LETTER TO MR. GEORGE BUSH FROM GEORGE J. KEEGAN JR..

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79M00467A002700150020-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 4, 2003
• Sequence Number: 20
• Publication Date: May 4, 1976
• Content Type: LETTER

Approved Release 2003/03/28: CIA-RDP791VI04X3$6615
DIRECTOR OF CONTRA L/L(~4
~IOENCE
U
f l C%G ! l~ /
V
Approved For Release 2003/03/28 : CIA-RDP79M00467A002700150020-5
ter---.
 Approved *Release 2003/03/28: CIA-RDP79M0097
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
4 May 1976
MA. Geoxge &t4h
D.vtec.oA, Centica2 Inte..ee.%gence Agency
Wa. h-.ngton DC 20505
m
M
take in the United Nations - John Fas.eX Dutte~s - ohms waving - Au~hed
into the Aoom bAandizh.ng a ~smat t ~sheaA o4 papeA~s and .e~.WeAatty shouted
at the PAes~.dent: "you cannot permit .h-us to happen. The United States
cannot and mugst not,sanction naked aggxe44Lon. - however u- eAue tits
puxpa4e. FoJ u~5 to stand by id!y, without condemning ThLs aggAe~S ion
wowed be to be r.ay evexy moAa.e value that the United Sta.te-6 hays tong
,since Aepxe~sen.ed .hvoughout the woA.ed - and especLatty within the
Arab WoA.ed." Faster Du.e.ee-5 won the day, with the PAe4~.denv ach.nowtedging:
"you are giro u.tety tight."
Dean Mk. Bush
Enc o,sed is a ~shoAt piece on In.e. LLgence, MoAae~.ty and FoxeLgn
Po.e~.cy" by Sidney Hook which appeared in the 1 May New V oAfz Timm -
in case you mL 4ed same. Pon the New Yo'dz Timm, it -vs a Aare, w.cZe
and ph L o4 oph~.cc2ey sound piece o b wo't faw ..c I -am certain w tt
appea.e to you.
I don't think DA. Hoop. ha.o done too much vLotence to the Achezson-
Kennan p1ece4 on moAatity and {oneign potLcy. FAan1iy, I think
Hoop. ztAike-5 a keen ba eance.
It Aem..nd4 me ob an episode I witnessed in The White Howse yeano ago.
The scene wa-s a Na ti.onat Secwr ty Council meeting on the Suez Cr'us'es
o{ 1957 - which wa-s about to explode. Thxough some supeAb woAfz by
auto a tache.4, the PxesLdent had been Aoxewahned oA the combined
Engt,i,sh-Fxench-I,vcaeti Ln.en..Lan4. M' . EZ6enhowen, m I am cex-tctLn
you w tt Aeca e, had used his advance waAn..ng .to coup se.e Aezttaint
upon M. Eden. The Joint ChLeb,s o{ S.aAA - in three sepaAate. Aev-.ew4
had unan-.mou-s.ey come down in ~suppoAt oU any aggxe~s4-.on which wou.ed
e.t mirate. the cancer ob Na~s~seA in the M-.dd-ee East. At a ciLuciat
end tn tG-e debate over which v O )t-Lon the United S.ate.4 ~shou.ed
a
DR~GE 7. -9tE
~0%-u1"'N ACS/In eetige e
~. 6,
I A.ch
NYT AAt%c.ee, 1 May 76
v~b ^2
~>>6-196 O
Approved For Release 2003/03/28 : CIA-RDP79M00467AO02700150020-5
 Approved *Release 2003/03/28 : CIA-RDP79MO07AO02700150020-5
Part II -- Main Edition -- 3 May 1976
NEW YORK TIMES - 1 MAX 1976 Pg. 23
Intelligence, Morality and Foreign Policy
By Sidney Hook
STANFORD, Callf.-From de Toque-
ville to Walter Lippmann, democracies
have been faulted for their inability
to conduct timely and intelligent
foreign policies. Nonetheless, .'It is
apparent that in the long run no
foreign policy in 'a democracy can be
successful unless it has popular sup-
port.
A more serious criticism contends
that the likelihood of a successful
democratic foreign policy it hindered
by?its tendency to be naively, mmoralis-
tic. It assumes that what is right or
wrong, honorable or dishonorable, in
ordinary private life is no less so in
the fife of nations at peace or war.
Many experts in foreign policy as-
sure us- that standards of morality in
private and public life are profoundly
different. The Italian statesman Ca-
vour, not the worst of the great uni-
fiers, uttered a sentiment most 'would
have approved: "If-we did for ourselves
what we did (or our countrywhat
scoundrels we would be."
Our own onetime Secretary of State,
Dean' Acheson, in an address to those
contemplating a career in foreign
service, observed: "Generally speaking,
morality often imposes upon those
who exercise the powers of govern-
ment standards of conduct quite dif-
ferent from what might seem right to
them as private citizens."',
Although this is 'a 'plausible and
widely held view,: It -.seems to me
mistaken. It rests on a confusion be-
tween moral standards or basic moral
values that, if .valid, are invariant for
all situations In which human beings
must act, and the decisions that must
be made in specific situations, whether
personal or public.
No one moral standard or value by
Itself determines what action should
be taken because when we are in an
agony of doubt about what we should
do, more than one moral principle or
value always applies. Otherwise, we
would--have-no genuine problem -or
doubt-
This holds In the area of personal
relations as in ..public policy. Because
we should tell the' truth it does not
follow that' we should tell the truth
to someone intent upon robbing or
maitning innocent victims, if not tell-
ing the truth will tend to prevent such
action.
There are always other values in-
volved. Even in less extreme situa-
tions, we may rightly prefer to be kind
rather than needlessly truthful if
speaking the truth -, say, about his
stupidity or her ugliness-will result
in great cruelty and no benefit to any-
one else. It is wrong. to steal, but. we
cannot morally condemn a man who
steals to provide for his hungry fam-
ily if no other means exist to alleviate
their plight.
It should be clear that every trou-
bled situation of moral choice is one
in which. the choice is not between
good or bad, right or wrong, but be-
tween good and good, right and right,
the good and the right. One good may
be overridden by a greater good; one
obligation by a more pressing one.
Ordinary human life. would be im-
possible if we did not recognize and
act on these considerations. Some-
times it involves- a: choice of evils. It
is wrong to kill a human being, but
if the only way to prevent him from
blowing up a plane or city was by
killing him, it would be right to do so.
To.be sure, the weight of experience
is behind the moral injunctions and
ideals expressed in the testaments and
commandments of the great religious
and ethical systems of the past. But
they cannot all -be categorical in all
situations because they obviously
conflict.
Sometimes 'we cannot be just with-
out being' oruel. Reflection is required
to determine which is to be subordinate
to which. The only absolute is, in
John Erskine's phrase, echoing- a
thought of. John Dewey, "the moral
obligation to be intelligent" in the
choice of that course of conduct
among possible alternatives whose
consequences will strengthen the
structure of the reflective values that
define our philosophy of life.
The situation is quite familiar in the
area of civil and political rights. The
right to know may conflict with the
right to privacy, freedom to publish
with the right' to a fair trial, freedom
to speak (inciting a ,lynch mob) with
the right to : life. Even the right to
worship God according to one's con.
science may be abridged if it in-
volves human sacrifice or polygamy.
The conflict of freedoms should be
resolved by the action whose con-
sequences are more likely than those
of any other to further the total struc-
ture of freedoms In the democratic
community. .
It is when we approach foreign
policy that we find great Impatience
with considerations about moral
principles: - Palmet ton's pronounce-
ment is often cited: "We have no
eternal allies or enemies. Our inter-
ests are eternal -and perpetual, and
those interests it is our duty to fol-
low." Agreed. But why should the na-
tional interest exclude moral ideals?
. Whatever its complexities, it pre-
supposes at the very least national
survival. Even on'the plane of personal
morality, survival, except under ex-
treme conditions, is integral to the
good life. In order to be blessed, says
Spinoza, one must at least be.
We are not talking about national
survival under any circumstances but
of our "survival as a free and open
society, imperfect as it is. If its
existence is desirable, to what meas-
ures are we committed in its defense
in an age where nuclear Pearl Harbors
make the sudden death of cultures
possible? Certainly not to just any
measures regardless of their conse-
quences on basic security and to the
character of the society we seek to
defend. And just as certainly to an in-
telligent "intelligence system" that will
penetrate the designs of the declared
enemies of our society, especially vio-
lations of arms agreements. Secrecy on
these and related measures is a matter
of .political morality.
There is no substitute In our time
for an intelligence service ultimately
responsible to the authorized repre-
sentatives, political or judicial, of the
democratic community.
Firefighters tell us it is sometimes
necessary to burn, a, house, or permit
it to burn, to save a village. This does
not bestow a license for arson on
fools or fanatics. We must recognize
the evil we do even if it is the lesser
evil. But if it Is truly the lesser evil,
then those who condemn it, or who
would have us do nothing at all, are
morally responsible for the greater
evil.
Sidney Hook, emeritus professor of
philosophy at New York University, is
senior research fellow at the Hoover
Institution on War, Revolution and
Peace, Stanford. This is adapted from
an article in the bimonthly "Freedom
at issue," published by Freedom House,
in New York. City.
COMMUApVSgyg-LFor Release Y~? : CIA-RDP79M00467AO02700150020-5
A broad concern is whether the texture of East-West ac- to woo the Itaitan~ French, Yugdartevuru^nvrsrw mn parties
to a conference that would offer the appearance of Com-
rommodation might begin nnravellng If powerful Western rnn`tist r" sus. "It is the Soviets and not the Western
 pr,R?Iease2003/03/28: CIA-RDP79467A0027001150
n
A
tsa
 Approved For Release 2003/03/28 ~ -RDP79M00467AO02700150020
ILLEGIB
pproved For Release 2003/03/28 : CIA-RDP79M00467AO02700150020-5