The people's voice. [volume], April 19, 1963, Page Page Seven, Image 7

About The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969

Image provided by: Montana Historical Society; Helena, MT

                
WATCH ON THE POTOMAC
By ROBERT G. SPIVACK, Washington, D. C,
The War at the Pentagon
WASHINGTON, D. C.—The battle
between the generals and the Secre
tary of Defense over the TFX may
momentarily fade from the headlines
both sides regroup their forces.
But the War at the Pentagon is just
beginning.
How and when hostilities are
sumed rests on behind-the-scenes de
velopments. But there is little doubt
that certain high-ranking congres
sional Democrats, who are allied with
the Pentagon brass, have decided
that Robert S. McNamara must be
forced out of office.
The current furor brings to mind
President Eisenhower's "Farewell
Address" in which he warned that
as
re
a
we must be on guard" against the
acquisition of power "by the mili
tary-industrial complex". Perhaps
Secretary McNamara is beginning
to share this view.
Mr. McNamara recognizes he is in
for the fight of his life as both he
and his opponents seek to broaden
the issues. McNamara has chosen to
open up the question of waste, in
efficiency and duplication in Penta
gon research, development and pro
curement policies.
His opponents are quietly planting
doubts as to McNamara's competency
in making military judgments vis-a
vis the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
others. There is likely also to be
stepped up criticism of McNamara's
"foreign policy" judgments.
For example, what are the effects
of our new policies on withdrawing
missiles from Turkey, Italy and else
where? Do these governments now
feel that America is "withdrawing
its protective umbrella? Are they
satisfied with the Polaris as a sub
stitute?
• I
This is no war of venality, how
ever, for on both sides in the Penta
gon we find intelligent and dedicated
men. Actually it is unfair and in
accurate to make it appear as merely
a conflict between "civilians" and
military". There is nothing
monolithic about either side. There
are differences of opinion within
each group.
Leaving aside for the moment those
lawmakers who have big defense
contractors within their states, the
fact is that McNamara and his critics
view Pentagon developments from en
tirely different perspectives.
Gen. Maxwell Taylor and those
aligned with the Joint Chiefs believe
that nothing must be spared in pre
paring ourselves for the worst kind
of war. They want conventional
weapons and atomic weapons.
They are trained to "think about
the unthinkable", to go
There is no doubt that many sharp
businessmen have over-sold the Pent
agon on all sorts of useless tools,
parts and even weapons, because the
military man's perspective opens the
way for such abuses,
McNamara, on the other hand, ap
parently sees the tremendous waste
and costliness of Defense Department
the
. .
all-out".
U
operations as producing debilitating
effects from the very top of the mili
tary hierarchy all the way down to
the lowest-ranking foot soldier. If
there is not a tightly-run, efficient
operation, according to those who
share his views, the results will be
even more costly in money and men
in wartime than they are in peace
time.
A s this Pentagon controversy
warms up there are bound to be ex
cesses on both sides, with charges of
bad faith and the sort of personality
conflicts that make big news.
Already there have been stories
that McNamara burst into tears dur
ing one closed session before a Con
gressional committee. That story ap
parently was meant to remind the
public of the crack-up of the late
James Forrestal. McNamara was
angry, but nothing happened that
confirmed the rumors that leaked
from the committee room. Leaking
such a story was dirty pool.
The evidence is, of course, not
yet all in. But what seems clear up
to this point is that McNamara is
a good management man, that he
believes there is tremendous waste
in the Defense Department, and
that greater efforts at economy will
pay off in a variety of ways, not
the least being a more efficient
military machine.
Where the military men may be on
stronger ground is their belief that
the Administration does not know
how to work with our allies or under
stand how to blend political and mili
tary requirements with the needs of
the domestic economy. As examples
they can cite the tactlessness in the
Skybolt affair with the British, the
mishandling of Gen. DeGualle and
in closing the Turkish-Italian bases.
These are, of course, not matters
where McNamara's views alone pre
vailed. Mr. McGeorge Bundy, State
Department, and even Robert Ken
nedy all seem to be involved in for
eign policy decisions, whose wisdom
is yet to be demonstrated.
Cuba—Containment
Or Invasion?
WASHINGTON, D. C.
Sen. Ever
ett Dirksen, whose relations with the
Kennedy Administration continue to
baffle his fellow-Republicans almost
as much as they do the liberal Demo
crats, suggests that the Costa Rica
conference has been much ado about
nothing. But whatever the price tag
for Latin America's "new deal" turns
out to be, Dirksen is sure it will be
too much.
This is not exactly a new twist on
an old theme. Right-wing Republicans
believe there is still political mileage
to be made by twitting the Adminis
tration about its inability to rid Cuba
of Castro. Unlike Sen. Kenneth Keat
ing, the New York Republican, who
has offered constructive suggestions
on what might be done, Dirksen is
content to join the claque whose mot
to appear to be: "Don't just stand
there, do something".
But they never say what.
Impatience over Communist infil
tration of Cuba is not difficult to
understand. The inclination of poli
ticians to make capital of it comes
as no surprise. The Republicans are
returning the Kennedy taunts of
1960. Administration spokesmen are
begging them to let up. They hurt.
Yet when the Administration
comes up with positive proposals,
short of war, the public has a right
to expect something more than a
quick "no" from Dirksen or his
right-wing associates. Amusing as
the
ment may be to politicians, I doubt
that the ordinary American finds
it equally amusing.
Three separate approaches seem
to be developing on what to do about
Cuba. There is what Walter Lipp
mann calls the "war whoop" party
who, I suppose, are eager to go a
little further with direct military
action than some realize. A second
group, for whom Keating is emerging
as spokesman, advocates "economic
pressure, yes; invasion, no". Finally
there is a third aprpoach, which is
that of the Administration.
Administration's embarrass
After the meeting with the Cen
tral American presidents, Mr. Ken
nedy made it clear that U. S, emphasis
will be on eradicating social and eco
nomic ills throughout the hemisphere.
Through example we hope to rob
Communism of its appeal to the hun
gry and neglected.
An affirmative approach is bound
to be less dramatic than a military
invasion. Certainly it will take longer
to produce results. But once the Lat
ins begin to see the Alliance for
Progress working out, the results may
be more lasting.
Before we proceed much further
must figure out what are the
needs. Once that is done we may ask
how much it will cost. Nobody knows
for sure, and there is no certain way
of knowing.
But how much will military action
cost? What is the price tag on Dirk
sen's negativism? The price could
be high. Also we must remember that
irritating as Castro is to us there are
Latins who admire the brash
ness, impudence, and defiance of the
Cuban "David" who talks back to the
Yankee "Goliath", It is not inevitable
that they would be on our side.
Military action by American
forces would revive
feeling of such intensity that gen
erations of Latin Americans and
North Americans might not be on
speaking terms. That would be
quite a penalty to pay, too.
It's true that we have not yet suf
ficiently exploited for propaganda
purposes the failure of Communism
to bring happiness, tranquility,
we
some
anti-Yankee
or
Number of Newspapers Drops
While Population Doubles
The U. S. population has doubled
during the last 50 years, but only
three-quarters as many daily news
papers are published now as then,
U, S. Rep. Emanuel Celler of New
York reports.
The number of newspapers has
dropped from 2,200 in 1909 to only
1,760 today, Celler said. Here are
some other facts and figures he made
public ;
• In 24 states there are no cities
where "local toe-to-toe daily news
paper competition exists. (Montana
is one of the 24.—PV)
• Three corporations control 45
newspapers, 25 magazines, 17 radio
stations and 12 television stations.
• There are now 560 chain-owned
papers controlling 46 per cent of the
daily newspaper circulation.
Rep. Celler made his statement be
fore the House Antitrust subcommit
tee of which he is chairman.
prosperity to Cuba. It's true that
Castro is kept in power by Soviet
bayonets. It is true that Cubans are
today a miserable people.
But even if we do exploit these
clear and obvious facts there is a
limit on how much mere exposure
would bring Latins over to our side.
For misery is the lot of most Latins
throughout the hemisphere. They are
used to little else but poverty and
degradation,
A combination of the Administra
tion's approach and the Keating ap
proach might make happen what we
would like to see happen; the over
throw of Castro, the removal of all
Soviet troops, and the start of Cuba
on the road to democracy, political,
social and economic.
However, we should reconcile our
selves, barring new Soviet military
installations or aggressive action by
Communists against Venezuela, to
wrestling with the Cuban problem for
quite some time longer.
(c) 1962 New York Herald Tribune, Inc.
Grain Growers
Don't expect Congress to enact a
better Wheat Program if farmers
vote "No" in the referendum
Here is What Responsible Leaders Say . .
President John F. Kennedy: "New legislation for wheat is neither necessary nor feasible
this year.
Senator Allen Eilender, Chairman of Senate Committee on Agriculture: "In my judgment
it would be calamitous to wheat farmers of the nation if a negative vote is cast,
because Congress cannot and should not take action to further deal with the wheat
problem this year.
Congressman Frank Thompson, City Congressman from New Jersey: "If farmers don't vote
for a program I don't know why I should continue to vote for them.
Senator Lee Metcalf of Montana: "I think it is important that-wheat farmers understand
there is no guarantee another wheat program could be enacted if the wheat refer
endum should fail to carry.
? 9
99
I I
• *
Vote [x] "YES" in the Referendum . .
For $2 wheat and not $1 and less.
For keeping your bargaining power growing.
For avoiding market chaos at home and abroad.
For orderly marketing.
For making supply and demand work for yo u and not against you.
For avoiding the regimentation of poverty.
For holding your credit base.
For fair prices to consumers.
For better world relations.
See your County ASCS Committee for Details on the 1964 Wheat Program.
ODDUS Would
-from page S
rangelands, to the tune of a billion
acres; highways, etc. Backers of the
amendment have their eyes on 700
specified federal properties.
How the buzzards would gather to
feast on a dying American eagle!
Wealth would concentrate more rapid
ly than ever, and small business and
an economically independent citizen
ry would be smothered.
This amendment is also pending in
state legislatures, and its backers
claim several have approved it. If
enough do so, Congress would have
to submit it to the states,
A third ODDUS proposal, approved
by a bare majority of the Assembly
of States, would create a so-called
Court of the Union. If enough state
legislatures approve, Congress must
submit this one also.
The Court of the Union would be
composed of the 50 chief justices of
the ätate supreme courts. A bare ma
jority of them could decide that any
issue before the U. S, Supreme Court
is a matter affecting the states. This
bare majority could take such an is
sue away from the U. S. Supreme
Court, and decide the case itself.
Tis might take jurisdiction away
from the U. S, Supreme Court ni
many more vital areas than would
seem obvious, sine the Court of the
Union itself would decide what's a
state matter. The plaintiffs would be
allowed both to define the issues and
settle the suit, in other Words.
This has been called the two-headed
monster amendment; for opponents
say it would create a two-headed mon
ster at the summit of the national
judiciray. It would snatch so many
matters away from the present U, S.
Supreme Court as to leave the latter
a mere hollow shell.
The great federal union in effect
could become a disunion, little more
than a quarreling congery of would
be sovereign entities, like the original
Medical Care
Costs Soar
NEW YORK, N, Y.—Americans
spent $21.1 billion for medical care
last year, according to the data col
lected by the statistical bureau of
the Union Labor Life Insurance Com
pany here.
The ULLIC report noted that this
expenditure amounts to $116.60 for
each individual in the nation.
In 1962 the cost of private medical
care increased in all categories over
the corresponding figures for 1961.
Hospital care increased by 9.8 per
cent and nursing-home care by 8,9
per cent. Another item that showed
a smaller increase over 1961 were
payments to physicians, up to 6.5
per cent.
states under the Articles of Confed
eration.
The effect of this amendment, like
the previous ones, would be a perilous
weakening of the U. S. itself—be
ginning with the fights over these
amendments themselves—and in the
face of a world that is only waiting
foran y sign of U. S. faltering, to
shove us off the hill.
The ODDUS amendments are al
ready before many state legislatures.
One danger is that these bodies pass
meaningless resolutions almost auto
matically to satisfy members; reso
lutions then filed and forgotten. But
these new ones are different. They
use federal constitutional provisions
to attack the federal constitution.
Congress must submit these proposals,
if enough states ask it.
Actually, a fourth proposed amend
ment would permit states to submit
constitutional amendments the m
selvea by two-thirds vote, by-passing
Congress entirely. All in all, the
ODDUS people are having a field day.
DEMAND THE UNION LABEL