Evening star., 1955-07-17
By DON WHITEHEAD
:. An afaa uzriter

AZ stan writer
The gray-Wailed Pentagon Is
Ia divided military household
these days. with the Army
senior member of the armed
forces family = feeling like a
spanked and rejected stepchiid
An immediate factor in this
Isomber mood is the impending
reduction In the Army's man.
power, a step which the Nations
top generals had sharply op-
posed.
Cutting even deeper. however
lis the Army's concern over the
lack Of clear agreement within
Government circles as to the
exact role the soldier would be
assigned in case of nuclear war.
Army men feel their famous
|five-star comrade in arms, Pres
|ident Eisenhower. yanked them
rather roughly into the wood
shed in the course of approving
the manpower cutbacks.
Parting Outburst
This feeling was behind the
parting outburst Of Gen. Mat
thew Ridgway. whose two-week-
old letter to Defense Secretary
Wilson was released at the PEN
tagon last Friday. The general
argued that over-dependence on
nuciear weapons might leave the
Nation in q position where it
could fight only q big. general
war.
Gen. Ridgway, who stepped
down on June 80. as Army Chief
of STAFF, publicly opposed the
reductions before the House Ap-
preparations Committee.
President Eisenhower, ques-
toned on this position at a
subsequent news conference.
described it as ''parochial'--
meaning narrow and limited.
In Pentagon circles. however,
one hears that the opposition
went beyond the views of any
single individual. such as Gen.
Ridgway or his successor. Gen.
Maxwell D. Taylor. It was the
thinking Of the men who make
up the Army's top command.
The cutbacks emphasize that,
despite the opposition of the
generals. the administration has
decided to base the Nations
security and military policy more
lon nuclear weapons and less on
|manpower.
1t underlines, too. the historical
fact that the Army itself is
marching into the shadow of air
power. Nuclear weapons and air
power have had such an impact
on military thinking that some
quarters even believe q war would
be over before an Army could
swing into action.
Army Disagrees
But the Army doesn't agree.
1t questions whether the nuclear
weapon would be as decisive a
factor as 1t is being painted.
1t insists the foot soldier would
be needed in atomic war just
las he was needed In past wars
and in even greater numbers.
Nobody is speaking out loud
lat the Pentagon about the sit.
|uation. The Army appears re-
signed to seeing its forces cut
to l.027,000 men by June 80.
1856. from the present level Of
/ ,27O, 900.
There's no sign Of a generals
rebellion" brewing such as the
"admirals' revolt" in 1s49. when
the Navy went to war against
the Air Forces B-36 strategic
bomber program and fought sue
|cessfully to save Its own carrier
program.
But Army men say privately
the administrators concern over
Ia balanced budget is overshadow-
ing military requirements.
One officer summed up the
Army's thinking in this man
|ner:
"Our military policy today is
following the line which was ad-
!vocated by the late Senator Rob-
Iert A. Taft--that is, to put a
balanced budget and the So
called dynamic and expanding
ECONOMY above all else.
1--WE had no choice in fixing
the Army manpower level in the
| new look Gen. Ridgway was
given a budgetary framework and
told to fit the Army forces into
that frame. It wasn't question
of our requirements.
Atomic Emphasis
"The present policy puts less
reliance on manpower and
greater emphasis on machines
and atomic weapons. This pol
icy is cheaper. It's more pop
ular politically. And it holds
forth the questionable promise