Evening star., 1946-04-17
Pressure Group Seen
Uniting Behind Navy
Services Merger Plan Fought as
Dictatorship Says Writer
By David Laurence

OeTVlCeS NleT2eT Tldn FOu2nt a9
Dictatorship Says Writer
BY David Laurence
President Truman doesn't like lobby
ing, but the net effect of his effort to
muzzle the Navy is to create bigger
pressure group.
Since the Navy men themselves can
not speak, large groups of citizens will
be formed now to speak for them. The
Navy's position Is that the coordinate
branches in our armed services should
remain independent units but should be
operated by unified command. That
unified command, however, should not
be one man but group consisting Of
representatives of all the armed services.
Such a group operated during the war
and was known as the United States
Joint Chiefs of Staff. While the system
had some defects, it managed to win
war in both the Atlantic and the Pacific
and whenever the heads Of the armed
services cannot agree on a plan for the
defense of the United States, their views
can always be reconciled by the Presi-
dent as the Commander in Chief.
What is objected to at present is the
proposal that one man be made supreme
commander over the Army, Navy and
Air Forces. No such authority has ever
been given before in the history Of the
United States in war or in peacettme.
Such power over military forces has
been assumed in other countries and 1t
has led to military relationships.
Citizens Won't Approve.
The citizens who do not favor peace
time conscription, or who are opposed
to militarism in any form, will not ap-
prove a one-man dictatorship or COM
mand of our armed forces. Certainly
the power to command the Army and
Navy is vested in an elective leader
namely in the President Of the United
States-and it is not power that can
be delegated by the President
The proposed statute would give to
one individual command of the entire
Army, Navy and Air Forces. Such an
individual would have to know thor
oughly each branch of the service and
its strategic operations in order to be
able to carry on effectively. During the
last war it was not found that any one
individual knew enough about all the
branches of the services to command
them continuously
Thus it is popularity believed that Gen.
Eisenhower had unified command or
command of all armed services in Eu-
rope. Such was not the case. He did
not command the Navy and actually he
did not have command of the Air
Forces, though he could call for their
assistance whenever he needed them.
In other words the Air Forces operated
on their own most of the time
In the Pacific there was no single
commander who had control of or COM
mand over all the forces operating
against Japan. Gen. Macarthur was
supreme in his region and Admiral
Nimitz was supreme in his area. What
ever mistakes were made in the Pacific
were due to the fact that Navy admirals
tried to tell Army generals or generals
tried to tell admirals how to run their
respective services. It would seem de-
sirable to study thoroughly these mis-
takes, because they do not lead to mer-
gers and unified commands, but they
really lead to setup Of small STATS at
lower levels of command which can
work out problems on the spot. When
irreconcilable differences appear, these
can be resolved by the United States
Joint Chiefs of Staff In Washington.
Wide Study Needed.
What seems so strange about the en-
phasis given the merger proposal Is that
it really does not relate to operational
matters at all. 1t has been advocated
as means Of saving money and econ
omizing in procurement and other ad-
ministrative aspects OF the War and
Navy Departments. These can be
achieved through civilian cooperation
and have very little relationship to ac-
tual command in the armed services.
What is really needed Is a compre-
hensive study of the defense and secur-
ity problems of the United States Once
the top men in our military services
have decided on a comprehensive de-
tense plan, the question of allocating
commands can be taken up as conditions
change. The virtue of the United States
Joint Chiefs of Staff was that it allo-
Gated tasks of particular commanders,
realizing that conditions were not the
same in all theaters of war This meth
cd Of handling the war was successful
and there is no good reason for changing
it now.
The important thing Is to make sure
that the top men in the Army, the Navy
and the Air Forces are broad-gauged
individuals who can be expected to sit
around a table in the meetings of the
United States Joint Chiefs of Staff and
resolve questions effectively Two heads
are better than one and three heads are
better than one. The United States
Joint Chiefs of Staff was a success, and
no argument has been advanced that
would warrant placing command of
all our armed services in one mana
subordinate of the President.
Reproduction Rights Reserved)
Whole People Cove Aid
From the New York Times