Evening star., 1950-08-30
Danger 10 u. 5. Seen
In Silencing Experts
On Defense Problems
Macarthur Declaration
On Formosu Is MiIitury
Theory at Its Best
BY Dapid Laurence

By David Laurence
Conceding that this week was
an inopportune occasion for the
discussion of the strategic impor-
tance of Formosa, the fact re-
mains that an unhealthy attitude
is developing in the National Cap
ital toward the revelation of truth
to the American people by mill
tary men concerning problems Of
defense.
The United States armed forces
are today in Korea and blood is
being spilled because the defense
OF an outpost in the Far East was
not thoroughly discussed in ad-
vance and the opinion of our
highest military men solicited on
the subject.
Why was the defense of Korea,
for instance, considered of no in
terest to the people of the United
States last January? Who made
the decision to suppress the facts
about Korea's strategic impor-
tance? Since it was not the mill
tary men, how can the American
people learn what their views
really were? It does not seem
plausible that American military
opinion would regard the possess
sion Of Korea by a hostile power
as a matter of indifference to us.
especially when the Japan
Okinawa-Philippines line is sup
posed to be our prime defense. For
if Korea were to become a base
for Soviet air power and subma-
rines. the future of Japan as a
possible ally of the United States
would become perilous. Korea
geographically is knife projected
against a peaceful Japan.
Too Much flush Hush"
The argument will be made that
to discuss anything T + this sort is
to invade foreign policy" There
was a time-in the days Of isola-
tioniSm-when American from
tiers were on our own Pacific and
Atlantic Coasts. Today, However
Americas frontiers are on the
Elbe River in Europe and in Ko-
rea as well as Formosa. To insist
that everything going on abroad
can be commented on unofficially
only by one department is to
carry the hush hush" idea too
far.
The outline of American de-
tense strategy which Gen.
Macarthur has given is exactly
the outline which the United
States Joint Chiefs of Staff would
express If they were permitted to
speak their minds as to defense
problems outside the continental
United States. There were one or
two sentences in the Macarthur
statement which might better
have been omitted by the general,
as they referred to the views of
opponents of the policy he was
advocating. Outside of these brief
phrases, the declaration can stand
as an expression of American mill
-tary theory at its best.
The danger to America in sup
pressing expert discussion of de-
tense problems is growing. Back
in 1910, when Admiral Taussig
was testifying before a Senate
committee, he advocated that the
United States enter into naval
arrangements Immediately with
other nations, including the Meth
erlandS government, for the pro-
lection of our Far Eastern inter-
ests. He was reprimanded by the
late President Roosevelt, but the
advice he gave. if accepted, would
have saved many thousands of
American lives and might have
thwarted Japan's naval sortie to
the south in 1941 and 1912.
Experts Inundated.
Only last October Admiral Louis
Denfeld, Chief of Naval Opera
tions, in answer to the questions
of the House Armed Services Com
mittee, expressed himself frankly
and conscientiously on what de-
fense weapons and strategy should
be used. Had his advice been
taken, America would today be
better able to cope with the
Korean war. But he was publicly
reprimanded and removed from
Office. Immediately all expert
opinion was intimidated and to-
day it's an open secret that con-
gressional committees cannot get
completely independent views
from high military chiefs.
One wonders how far toward
the totalitarianism of Commu-
nism and Fascism Americans have
drifted in their zeal for suppress
sion of truth. especially when it is
sought from experts in their par
ticular fields. If the State De-
partment alone can discuss de-
1CA1oV O1 dLCdS III ul1lC1011 pdI Ls
of the world where our forces are
stationed, then the value of De-
fense Department as an instru-
ment of military advice may be
questioned. If there are, as re-
ported. major differences of opin-
ion today between the State De-
partment and the Defense Depart
ment. 1t must be because each is
not permitted freedom of express
sion. There is no reason why the
Defense Department shouldn't say
what 1t thinks is a necessary de-
Tense program from the stand
point of national safety, and there
is no reason why the State De-
partment should not, if it wishes
argue against the wisdom of en-
+ ploying American forces in de-
tense of those same areas-look-
ing at 1t from a diplomatic stand
point.
The American people could then
get all the facts and all the expert
advice. But apparently there are
some Americans who believe that
everybody hereabouts should ac-