The Waterbury Democrat., 1941-12-02

New York, Dec. as--Eack oe a unl- ned supreme command ag the gfsateSt weakness of the ., s. army, Fortune magazine declares today m tts December Issue.
 Painting out that war has come to Involve problems of managerial control and coordination far beyond anything the tactical education of our present. hlgh command ever sn- Gcipated, the magazine of manage naent aaserts that only strong puh- lic pressure can bring about the re- organlzat Hon necessary to make tho army m effective striking force by eliminating politics and igetn slency from the officer corps,
 tNo one doubts that the U. s, army contains plenty of forcetul and imaginative officers, whose minds are not set. who arc capable of converting the present make- shifts into terrific hitting power" Fortune states. "But how Is this elite to hs brought to positions of powegs
 "1t must be done, paradoxically, by the same public whose sShort- changing dlsinterest, and politics played such part in bringing the army Co tho low estate in which tho emergency found it. It must Do done within the ofIace of the President, which especially contrib uted to army lSieitlcieney in peace years by toleratlng inefficient genS erai staffs, gahotaglng the B Board's' retirement recomEnenda- tons, and falling consistently, until the invasion Of the Low Countries, to act forcefully in the role of conn niander-in-chief.
 Repeating Mistake
 The army cannot lift itself by It's own bootstraps, but progressive officers can reform and revltaliZe it If they are aided by powerful pres- sure from the public a public that supports the army and under stands its need. Otherwise the army Tislss repeating the tragic mistake of the A. V. F., which sacrificed far too many soldiers per casualty in- filcted on the enemy,
 General George c. Marshall, chief of stan, in private and public statements hnS shown himself fa- miliar with the German system oE unified command and convinced of Its potency" Fortune points out, But last September he declared his oppog4tlon to such q command in this country on the ground that t HaA te.sN a4tt archy and conflict with our system Of government
 But the Idea that a unified com. mand is undemocratlc is disproved by th@ fact that it is rominAlly pro. yide6 for in the Constitution, which makes the President the comman- der-in-chiet of the army, navy, and militia. Far from claShing with democratic principles . supreme high command always subject to the wishes of the President would provide the means of making democracy militarlly effective.
 "Tais nation should make It's re. forms In advance of actual war and without regard for bureaucratic jeaiousaes," Fortune declares, "Any such reconstruction will radically change the chain of command, and fl the job iS to be done properly Congress should amend the national defense act.
 President Roosevelt as comman- der-in-chief might conceivably set mp & supreme high command by executive order, but under our poll- teal system the army and navy ! would probably work more harmon l iously if the new structure had the i, blessing Of regular legislative stat. ute.
 Unified Command
 Establishment of unified com mand would have the added adyan- tage of accomplishing several of the objectives usually cited in favor of c separate and independent air force. It would ensure the mesh- ing of army and navy air strength to the best advantage.
 Tt is true that they can and do cooperate now in maneuverS; but | while cooperation is an admirable word in the civil iexi:on, warfare demands control--a& General Gort's report on the Battle of France shows only too clearly.
 The German Army, admittedly the best in the world at the moment, is the standard Of comparison, and to the extent that our High Com mand is patterning its reformation after this efficient striking force 1t displays an awereness of change that has been absent in the past" Fortune states. But is this all that we shall expect from the Army-a slavish imitation of the revolution ary tactics and principles worked out by rival armies? Or shall We demand of 1t the initiative and in- ventiveness that distinguish us as an industrial power?