
2/15/72, Copy of text of Packard’s speech handwritten, often in outline form, by Packard
Packard says that the three years in DOD was a “great experience – worked closely with White House in development of President Nixon’s foreign policy – development of plans for military forces to support strategy.
He says Nixon’s policies will provide a “strong military defense and not the enemy of peace – the guardian of peace.”
“Forces provided for in 1973 budget: Lower levels of manpower , more capable weapons.
“America can not afford both lower levels of manpower and inferior weapons.”
Packard gives many line by line budget figures and totals it up as
“Budget authority – 83.4 B, 6.3 B over FY 1972
Expenditures – 76.5 B, up 700 M from 1972
6.4 % of GNP vs 9.5% in 1972 – lowest drain on economy in 22 years
He says the budget puts “more reliance on technology, much attention to improving management of development and procurement.
”More reliance on testing hardware and less reliance on paperwork
“The procedures that have been followed in past have not given us reliable equipment.
“Equipment is more complex – F4 – mean time before failure a few hours, barely time of one mission.
“Reliability must be designed into equipment – rigid adherence to mil specs does not assure reliability – Hardware must be built and tested and the results fed back to correct problems. The lessons we have learned here at HP – do not sell it until you have tested production prototypes is the lesson the military people have not yet learned.
“We made some progress – prototype program – on smaller equipment. Will be hard to convince bureaucracy that a commercial product not built to mil spec may be more reliable than a mil spec product simply because all the bugs have been shaken out and fixed.
“New office of operational testing established – make sure every new program has adequate testing built in and is done before too much money spent on production.
“Contract procedures: Competitive bidding not always good – mC5A worst possible kind of contract. Cost incentive and sole source often gets best value for money.
“This has been a difficult three years for DOD. Criticism has been loud and bitter and often distorted and unfair.
[There are] “fine capable people in DOD and all services – just as you will find anywhere in our society. They are dedicated, capable, and they deserve our support. When we find it frustrating remember they are under great pressure from criticism, we should help when we can.
“Measurement has been my first love since the late 1930s when I used to drool over the General Radio catalog. It has been an exciting field and will continue to grow in importance. You have each made an important contribution to the great progress – there is no end to the opportunity ahead.”
2/14-16/72, Copy of printed program for the Symposium
2/14/72 Typewritten program with comments on intent of sessions
2/14/72, Typewritten list of attendees
Box 3, Folder 14 – General Speeches
February 17, 1972, Strong Defense-Guardian of Peace, The Union League Club of Chicago
3/17/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech
Packard says that he was “fortunate to have had the opportunity to serve during the first three years of President Nixon’s administration. I say that for many reasons, but foremost because these have been three years of bold and imaginative leadership by our President.
“If anyone doubts that bold and imaginative leadership was needed, just recall for yourselves the state of this nation in 1968. And he enumerates several items:
Rioting and burning on the streets
Universities in shambles
Over half a million servicemen and women in Vietnam with no plan to bring them home
In the second quarter of 1968 an average of 360 American killed in Vietnam each week – hundreds more injured
Domestically, inflation destroying all previous economic progress
“In short,” Packard says, “America was in deep trouble at home and abroad.”
“If anyone doubts the effectiveness of President Nixon’s bold and imaginative leadership during these three years, compare those dark days of 1968 with the spring of 1972.” And he ticks off several points:
Peaceful and legal protest has replaced rioting and burning on the streets
Universities are back in the business of education
Our forces in Vietnam have been reduced by 418,000
By the fourth quarter of 1971 average number of Americans killed each week reduced to six
Bold steps taken to control inflation
Confidence in American leadership at home and abroad rising”
Packard says there is something “even more important about these three years. When the history of the 20th Century is recorded, 1968 will be recognized as the end of one era and the beginning of a new one. The end of the old era came when American military and economic commitments finally overextended our nation’s resources to the breaking point.
“By 1968 most people in Washington and throughout the country recognized we were in serious trouble. In the Senate the liberals were making the most critical noises, although their past policies were the very ones which had caused the disastrous situation. Even Senator Fulbright, Dean of the Senate in foreign affairs and chairman of the foreign Affairs Committee, had no particular plan except to withdraw from the world. He wanted troops withdrawn from everywhere and all aid stopped. Others wanted substantial cuts in defense. Many advocated immediate withdrawal from Vietnam even though at that time it would have been unconditional surrender by the United States. There was no plan, no usable policy suggested by the Senate majority. They were simply wailing and flailing.”
Packard says it was fortunate that President Nixon had the courage to seek a new course. “It is President’s Nixon’s courage and vision that has made his leadership possible. It is because he charted a bold and positive course for America that his leadership has been effective.”
“[The] extensive planning for President Nixon’s new course toward a generation of peace was of great importance to our planning and budgeting work in the Defense Department. We had an important part in helping to develop these policies and they, in turn, provided the foundation for our planning of future military forces.
“The new policies were first delineated in Guam in 1969 by the President and have come to be known as the Nixon Doctrine. The President in his address to the nation on January 20 of this year restated this new course for our foreign policy in the following terms:
- We will maintain a nuclear deterrent adequate to meet any threat to the security of the United States or of our allies.
- We will help other nations develop the capability of defending themselves.
- We will faithfully honor all of our treaty commitments.
- We will act to defend our interests whenever and wherever they are threatened any place in the world.
- But where our interests or our treaty commitments are not involved our role will be limited.
- We will not intervene militarily.
- But we will use our influence to prevent war.
- If war comes we will use our influence to try to stop it.
- Once war is over we will do our share in helping to bind up the wounds of those who have participated in it.
“This is a decisive change from the American foreign policy which prevailed from 1945 to 1968. During that period we were undisputed in military and economic strength everywhere in the world, and we thought we could act accordingly. President John F. Kennedy set the stage to carry the same foreign policy into the decade of the 1960s. In his inaugural address in 1961 he said:
‘We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.’
Neither President Kennedy nor other leaders of the Democratic Party foresaw that this policy would commit us to Vietnam and bring America to the brink of disaster before the end of the decade.”
Packard says President Nixon’s policy is “designed to deter major conflict, limit minor conflict, and accommodate to change. It is based on three pillars – negotiation, partnership, and strength. Important steps have already been taken building on these pillars.
“We have already made considerable progress in negotiating a better understanding with the Soviet Union on a number of issues which will have a major impact on the future peace and security of the world. A treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons on the ocean seabeds has been concluded. A new treaty on Berlin, and a treaty on germ warfare, are two other important steps. Negotiations are underway with the Soviet Union directed at strategic nuclear arms limitations. These talks, which are identified as SALT, have been serious and constructive. At least limited agreement is likely to be achieved in the near future.
“As a result of the President’s leadership, fighting has stopped in the Middle East, replaced with discussions moving toward serious negotiations. Every conceivable effort has been made to find a way to negotiate an acceptable solution to the Indochina problem. These have been important first steps from an era of confrontation to an era of negotiation.
“Partnership has always been an important element of foreign policy. Nations have joined together to improve their security where they have a common interest. When we say that partnership is one of the three pillars of our new foreign policy, what is meant is that in the future our friends and allies, as our partners, will be expected to bear a larger share of the burden for their own security. They will be expected, as our partners, to take a more responsible role in international monetary policy and international trade as well. Parallel with this, as they carry a larger share of the burden, it is appropriate that they have a larger voice in determining the course of the partnership in areas relating to their national interests.
“This new course in American foreign policy, involving as it does a readjustment of responsibilities among the free nations of the world, and a readjustment of American commitments around the world, has a substantial influence on the level and kind of military forces this nation will need in the decades ahead. Reduced commitments, in general, can allow for reduced levels of military forces. In deciding whether there can be an absolute reduction or only a relative reduction, we must not forget that realism is essential in military force planning. Our military strength combined with that of our allies must always be adequate to deter war, both nuclear and conventional, and that deterrence must be realistic and responsive to changing world conditions.
“An adequate nuclear deterrent is an absolutely essential requirement of President Nixon’s new foreign policy. Without an adequate nuclear deterrent, any significant contribution to world leadership would be impossible. Negotiations would fail and our partners would desert us. If we survived at all as a nation without an adequate nuclear deterrent, it would not be as a great nation.”
Packard says the U. S. now has an adequate nuclear deterrent, in spite of a Soviet buildup of nuclear weapons, largely due to the MIRV program. “The MIRV program,” he says, “had considerable opposition, but it has improved the capability of the Minuteman and Poseidon missiles.
“We have planned our nuclear forces to be consistent with possible outcomes of the strategic arms limitation talks. We also have taken action to assure that we will have an adequate strategic nuclear deterrent, in case the arms limitation talks fail and the soviet buildup of nuclear weapons continues.
“There are two important actions, within these guidelines, which were taken in preparing the 1973 budget. One was to provide for substantial improvements in the responsiveness and survivability of the command and control of our strategic nuclear forces. This is so urgent, that the President has requested a supplemental appropriation to the fiscal 1972 budget so that this program can be accelerated.”
“During these past three years Secretary Laird and I undertook very extensive studies to make sure that our strategic nuclear forces will provide an adequate nuclear deterrent – not only for today, but also into the foreseeable future. These forces include land-based missiles, submarine-launched missiles, and manned bombers. This is the so-called triad. By maintaining these three different types of forces, each with a very substantial capability, we make it impossible for an enemy to avoid unacceptable damage in retaliation to any conceivable attack he can mount. This ability must be assured for the 1970s, the 1980s and beyond, until and unless some other way is found to eliminate the possibility of nuclear war”
“The FY 1973 budget provides for a strong Navy to counter the rapid Soviet naval buildup, and a strong Air force as well. These forces have smaller numbers of ships and planes than they had in previous years, but they are better ships and better planes, and therefore the forces are more capable. The budget provides for fewer men and women in uniform than in previous years, particularly in the Army. The Army, too, has better weapons. The 1973 budget has a substantial increase in research and development as did the 1972 budget.” And Packard repeats the admonition he has stated before: “I have said many times during these past three years – the realities of the situation indicate that we can have adequate forces for the future with lower levels of military manpower. However, America cannot afford to have both lower force levels and inferior weapons. Military research and development must receive increasing support as we reduce our force levels.”
In answer to critics who feel they have not cut back the Defense Budget far enough, Packard points out that “In real dollars, adjusted for inflation, there has been a substantial reduction – over twenty-five billion dollars. The more important criterion is the effect of the Defense Budget on our economy and our federal resources. In 1968 Defense took 9.5% of this nation’s GNP. The 1973 budget will take only 6.6% — the lowest drain on the economy in twenty years….36 billion dollars less in 1973 than in 1968.”
“This new course President Nixon has charted for us is designed to bring to American and the world a generation of peace. To achieve this goal will require strong leadership along the course. There will be difficult negotiations to resolve areas of conflict without confrontation that could lead to war. There will be difficult negotiations ahead with our friends and allies to get them to accept a fair share of the burden of partnership. Above all, success toward our goal of a generation of peace requires that we maintain strong military forces -–strong to back up the sincerity of negotiations with our enemies; strong to insure the confidence and support of our friends.
“America must lead the nations of this world in the attainment of this exciting goal in the decade of the 1970s. America can take this lead only so long as she remains strong.
“In the words of our President – ‘Strong military defenses are not the enemy of peace. They are the guardian of peace.”
1/11/7, Letter to Packard from Robert W. Bergstrom, President, Union League Club of Chicago, inviting Packard to speak at their annual Presidents Dinner.
3/17/72, Copy of the program for the dinner.
2/18/72, Letter to Packard from Colonel Raymond B. Furlong of the Department of Defense. Col. Furlong says he was delighted at how well Packard’s speech was received. He also encloses a newsclip wherein Packard is quoted as saying “We are at the point now where we could take all American troops out of South Vietnam and the South Vietnamese would be fairly capable of defending themselves.” The Colonel says “Dan, Jerry and I wanted to take this opportunity to suggest that should you be faced with a similar question in the future, you might want to use something like. ’We have provided the South Vietnamese with the time and the equipment that will permit them to become able to defend their country. Their success in this defense now rests upon their own will and determination. As far as US troop levels in Vietnam are concerned, we have made it very clear that UDS troops have not had an active ground combat responsibility since last July and that since that time our men have had the primary mission of defending our own installations and personnel. The President has made it clear that some US troops will remain in Vietnam until all US POWs have been released and the MIA accounted for. Meantime, the President continues to bring Americans home.”
2/22/72, Letter to Packard from Robert Bergstrom, thanking him for speaking at the Club’s dinner.
2/23/72, Letter to Packard from Kenneth Block thanking him for speaking at the Club’s dinner.
3/1/72, Letter to Packard from Roger E. Henn enclosing a “small” check to cover expenses and offering to add more if this is not adequate.
4/11/72, Letter to Packard from Robert Bergstrom, enclosing a copy of the Club’s publication which covered Packard’s speech, plus a pamphlet containing a speech Bergstrom had made in June of 1971.
2/29/72, Copy of a letter from Margaret Paull [Packard’s secretary] to Roger Henn of the Union League Club listing air fare expenses for Mr. and Mrs. Packard of $539.00.
3/6/72, A note to Packard from Roger Henn enclosing a check “for the rest of your expenses”
Undated, A copy of an expense report listing expenses of $300 for Mr. and Mrs. Packard’s visit to Chicago.
Box 3, Folder 15 – General Speeches
February 23, 1972, Improving R&D Management through Prototyping, NSIA Prototyping Seminar, St. Louis, MO
The program for this meeting contains this lead paragraph: “The services are presently formulating prototype activities and implementation policies. NSIA [National Security Industrial Association] recognizes the appropriateness of this time to exchange ideas and to develop a greater understanding of prototyping within industry and the military services. A day and a half symposium has been designed to present, question, and thoroughly examine prototyping concepts and policies based upon real experiences. In addition to the program participants listed below, program managers, chief engineers, contracting officers, and RFP writers from the Army, Navy, and Air Force will be invited to attend.” Those “listed below” as speakers include several Generals from the military, and top R&D managers from industry.
2/23/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech.
Packard calls this seminar an “historic conference on prototyping;” saying, “This is the kind of a meeting which should make a real contribution to what has been my favorite subject during these past three years.”
Packard says that “As I joined Mel Laird in the Spring of 1969 to help in the management of the Department of Defense, one of the most serious problems we faced was the unsatisfactory record over the last decade of the Department, the Military Services, and the industry, in the job of the development and procurement of new weapons systems.”
Packard says that during the past three years he “had the opportunity to work on this problem in an extensive and detailed way.” He refers to policy changes which were covered in memorandums, new directives and other written statements; and says that while these have been in the right direction “it will take a great deal more time and effort to correct the disastrous practices which have been developed by this so-called military industrial complex over the past decade.
“Cost over-runs were the most visible symptom of the troubled new weapons development situation, but there were other problems, too. Most programs took far too long from original conception until weapons were delivered to the forces. As a result many weapons, particularly those involving electronics and other fast moving technology, were out of date by the time they were made available.” And he cites an example of seeing “air-to air missiles using 1950 vintage vacuum tube circuitry – still in the forces in 1970.”
In addition to high cost and long development time, Packard says “many of the new devices did not have the reliability that is needed for military use.”
“”I believe we have learned a great deal during the past three years in understanding the causes of these difficulties. We were able to take a number of specific steps which point the way to major improvement. As I have said many times, however, only if the people in the Defense Department and in the Services find new and better ways to work with industry will these serious deficiencies be corrected. Major changes are absolutely necessary by both industry and the government if we are to have the military capability adequate for the future security of America and the free world.” And Packard expresses the hope that the audience will “address the subject as one which can and must be a big step forward in making major changes in this development and procurement business.”
“One of the major factors in cost over-runs has been irresponsible low estimates at the beginning of a program. ‘Buy-ins’ by contractors has been a big element of this irresponsibility. Another contributing factor has been the attempt to price out a full program before the new weapon is developed.” Packard refers to tools, such as “parametric costing” which “can help in making reasonably accurate cost estimates of a new product before it is developed, but apparently those in authority preferred to rely on wishful thinking. The record is nothing anyone can be proud of.”
Packard describes how prototyping “can help in this matter because this approach will allow a new weapon development to be undertaken without having to make a commitment to production or to use in the forces before the development is complete.”
“…projecting the program cost including the production cost can be delayed until the prototype is complete and tested. With a hardware model, better cost estimates are possible and there will be much less excuse for gross errors in projecting a program cost.
“Buy-ins can also be reduced with the prototype approach if the people in the Defense Department have the guts to go to sole source negotiated contracts with the firm that demonstrates it can do the job by producing a prototype which is proven by testing.
“These false cost estimates and ‘buy-ins’ are not cost overruns that necessarily represent real waste, but they insure that a program will look like money has been wasted. They are in the nature of conspicuous waste. They give the ‘Proxmires’ and the press the opportunity to make you people look stupid. I can assure you that you will continue to look stupid until and unless you correct this situation of absurdly low cost estimates and buy-ins.
In addition to this conspicuous waste, Packard says “There has been real waste of both time and money in almost every program in which production was started before development and testing was complete – and that includes almost every program.
“Engineering changes that are made on the production line are costly and wasteful. They generate waste, real waste, as you all know, right down through the sub-contract structure.
“Hundreds of millions of dollars have been wasted buying spare parts before the final design is settled and before the real requirements for spares have been confirmed.” Packard refers to a recent finding by the GAO that said over a hundred million dollars had been wasted on spares on one program alone. Packard says he knows the GAO was right.”
“It will be helpful to consider the prototype approach in two separate phases, each of which can serve to correct some of the serious failings we have had in this business. The advanced development prototype is one kind of a prototype program. The production prototype is another kind of a prototype program. Each has its place – each can contribute to a better job in the future.
“The advanced development prototype can serve to verify and reduce the technology to hardware…[It] should be administered whenever possible to provide alternate choices for the force requirement. In the past alternate choices for a force requirement have been evaluated by paper studies, system analysis procedures, and they have been influenced by the divisive forces between the Services and often within a Service.
“By the time the fighting is over and a particular program is selected, the whole issue is set in concrete and can hardly be changed by an act of Congress. This process has often resulted in a poor decision with no possibility that it can be corrected later.
“If the decision as to which way to go can be kept open until several alternate routes have been evaluated by building and testing prototypes, I am sure we will have better decisions on the question of what weapons to develop for our future forces.
“Once an advanced development prototype has been selected as the basis for a major program there will be much yet to be done in engineering before a commitment to production is made. Here is the place for more reliance on production prototypes. These should be built to a production design on production tooling and with production methods. It is only when you in government and you in industry face up to the fact that production prototypes must be built and tested before major investment in production, before deciding on and ordering spares, before taking actions for training and deployment, that you will solve the problem that has been plaguing you.
“I know you will claim that waiting for the production prototype to be tested before taking corollary actions on a major program will result in delays. Let me emphasize, during the three years I spent in the Pentagon I found hardly a program that was not delayed anyway.” Packard gives an example he recently saw at an air field “…where there were hundreds of students and instructors and extensive investments to train pilots for C-5As. They had three C-5As all right, but none had engines, and none could fly….Judicious use of prototypes can help avoid such stupid performance in the future.
“The third serious problem that troubles all of our recent major programs is reliability. Numerous directives, specifications, and other requirements have been placed on all major development programs to attempt to improve the reliability of new weapons. Very little improvement, if any, has come from this effort and very large sums of money have been spent.
“Reliability cannot be achieved by adhering to detailed specifications. Reliability cannot be achieved by formula or by analysts. Some of these may help to some extent, but there is only one road to reliability. Build it, test it and fix the things that go wrong. Repeat the process until the desired reliability is achieved. It is a feedback process and there is no other way. Prototypes are an important key to this procedure.”
“A few months ago at a meeting of military project managers, someone objected to extensive testing because it would delay the program. He complained that testing showed up things that needed to be fixed and it took time to fix them, and this would delay the IOC. Unless we get rid of that kind of thinking there will be no hope.
“Prototyping must be backed with testing, and schedules must not be fixed until we have a hardware model that meets the requirement of the job and which has demonstrated reliability.”
“Let me repeat what I said at the beginning. I believe we have made real and important progress in improving the management of the development and production of new weapons during these last three years. What has been done is only a beginning – your critics are far from satisfied.
“Senator Stennis, who is one of your best and most powerful friends in the Senate, has told me personally he is not satisfied with what has been done. He expects better performance in the future and if better performance is not forthcoming, he will find it harder and harder to defend your cause in the Congress.
“Even such a consistent advocate of strong defense as Senator Goldwater has accused me of throwing up my hands and saying the whole thing is hopeless. I will admit there have been times during these past three years when I felt that way, but I want to assure you here, and every one else, I did not leave that Department for any disillusionment I might have had from time to time on this, or any other subject. I am, in many ways, sorry my personal circumstances were such that I could not stay longer.
“I am, in fact, very encouraged by the great progress we made during these past three years. The most encouraging fact of all is that the majority of people in the Department, industry, and in the Congress, seemed to agree with what we did and gave me excellent support the entire time I was in the Pentagon.
“I have often said that the new policies we established, and the improvements we tried to make, will be effective only to the extent they are accepted and implemented by people throughout the Department and throughout industry. I also recognized that it would take considerable time for these new policies to become effective, even if they are correct and proper.
“I am especially pleased that you are holding this conference for it is at this level that the real improvement must come. You people in the Department of Defense and in the Services, who are responsible for making decisions and working with your counterparts in industry on specific programs and specific projects, are the ones – in fact, the only ones who can bring about the improvement we must have.
“Let me make this point very clear. We can convert our critics in only one way – by doing a better job. That is the sole purpose of the prototype approach – the opportunity to demonstrate that you know what you are doing before vast sums of money are committed to a new major program.
“I believe the prototype approach can contribute to better thinking, better habits, if you will, on the entire spectrum of Defense contracting.
“In conclusion, let me say I am delighted to see such a fine representation here, The defense department – the Military Services – and Defense industry – have an awesome responsibility,. It is your responsibility to provide the weapons this country needs to assure realistic capability to deter war for the future. It is your responsibility to provide these weapons with resources which will not weaken our economy, for in today’s world economic strength is a most important adjunct to military strength.
“American industry has been the most productive and the most innovative of any industry in the world. American industry has been the arsenal of democracy and the savior of the free world on at least five separate occasions in our history, going clear back to the 19th Century.
“America looks to the Defense industry and the Defense Department to live up to this great tradition of service to the nation. I am confident enough to say we have steered these great resources back on the right track during these past three years. I know each of you here at this conference will do your part to keep this great talent of our country on the right track in the future Good luck in this great endeavor.”
2/23/72, Copy of the Seminar program
2/23/72, Copy of the list of speakers at the Seminar
1/21/72, Copy of NSIA Announcement for the Seminar.
1/11/72, Letter to Packard from Brent A. Hardesty, Program Chairman for the Seminar, discussing topic details.
1/31/72, Letter to Packard from Stouffer’s hotel confirming reservation
2/2/72, Letter to Packard from Brent Hardesty, NSIA Program Chairman, enclosing a draft copy of the keynote speech to be given by Ed Ball. Also enclosed is a copy of an invitation to Packard’s replacement as Deputy Secretary of Defense, Kenneth Rush.
2/8/72, Copy of letter to Brent Hardesty from Julian Levine saying Deputy Secretary of Defense Designate Rush will not be able to attend.
2/11/72, Copy of letter to Packard from Sanford N. McDonnell, President McDonnell Douglas, saying he is looking forward to hearing Packard’s talk.
3/1/72, Letter from Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird, saying he had read, “with pleasure” Packard’s talk.
3/2/72, Letter to Packard from J. M. Lyle of NSIA, thanking him for his participation in the Prototyping Seminar, and confirming details for the March 9th Award Dinner where NSIA will present Packard with the Forrestal Award
3/6/72, Letter to Packard from Investment Banker W. N. Fangio saying he agrees with Packard’s comments
3/6/72, Copy of an article in the Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine covering Packard’s speech
4/18/72, Letter to Packard from W. H. Johnston, complimenting Packard on the address.
4/27/72, Letter to Packard from V/Adm. Eli T. Reich, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, asking for permission to print Packard’s speech in an upcoming Journal.
4/28/72, Note to Margaret Paull from Brent Hardesty thanking her for her help.
4/28/72, Letter to Packard from Brent Hardesty complimenting him on his address. Photos enclosed. .[see Packard photo file, folder, HP 1970-1979]
5/2/72, Copy of letter to Hardesty from Packard thanking him for the photos5/3/72, Copy of letter from Packard to V/Adm. Eli Reich giving permission to use his speech
2/23/72, Copy of speech given by David S. Lewis, Chairman of the Board and CEO, General Dynamics Corp.
Undated, Copy of speech titled, Through Prototyping – speaker not identified
Undated, Copies of overhead slides, titled, Skunk Works Projects.
Box 3, Folder 16 – General speeches
February 29, 1972, Accepting Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Distinguished Citizen Award
2/29/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s comments, with handwritten notes by him
“Lu and I want to thank you for the warm and friendly welcome home from Washington. [The following five italicized paragraphs were handwritten by Packard on the back of the first page of the text of his speech. From his editorial marks it appears he intended to insert these comments at this point.]
“It was [a] great satisfaction to serve in President Nixon’s administration during these past three years.
“I can say that for many reasons , but particularly because I had the opportunity to participate in a number of areas in which great progress was made.
“In the Department [we formed?] new and better policies for the development and procurement of weapons – More defense for the dollars provided by taxpayers.
“Major reductions in the Defense Budget in its demands on our economy, [going] from 9.5% of GNP in 1968 to 6.5% of GNP in 1973 – 36 billion dollars less drain on federal resources – lowest in percent of GNP in over 20 years.
“Opportunity to participate in the development of President Nixon’s new foreign policy toward a Generation of Peace – from [an] era of confrontation to [an era] of negotiation.”
“You do me a great and undeserved honor to place me in the company of the nine persons previously named Distinguished citizens of the Palo Alto chamber of Commerce. And tonight, in these brief remarks, I’d like to recall some words of one of those past recipients of the award, the late President Herbert Hoover.
“Fifty years ago Mr. Hoover published a slim little volume titled American Individualism. In it was a sentence which should be written on these walls tonight:
‘We cannot ever afford,’ said Herbert Hoover, ‘to rest at ease in the comfortable assumption that right ideas always prevail by some virtue of their own.’
‘There have been periods of centuries,’ Mr. Hoover wrote, ‘when the world slumped back toward darkness merely because great masses of men became impregnated with wrong ideas…’
“Surely,” Packard says, “he must have had in mind the great power of government propaganda, which had been so evident on both sides during World War I. And certainly all of us, as individual American citizens, must continue to evaluate critically the official explanations of any public authority.
“But there is another sort of propaganda about which I presently am even more concerned: Call it the anti-government line, or – if you dare to be as vague as the peddlers of the line – call it ‘anti Establishment.’
“Probably most of the businessmen and industrialists in this audience have been targets of such propaganda attacks. You have been told that your profits are excessive and your products shoddy. If you engage in commercial operations beyond the borders of this country, you are automatically labeled ‘imperialists.’
“None of you have received the great honor from these anti-American propagandists and hate mongers that I have. If there are mad bombers in this country, they are probably in front of Rickey’s tonight.
“There is, of course, more noise than substance in such charges, but the cumulative effect of their constant repetition can be very persuasive.
“There is an old adage which says ‘For evil to triumph, good men need only do nothing.” This can also be stated in this way – For evil ideas to prevail, good men need only to remain silent.”
“Fortunately, good men and women of the Stanford community did not remain silent, and the purveyors of evil ideas have been exposed at the University.
“Unfortunately, some of these purveyors of evil ideas have moved into your high schools and it is high time for at least a few good men and women in Palo Alto to speak out.
“And nowhere, during the past three years, have the assaults been more vicious and less deserved than in the campaigns against the military profession. The fate of the ROTC and the recruiting officers on many of our most prestigious university campuses, including Stanford, is one unfortunate result of this anti-military campaign.
“Because I’ve had the opportunity, over the past three years, to become acquainted with a good many professional soldiers, I’d like to use my remaining time to speak out on their behalf.
“I’ll start at the top with the Joint chiefs of Staff. They are not only outstanding American citizens – professionals of the highest ability – but at the same time knowledgeable about, and sensitive to, the problems of our society.
“As I worked with the men and women in the Defense Department over these three years, I became greatly impressed with the high caliber of people who serve their nation in defense. I worked closely with the Joint Chiefs, the other top officers in each Service, and I had many occasions to visit with men and women in units large and small all over the world. You will find no more capable, dedicated, fine American men and women in any business organization, any city or county government, and school or University, than you will find in American military units and bases wherever they may be. This country can be proud of the military people who provide its security. It has been especially disturbing to me to witness the bitter, often vicious, criticism of the military in the press, on TV, in many of our more liberal universities, and even by Congressmen – who, of all people, should know better. I can understand disillusionment with Vietnam policy going back to 1966 or so, but the military does not deserve criticism for the policy – it was dictated and completely directed from 1964 on by the civilians in the Administration and in the Department at that time. The officers and servicemen and women in the Army, the Navy, the Air force, and Marines simply did what they were asked to do. They were asked to do an almost impossible job, and they did it well.
We asked our military people in the spring of 1969 to reorient the emphasis to Vietnamization – to help the South Vietnamese develop their own defense capability so American forces could come home. The Vietnamization policy has been successful beyond everyone’s expectation – most of our forces, over 400,000 have been brought home – South Vietnam can now defend itself from the Communist invaders without help from American forces. When the emotion on this issue dies down this will be recognized as a great accomplishment by American military people.
“One point that is often overlooked is that the role of our military services has not been just to defend America. It has also been to develop America. One of the earliest examples of this is the part the Army played in the western movement in American history – in winning of the West.
“One of the most exciting things I was able to do while I was in the pentagon was to encourage a renewal of involvement by military people in attacking some of the serious social problems of America. Early in 1969 Secretary Laird and I set forth a statement of Human Goals for the Defense Department. These goals were stated as follows:
“To attract to the defense service people with ability, dedication, and capacity for growth;
“To provide opportunity for every one, military and civilian, to rise to as high a level of responsibility as his talent and diligence will take him;
”To make military and civilian service in the Department of defense a model of equal opportunity for all regardless of race or creed or national origin, and to hold those who do business with the Department to full compliance with the policy of equal employment opportunity;
“To help each serviceman at the end of his service in his adjustment to civilian life; and to contribute to the improvement of our society, including its disadvantaged members, by greater utilization of our human and physical resources while maintaining full effectiveness in the performance of our primary mission.
“Let me cite the results of just two examples of the application of these Human Goals to defense affairs.
“We established a Domestic Action Program to provide a substantial portion of jobs for disadvantaged [youths]. In 1971 the Department hired 46,000 young people, 76% of whom were disadvantaged youths.
“In addition, we asked every military base and every military activity in the country to use their resources to support educational, recreational, and cultural programs for disadvantaged youths. Over 2.4 million young people participated in these programs across the country last year. In 1969, the year I came to the Department, there were only 250,000 young people involved. I am kind of proud that ten times as may youngsters had a better summer in 1971 than in 1969 because of what we could do in the Defense Department. This was possible only because the professional military people made the program work.
“People all over the country including you people in Palo Alto are being exposed to a largely distorted story about many aspects of your government – in particular about the military – about the fine men and women in the Defense Department who make it possible for you to sleep safely and soundly in your homes, and who make other important contributions to the quality of life in America, your country. Don’t let them down,
“Mrs. Packard and I are pleased to be back in this great community, and I am deeply grateful for this award. Thank you very much.”
3/8/72, Pages from the Congressional Record, placed there by Rep. Charles Gubser, containing the prepared text of Packard’s comments
1/20/72, Letter to Packard from Richard B. Kluzek of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, discussing the Award ceremony.
2/7/72, Letter to Packard from Wayne Miller saying he will be unable to attend the award dinner, but congratulating Packard for the fine job in Washington.
2/14/72, Letter to Packard from Lyle M. Nelson saying he will be unable to attend the award dinner, but saying he feels Packard has done a great job for the community and for Stanford.
2/18/72, Letter to Packard from J. M. Pettit sending regrets.
2/22/72, Letter to Packard from William E. Kratt, saying he cannot make the award dinner, but adding that he is grateful for Packard’s “friendship and kindnesses” in the past.
3/1/72, Handwritten note from Lee and Evelyn Webel saying “our country is very fortunate to have a citizen like you.”
3/2/72, Letter to Packard from Kathleen and Merrill Vanderpool saying they will be unable to attend the dinner.
3/2/72, Letter form Oleg Sherby and G. M. Pound, Stanford Professors, saying they concur with his remarks at the PACC dinner, and adding that they agree with the actions taken against some of the hate mongers at Stanford
3/3/72, Copy of letter from Packard to James Zurcher, Palo Alto Chief of Police, thanking members of the Police Department for conducting Lu and he to Rickey’s, and for their “control of events”
3/13/72, Letter to Margaret Paull from Ralph Rogers, United California Bank, thanking her for her assistance in preparations for the award dinner
2/2/72, Copy of a clipping from the Stanford Daily with an article about the bomb placed at Professor Dornbusch’s house.
2/10/72, Copy of large “ad” from the Stanford Daily signed by many members of the Academic Council, denouncing the personal attacks on members of the Advisory Board, and offering a reward for apprehension of the those responsible for placing a bomb at a Professor Sandy Dornbusch’s house.
2/21/72, Complete copy of the “newspaper” Pamoja Venceremos, discussing events as they see them.
3/1/72, Copy of clipping from the San Jose Mercury covering events at the award dinner.
3/1/72, Copy of page from the Stanford Daily describing events at the dinner, with disruptions both inside and outside Rickeys
3/3/72, Copy of newsclip from the Stanford Daily containing an anti-Packard article written by a student, Don Zweig.. Also attached is a copy of a typewritten letter to the editor from an Al Kirkman (?) effectively rebutting Zweig
Box 3, Folder 17 – General Speeches
March 6, 1972, Toward a Generation of Peace – Bohemian Club
Packard was newly returned from his assignment with the Department of Defense.
3/6/72, Packard’s notes which are handwritten on 3×5” cards and are brief and in outline form
Packard says he worked very closely with the President on foreign policy toward a generation of peace.
“1968 – a major turning point: Viet Nam a symbol, but not only cause – burning in streets, universities in shambles, 549,000 in Viet Nam &n no plan
“Real Cause
Two decades of [?]
US 9.5% of GNP
UK 5.6%, West Germany 2.9%, Japan 1%
USSR about the same as US and continues
“US share of GNP:
40% in 1950, Japan 1.5%
30% in 1970, Japan 6.2%
“US Reserves
50% in 1950 – 10% in 1970
“Vast sums for aid, inflation at home
”Real progress from era of confrontation to era of negotiation
Reduced defense, from 9.5% of GNP to 6.5%
“Negotiations: SALT, Seabeds, Berlin, China
“Partnerships
More NATO support
Korea
Japan
Viet Nam
“Two courses for Viet Nam
Surrender
Vietnamization
“South Viet Nam can now defend itself
“Will not turn South Viet Nam over to criminals
“President Nixon has provided great leadership. I left for personal reasons, I am going to do whatever I can to keep him in office.
Undated, note to Packard from Margaret Paull saying the Bohemian Club would like him to confirm speaking date
Box 3, Folder 18 – General speeches
March 9, 1972, Acceptance Speech, James Forrestal Memorial Award, NSIA, Washington D.C.
3/9/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with some handwritten notations by Packard.
Saying that he had given considerable thought as to what he might say and he ticks off several subjects that crossed his mind: the vast buildup of the Soviet Union, the FY-73 budget, the virtues of the military-industrial complex – but sets these aside as things he has talked about many times.
Going on with his review of possible subjects he, rather tongue in cheek, says he “could tell you how the defense industries always complete their jobs on time — meet the specs – and control their costs….
“Or, I could talk about the marvelous spirit of cooperation among the Services – how the Army was always willing to give up some more men so the Air Force could have more planes and the Navy more ships.” Continuing in this vein with similar comments he gets to the more serious comments he wants to make.
He recalls that “National Defense was not in high repute while I was in the Pentagon….In many respects these were traumatic years for one who has faith in the future of his country. They were traumatic when some members of Congress, particularly in the Senate, took great delight in seizing on any fact or figure which could be used…to discredit the military and all those who supported the Defense Department.
“They were traumatic when scientists used their reputations gained in unrelated fields to influence legislation to stultify national defense programs – particularly the all-important strategic nuclear programs upon which the security, in fact the very survival, of our country depends.
“They were traumatic when former friends in distinguished universities supported ideologies contrary to the democratic concepts of this great nation.
“They were traumatic when distinguished members of the news media were, in their reporting, sometimes more favorable to Hanoi, or to Russia, or even toward India than to their own country.
“This great nation of ours was indeed in a state of shock in 1968 and in the spring of 1969 when I came to Washington. There was rioting and burning in the streets. Some of our great universities were in shambles. Inflation was rampant and had already eaten away at the economic progress of the previous decade. We had 540,000 men and women in Vietnam, and no plan to bring them home – no course to end U.S. involvement in Indochina other than unconditional surrender at the negotiating table in Paris.”
Having had the time for some reflection on the events of this era, Packard says “…it has become evident to me there is nothing so unusual about this period if it is viewed in the long course of history. Our great country had, to a large degree, lost its commitment to a common goal – to a unifying purpose that is so necessary to keep people working together, whether it be in small organizations within the society, or whether it be as a nation.” Without this “common goal”, Packard says “nations decline, decay and eventual death starts….It makes no difference that we had the most powerful military establishment in the history of the world…or the largest and most efficient research and development capability. It is not what a nation is, but what it wants to be that determines its future.”
Packard says he has been very troubled by the divisive nature of the debate as to what our nation’s future goals should be. He sees a “serious lack of understanding of what kind of goals will sustain the vitality of our country in the future. Senator Fulbright is pushing for a fortress Arkansas policy for our future foreign policy. Senator church would prefer that it be fortress Idaho. I can think of no better way to assure the demise of America to the status of a second rate world power by the decade of the 1980s than to follow this line of thinking.
“Fortunately, new and exciting goals for America have been established during these past three years under the leadership of President Nixon. I am very proud to have had at least some small part in helping to develop this new and exciting course for our future foreign policy. This new direction has already excited the imagination of the American people, and set the stage for the commitment and purpose which is so necessary if our country is to maintain its position of world leadership into the decade of the 1980s and beyond.”
“There is no need to defend the President’s leadership during these three years. Just look at the facts. Peaceful and legal protest has largely replaced rioting and burning in the streets. The great universities and colleges are back in the business of education. More than 400,000 of our servicemen and women have been brought home from Vietnam. U.S. casualties have been reduced nearly a hundred-fold. Our military units that remain are all but out of ground combat, and substantial reductions have been made in air combat activity. The South Vietnamese are now able to defend their country from the Communist invaders, and North Vietnam has no hope whatever of a military victory.
“American self confidence at home and American leadership abroad are again on a rising course.”
“Whether American will move forward to the challenge of leadership in the decades ahead will depend on what the people of our great nation perceive their role to be….it is well to remember that the desires and commitments of the American people, and the institutions to which they belong will determine the eventual course and outline of history.
Packard says the Defense Department reflects the attitude of the nation. If the nation is not united in its goals then the Defense Department will not be strong and effective.
“When we came to the Department in 1969, people were not working together effectively. James Forrestal, when he became the first Secretary of Defense, tackled a momentous job. He had the great vision that our military strength would be enhanced under a unified Department.
“However, unification is easier said than done. There are strong diverse forces in and around the Department of Defense. It is hard work to keep them headed in a common direction in times of peace. When Secretary Laird and I took on this job in 1969, that was our most important goal. I believe we succeeded to some degree in bringing these diverse forces more nearly together.”
Packard says “This country can be proud of the military people who provide its security. It has been especially disturbing to me to witness the bitter, often vicious, criticism of the military in the press, on TV, in many of our more liberal universities, and even by some elected public officials – who, of all people, should know better. I can understand disillusionment with Vietnam policy going back to 1966 or so, but the military does not deserve criticism for the policy – it was dictated and completely directed from the very beginning by the civilians in the Administration and in the Department at that time. The officers and other servicemen and women in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and Marines simply did what they were asked to do. They were asked to do an almost impossible job, and they did it well.”
“The Department’s first and foremost commitment is to the security, the strength, and the world leadership of the United States. This commitment comes before any well-intentioned individual loyalty to the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, or the Marines.”
“As I indicated earlier, while some progress has been made, there are still those – both in the Defense Department, and in industry – who have not accepted the larger commitment.
“Within the Defense Department, for example, there continues to be a degree of competition between the Services – and frequently between parts of a Service – that is unacceptable because it is inconsistent with the common commitment. Some competition is healthy, but not when it begins to affect such major matters as funding, missions, and roles. Jealousies and in-fighting will only serve to drain our nation’s energies.
“In the same vein, I am not much impressed by what I have seen in the attitudes of some of our great corporations in the so-called military industrial complex. You are, of course, aware of the problems we have had with the C-5A, the Mark 48, and other programs which have had much publicity. In many ways, the problems are deeper than they appear to be.
“I visited one plant last year that was running a year behind its project schedule. After a couple of hours it was apparent the company knew on the day it signed the contract it would be at least a year off schedule. I asked the manager why he offered to do the job in one year less than was possible. The essence of his reply was – yes, we knew we could not meet the terms of the contract, but there was no way to get the contract if we told the truth.
“One serious impediment to good defense management is that defense contractors can appeal directly to the Congress. On one occasion, about two years ago, a company tried to reverse a decision I had made by appealing to one of our Congressional committees. The company’s recommendation was purely one of self-interest and it was wrong. The company knew it, and I knew it, and so I called the management of the company and told them so.
“What is the solution? We are going to have to stop this problem of people playing games with each other. Games that will destroy us, if we do not bring them to a halt.
“Let’s take the case of the F-14. The only sensible course is to hold the contractor [see also Undated UP news release at end of the text of this speech which names Grumman as the contractor in question] to his contract. Although some companies may be forced to suffer financially because of this concept, it will not be a major disaster to the country. It will be a very major disaster to the country if we cannot get the military industrial complex to play the game straight. Until and unless we can stop this attitude, we are going to continue to waste the taxpayer’s dollars – [and] get less defense for the dollars we spend.
“Quite simply. It means the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marines must put the welfare of America ahead of the welfare of their respective Service, in peacetime as well as in war. It means the great industrial corporations that forge the seams of our military strength must put the long term gains of America ahead of the short term gains of their respective organizations. It means that Congress should address America’ security policy, stay out of day-to-day administrative problems, and discourage game-playing between the Services and the business community.”
“The critics will say – yes, we agree, but power does not necessarily mean military power. There is economic power, the power of moral persuasion, the power of ideas – power beyond that which comes from the barrel of a gun.
“We all want to believe this, but the record is not all that persuasive. If there is a case to be made, it is that a united commitment, whether or not backed with military force, is the most commanding factor available to influence the course of human events.
“Only if all of us – in Congress, in the Administration, and in the private sector – rise above our personal biases and our personal interests, will the future course of America and the well-being of the world be secure.
“Only if all of us – particularly those who are charged with, or who have the opportunity for leadership -–wipe this blurring film of self-interest from our eyes, will we be able to see the sharply defined images of opportunity and accomplishment that await us in the future.
“I have had the opportunity to get acquainted with many fine people in the Services, in the Department , in industry, and in the Congress during my three years in Washington. I know from first-hand experience that you who shoulder the responsibility for the defense of our country have the desire and the ability to do the best possible job. I know we made great progress in working together better. I know that you will carry on with your efforts of working together. As you do, you will demonstrate convincingly to the critics that you have the welfare of the country as your first priority — and that you deserve their wholehearted support and confidence.
“It has been a great privilege for me to be with you tonight and a great honor to receive the Forrestal Award. Thank you very much.”
3/9/72, Printed program for the NSIA Forrestal Memorial Award Dinner.
12/17/71, Copy of a letter from Packard to Admiral J. M. Lyle saying he would be honored to accept the 1971 Forrestal Memorial Award
12/20/71, Copy of NSIA press release announcing that Packard will be the recipient of the 1971 James Forrestal Award
12/29/71, Letter to Packard from Edwin H. Gott congratulating him on being named the recipient of the 1971 Forrestal Award
1/4/72, Letter to Packard from Robert B. Chapman III, Chairman of the NSIA Forrestal Award Committee, congratulating Packard and offering assistance in preparing his address.
1/7/72, Letter to Robert B. Chapman III from Packard thanking him for his note of 1/4/72
1/10/72, Letter to Packard from J. M. Lyle enclosing [not here] the announcement of the Award to NSIA members
1/21/72, Letter to Margaret M. Paull [Packard’s secretary] enclosing information about the award dinner and about NSIA
1/28/72, Letter to Packard from Mansfield Sprague, VP AMF Co., saying he would like to meet with Packard for a half hour or so on 3/9 or 3/10 to discuss how defense procurement might be improved.
2/2/72, Copy of letter to J. M. Lyle from Louris Norstad, Chairman of the Board, Owens Corning Fiberglass Corp., saying he will be unable to attend the Award Dinner for Packard.
2/8/72, Letter to Margaret Paull from J. M. Lyle inviting her to the Award Dinner.
2/18/72, Letter to Packard from Charles F. Adams, Chairman of the Board, Raytheon Co.,
saying “If ever a man deserved this award to the full it is you…Your grasp of the problems involved, your dedication in the job, and the wisdom of your judgments evoked the admiration of all concerned. We already have reason to miss you.”
2/25/72, Letter to Packard from Spencer J. Schedler, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, saying he will not be able to attend the Award Dinner, but offering his congratulations
2/29/72, Letter to Packard from Under Secretary of Transportation James M. Beggs, sending regrets and congratulations
3/2/72, Letter to Packard from J. M. Lyle discussing details of the forthcoming dinner and offering congratulations on Packard’s participation at the NSIA Prototyping Seminar on Feb. 23, 1972; [see coverage of this speech above]
3/3/72, Copy of letter from Packard to Mel Laird, Secretary of Defense, sending an advance copy of the speech he plans to give at the Forrestal Award Dinner, asking for any comments Laird may have
3/10/72, Letter to Packard from Donald B. Rice, Assistant Director, Office of Management and Budget saying he had attended the dinner and congratulating Packard on the Award, and saying his speech was a “masterpiece”
3/10/72, Handwritten letter to Packard from W. F. “Red” Raborn, apologizing “for interrupting your dinner with some of my personal views on how to improve the Defense Department”
3/10/72, Letter to Packard from J. M. Lyle thanking him for “a memorable evening,” and saying the NSIA has received “a flood of enthusiastic approval from our members and guests, and many requests for copies”
3/12/72, Letter to Packard from Peter N. Sherrill, requesting a copy of Packard’s address
3/23/72, Letter to Packard from Harvey M. Sapolsky, University of Michigan, asking for a copy of his speech
3/28/72, Letter to Packard from Samuel A. Scharff, asking for a copy of his speech
4/20/72, Letter to Packard from F. A. Long, Cornell University, asking for a copy of his speech
4/26/72, Letter to Packard from J. M. Lyle inviting Packard to attend a ceremony presenting a bust of James Forrestal to the government for the new James Forrestal Building in Washington.
4/29/72, Copy of letter to J. M. Lyle saying he will be unable to attend the presentation of the bust of Forrestal
6/29/72, Letter from Richard L. Garvin asking for a copy of Packard’s Forrestal Award speech
Undated UP news release, covers Packard’s Forrestal speech and adds this comment, : “Packard had special criticism for Grumman Aerospace Corp., which says it will not honor future Navy options to order more F 14 fighters unless the contract is rewritten to provide more money.” UP adds this quote from Packard’s speech: “The only sensible course is to hold the contractor to his contract. Although some companies may be forced to suffer financially because of this concept, it will not be a major disaster to the country It will be a very major disaster to the country if we cannot get the military industrial complex to play game straight.”
3/10/72, Clipping from Washing D. C. Evening Star, covering the speech
Dec./Jan. Issue of NSIA News covering the Forrestal Award with Biographical information about Packard
Mar./April Issue of NSIA News which includes some photos of the Award ceremony and background on the Award itself
1/22/73, Letter to Packard from J. M. Lyle inviting Packard to the Forrestal Award Dinner on March 15, 1973, where the 1972 Award will be given to James S. McDonnell
2/5/73, Copy of letter from Packard to J. M. Lyle sending regrets
Box 3, Folder 19 – General Speeches
March 13, 1972, Fremont Republican Assembly, Fremont CA
3/13/72, There are two almost identical drafts of a speech for Packard to use in Fremont. However, Packard has attached a note to one saying “I did not use this last night, but instead talked off the cuff.” The draft doesn’t sound like a typical Packard speech, and perhaps was written by a staff person at HP. Since there was no transcript of what he actually said, the description of his comments below is based on a report in the News-Register newspaper.
3/14/72, Article in Tri-City newspaper News-Register covered Packard’s speech and the following is based on their article.
Packard referred to this as his “first political speech ever made,” adding that “There are a few facts about politics which I am gradually learning, and one of them is that you people in this community have a very big political wallop.”
The newspaper says “Packard took issue with reports that the President may have an easy time winning re-election. He labeled California as a key state in Nixon’s bid for a second term”
The newspaper says “Packard itemized what he viewed as the achievements of the Nixon administration’s four years in power. Packard said President Nixon has made the world safer and the United States more secure through a combination of ‘negotiation, partnership and strength.’
Packard predicted, the article says, that the important Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) now underway between the U. S. and Russia will soon reach a preliminary agreement.
Packard clarified, the paper reports, that a prime objective in the talks has been to maintain a ‘realistic and effective nuclear deterrent.’
On the policy of strength, the paper quotes Packard saying “It is not possible to negotiate with communist nations except from a position of strength…The ABM system has been a strong bargaining card in the SALT talks. If the MIRV [Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle] program had [not]been adopted we would not have a creditable nuclear deterrent today.”
On partnership, the paper says Packard said Vietnamization has allowed 400,000 United States military personnel to return home; and they quote Packard as saying the North Vietnamese have been unsuccessful because “they will stop talking only if the president agrees to turn South Vietnam over to them.”
The paper says Packard also said that defense spending amounted to 9.5 percent of gross national product in 1968, compared to 6.5 percent in 1972.
2/16/72, Note to Packard from Dick Arey saying that “the Fremont Republican Assembly would be honored to sponsor a talk by you in March,” and discussing scheduling.
3/6/72, Clipping from the Fremont News-Register speaking of Packard’s forthcoming talk to the Fremont Republican Assembly”
3/6/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Mr. and Mrs. Warren Townsend inviting them to dinner to discuss campaign plans.
3/15/72, Copy of a letter to Ralph Fairchild, Editor, The Argus newspaper correcting their quote of Packard saying Senator Henry Jackson tried to stop the ABM system. Packard says he actually said “the Democratic Senators who are candidates with the exception of Senator Jackson tried to stop the ABM and the MIRV programs”
3/15/72, Letter to Packard from Kenneth Castle of the Argus enclosing a clipping correcting the statement
Undated Two papers of notes on background information about the California Republican Assembly and the Fremont area.
Box 3, Folder 20 – General Speeches
March 16, 1972, Accepting the Federal City Club’s Award for Very Distinguished Public Service, Washington D.C.
3/16/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with notations by him
Packard draws on the writings of Walter Lippman and Plato to the effect that “we human beings frequently act not upon substance but upon shadow, not on the basis of things as they really are, but on the basis of …‘The pictures in our heads.’
“Mr. Lippman spoke further of ‘The triangular relationship between the scene of action, the human picture of that scene and the Human response to that picture working itself out upon the scene of action.’
“What Walter Lippman visualized with his triangular image, is that when the pictures in our heads become distorted, those distortions — because we act on them – also infect the reality of the situation. Thus when distortions occur it is important not to waste time wasting blame, but to correct them as quickly as possible before they multiply.
“And that is partly what I shall attempt to do this evening,. When I came to Washington, the military increasingly was being portrayed as incompetent and uncontrollable, inefficient and wasteful. Those with an anti-military disposition delighted in quoting a great former general, Dwight Eisenhower, usually out of context, on the dangers of the so-called ‘military-industrial complex’. We heard time and again that our historic tradition of civilian supremacy was in grave jeopardy.”
With this background Packard says he wants to review some subjects that fell within his area of responsibility as Deputy Secretary of Defense – starting with management.
“Many people have asked did I enjoy the job, and as many of you know, my answer to that question was I found it very interesting. It was difficult in the sense that there was a great deal to be done, and you felt a considerable sense of responsibility on your shoulders – which in fact there was.”
Packard says, in terms of day-to-day management there was not much difference from management in business – except with the magnitude of the problems and the sums involved. “The same basic management principles that work well in a business organization seemed to work well in the Defense Department, and there is, of course, no reason why they shouldn’t. One of the things I liked best about the job was working with the military. You cannot help but be very impressed with the great dedication of all of the men and women in uniform – and there is something kind of impressive about military discipline. When you are in the chain of command, as I was, and you tell somebody to get something done, it gets done and it gets done well.
“The military discipline showed up most effectively and in a most important way during these past three years in the implementation of our Vietnamization program.
Secretary Laird, after his first visit to Vietnam, made Vietnamization the first priority. His instructions were that all commanders were to do everything possible to help the South Vietnamese military build their own capability to do the job. The second priority was to achieve pacification of the countryside, and help the people of South Vietnam start rebuilding their country. The third priority was to fight the enemy. Those were the orders that were followed to the letter from that time on, and I am convinced that when all of the current fussing is over and this period is seen in the right perspective, this Vietnamization program will be recorded as one of the great accomplishments of our men and women in uniform. The picture of the Vietnamization operation has, of course, been distorted by the great emotional furor over the war, by the My Lai trials and by many other problems of this period. But I continually marveled as Mel and I made recommendations of additional things that ought to be done, these were carried out with the greatest precision and efficiency. A clear case I believe where the picture is different from the reality.”
Packard points to the Military Airlift Command and the Corps of Engineers as due particular praise, saying there are many other good examples.
“The area, of course, where the services received the most criticism during these past three years was in their management of the development and procurement of major weapons systems. Much of the criticism was justified. I speculated then and since on why the services did such a poor job in handling major procurement programs when they could do such a superb job in other areas. I think we assessed this matter correctly, at least as far as one major factor is concerned, when we concluded that none of the services really considered the development and procurement of major weapon systems to be a recognized profession in the military organization. We directed a number of steps, including training, selection, and recognition of people for these key jobs. We established a new school in this profession. All of these steps I think are in the right direction, but until and unless all three services recognize this job to be as important as commanding a field army or an aircraft carrier, we will continue to be plagued with poor performance.”
Packard says civilian involvement in the military can be a problem too. “We must have civilians making overall policy decisions, such as Vietnamization. When it comes, however, to considering specific military actions from Washington – which targets to bomb, what specific constraints are to be put on the forces involved – this kind of civilian involvement in detail military activities tends to be…counter-productive. There is a parallel in the civilian involvement in other cases, particularly this matter of major weapon system development and procurement. The Services have the responsibility for the management of these programs, and for the civilians in the secretary’s office to get involved in any detail is counter-productive. During the last decade there was an increase in involvement of civilians, particularly the Systems Analysis office, but also DDR&E [?] and other offices, in the day-to-day details of these programs. It is hard to find a case where such involvement did not make matters worse rather than better. This kind of involvement violates a basic management principle that is known and applied wherever good management is desired. That principle says: give the manager the responsibility and the authority to do the job, make sure he understands what is expected, and if he can’t get the job done, don’t try to do it for him, but find someone else who can. I was continually amazed to find that this principle was fully accepted by the services in their main mission – that of military operations – yet failed to be accepted in those other areas of great importance that supported this prime mission.
“There was also the question of Congressional involvement in the details of these major weapons systems development and procurement programs, as well as in military construction and base operations. No representative of the Congress, for example, would think of telling a field commander how many tanks, how many guns, how many helicopters he should have for a particular military operation. Yet there are self-styled experts in the Congress on almost every major procurement program. People who know, for example, that the F-14 is not the right kind of an airplane for an aircraft carrier. Or, that the main battle tank is no good, or that the Cheyenne helicopter should not be procured because it can not survive in a hostile environment.
“There is a parallel situation in determining how far civilians in the office of the Secretary, in the office of the Bureau of the Budget, and in the General Accounting Office can make useful contributions to some of these kinds of details. I could sometimes say what was on my mind to these fellows. Every time I have gone through this issue to think about what might be done to improve performance, I always arrived back at the same answer: Professional competence in the military services must be developed to manage these major weapon systems procurement programs and we must get as many of the Monday morning quarterbacks as possible out of the game. There just is no other way.
“Going back to Mr. Lippmam’s theme of the triangular relationship between the scene of action, the human picture of that scene and to the human response acting on the scene, there are many cases where the human picture is substantially different from the reality of the scene. It may be the human picture held by the public – the human picture held by the Congress – or even by people within the department. Defense issues are complex as well as immensely important. The closer the human picture can be brought to the reality of the scene the better the human response will be. More professionalism and less interference by amateurs will help. Those of you who influence public opinion can also help to the extent you are able to keep the human picture close to the reality of the scene.
“ Let me repeat –
“I am greatly honored to receive this award tonight. Thank you all very much.”
12/13/71, Handwritten letter to Packard from Charles Bartlett, a Washington newsman, suggesting Packard meet with several newsmen sometime in January
12/15/71, Copy of letter from Packard to Charles Bartlett saying he is going to California for the Christmas holidays and will contact Bartlett when he gets back
12/15/71, Note from Margaret Paull to Dan Henkin sending him a copy of Bartlett’s letter and saying Packard would be interested in what he thought of Bartlett’s suggestion that Packard meet with some newsmen
12/17/71, Memorandum from Daniel Z. Henkin to Packard saying recommending he not meet with the newsmen as Bartlett suggested
1/5/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Charles Bartlett, Declining the opportunity to meet with Bartlett and other newsmen.
2/2/72, Letter to Packard from Charles Bartlett saying he is pleased that Packard can be present on March 16 to receive the award for Distinguished Public Service from the Federal City Club
2/10/72, Copy of letter from Packard to Charles Bartlett confirming the date and time for the Federal City Club award
3/16/72, Copy of the program for The Federal City Club award dinner.
3/20/72, Copy of memorandum from Packard to Charles Bartlett saying he and Mrs. Packard enjoyed to Award Dinner
3/22/72, Letter to Packard from Senator Stuart Symington asking for a copy of Packard’s speech at the Federal City Club
Box 3, Folder 21 – General Speeches
March 24, 1972, Our New Foreign Policy for a Generation of Peace, San Jose Chamber of Commerce, San Jose CA
3/24/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with some handwritten notations by him
Contrasting San Jose, where “economic and social change can be measured over a fairly short period of time,” Packard feels, as far as foreign policy goes, “we are at an historical vantage point – an illuminated intersection from which we can look both backward and forward.”
Packard explains that, even though he was in the Defense Department “my job, in addition to being involved in the day-to-day management problems [of the Defense Department], was to plan for the military forces required for the future. American military forces have two responsibilities. First, they must provide for the security and safety of our country, and this includes the important function of our strategic nuclear forces. Second, they must support American foreign policy and American interests around the world.”
Packard says he spent nearly half his time in Washington helping to develop the President’s “exciting” new foreign policy.
Taking a backward look at American foreign policy from World War II to the beginning of 1969 Packard says that “By 1968 the traumatic condition of our country – violence in our universities, bitter dissent throughout society, and uncontrolled inflation – was to a very large degree testimony to the underlying failure of American foreign policy in the decade of the 1960s. That policy which had served us and the world so well from 1947 until 1960 was continued in the following decade and had nearly destroyed the country by 1969.”
Packard says that President Nixon, who took office in 1969, found it essential to find a new path. “The developments during the three years I was in Washington have provided our country with a new path – a path which will lead us from an era of Confrontation to an era of Negotiation: a path which, as President Nixon has said, will lead the world to a full generation of peace.”
Packard describes the “Theory of Containment” designed to hold back Communist Aggression. This was implemented via “The Truman Doctrine” and, in 1947, helped “preserve the governments of Greece and Turkey against the assaults of Communist-led or Communist-inspired revolutionaries.”
Packard also tells how the theory “was applied against North Korea and Communist China, between 1950 and 1954, with the help of the United Nations. It produced such alliance systems as NATO in Western Europe, SEATO in southeast Asia and CENTO in the Middle East. The policy of containment reached a peak of drama and danger during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. This was a confrontation in the most deadly sense and only because we had a great superiority of strategic nuclear weapons did the Soviets back down.
“In the early stages of the post-war period, America had the resources to be the dominant military and economic power in the world. In 1950 the U.S. had 40% of the world’s GNP, produced 76% of the world’s motor vehicles and 48% of the world’s steel….This dominant economic position enabled us to support in the 1950’s a defense establishment adequate to protect the entire free world.
“Prior to Korea we spent 5.6% of our GNP on defense. In perspective, this was too little, for the North Koreans misjudged our will and attacked the South. For this error in judgment about the need for strength in world affairs, we paid dearly. We had to commit men and resources to Korea, which in addition to the tragic human toll, brought our defense budget up to 13% of our GNP Along with the massive foreign aid we were providing, the cost of the war began to draw down our economic strength.
“By 1960 there had been a considerable stabilization in most areas where interests of the free world were involved. Most of our friends and allies, including former enemies, had largely recovered from the devastation of World War II and were in fact competing with America for world markets and economic gains.
“At the same time our continued outlays for defense and foreign aid were beginning to be a serious drain on our economy. The drain continued to increase – statistics tell this story more dramatically than could any amount of rhetoric. Let’s look at a couple of key industries. In 1950, we produced 76 percent of motor vehicles; in 1970, 31 percent. In 1950 we produced 46 percent of the world’s steel, in 1970, 20 percent. As recently as 1967 we produced more steel than the total European community. Today we produce less steel than Europe and less than the Soviet Union….We had simply given away so much and spent so much on defense that we were nearly bankrupt.”
“This overall deterioration of our world economic standing was felt, naturally enough, in our international trade position. In the early 1960’s we maintained a trade surplus of more than $5 billion annually. By 1968 the surplus was down to $1 billion….”
“As I joined Mel Laird in the Defense Department in January of 1969, our most important job was to help develop a new course which would bring our commitments in line with our resources, both domestically and internationally. World-wide military commitments had placed an unacceptable demand on our resources. And these had to be brought in line with our real national interests. Domestic problems needed a larger share of federal resources and, in a very real sense a reorientation of this country’s priorities was of the highest urgency.”
“I had the good fortune to be personally involved in the studies which were undertaken to assess what changes might be appropriate. This assessment considered what federal resources were likely to be available for all of our national goals, and how these resources might appropriately be reallocated between defense and the nation’s other priorities”
Packard describes “The Nixon Doctrine” which emerged from the study of national priorities: “First, the President said we will maintain a nuclear deterrent adequate to meet any threat to the security of the United States or to our allies.”
“The President also said that we will help other nations develop the capability of defending themselves. This simply says that in the future we will not take the full responsibility for the security of all our friends around the world. They should take a larger share of this load. The President also said we will honor all of our treaty commitments; we will act to defend our interests whenever or wherever they are threatened – but where our interests are not involved, our role will be limited. We will not intervene militarily.
“The cornerstones of the Nixon doctrine in foreign policy are negotiation, partnership and strength.”
To illustrate the progress made in negotiation Packard points to agreements with the Soviet Union on Berlin, germ warfare, and the prohibition of nuclear weapons on seabeds. He adds that negotiations are taking place in the Middle East and in Indochina.
“Partnership is vital to the Nixon Doctrine because, as we call upon our allies to bear a larger share of the common defense, we must naturally expect them to want a larger voice in formulating policy.
The most important pillar of the Nixon Doctrine, Packard says, is strength. Important, he says, because a nation can only negotiate successfully and keep strong partners from a position of strength. Without military strength our enemies would hold us in contempt and our allies would desert us.”
Packard describes how they used the principles of the Nixon Doctrine to develop military force planning and prepared the defense budgets. “These budgets were prepared to provide forces to support the President’s new foreign policy – to assure that our nuclear forces were adequate for the security and safety of our country and our conventional forces were adequate to support the President’s new foreign policy.”
Packard outlines how the military forces have been changed since 1968. “In 1968 our defense forces included 3.5 million military personnel and 1.3 million civilians. In 1972, we had reduced these forces to 2.4 military personnel and1.0 million civilians.
“At the same time that we were making these personnel cuts, we were also moving towards an inherently more expensive all-volunteer armed forces. As a result, the overall military pay bill has gone up even as forces have been reduced.”
“In 1968 a 3.5 million man force cost $20 billion for pay and personnel costs; in 1972, a 2.4 million man force is costing nearly $24 billion.
“As we addressed the problems of the future with lower levels of manpower, we reached the obvious conclusion. America cannot afford to gamble on the future with lower military force levels and also inferior weapons. We accordingly requested and obtained a higher R&D budget in 1972. R&D was about $7 billion in 1971; it will be $7.7 billion in 1972; and we have requested $8.5 billion for fiscal year 1973.”
Packard compares trends in spending, looking at defense vs. other areas: “In the period 1964-1968 defense increased $27 billion, other federal spending increased $34 billion, and state and local, $33 billion. In the period 1969-1973, expressed in constant dollars, defense declined $32 billion; other federal spending increased $35 billion; and state and local spending increased $43 billion.”
Packard also gives some figures on the effect of Defense Department budget reductions on the overall economy. “In 1968 Defense took 9.5 percent of this nation’s GNP. The 1973 budget will take only 6.5 percent – the lowest drain on the economy in twenty years….The GNP should grow to 1 trillion 200 billion next year at the end of fiscal 1973. In these terms the reductions that have been made will be a drain on our resources of 36 billion dollars less in 1973 than in 1968. This is the real measure of the substantial reduction that has been made.”
Packard says he understands these reductions have had a serious impact on the economy of many sections of the country, including Santa Clara County. He tells his audience, however, that the downtrend is over and expenses will be level to slightly rising in the future. He says he is “convinced the actions we have taken will be positive and beneficial to America and the world – and also Santa Clara County – in the long run.
[At this point the text refers to an “optional” McGovern insert.] This insert reads as follows:
“Let me say parenthetically this is assuming the President is re-elected. If McGovern should happen to be elected, the economic problems you have experienced here in the last three years would seem mild indeed. He proposed to reduce the defense budget by $30 billion,. That would cost the defense industry three million jobs, twice the reduction there has been here since 1969. His proposed defense forces would also leave this country wide open to a nuclear attack by the Soviets.”
Continuing with the regular text, Packard says “In conclusion, I would like to say that the past three years I have spent in Washington have been an exciting experience; for the insights I have gained into how the process of government functions at the highest level, but much more important, for the chance I have had to watch the activity of a great man, Richard Nixon, and the way in which he has taken hold of the helm of our nation at a crucial time and guided us through the turbulence of a basic reorientation of our national objectives. When historians view our period three or four decades down the road, it is my firm conviction that the past three years will be viewed as a turning point in our nation’s history.”
2/9/72, Letter to Packard from Fred La Cosse, inviting him to speak to the Chamber of Commerce luncheon on Mar. 24.
2/23/72, Copy of letter to Fred La Cosse from Packard accepting the invitation.
2/29/72, Letter to Packard from Fred La Cosse acknowledging Packard’s acceptance and saying that agenda details will be forthcoming.
3/25/72, Clipping from the San Jose Mercury Newspaper covering Packard’s speech. The headline reads “Packard Blisters Demo Candidates” and includes some comments that were not in the text of his speech. “a proposal by McGovern would take $30 billion out of the defense budget. This would scrap the ABM, cancel the F-111, and halt the MIRV program.” After quoting further from Packard’s speech, the article concludes “His hour-long speech was neither interrupted by applause nor protesters who have plagued him at three prior Bay Area appearances.”
3/27/72, Copy of letter from Packard to Fred La Crosse [sic], saying it was a pleasure to speak before the San Jose Chamber of Commerce and thanking him for the service award certificate and cuff links.
3/27/72, Letter from Fred La Cosse to Packard saying the Chamber of Commerce appreciated Packard’s speech – which “was informative and a delight to hear.”
Box 3, Folder 22 – General Speeches
March 31, 1972, National Defense in the New American Foreign Policy, Commonwealth Club of California, San Francisco CA
3/31/72, Text of Packard’s speech
Packard explains why he, a former member of the Defense Department, is going to talk about foreign policy. “American military forces have two important functions to perform. First, they must provide for the security and safety of our country and its people. Second, they must be adequate to support American foreign policy and protect American interests around the world.
“It is in this second category that the Defense Department must be closely involved with American foreign policy. I estimate that I spent nearly half of my time in Washington in discussions relating to the development of the President’s exciting new foreign policy and its impact on future military force requirements. That is what I want to tell you about today , for there has been a major change in American foreign policy since 1969.”
Packard says 1968 was the end of the post-war era and the beginning of a new era. The post-war era brought the United Nations as well as the expansionary aims of the Soviet Union. Confrontation began with the Truman Doctrine, Greece and Turkey, NATO, CENTO in the Middle East, and SEATO in Southeast Asia. Korea came in the mid-1950s.
“In the early years of this era of confrontation , America had the resources to be the dominant military power and the dominant economic power in the world. We were able to support through the decade of the 1950 a defense establishment adequate to protect the entire free world We were able to provide economic aid for Europe, Japan, and most of the developing countries of the world.”
“We began the decade of the 1950s with 50 percent of the world’s monetary reserves. We produced 76 percent of the world’s motor vehicles, 46 percent of the world’s steel, nearly all of the world’s sophisticated electronic equipment, and we produced a vast surplus of food.”
“As President Kennedy took office in 1961 there were signs that our economy was being overtaxed and that we were carrying a disproportionate share of the burden of the free world. Yet, he boldly stated, ‘We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.’ The course was set to continue the policy of confrontation into the decade of the 1960s. Indeed, the confrontation intensified – the Berlin wall, the Cuban missile crisis, and then Vietnam.
“By 1968, the pressures generated to a large degree by our foreign policy had created an intolerable strain on all segments of our society. There was rioting and burning in the streets, our great Universities were in shambles, inflation was rampant. Our international monetary reserves had shrunk from 50 percent to 16 percent of the world’s total. We had 549,000 men and women in Vietnam, and no plan to bring them home short of unconditional surrender to the North Vietnamese communists.”
While agreeing that “It would have taken a wise man and a strong man indeed to have led America on a different course in 1961….Nevertheless, the fact remains that the disastrous situation America faced in 1968 was to a very large degree caused by the failure of our foreign policy in the decade of the 1960s. The foreign policy-defense picture was not rosy as I joined President Nixon’s administration in the spring of 1969.”
“One of my first assignments in Washington was to chair a joint study group to prepare…an evaluation of the options available to reset the course of American foreign policy for the decade of the 1970s and beyond.”
Packard says this study group approached the problem from the stanPackardoint of – “what military capability would be required to support various foreign policy options and what military capability could we provide if larger shares of federal resources were allocated to the domestic needs of the country.”
“It was clear to all that our country needed a new foreign policy, but it was equally clear to those of us who were examining the alternatives in detail that the extremes of an arms build-up or unilateral disarmament would not do. The course adopted – and enunciated by the President in Guam in 1969 – was a shifting in the philosophy of our foreign policy from a policy based on confrontation to a policy based on negotiation. No longer would we assume the overwhelming responsibility we had born in the previous two and-one-half decades. No longer would we pay any price and bear any burden to assure the survival and success of liberty anywhere in the world.
“On the other hand, we did not intend to withdraw from the world. We were not going to withdraw from the important responsibilities and contributions we could make as a great world power. In sum, we were going to tailor our commitments to our real interests and limit our commitments to those we could realistically support within our resources.”
“This new foreign policy boils down to two important elements. First, it requires our friends and allies around the world to carry a larger share of the burden for their security – both in monetary cost and in manpower. Second, it proposes that we attempt, through negotiation, to reduce the points of friction and reduce the possibility of confrontation which might lead to war in the future.”
Packard says the new foreign policy requires, “while abjuring the principle of nuclear supremacy, we insist on ‘assured deterrence.’ He says by that we mean “a nuclear force adequate to deter nuclear war under all possible conditions. We do today have assured deterrence, but only because we went ahead with the MIRV program. Incidentally, I should point out that this program was opposed while I was in Washington by Senators Humphrey, McGovern, Muskie, Kennedy, and by other liberals in the Senate. And if this opposition had prevailed we would not today have a ‘strategic sufficiency.’
On the subject of conventional forces Packard says “…the Nixon Doctrine permits us to handle the military requirements of our national interest with a smaller conventional force than we have maintained in the past, in terms of the specific problems in specific areas of the world.
“The most obvious example of this facet of the Nixon doctrine is Vietnam. In 1968 we had over 540,000 troops in Vietnam, were spending nearly $30 billion per year, and had no intelligent plan for the withdrawal of American forces from that theater. Today our troop level is under 100,000, we are spending less than $10 billion per year, and we are well along in an intelligently planned program for withdrawal. And yet, despite this enormous cutback in our military commitment we are leaving the people of South Vietnam with a very strong capability of defending their country from the communist invaders as long as they have the will to do so.
“Throughout Asia our ability to maintain peace with fewer conventional military forces has been engaged by the opening up of relations with the People’s Republic of China. To be sure, Washington-Peking conversations offer no guarantee that North Vietnam and North Korea and insurgency movements elsewhere will all of a sudden turn into lambs. But our new relations with the Chinese do make realistic the expectation that we need not become embroiled in a land war with Chinese troops: a development which clearly would place severe strains, perhaps unacceptable strains, on our great resources and on our society.
“The Middle East is another trouble spot where, with the judicious use of a minimal amount of American military presence we are achieving very significant results. Where once full-scale fighting raged, now we see the possibility of serious negotiations.”
“ I should point out here that two of President Nixon’s highly criticized foreign policy actions – namely, America’s support of Pakistan in the Indo-Pakistan war, and our continued working relations with the Greek government – have both contributed significantly to American ability to maintain peace in the Middle East. The support of Pakistan enhanced our credibility with the Arab countries, and continued good relations with Greece are absolutely essential if we are to be able to operate our sixth fleet in the Eastern Mediterranean. There is irony in the fact that some of the most vociferous opponents of our support for Pakistan and Greece are also some of the most vociferous pro-Israeli voices in the country.”
“Beginning in 1969 we made substantial reductions in procurement, and leveled off R and D expenditures. These reductions were possible because of our Vietnamization program and because we could begin to move toward lower force levels as we began to implement the president’s new foreign policy.
“I am happy to report that the impact of Defense reductions on the economy has now leveled out. From now on there will be some increases, particularly in research and development….These increases were made on the basic proposition that, while the security of America and our new foreign policy can be supported with lower force levels, they cannot be supported with inferior weapons.
“One area of expenditure in which costs have gone up sharply bears special mention: namely the cost of military personnel. The FY 1973 Defense Budget, which was submitted to the congress in January, provides for 2.4 million military personnel and 1.0 million civilians. This is down from 3.5 million military personnel, and 1.3 million civilians in FY 1968 – 1.4 million fewer people on the Defense payroll. This has been possible because we have withdrawn 450,000 people from Vietnam, and many thousands from other overseas areas – all because our friends and allies have been able to accept a larger share of the burden.
“As we have reduced the number of men and women in uniform, we have taken steps toward an all-volunteer Army. Among these steps is a correction of the gross inequality between what men in uniform and civilians in our society earn.”
Packard gives some examples of these pay changes: “In 1964 a first year recruit earned $78 per month. Starting January 1973, he will earn $332 per month – four times as much….A Colonel or Navy Captain earned just under a thousand dollars a month in 1964. In 1973 this will increase to over two thousand.”
“Despite the special costs associated with R and D and with the move to a volunteer Army, there has been a real and substantial reordering of the application of federal resources in these past three years….The real impact is best expressed in purchasing power – in constant dollars. From the spring of 1969 to the fiscal 1973 budget, Defense cost in constant dollars has declined $32 billion, while other Federal spending has increased $35 billion, and at the same time State and Local spending has increased some $43 billion. Defense spending in the year beginning July 1, 1972 as a percentage of GNP will be at its lowest level in 10 years.
“There is no room for further reductions of substance in Defense spending. Those who propose further reductions of 10 – 15 – or 30 billion – and all of these figures have been mentioned – just do not understand what has happened in these past three years. Further reductions in the Defense Budget will commit America to withdraw from the world, to embark on a certain course to the status of a second rate world power in the decade of the 1980s – a course that America need not, cannot, take.”
Packard says that in spite of all that has been done, there is no room for complacency. “ In the area of foreign affairs, there remains a great deal to be done. The initial steps we have taken to begin a dialog with the People’s Republic of China and to tie down some concrete points of agreement between the Soviet Union and ourselves must be carried forward. A solution to the foreign aid problem must be found: despite all the pitfalls, errors, and domestic disenchantment with foreign aid, our wealth, our humanitarian traditions, and our interest dictate that we have an active foreign assistance program. We need to finish the construction with our partners of a reformed trade and monetary system. And we must continue to build an international system – including a strong concern for the United Nations – which all members of the international community will work to preserve because they recognize their stake in its preservation.
“While I hope no one leaves this luncheon with a sense of complacency about our foreign policy achievements, I also hope no one leaves this luncheon without fully realizing the dramatic reorientation brought to our foreign policy by the Nixon administration. The continuing stream of criticism against the President’s foreign policy – much of it the result of political self-interest; much of it the result of plain old narrow-minded isolationism – has all too often dominated the media. It is critically important that an influential a group such as the Commonwealth Club understand that what has been accomplished during the past three years represents the most fundamental change in American foreign policy in two-and-one-half decades. It is the foundation for a new era in our foreign policy. While we cannot predict the infinite and intricate variations of this new foreign policy during the next decades, I am convinced that the Nixon Doctrine will remain the guiding concept until the end of this century.
“In conclusion, I submit to you that during the last three years we have lived through an epoch-making formative period, equivalent in importance to the period between the end of World War II and our entry into the Korean War. I am proud to have been associated, in however small measure, with this momentous endeavor, and I am proud that you invited me here today to share some of my thoughts and my concerns with you. Thank you.”
3/31/72, Reference numbers Packard had written for himself
3/13/72, Letter to Packard from Durward Riggs, Executive Secretary, Commonwealth Club of California, saying he is pleased Packard has accepted the date to speak to the Club. Some background data is attached
3/21/72, Letter to Packard from J. K. Gustafson, Chairman of the Board, Homestake Mining Company, complimenting him on his speech.
3/27/72, Copy of the Club publication
4/3/72, Letter to Packard from Durward Riggs, thanking for speaking to their group. He comments “I’m sure that the heart of any speaker would have been warmed by the response you elicited from your audience.”
Box 3, Folder 23 – General Speeches
April 6, 1972, Interracial Council for Business Opportunity, New York, NY
4/6/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s comments, with handwritten notations by him. Packard acted as Co-Chairman, introducing other speakers and award presenters.
Packard says all in attendance have a common interest: “that is to do all that we can to help alleviate the problems faced by the minority groups within our society. This is an interest of long –standing for me personally, and I hope that it is reflected to some degree by the efforts we have made in a number of communities around the country where Hewlett-Packard plants are located, and by some of the things we were able to do in the Department of Defense were I spent my last three years.
“When Secretary and I joined the Department in 1969, both of us resolved that the Department had the responsibility to utilize its resources and people to help with the problems of the minoriti3es both within and outside of the armed forces. Because we felt strongly about this, we initiated a number of Department programs and activities designed to contribute to the improvement of society, particularly the disadvantaged.”
Packard tells of some of the programs the DOD initiated: in 1971 they hired 46,000 young people, 76% of whom were disadvantaged; they asked every military base in the country to use their resources to support educational, recreational and cultural programs for disadvantaged youths He says, “Over 2.4 million young people participated in these programs in 1971, as compared with 250,000 in 1969.
“We set up a school to train officers to better understand the problems faced by minorities within the Armed Services. We made it clear that we expected an atmosphere of true equal opportunity for all of the servicemen and women in the armed forces, as will as the civilians within the department.”
“ I was very pleased by the response of Military leaders from the Joint Chiefs on down. They are well aware of their responsibilities in this area.
“I believe that a great many people, in both the public and private sectors, have contributed to the progress that has been made in solving the problems of the minorities.”
Packard says he is “pleased to Secretary Stans here tonight,” adding that he “was a great leader in a number of activities to improve economic opportunities for minorities before he joined President Nixon’s administration in Washington in 1969.”
The private sector “has an important and a continuing role. I am delighted to see you are here tonight – because I know it means you – as representatives of a large portion of the private sector – share my interest and concern for solving these problems, and because I know that it is an indication of your continuing support of the Interracial Council for Business Opportunity.”
Packard then introduces Mr. William R. Hudgins “who will present the first award tonight.” In his introductory comments Packard describes Hudgins as the “man who has served as the National Co-Chairman of the Interracial Council for Business Opportunity for the past three years, and who is President of the Harlem-based Freedom National of New York – the largest black-owned banking institution in the country.”
After Mr. Hudgins’ comments, Packard introduces the next speaker – Mr. Darwin W. Bolden. He describes Mr. Bolden as “the National Executive Director of the Interracial Council for Business Opportunity, and a member of President Nixon’s Advisory Committee on Minority enterprise.”
To make the second award of the evening, Packard introduces Mr. Rodman C. Rockefeller, “President of the International Basic Economy Corporation – a private sector development company which initiates and operates corporate ventures responsive to basic human needs and the economies of developing nations.” He says Rockefeller has been a Co-Chairman of ICBO since its inception in 1963.
4/3/72, Letter to Packard from Edith Ross, Dinner Coordinator, enclosing biographical material o William Hudgins, Maurice Stans, Darwin Bolden and Rodman Rockefeller, asking that he introduce these people. Biographical material on Leonard Evans, Jr. also Co-Chairman for the dinner is also attached
4/6/72, Printed program for the ICBO Ninth Annual Dinner Program
4/6/72, List of guests at the dinner and list of “prospects”
7/1/69, Six page history of the ICBO
12/16/71, Letter to Packard from William R. Hudgins, Rodman C. Rockefeller, and Darwin W. Bolden asking Packard to be the Co-Chairman at their Ninth Annual National ICBO Dinner. Background material on the ICBO is enclosed, as well as a copy of a letter to Packard from Mr. Rockefeller dated Sept. 18, 1969 asking Packard to be the speaker at the ICBO Major Industries luncheon on October 15, 1969. {There is no indication in the file of speeches made by Packard that he accepted this invitation]
12/21/71, Letter to Packard from Rodman C. Rockefeller saying that he has been involved with the ICBO since its inception, and expressing the hope that Packard will accept the invitation to be Co-Chair at their dinner
1/5/72, Copy of a letter to Rodman Rockefeller form Packard accepting the invitation to be Co-Chair at the ICBO dinner
1/12/72, Letter to Packard from Darwin W. Bolden thanking him for agreeing to be Co-Chair at the dinner and enclosing a draft of a letter they wish to send over the signature of Packard and the other Co-Chair, Leonard Evans, Jr., to various company people.
Letter to Packard from Rodman Rockefeller saying he is delighted he has accepted the invitation to be Co-Chair
1/19/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Darwin W. Bolden saying the draft is satisfactory to him
2/15/72, Letter to Packard from Edith Ross asking for a photograph of Packard and a biographical sketch
2/23/72, Copy of a letter to Edith Ross from David Kirby enclosing the requested photo and biographical material
3/13/72, Letter to Packard from Edith Ross saying they have sold only 214 tickets to the dinner and hope to sell 1500 more. She asks Packard’s help in sending out more personal letters
3/20/72, Copy of the “personal letter” Packard sent to people in industry, and the list of people who received it
3/21/72, Letter to Packard from Harold Wheeler, Chairman of the Board, Hazeltine Corp., declining the invitation
March, 1972, Copy of a sample letter from the ICBO Dinner Committee sending tickets to those having purchased them
4/5/72, Letter to Packard from Gordon Metcalf, Chairman of the Board, Sears, Roebuck and Co., saying ICBO is not on the list of organizations Sears will be able to help
4/6/72, Letter to Packard from W. W. Morison, President, Foremost-McKesson, Inc., sending regrets.
4/11/72, Letter to Packard from Darwin Bolden, extending appreciation for Packard’s participation at the ICBO dinner and expressing the hope that Packard will be able to help in the future
4/18/72, Letter to Packard from Rodman C. Rockefeller expressing appreciation for Packard’s participation .
Box 3, Folder 24 – General Speeches
April 8, 1972, California Republican Assembly, Palo Alto, CA
4/8/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with handwritten notations by him.
Saying that he has just returned from a three year tour in Washington, Packard calls these “the most interesting years of my life.” He admits “they were not the most enjoyable by any means, for among other things Washington is a rough, often mean and vicious league.”
“Throughout my three years in Washington, time and time again I say examples of irresponsible behavior – irresponsible behavior with the gravest implications.
“I heard scientists use their reputations gained in unrelated fields to influence legislation to stultify national defense programs – particularly the all-important strategic nuclear programs upon which the security of our country depends.
“I heard distinguished newsmen favor Hanoi, Moscow, and New Delhi over America in their reporting.”
Packard is particularly disturbed by criticism of the military which he sees “in the press, on TV, in many of our liberal universities, and even by some elected public officials – who, of all people, should know better,” He says, “I can understand disillusionment with Vietnam policy going back to 1966 or so, but the military does not deserve the criticism. The policy was dictated and directed by Administration civilians. Particularly disturbing has been the manner in which some members of Congress, particularly in the Senate, took great delight in seizing on any fact or figure which could be used – usually magnified, distorted, and out of context – to discredit the military and all those who supported the Defense Department.”
In spite of these experiences Packard says he found many “inspiring experiences,” particularly coming from his work with the military.
“You cannot help but be very impressed with the great dedication of all of the men and women in uniform – and with the way they function with military discipline.” He is also complimentary of Dr. Henry Kissinger. “We in Defense worked closely with Dr. Kissinger, and I can tell you that all the talk about Dr. Kissinger’s being some sort of a tyrant is inaccurate. The study groups he chaired were open to all kinds of input. Every relevant department, including State, had ample opportunity to contribute. No one was reticent about expressing his personal opinion.”
Packard calls Melvin Laird “an outstanding colleague,” and says working with President Nixon was “an exceptional experience.”
“…in 1968 a man able to act with both calmness and courage was exactly what this country needed. There was rioting and burning in the streets, our great universities were in shambles, inflation was rampant, and we had 549,000 men and women embroiled in a seemingly endless war in Vietnam.
“There was clearly a pressing need for a new foreign policy, and so in the spring of 1969 we began to reevaluate our system of worldwide commitments. After much analysis and evaluation of options, a new foreign policy began to evolve, and it boils down to three important elements. First, it requires our friends and allies around the world to carry a larger share of the burden for their security – both in monetary cost and in manpower. Second, it proposes that we attempt, through negotiation, to reduce the points of friction and reduce the possibility of confrontation. Third, it demands we remain strong, since only from strength is it possible to have useful negotiations with Communists. These pillars form the core of the Nixon doctrine.”
Packard looks at “burden sharing,” saying “America has been carrying too large a share of the free world’s burdens for too long.
“For example, the United States spent in 1968 9.5% of its gross national products on defense; West Germany 2.9%; Japan less that 1%.
“Such disproportion may have been appropriate when the United States had the overwhelming economic power that it did immediately following world War II. But the situation has changed drastically. The best indicator is that in 1950, we held 50% of the international monetary reserves; in 1970, only 16%.”
Packard looks at the cuts which have been made in the military budget over the past three years. “Naturally, these cuts created short-term hardships in some sections of the country, and the President was always aware of these problems. But cuts in procurement have now leveled off, and I would like to ask if anyone in this room imagines that Mr. Humphrey, if elected in 1968, would have shown nearly the concern for adequate defense spending that this Administration has shown. Let me ask you if you think any of the likely Democratic candidates in 1972, Humphrey, McGovern, Muskie or Kennedy would support adequate defense spending during the next four years.”
Packard looks next at “Negotiation,” the second pillar of the Nixon doctrine. “Let me make clear that negotiation is not a codeword for capitulation. It does not suppose that all communist states have metamorphosed into lambs. Clearly, communism is still fundamentally an aggressive movement and must be treated accordingly.
“But the fact is that dramatic changes in the structure of world politics have taken place recently and that these changes permit us, in deed require us, to approach the international area with greater flexibility. We no longer live in a bipolar world.”
Citing the “remarkable” economic progress of the free world, and the Sino-soviet split, he says a “greater flexibility in world politics” has created “more opportunities for negotiation. Negotiation seeks to…minimize the possibility of nuclear war. It does not, however, pretend that freedom and Communism are not still basically opposing forces.”
Packard then tu4ns to the matter of “military strength.” He asks, “How do we measure military strength? I mentioned to you earlier that our defense expenditures have gone down.” He says this does not mean military effectiveness has gone down as well. Superior, more effective weapons are the answer and he gives an example where “smart bombs were able destroy a target with 20 sorties and $600,000, versus 1,000 sorties and $15 million in expense for conventional bombs.
Packard says, “There are areas where reduction is not acceptable, particularly with strategic weapons. So when Secretary Laird and I moved into office, we immediately began extensive studies to see what new systems might be necessary to insure that our strategic nuclear forces sill provide an adequate nuclear deterrent – not only for today, but also into the foreseeable future.”
“One very important specific program we moved forward in MIRV (Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicle). The purpose of MIRV in our Minutemen forces is to offset the Soviet’s increasing stock of land-based weapons, and in the Poseidon program, to offset the recent rapid growth of the Soviet submarine forces. MIRV, incidentally, was opposed by Senators Humphrey, McGovern, Muskie, and Kennedy, among other senate liberals.
“The ABM is another program for which President Nixon fought valiantly against his Congressional critics, and I trust I need not spell out for you the significance of this program. The politics of this fight is interesting, and I would like to share one sidelight with you. Senator Humphrey is now saying that he supported the ABM, but, if so, it is news to me. I recall an official dinner one evening in the spring of 1969 when he was the featured speaker. I happened to be at the some table with the Soviet Ambassador, Mr. Dobrynin. Mr. Humphrey was roasting the ABM program royally, and Mr. Dobrynin was enjoying it greatly, smiling broadly throughout the whole show.”
“The Nixon Administration has also been moving head on conventional forces. The F 15, the AX, the F 14, the Harrier and the Agile missile – all important developments we supported and accelerated – will provide greatly improved air power for our Air force, Navy and Marines. We increased the Navy shipbuilding budget by some $2 billion, which increases the production of nuclear attack submarines, modern destroyers and frigates. We have two nuclear carriers under construction and have requested funds for the third in the FY-1973 budget.”
“Our forces have much greater and more effective fire power today, and I know of no attractive research and development program that is not adequately provided for in the FY 1973 budget.”
“Military pay scales have been dramatically upgrades – providing a long overdue correction to the gross inequality of pay between men in the military services and those in the civil service.”
“And research and development has been increased. We increased it from $7 billion in 1971 to $7.7 billion this year, and we requested $8.5 billion for fiscal 1973.”
“We can afford lower conventional force levels because our friends and allies are carrying a larger share of the burden of their own defense. We have a dramatic example in Vietnam today – the South Vietnamese are defending their own country and they have the capability of doing so if the have the will. You can be mighty thankful those are not American boys fighting on the ground tonight in Vietnam on the DMZ [Demilitarized Zone].
“The President has reduced our worldwide interests. He has said we will honor our treaty commitment, but that does not require that we provide American ground forces in every case.
“Naturally, with all the recent banner headlines about North Vietnamese offensives, I cannot stand up here and offer complacent generalizations about the situation in Vietnam. Nor can I guarantee you that the South Vietnamese will-t0-win, something no foreign power can instill, will bring victory after victory. But I can say that the Nixon Administration has taken and is taking all necessary steps to provide South Vietnam with the equipment and training necessary for the defense of that country. I say that is discharging our obligation to the people of South Vietnam.
“Elsewhere in Asia our ability to maintain peace with fewer conventional military forces will be, we believe, enhances by the opening up of relations with the People’s Republic of China. To be sure, Washington-Peking conversations offer n9o guarantee that China, North Korea, North Vietnam, or any of the indigenous communist movements. Will turn their swords into plowshares. But our new relations with the Chinese do make realistic the expectation that we need not become embroiled in a land war with Chinese troops.
“The Middle East is another trouble spot where, with the judicious use of a minimal amount of military force, we have seen some encouraging programs. Where once full-scale fighting raged, now we see negotiations being pursued with strong hopes of continuing the current cease-fire and moderately good hopes of bringing some sort of long-term accommodation between Jews and Arabs.
“On a closing note, I would like to come right out and make some political statements, just in case you feel up to now I have been too apolitical. I have watched with interest the development of the Democratic primary, and I was particularly interested, as I am sure we all were, by the results of the Wisconsin race. The one Democratic candidate whose position on defense and national security issues was realistic seems to have been knocked out of the race. And, at the other end of the spectrum, the democratic candidate whose views on national defense are clearly the most irresponsible – he would start out by cutting $30 billion from the defense budget – received a dramatic boost. What once seemed unthinkable, that this candidate actually has a serious chance to take command of our armed services and our strategic arsenal, is now very far from unthinkable.
“It is becoming increasingly evident that the gulf between the Republicans and the democrats on national security is perilously large. The need for active volunteer Republican organizations has, therefore, become a national imperative. If ever there was any doubt that organizations such as the California Republican Assembly are vital to the security of our country, it is now dispelled. I am working to re-elect the President because I have full confidence in him. For three years he gave Secretary Laird and me complete support on every issue involving our national security. We have absolutely no possibility of a stronger, more capable man at the head of this great nation of ours than Richard Nixon. Let’s keep him there.”
4/8/72, Typed, single-spaced copy of Packard’s speech
4/8/72, Typed draft of Packard’s speech. Appears to have been given to someone other than Packard for comment. Some handwritten notations by Packard and by another person are evident as well
1/24/72, Letter to Packard from Allyn c. Miller inviting him to speak at the California Republican Assemble State Convention in Palo Alto on April 8, 1972
2/2/72, Letter to Packard from Hugh S. Koford, of the CRA. Confirming the arrangements
3/7/72, Copy of letter to E. A. Herron [of CRA it would appear], from Max Larsen of North American Rockwell, discussing the need to avoid duplication of Packard’s comments and those of Bob Anderson from Rockwell
3/14/72, Letter to Packard from E. A. Herron, giving Packard the gist of Bob Anderson’s remarks
3/27/72, Letter to Packard from Hugh S. Koford giving details of the luncheon
4/11/72, Letter to Packard from Hugh S. Koford expressing appreciation for Packard’s participation and forbearance in the face of program difficulties
Box 3, Folder 25 – General speeches
April 12, 1972, Accepting the Business Statesman Award, Harvard Business School Club, New York, NY
4/12/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech, with extensive handwritten additions by him
Packard says it was a “great experience to spend three years with President Nixon’s Administration in Washington” He speaks of frustrations and hard work, but says they got some things done – “even some important changes….” He points to one big difference from the business world – no profit and loss statement to test decisions. “Whether some of the things Mel Laird and I were able to do in the Defense department will result in real improvement – and even if so whether they will last – only time will tell.”
Packard says his job in the Defense Department had two facets. “One was to work on the management problems of the Pentagon – and I say that advisedly – I don’t believe anyone can manage the Pentagon.”
“he other facet of my job there was to work with the State Department and Dr. Kissinger’s staff for the National Security Council on many very interesting and important international issues – Vietnam, NATO, the Middle East, south Asia – and of course, the most important issue of all, strategic nuclear arms.
“Our strategic nuclear policy is the most important defense issue, for unless our country maintains strategic nuclear forces and a strategic nuclear policy adequate to absolutely deter nuclear war – not only for today but forever – none of the other issues will matter very much. We have adequate forces today – we will have adequate strategic nuclear forces in the future – regardless of the outcome of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks with the Soviets – if the programs we have requested in the fiscal 1973 budget are approved.
“President Nixon’s leadership in foreign policy has been the most enlightened and the most important America has had for may decades. Indeed, in the first three years of this administration he has moved our country’s foreign policy from one which had nearly bankrupted our economy and destroyed our society by 1968, to one that holds not only the hope – but the real promise – of a generation of peace.”
Packard describes “some interesting management problems in the Pentagon….With some 3.5 million people on the payroll and a budget that calls for spending $200 million a day, 365 days a year, it is a credit to the thousands of capable men and women – in uniform and civilians – that the department runs as well as it does.”
Packard says he was “greatly impressed with the dedicated and capable people in the department of defense – both military and civilian….I often thought as I worked with the people in the Defense Department – and the Military Services – I had as fine a team of dedicated, capable people as could be found in the private business world.”
Packard says “It would be great if every businessman could spend some time in Washington – at least once in a position of responsibility. One thing you would learn is that businessmen, and good business management practice alone cannot solve all of the complex problems of big government. At the same time, there are a great many areas where sound business management can, and does, contribute to better government.”
There is a great difference between the political world and the business world. One cannot be in Washington for long without learning that political skill is just as necessary – perhaps more necessary – than skill in business management to get something useful done. I had a great mentor while I was there in Mel Laird. He is a professional politician in the best sense of the word. He was, and is, highly respected by the congress as well as by his peers in the Administration. I can think of no one who could have done a better job as secretary of defense than Mel Laird has done during these turbulent three years I spent working with him. In fact, despite all the criticism of the defense department, since 1969 we were the only department that did not lose a major issue in the congress. A real tribute to Secretary Laird’s political skill.
“One thing troubles me greatly as a result of my experience in Washington. It is very difficult for the public to really know what the true situation is on any issue. Many times while I was there, an issue which I knew about was wrongly reported by the news media. Sometimes it was because fragmentary information from a leak was used. Sometimes it was poor communication from the Administration. Sometimes it appeared to e wantonly vicious reporting. It seldom did any good to try to correct the story later – the first release covered the news on the front page – a correction was among the want ads.” Packard says he doesn’t want to indite all reporters and commentators – “the vast majority are smart, dedicated and honest men and women. The only way to deal with the problem was to ignore it and get on with the job – by the time you worried about the case of today, there would be another one tomorrow anyway.”
Packard says that in spite of “the many trials and frustrations, I am glad that I was able to spend three years in Washington. I often thought I was at a great disadvantage for…I have neither the ambition nor temperment [sic] of a politician or a bureaucrat.
“I developed a great respect for the men and women in Washington – in the Congress, in the Administration, and in the thousands of offices that do the day to day work. When one measures what they do against the complex and important problems they face they deserve our respect and appreciation.
“And I want to thank you for the honor you have given me tonight. I appreciate your recognition, especially from this distinguished Club representing the management profession.
“Thank you very much.”
4/12/72, Printed program for The International dinner of The Harvard business School club of New York
1/18/72, Letter to Packard from Albert H. Gordon, chairman, Kidder, Peabody & Co., saying HBS members are delighted that Packard is willing to accept the Business Statesman Award
4/3/72, Letter to Packard from Albert Gordon going over details of the dinner
4/18/72, Letter to Packard from Albert Gordon thanking Packard for accepting the Award.
4/26/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Albert Gordon saying he and Mrs. Packard enjoyed the dinner, and he thanks Gordon for the “beautiful Steuben Bowl…”
7/17/72, Letter to Packard from Albert Gordon enclosing a copy of the Harvard Business School International Dinner booklet.
7/28/72, Letter to Packard from Ray N. Peterson, enclosing a copy of the Harvard Bulletin which covers the Award Dinner.
7/28/72, Note from Carl Franklin also enclosing a copy of the HBS Bulletin
Box 3, Folder 26 – General Speeches
April 20, 1972, Republican Central committee, San Mateo, CA
4/20/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech
“I am pleased to be here tonight,” Packard says, “we have enthusiasm….we have unity….we are going to win this year….We have unity because of our commonly held principles. And the most basic of these is that individuals, not large organizations or blocks of special interests, are the great strength of our country.”
Packard says he is reminded of Herbert Hoover’s statement on the Uncommon Man and he reads a quote from this statement – which is to the effect that Hoover feels there has been too much talk about the common man – becoming almost a cult. Hoover says we need more uncommon men – an uncommon doctor when we are sick, an uncommon mechanic when our car breaks down….parents always want their children to be uncommon achievers.
Packard points to the growth of government: government forms to fill out, applying for permits, paying taxes, welfare, social security, Medicare, environmental controls. “There is no such thing as the Uncommon Man in this scheme of things – we are all rapidly becoming modern common men – each a number in a computer.”
“This all began,” Packard says, “under the Democratic Party – Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s. It has grown over these past three decades through a patchwork of appeals to minority interests under the sponsorship of the Democratic Party, ….”
Packard refers to the “cantankerous” Democratic Congress and says it is “important…not only to re-elect the President, but also to change some faces in the House and the Senate, too.”
“Look at the current fuss from the Democrats about ‘closing tax loopholes.’ While this sounds very nice, it boils down to just another plan to tax the individuals and companies who are the economic mainstay of this country. Of course, the Democrats invoke the sacred name of the ‘common man’ whenever they come through with these new tax schemes. But it’s a funny thing: the eloquent Democratic politicians never give this ‘common man’ the one thing he really wants; lower taxes. Quite the contrary, as a result of pressure from ultra-liberal Congressmen, tax rates for all Americans go up and up and up.”
Packard asks where all this increased tax revenue goes. And he answers by saying “a big hunk goes simply to keep up with the cost of inflation – inflation fueled by deficit government spending.” He adds wasted experimental programs, urban renewal, increases for social security and the “enormous” welfare system.
“Often the Democrats’ pet special-interest projects are not so politically appealing, and then more devious techniques need to be developed. One such is appointing judges who will use the courts to push special interest programs the Democrats could never hope to get through congress or a State legislature. An example of this arrogance is the California Supreme Court’s decision to eliminate local property taxes as the sole source of school revenues.
“Not only does this decision bring yet another redistribution of income whose morality is far from clear, it also raises the serious danger of increased control of local education by state bureaucrats. And it may set a precedence for statewide financing, and therefore control, of all our other public services.
“Or take the busing issue, where a string of Democrat-appointed judges have attempted, and on several cases succeeded, in ordering a drastic change in our whole educational system – and all without the benefit of a single law.
“President Nixon has taken a strong hand against this relentless pressure by the Democratic party to make everyone a common man. He has proposed revenue sharing – to give the people a more effective voice in how their money will be spent. The Democrats want to keep a tight control of your money in Washington. He has taken action on taxes to close loopholes of abuse, yet to encourage private incentive to economic progress. The Democrats are proposing a so-called ‘tax reform’ which, if enacted, would be virtually the final step from private enterprise to socialism in America.
“President Nixon has strongly supported opening the doors of opportunity to the minority people – black capitalism, self help and personal encouragement and that is what these people want and deserve – a piece of the action. The Democrats would take care of them by raising the level of relief – by making them totally dependent on and therefore submissive to the Federal Government. With the hope, of course, that this will further insure their vote for the Democratic party.
“If the policies of the democratic party are pursued in the name of the common man, we will most certainly have more common men and women in America, more common black men and women – more common Chicanos – more common American Indians – all glorified with the honor of an immortal place in the memories of the computers in Washington.”
Packard says “Democrats have been going out of their way to exploit national defense issues for political gain. In the 1968 Presidential campaign, Nixon simply stated he had a plan to get us out of Vietnam with honor.
“By contrast , what do we hear today from the Democrats about the way President Nixon is trying to phase out their war? We hear sharp attacks on both the conduct of the war and the strategy of Vietnamization. We hear attacks made solely for political gain. What statesmanlike motives, I ask you, led Senator Muskie to blast an Administration peace plan before even the North Vietnamese had responded to it? What statesmanlike moves led the Senate Foreign Relations committee to vote this week to cut off all money for the protection of American troops in Vietnam by the end to this year? What statesmanlike thinking causes elected officials of this country to give more support and sympathy to Hanoi than to their own country?”
Regarding Vietnam Packard tells of two things he says Nixon’s plan does not include. “It does not include delivering the people of South Vietnam against their will to the Communists. It does not include crawling on our knees either out of Vietnam, nor crawling on our knees to the negotiating table.”
Packard says Nixon’s plan does include: stopping all fighting and withdrawing all American troops – followed by elections. He has agreed to assist in the “economic rehabilitation” of North Vietnam as well, Packard says. “I do not know how any American who wants to understand the situation could fail to support the President’s position on negotiation. Those who do not support the President’s position on negotiation are saying in effect that they want to sell the people of South Vietnam down the river to the Communists.”
Nixon’s second course, Packard explains, was to provide an alternative in case negotiations failed. “This is what is called ‘Vietnamization.’ – “The plan to help the South Vietnamese learn to defend themselves. The first phase of Vietnamization was building South Vietnam’s ground forces and accelerating pacification and economic development. That phase is now nearly completed and has been very successful. So successful that we will have 480,000 fewer men and women in Vietnam on May 1st than we had on January 20, 1969 when President Nixon took office….If the programs Secretary Laird and I have established are supported by the Congress, the South Vietnamese will soon have adequate air capability as well as adequate ground capability to defend themselves.”
Packard mentions the recent North Vietnam offensive. He says “This new offensive was made possible because [the] Soviets supplied North Vietnam with heavy equipment, tanks, large field guns, heavy anti-aircraft equipment of the type needed to mount an invasion of the South.”
“There is one thing about this whole situation that never seems to be understood– yet it is so elementary – if the North Vietnamese would simply go home from South Vietnam, from Cambodia and Laos, this whole war would be ended tomorrow. Yet the opponents of President Nixon’s policies encourage them to stay and thereby encourage the war to continue.”
Leaving Vietnam, Packard talks about the President’s “important and exciting new foreign policy.”
“In 1969, when the Nixon Administration took office, there was clearly a pressing need for a new foreign policy. We immediately began to re-evaluate our system of worldwide commitments, and after much analysis and evaluation of options, a new foreign policy began to evolve. It boils down to three important elements. First, it requires our friends and allies around the world to carry a larger share of the burden for their security – both in monetary cost and in manpower. Second, it proposes that we attempt, through negotiation, to reduce the points of friction and reduce the possibility of confrontation. Third, it demands we remain strong, since only from strength can we negotiate effectively. These three pillars form the core of the Nixon doctrine.”
Packard talks about each of these pillars. In defense of asking our friends and allies to share the burden of defense he says that “America has been carrying an unreasonable share of the free world’s defense. In 1968 the United States spent 9.5% of its GNP on defense. The same year Germany spent 2.9% and Japan spent less than 1%.”
“Our allies in both Europe and the Far East have made remarkable economic progress, and they should bear a larger share of the free world’s defense.”
“Next, let’s look at negotiation, the second pillar of the Nixon doctrine. Let me make clear that negotiation is not a codeword for capitulation.”
“Remarkable economic progress in both Western Europe and the Pacific rim permits our allies greater independence of action. And the Communist world, fractured by the Sino-Soviet rift, shows a similar trend towards national self-assertiveness in foreign policy.
“Exploiting this greater flexibility in the world situation, we have reached agreements with the Soviet Union on Berlin, germ warfare, and the prohibition of nuclear weapons on ocean seabed.
“The President has gone to China. And in the Middle East fighting has been replaced with discussions moving toward serious negotiations.
“The third pillar of the Nixon Doctrine, and the most important, is military strength, I say ‘most important’ because, without strength, negotiation with the Communists would be nothing more than capitulation, and burden-sharing would mean nothing more than walking away from our friends and allies.
“As Secretary Laird and I worked on planning our future military forces we were keenly aware of the need of America to remain strong. We recognized this country had been carrying too large a share of the defense burden for the free world, and we recognized the legitimate need for a larger share of federal resources to be allocated to domestic needs of the country.
“We did make substantial reductions in the share of the U.S. Gross National Product required for defense. In fiscal 1973 defense will require only 6.5% of GNP, the lowest drain on our economy in over twenty years. Down three full percentage points from the 9.5% defense took in 1968.
“At the same time we took major steps to improve our strategic nuclear forces. Against great opposition from the liberal Democrats in the Congress we went ahead with the ABM, with the MIRV and other programs which have assured that we have adequate nuclear strength, not only today, but on into the future.”
“We have also moved ahead with many other important new weapons programs during the past three years as we reduced our military manpower under the policy of the Nixon Doctrine. I can say to you without qualification – if the Congress supports the defense programs we have included in the FY 1973 budget, America will have the military strength to support the Nixon Doctrine throughout the decade of the 1970s and on into the decade of the 1980s.
“Frankly. I think that this country would be in serious trouble if we didn’t have a fighter like Dick Nixon running the show. Isolationism, which seems to be what the Democrats want, may have had some merits in the 1920s. In the 1970s withdrawal of America from the world scene would be catastrophic to the cause of peace. At home, the Democrats have set their hearts on a massive new load of spending schemes – ranging from nationalized health insurance to a WPA-type program for unemployed workers.”
“Skilled and tenacious men are working to break down our military strength around the world and to build up a collectivist state at home. To resist them, we need a fighter on our side. To resist them we need another four years of Richard Nixon in the White House.”
4/20/72, Copy of printed program for the United Republican Finance Committee dinner.
4/21/72, Copy of clipping from San Francisco Chronicle, 4/21/72 covering Packard’s speech
3/2/72, Letter to Packard from Robert R. Wood, Chairman Republican Central Committee
5/4/72, Complimentary letter to Packard from William L. Keady
Box 3, Folder 27 – General speeches
April 24, 1972, American Business Press, Silver Quill Award, Puerto Rico
4/24/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with extensive handwritten notations and additions by him.
Packard starts out saying he was tempted to tell the audience about some of his “adventures in the jungles of Washington bureaucracy…about the dangers of excessive civilian meddling in the affairs of the military, about the need for military to put a high career priority on procurement problems, and so on….
“I have seriously considered telling something about the current situation in Vietnam, why it is essential for the President to respond – as he has responded – to the Soviet supported invasion by North Vietnam across the DMZ [demilitarized zone], and across the western border of South Vietnam. To tell you something that needs to be said again and again – If the North Vietnamese would simply go home – simply leave from South Vietnam, from Cambodia and from Laos, this war would be over tomorrow. But they will not go home as long as they have substantial support from many people in America – including elected officials and candidates for high office.”
Instead of the above, however, Packard says he has decided to talk about “the free enterprise system…in the context of the whole of American society.”
He says he wants to talk about this subject because he sees “a continuing erosion of our freedom in business and industry,” and, he judges, “the press feels put upon in this regard, as well.”
Packard says he has noticed that their “award describes America as a country which guarantees freedom of the press and freedom of enterprise.” And he says that “no society can be truly free unless both freedom in economic enterprise and freedom in political enterprise, of which journalism is one branch, are guaranteed. A blow at one will inevitably be a blow at the other.
“There are all too many people,” Packard continues, “including journalists, who do not understand the indivisibility of freedom. They imagine that governments can meddle in the economy without ultimately abridging political freedoms. As a matter of fact, the very left-wingers peddling this line are now feeling the error of their ways most acutely.”
In support of this last statement, Packard describes a situation at “Stanford University, where I was a Board member before leaving for the Pentagon. [At Stanford] there was recently a debate on whether to permit military recruiting on campus. Many faculty opposed such recruiting. But they did not oppose the tens of millions of dollars a year Stanford receives from the Federal Government; money which would be withdrawn if military recruiting were banned.
“And yet, they do not seem to have learned their lesson. Who do you think are now the loudest in proclaiming that universities need vast amounts of Federal aid for research into domestic problems – for scholarships for minorities, and for professorships in minority studies? So many of our left-wing intellectuals seem to think they can have it both ways: public money, but no public control. Well, they are learning the hard way what we believers in free enterprise have been saying all along: Federal aid means Federal control.”
Packard says the choice to refuse Federal aid – and thereby avoid Federal control, “is a desirable course wherever possible….The trouble is that Federal control has expanded much faster and much further than Federal aid. The tenor of the times is expanding Federal control. I am sure the expansion can not be stopped, but I do believe it can and should be slowed – better directed and made more constructive. The way to do this – and I believe the only way – is through better self discipline by the people involved and better leadership from the people involved – the business community, the publishing community, and indeed, all other private communities of our society.”
. “As I have said many times to my friends in [the defense] industry, if you don’t want a Senator Proxmire to chastize [sic] you for a C-5A program, don’t screw up the program so you deserve to be chastized. [sic]
“That is the lesson we in business and industry have not learned very well. Ralph Nader would not have enough credibility to get an audience if there was really no merit to his complaints. The environmentalists would have little influence if they were entirely wrong in what the say. The critics of the press could be ignored or would cease to exist if the press were, in fact, beyond criticism.”
Packard says he thinks “the increased criticism of business, at least in part, is the direct result of a lack of sufficient social awareness in the business community. I think that there are a number of reasons that businessmen resist [the] idea that they have social responsibilities, but I would like to point out these very same businessmen are the first people to spend lots of their free time helping out the lady down the street who just became a widow, or taking the kids next door on a camping trip while their father is in the hospital.”
Packard says he realizes “what is called a socially responsible activity is always changing….While perhaps exasperating, these shifts are natural. The needs of society change; as soon as society has conquered a certain problem, such as poor working conditions or inadequate higher education, it moves on to another problem. The businessman who fails to keep up with the trends of thought in society does so at his own risk, and, I might add, at the risk of society. The businessman, as we say in engineering, gets ahead of the power curve so he has some chance to direct its course instead of just letting it drag him along.”
“Businessmen must find ways by which they can help guide the overall thinking on a social issue. Take, for example, the environment. Already, we see two distinct lines of thought emerging: the one says that technology can be used to cure the ills created by technology; the other says virtually the opposite: that we should dramatically cut back our whole productive mechanism. The thoughtful businessman is better able than most so-called environmentalists to make an intelligent judgment on this score. How difficult it will be to clean up waste? Are new technologies designed to clean up waste likely to generate their own problems? How effectively could new low-polluting products replace what we have become accustomed to; in what time period and at what cost?
“Another reason for resisting the idea of social responsibility is a lack of clear guide lines among their colleagues within each industry as to what kind of behavior is proper and right, such as those codes of ethics that exist in the medical and legal professions. Naturally, without such guidelines the competitive forces of business discourage expensive exercises in social responsibility. For example, a steelmaker will be highly reluctant to undertake costly plant changes, thereby driving up his prices, to clean up his waste if he is not confident that such steps are being taken throughout the industry. One obvious solution to this – closer consultation among competitors over environmental issues – is currently discouraged by anti-trust laws. But this is a subject which should be followed up.”
“And finally, I suspect that much resistance to ‘social responsibility’ can be blamed on the way the extremist reformers push their ideas. When a Ralph Nader or a William Proxmire talk about business responsibility, he sounds like a vindictive prosecuting attorney rather than a friend asking for cooperation.
“ I must confess that I sympathize with businessmen who feel this way. I suspect that many corporate critics who tell business what should be their minority quotas, or emission level standards, or whatever, are not only anti-business, but are also hypocritical. They would be the first to squawk if you suggested that Harvard or Yale University has a social responsibility to produce certain kinds of young men and women. Can you imagine the liberal professors at Harvard, so eager to impose their particular standards of social progress on GM or General Foods, agreeing to a group of businessmen establishing measurements for a liberally educated undergraduate?
“ I want to say that I am very concerned about recent proposals to attempt to influence the business conscience by Universities through their investment portfolio. I doubt that General Motors or U.S. Steel could care less about whether or not Yale holds their stock – I am sure it would make no difference to the Hewlett-Packard Co. If these Universities refuse to hold stock they would clearly also have to refuse to accept contributions from these corporations. To one who has worked very hard over the last decade to encourage more corporate support for higher education this would be a disappointing turn of events indeed.
“These crusaders seem bent on looking for villains and scapegoats. For example, all too many ecologists blame businessmen for pollution and proceed to argue that businesses should pay, out of their profits, to clean up the environment. They argue that private enterprise can not, because of its blind adherence to the profit motive, respond to these priority needs of our society. Such anti-free enterprise talk is nonsense.”
“However, despite all their shortcomings, these reformers are talking about issues which the whole country is thinking about. If they were not describing life as a lot of people see it, they would not receive the attention they do. We businessmen must listen to them for the general directions they see in society’s thinking.”
“However, we should be most wary about their particular prescriptions. Everyone in this room knows that if you want something done and you want it done well and fast, there is one segment of our society to turn to: private enterprise. Once society has decided on general goals, free enterprise should have as much to do in implementing the goals as possible. It is imperative, therefore that businessmen take the lead in formulating and carrying out solutions to society’s problems. If government gets there first, salvaging the environment, or whatever, the task will become mired in red tape and duplication of effort and sloth. And, at the same time, additional controls will be imposed on the private sector.
“You in this room have a unique opportunity to help our business community understand the importance of responding to social issues. As publishers to the business world, you are key opinion molders of our free enterprise system. With the degree of objectivity which good publishers and reporters bring to their work, you can look at the broader picture. You can see that, while social responsibility may pose short-run inconveniences, it is very much in the long-run interests of American businessmen. You may not be thanked tomorrow for your efforts, but you will know that you helped to keep business in the vanguard of the American conscience where it must be if it is to remain free.
“Thank you.”
Undated, Copy of a booklet titled What is the Silver Quill?
2/4/70, Copy of the program from a previous award dinner
4/23/72, Advance registration for the American Business Press Eighth Spring Meeting
4/24/72, Copy of the program for the dinner presenting the award to Packard
4/3/72, Press release from ABP announcing the forthcoming award to Packard
4/23/72, Announcement from ABP to all attendees giving travel details
4/24/72, Press release from ABP covering award to Packard
1/31/72, Internal HP memo from Russ Berg to Bob Boniface saying the ABP would like to present the Silver Quill Award to Packard.
1/31/72, Letter to Packard from Charles Mill of ABP describing the award and hope that Packard would be willing to receive it.
2/10/72, Copy of a letter to Charles Mill from Packard saying he would be pleased to accept the award
2/16/72, Copy of a letter to Packard from Charles Mill saying he is delighted Packard is willing to receive the award and enclosing some background material
3/17/72, Letter to Packard from William O’Donnell of ABP, asking for the name of the person with whom they can work on details Packard’s participation in the award dinner
3/20/72, Copy of a letter to William O’Donnell from Margaret Paull sending biographical material
4/14/72, Copy of a letter to Charles Mill from Melvin Laird, saying he will be unable to attend the award dinner and describing Packard’s contributions to the Department of Defense
4/19/72, Letter from President Nixon to Packard saying “It pleased me greatly to know that the American Business Press is presenting its Silver Quill Award to you. Your enduring achievements on behalf of our national defense have set standards which will be a source of strength and inspiration for all who follow you.”
4/20/72, Letter to Packard from William O’Donnell, ABP, saying they are looking forward to Packard’s arrival in Puerto Rico, and discussing local transportation arrangements.
4/25/72, Clipping form Palo Alto Times covering Packard’s speech
Box 3, Folder 28 – General speeches
April 28, 1972, The Businessman as a Public Official, San Francisco, CA
Packard was one of a panel of speakers at this Conference sponsored by the University of California School of Business Administration.
4/28/72, Set of 3×5” cards upon which Packard wrote some notes for his remarks. Hs notes are in brief outline form.
“Wide range of both private enterprises – corporate officials, government clerk – cabinet secretary
“Impression of government works because there are thousands of dedicated public servants – not because of the wisdom of the Congress or the elected and appointed officials.
“Where was my experience [in business] useful [in the DOD]: administration, decision making, technical knowledge
“Where was my experience of no value: dealing with Congress, good committees, bad committees; dealing with the public, simply had not done.
“Some problems: conflict of interest. Some useful programs, executive interchange
“Businessmen are no more able to reform government than anyone else.
“Did I learn anything useful?
3/8/72, Letter to Packard from Richard H. Holton, Dean School of Business Administration, discussing arrangements for the conference. A copy of the typewritten program is attached.
4/20/72, Letter to Packard from Dean Holton, saying they plan to tape the talks
4/24/72, Letter to Packard from Donald Fraser, member of the Executive Committee of the Business School, saying he will be Packard’s host contact during the conference
Box 3, Folder 29 – General Speeches
May 1, 1972, Investing in America, San Francisco, CA
5/1/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech
Since the organization, Invest-In-America, is directed primarily at educating young people about the importance of savings and corporate profits, Packard tells his audience he will direct his comments to the young students invited to attend – since “I found it very difficult to think of anything I could say today that most of you do not already know.”
“What do we mean by ‘Invest-In-America?’ Packard asks. “Fundamentally, it means that we are working to promote the importance of the concept that individuals in America have the opportunity to invest their money…and also their time and energy and knowledge in enterprises of their personal choice.” Packard makes it clear that “This investment opportunity is not unique to America – it is also found in all countries which have not adopted the communist philosophy. The freedom of individuals to have the choice of investment is one of the important – indeed essential – freedoms of America and the entire free world.
“This option is not available to people in Communist countries. They are not allowed to own anything of substance, and no part of the productive establishment. In fact, an individual in those countries cannot own his own home, unless he has built it himself. These peoples have been sold the phony bill of goods that the productive establishment of their country belongs to the people – but nothing could be further from the truth. They cannot sell their share, not can they buy a larger share. Under Communism there is no such thing as ownership in the sense that the individual has anything to say about that share of the business or industry that supposedly belong to him as ‘one of the people.’ The people have no voice in how the productive establishment is to be operated.
Packard explains that freedom to invest is important “to provide the capital for our growing economy. These investments have a direct relationship to economic growth and progress.” And he adds that “growth is necessary if our country is to remain economically strong – an absolute must if we are to provide leadership in attaining the goals of peace and understanding among the countries of the world. Economic growth is also necessary if we are to continue our battle to improve the standards of living for every American. Economic growth means that there will be more dollars available to the hundreds and hundreds of charitable organizations and institutions throughout America who are working on the problems of the elderly, the disadvantaged, the handicapped. And, of course, economic growth on a national scale means economic growth on the individual scale, through improved earnings and benefits, and through the growth of personal investment.”
Packard also emphasizes the importance of freedom of investment of becoming a “part of the action in our economy….you can become, as a stockholder, a partner in the business you have chosen to invest in….
“It is through this process that millions of people have been able to participate in and benefit from the growth and success of the American economy on an individual basis.”
Packard tells how people in America can obtain financing for their business enterprises. “Decisions can be made by the people who will be able to implement those decisions and succeed or fail on the decisions they have made.
“Why is that important?,” Packard asks. “Why can’t a central authority decide what is to be produced and who is to produce it?…Wouldn’t it allow the resources of society to be allocated so as to produce on the most efficient basis the things the society needs.?
“The problem here,” Packard responds, “is that no one in a position of central authority, which would be the government, is that smart.”
As evidence,…”compare the range of products available at any shopping center in America with those available in any shop in Russia.”
Packard gives what he feels are the two most important benefits from a private investment economy – “First, it gives every American an opportunity to participate on a personal basis in our economic growth. Secondly, the economy is made more responsive to the needs and desires of the individual in our society through the individual investment process. It is an automatic and very efficient selection system. If you can build a better mousetrap you will be a success – and if you have this ability.”
Packard suggests there are other kinds of investments which have made America great. It is not just the stock or bonds you buy – or the money you put in a savings account and which in turn can be invested in a productive endeavor – it is also the time and energy and knowledge of millions of people which has been invested in endeavors of public service that have helped make America the great country it is today.”
“What is needed are businessmen, financiers, writers, and all sorts of professionals using their special talents, each should spend enough time to become familiar and sympathetic with the needs not only of a certain problem area – say fighting cancer
–but of the total organization. This would become his “other business.”
“I’d like to emphasize that I think the word ‘charity’ is a misnomer. The money and the time given to so-called charitable enterprises is in a very real sense investing in America. The value of this great personal investment by Americans of their substance, their time, and their talent is probably beyond measure. Whatever its measure, it is without any doubt becoming more important as our society becomes more complex.”
“I would like to say a word about the importance of a favorable climate to this investment process. Incentives to investment have been built into the tax laws—special rates for taxing capital gains, investment credit, special depreciation allowances. These special tax considerations have done much to make a high private investment rate possible in America. These tax provisions have brought about business expansion, more jobs, and better and lower cost products than would have been possible otherwise. Recently we have seen the emergence of a tax reform movement—an issue receiving considerable attention during the current wave of political campaigning. The people who are now talking about tax reform are talking mainly about closing so-called loopholes. These so-called loopholes they are talking about closing include mainly those incentives that have been built to encourage investment in America. The tax provisions for capital gains is one of the greatest incentives to invest in America. The reformers propose to apply a full tax on capital gains. This means that if someone in the 60% tax bracket sells a stock, he must pay 60% tax on his capital gains rather than 25%. I’m sure you can see the effect this would have on the free flow of capital.”
Packard goes on to depletion allowances, saying they “are provided as an incentive for investment in exploration and development and have played a crucial role in insuring that we have the natural resources, the necessary gas and oil, and other natural resources to supply our expanding economy. Elimination of this allowance would undoubtedly increase our reliance on imports at a time when our balance of trade is already in trouble.
“The Revenue Act of 1971 restored the investment credit, expanded deductions for charitable giving and was generally constructive to private investment. The tax reform proposals now advocated by the leading Democratic candidates would roll back these gains as well as other longstanding incentives to private investment. The proposed tax reform would be a severe blow to investing in America.
“Economic growth is part and parcel of the spirit of progress, exploration, and adventure that pervades the Western world. The spirit that encourages our investment in tomorrow is the same that makes us want to go to the moon or explore the mysteries of the atom, or inquire into the basic life processes. It is the spirit of American free enterprise.
“Economic growth gives us something to look forward to, to work for. It lets us anticipate a better life, with the hope and goal of an ever-improving standard of living and expansion of opportunities for all Americans.
“The stakes of American free enterprise are the stakes of investment in America. For efforts to keep alive this great and important tradition, I salute you.
“Thank you.”
2/3/72, Letter to Packard from H. J. Haynes, President Standard Oil Company of California, inviting Packard to speak at the 18th annual Invest-In-America luncheon. Attachments give background information
2/23/72, Copy of a letter to H. J. Haynes from Packard, accepting the invitation.
2/29/72, Letter to Packard from H. J. Haynes saying he is delighted that Packard has accepted their invitation to speak
4/12/72, Copy of the formal invitation to the luncheon, and printed program
5/1/72, Letter to Packard from H. J. Haynes thanking Packard for his “most realistic presentation at the luncheon
5/2/72, Letter to Packard from Robert R. Gros asking for a copy of Packard’s speech which he wants to send to the Freedoms Foundation
5/4/72, Copy of a letter to the Freedoms Foundation from Ivy Lee, Jr. sending them a copy of Packard’s speech
5/11/72, Letter to Packard from Ivy Lee Jr. enclosing photographs taken at the luncheon
5/2/72, Clipping from the San Francisco Chronicle covering Packard’s speech
Box 3, Folder 30 – General Speeches
May 10, 1972 Invest in America, Annual Achievement Banquet, San Jose State College, CA
In the words of the School “The primary purpose of the banquet is to present awards to deserving business students. Each of the seven departments of the School selects students, who, on the basis of certain qualifications, have been nominated to receive either a financial award or a plaque, or similar item of recognition, donated by various local and national organizations or corporations.”
5/10/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech
Packard says he is pleased “to be speaking before a group of young men and women who are embarking on a career in business.” He says his own career in business has been challenging and exciting and he is confident theirs will be too….”America is teeming with opportunities for ambitious young businessmen and businesswomen.”
Packard wonders why young people sometimes think careers in business are considered ‘boring’ or ‘ignoble.’ “It might seem that there are some necessary
projects which can only be performed by government, such as pollution control. But the fact is, anything as big as pollution control cannot be handled by government alone. Strong control would bring chaos and inertia to the work necessary to solve the problems of pollution. There would be chaos, because there are simply too many millions of day-to-day decisions –affecting jobs, paychecks and progress in other areas, as well as the environment – for Washington bureaucrats to handle the problem intelligently. And there would be inertia, because once Americans think Uncle Sam will do the job, they forget their own responsibilities.”
“Businessmen are perhaps the most important group of private citizens that should involve themselves in social efforts such as the pollution battle.” Explaining this statement, he says businessmen would have a better practical understanding of the technology required, would have a better appreciation of the value of the dollar, and would have more flexibility, allowing him to try alternatives and switch to the best one.
“By contrast, the bureaucrat…cannot use funds for other than legislated purposes. Even if he can save or generate money through above-average efficiency….The result is to discourage new, more effective programs and to perpetuate old programs, however inefficient they may be.”
Packard also feels the businessman “can be more objective than the politician in appraising social action programs. Trained in the hard realities of profit-and-loss statements, he will more likely scrutinize the effectiveness of a given program and be less swayed by its lofty-sounding, if unattainable, goals.”
“Nowhere is the need for efficient administrators more evident than in the Defense Department. The enormous size of the operation, the massive procurement problems, and the importance of national security makes the pentagon a prime candidate for business management techniques.”
Packard says when he and Mel Laird first came to the Defense Department they found many problems – cost over-runs in procurement, poor communications, poor intelligence, scandals, and friction in the chain of command.
“Yet, as I worked with the people in the Department, I found them to be as capable individuals as you would find in the best business organizations of the country.”
“Why, then, were there so many management problems? The answer, in my opinion, is very simple. Managing the department of defense is a political job as well as a business management job. Secretary Laird and I were able to bring about some improvements in the management of the Department during the past few years because he could handle the political side, while I could give some attention to the management side.”
Packard reports that they “were able to make some major strides forward in procurement. We improved the training, selection, and recognition of procurement officers. We established a new procurement school. We worked out the fly-before-you-buy concept, under which costs of development are separated out from costs of production.”
“Unhappily, however, I must report that Congressional meddling in Pentagon affairs prohibited us from taking many other much-needed steps. There were, as always, Congressmen fighting to bring bases and contracts to their home districts. And there was the new phenomena of left-wing Congressmen finding fault with all major new weapons systems, whatever their merits or however efficient they might be.”
“And these fault finders spoke not with a spirit of constructive criticism, but with the belligerency of headline-hungry opportunists. Time and time again, they distorted facts and used them out of context, simply to make a point that might embarrass the military and hit the front pages. During the three years I spent in the Pentagon these critics did not bring to light a single problem that was not already well understood and being worked on by competent professional people.”
“And yet they certainly did contribute to inefficiency in the Defense Department. We wasted thousands of man hours responding to Congressional interrogations – which were inspired to impress the people back home, not to contribute to the solution of a problem.”
“I further regret to say that uninformed Congressional criticism is not limited to management problems in the Pentagon. It extends to our overall foreign policy, and in recent months has taken on an ominously isolationist tone. Look, for example, at the recent Senate vote to kill the Foreign Aid program overnight, with no provisions to effectively phase out the program, or provide for adequate substitutes.”
“Perhaps the most dramatic evidence of the current isolationist fever is the defense platform of senator George McGovern. McGovern, remember, currently leads the democratic field in terms of committed delegates. And, after being dismissed a scant two months ago as a splinter candidate, now has a very good chance of winning the Democratic presidential nomination.
“He would cut the Marine Corps from 200,000 to 140,000 by 1975. He would recommend that the Air Force be cut from 750,000 to 475,000. Deployment of the SAFEGUARD system would be halted. The development of the B-1 bomber, a very important element of our future strategic nuclear capability, also would be halted he would stop the F15 development, which is the most important program we have to keep ahead of the Soviets in tactical air power.
“In short, Senator McGovern wold disarm the United States and gamble the future of our country on the goodwill of the Soviet Union.
“Senators aren’t the only ones whose irrationality is pushing America towards isolationism. While I was in Washington, I heard scientists use their reputations gained in unrelated fields to influence legislation to stultify national defense programs—particularly the all-important nuclear programs. I heard distinguished newsmen favor Hanoi, Moscow, and New Delhi over America in their reporting. I heard mindless criticism flooding in from academe.
Packard anticipates that some may ask what is wrong with isolating ourselves from the world?
“The answer to this is that we no longer live in the 1920s. We can no longer shut out the world. If we do not actively pursue peace around the world, war originating elsewhere in the world will end up dragging us in, as they have in the past.” And Packard recalls Neville Chamberlain coming back from Munich with an agreement which was to be ‘Peace in Our time’ in 1938.”
“And even if we do steer clear of war, a hostile power dominating Europe and controlling the Middle East, the Indian Ocean, and the western shores of the Pacific, would inevitably limit our ability to contribute political, economic, and cultural leadership to other countries around the world.
“Let there be no doubt that a hostile power does threaten to dominate both Europe and these other important areas of the world. I am referring, of course, to the Soviet Union.”
“While the Soviet Union is probably not realistically planning all-out war against either western Europe or the United States, it undoubtedly does expect to reap political and strategic gains from its recent arms build-up.”
“We can no longer be sure we could deter the Soviets in the way we did during the 1962 Cuban Missile crises.
“The Soviets increasing naval strength will give them much greater power and flexibility in many areas of the world. The Eastern Mediterranean is perhaps the most critical. But the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific are areas where they could become the dominant power….In simple terms, if we withdraw from the world, the Soviets will become the dominant power in the world and we will become a second-rate nation.
“While we would not necessarily face an immediate Communist take-over at home, we would become, like other nations that have recently withdrawn from world affairs, a has-been nation. I hope that’s not the kind of a future you young people want to look forward to.”
Packard explains that this series of events would have economic repercussions as well. “All sorts of initiatives, described as efforts to restrict ‘U.S. Imperialism,’ would whittle away at our international commerce. Without a strong military to rely on, we would be forced to yield again and again.
“This would do serious harm to our economy. Many of our key industries depend heavily on foreign trade. Many of our natural resources come from abroad, and sole reliance on domestic sources would quickly deplete our reserves. Our shipping and air transport industries, of course, are highly dependent on a high level of foreign trade, and our high technology industries rely heavily on exports for sales.”
“It is folly to pretend, as so many politicians do, that we can isolate ourselves from the world without catastrophic effects to our national security, our economic well-being and, even more fundamentally, our national spirit.
“I say ‘our national spirit’ because the greatness of America has always been the spirit of growth, development, adventure, and search for new horizons. This is the soul of America, and it is also the soul of youth. Those who would suffer most, if we cannot shed our national introspection, will be the young people of America. Young people, who are just beginning their lives and want the chance to grow with their country—the same chance their parents and granPackardarents had. I hope, therefore, that you in this room—particularly you students—will join with those of us fighting to keep America self-confident, a leader and a participant in the expanding opportunities of all the world.
“Thank you for your interest and attention.”
5/10/72, Printed program for the Fourteenth Annual Achievement Banquet Program
5/10/72, Printed brochure about the School of Business
2/11/72, Letter to Packard from George Stauss, Professor, San Jose State College, inviting Packard to be the guest speaker at their Annual Achievement Banquet
2/22/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to George Stauss accepting the invitation
3/7/72, Letter to Packard giving details of the banquet
4/30/72, Clipping from the San Jose Mercury News saying Packard is to speak to Business School Grads
5/4/72, Internal HP memorandum from Security Chief Dick Coulter to Packard telling him that the Santa Clara Police expect some 300 students and non-students to hold a ‘mock trial’ in an attempt to disrupt his speaking. The memo discusses security for transporting Packard to and from the banquet.
5/9/72, Memo from Dick Coulter to Margaret Paull discussing further security details
5/10/72, Typed statement which appears to have been written (and perhaps spoken at the banquet) by John H. Bunzel, President of San Jose State College. The statement is his reply to an accusation that he brings disgrace to himself and the College by associating with David Packard, ‘a man who has blood on his hands.’
5/10/72, Handwritten letter to Packard from a Tom Gautner enclosing a “Wanted poster” circulated by protesters. The letter wishes Packard well.
5/11/72, Clipping from the San Jose Mercury News covering Packard’s speech
5/12/72, Letter to Packard from George Stauss thanking him taking ‘such a personal interest in our business students at our recent Achievement Banquet.’
5/15/72, Letter to Packard from Millburn D. Wright, Dean of the School of Business, thanking him for speaking at their banquet.
6/30/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Marlene Stauss thanking her for making him a ‘special’ tie, and saying he “appreciates it very much.”
Undated, Newspaper clipping telling of Packard’s forthcoming speech
Undated, More samples of protest flyers
Box 3, Folder 31 – General speeches
May 18, 1972, Military Affairs Luncheon, San Francisco, CA, Chamber of Commerce
5/18/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech
“We are gathered here today to honor the men and women who serve America in the uniform of their country….They are great people, and they deserve and need the understanding and support of every loyal American.”
Packard says he was “most impressed” with the men and women in the Armed Forces while he was at the Pentagon – with their efficiency, their dedication. “It is often fashionable to characterize men who make a career of the military as unable to do anything else. [They] seem to believe…that military service is not noble, and therefore attracts people for only the basest reasons. This is simply not true. Most soldiers, particularly those who devote their lives to the military, believe strongly in the need for and the importance of the security of our country. They know that America must remain strong if America is to remain free.”
Packard cites many other reasons why men and women are attracted to military life – the outdoor life, being in an organization which has precision and efficiency, professional opportunities such engineering, flying, navigation, communications.
“People trying to downgrade the calibre [sic] of our servicemen often point to drug and race problems in Vietnam, and many of our newspapers are all too happy to play up these themes. But how often do we read about the winners of medals for heroism, or the soldiers in Vietnam who work off-hours to help teach Vietnamese kids English or help Vietnamese families build better houses?”
Packard recalls that Senator Fulbright charged that American troops were turning Saigon into a brothel. “But how much news coverage has been given to the lasting friendships developed between Americans and Vietnamese? Or about the foreign girls American soldiers marry during their overseas tours?”
Packard says he is “sickened” when he hears of “spoiled young elitists on our college campuses demonstrating against President Nixon’s efforts to resist blatant aggression. And even those students who only circulate petitions –like the one to cut off all supplies to our men who are in Vietnam – are not much better. They hurt our troops’ morale and encourage the North Vietnamese to continue their aggression…perhaps causing irreparable damage…to our national security.”
“A particularly regrettable result of student dissent is the removal of ROTC programs from many of our so-called prestige colleges. These ROTC programs were providing some of our best young officers – men who could eventually move to the highest levels. And now that we are moving to a smaller Army, it becomes increasingly important that our leaders be the best available; quality must substitute for quantity.
“Our colleges and universities have a responsibility to contribute to the quality of training and leadership of our Armed forces. Those that do not, deserve the support of neither the Federal Government nor the general public.
“Personally, I have nothing but contempt for the college and university Presidents who approved the removal of ROTC from their compuses. I do not exempt Stanford from this judgment, despite all the time, energy, and substance I have devoted to my Alma Mater.”
Before leaving the subject of ROTC, Packard points out that “certain institutions are considering reinstating ROTC.” And he adds that “during the last three years, when ROTC programs were being thrown off 38 of the ‘elite’ universities, 58 new ROTC programs were established at other colleges – particularly in the West and the South. It would seem that, once again it has been demonstrated that the great common sense of the country is not very well represented at the Harvards, the Yales, and the Stanfords.”
Packard says there are other places where “irrationality over the military” can be found – “emotional anti-military harangues from columnists, liberal Congressmen and others.”
Packard feels “disenchantment with the Vietnamese war underlies much of this anti-military fervor. Many Americans – disenchanted with the war and puzzled as to what went wrong – turned against the military as the most visible symbol of our problems in Vietnam. While unfair, at least this reaction is rooted in genuine bewilderment.
“But there is another source of anti-military rhetoric which is nowhere near as innocent. And that is the liberals who got us into the war in the first lace. Having seen the war going badly, they looked for a scapegoat that would turn attention away from their failures. The military, highly visible and misunderstood by many Americans, was the obvious target.
“Incidents such as My Lai fell right into the critics’ hands. For at My Lai the military clearly abused their power. The liberal line, peddled by politicians and press alike, tended to downplay the extreme provocations Calley faced and the fact that none of our other officers, despite similar provocations, have overreacted. Instead, we heard over and over about alleged cover-ups and the obvious brutality of the killings. The message was loud and clear: ‘The military is out of control, we liberals who started this war wash our hands of it.’
“In point of fact, of course, far from getting out of control, our soldiers in Vietnam have been the victims of excessive civilian controls. Our political leaders permitted Cambodia to be used as a sanctuary of the North Vietnamese. Prior to 1970 the Communists were allowed to bring supplies through the Port of Sihanoukville and establish bases 35 miles from Saigon and all along the border of south Vietnam.”
“Ground action to cut the HO Chi Min trail was avoided and many other constraints were placed on our military people in Vietnam.
“There were reasons for this civilian control and reasons why specific actions were taken or were not taken. When they did not work out, however, it is not the military that should be given the blame.”
Packard refers to critics who have started “peddling the line that our war effort is aggressive, aimed not at preserving world peace but at securing bases, winning economic gains, or even giving our soldiers the sheer joy of killing.” He finds the last idea “simply beyond belief.”
“As to the notion that we seek some sort of permanent economic or territorial advantage, America’s record during the twentieth century speaks for itself. Despite winning three wars, we have neither sought nor gained a single economic concession or permanent territorial gain. In striking contrast, wealth and territory were central war aims of the totalitarian powers we fought against.
“Our goal has been simple enough: lasting peace. We have been willing to spend hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars to achieve this simple goal.”
But Packard says he regrets that “we do not seem to have learned the first lesson of international politics: military strength and an active foreign policy are necessary to achieve a lasting peace. After World War I, which might have been prevented by active American diplomacy, we were pulled into another great war, which firm resistance to early Nazi aggression could have prevented. After World War II, we brought all our troops home and excluded vital segments of the Asian rim from our defense perimeter. This folly led to the Korean war and confrontation with the Soviet Union in eastern and southeastern Europe.
“Now many Americans would have us once again withdraw from world affairs and a strong defense posture. What new war would this bring? I would like to ask.
“In this day and age, I believe that the best chance the world has to limit the extent of war is for the leading nations of the world to be strong enough to deter attacks upon each other and then be willing to cooperate in responsible ways to minimize conflict among the smaller nations of the world.”
“In planning for the future, there are two programs worth special mention. One is to provide for substantial improvements in the responsiveness and survivability of the command and control of our strategic nuclear forces. This program is so urgent that the President requested a supplemental appropriation for the fiscal 1972 budget to accelerate it.
“The other is ULMS (Undersea Long-Range Missile Submarine Force). This program is essential to provide survivable submarine-based missiles to replace our aging Polaris-Poseidon force. The ULMS submarines can be based at home, under the protection of our fleet. Our allies are showing increasing reservations about allowing U.S. nuclear weapons on their territory, and it is therefore prudent to have submarines which can be based at home as soon as possible.
“The Nixon Administration has also been moving ahead on conventional forces.” And he names several weapons systems – the F-15, the Ax, the F-14, the Harrier and the Agile missile. “We increased the Navy shipbuilding budget by some $2 billion, which increases the production of nuclear attack submarines, modern destroyers and frigates. We have two nuclear carriers under construction and have requested funds for the third in the fiscal year 1973 budget.”
“And R and D has been increased. We increased it from $7 billion in 1971 to $7.7 billion this year, and we requested $8.5 billion for fiscal year 1973.”
“ Because of all these efforts, we have been able to bargain from strength, and the results are encouraging. We have reached agreements on Berlin, germ warfare, and the prohibition of nuclear weapons on ocean seabeds.
“We have made progress on the strategic arms limitations talks, and this round of negotiations is a magnificent example of the advantage of bargaining from strength. Our decision to move ahead on ABM and other strategic systems has induced the Soviets to negotiate seriously. Had we taken the advice of certain left-wing Senators and abandoned these projects – in effect, unilaterally disarmed – the Soviets would have been pleased. But they would have had no motivation to work toward an arms limitation agreement with us.
“Unfortunately, we have not yet reached the second requirement for the possibility of permanent world peace – the ability of the superpowers to keep wars from breaking out in smaller countries.
“This, of course, is no easy matter. An increasing number of nations resent what they consider big-power meddling, even when peace is the objective.
“Furthermore, there are fundamental differences between the Soviet Union and the United States which may prevent cooperative peace-keeping. Soviet arms shipments to North Vietnam and provocations in the Middle East testify to the inherent problems in any scheme of superpower peace-keeping.”
“It is important that this support be translated into specific actions that will demonstrate to our soldiers and sailors how much we appreciate them, and how much esteem we have for those who make a career of the military. It will become increasingly important to encourage men and women to stay in the Armed Services as we move to an all-volunteer Army, since the all-volunteer army will eliminate many draft-induced enlistments.”
Packard has some recommendations which members of the audience can do to help: placing veterans in jobs, involving the Presidio personnel in things like parades and other community action projects.
He recommends encouraging reservists, “since our smaller active forces will require a strong and ready reserve.”
“These are just a few suggestions, and I am sure all of you have your own ideas as to how to better recognize the fine young men and women who are serving you and your country.
“Let’s make every day Armed Forces Day!”
5/18/72, Copy of the program for the day’s events
12/27/71, Letter to Packard from Ben Swig, Chairman, Military Affairs Committee, inviting Packard to be the guest speaker at the Chamber of Commerce’s Military Affairs Luncheon.
12/29/71, Copy of a letter from Packard to Ben Swig accepting the invitation to speak.
1/6/71 [sic], Letter to Packard from Ben Swig thanking him for accepting their invitation.
5/12/72, Letter to Packard from Lex J. Byers, Coordinator Military Affairs Luncheon, enclosing ticket for the head table.
5/18/72, Letter to Packard from James M. Gere, a professor at Stanford, saying he shares Packard’s feelings about support for ROTC , and that he has been embarrassed by the actions of some of his colleagues.
5/18/72, Letter to Packard from Finley Carter congratulating him on his speech.
5/19/72, Letter to Packard from Ralph N. Cole, a Stanford grad, thanking him for his speech. He encloses a copy of a letter to President Richard Lyman of Stanford from himself expressing “dismay and outrage” at President Lyman’s recent letter to President Nixon expressing “dismay and outrage” at the bombing of North Vietnam.
5/20/72, Letter to Packard from Walter M. Morand agreeing with Packard’s point of view. A news clipping is attached.
5/21/72, A handwritten letter to Packard from Bert L. Frescura who says he is an employee of HP, attending Stanford on the Honors Cooperative Program. He says he agrees with Packard’s viewpoint on the ROTC.
5/21/72, Handwritten letter to Packard from Darwin F. Godfrey, saying he was pleased to hear Packard’s comments.
5/21/72, Note to Packard from Archie Brown, saying it was with “deep satisfaction” that he read Packard’s comments.
5/22/72, Letter to Packard from Mark A. Whalen, Rear Admiral U. S. Coast Guard, saying he appreciated the opportunity to hear Packard speak.
5/22/72, Letter to Packard from J. Richard Finnegan saying he was delighted with Packard’s comments and asking for a copy.
5/22/72, Letter to Packard from Robert E. Franck applauding Packard for his speech.
6/7/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Robert E. Franck thanking him for his letter.
5/23/72, Handwritten note to Packard from George S. Harman, saying it was a pleasure to read Packard’s speech, and enclosing a news clipping.
5/24/72, Letter to Packard from Alfred D. Kirkland agreeing with Packard’s comments.
5/25/72, Letter to Packard from Prentis Hale congratulating Packard on his speech.
5/25/72, Letter to Packard from Edwin Tilton thanking Packard for his speech.
5/30/72, Letter to Packard from Willard G. Houghton congratulating Packard on his thoughts.
6/7/72, Letter to Packard from Allan G. Tate agreeing with his comments
5/18/72, Clipping from Palo Alto Times covering Packard’s speech
5/19/72, Clipping form Stanford Daily reporting on Packard’s speech
5/29/72, Clipping from unnamed newspaper with letters to editor disagreeing with Packard
Undated, Clipping from unnamed paper covering Packard’s speech
Box 3, Folder 32 – General Speeches
May 23, 1972, Annual Awards Luncheon, San Francisco, Jr. Chamber of Commerce
5/23/72, Typed text of Packard’s speech
Saying that there is “a certain exhilaration for young people who have their careers ahead of them”, Packard recalls some of the achievements when HP was starting: building the first building , having a hundred people on the payroll, starting a plant in Germany….
“For nearly two hundred years there have been great opportunities for young people in America …a satisfying life in this free enterprise economy.” He says we face a question as to whether “ these kinds of opportunities [will] continue and be there for your children as well.”
He wonders if we are caught in some “irresistible and irreversible thrust” toward a “people’s democracy” as the revolutionaries and communists say. He says he doesn’t know if the tide we are caught in is irresistible and irreversible, but he says it may become so “and overwhelm our free institutions and destroy our individual freedom unless we take it more seriously and do something about it.”
Packard describes some candidates who are running for office as the ‘people’s candidate.’ “What this means,” he says, “is they want to give the fruits of your labor to the so-called ‘people.’ To the ‘people’ who are protesting in the streets….Where this kind of radical gets elected, he will seek to destroy the opportunity for the accomplishments we are honoring here today.”
Packard also says he is “greatly troubled” by the candidacy of George McGovern, the leading Democratic candidate. “McGovern,” he says, ”would cut thirty billion dollars from the Defense budget. Such a cut would, in effect, disarm America and destroy our opportunity for world leadership. Furthermore it would destroy the jobs of three million people who are working to keep America strong.” He refers to McGovern’s talk of finding jobs for everyone as “old New Deal WPA.”
Packard tells his audience there are two things they and he can do about this situation. “The first is a short term action and is very simple – get out and work for candidates on the local, state, and national level who will fight for the preservation of our free enterprise system.
“The longer term action which the business community must take is to recognize and deal with some of the problems which radical liberals are exploiting. Businessmen can deal effectively with the problems of our society both in their professional role and in what they do in their extra-curricular activities.”
“Many critics charge that business ought to be more ‘responsive to pressing problems,’ that it ought to ‘put people above profits,’ that it ought to develop a ‘social conscience,’ that it ought to ‘put human rights above property rights’ and on and on. My response to such critics is ”how many payrolls did you meet this week? What useful products have you placed in the hands of an overworked housewife or busy businessman?” Packard says business is not “some special interest” divorced from the mainstream of society. “…private enterprise is a remarkable effective mechanism for meeting the basic needs of everyone in our society.” And he mentions supermarkets, automobiles, housing, the garment industry, and he asks “Where is there a country or a system with the standard of living so high? Where is there a country with such a great opportunity for an individual to improve his personal situation?”
So, then, “What is wrong? Why is business vulnerable to criticism and attack? One reason these anti-business attitudes have gained ground, I regret to say, is that all too often businessmen have not behaved like good neighbors. They have put short-term gains ahead of their long-term reputation.”
Packard describes some business people who cheat customers and take advantage the unsophisticated, “Sharksters” he calls them, and says they give all businessmen a bad name. “Doctors and lawyers regulate themselves, and this is the reason they have become known as professionals. When other elements of business and industry impose the same stiff standards on themselves, they will have taken a giant step towards professionalism.
“The responsible businessman also thinks about what special effort he can make to help the community. I like to call this investing in the community. This may be helping a charity—a local college, dance troupe, or hospital. Or it may be something in your own business that represents an extraordinary expense.”
“Investing in the community does not necessarily mean doing what other people tell us needs to be done. It means doing what we can do, in the most responsible way.”
“The point is, let your conscience, not political fads, be your guide to investment in the community.
“If you are contributing substantial money to outside charities, I urge that you contribute your time as well—that you roll up your sleeves and get involved in the management of your favorite charities.”
Packard feels business can bring a fresh perspective to community enterprises, and he gives the example of education. “During the campus demonstrations of the 1960s academic administrator after academic administrator bowed to, and at times encouraged, the rhetoric that breaking windows and heckling speakers are ‘symbolic free speech’ and that a university should be a place of political activism. The result, predictable, was public revulsion with higher education. The natural question was asked everywhere: Why should I pay taxes or make contributions to support rioting?”
Packard says, “Our universities today would be stronger and more widely respected if, during the 1960s, boards of Trustees around the country had exerted control over the day-to-day functioning of our universities.” He acknowledges this would not have been easy, and adds that “you would be amazed at the marvelous arguments university staffs have as to why contributors and Board members should stick to giving money and forget about how their money is being spent”
As another example of how businessmen might contribute to community organizations Packard says “…look at how resistant charities can be to cost-benefit analyses. Many general purpose hospitals are spending vast amounts of money on specialized programs—such as nurse-training—which could be handled much more efficiently at specialist hospitals. Often these services have become an established part of a hospital’s self-image, and a thoroughly objective cost-benefit analysis is never applied.
“Another talent businessmen can bring to charities is setting up quantitative goals. They do this in their own organizations all the times: whether it is market share, return-on-investment, earnings per share, or whatever. Such tangible goals provide a common target for employees, and, if well chosen, can be great morale-builders.”
“Businessmen working in charities could help set up quantitative goals and keep them sophisticated and updated. If, for example, you are working with a hospital, it might be worthwhile to set a goal of holding the average daily cost to patients to a 2 percent annual rise over three years. Adjustments for inflation or other extraordinary effects would be made regularly. This goal might encourage greater efficiency among workers, especially if incentive payments were reasonable and could be instituted.”
“I am firmly convinced that the private business community can help in meeting the social needs of our country more effectively than can the government, either local, state, or national.
“But there are many candidates running this year who do not believe this. They are against what you and I believe in and stand for. They would have the federal government take on more and more and more. They must not be elected to office if we are to reverse this trend toward socialism. That is your short term job, and it is very important this year.
“Over the longer term we must all continue to see that free enterprise American business meets the needs of our society. Not just the goods and services for our customers, and the wages and benefits for our employees, and the profits for our stockholders and on which our businesses depend for stability and growth—but we must also as businessmen and businesswomen contribute to the quality of life in the community around us and help the people of this country fulfill their spiritual needs as well as their material needs. That is our longer term job. It is very important, and it will never be finished.
“Thank you.”
5/23/72, Prior draft of Packard’s speech with extensive handwritten sections by Packard
3/28/72, Letter to Packard from Gerald P. Flannerey, President, San Francisco Jr. Chamber of Commerce inviting Packard to be the keynote speaker at their Annual Awards Luncheon in San Francisco.
Feb. 1972, Copy of printed newsletter called the “San Franciscan” published by the Jr. CC
Undated, Copy of a printed brochure called “The War of Apathy,” also from the Jr. CC
5/24/72, Clipping from the San Francisco Chronicle covering Packard’s speech
October, 1972, Copy of a newspaper called “Th Universal Voice.” The paper says it is published by “the International Re-Education Foundation, a non-profit corporation whose purpose is to promote a better man and a better society by the development of human character.”
Box 3, Folder 33 – General Speeches
August 4, 1972, Pepperdine University Commencement Address, Santa Monica, CA
8/4/72, Typewritten copy of Packard’s speech
Speaking to the graduating class at Pepperdine, Packard thinks back to his own years at Stanford. He says a course in American History had a “profound” influence on his thinking. He says he “dreamed about the days when men could leave the troubled civilization of Europe and find unbounded hope and opportunity in America;” – followed, as eastern cities developed, by the call – “go west, young man, go west.”
However, he says there was no “further west to go in 1934,” when he graduated from Stanford.
He admits, however, that as he looks back on what has happened since 1934 he realizes that this has been “as exciting and as adventurous a period for America as any period during the great romantic westward movement.” And just as exciting and satisfying for himself “as anything that might have happened to him if he could have…turned back the clock to the period 1834 to 1872 -–the golden years of the great westward movement.”
Packard pictures the period of the western movement as a time when “there was unlimited land, an abundance of game, and mineral resources to be had for the taking. Life centered around the family, mobility was severely limited, and communication between geographical areas of the country was slow and lacking in detail. For the most part it was an agrarian, non-scientific culture.
“During the first six decades of this century, science and economic development created a new culture. I remember I heard my first radio broadcast in 1922 when I was ten years old. On the dining room table of our home in Pueblo, Colorado, I hooked up a primitive vacuum tube my father had bought for me and the family took turns listening to WHO in Des Moines, Iowa.” He draws the contrast, when, fifty year later the whole world visited China along with President Nixon via man-made satellite in space.”
Packard takes a try at answering a key question that faces the young people graduating today – “What are our opportunities as we step out into the real world?” While “No one can predict what your opportunities will be,” he says…”there is one clue…and that comes from the basic nature of growth. Physical growth tends to be exponential rather than linear.”
But this growth brings its problems as well, Packard acknowledges. “If the usage of many [natural resources] now considered critical to our economy continues to grow at an exponential rate, the world’s supply will be exhausted within your lifetime. Silver, copper, chromium and a number of other metals fall into this category – and even oil could be exhausted in only a few generations.
“Within the past two centuries we have seen the beginning of the end of unlimited resources – first of land and those other things available for the taking, and now even some of the things that have been the products of science. The scarey [sic] thing is that this great change has come about within the memory of people at least some of us have known – our parents and our granPackardarents.
“I suppose the fact that many of you young people are troubled about what your parents and your granPackardarents have done is because we are reaching the point where the traditional attitude – the acceptance of and commitment to exponential growth -–is rapidly bringing our world to an unacceptable situation.
“The evidence of the development of this unacceptable situation, resulting from uncontrolled growth, is mounting – pollution the most obvious. I think a general awareness is evolving, that what we have been doing in the past cannot continue forever in the future – in many respects cannot even continue for very long.
“This is the great challenge for you young people who are graduating in 1972. You may long for things the way they were – or may accept things the way the are, but you are the ones who will have to make things the way they are going to be. You are faced with the awesome task of solving the ecological problems posed by our population and by the demands of our technological society. And as you approach these problems, keep in mind that the goal is to survive not for just another generation or two, but for as long as the sun shall shine – for at least another billion years.
“I will not even attempt to predict what the future holds for you, except to assure each of you that in at least three ways it will be similar to my future in 1934. There will be challenge, there will be change, and there will be opportunity.
“Good luck, and God bless you.”
8/4/72, Six notebook pages handwritten by Packard as a draft of comments to include in his speech.
7/19/72 Clipping form New York Times, with article about rising income during the 1960s. No doubt included as reference material for Packard
5/10/72, Letter to Packard from William S. Banowsky, President of Pepperdine University saying the University would like to award Packard the Degree of Doctor of Laws, and would also like Packard to deliver the commencement address.
6/5/72, Letter to Packard from William Banowsky, giving details for the commencement. Also, apparently in response to a question raised by Packard, assures him that no protest activities are expected.
8/8/72, Letter to Packard from Herbert W. Kalmbach congratulating Packard on his address.
10/31/72,Ttypewritten note to Packard from Norvel Young sending six photos taken at the commencement.
Box 3, Folder 34 – General speeches
September 14, 1972, Annual Meeting, The Salvation Army, San Francisco, CA
9/14/72, Typewritten copy of Packard’s speech
Packard says he is pleased and honored to be here today, because – “In many ways the ideals and the accomplishments of the Salvation Army represent to me the America I was brought up in, and the America I believe in.”
Packard says he appreciates “that after your long and first-hand involvement with the poverty, the ill health, and the degradation which many people of America have suffered for many years, you have not surrendered to the notion that simply more money from the government will cure the social ills of our country.
“I am impressed that you stress the importance of spiritual guidance – and with this foundation you believe that dedicated people who are willing to work for what they believe in can contribute more to the resolution of the problems of our time than billions of dollars of federal funds administered through the often un-informed and inept – and nearly always political and unresponsive – bureaucracy of the federal government, whether it be Republican or Democratic.”
“The pressures are strong indeed to encourage people to believe that if we simply spend more money on our social problems they will be solved. The pressures to encourage people to believe that the government in Washington can do everything are also strong. This belief is well entrenched among the so-called intelligencia in America, and among the so-called liberals in Washington.”
Packard cites some of the reasons why the federal government cannot do those things a private organization like the Salvation Army can do.
“One reason is that all too often federal anti-poverty programs are based on political expediency. Money goes where an influential Congressman thinks there are votes to be had. Of course, the Congress is not the only culprit – the money may go where a member of the Administration thinks it will be useful, rather than where it will be effective.”
Packard points to the Rural Legal Assistance Program, as an example of a federal program with a negative effect. “This program is based on the notion that certain classes of people are oppressed by the so-called “system” and need legal aid to fight back. This brings about the absurd situation in which the federal government supports attacks on the local government in the name of securing justice. I accept the fact that there may be isolated cases in which this procedure could result in the correction of an injustice – but these few instances do not justify the program as it has been conceived.
“People in the federal government can never know as much about the facts of a local situation as the local people. It is hard for me to see the value of a procedure which isolates the decision makers from the facts. In addition, handling matters in this manner does much to make people distrust their government.”
Packard gives more examples to support his conviction that “where a job can be done by volunteer efforts or by an independent organization – be it a private business firm or a public service organization such as the Salvation Army – it will be done better than if done by an agency of the federal government.”
“Let’s look at the current program for unemployment compensation and aid to dependent families. Both have strong built-in incentives not to work.”
Packard agrees there are cases where people do not have a job – and need and deserve help for their families. “In such cases I would much rather depend on the judgment of people interested in the local problem such as the members of the Salvation army who are on the scene and who can carefully and humanely assess the situation, than on the typical person in the Washington bureaucracy who probably does not know what it is all about, and more often than not is interested in helping his record rather than the people who need help.
“Another problem,” Packard says, “is that public welfare programs involve large amounts of money. Where there is big money there are always con men ready for the grab. You are all aware, I am sure, of situations where there have been unlawful diversions of funds.”
Packard commends the Army for its willingness to “toot your own horn.”
“Your singing at Christmas time, your uniforms, and many of your other activities attract attention to your cause and demonstrate that you are willing to acclaim to the public what you believe in.”
Packard says the Salvation Army’s willingness to go out in the streets is good. “By doing this, your members reap a twofold benefit. They are exposed directly and personally to the people they are trying to help. And secondly, they strengthen their personal commitment to solving the problems they encounter.”
“Your use of a uniform particularly interests me, having served in the Pentagon for three years. It seems to me that the uniform helps give members of an organization a sense of identity with their colleagues. I observed in the military that the best soldiers showed pride in their uniform – and that this pride in the uniform in turn turned into a kind of pride in the service.
Furthermore, the uniform brings your organization to the attention of others. And – in the case of the salvation Army, the armed services, and our police forces – the uniform reminds people of your willingness to forego fancy clothes and high salaries so you might better serve humanity.”
Packard diverges a moment saying, while he is on the subject of uniforms, that he would like to say a few words about the armed services. He says “our soldiers have been the victim of a continuing stream of vicious attacks on our campuses, in the media, and, even more distressingly, from many elected officials.”
“Many of these criticisms originate with disenchantment with the Vietnam war. But the military should not be made a scapegoat for policies handed down by civilian authorities. Scapegoating is particularly unjust to our soldiers since they are bound not to engage in political debate. Therefore, they cannot defend themselves.
“While serving in the Pentagon, I came to know a great many of the men and women in our armed services. I developed a high regard for their professionalism and their dedication. They are not the misfits or power-hungry martinets which their detractors picture them to be. On the contrary, they are dedicated people interested in developing their professional expertise and devoted to serving their country.”
“There is another group of Americans who have recently come under fire and which the Salvation Army, I would hope, can sympathize with. I refer to those who feel that America has a commitment to the rest of the world, and who are criticized for holding this view. The Salvation long ago made a commitment to world-wide service. Today you serve in 70 countries. You understand the indivisibility of mankind. You understand that our many problems at home are no excuse for turning our backs on the rest of the world.
“Yet just this turning away from the world is what many politicians are today advocating. They advocate drastic cuts in defense spending. They advocate drastic cuts in foreign aid. They advocate, in effect, withdrawal from our commitments around the world.
“I say this is wrong. I say that internationalism is one of America’s greatest opportunities today. And it is through our substantial aid programs – both military and economic – as well as the efforts and contributions of the private business sector, that we will carry out our international obligations.
“I might add that those who want to withdraw from the world are living under an illusion. They believe that, by an act of will, we can discard our international ties and devote our full attention and resources to domestic problems.
“But America is not an island. America cannot be isolated from the rest of the world. Prosperity, democracy, and social justice cannot flourish at home if they do not exist abroad. Is it possible that our free institutions would be unaffected by the Soviet subjugation of western Europe? Is it possible that democracy in the United States would be unthreatened by a victorious Marxist tide sweeping through Latin America? I am sure you all know the answer to this question.”
Packard returns to the subject of private charities, saying he would like to point out some strengths which both business and the Salvation Army bring to their charitable efforts.
“First, we are both interested in charity, because it is right, not because it will make us rich, or powerful, or more influential. Self-denial is a way of life with you. As individuals you each make an enormous financial sacrifice to spend your life in the Salvation Army. And as an organization you are also prepared to make sacrifices. I am reminded of your decision to lead the way in the formation of the U.S.O. at the outset of World War II. You knew you would be passing up an opportunity to expand your influence, and yet you supported the U.S.O. concept. And, You did it for a simple reason: it was the right thing to do. For your self-sacrifice, millions of American servicemen are thankful.
“And businessmen – while they cannot claim to make the some sacrifice that you in the Army do – they do charitable work without ulterior motives. The businessman who spends his evenings telephoning to raise money for a hospital or coaching a little league team does this because it is right – not because it will get him anything.”
“Second, both business and the Salvation Army understand how vital effective administration is to any successful attack on human suffering. The Salvation Army has patterned itself after that great model of administrative organization, the Army. And, business structures its charitable activities along the same highly efficient lines it has worked our for its day-to-day business operations.
“By contrast, the welfare activities in the public sector – particularly at the federal level – often are poorly organized. They are plagued with overlapping areas of authority, excessive layers of command, and lack of a well-developed sense of obedience.”
Continuing with his description of the similarities of business and the Salvation Army charitable activities, Packard says “both business and the Salvation Army are flexible in their approach to meeting social problems. Adaptability is almost an article of faith with the businessman. He is trained to be sensitive to changing human needs as expressed in the marketplace. Once he turns his attention to social problems, he becomes quickly attuned to changing patterns of social needs.
“Your changing approaches to drug addicts, alcoholics, and unwed mothers are just three examples of how you have grown with the times. But changing with the times does not mean chasing after fads. And we in business and you in the Salvation Army are often able to act more independent than people in the public sector. The politician seeking votes or the bureaucrat seeking funding must be closely attuned to what Ralph Nader’s latest pronouncement was, or what the latest environmental fad is. We can be more detached in our appraisal of what needs to be done and what can be done.
“I am frequently asked by businessmen friends about what sort of social involvement they should pursue – getting minorities integrated into the economy, working for better plant conditions, cleaning up the environment, hiring veterans, or whatever. I almost invariably tell them: be a good neighbor: do what you can do best.
“If you run a large plant in a depressed section of town, perhaps you should set up a manpower retraining program. On the other hand, if your firm is setting up a plant in a prosperous suburban area, extra money might better be spent on raising the architectural and landscape standards of your plant.
“The Salvation Army has been a pacesetter for 100 years. Long before the politicians discovered and publicized these trouble areas in our society, you knew that life was wretched for many, and that what was needed was both spiritual and material help. You knew that blacks and other minority groups needed guidance and encouragement. You knew that unwed mothers needed help, and not social rejection. You knew that all people in trouble – the rejected, the dejected, and the downtrodden of all kinds – were, after all, human beings who needed above all else human compassion.
“You men and women of the Salvation Army have set a noble standard for all Americans. If we can follow in your footsteps, America and the world will be a better home for all of us.
“Thank you.”
9/14/72, Copy of printed invitation to the Salvation Army “Annual Civic Luncheon Meeting”
9/14/72, Printed time schedule of events at the luncheon
9/14/72, Typewritten note listing seating arrangements at the head table
9/14/72, Copy of printed booklet titled “What is The Salvation Army?”
9/14/72, Copy of booklet describing Army activities and organization in the Bay Area
9/14/72, News clipping from the Palo Alto Times covering Packard’s speech
5/31/72, Letter from Lt. Col. Robert J. Angel to Packard inviting him to be the guest speaker at their annual luncheon
7/28/72, Letter to Packard from Lt. Col. Robert J. Angel giving background on the Army
8/23/72, Letter to Packard from Lt. Col. Angel discussing more details for the luncheon
9/11/72, Letter to Packard from Lt. Col. Angel sending a draft of the program for the luncheon, and a listing of seating at the head table
9/14/72, Letter to Packard from Marjorie D. Sheffield, Executive Director, USO, complimenting Packard on his speech
9/18/72, Letter to Packard from Bernice M. Hemphill, Executive Director, Irwin Memorial Blood Bank, complimenting him on his speech
9/18/72, Letter to Packard from Lt. Col. Angel thanking Packard for participating in their luncheon
9/18/72, Letter to Packard from Lt. Col. Angel enclosing a clipping from the SF Examiner covering the Army luncheon. It contains a quote from the Army’s PR Director to the effect that Packard’s speech was too political. Co. Angel says this was not what she said and they agree with Packard’s remarks.
9/21/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Co. Angel saying he should not be concerned with the Examiner’s article.
10/3/72, Letter to Packard from Alden P. Stanton thanking Packard for speaking at the Salvation Army luncheon
Box 3, Folder 35 – General Speeches
December 8-9, 1972, AIAA/NABE Seminar, Los Angeles
12/8/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech, with extensive handwritten inserts by Packard
The theme of this two day conference is “Reorienting the Aerospace Industry to Changing National Priorities.” Packard titled his speech “Should the Aerospace Industry Reorient to Changing Priorities,” and he quickly makes it clear that he has “some reservations about the theme of this conference, and so in a sense I am appearing as the Devil’s Advocate.”
“Packard’s handwritten insert at this point reads: “My doubts are not whether some priorities might be changed but more as to how to do it. Senator Tunney this morning [spoke?] to favor Federal subsidies – what he called a NASA approach to some of our domestic problems – crime, health, transportation. I don’t subscribe to the Federal subsidy approach. I simply think you will have a better industry in the long run if as you go into new markets you have to compete with those industries that are already there.
Packard says he agrees that the aerospace industry must change with the times. But what he takes exception to, and what he sees as the “proposal before this conference is that the Aerospace industry should do more than change with the times. What is proposed is that the aerospace industry should make a concentrated effort to move into new fields and new markets different from those in which the industry has been involved in the past.”
Packard agrees that the aerospace industry has a severe problem because of cutbacks in defense spending, plus leveling off of the demand for commercial aircraft, but he is “not at all sure that this problem can be solved, or even alleviated for the industry by trying to move into new product and new market areas.
“The Aerospace industry has had some great triumphs. It has also had some disastrous failures. This leads into the second argument which again I believe is wrong.
“The second argument is that because of its great triumphs in space and aerospace the industry has unique qualifications to do other difficult tasks. As your chairman put the issue in his introduction, the Aerospace industry, with its advanced technology base and sophisticated managerial and systems analysis technique, is well qualified to meet the challenges of the future.
“I have trouble with both of these propositions.
Packard says there “will not be any major increases in federal funding of defense and aerospace programs in the foreseeable future.”
“The challenge for the Aerospace industry in respect to national security, then, is to produce for America more defense capability at lower cost.”
The overall problem of national security can probably be solved with lower levels of military manpower. But if America is to remain strong we cannot have both lower levels of manpower and inferior weapons.
“Thus, I come to the conclusion that the most important responsibility and opportunity for the Aerospace industry, in respect to National Security, is to do the job that it is capable of doing and doing it right. Your responsibility in your industry is to develop and build the weapons that only you know how to build, and to do so with greater efficiency and greater economy than you have done in the recent past.”
“Defense budgets will be lower in the future in terms of real dollars. The need for military capability will not go away. You people in the Aerospace industry have one of the greatest challenges of the century against which to apply your so-called ‘great sophisticated management and systems analysis capabilities.’ Frankly, I think you may have to get rid of some of these ‘sophisticated management and systems analysis capabilities’ and fall back on some good old-fashioned common sense management techniques if indeed you are to do the job for the country that must be done.
“The only way an industry can produce better weapons at lower cost is with fewer people. That, in my view is what you in this industry will have to face up to. I am convinced, after spending three years in the Pentagon, that the industry is grossly over staffed and very inefficient by any sound management standards.”
Packard places part of the blame on “some of the so called ‘experts’ in the Pentagon, but says the Aerospace industry can do better – “in fact, you must do better in responding to what will continue to be your main priority.”
Another handwritten insert at this point reads: “Secretary Hansen talked about some of the things we tried to do while I was at the Pentagon to improve the efficiency – I sincerely believe the industry can do a better job, but again let me emphasize –this will require even fewer people and will not help the matter you are worrying about here.
As to people, I do believe a more effective effort could be mounted to retrain, reorient and relocate people – and in fact, it may be a better approach to encourage other industries to take advantage of technology by absorbing some of the technical talent from Aerospace.”
Packard accepts as accurate the claim that the Aerospace industry has a great store of advanced technology. “Our magnificent air transportation system is based solidly on fine contributions from the Aerospace industry. In turn, this fine accomplishment can be largely attributed to research paid for over the hears from the defense budget. Weather satellites and satellite communication have come from federally financed space and defense research, and satellite communication in particular is a new priority of great importance for the future.“
“Commercial jet aircraft began as simple modifications of military jet aircraft, and it is interesting to speculate where we might be with commercial aviation had there been no requirement for military jet aircraft of comparable size and performance. Or as a corollary, how bright the prospects for an American SST might be if the SST could evolve as a simple modification of the B1 bomber.”
These and other contributions from the Aerospace industry have been, Packard says, “rather natural expansion of advanced technology into new markets which were logical and natural for the Aerospace industry. In most other cases where aerospace technology has contributed to old or established markets, other industries with experience in those markets have simply picked up the advanced technology of the Aerospace industry and applied it themselves.
“With the notable exception of the commercial airline industry, which grew up hand in hand with the Aerospace industry, the record of applying the so-called ‘sophisticated management and systems analysis technique’ by the aerospace industry to new fields is not very good.”
Looking for some examples, Packard points to the shipbuilding industry, which he says was far behind in technology and adhered to what many considered to be antiquated management principles….This great opportunity was siezed [sic] upon by several of the largest, and until then the most successful of the Aerospace firms. What happened? So far, all of the sophisticated management and system analysis techniques were ineffective in an area where the firms had no previous experience. They simply did not know the business.”
Another handwritten insert: “And this brings out a point which Dr. Moor alluded to this morning. The Aerospace industry does not have the marketing capability needed for other market areas. I believe the point is even broader than that – every industry has built up over the years a great deal of special know how unique to that industry. Aerospace may bring some new and useful know how to a new industry. There will be much old and necessary know how it does not have. And this fact must be recognized as new areas are considered.,
“In the case of shipbuilding, the one firm which did know something about the business may work its problems out. General Dynamics, which had considerable shipbuilding experience in its Electric Boat Division, may eventually salvage something out of its expansion into a non-aerospace field.”
“Examples of the Aerospace industry with its great management talent expanding by the conglomerate route do not give much credence to the theme that the Aerospace industry has much to offer in new and different fields either. I can think of some aerospace companies which are now better off after having been taken over by non-aerospace companies. I am hard put to think of many non-aerospace companies that are better off after having been taken over by aerospace companies.
I believe it is time for you people to call a spade a spade and admit that the first priority of the Aerospace industry is to get its house in order and not go charging into new fields. The industry does not yet know how to build complex reliable equipment at a reasonable cost. The industry can build complex equipment which is reliable when there are no constraints on cost. The Apollo program is a magnificent example of what can be done, and there are some equally impressive defense programs.
“Most of the defense development and procurement programs, however, have not produced the kind of equipment the industry can be very proud of. Most of our current military aircraft can fly only a few hours without a system failure. The development process in the industry is so slow and inefficient that most new systems are out of date by the time they go into the inventory.
Another handwritten insert reads: “Now, as I have already suggested, these problems of the Aerospace industry can not be blamed on the industry alone. The industry had to do what its major customer asked for and its major customer was not always very smart in its demands. Underbidding has been encouraged, which was a major factor in cost [over runs?] – overly complex equipment – production without adequate test of the design. The industry has some bad habits which will have to be unlearned before it will be able to compete efficiently in new areas.
“We have a good example of what has happened when aerospace techniques are applied to ground transportation in the Bay Area Rapid Transportation (BART) system. This system was designed around computers and other aerospace type system technology. After a few weeks of operation one of the trains ran off the end of the track. The program is far behind schedule and the cost overruns are substantial, and there are other serious problems. In short, BART has most of the characteristics of many recent products of the Aerospace industry – such as the C-5A.
“You in the Aerospace industry have only one priority, that is to learn how to do the job you are supposed to be doing and do it right. Learn how to build reliable equipment at a reasonable cost. Stop looking to the government to bail you out when you fail to do your job.
“I am convinced the serious problems which the Aerospace industry has are largely related to the fact that this industry has been and still is too dependant on the government. And I judge what is being suggested here today is that the government should support the industry involvement into new fields. I have no trouble with the concept of expansion into new fields if the industry is willing to submit to the rigid disciplines of the marketplace in doing so.
The worst possible thing for the Aerospace industry would be for the federal government to subsidize its ‘reconversion’ into domestic markets. This would assure the continuation of the waste and inefficiency which is the real problem of the industry.
“On the other hand if you can go it on your own and learn to compete in the real world, more power to you. Some of you can, and some of you can’t.
“And so I will conclude by answering the question I have posed in the title of my presentation. Should the Aerospace industry reorient to new priorities.? The answer is yes to the extent it can demonstrate by its performance that it can do so. The answer is no if the industry must seek subsidies from the government to survive. Government subsidies to help the industry reconvert to new priorities will not help its survival – it will only postpone its failure. This is my solid belief, and I urge you to give consideration to these thought as you set your course for the future.”
12/8/72, Typewritten copy of the program for the AIAA/NABE Seminar
12/8/72, Printed copy of the program
12/8/72, Copy of one page of the program with handwritten notation on back by Packard – no doubt with thoughts occurring to him as he heard others speak
12/8/72, Copy of speech given at the Seminar by Grant L. Hansen Ass’t. Secretary of the Air Force Research and Development
9/18/72, Letter to Packard from W. H. Pickering, Director JPL, giving details on the Seminar
10/12/72, Letter to Packard from Don Wendling giving more details of the Seminar
11/13/72, Letter to Packard from G. Russell Morrissey, giving the time for Packard’s speech and asking for the title of Packard’s speech
12/15/72, Letter to Packard from Michael Witunski asking for a copy of Packard’s speech
12/18/72, Letter to Packard from H. K. Gagos providing copies of newspaper clippings
1/16/73, Handwritten letter to Packard from Paul K. Adams taking exception to Packard’s speech
2/1/73, Letter to Packard from George Johnson complimenting him on his speech on the Aerospace industry
2/1/73, Letter to Packard from James McGuire asking for a copy of Packard‘s speech
2/1/73, Letter to Packard from A. L. Barnes saying he is an employee of McDonnell-Douglas and asking for a copy of Packard’s speech. He also encloses a clipping from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch covering the speech
2/9/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Mr. A. L. Barnes replying to his letter of 2/1/72 and saying “I note you are an employee of McDonnell-Douglas, and I want you to know that I believe your firm has done an outstanding job over the years and is not subject to many of the criticisms I have made about the industry in general.”
2/27/73, Letter to Packard from John F. Bishop complimenting Packard on the speech
News Clippings
12/11/72, Copy of clipping from Los Angeles Times with headline “Packard Hits Inefficiency of Aerospace Industry
12/12/72, Copy of clipping from Palo Alto Times with headline “Heads may roll in aerospace
Undated, unnamed clipping headed “Packard: Aerospace overstaffed, inefficient”
Box 2, Folder 25 – Department of Defense
January 12, 1972, Army Project Managers Conference
1/12/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech.
Speaking to a group of Army project managers Packard tells them that the Services must do a better job, and that the Office of the Secretary of Defense can’t do it for them. He adds “I assume the purpose of this conference is to discuss what you can do to improve the way this job is done in the Army.”
Packard says that “…we do not believe we have necessarily discovered or laid out for your consideration the best of all possible policies in all details. I do believe that if the policies we have outlined are followed, a better job can be done in future than has been done in past.
“The first step in improving management is always to put a better man in charge and give him the authority to discharge the responsibility you have given him.”
“A manager must know and understand what his responsibility is – what is expected of him – and this often requires a wide range of discussion – communication we often call it.”
As an example, Packard says “The manager is naturally expected to manage the development of the new weapons system for which he is responsible so it will have the highest possible performance, be available at the lowest possible cost, and all within the shortest possible time. The first fact of life we must learn to accept is that these parameters cannot be rigidly specified at the beginning of a project.
“There must be trade-offs made in the parameters involved, and cost must be one of those parameters in the equation.
“The problem is that all too many times cost is the only variable, the performance and the schedule are fixed and only the cost is allowed to change.
“When a project is structured this way, the cost will, in fact, almost always change and the direction will always be up.
“The project manager must be allowed to let other variables than the cost change. I hope, in fact, you can learn to manage programs to keep cost within a ceiling. To do so trade-offs of other parameters must be accepted.”
“Packard says that he has reviewed many projects over the past three years, and he has concluded that “…often disaster has been built into the program at the beginning because the first decisions were not made right….”[This means] several things. First, the new weapon that is proposed must fit into long-range planning and has at least a reasonable prospect of being developed and procured with resources which are likely to be available.”
“This aspect of – make the first decision right – hardly comes within the project manager’s responsibility – but there are some other aspects of – make the first decision right – that do.
“Is the project as proposed really feasible – are we asking for too much performance – are we out too far in new technology – have the uncertainties been eliminated or at least defined and minimized before a major commitment to the project is undertaken.
“Do we have the right kind of a contract.
“Have we made honest cost estimates or do we have a buy-in.
“These are all aspects of what I mean by saying – make the first decision right. You project managers have a great stake in this issue because – no matter how good a manager you may be you will look bad if the project is not started on a sound basis.
Packard agrees initial questions are difficult and often cannot be resolved by paper studies alone. “To the extent the design can be reduced to operating hardware it will be much more likely that two of the key questions can be answered with much more certainty.
“Is this really what we want for our forces – will it add significant capability and thus be worth the investment.
“Can a practical design be achieved which can be produced at a reasonable cost.
“I conclude that many programs will be improved by more use of development hardware, tested before full-scale development and production is committed.
“The fly before you buy concept includes more use of development prototypes, there is another equally important aspect. The full-scale development should be completed before major investment in production is made. I am sure all of you who have been through a program realize that some investment in production may be appropriate before the development models are tested and approved. Urgency to have the new operational capability in the forces is often given as a reason to accept concurrency between development and production. This may be a valid reason in time of crisis or in wartime, …and I believe experience will support the fact that it is always more costly. Many contractors will try to make a case otherwise, but I do not believe it can be done if we accept the need to make some production investment – tooling – production processes – perhaps the better way to put it – keep the production build-up to an absolute minimum until all the bugs are shaken out of the design.”
Packard mentions some other things that must be given attention in striving toward better management.
“Training and development for managers.
“Management is a profession – not a two-year tour of duty.
“Organizational structure has a considerable impact on creating an environment for better management.
“Not everyone has to be in on everything is something that must be emphasized at all levels – especially the OSD offices.
“Let me conclude by saying again – if there is to be a record of better management on army projects in the future, you are the people who will have to do the job. If you are to do the job, you will have to be supported fully by your supervisors and by the OSD offices. You will have to take some heat from congress when you know you are right. For example, there are some programs where a cost type contract is the only way the development can be done right. You will have to find some way not to accept the low bid when it is obviously a buy-in. There will be some tough issues to face – but there is no such thing as good management unless it is tough-minded management. I am confident you men here today are up to the challenge.”
