Evening star., 1951-02-14
Senator Toft's 20 Per Cent

Senator Taft is nothing if not candid in
acknowledging the difficulty of finding salts
factory formula for limiting the number of
American troops that may be sent to Europe in
peacetime.
In his latest statement he says that he does
not favor limiting the number of divisions, as
such, since that might discourage European ma
tions in their efforts to build up their own de-
lenses AS an alternative, he is leaning toward
percentage limitations requirement that no
more than 20 per cent of our ground forces be
sent to Europe in advance of war;
The chances are however, that Senator Taft,
as he looks more closely at this alternative, will
find it to be equally unsatisfactory. In the first
place. we might just as well limit the number of
divisions that could be sent to Europe, for the
European nations would have pretty good idea
how many American divisions they could expect
from 20 per cent of our ground forces If the one
restriction would discourage them, the other
would hardly be less discouraging
Secondly, just what would be accomplished
by such limitation? If our total armed force
should be raised to million men, as has been
suggested, 20 per cent of the ground forces would
be somewhere in the neighborhood of $4,000
men. Under the present Taft plan, that many
American troops could be sent to Europe when
the 4-million- man force is raised. How would
we be better off with 100000 men in Europe in
stead Of 100000 or 100000? If war should start,
would we be less deeply involved with 100000 men
under fire than with some other figure? Is the
theory that we could forget about 20 per cent
of our ground forces, but that we would have to
take some action If a larger number were under
fire?
Senator Taft, of course, advances no such
theory But neither does he say just what his
theory u.s. relative to the 20 per cent limitation.
He did say that, with some such limitation, "the
matter will remain within the control of Con-
gress, which can decide how large the Army shall
be-" It seems to The Star, however that this is
a faulty view. For Congress, while it can deter
mine the size of the Army, cannot control what
the Russians may do. If Senator Taft can impose
20 per cent limitation, he may win purely
legalistic argument. But he cannot control the
course of events by any arbitrary limitation on
the number Of troops that may be sent to Europe
or any other place.
If this is correct, then it follows that Gen
eral Eisenhower's hands should not be tied by
Congress. In The Stars judgment, it is highly
desirable that the Congress, or at least the Sen
ate, should approve in advance the principle of
sending American troops to Europe. This project
requires the support of public opinion. If that
is lacking we should not embark on 1t at all.
And there is no better way to obtain an express
sion of public support than through favorable
vote in the Senate, or In both Houses, on the
principle involved.
The proper congressional function, however,
is to act on the principle, not to prescribe the
details of how it shall be carried into effect
This latter is very delicate matter, and the pic
ture with respect to details may change from
month to month. We should never forget that
the purpose of this project is to build force in
Western Europe that will discourage aggression
and thereby prevent war. General Eisenhower
has been entrusted with that responsibility, and
he should not now be asked to don legislative
strait-jacket before discharging it.