Evening star., 1945-10-23
ForrestoI's S Realism
On Defense Is Hailed
Security Council Proposal Goes
to Root of Needs, Says Writer

Security Council Proposal Goes
to Root of Needs, Says Writer
By David Laurence
Youthful and realistic minded James
Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy who is
soon to resign his post and hence has
no nest to feather in the Government
service, has come forth with about the
most practical and statesmanlike plan
yet suggested for the national defense.
Instead of advocating merger of the
War and Navy Departments and crea-
ton of what he calls government
colossus" he proposes national security
council which means that the top men
of the War, Navy and State Departments
as well as the National Security Re-
sources Board will work together to
formulate American policy in respect to
defense.
This goes right to the root of the diff
ficulty which was in large part RESPONSE
bic for the Pearl Harbor tragedy. It
places the responsibility for defense pol
icy not on one department or a merger
of two, but upon four-man council.
This is more in keeping with the Ameri-
can tradition and means that the Presi-
dent of the United States, as commander
in chief, will have the benefit of a con-
tinuing body which will have statutory
responsibility for defense
Calls Rivalry Healthy.
Mr.. Forrestal points out wisely that
in the industrial as well as in the mill
tary field the assumption is wrong that
merger in and of itself compels either
efficiency or economy" and he adds that
certain rivalry or competition is
| healthy.
| What has never been said officially
heretofore on this point is now disclosed
| by the Navy Secretary, who remarks
briefly that it was this competitive spirit
which gave America the air-cooled en-
| gine for the greatest portion of her
| combat airplanes. Likewise he reveals
that there were certain items of gunfre
which were created by the Navy, par
ticularly the proximity fuse and radar
fire control. The Army didn't have to
| specialize on the problem of Naval war
! fare which made it necessary to invent
| answers to special difficulties and
| hazards.
Most important, however is the hint
which Mr.. Forrestal gives as to what
went on behind the scenes in the United
States Joint Chiefs of Staff. He says
significantly:
The eyes of the Army and its repre-
sentativeS of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
were inevitably and quite properly fixed
| on Europe as the great central plain of
battle, but 1 submit that it was a wise
thing that the Navy's eyes were turned
toward the Pacific and fortunate one
| that Admiral King was free to insist
upon the Nays point of view within
the joint chiefs of staff"
The foregoing is a tactful under
| statement, for the American people NAV
never know the debt they owe to clear
| eyed and persistent Admiral King who
| kept in mind always the fact that
America had war to fight in the Pa
cific and that for the greater part of
the time it was Americas Job all alone.
| If it had not been for the unremitting
pressure exerted by the Navy in con-
nection with supplies for the Pacifc-a
need which on more than one occasion
| was emphasized also by Gen. Macarthur
1T is serious question whether Japan
| would have been defeated as quickly or
whether the United States would vet
have had the bases from which an
| atomic bomb could be dropped.
Call to Liberals.
| Mr.. Forrestal praises the United States
Joint Chiefs of Staff but thinks it should
| continue to serve as heretofore as a
means for expression by each OF the
heads of the armed services with true
coordination by the commander in
chief namely the President Mr.. For
restal favors the keeping of authority
in the hands of the commander in chief
and not setting up military dictator
ship of armed services by one man under
the President. The Secretary says:
The plan advanced by certain pro-
ponentS OF unification in effect amounts
to an isolation and derogation of the
civil authority"
This is something which might well
awaken the liberals of the Nation and
the church groups which have always
fought militarism in America In the
proposed plan for single chief af
armed services lies the germ of such a
militaristic setup and Secretary For
restal uses tactful language in de-
nouncing it.
What is back of the persistent propa-
ganda for the one-man control of all
armed services? Mr.. Forrestal points
out that nobody is disputing unified
command in the field but consolidation
of departments at home for the pur-
pose OF controlling what happens in the
field is something else again. The United
States Joint Chiefs of staff was not a
one-man affair but a four man setup
in which the Army, the Navy, and the
Air Forces were represented, together
with the Presidents own chief of staff.
But it was not committee governed
by majority vote. Each member spoke
for given service and in case of dis
agreement the President made the de-
cision. The final power and authority
OF the commander in chief under our
Constitution cannot be delegated.
Reproduction Rights Reserved)
Importance of the Past
From the st. Louis Post-Dispatch
In the immediate future, a thousand
situations concerning intricate national
and international relationships all over