Mr. BERGQUIST. After reading General Stilwell's testimony, I find that he sets out nine general qualification criteria which I will briefly summarize:

1. Intellectually understands and accepts the importance of the continuum of special operations capabilities across the entire spectrum of potential international conflict;

2. Has the ability to be a convincing spokesman for special operations both within the United States and overseas;

3. Has demonstrated management and negotiating skills within the context of the programming and budgeting processes of the Department of Defense.

4. Has experience in dealing with the Congress to assure effective and responsive communication;

5. Is a professional, who is primarily interested in what needs to be done rather than what can be personally gained;

6. Has an understanding of the doctrine, strategy and operational methodology of communist revolutionary warfare derived from study and first-hand observations overseas;

7. In familiarity with the capabilities and limitations of other executive departments and agencies which can contribute to the U.S. response to low-intensity conflict situations;

8. Some experience in one or more Third World nations affording a solid appreciation of the problems of cross-cultural communication and the difficulties inherent to molding U.S. assistance to host country needs;

9. A deeply held conviction that the U.S. must improve its ability to respond to the future threats of low intensity conflict and the ability to persuade key decisionmaking to appreciate and understand the challenges that such threats occasion.

In order to properly answer each element of the question, I will compare my own professional background with each of General Stilwell's criteria separately and in the same order as he has presented them:

1. Having served thirteen years as a Reserve Special Forces officer and having served five years as the focal point within the Army Secretariat for special operations, I believe my actions and words have demonstrated an intellectual understanding and acceptance of the role of special operations forces across the spectrum of conflict;

2. As a public official for the past ten years, no one has ever questioned my ability to communicate and to serve as a spokesman. In the course of my public life, I have given numerous speeches on many topics, to include special operations. I am confident in my ability to be both knowledgeable and convincing. I have dealt with foreign officials on a number of occasions in regards to special operations matters and perceive no difficulty in my ability to do so in the future;

3. I spent five years as a member of the Department of the Army Programming and Budget Committee and as such have had extensive experience in managing the development of coherent programs and supervising the execution of budget elements. I have also spent countless hours in negotiations and bureaucratic maneuvers to assure the resourcing of special operations programs;

4. I have served on the personal staff of the Senator, as well as having served as Chief Counsel and Staff Director of a standing committee of the Senate. I have also served for the past two years as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs in the Justice Department. I am intimately familiar with the role of the Congress in the development of public policy and have always been an advocate of close cooperation between the Executive Branch and the Congress;

5. Except to attend three years of law school under the GI Bill, I have spent the past twenty years of my adult life in service to my country. I have had numerous opportunities to pursue more lucrative opportunities in the private sector, but in every case I have felt the obligation to continue to serve. I do not believe there is any indication in my professional career that I have ever undertaken any position in government for my personal gain.

6. I believe I possess an excellent understanding of the classical concepts of "communist revolutionary warfare." I have read extensively in this area and for two years was a first-hand witness to such warfare in Vietnam;

7. I am intimately familiar with the capabilities and limitations of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to contribute to a U.S. response to low-intensity conflict situations having spent two years employed by that CIA element responsible for such contributions. I am also very familiar with the capabilities and limitations of agencies of the Justice Department (FBI, DEA, INS etc.) to contribute because of my present employment but less familiar with other agencies;

8. I spent six months as a advisor to a Vietnamese infantry unit engaged in combat. I stayed with my Vietnamese counterparts continuously living and fighting

in a total immersion situation. I also spent two months planning and executing the provision of training assistance to a friendly third world country while employed by the CIA. This included extensive interagency coordination with the United States Mission in this particular country;

9. I have always had the conviction that the U.S. must improve its ability to respond to future low intensity threats. I have evidenced my conviction by my past and present commitment to service where I can personally contribute to improvement of our nations ability to face such threats. Such threats are especially insidious because they are usually incremental and are rarely perceived in isolation as a significant threat to our vital national interest. The key to achieving a successful and coherent natural policy for low intensity conflict is to persuade policy makers in appropriate agencies and the Congress to look at the totality of the problem and to effectively address such problem at its earliest stages. I am committed to using all of my persuasion skills to assure that the threats of low intensity conflict are accurately appreciated and understood in their totality.

I appreciate this opportunity to reply to your questions, Senator Dixon and trust that my answers appropriately address your concerns.

[The meeting adjourned to be reconvened with an afternoon session.]

NOMINATION OF KENNETH P. BERGQUIST TO

BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR SPECIAL OPERATIONS AND LOW INTENSITY CONFLICT

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1987

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,
Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Sam Nunn (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Nunn, Exon, Kennedy, Shelby, Warner, Humphrey, Cohen, and Symms.

Staff present: Arnold L. Punaro, staff director; Carl M. Smith, staff director for the minority; Jeffrey H. Smith, general counsel; Patrick A. Tucker, minority counsel; George K. Johnson, Jr., James R. Locher III, and David S. Lyles, professional staff members; and Pamela G. Powell, staff assistant.

Also present: Jeffrey B. Subko, assistant to Senator Exon; William J. Lynn, assistant to Senator Kennedy; Charles C. Smith, assistant to Senator Dixon; Milton D. Beach, assistant to Senator Glenn; Terrence Lynch, assistant to Senator Shelby; William J. Wight, assistant to Senator Warner; Christoper Mellon, assistant to Senator Cohen; Alan Ptak, assistant to Senator Gramm; Samuel J. Routson, assistant to Senator Symms; and Patrick A. Putignano, assistant to Senator McCain.

OPENING STATEMENT BY SENATOR SAM NUNN, CHAIRMAN Chairman NUNN. The committee will come to order.

The committee meets this afternoon to continue to give consideration to the nomination of Mr. Kenneth P. Bergquist to serve as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict.

This morning the committee received testimony from Mr. Bergquist. This afternoon, the committee will hear from a number of witnesses who are experts on special operations and low intensity conflict matters.

Given that Mr. Bergquist has been nominated to serve as the first Assistant Secretary for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, I think it is appropriate for the committee to receive testimony on the qualifications that are needed by a person to effectively carry out these new duties and responsibilities.

Our first witness this afternoon is Congressman Dan Daniel, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness in the House Armed Services Committee.

Congressman Daniel of course needs no introduction to this committee. For many years he's been a prominent and very valuable member of the House Armed Services Committee, with whom we have had the pleasure of working during defense authorization conferences.

Generally, he dominates the conference, and he will certainly dominate the hearing this afternoon. Senator Warner can attest to that, having him as a constituent. [Laughter.]

Congressman Daniel and Senator Cohen took the leads for their respective Houses in formulating last year's legislation to reform and reorganize special operations, and low intensity conflict capabilities, policies and programs.

Both Congressman Daniel and Senator Cohen are to be congratulated for the wisdom of their recommendations.

Events of the last year have clearly demonstrated the need for the forceful legislation that they've proposed. Congressman Daniel, given your central role in mandating a revitalization of these important capabilities, your views as to the required qualifications of the first Assistant Secretary for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict will carry considerable weight with this committee, and we welcome you very much, as a colleague and as an expert witness.

Senator Warner.

Senator WARNER. Mr. Chairman, I join you and other members of the committee in welcoming Congressman Daniel.

He is not only the dean of the Virginia congressional delegation, but he is the most respected member of our delegation serving in the Congress.

And we must attribute a great weight, not only to his testimony, but to his presence here today.

Congressman Daniel, I have forgotten the exact number of years you have been in Congress.

Mr. DANIEL. This is my 10th term.

Senator WARNER. And it is my recollection that this is the first time that you have ever appeared in opposition to a Presidential nominee; would that be correct?

Mr. DANIEL. That is correct, Senator.

Senator WARNER. And that must speak to the gravity of your feelings on this case.

Mr. DANIEL. I would like to make a short statement on that point. I do not appear with any pleasure.

Senator WARNER. I recognize that.

Mr. DANIEL. Mr. Bergquist has a tremendously good war record and it bothers me to testify against anyone with such a good war record.

But nonetheless, I feel I must do what I have to do.

Senator WARNER. Mr. Chairman, we welcome the witness.

Chairman NUNN. Dan, why do you not proceed as you see fit. We are delighted to have you.

STATEMENT OF HON. DAN DANIEL, A U.S. CONGRESSMAN FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

Mr. DANIEL. Thank you, Senator Nunn, for your gracious remarks.

I am grateful for the opportunity which you have given me to state my case in the pending matter.

Since this nominee will be the first occupant to this position, I feel it is one of the key appointments that will be made by this administration.

Mr. Bergquist, in my opinion, is unsuitable for the job. He is unsuitable from the standpoint of experience, from the standpoint of stature, from the standpoint of mental discipline.

Now, by this, Senator, I mean that I am not certain that he has the interest that will be required to carry out the functions which have been assigned to him, or whoever holds that position, by the Congress.

And if he does not have the interest, then it is going to be very difficult to follow through on the mandate that has been laid down for him.

Passing this legislation was the easy part. It is true that we worked on it for several years and it finally was passed. The business of implementing it on a daily basis, in my judgment, will be terribly difficult and almost impossible for one who does not have a 100-percent interest in what he is doing.

He is going to be working in a canal of turf sharks. And I just wonder if he has the stature to stand up and carry out the program against those people.

Additionally, Mr. Bergquist is associated with an element in the Pentagon which does not believe in special operations. We have had a couple of examples of this opposition recently that lead me to that conclusion.

Mr. David Chu, for example has figured out a method by which he can circumvent the MFP-11.

Senator WARNER. Mr. Daniel, you might identify Chu's position for the record.

Mr. DANIEL. He is the Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation, I believe. And also, Mr. Rich Armitage. He is the man who has the most to lose when this legislation is finally implemented, if it ever is.

I think the question arises, what is required? What does a candidate need to have in order to carry out this assignment?

Number one, he has to be profoundly interested and profoundly knowledgeable in special operations and in low intensity conflict. His judgment must be such as to stand up against the turf sharks that will be snapping at his feet.

Unfortunately, Mr. Bergquist has neither. If there were not good qualified people Mr. Chairman, who are anxious to take on this assignment, perhaps we would have to take the chance on Mr. Bergquist. We would have to hope that he could master the subject matter and grow into the policy role.

I do not have a candidate. But to repeat, I know they are out there. There is a law on the books that has been there now for 12