Evening star., 1949-10-21
Nub of the Controversy

One least expected to hear from General
Bradley words that left sting. In this
respect he was out of character For our
ranking military man to use such terms
as self appointed aspiring martyrs"
and fancy Dams" toward his contempo-
raries in the Navy was injudicious, to say
the least.
The so-called B-36 hearings have opened
wounds which in any circumstance are
going to be hard to heal 1t was not
necessary to add salt. And one fears that
General Bradley, in departing from the
calmly objective manner of speech that
is one of his compelling attributes, has
made his own task more difficult AS
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff he
is largely responsible for building that
teamwork to which he correctly referred
in his testimony as the essential ingredi-
ent of unifcation. 1t has been badly
shattered
Aside from his unfortunate lapses into
name-calling, however, one of the merits
of General Bradley's testimony was to
bring into sharper focus the substance of
disagreement that splits the National
Defense Establishment. Taking the Brad
ley testimony and that of Admiral Louis E.
Denfeld, one is able almost to reduce the
essence of controversy between them to
this exchange:
ADMIRAL DENFELD-Ndudl officers,
,Uho kno,u the importance of the use and
command OF the seas to this country, can
not understand reductions in the feet
and its functions ,ohtch are being imposed
by arbitrary decision. Limitations are i'm
posed Without consultation, and pithout
understanding of the Nays RESPONSE
btlities in defense of Our maritime Nation.
Reductions in the feet under this process
cannot be explained and the first 1oord the
fleets get is orders to deactiuate units.
GENERAL BRADLEY-The truth of the
matter is that uery te,o Many men, on the
stat OF the Chief OF Naual Operations,
haze had any experience in large-scale
land operations. This may account
for the fact that in joint planning, where
knowledge OF the larger continental opera
tions Which 1Ue must ultimately face If zoe
eDer 90 to lDar is "must," Nauu men
frequently find their suggestions "out-
Uoted" o-to-one.
The B-36, as q weapon of warfare. Is
not the nub of the controversy. It. is
merely a symbol of the controversy. The
nub OF the controversy lies in mutual
distrust-with the Army and Air Force
attributing Navy recalcitrance to the
Nays lack of understanding of how a
land war must be fought; and the Navy
feeling, likewise, that 1t is being voted
down arbitrarily by men without under
standing OF the Navy's part in warfare on
land or sea.
How Secretary johnson Is going to
reconcile these opposing convictions,
deeply and sincerely held by able men,
is his great problem. He may have acted
precipitately in some decisions The Navy
makes out strong case that he did. But
his predecessor, on the other hand, was
bounded to tragic death with the criti-
cism that he would not make up his mind.
Decisions, wise or unwise, must be made.
There is little time to make them and they
cannot be delayed for a popular vote
preceded by public debate between the
admirals and the generals.
The only things that Secretary Johnson
and the country have to depend upon now
in quickly healing this dangerous breach
are the character and the patriotism of
the ranking men in the services That
Is note that General Eisenhower, in his
restrained and conciliatory statement yes
terday, seemed to strike. Only time can
prove the wisdom or unwisdom of decisions
made. But procedure in reaching decisions
evidently needs revision. For it is proce-
dure in reaching decisions, rather than the
decisions themselves, that has brought
revolt from the Navy.
Protecting ChiIdren's Welfare