Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1953-12-31
Democratic Dissenters

It is not reassuring to find usually re-
sponsible Democratic Senators engaged in
what looks very much like irresponsible criti-
cism of military decisions by the Eisenhower
administration.
AS an example, Senator RUSSELL a highly
respected Senator, is quoted as saying that he
thinks "some of us are entitled to know why
two divisions are being withdrawn from Korea"
There can be no quarrel with that. Senator
Russell and other Senators unquestionably are
entitled to know the reasons for this decision.
But the Georgian, ranking Democrat on the
Armed Services Committee, also Is quoted as
saying: without knowing the facts I'd say
this almost smacks Of appeasement."
It would seem that Senator Russell should
wait until he has ascertained the facts or at
least until he has tried, and failed, to ascertain
the facts, before making such grave accusa-
ton as this.
Senator Monroney is another Democratic
critic. He wants exhaustive hearings on the
centre defense blueprint" to determine whether
we are sacrificing security 'in this more-bang-
for-a-buck New Look" The Senator has every
reason to call for the hearings. But his
slurring reference to the New Look before the
hearings have been held, hardly belongs in the
category either of craftsmanship or OF re-
sponsible bipartisanship.
been among the dissenters, although their
criticisms have been somewhat more restrained.
The net effect however, is to create the i'm
preston that the Democratic leaders in the
Senate-without knowing the facts-are threat
ening to pull the rug from under the admin
istration's efforts to revise and revamp our
military position overseas.
The Star does not pretend to know the
whole story of this move to withdraw two
divisions from Korea sometime in the future.
There are certain aspects of the decision, how
ever, which seem to be fairly obvious.
One is that the Eisenhower administration
is trying to improve a situation in which
large portion Of our land forces is pinned
down in a single small theater. When we
remember that there still will be four American
divisions in Korea, it seems little ridiculous
to speak of this decision as smacking of
appeasement.
Those four American divisions, for the time
being, will remain in Korea. In event Of
new aggression, they are not going to be
sacrificed to "appease" the Communists. The
situation would be little different If the two
divisions to be withdrawn were left in Korea.
For if the Communists renew the attack, there
is small chance that we would accept, and little
likelihood that Senator Russell would favor,
another long, bloody, indecisive stalemate.
There has been enough Of that If the Com
munists strike again, they should know-and
they have been adequately warned-that we
will fight to win; that we do not intend to
leave six, or even four, American divisions
to fight and die indefinitely in another incon-
elusive struggle in Korea.
In the face of all this, 1t is regrettable
that Senator Russell should speak of something
smacking of appeasement. 1t is regrettable that
a man of Senator Monroney's stature should
trade in such phrases as more bang for
buck" This is terribly serious business.
The President is trying to chart new course
which takes account both of the staggering cost
of the military effort we have been making and
of the potentialities of new weapons. It is quite
possible that he may err in judgment; that the
pressure to save billion or several billions OF
dollars may overbalance prudence in estimating
the needs of national security. If this should
prove to be the case, the Democratic dissenterS
could have no higher responsibility than to
fight it to the last ditch. That, however, is
fight which should be waged after-not before
they know the facts.