Evening star., 1949-08-19
Dissents From Mr.. Lawrence's Theory
OF Service Branch Autonomy
% of he

David Lawrence has been hammering for
some time on the theme that what the
Navy does with its appropriated funds Is
strictly Navy business. Mr.. Lawrence rec
ognizes that this principle of isolationism
in respect to rightful interest in the funds
available to- the Navy does not automatically
receive enthusiastic approval merely because
he or the Navy adheres to it. In fact. Mr..
Lawrence beYails the unhappy truth that
the efforts OF the Army and Air Force to
make their views felt in regard to Navy
activities has precipitated a grave issue in
the National Military Establishment He
points trembling finger to the horrid fact
that the super-carrier desired by the Navy
was not supported by Generals Bradley and
Vandenberg. Why, says Mr.. Lawrence,
General Vandenberg has never even been
aboard a carrier! Whether the Navy off,
cials who denounce the B-36 have ever
flown one Of the big bombers, he doesn't
say. But Mr.. Lawrence. while weaving
through the welter of distortion and half
truths with which he surrounds himself,
has stumbled over solid fact: The ques-
tion whether each military service has
rlghtful interest in the programs of the
other two services is a fundamental issue
between Navy proponents on the one hand
and those of the Army and Air Force on
the other.
1t Is the contention of Army and Air
Force proponents that the question whether
the Navy uses its funds to add to an already
great fleet of cracker-box carriers for the
conduct Of Intellectual hit-and-run attacks
on land targets there is no enemy surface
fleet to attack or spends the same money
to ensure that transports carrying troops
overseas will not be sunk by enemy SUBJ
marlneS-the Army and Air Force think
this question Is important to them. It
obviously Is. Moreover, the intent of the
Uniflcation Act, to mold the three military
services into an integrated team, would be
Ill served by an attitude Of none of-your-
business among the individual services. The
American citizen and his representatives
IN Congress have little tolerance for the
idea that each military service is a little
autoQomous empire, inviolate as to con-
structive criticism of its unilaterally- con-
celved programs and plans. Every alert
citizen knows by now that the military
service for which Mr.. Lawrence writes his
plaSed pleadlngS is the same service which
bitterly opposed the passage of the Unifica-
ton Act and has continued to oppose its
implementation at every forward step. His
current plea for service autonomy in the
use OF funds is more Of the same unrecon-
structed rebellion.
1t is a plain fact that there is no poten-
eAoA SAASAAJ Sa41dCc llccL 10 CNdlIenge our
Navy-our Navy being twice as powerful as
all the other navies of the world combined.
Accordingly. the Navy seeks to use its funds
TO develop capabilities to operate in the as
signed spheres of the Army and Air Force,
This is an uneconomical use of limited re-
sources to which the Army and Air Force
soundly object. Mr.. Lawrence would pre-
clude inter-service discussion of such a mat
ter on the ground that it is no ones busi-
ness but the Nays. If that is so, the
American taxpayer is doomed to go on in
definitely paying for two ground forces
(the Army and the Marines), three air
forces dhe Navy Air Force, the Marine Air
Force. and the United States Air Force)
and for huge surface Navy with no DO
tential opponent Meanwhile, by virtue of
Navy spending in the effort to create ca
pabilities overlapping those of the Air Force
and Army, the real job of the Navy-to
clear the sea lanes of enemy submarines
is neglected This situation is what Mr..
Lawrence seeks to insure. God help him
and all Americans if he succeeds.
L. L, K