Evening star., 1949-06-01

Precedent for Step Seen
In Key West Agreement
On Strategic Functions
By Dapid Laurence
There's one way out Of the
confusion which has developed In
the effort to secure unification OF
the armed services. It doesn't
require any new legislation. But
it does require a simple piece OF
constructive planning by the
Secretary .of Defense.
The solution has been slowly
crystallizing out Of the current
experience inside the Joint Chiefs
of Staff. 1t necessitates a brief
charter Of principles for the OPP
Grafton of that all-important
agency. 1t can be written only
by the Joint Chiefs and put into
effect as directive by the Secre-
tary of Defense. The precedent
for such a step is the famous Key
West agreement on strategic func-
tions.
In that agreement, roles and
missions only were outlined
When, for example, to the Air
Force alone was assigned the
primary responsibility for strate-
gic bombing. 1t was also stipu-
lated that the Navy should assist
wherever practicable In the carry
ing out of such a mission.
But to the Navy were assigned
certain missions, too. such as
antisubmarine warfare. the bomb
ing Of submarine pens and the
laying OF mines and other tasks
Excellent Beginning.
The outline of missions made
at Key West last year was an
excellent beginning. It didn't
however. go far enough and take
up internal procedures and budg-
et-making. Using the same ap-
proach, 1t now becomes necessary
for the Joint Chiefs Of Staf1 to
make q basic agreement on Two
major points:
/. Shall there be o specific plan
for war and shall everything be
related to that particular plan,
or shall there be a flexible plan
which would permit the armed
services to meet any contingencies
that arise when war comes2 A
rigid plan has the serious dis
advantage Of basing all strategy
on cne defense, such as on the
Maginot Line. Obviously. the
flexible plan is the better.
2. Shall each service vote its
view in the Joint Chiefs OF Stan
as to the way in which another
services mission shall be carried
out and with. what weapons?
This goes to the root Of the pres
ent controversy.
1t will be conceded by fair
minded men In all the armed
services that q certain amount OF
scrutiny Of each others budgets
is desirable 80 that no service can
70 of on q tangent with q
strained Interpretation Of its
needs. It Is admitted also that
the mutual scrutiny Of budgets
can be helpful II carried merely
to the point Of criticism and OBJ
servation. When, however. the dis
cusston reaches the technical
point Of what weapons shall be
used to- carry out an assigned
mission, then the decision should
be made by each service as to
what weapons 1t needs for that
mission. Nor should any weapon
be the exclusive or monopoly
privilege of one service. When
war comes. it is necessary to hit
the enemy with all services and
all weapons.
Today the Joint Chiefs of Stafi
is In a state of disunity and con-
fusion because 1t lacks guiding
charter. The statute does not
specify what the procedures
should be inside the Joint Chiefs,
The omission is probably a good
thing because hexibility is essen
tial, especially in emergencies.
Causes of Friction.
Here are specific examples OF
what has happened recently to
cause friction: The B-36 was sub
mitted to the Joint Chiefs at vari-
ous stages. The Navy representa-
tive on the Joint Chiefs did not
question the policy of putting all
the eggs in one basket as the Air
Force appeared to be doing. Ap-
proval was given to the budget
asked by the Air Force and the
routine changes in B-36 orders
on the theory that the Air Force
knew best what weapons it
wanted for its missions .
Conversely. however. both the
Army and the Air Force voted
against the building of the large
carrier. despite the insistence of
the Navy that it needed such a
vessel to carry out naval missions.
Now the dispute has entered an
other vexatious stage. The Army
and Air Force have begun to
question the modernization of
such aircraft carriers as already
are built. This Is carrying mat
ters to the technical point Of say
ing, in effect. that q man who has
spent his entire career with
ground troops is capable Of navi-
eating a ship and carrying out
sea operations or bringing his
inexpert judgment on those sub
jects to the conference table. It
is this absurdity which Is holding
UP unification. Selecting q chair
man whose experience is also con-
fined to one service doesn't help
matters any.
The problem can be solved by