Evening star., 1946-12-11
New Congress to Act
On Merger Project
Terms Describing Army-Navy
Unity Confusing to Public
By David Laurence

Unity CONFUSING TO FuDi1c
By DaDid Laurence
With the advent of a new Congress.
1t Is to be expected that something
will be done about the much discussed
merger" of the armed services.
Unfortunately, the public has been
misled by the use OF terms. The words
"unification," !" merger" economy" EFF
ficiency" and duplication" have been
banded about so that even members
of Congress have been confused.
What needs to be done is to separate
the problem into parts. One is the set
ting up of system Of national defense
for all reasonable contingencies ard
the other is to set up a plan which
can be expanded in time Of actual war.
What the Nation wants when war
breaks out is adequate force to resist
attack and to start Immediately an of
fensive against the enemy.
There is no such thing as an over
night merger" of experience or traiu-
ing. To combine all land, sea and air
forces into a single instrument sud-
denly and put them under one CONT
mander would be to reduce rather than
increase efficiency. It would take years
to develop a single armed service and
command staff.
"unified Command Rare.
The last war was not fought, as is
commonly believed, by system Of "uni-
fed command" or by single cont
only in local theaters of operation was
there a single commander and he usu-
ally had alongside of him representatives
OF every branch of the armed services,
constituting staff or committee.
In the larger areas of operation, uni
fed command was practieed only rarely
and never in the same way.
Gen. Eisenhower, for example, did not
have complete or constant command
of the Air Forces or of all the armies
in Europe or of the Navy at any one
time.
Admiral Nimitz never had command
of the Air Forces in the Pacific. -
Those persons who tell the public
that what is needed now is tie same
sort of unity of command as existed
in the war are talking about a gen.
eralissimo who never emerged in the
American picture at all. It was only
in NaI Germany, which lost the wat,
that commander of land, sea and an
forces operated.
1t was the United States Joint Chiefs
Of Staff which successfully commanded
American military, naval and air forces
as the delegated agent of the President.
British Plan of Action.
Great Britain, mindful of the expert
ences of the past and looking toward
the future, has not set up single COM
mander in chief. 1t has set up q plan
whereby each service-land, sea and air
lis independent but all three report to
the Prime Minister through . joint
chiefs of staff.
This is an American concept and
American plan, but, in addition, the
British have provided single civilian
defense minister for the cabinet to
handle recommendations for budgets and
related matters of administration at
home No one man today commands
the British military, naval and cir
forces. f4
The British also have set up an ad-
visory council consisting Of the milf
tary men and the diplomatic officers
of the government who make foreign
policy. A similar council has been sug-
gested by the United States Navy lead
ers for this country. S
In any approach to new organiza-
tom of our national defense, 1t is es-
sential that attention be given to purely
military aspects. Matters of procure
ment and supply and even finance ap-
pear often on the surface to be Of pri-
mary Importance when the real question
is how to train and operate military
forces in an integrated plan and to pre-
pare them for the military problems
Of future war.
The experience of World Wars I and
II is available, and the chief lesson TO
be learned is that the United States
sacrifices tens of thousands Of American
boys needlessly because it listens to the
glib talk of politicians, inside and out
side the armed services, who care more
in peacetime about theoretical budget
ary economies that sound plausible than
they do about adequate defense.
Simple Question.
Whenever military men start talking
of single budget, to be divided up
among themselves by one man who is q
military man himself or by one DEPART
ment of the Government dominating the
others, it is time to ask the simple
question whether military efficiency or
political expediency are to be followed
in determining what measures must be
taken to safeguard the safety OF the
American people.
The problem is not basically financial
nor is it political. 1t is essentially mill
tary. What President Truman ought to
do is to appoint commission of fair
minded civilians to take testimony and
listen to the arguments of each branch
of the armed services as to the part
which specialized operations must play
in any comprehensive national defense
system.
Members of Congress will become
hopelessly entangled in Army and Navy
squabbles if they don't approach the
whole problem effectively through a
disinterested commission, whose solid
responsibility will be to decide how best
to protect American boys of the future
from the mistakes of politicians.
Reproduction Rights Reserved.)
kA~x@ cLo,uo.