Evening star., 1950-06-11
A Defense imperative

General George C. Marshall in his testimony
before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has
effectively demolished the rather outlandish
thesis that the United States should be politically
interventionist in the world but at the same time
militarily isolationist-a policy that would place
us in the position of trying to ride two horses
simultaneously in opposite directions.
AS set forth principally by Senator Taft
who despite his exceptional talents in domestic
matters sometimes displays astonishing blind
spots in the field of foreign policy-this two
horse program would be promised on the indis-
putable fact that our own national security is
inescapably dependent, in large measure, on the
security of our friends abroad Mr. Taft is there
fore completely in favor of the idea of emphat-
ically warning the Russians that If they attack
Western Europe, the United States will immedi-
ately declare war on them. Yet, almost in the
same breath, he has suggested that we ought
not to help Britain, France and the other men,
bers of the Atlantic Pact build up their strength
in an overall system of integrated defense It's
his thought, apparently that they should be
allowed to hobble along on their own while we
"arm ourselves to the teeth and assure them
that if they are overrun we will come to their
aid and eventually liberate them.
In other words were we to put such policy
into effect, we would be practicing military iso-
lationism even while resorting to the deepest
kind of political intervention by issuing all sorts
of forewarnings to the Kremn and making
solemn commitments to our Western friends.
whose preparedness efforts would get no material
support from us. Speaking from his vast expe-
rience as a soldier statesman, General Marshall
has made clear that it would be folly to follow
that kind of course and he has accordingly
appealed for swift congressional approval of the
funds requested-$1, ,222 500 000-to finance the
second year of our ornaments aid under the
Mutual Defense Assistance Program. That aid,
as he has emphasized, Is as essential to our own
safety to the safety of our overseas allies; to
refuse it, or to cut it down drastically, would be
"psychologically wrong, militarily wrong, and
just wrong generally"-a thing that would play
into Soviet hands in way that could be dis
aStrous for the free world as whole.
Thus, besides vitiating the Atlantic Pact, a
stoppage of our limited ornaments aid would
have a devastating effect on the morale of the
Western European nations. They would under
standably interpret it as an American decision
to let them shift for themselves in preparing
against possible attack, and they would get no
comfort whatever out of our promise to liberate
them eventually. BY the same token, instead of
being confronted by an integrated defensive
system backed by modern weapons-a system
which our Joint Chiefs of Staff regard as being
capable of holding back the opening phase of any
Russian asSault-the men of the Kremlin would
receive kind of invitation to move in on our
friends and overwhelm them one by one. Finally,
such military iSolatloniSm on our part since
it probably would quickly deprive us of allies.
would obviously work against our own vital
security interests, even though we armed our
selves to the teeth"-an effort that would cost
US, in General Marshalls conservative Judgment,
at least $4,000 100000 a year. as against our
current $4,000, 100000 ..a
In the circumstances, it is easy to under
stand why he has uttered much the same kind
of warning as the one just expressed by President
Truman at the University of Missouri Namely
that it is imperative for us, both for our own
sake as we'll as for our friends sake, to carry
on with our various types of aid