Debate on Defense

Adlai Stevenson's proposals that we halt H-bomb tests and think about ending the draft deserve praise because these statements made campaign issues out of national defense problems heretofore clouded in "bi-partisan" obscurity. But neither Stevenson's words not the Eisenhower administration's replies give any indication that a very necessary debate on defense policies will take place before November 6.

Defense is the most extensive activity in which the national government engages, and its operation directly affects the careers of millions of Americans, especially young men of draft age. On its proper management our survival depends. The questions of what weapons and how many men to use are highly technical and might seem too involved for the average voter to assess.

The Eisenhower administration prides itself on the "New Look" departures from President Truman's defense program. The major changes seem to be three: 1) Abandonment of policy of getting ready for a year in which Russia will have supposedly reached peak strength. A continuing crisis is expected. 2) Reduction of the armed services budget and of the number of men serving, especially in the Army. Emphasis on an air-atomic striking force. (Balancing the budget being considered all-important.) 3) Disinclination to fight further "brushfire" wars or "police actions" like Korea. (Apparently based on an estimate of their unpopularity.)

As these changes have been made, the Soviet Union has developed a hydrogen bomb and a bomber force capable of dropping them in large numbers on American cities. A situation has developed in which despite relative size or quality of air forces, both the United States and the Soviet Union can cause catastrophic destruction in the other's territory. This situation, making atomic weapons nearly obsolete, means it is more necessary than ever to have a balanced group of weapons.

The present size of the Army (14 combat-ready divisions, 5 in training) has led to speculation about its ability to fight the limited wars that may arise. Both General Taylor, the Army's present Chief of Staff, and his predecessor General Ridgway, doubt that it is large enough. In the light of their statements, present Defense Department plans to cut the Army further are alarming. The mobile, "self-sufficient" divisions, able to move anywhere in the world on short notice, have been slow in developing. These divisions (the 101st Airborne is one) are an example of what a balanced force should include.

The Eisenhower administration's policy changes have been made partly in response to a tremendous popular impatience with the seemingly endless complications in which Kora involved the U.S. On the surface, Steven-son's draft proposal seems an attempt to employ the same feeling as a Democratic vote-getter. If it were only that, the draft proposal would be a serious abandonment of leadership. But Stevenson, in his recent Washington press conference, went much further and coupled the idea with a statement outlining the need for new manpower policies in a period of continuing crisis.

He argued that a defense force in such periods should be primarily a professional, highly skilled force, not dependent on a constant stream of raw recruits brought in, unwilling, for two years of training that rapid technological change may make obsolete. Defense department figures, which show a much higher rate of enlistment and re-enlistment in recent years may indicate the possibility of ending the draft. But they may also indicate nothing. The compulsion of the draft, President Eisenhower has said, is a big factor in these enlistments. It must be kept as an inducement.

But the draft was meant to fall on all young men equally, not to serve as a stop-gap prod to enlistment. Many young men can today avoid military service. The full needs of the Armed services were met last year with 507,000 draftees and volunteers out of a pool of one million of draft age. The pool will get larger and larger, and those drafted or volunteering will be a smaller proportion than they are now.

Neither side has so far presented fully persuasive arguments, but Stevenson's statements indicate that he is more ready to plan creatively to end the present confusion on the draft. They also indicate that Stevenson does not favour the unfortunate commitment to "massive retaliation." If the Democratic nominee were to debate the issue fully, he could avoid the current charges of demogoguery and in addition do the country a service.