In recent months many diverse groups of the American public have loudly proclaimed the fear of an insidious invasion by the military of the control of civilian institutions. The thesis usually expounded is that an infiltration of professional military personnel into our civil, political, scientific, educational, and industrial life is a serious threat to our concepts of democratic liberties and freedom. One group headed by Professor Albert Einstein warned that President Truman was falling under the spell of “military thinking” and that “American democracy could not survive if the present trend towards military control of our institutions continues.” The fear seems to be that the United States is on the road to Fascism via the same route followed by Germany and Japan; that is, through the rise of the military to domination of the normally civilian controlled organs of the nation. Before attempting to prove that the above-mentioned fears, and the arguments compounding them, are unfounded and implausible, due mainly to an incorrect analysis of the American military character, let me mention that the ideas expressed in this article are my own and may or may not express the views of any Government Department.
Let us first take a look at the composite picture of this fearsome militarist who is alleged by the extremists to be undermining the Constitution for aggrandizement, not only of himself but also of his military clique. Perhaps in his make-up, background, training and character, we may find why he is willing to take a more active part in nonmilitary affairs than formerly, or to be drafted for such duties.
From his detached viewpoint, he can see different facets of the over-all picture, and this picture makes him more than willing to do all in his power to carry out the oath to which he has sworn. That oath, in part, is “. . . . to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic . . . .” It may surprise some critics of the military that the individuals who are causing them so much concern have made that oath a living part of their beings, in peace, and in war, for all of their adult lives and it is a compelling motive in their lives. If, in their zeal, they are overstepping the normal boundary between military and civil fields, or are pressing too vigorously a point which is opposed by certain civilian groups, it will be found in most cases that they are attempting only to fill a void which has been created by unnatural circumstances and which has not yet been filled by responsible civil agencies.
Our composite militarist is usually a man who adopted military life at an early impressionistic age and was educated in a military or naval institution. He was imbued early in life with the basic moral qualities and still believes, naively to some, that honesty, decency, justice, integrity, truthfulness, and moral soundness will bring him out as near the top of the heap as he ever expects to be. If he has reached high command, he is usually well balanced, a good administrator, intelligent, versatile, and emotionally mature. He has probably achieved the military rank to which he has aspired, has won his military battles, and therefore has no desire for further worlds to conquer. He has never known wealth, nor does he expect to, except insofar as he has learned that a man is wealthy in what he can do without. He is looking forward some day to an honorable retirement, in these times to a retirement heavily shaded with genteel poverty, but nevertheless to an opportunity to do those things which he has never found time for in his military life. He does not live as well today as he did in more junior ranks and he wonders what has happened to his insurance and savings dollar, but he does not differ from his civilian brother in those respects. As far as fears are concerned of an autocracy caused by “the creation of a specially privileged military class,” critics should spend more time observing the private lives of the military. A “brass hat” with dishpan hands makes a poor despot.
Contrary to the beliefs of many civilians, our military man is not a stuffed shirt, actively beating on his chest, grasping for power, demanding his privileges, and attempting to raid the public treasury to further his own ends. He is rather a gentleman who is “never haughty to the humble, nor humble to the haughty.” He has learned the truth of the quotation from Hebrews 12:11, “Discipline is never pleasant at the time, it is painful, but to those who are trained by it, it afterwards yields the peace of character.” From his life, which has been more or less isolated from his civilian brother, he is probably more able to see clearly the whole picture than if he had an ax to grind, be that ax political, industrial, financial, agricultural, or educational. If he is a great man, and many of them are, he may be fulfilling the definition of that rarity as given by General Hershey, the former Director of Selective Service, who said “A really great man is endowed with a higher degree of sensitivity, so that seeing a little sooner and farther than his fellows the coming situations, he can size them up in advance.” That is a useful type to have around in this day and age.
If, then, the militarist is not such a reprehensible creature, why has he “moved in,” as many have made the case? I maintain that he “has been moved in” to fill tremendous voids, and that the forces which have caused this transition are for the most part under the control of the civil element of this country. I further maintain that the military element which some insist is encroaching upon the fundamental concepts of freedom is more than willing to go back to the Pentagon, or to the Navy Department, or to be turned out to grass when its services are no longer requested and necessary, or when qualified civilians are willing to take over the reins. As a matter of fact, this return to normalcy has already begun, as witness the recent resignation as minister to the Union of South Africa of General Thomas Holcomb, U. S. Marine Corps, Retired, the former Commandant of the Marine Corps. The subsequent nomination by the President of North Winship, a foreign service officer, to succeed General Holcomb is proof that our diplomatic corps is producing capable career officers, and that soon there will be no further need for the temporary military incumbents. Let us look at the whole picture in more detail.
Our critics are concerned with the influence exerted upon the President by Admiral William D. Leahy and with the administration of our Foreign Policy by Secretary George C. Marshall, General Douglas Mac- Arthur, Lieutenant General Lucius D. Clay, Charles C. Saltzman, Lieutenant General Walter Bedell Smith, and Admiral Alan G. Kirk, among many others, with military or naval backgrounds. In the case of Admiral Leahy, it may well be that the President appreciates a strong character near him who flies no political colors and who is beholden to no man or group of men. No one will ever know exactly what influence Admiral Leahy has had upon the last two incumbents of the Presidency, but he has undoubtedly been of inestimable value to a Commander-in-Chief of the largest military force in history. In the troubled times of the day no one should question the President’s right to pick his aides where and when he desires.
In practically every case, the officer listed above was appointed to his present position by the President, presumably because he was the best man available for the job. In many cases this appointment was approved by the Congress, a branch of the Government which even Professor Einstein will admit is as yet undefiled by militarism. In the purely non-military positions, if more capable civilians were available, and were not returning to the marts of trade to recoup the family fortunes after suffering low government salaries during the war years, it is presumed that the President could have had their services for the asking. Surely the appointment of military personnel as ambassadors must have been on merit alone, as a general or an admiral will bring neither a single vote nor a dollar to the party coffers. Perhaps the President simply desires to utilize honest, capable men of proven ability and integrity, who have world-wide points of view, who understand the situations of the day, who understand the power by which they are backed, who know how to deal with their ideological opposites, and who are willing and satisfied to serve for the accompanying compensation. It is agreed that if an adequate number of well trained career diplomats were available, they would probably be better suited, during normal times, to the posts now occupied by the present ex-officer incumbents in the diplomatic field. Such a corps, however, does not as yet exist in sufficient numbers, and times cannot be said to be normal. It is agreed, however, that the military holding of normally civilian offices must be only temporary and that the military office holders must at all times feel that their added responsibilities must be discharged without abuse. When we neared the piping times of real peace, it was a sure bet that General Marshall would lead the parade towards retirement. He had always said that he had a lot of potatoes back home that needed hoeing. To those who think they see a drift towards national dictatorship by any individual, let me recount the finest example of American tradition in this line I have been able to discover.
After the War of 1812, Major General William Henry Harrison, who later became President, was appointed governor of the territory of Indiana, which in those days composed the present states of Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and the upper part of the Louisiana Purchase territory. As a governor he had nearly complete dictatorial powers. He was commander of the territorial militia, Indian commissioner, land commissioner, sole legislator and law giver. He was authorized to adopt any and every law existing in other states that he thought applicable to the territory. He appointed all the magistrates, all the civil officers, all the militia officers below the grade of general. He was empowered to divide the country into counties and townships, and his signature to a land title cured all defects therein.
These powers were conferred on Harrison for what General Eisenhower recently called “obvious and over-riding reasons,” but as soon as possible Harrison nurtured the newly born American tradition of ultimate civilian control, and sought to relinquish his autocratic powers for the institution of the newly established principles of government. There is no counterpart in American history for the extraordinary powers conferred on General Harrison. He ruled over a geographical area larger than pre-war Germany or Italy. The pomp of power was not his because the land was literally a wilderness, but whatever self-gratification may lie in complete authority, it was readily relinquished—even promoted—by him as soon as he deemed that representative government could function. Do you think General MacArthur will fail to follow suit at the proper time?
Another aspect—do the proponents of the “military infiltration” theory believe that this infiltration is financially advantageous where government positions are concerned? An officer, or ex-officer, cannot draw pay from two branches of the government at the same time. Admiral Kirk has substantial retired pay that he is losing each month. If he were representing Campbell’s Soups in Belgium instead of the United States Government, he would receive both his Soup pay and his retired pay, an item of no small import to an officer who has been told all his life that his salary will be less than that of men in other walks of life, because “part of it is going to your retirement pay.” Secretary Marshall made an even greater financial sacrifice; what he gave up in health is for time alone to tell.
It may have come to the point where the militarist is the only qualified man for many positions which tradition has earmarked for civilians simply because he is the only one who will work for the money. A case in point is that of the Chairmanship of the Civil Aeronautics Board. A news dispatch of January 28, 1948 stated that Mr. George P. Baker, Director of Harvard’s School of Transportation, refused this appointment because he said he could not get along with the $10,000 a year pay-—high pay for a military man. Previous to this, President Truman in making a plea for special legislation to allow Major General Lawrence S. Kuter to take the position and retain his army pay, disclosed that he had offered the job to more than a half dozen civilians and had been turned down.
The reverse effect is also being experienced. Salaries on that order, or greater, are bleeding the service of some of their best talent. Officers are retiring voluntarily and taking civilian positions with much less responsibility than their service assignment, for several times their service pay. One example of many is that of a rear admiral, head of the Naval Communication Service, who left the Navy to become a Vice President of Western Union—at several times the pay for one tenth the job. Many business leaders who saw service during the war learned that the officer personnel would be as good or better than many civilians, especially in executive positions. The versatility of naval officers especially, due to their life of changing periodically from gunnery officer, to teacher, to navigator, to communication officer, to shipyard supervisor, to commanding officer of a ship, etc., has made the change to business life most simple. In this connection, business, industry, and many other fields are missing many bets when they do not employ and take advantage of the extraordinary capabilities of many military and naval officers retired for age or disability and who therefore cannot serve longer actively in the military forces. When one contemplates the retirement of Admiral Raymond A. Spruance, the man who headed the invasion and occupation of the Marshalls, the Gilberts, the Marianas, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, one cannot help feeling that our country is losing the services of a really great personality at the prime of his life. He is now studying seed catalogues in preparation for his vegetable garden in Del Monte, California, a rest he surely deserves, but at what a great loss to us in these critical times! But enough of the “personal infiltration.” It is a shadow which will never become a reality in the United States.
Most of the foregoing applies to cases where the individual is obnoxious to our civilian critics, not on a personal basis but only because of the encroachment in the civilian sphere, a condition which in normal times, and which if selfishly pursued at other times, is undoubtedly contrary to the best American traditions. General Eisenhower stated this premise most succinctly in his statement of January 23, 1948, when he took himself out of the presidential race. “The necessary and wise subordination of the military to civil power will be best sustained and our people will have greater confidence that it is so sustained when life-long professional soldiers, in the absence of some obvious and over-riding reason, abstain from seeking high political office.” We all agree with this. In its application, we only disagree as to when “obvious and over-riding reasons” are at hand.
The impersonal military influences deemed dangerous by some are those which have invaded the fields of science, education, and industry. In the field of science the Navy has led the way in the encouragement of basic research in nearly every branch—those known to have many military applications as well as those whose potentialities are totally unknown. The Navy has known that the weapons used in the war are the developments of the results of pure scientific research carried on before the war began. In this last war we used up most of our scientific “fat,” laid up in peacetime, in the development of radar, sonar, atomic weapons, and in other fields. This “fat” is being built up in a program now integrated with the other services, and the benefits to the military will undoubtedly be small in proportion to those which will ultimately be enjoyed by the civil population. This work is in no way restricted by “secrecy”, as the Navy leans over backwards in allowing the scientist absolute freedom of discussion in the “pure research” field. It realizes that interchange of ideas' is most necessary for scientific advance. When the work shows definite possibility of being of military value, a voluntary restriction on its availability has been obtained in nearly every case, simply because our scientists are loyal Americans. A representative of the Navy Department recently made a statement that college and industrial scientific organizations which were carrying out the Navy research contracts had been apprehensive as to possible circumscription which would be caused by secrecy. He stated that, now the work is moving along, their fears had been allayed, and that they were delighted by the spirit of enlightened cooperation shown by the Navy. After all, these projects are business contracts and are in no way forced on the contractor. The military, after having used up most of the “fat,” is able to assist in again covering the thin bones of science. Again, when you can find a civilian agency to take up this burden, I’m sure the military have other uses for their closely budgeted funds. As to secrecy, any thinking American will approve the retention for our own use of the results of our scientific endeavor. We have given away too much already.
The fears of invasion of the military in education are certainly ill-founded and will be considered seriously when anyone will obtain a statement from the head of any educational institution having Army or Naval R.O.T.C. units, to the effect that a branch of the service is dictating educational policy in any way. Again, these agreements are voluntary. Any attempt at interference by a military service with the internal functions of a college or university would undoubtedly lead to a rupture of relations and headlines of the deepest hue.
The charge of industrial invasion is equally as ludicrous. Of course the military are attempting to maintain liaison with industry because they realize that lack of the necessary close cooperation and understanding between the two in 1941 and 1942 cost many lives. It is fortunate that contacts, forums, and agencies now exist in which problems, principles, and points of view can be explored leading to the perfection of planning for industrial mobilization, the mobilization of civilian resources, the mobilization of natural resources, and the mobilization of manpower. At the same time, the errors made in the recent war may be analyzed and corrected. This is in contrast with the disinterest and occasional hostility with which the nation viewed such planning before World War II. A great deal of this exploration and planning has been instigated by the military, but from motives which are a far cry from the desire to dominate any portion of the national economy. At the same time, the military is openly inviting more civilian participation and direction. Early in March of 1948, representatives of the Army, Navy, and Air Force asked a Senate Armed Services Subcommittee for advisory committees composed of civilian scientists to assist in carrying out research work. At the same time, 135 leaders in industry, economics, and education were selected by a committee of twelve, nearly all industrialists, to attend a branch of the Armed Forces Industrial College at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry, this past summer. This group, outstanding men in their field and men who will probably hold key positions in industry and education within the next decade, are most happy to study, under leading military and civilian authorities, some of the complex problems of mobilizing and administering the national economy in future emergencies.
There are fields in which no void obtains which might be filled by civilian components working alone. They must be directed toward military needs and closely tied to military planning. Military-industrial cooperation is of great advantage to both and is entered into willingly, actively, and without the least tinge of compunction. It is simply another of the many impersonal fields in which the military are striving to improve their position for the sole purpose of carrying out more efficiently and effectively the mandates of Congress—-the defense of this country. I will agree that we cannot have “total defense” measures ready at all times without crushing the national economy; but if the military do not make preparations for an emergency, do not make every effort to maintain a high readiness potential, do not make plans for the rapid mobilization of the entire national effort, and do not study the needs of war in every category, they are not worth their salt. If they are unable to carry out their duties with the tools given them, it is only right that they make representations to those who can help them. At present the question of universal military training is a good example. If certain factions oppose it by medium of radio and press, Secretary Royall should not be criticized for answering in like manner if he considers UMT vital to the efficient operation of the Army. He pointed to the Defense Act of 1942 which makes it the duty of the armed forces to keep the public informed of defense measures being taken or planned, and said, “We have tried to steer a straight course between the groups which criticize the Army for putting out too much information on UMT and those who say too little is being done to explain the need for such a preparedness measure.”
That some detractors should consider the study of strategic materials invidious on account of political implications is odd, to say the least. Every nation has a lack of some selected raw materials without which it cannot function in peace as well as in war. Those necessary to wage war we call “strategic,” and it seems that the military might properly be expected to take an avid interest in naming, obtaining, and ensuring a sufficient and continuing supply of these during peace. Professor W. Y. Elliot of the Department of Government at Harvard University and a consultant of several committees of Congress has listed over one hundred of these critical materials. One of the most cogent reasons for maintaining a navy is to keep the sea lanes open for such materials during time of war because we have never been able to stockpile enough in time of peace. They are all political elements,—witness the suggestion that ERP be repaid in strategic materials,—but that fact should not deter the military from keeping them high on their list of real problems. It may not be politic for naval leaders to declare that the oil of the Middle East is “vital” to the United States. It is, however, certainly proper to let an oil hungry nation know that our needs have outstripped our capacity; that our reserves in the United States are but a small percentage of world reserves; that if additional production is not soon available in this country, we will have to depend more and more upon importing oil over great distances, a need which would tremendously increase in wartime, and which would be subjected to enemy interdiction. This Secretary Forrestal has done. The proper civilian agencies will decide which oil is “vital” and which is not, but the problem is certainly military as well as political.
When we come to the legislative liaison divisions of the armed forces, which are deemed by some to exert undue influence, it is hoped that those who fear their insidious influence will read of the recent action of the chairman of one of the armed services committees of Congress. He refused to allow the head of one liaison group to testify before the committee at any time, as this officer was believed to have “no respect for Congress.” It is unfortunate that such a circumstance should arise, but it gives us definite proof that the civil forces still have the whip, and are not afraid to exercise control.
It is in this action by a member of Congress that I see the solution of the military-civil argument. If individuals or services are overstepping the bounds which have been proved by time, custom, and conditions to be proper, they should be brought to with a round turn by the proper civilian regulating agency. Our legislators are alert, as witness the statement of Senator Byrd in the refusal of the Senate to appoint General Kuter to the chairmanship of the Civil Aeronautics Board. He said that he would vote against General Kuter, regardless of the pay disagreement, as he said such appointments “would develop a dangerous dominance by the military services over civilian departments.” This refusal, however, is useless if the proper civilian cannot be induced to hold the position. In cases where the military are holding office or are invading provinces which have traditionally been of civil domain, let us be sure that a civilian personality is every bit as well qualified, and then relieve the old guard. We of the military are all only trying in the best way that we know to render faithful service to our country. I have no way of knowing, but I am sure it is a safe bet that General Bedell Smith, and others who have active military careers ahead of them, would most happily turn in their silk hats of diplomacy if they could become soldiers again.
If I have seemed to extoll the military man’s character in outlining his defense, it is because I feel that every man or woman who has worn our country’s uniform is a better person for having done so. Most of us in the service look on the forces of evil loose in the world today as a challenge to the good in our lives and to the intrinsic good in our country. Our understanding of past history and present conditions convinces us that today is not the time for complacency. We are creatures of action. If our acts have transcended traditional lines, it is only because we felt such action imperative. When the civilians are ready and willing to supplant us in positions which we are temporarily filling, let them give us the word. We learned to command, but first we learned to obey.