Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1950-08-13
Our Failure to Spend Enough for Preparedness
Due Primarily to the Power of Public Opinion
Major Decisions Extent Of Americas Military Strength Were
Made to Conform With Civilian Standardization Being to
Dstrust Apprusu by Professional Soldiers Times of Peace

The Communist aggression i'll
Korea, Which CAUGHT the United |
States woefully anp,cparcd, mill
tarily at least, has raised many
questions about the state of our
unpreparedneSs.
1t is significant that the qtes-
ton most often heard is: Where
did all our money go?" rather
than "Why didn't We spend more
money for national defense?"
The first question reflects the
national character and tempera-
ment of the American people. The
second, insofar as there can be a
single explanation Of our rela-
tive unpreparedness, offers the
answer to why we were UMPIRE"
pared. We weren't willing to-
spend enough.
The bill of particulars setting
out our deficiencies IN terms of
manpower. tanks. planes, ships
and the like, has been drawn up,
since Korea, and widely published.
1t may tell the facts, but it falls
far short of telling the truth.
For the truth is that American
public opinion, the power of which
is at once the strength and weak
ness of our form of government,
made the major decisions on how
much military strength we should
have, and those decisions are re-
sponsible for our relative military
weakness in this situation.
Military's Appraisal Best
In the last four years we have
spent about $50 billion on ma
tional defense. There is reason
to believe that in this year alone
Communist Russia is spending the
equivalent of about $45 billion. 1t
is with the advantage of hindsight
that we discover over $50 billion
in four years was not enough.
If any group of us came closest
to appraising the peril in realistic
terms it was the professional SOL
dierS, but it is an American tradi-
ton that they are not to be
trusted in times of peace.
Early this year Gen. George C.
Marshall, appearing before a con-
greSsional committee, was asked
what he thought the United States
would have to appropriate to
build military force capable of
standing against Communist ag-
erosion AL over the world" His
answer was: Something we'll over
$50 billion a year"
Gen. Marshall's round figure of
$50 billion-plus had a familiar
ring. It was less than two years
ago that the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
starting work on the budget for
the fiscal year ended only last
July l. adding up the figures the
Army Chief of Staff. the Navy
Chief Of Operations and the Air
Force Chief of Staff, began with
as what each service would need.
The figure at the bottom of the
column was $50 billion.
This incident was cited by the
Hoover Commission task force
on the National Security Organic
alton as an alarming illustration
of the prof1igate use of public |
money by the military establish
ment. A few sentences from the
report of that task force are worth
quoting:
THE most disturbing aspect of
the National Security Organiza-
ton as it now stands" the report
said. sis the enormous cost of the
military establishment" After ref
erence to the $50 billion estimate
just mentioned, the report goes on:
1T required the most earnest eff
fort on the part of the Secretary
of Defense (then James ForrestaD
supported by a specific directive
of the President to reduce these
totals to more realistic level"
Hoover Report Recalled
President Truman's specific di-
receive put a ceiling of SIS billion
on what he would let the military
ask. By the time the President
sent his budget message to Con-
gress, the amount recommended
was $13.4 billion. The House
raised the President by 5000 mil
lion; the Senate cut his figure by
5000 million and in conference the
Senate and House agreed to $3.50
billion, which became the appro-
priation.
The quotation from the Hoover
Commission task force is worth re-
now, and with no intent
to disparage members of tn a
group. They were men of stand
ing, knowledgeable, and their re-
port was warmly received by the
people. 1t is not too
much to call it an expression of
informed public opinion.
Chairman of the task force was
Ferdinand Eberstadt. Wall Street
banker and intimate associate of
Bernard M. Baruch, the Nations
leading elder statesman on ques-
lions of preparedness and mobili-
cation. Associated with Mr.. Eber-
Stadt were men of such caliber as
Hanson w. Baldwin, military ex-