Evening star., 1949-10-09
Our Aim in War

| There Is nothing reaSSurlng to the lay
man in any of the testimony which has
been submitted to the House Armed Serv-
ices Committee in the opening phases OF
the presentation of the Navy's complaint.
One reads with something akin to
amazement the statement by Navy Secre-
tary Matthews that he has been promised
a hearing" by Defense Secretary johnson
on the proposal to cut 1856 100000 from
Navy funds. Mr.. Matthews believes that
this would cripple the Navy air arm to
an extent that would impair the Nations
security. Yet his statement implies that
| the economy decision was made, at least
| tentatively, without even consulting the
| Secretary of the Navy. If that is SO, then
| the fair inference is that Secretary john
son, whether right or wrong in what ne
is trying to do, is going about 1t In the
worst possible way. If the committee can
command respect for the views Of subordi-
mates in the Pentagon, it will have done
good days work.
There is, however, another side to this
hearing. Most of Admiral Radford's
testimony on Friday dealt with complicated
and technical military questions And it
seems even clearer now than before that
disputes of this kind cannot be settled
through a process of public debate.
BY plain implication, Admiral Radford
appealed to the committee to review and
reverse major military decisions which have
been made by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
the civilian officials responsible for the
national defense. "The American people,
Admiral Radford said, land indeed the
whole world, will take your final action in
this investigation to be approval or disap-
proval of theory of warfare which, am
confident, is not generally accepted as
sound by military men,
It would be impossible to view with any
thing but grave concern an attempt by
the committee or by Congress to act on
this implicit invitation. There can be no
doubt that the national security already
is suffering from discord within the mill
tary establishment. But the national
security will suffer infinitely more if basic
military decisions are to be made by Con-
gressmen who have no qualifications for
the task, and if those decisions are then to
be imposed on the responsible military
leaders. Pandoras box has been opened,
| is necessary to go forward with this public
airing of the Navys complaints, and one
can only hope that the House committee,
| in its handling of technical questions, will
| be guided by restraint commensurate
with the gravity of the consequences which
would flow from ill-considered action.
| Another aspect of Admiral Radford's
statement stirs misgivings.
He seems to think that it would be
morally reprehensible to use the atomic
bomb against cities if forced into war
with Russia, and that our strategy ought
to look to a war of limited aims which
would be fought with precision bombing
of military targets. We must know, he
adds, what kind of a peace we wish to
have and what price we are willing to
pay to achieve it.
In all probability this adds up to wishful
thinking of an exceedingly dangerous
variety. Let us hope that if war comes it
will be limited war, war in which only
military targets will suffer and in the
course of which we can concern ourselves
with the kind of peace we would like to
achieve. But the grim likelihood is that
it will be nothing of the sort We had
better make up our minds that II the
atomic war ever begins it will be war
for survival, and that the question of the
kind of peace to follow will be remote from
our minds. Our single, all-encompaSsing
aim will be to win the war, and not to
lose it.