Evening star., 1945-12-04
Letters to The Star
Favors Commission of Citizens to
Study Defense Meraer

To the Editor Of The Star:
Opposition to the Army Navy merger
In single Department of Defense can
be suspected as special pleading when
1t comes from somebody in naval uni
form, but despite these temporary hab-
iliments, am addressing you as CIV
ilian and with an argument that will
not delight the professionals.
object because the program en-
braced in the bills before Congress puts
control of the armed forces in the
hands of the military and further re-
moves it from civilian administration
where 1t historically and ideologically
belongs under our democratic system.
believe that in the contemplated
unification, especially as proposed by
Army Army Air Force sponsorship, we
would approach the Japanese and the
German systems of an autonomous mil
itary caste within the government. In
asmuch as our military policy in peace
time is the extension and the imple-
ment of our foreign policy, such slack
ing of civilian control is shockingly
dangerous. The danger is enhanced
even within the particular scope of the
national defense by the characteristics
of the military elders and their historic
resistance to new ideas, as witness the
labor former Secretary of the Navy
Edison had to perform to introduce the
PIT boat, high-pressure steam installa-
tions and anti-aircraft devices.
We Elect Presidents.
The retort one general is quoted as
having made to the expressed doubt
that one man is big enough to be Sec
retary of Defense is simple proof of the
professional soldiers remoteness of
comprehension of civil government. His
answer was said to have been that: III
this were true, then 1t follows that no
man has the capacity to assume the
presidency Of the United States But
We elect our presidents; we choose
them by popular vote from list OF
candidates who have served an appren-
ticeship in government. Our Cabinet
officers are appointed. and that not
even by the President, but by the win
ming party's pie-dispensers as political
rewards or for political expediency.
To put the beneficiary Of political
patronage in position of such magni-
tude as Secretary for Defense is, in
practical effect, to hand over the Army,
the Navy and the Air Force to the mil
itary professionals, which Is something
they always have wanted. and which
the public always heretofore has re-
sisted successfully. Some naval testi-
mony before the Senate Military AZ
fairs Committee has conjured the hor-
rid picture OF a Secretary Of Defense
becoming "a man on horse, q military
dictator. That Is q remote possibility.
The immediate danger Is not that the
poor fellow would become dictator.
but a dictatee, q hgure-head trying to
look like a three-visaged Cerberus with
the tail OF military hierarchy *agging
that dog.
Public Participation Essential.
So far the hearings have produced
little more than cantankerous special
pleading by prejudiced witnesses. There
is risk that If the public does not more
actively participate, the issue may be
settled emotionally. 1t is bound to be
If the American press continues to treat
the issue as II 1t were some sort of
ARMY Navy contest and not one of the
gravest problems OF our national Or
ganization.
From the viewpoint of hardboiled,
practicable public interest, no better
plan exists than that advanced by
James Forrestal, which is to refer the
question to presidential commission of
outstanding citizens for profound study
and recommendation, with the ad in
terim retention Of the defense structure
as it now exists. the joint chiefs of stan
organization to be legislatively con-
tinued, plus q National Defense Council
with industrial representation. That
would give US the unification of the
national defense which nobody decries,
in currently operable condition, sufi-
cient to the needs until cold -blooded,
non-partisan. hon-political program
were evolved by scientific approach.
WALTER KARIG,
Commander USNR.