Evening star., 1945-07-02
United Defense Plan
Seen Needing Study
Writer Fears Glib Propagandists
May Influence Congress
By Dapid Laurence

Way lnMuenCe congress
By Dapid Laurence
The general headquarters Of the war
the "GHQ" Of all military, naval and
aerial operations shifted to Wash
ington.
No military staff anywhere else on the
face of the globe today possesses the
authority exercised by the combined
chiefs of staff, comprising the highest
commanding officers of the army, navy
and air forces Of both Great Britain
and the United States.
Because under the original Churchill
Roosevelt agreements, for ALLEGATION Of
commands in the global war, the United
States has fun responsibility for most of
the Pacific Ocean area, the United
States joint chiefs of staff are really
running the war against Japan. This
is in line with the principle that COM
mand goes to the nation with prepon-
derant forces in a given area.
While there are only four members
Of the United States joint chiefs OF
staff-Generals Marshall and Arnold,
Of subordinate officers assigned to the
organization is very large. Here we have
what might be called an integrated
command. All units are equal and
coordinate. The Army is represented
by Gen. Marshall and by Gen. Arnold
of the Army Air Forces. Though, tech
nically, the air force commander is a
Eo 81 IIry
he holds equal rank and has equal voice.
AS for the Navy it has only one rep
resentative on the United States joint
chiefs of staff-Admiral King.
Army Two to Navy One.
Logically perhaps the ground forces
of the Army should be represented
separately. Likewise there might be
added the commandant of the Marine
Corps and the head of the Naval Air
Forces but the Navy is itself a we'll
integrated military organization and
speaks effectively through the COM
mander in chief Of its feet. 1t is true
that Admiral Leahy is a naval officer
but primarily he happens to be chief of
staff to the President and has no re-
sponsibility to either the War or Navy
Departments, acting instead as haison
between the President and the United
States joint chiefs of staff The Army,
therefore, today has two representatives
on the United States joint chiefs of
staff to the Navy's one.
There is no provision in the ConSti-
tuition for a single military chieftain
of all our armed forces and 1t may be
doubted whether the American people
would approve of such for 1t might be
the opening wedge not only to a dicta-
torship by the military but also to mill
tarism itself The Constitution speci-
f1cally stipulates that the only COM
mander in chief we can have must be
an elected leader, namely the President
of the United States.
Admiral Leahy has never conceived of
his job as boss of either or both armed
services and if future chiefs of staff to
the President follow Admiral Leahy's
precedent there will never be cause for
apprehension.
The United States joint chiefs of staff
who talk glibly about a single depart
ment of national defense might better
examine the operations of the existing
United States joint chiefs of staff and
start from there rather than to promote
discord between the armed services by
nl-advised pressure to abolish this or
that command or service function. In
the midst of war it is very disquieting to
hear reports circulated that the valiant
Marine Corps is to be taken over by the
Army, that the Seabees Of the Navy are
to be merged with the Army engineers,
that the Navy is to lose its powerful
air arm and that all aviation Is to be
consolidated under one command.
Can Be Carried Too Far.
This merger business can be carried
too far. For instance, the writer heard
the other day of movement to estab-
lish separate and independent truck
service so that when the Navy or the
Army needed transportation by truck
they had to battle red tape and ask for
it from separate agency.
Under the guise of consolidation and
merger, there can be disintegration of
the specialized units that need to be
retained as auxiliary to the Army, Navy
and Marine Corps.
Before members of Congress commit
themselves or fall victims to the super
fetal propaganda about "a single de-
partnent of national defense" they
ought to learn more about the back
ground Of the actual differences of
method and requirement of our various
armed services. They ought to distin-
guish between supervision of procure
ment and supply operations that can be
co-ordinated readily and the difficult
problems of unified command It is
just as illogical for an admiral to set
himself up as an expert on ground
operations involving artillery and tanks
as 1t is for a general who never flew
a plane from the deck Of a ship or en-
gage in naval air patrol to tell the
Navy how to conduct amphibious war
fare.
The best thing to do is to examine
carefully the lessons of this war from
actual experience. Until there is no longer
need for military security and until SEN
sitiveness by the military itself is less
acute as to the mistakes made that have
been hushed up this far it will be diff
cult for the Congress to get all the truth
necessary to form Judgment of how
far single department of defense
should go toward abolishing or merging
any existing services.
Reproduction Rights Reserved)
R,xt No& klnry