Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

the balancing of our productive capacity against military requirements-all these pressures made some form of civilian-military coordination essential. Agencies were created to coordinate the economic life of the Nation with the requirements of the military establishments. On the whole they worked well.

In the allocation of materials, for example, we went through three phases. First there was the system of priorities which broke down, and became, as we called them, mere hunting licenses-and not a secure and enforcible method of getting for the war what was needed for the war. Then the production requirements plan came up, and finally there was the controlled materials plair, which as you know went to the root of the sources of both raw materials and productive capacity, and made allocations of those facilities and services and producing plants. It made them available in terms of the requirements of the war as evolved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

It is clear to me that the controlled materials plan is one that we should adopt if another war should come. It is equally clear also that we should have ready at the outset a more carefully prepared manpower program than we had at the beginning of the last war. We should be sure, for example, that we do not induct into the armed services young men who are actually of greater value in the field of science; although that introduces a question, for you cannot allow science to dominate or overdominate the selection of young men for the Army. Regardless of the advertised virtues of the push-button war, the foot soldier and the boy who has to walk up the beaches and fight through the swamps will still be the final controlling factor even in modern war.

We have incorporated lessons of the past into this bill. Provision is made for coordination of our military and economic requirements on a continuing basis by the establishment of agencies such as the Munitions Board and the National Security Resources Board. Subsequent witnesses will go into the details of these agencies. I have mentioned this phase of the bill merely to emphasize its importance. Judge Patterson's statement will cover in some detail what they do, and what it is proposed that they do.

A paramount feature of the bill, and of greatest importance in any consideration of our national defense organization, is the provision for thorough integration of our foreign policy with our military policy. You are all familiar with the observation that military policy is but an extension of foreign policy. It is certainly true that war is an expression of foreign policy, but it is expressed in force rather than verbal suasion. At any rate we are well aware of the danger involved in a firm foreign policy without the means at hand to back up the firmness..

We have endeavored to obviate that danger in this bill through the establishment of the National Security Council. This organization, comprising the Secretary of State, the Secretary of National Defense, the three service secretaries, and the Chairman of the National Security Resources Board, provides us with a working copartnership between foreign policy, military policy, and national resources and productive capacity.

Provision is made for the setting up of such additional members as the President may from time to time designate, and that might ob

viously fluctuate as between the conditions of war and the conditions of peace. In other words, the President might want, or might have to have, on the Board in wartime substantially larger numbers of men from other agencies of Government.

This organization is perhaps the most important feature of the bill now under consideration. The formal legal coordination between the framers of foreign policy and the formulators of military policy should prevent us from coming face to face with war for which we are unwarned or militarily unprepared. It should further provide a bulwark for our foreign policy which, in a world respecting force, frequently determines the persuasiveness of a policy.

Perhaps foremost in the minds of the members of this committee is the question of economy. I must confess that I cannot give you precise answers as to the savings that can be expected to flow from the enactment of this bill. I do not look for any great economies in peacetime, or certainly in any short or immediate space of time. I think the War Department disagrees to some extent with me on that point. But I am confident that there should be great savings in times of large and rapidly increased expenditures, or in other words, in time of war.

It is then, when a great volume of goods and materials have to be ordered, that duplication or careless purchasing can add so greatly to the cost of war. By "careless purchasing" I mean buying without due weight being given to what the country's capacity is, and without due regard to reconciling conflicting and competing requirements. Careless purchasing, as I have just said, can add very greatly to the costs of war, not merely in dollars but in the uneconomic use of our resources and our manpower.

I think it can be said fairly that as a result of the passage of this measure, the taxpayers will get more for their dollars in terms of increased fighting power and efficiency for the money spent.

I have limited my testimony to the expression of general over-all approval of the proposed bill when taken in its entirety. Admiral Sherman, who represented me in the drafting of the bill, working with General Norstad of the Army, General Eisenhower's Director of Plans and Operations, will be available to present detailed clause-byclause testimony at a later time.

In conclusion, I would like to repeat that this bill, in my opinion, provides an equitable and workable framework for the integration of all of the agencies of Government concerned with national defense. Therefore, it prepares our country for modern warfare which is not only military but is also economic and is world-wide, and it is above all else industrial and scientific in the sense of the uses of applied science.

Neither this bill nor any other can legislate a spirit of unity among the branches of our armed forces, but this bill is the result of a spirit of accommodation which is a better augury of unity than any legislative fiat. Therefore, our defense potential will be increased without endangering the corps spirit of any branch of the service and without weakening the democratic concept of civilian control over the Military Establishment.

I hope this bill becomes law.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Near the end of your statement here, you made a statement that perhaps foremost in the minds of the Congress is a question of economy. Of course, we are looking for that, but I do not believe that that is foremost in the minds of the Congress. I take issue with you on that.

Secretary FORRESTAL. All right, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe that we have, as the No. 1 objective, to have the armed forces as effective as possible. We are looking for effectiveness in time of need, and efficiency to show the world even in time of peace.

Secretary FORRESTAL. I am glad that you made that point. I meant economy in the same sense that I mentioned it before, when I said earlier that our national strength is economic, industrial, and fiscal. I meant that whatever contributes to our being able to retain all of those elements, including our financial strength, keeps us fit and competent to wage war.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that our next concern is the saving of manpower, and then the saving of dollars wherever possible. But we want effectiveness first.

I believe I will turn the hearing over now to the other members of the committee. Are there any questions? Senator Bridges.

Senator BRIDGES. I have a few questions. Let me say that I agree with the chairman's statement to you, Mr. Secretary, that the first consideration of the Congress is the effectiveness of our armed forces; but I also want to say, for one, that I am very much interested in whether this bill is going to produce economy or not. I want to get to that later in my questions.

In your statement you said that this whole question of unification, as far as you are concerned, is based on two premises. As to the first of these, you stated that "there is a need, apparent during and since the war, for the planned integration of all the elements, energies, and forces in our Nation which have to be drawn upon to wage successful war."

Now, what do you understand the word "integration" to mean? Secretary FORRESTAL. Well, at the time when this discussion was at its peak, I had the words "unify," "integrate," and "coordinate" looked up in all of the available dictionaries, and I think that it might be well to introduce the dictionary definitions in the testimony. I do not have them available at the moment, but you will find that you get into a kind of intellectual semantics when you try to distinguish between unification and integration. As to which is the stronger word actually, when you examine the language, I will leave to the lawyers of your committee to determine.

Senator TYDINGS. Do you believe that if you call a rose by another name, it may smell a little sweeter?

Secretary FORRESTAL. I do not know.

Senator BRIDGES. There has been a good deal of talk about unification and integration and merging and so on; and inasmuch as you base your premise on the integration of the armed services, I am just curious as to what you mean by integration.

Secretary FORRESTAL. Of course, you will note here that I spoke of the integration of all elements, and I meant not merely the Army and the Navy, but let us take a case that is easy to visualize in terms

of an immediate and visible object. Let us take the question of iron ore. In the Mesabi Range we had at the start of this war about 650,000,000 tons of iron ore, which is the best ore for quick and economic conversion into the end products of war.

Now, there are competing demands, or competing claimants upon that reserve of ore, and upon the results or the produced items that come out of that ore, and these claimants include the Army and the Navy and the merchant marine-which is essential, as we have to remember that we have to get our goods overseas in ships. You may have an Army of 15,000,000 men capable of marching around upon this continent, but that is not of much effect for a war in Europe.

The civilian economy has to be looked at not merely in terms of indulgence, but in terms of the necessities that men need to keep at work. By "integration" I mean specifically that in the use of that iron ore and the final end products that come with the long sequence of the vertical structure that goes into the manufacture of steel, it is the determination of what comes in what order. That is what I call integration.

It has to be looked at in terms of the requirements of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and what the country can produce, and the speed at which it can be produced. In other words, it must be determined how long it will take, and finally whether all of those elements will be able to be integrated and will produce a result which is the hitting power of your forces at the point of attack.

Senator BRIDGES. What you are talking about here today as I understand it, is not the unification of the armed services; what you are talking about is a much larger subject.

Secretary FORRESTAL. That is right, sir.

Senator BRIDGES. The integration of all of the forces of this country. Secretary FORRESTAL. That is right, sir.

Senator BRIDGES. Now, in the face of the propaganda that has been circulated for this bill, do you think the people as a whole understand that it is not the unification of the armed services that we are talking about, but the integration of all of the great forces that go to make up this Nation?

Secretary FORRESTAL. I would doubt that they do; because it only became clear to me after 4, 5, or 6 years of dealing with all those factors just how important it is to include, say, industry, and to link up our foreign policy with our internal economy. I am sure the Army is fully in accord with that necessity, but I think it is unfortunate that the discussion has been within the narrower framework of dealing simply with the Army and Navy. I think the subject is far broader than that.

Senator BRIDGES. Have you, or has anybody in the Navy Department, participated in any propaganda program for this merger bill? Secretary FORRESTAL. This particular bill?

Senator BRIDGES. Yes, sir.

Secretary FORRESTAL. Well, I suppose that if it is necessary to define "integration," a word like "propaganda" also would need definition.

We expressed to the President our approval of this bill, and wherever any questions have arisen, we have said that we are in favor of it. There has been no organized campaign to "sell it" to the country; and I suspect that is what you mean.

Senator BRIDGES. I understood you to say in your remarks here that, as the second of your main premises, you would urge that nothing in any planned unification of the armed services should be written in such a way as to destroy the autonomy or independence of the Navy or its component parts. Is that right?

Secretary FORRESTAL. Yes, sir.

Senator BRIDGES. Do you think this bill is written in such a manner that it will not destroy the autonomy or independence of the Navy or its component parts?

Secretary FORRESTAL. I believe so.

Senator BRIDGES. The top man, the Secretary of National Defense, would not, in your judgment, have sufficient power in the transfer of money and funds to virtually put out of business one of the strategic arms of the Navy; for example, like the Naval Air Force, or the Marine Corps?.

Secretary FORRESTAL. I think the checks and balances still exist in the Congress and in the right of the Secretary of this particular Department to appeal to the President, a fact which I think would not be unknown to the Congress, even assuming that he was a man who did not indulge in the habit or practice of letting it leak out that he had certain reservations.

Senator BRIDGES. But you are depending upon the Congress in the future, then? The protection is not here in this bill?

Secretary FORRESTAL. It is dependent upon all of those checks and balances, such as the right of appeal to the President; from which, I assume, would flow the right of discussion in Cabinet.

Senator BRIDGES. Well, are these men going to be in the Cabinet— the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Air Force, the Secretary of the Navy?

Secretary FORRESTAL. My own view is that that is a determination which the President is entitled to make-as to whom he shall have in his Cabinet.

I think as far as President Truman is concerned, the suggestion was made that he would not have them, but, if I may inject a personal observation, my experience with the present incumbent of the White House is that he would want those views to be fully developed before all of his advisers, which would include the Cabinet; so I would assume that any strong difference of view of the Secretary of the Navy would be heard by the President.

Senator BRIDGES. With all due consideration to the present incumbent of the White House, and giving him credit that he attempts to be fair, let us look to future occupants of the White House.

If this bill goes through, there is nothing to guarantee that the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force will get consideration on a Cabinet basis. There is nothing to provide for their Cabinet status, is there?

Secretary FORRESTAL. There is no guaranty, Senator Bridges, that a man who would determine, for example, to extinguish the Navy or the Air Forces-who did not believe in either one or the othermight not be able to hamper them. But I think that we have enough safeguards here, again making due allowance for the form of our government, and the access to the President, which in my mind. carries a connotation of wider appeal, if you will.

60266-47-pt. 1- 3

« ZurückWeiter »