Evening star., 1951-01-07
Senator Taft on Foreiqn Policy

encouragement. For this address by the lead
Ing Republican figure in the Senate was not in
any sense an isolationist statement 1t was
neither partisan in spirit intemperate in tone.
On the contrary, it was clear and forceful
statement by man who is fully aware of the
great danger to this country, who realizes that
we must act to meet the danger, and who has
given much thought to what may be the best
means to that end
There is doubt that the time has come for
great debate on foreign policy It seems to
Inc star that this might better await report
from General Eisenhower on his survey of the
SITUATION In Western Europe. But if the debate
Is to be held now it could not begin on better
note or be held on higher plane
Any summary of a 10,000-word address is
bound to be inadequate. When allowance is made
Tor this, however, it seems fair to say that Sem
etor TAFT is not in serious disagreement with the
administration so far as the objective of our
1orelgn policy Is concerned. He agrees that
communism threatens the security of the United
States, and he also agrees that we must take
drastic action even at great cost and sacrifice to
insure the security of the country and preserve
our liberties
His disagreement is concerned primarily with
method, and even here the difference is largely
one of degree.
SSAAoeoA 4d1G ID IOG persuaded that the
Russians intend to attack in Europe He seems
10 doubt 1t. But, although he opposed the
North Atlantic Pact when it was before the
Senate, he is fully prepared to assume the ob
gauon-Whlch it impoSeS-to treat an attack on
any pact member as an attack on the United
States, and to go to the aid of the attacked
state.
His dlSagreement-and even this NAV be
more apparent than real-has to do with the
preparatory steps which should be taken in
advance OF an actual attack in Europe by the
Russians or their satellites
Senator Taft is not opposed to advance
preparation. There is no doubt" he says. "that
we should go just as far toward preparing for
war as we can go in time of peace without
weakening ourselves in the long run and de-
stroy1ng forever the very liberty which war is
designed to protect" Furthermore, he saws
that while defense of this country is our first
consideration, II do not agree with those who
think we can completely abandon the rest of
the world and rely solely upon the defense of
this continent"
Senator Taft is opposed to any secret COM
mitment to send additional troops to Europe and
In fact, to any commitment which is beyond our
power to perform. On the first point, there will
be almost unanimous agreement. The second
involves question of fact as to what kind of
commitment may be beyond our power, and on
that question opinions will differ
This is most clearly pointed up in Senator
Taft's discussion of our obligations under the
Atlantic Pact. He says that the pact does not
necessarily obligate us to send troops to Europe
In event of war and certainly does not obgate
us to do so now. That undoubtedly is correct.
The real question, however, is not what we are
obligated to do at this time, but what in wisdom,
we should do at this time.
Senator Taft's face is set against more
American troops for Europe at this time He
says, however, that if the Western Europeans
build up their own military strength with the
assistance (money and arms) which we are
obligated to give, he would not object at some
future time, and at their request to committing
some limited number of American divisions
to work with them, provided there is reasonable
prospect of success. Evidently he does not feel
that some commitment on this score would
necessarily be beyond our power.
How much difference, actually, is there
between this and the administrations position?
Not great deal, in The Stars opinion
Our official proposal is that if Western
Europe will make an appropriate effort to rearm
itself If 1t will raise sufficient number of div-
sons on its own account we will commit limited
number of American divisions, perhaps 10, to the
lanQ defense Ol Europe. WIldC, TedHy, Is ull
ference between this and Senator Taft'S position?
A difference of emphasis and degree. Perhaps a
willingness on the part of the administration to
move little more quickly and to go bit farther
But it does not seem to The Star that there is
any difference which cannot be satisfactorily
resolved by reasonable men when the facts upon
which judgment must be based are in hand.
General Eisenhower has gone to Europe to
get those facts In all probability, he is as much
opposed as is Senator Taft to war of mass armies
on the ground in either Europe or Asia. In equal
probability, he agrees with the Senator on the
magnitude of the effort which will be needed
in the air and on the sea.
So the essence of this debate seems to be
concerned with the scope and the timing of the
land effort that we will make on the ground ir
Europe And that, to repeat, is something thai
cannot be finally determined until Genera
Eisenhowers recommendations are available and
in any event, until we have some divisions to sene
to Europe which is not now the case.
Meanwhile, there is one thing that all OF III
can do If it is feasible, we want to keep the
nations of Western Europe aligned with us, and
to the greatest practicable extent, we want to SCI
them strengthened and prepared to fight with u
If war comes. General Eisenhowers mission IL