Evening star., 1949-07-07
Vinson's Plan 10 Give
Joint Chiefs Civilian
Chairman Held Folly
Would Fail to Understand
Military Council Work,
g. CoIumnist Asserts
By David Laurence

Committee decided that 1t would
favor a unification bill that elm
mated all possibility of military
dictatorship, this was tantamount
to saying that the bill passed by
the Senate could conceivably per-
NIT such a contingency to develop.
This is because the Senate pro-
posed a chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff who would outrank
every other person in the armed
services and who would have the
power to recommend policies to
the Secretary of Defense irrespec-
tive of the views Of the Joint
Chiefs.
But the solution now proposed
by Representative Vinson OF
Georgia-namely to put civilian
in as chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff-errs just as extremely in
the other direction.
The Joint Chiefs Of Staff is a
military council. 1t has been set
up to render military advice to
the President of the United States,
who is the Commander in Chief
of the Army and Navy. There is
no need of civilian to preside at
such meetings. Few, If any,
civilians would understand what
was going on except in a super
fetal way. In fact. the head Of
the Army, technically speaking,
doesn't know much about the
Navy and the head of the Air
Force isn't at all familiar with
what the Navy does or how it
functions and. of course. neither
the Army nor the Navy chiefs are
at all expert on what makes real
Air Force click.
Air Force Worlds Greatest.
Fortunately for the United
States, its air force is the great
est the world has ever known. The
United States Navy now stands
supreme over all navies, having
acquired the position and prestige
that the British navy enjoyed for
centuries. The United States
Army has demonstrated in two
World Wars that no finer soldiers
have been developed by any other
nation.
With these great military assets
and with a trained corps of Of
f1cers in each service, military ad-
vice is not lacking. What is lack
ing is method of channeling this
advice from each service so that
the President and the Secretary
Of Defense may be able to make
decisions free from inter-service
rivalries or jealousies.
The country generally has been
fed superficial viewpoint. The
argument has been raised that all
a Secretary of Defense had to do
was Ito knock heads together"
and billions would be saved. This
Is one of those fantastic impress
sions that get considerable cur
rency because it fits a precon-
ceived notion.
Actually the Joint Chiefs Of
Staff is military body that func-
toned so well during the war that
victory was won ahead of schedule
and with minimum loss of lives.
1t is true that the deliberations
Of the Joint Chiefs were some
times prolonged. But the differ
ences of opinion were rarely on
what each service should do. The
debates rather were concerned
with how much of our resources
and manpower should be allocated
to the Pacific when the European
war front was being given priority.
In peacetime. of course, the urge
to agree is not as strong. especially
as each service wishes to develop
along lines that it considers effec-
tive for fighting a theoretical war
on date that nobody can foretell.
To resolve such differences by
appointing virtual dictator is
an easy way out but in the end
might prove costly. 1t could save
a few dollars and ruin the morale
of any or all of the services. In
dividuality and specialization are
characteristic of each armed serv-
ice. To allow someone whose chief
experience has been in operating
tanks or naval vessels to tell the
Air Force how to design or fly its
planes is as unwise as to have the
head of the Air Force tell the
Navy how to design its cruisers or
its aircraft carriers.
Solution Is Available.
A solution is available to those
who really want one. Such solu-
ton already has been written
down in two remarkable docu-
ments unanimously agreed to by
the heads Of the three armed
services. These are called the Key
West and Newport agreements.
They spell out clearly what each
service shall do.
Using the Key West and New
port agreements as a charter, the
Joint Chiefs need no permanent
chairman. The senior officer of
the three members could preside,
and this means a rotation of the
Craftsmanship. If his function
were merely to see that business
was transacted and reports pre-
sented to- the Secretary of De-
fense, there would be no need for
any additional member or perma-
nent chairman of higher rank. AS
long as each service is to decide
how it will train it's men and use
It's manpower to carry out the
specified missions, there need be
no conflicting areas of authority.
The zeal problem comes, of