The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1940-05-09

REAR ADMIRAL TAUSSIG-
His voice is being 'shushed' by the
navy.
couldn't be sunk at all without
splash that would raise the tides
on all the seven seas.
In times of peace, can't see why
there should be any shushing at all.
Nine-tenths of this military secrecy
business is the bunk. I was glad
to read of Admiral Taussig's testi-
mony, that the reason for the navy's
insistence on fortifying Guam and
increasing naval estimates at cost
of more than billion is that we've
got to fight Japan.
For this purpose, he wants to es-
tablish an 'impregnable base in the
Philippines" (Which is not possible)
''fortify the Island of Guam to make
its capture impossible" (Which is
equally absurd) land make an alli-
ance with Great Britain, France and
the Netherlands that will insure CO.
operation in the maintenance of the
status quo in the area to the south
ward of Formosa."
The navy didn't attempt to shush
Admiral Taussig. 1t merely said
that his opinion was his own and
contrary to its views.
But the navy is asking for exactly
what Taussig is defending. 1t con-
cedes that it wants to fortify Guam
"to stabilize the political situation
in the Far East"
Admiral Taussig was simply more
explicit. He wants to check Jap
anese expansion in Asia and Ma
laysia which he says is under way
at present with the Subjugation OF
China, the Philippines, Netherlands
Indies, French Indo-China and Ma
laya are to be taken over in due
course of time. Russia is to be
driven westward of Lake Baikai."
It is a fair Interpretation of the
rest of the admirars testimony that
we have to fight naval war with
Japan to prevent all this and must
get ready now.
/ don't agree with Admiral Taus-
sig. If we are to engage our
strength and effort on distant and
indefensible detectives half way
across the world, we shall be duck
soup for enemies much closer to
our shores. We have no bone buried
in Asia. But it is wonderful thing
to know that he could speak and
did speak his mind.
1t is unfair to the army, the navy
and the country to tell them to pre-
pare for war and not tell them
what war-how, when and where.
What is the foreign political, mill
tary and naval policy of the United
States? That is our most important
question. 1t needs to be debated
and explored, and as to its military
and naval aspects, professional mil
itary and naval men know the limi-
tations. For the present at least,
let's not shush any of them.
Sen. Bennett Clark wants to court
martial Admiral Taussig for say
ing that naval preparedness plans
are aimed at checking japan in Asia
and Malaysia. My esteemed col
umnar colleague, Raymond Clapper,
writes: "The function of the armed
forces is to carry out policy and not
to make it" This is 100 per cent
right. eve depend on military and
naval officers to advise us as to the
preparedness measures we should
take for the national safety or to
maintain given policies" 0. K. as
theory. but it doesn't mean thing
In our practices.
During our neutrality period in the
World war, the army had orders
not to engage in any planning based
on possible participation in war.
That was definite enough, but it re-
suited in lamentable confusion when
that policy was suddenly reversed
and there was no plan at all. Since
then, our military and naval units
have used the device of imagining
possible general situatiorls"-near-
ly all based on some threat to this
ihemisphere-and have done the best
they could without any authoritative
directive whatever.