Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1947-06-01

In one OF his recent talks Henry wallace
echoed an apprehension that seems to be
held by a good many people and, for good
measure, threw In bit of misinformation
of his own invention
Mr.. Wallace was deploring the appoint
ment of military men to important diplo-
matte posts and he pointed out that Sec
ond in command in the State Department
Is former Assistant Secretary Of War"
II Mr.. Wallace knew what he was talking
about on this point, he was willfully con-
veying false impression. For, while 1t
Is true that Undersecretary Of State Lovett
formerly was Assistant Secretary of War,
it Is also true that by profession he is a
banker and graduate of Yale and Har-
ward. He Is one of those who came to
Washington to do what he could during
the war, and by no stretch of the imagi-
nation Is he military man.
The former Vice President went on to
say that everywhere from top to bottom
in our Government is domination of the
military in time OF peace" If he was talking
in terms of numbers, and, more particu-
larly, If his reference was to the State
Department, this is nonsense For, while
we have men who came to prominence
through the armed services as ambassa-
doris to Russia, Belgium, South Africa and
Panama, they head only four of the fifty
four diplomatic missions this country
maintains abroad
If, however, Mr.. Wallace had in mind the
influence in Government of military men,
and not the number Of them, he is on
sounder ground. But even If this be
granted, 1t by no means follows that their
influence is not wholesome thing.
Referring to General Marshall, Mr.. Wal
lace declared: 1--WE have today running our
State Department one of the finest men in
the world, but nevertheless a military
man." The inference seems to be that Mr..
Wallace, while recognizing General Mar
shall's splendid qualities, is keeping his
fingers crossed because of the Secretary of
States background as professional mill
tary man. In saying this, however, Mr..
Wallace was merely expressing in his own
language the traditional American distrust
OF what is loosely described as the "profes-
sional military mind"
Despite the George washingtonians and
the Andrew Jacksons and the Robert e.
Lees, a goodly number of Americans cling
to the notion that there Is something in
herently dangerous about a military man.
In time of war, when the threat to our
country and to our freedoms is greatest,
we are willing to trust them. But in time
of peace, when our freedom Is relatively
secure, the tendency is to send the military
men back to the barracks with instructions
to stay there.
In the present state of the world, how
ever, we can no longer afford the luxury
of this befuddled thinking. OF course,
there are some military men who should
not be trusted with important civilian posts
in time of peace. But the same thing is
true of some politicians, and some business
men, and some members of the learned
professions. The real test, and the only
test, should lie in the man hinself-in his
qualifications for a particular post and his
philosophy OF life. This country needs the
peacetinne services Of the best men it can
get, and the best men ought not to be
debarred from public service because they
have distinguished themselves in the Army
or the Navy. 1t is time that we stopped
frightening ourselves by conjuring up the
DOGGY Of the military mind"