Pentagon Refitted: Act II

"All right, Gen'l," drawled Georgia Democrat Carl Vinson, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. "Come on." Replied Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Nathan F. Twining, trailing Vinson into the Congressman's private office: "Yes, sir." Twenty minutes later, Carl Vinson emerged, hat on head and cane in hand, and tossed a final instruction over his shoulder. "Fix it up," said he, "so I can read it tomorrow." With that, he went home, leaving Nate Twining to work on a revised version of the Eisenhower Administration's plan for reorganizing the Defense Department.

To all outward appearances, Armed Services Chairman Carl Vinson was still playing to the hilt his role as stalwart defender of the separate services against President Eisenhower's move toward centralizing Pentagon power. But in the week's most remarkable Capitol Hill development, what Twining was actually working on--with Vinson's full approval --was a compromise preserving the essentials of the Eisenhower plan.

"Great Trouble." Part of Congressman Vinson's reversal was practical recognition of increasing and impressive support for the reorganization plan. Before Vinson's committee last week came two respected military leaders who had learned of the difficulties and dangers of the present disjointed defense organization through their own experiences as chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"I believe we must have simple and direct channels of command," said the Army's General Omar Bradley. "This proposed change will provide in being an organization in peacetime which is prepared to function immediately in case of war." Right behind Bradley came Admiral Arthur Radford, a leader in the Navy's 1945-47 fight against military unification, who began changing his mind about reorganization during his 1953-57 terms as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "I don't know what is coming in the next ten years," said Airman Radford, "but there are going to be tremendous changes. If we don't have a flexible organization--that is, if we don't have the ability to change our organization to meet changing circumstances--we can be in great trouble."

"Insane Bickering." The Eisenhower plan got still another big boost, this one from Missouri's bulb-nosed Democratic Congressman Clarence Cannon, 79, chairman of the potent House Appropriations Committee, and a man who considers himself every bit as much a military expert as Carl Vinson. Rising on the House floor, Cannon delivered an old-fashioned stem-winder. "Who is better qualified." demanded Democrat Cannon, "in training, experience, and capacity than General Eisenhower? When it comes to military affairs involving the safety of the people and the survival of our form of government, he is a general, and I take off my hat to him with heartfelt alacrity. It is high time we put an end to this insane bickering between the services, and eliminate billions of wastage and begin to develop sufficient military strength to keep us out of war."

When he sat down, after 48 minutes, Cannon got a standing ovation from most of the 150 Congressmen in the chamber. And it was in the face of such obviously growing sentiment for reorganization that Carl Vinson, above all else an eminently realistic politician, began backing down in his announced determination to scuttle the Eisenhower plan, started working with Nate Twining on a revision that would be acceptable both to the Administration and to Congress.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.