Evening star., 1945-06-08
Letters to The Star
Questions Critics Qualifications
to Judae Okinawa Campaifn

To the Editor Of The Star:
One can believe in the right and neces-
sity of public criticism of military oper-
ations and still take exception to the
tone and intemperance of David Law
rence's remarks on what he chooses to
call the "Okinawa fiasco." Writing
apparently from single secondhand
source, the report of Homer Bigart in
the New York Herald Tribune, he does
not hesitate to toss off phrases like
"bungling," disaster" "the worst set
back we have suffered in the Pacific"
and, to top them ALL "a worse example
OF military incompetence than Pearl
Harbor." Could it be demonstrated that
Gen. Buckner's campaign has been con-
Quoted on such inadequate intelligence
as Mr.. Lawrence appears to have used
for these sweeping generalizations,
am sure we all would unite with him
In demanding an investigation.
Fortunately, however, there already
have been reported in the papers enough
facts to enable us to avoid the odious
and offlcious armchair strategy which
usually is compounded of just such
generalizations as these. Before talking
glibly about lend runs" and punches
down the middle" it would be well to
consider the character of the terrain,
the nature of the Jap defenses and the
unprecedented conditions of weather
which have been encountered. 1t should
be remembered, too, that Okinawa is
ch,,
mass which offers more bases for suicide
planes than We could hope to knock out
or blanket in SO short time 1t like
wise might be well to consider that,
with poorer defensive terrain, less sup
plies, no air support and fewer men
than the Japs have had on Okinawa,
Gen. Macarthur was able to hold out on
Bataan for one day short of four
months. We would be foolish indeed,
If in a campaign so vital to their
chances, we glibly discounted the type
OF resistance the Japs will offer.
Mr.. Lawrence suggests that: IF Oki-
nawa is sample of the tactics our high
command expects to use in invading
China or Japan (we) might as
well be prepared for a long, long war
and big casualty list" But the Amer
ican people never have been encouraged
to expect anything less than this We
are entitled to and do hope for a speedy
end of the war. Yet 1t is only those
who have INDUCED immoderately in soft
and wishful thinking who are outraged
when the going is tough. 1t is they
moreover, who lash out quickly and
blindly in an effort to find a scapegoat.
Who can say what assault shipping
would have been available for the type
OF amphibious END run" contemplated
in Mr.. Lawrence's book of tactics? Were
the beaches on the south suitable, or
might they have offered the same costly
obstacles encountered at Two or at Ia
rawa? Where would such an assault
have been mounted? How much of
force would have been required? Was
it reasonable to assume that a land
campaign could achieve the objective
as expeditiously AS new assault? In
other words, Is Mr.. Lawrence qualified,
on the basis of the evidence he offers,
to make such unqualified indictments?
No one will deny his right to speak
his mind. 1t will be a sad day in this
country when any man, wise or foolish,
cannot raise his voice in protest. But
has not the reading public also a right
to expect the same degree of technical
competence from professional critics
that they expect from our military lead
ers? DAVID PARK.