Evening star., 1943-10-29

auxiliary to the ground forces.
This development is highly graft
flying to advocates Of full use of the
air power potential. AS far as tacti-
cal freedom for the air contIngents
working in Army operations is con-
cerned modification has now run it's
full course.
This was inevitable. Under the
pressure of these years of harsh eX-
perience, and especially the losses
in Tunisia because of ineffective use
of air power. the established routine
has finally been upset. The new
regulations assert in so many words
that the winning Of air superiority
lis the first requirement for the sue
cess of any major land operation"
This principle of course. was eX-
planned by Gen. Douhet before the
World War and by men like Gen.
Billy Mitchell in the decades be-
tween the two wars.
News Called Misleading.
Important as this internal Army
reorganization may be, it is most
unfortunate that the news has been
broken to the American people in
misleading terms. The announce
ment .,ne to us in phrases about "a
separate air arm independent
equality 'Eee from ground rule"
and the lRs& s;hich convey the ut
terly false impression that Americas
air power has attaiIsd a standing of
independent equality with the Army
and the Navy.
Nothing of the sort has happened
and confusion on this score can only
bewilder public opinion and delay the
utmost utilization of our air poten
tial. What has happened is deSira-
BILE but it has nothing to Go with
the kind of unified. autonomous
air force which Gen. Mitchell and
his disciples have pleaded for. We
do not have the equivalent of the
British Air Ministry and its Royal
Air Force II is essential that Ameri
cans understand this thoroughly, If
we are to lead and not trail in avia-
ton.
The Army Air Forces in any given
NIlIdltI VI WdI iloN nave lilS SdIllC
independence of action hitherto en-
joyed by the ground forces. But they
continue to work within the larger
strategic patterns conceived by the
Army and Navy. in the formulation
of which airmen participate only as
suhordinateS and consultantS. No
less important, they work with equip
rnHnPtiy1r thot 0Uprol1
and therefore are dependent on
surface minds"
Comparison Offered.
Let me use q homely comparison.
Suppose the railroads go into the
air transport business, as supple
ment to their main undertaking.
They give aviation executives, whom
they hire and fire at will, autonomy
to run the air lines--but within the
er-all business policy established
by board of railroadmen, who
alone shall have final authority and
within the burget assigned to them
by that board
It would be silly. under those cir
cumStances, to assert that the air
lines have equality with the rail-
roads. Te aviation men could ex-
pand or change policies or reform
equipment only after convincing
thei" railroad superiors of its de-
STABILITY. For instance, it would be
impossible for the aviation execu-
tives to break the news to the board
that major portion of the whole
railroad system ought to be aban-
doned IN favor of air lines with
corresponding changes in the board
personnel. Only when these avia-
ton people have the same full and
final scope to formulate business
strategy and independent capital to
implement it, will they have the kind
Of independence railroads enjoy,
The autonomy granted to aviation