Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 July 2011
There are many means employed by the United States to maintain and advance its position throughout the world during the current period of bipolar conflict. The most conspicuous of these are subsumed under what is known as the Mutual Security Program. Nearly half of the approximately $4 billion budgeted during fiscal year 1962 for mutual security went into military assistance. Of this, about $125 million was devoted to the training of foreign military personnel. This Military Assistance Training Program, including the training of foreigners in the United States and that administered overseas by Military Assistance Advisory Groups (MAAG's), missions, overseas commands, and third countries, constitutes by far the largest effort the world has known on the part of one country to educate and train citizens of others. The number of foreigners given military assistance training in the United States each year—about 16,500 in 1960—exceeds the number trained here under the Fulbright, Smith-Mundt, and Agency for International Development (AID) programs combined.
1 Nielson, W. A., “Huge Hidden Impact of the Pentagon,” New York Times Magazine, June 25, 1961Google Scholar; Committee on Government Operations, Government Programs in International Education, House Report No. 2712, 85th Congress, 2nd Session, 1959.Google Scholar
2 Statement of McNamara, Robert S., Secretary of Defense, Hearings on International Development and Security, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, 87th Congress, 1st Session, 1961, 606.Google Scholar
3 Calculated as 80 per cent of the number of formal training courses completed.
4 President's Committee to Study the U.S. Military Assistance Program, Conclusions Concerning the Mutual Security Program (Washington, August 1959)Google Scholar [cited hereinafter as Draper Report]; Davison, W. P., Political Side-Effects of the Military Assistance Training Program (The RAND Corporation, July 1960)Google Scholar; Nielson, “Impact of the Pentagon.”
5 Furniss, Edgar S. Jr, Some Perspectives on American Military Assistance, Policy Memorandum No. 13 (Center of International Studies, Princeton University, 1957)Google Scholar; Jordon, A. A. Sr, Foreign Aid and the Defense of Southeast Asia (New York 1962).Google Scholar
6 Statement of W. J. McNiel, Assistant Secretary of Defense, Hearings on Mutual Security Appropriations for 1956, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 84th Congress, 1st Session, 1955, 198–99.Google Scholar
7 Office of the Secretary of Defense, Military Assistance Program, Fiscal Year 1962 Estimates, Congressional Presentation, 1961, 21.
8 Furniss, American Military Assistance.
9 Humphrey, R. A., “Cultural Communication and New Imperatives,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 335 (May 1961), 141–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Pye, Lucian W., “Armies in the Process of Political Modernization,” in Johnson, John J., ed., The Role of the Military in Underdeveloped Countries (Princeton 1962), 69–89.Google Scholar
11 Brig. Gen. D. G. Shingler, “Contributions of Military Resources to Economic and Social Progress,” Annex D to Draper Report.
12 Clausewitz, Karl von, On War, trans, by Matthijs Jolles, O. J. (Washington 1953), 597.Google Scholar
13 Beals, R. L., “The Exchange of Persons: Research Developments,” in National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Educational Exchanges: Aspects of the American Experience (Washington 1956), 53–62Google Scholar; Coelho, G. V. (issue ed.), “Impacts of Studying Abroad,” Journal of Social Issues, XVIII, No. 1 (1962)Google Scholar; McGuigan, F. J., “Further Study of Psychological Changes Related to Intercultural Experiences,” Psychological Report, V (June 1959), 244–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 Lieuwen, Edwin, Arms and Politics in Latin America (New York 1960).Google Scholar
15 J. H. Ohly, “A Study of Certain Aspects of Foreign Aid,” Annex G to Draper Report.
16 Col. Stilwell, R. G., “Training and Education Under the Assistance Programs,” Annex E to Draper Report, 157, 158, 159.Google Scholar
17 Janowitz, Morris, The Professional Soldier (Glencoe, Ill., 1960), 165–71.Google Scholar
18 Galbraith, John K., “A Positive Approach to Foreign Aid,” Foreign Affairs, XXXIX (April 1961), 444–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 Brookings Institution, Administrative Aspects of U.S. Foreign Assistance Programs, Document No. 52, U.S. Senate, 85th Congress, 1st Session, 1957, 524.Google Scholar
20 Ibid., 529; Furniss, American Military Assistance.
21 Galbraith, “Positive Approach to Foreign Aid.”
22 Ohly, J. H., Research and Development in the Field of Foreign Economic and Technical Assistance, Secretariat Note 3 (International Cooperation Administration, July 1960).Google Scholar
23 Wolf, Charles Jr, Foreign Aid: Theory and Practice in Southern Asia (Princeton 1960).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 Cleveland, Harlan, Mangone, G. J., and Adams, J. C., The Overseas Americans (New York 1960).Google Scholar
