Evening star., 1949-03-01
Suggested 0ne-Man
Defense Control Seen
Leading 10 Disunity
Writer Believes 1t Would
Give Too Much Power
To Non-EIective Official
Bv David La,Crence

The proposal by the Hoover
Commission to do away with the
Secretaries of the Army, Navy and
Air Force, respectively, and con-
centrate full power in the Secre-
tary of Defense clears the air and
puts before the American people
concretely the issue that supposed
ly has been retarding the much
talked-of "unif1cation" of the
armed services.
If adopted, it could make the
President f1gurehead and put
the exercise of all military and
economic power into the hands Of
one man who is not directly re-
sponsible to the people at the
polls.
The argument is advanced that,
as long as the President has the
power to remove a cabinet officer.
a sufficient check has been applied.
But the experience of history
shows that in a national crisis
whoever controls the Army and
Navy-to which nowadays must
be added the Air Force..in any
country, that individual has the
potential authority to maintain
himself in power.
The proposal is one of those
curious rationaliZationS which en-
anate from the passion for organi-
cation chart efficiency. 1t is not
one that has been thought
through. Far from promoting unity
in the armed services, it is likely
to bring diSunity. i
Again and again in democracy
1t has been demonstra that
where there are honest differences
of opinion, the best results toward
agreement or a compromise for
mula are not obtained by the pre-
sumably simple device Of knock
ing heads together" 1t is much
better to devise a way for diff
ferences to be aired. for the con-
fiicting viewpoints to be thorough
ly explored.
astonishing" Arguments.
With recollectionS fresh as to
how the last war was fought. it
is astonishing to find jealous ad-
vocates of one-man control i'm
plying, in effect, that the Amer;-
can system lost the last war and
Germany won it. For the Nazis
had the one-man system and the
United States, as we'll as Great
Britain, had joint chiefs Of staff.
The Hoover Commission has
heard a good deal of testimony
from all sides and has come up
with the same solution that the
War Department and the Air
Force advocated shortly after the
ending of the war. The Navy
viewpoint, which was expressed
by Secretary Forrestal at the time,
has now been sidetracked and Mr..
ForrestaI is recommending a one
man control.
This no doubt proceeds from
his exaSperating experiences with
bureau chiefs and primarily from
the fact that the Air Force went
over his head to Congress to ask
for more appropriations than had
been stipulated by the Secretary
of Defense. Instead of defining
more closely the responsibilities
of the heads of the three armed
services and instead of putting
an end to the lobbying that goes
on for congressional appropria-
tions for the armed services, it
is unfortunate that solution is
sought by means Of a system OF
one-man discipline.
There are good reasons why the
Army, Navy and Air Force view
points differ. Each service knows
its own history and accomplish
ments best. To superimpose new
Department of National Defense,
with an undersecretary and a host
of staff officers, would mean a
new bureaucracy and further con-
fusion.
President Held Responsible.
The recommendation that a
chairman for the three-man
Joint Chiefs of Staff be ap-
pointed is not as good as the plan
that was in effect during the war
when the chief of staff to the
President acted as presiding Off
Ger. The President must at all
times retain control of both the
military and civilian agencies re-
lated to preparations for war. 1t
is far better that the President
appoint chief of staff to sit with
the Joint Chiefs than to make the
chairman of staff of three re-
sponsible to the Secretary of De-
fense.
If it is decided to have three top
men from the Army, Navy and
Air Force constituting the joint
Chiefs of Staff, it is better that
they select their own presiding
officer and that all three have
direct access to the President in
the event that they cannot agree
or in the event that the mediation
services of the Secretary of De-
fense are of no avail.
The American people must al
ways be in position to hold the
President of the United States
responsible for any errors that
could conceivably imperil the safe
ty of the United States. He is
the commander in chief under
the Constitution. He cannot dele
gate that responsibility to any
one.
Reproduction Rights ReservedO