"Conform or Be Purged"

"Silly, stupid, ridiculous!" sputtered a Pentagon official, commenting on last week's flap between Defense Secretary Neil H. McElroy and Georgia's Senator Richard B. Russell. Scenario:

Act I. Testifying before the Russell-chaired Armed Services Committee, Chief of Naval Operations Arleigh ("31 Knot") Burke views the House-revised defense reorganization bill from his own bridge, endorses two House changes sharply limiting the Defense Secretary's authority over the services--changes that Commander in Chief Eisenhower had rapped as a "legalized bottleneck" and an "endorsement of duplication and standpattism" (TIME. June 23 et seq.).

Act II. Prodded by newsmen at a press conference, McElroy comments on Burke's dissent: "I am disappointed in him, regard it as regrettable. I think he's a fine officer. I am sorry he's mistaken in this respect." In testifying on the Administration's reorganization proposals, declares McElroy, military officers should bear in mind the President's publicly and emphatically expressed views.

Act III. Georgian Russell blasts McElroy's comments as a "totalitarian" warning that service chiefs "must conform or be purged." Russell postpones scheduled appearances of other chiefs until McElroy gives "clear and unequivocal" assurances that they can testify "in complete candor without being threatened overtly or covertly."

Act IV. Well aware that Russell holds great power to hurt the reorganization bill, McElroy writes him a letter declaring that a Defense Department witness can answer congressional questions "frankly and honestly" without fear of "retaliation or penalty." But McElroy reserves the right to be "disappointed or regretful" over their views. Implication between the lines: an officer who sharply takes issue with the President and the Defense Secretary cannot expect them to like it--or forget it. Russell pronounces himself satisfied. End of flap.

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