Ernest Graves
Saudi Arabia. We had proposed that. In fact, we had sent word to the division to report
on just what savings there would be when we did this.
Our ambassador to Saudi Arabia at the time, Herman Eilts, got wind of this and sent
in a message, I believe to his superiors in the State Department. There was probably an
information copy to the Department of Defense. It said that under no circumstances
should the Corps discontinue the construction in Saudi Arabia; that in his view, it was
the program with the Saudis that had the most positive effect on our relations, and that
it would be a very great mistake from the point of view of relations with Saudi Arabia
to withdraw our support.
Of course, subsequent to that, the program underwent tremendous growth. Up to that
time, we had done some good work, but it was nothing compared to what was done
later.
It certainly debunks any notion that the Corps was self-seeking in its role in Saudi
Arabia. The Chief of Engineers was ready to discontinue the whole effort, and he had
to be persuaded by the Department of State to stay on.
Q:
Of course, he didn't need it, but was there a lot of support for General Clarke's interest
in closing that program down?
A:
No, I don't think so. The attitude in most places in the Corps is not to want to shut
things down, although this is an interesting point. Others might not completely agree
with me.
I think with military officers in charge of the Corps, the leaders tend to be less
influenced by the kind of self-protection that affects a civilian bureaucracy. Parkinson's
law is less at work in the case of the military. They tend to be more oriented toward
"what is the mission?" If there isn't anything to do, let's not waste money.
I don't mean that overall they don't want the Corps to be capable. The military
leadership certainly is looking out for the long-term capabilities of the Corps. But they
have a slightly different view of how that's done. I think their view of it is that, if the
Corps is efficient and doesn't have a bloated bureaucracy, it will survive.
They don't want the Corps to be viewed as a bloated bureaucracy. They want it to be
lean and mean. I think some of the top civilians in the Corps have the same attitude. But
overall, I think any bureaucracy like that tends to be protective. So one thing that's
helped the Corps change with the times is the fact that it had leaders that believed in
change.
125
Previous Page
