National Security Council, the Resources Board, and the Intelligence Agency?

General EDSON. I certainly do. I think that the bill which intends to unify all of the elements of Government concerned should have in title 1, the agencies with such unification, which are the National Security Council for proper representation of the civilian interests thereon; the National Security Resources Board, which will be an alltime day-by-day operating Board to integrate military requirements and civilian economy; and the Central Intelligence Agency.

I believe title 2 of the bill should include those agencies for coordination within the military department itself, such as the War Council, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Munitions Board, and the Research and Development Board.

I feel that title 3 should then concern itself with the organization of the military departments and the armed forces at the end of that title.

In other words, construct the bill in what I think is the democratic system, in which the military is the agent or the servant of the civilian agencies of Government and does not dominate.

Senator ROBERTSON of Wyoming. In the case of the National Security Council, of course there you are coordinating the Secretary of .State with the Secretaries of the various armed forces, and the Chairman of the National Security Board is another designated by the President.

That, I think as you expressed earlier, is the basis for all unification and coordination, and that should rightly take the first place in the bill. General EDSON. That is right.

Senator ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Now, General, it has been claimed, but no evidence has been put in supporting it as yet, that there will be savings, and in some cases great savings, over the present set-up, if this bill should be passed and become law.

Would you like to say anything on that?

General EDSON. That is a little beyond my ken, sir, although I believe it is difficult to visualize any material savings when you set up two more Departments, as a matter of fact, a super Department, and à Department of Air.

I think perhaps that that question was best answered by General MacArthur in 1932 when a similar proposal was made to unify the armed forces, and this is taken from the Congressional Record of the House, Seventy-second Congress, first session, dated Saturday, April 30, 1932:

The history of Government demonstrates that the parasitical development of bureaucracy springs from the setting up of superfluous echelons of control such as the one proposed.

Although I recognize the possibility of effecting relatively unimportant econ-omies in isolated activities, the ultimate cost of this superimposed structure would, in my opinion, exceed by millions any economies that could be safely effected. The super Cabinet officer at its head could not fail to be the acquisitor of one of the largest and undoubtedly most powerful governmental organizations: the United States has ever known.

New buildings, new schools for the training of the composite soldier-sailor, new staffs, all with their additional cost, would be built up at the top of such a groupment.

Rather than economy, this amalgamation would, in my opinion, represent oneof the greatest debauches of extravagance that any nation has ever known.

And he ended his paper with this remark:

I am not going to burden you with a further detailed discussion, but this note represents the epitome of my professional opinion in accordance with your verbal request. Pass this bill and every potential enemy of the United States will rejoice. That is what was written in 1932.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the date of that, April 1932?

Senator ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Even in 1932 a general such as General MacArthur felt it would be a very expensive item.

In a letter which was sent by Vice Admiral Sherman and Major General Norstad to the chairman regarding the costs of the organization that will be set up by this bill, or if this bill becomes law, they give four different divisions.

First, they set up the office of Secretary of National Defense at a salary of $15,000 and the four special assistants at a salary of $12,000 each. That is $48,000.

They have estimated 100 civilian clerical and administrative personnel.

Do you think 100 civilian clerical and administrative personnel would be anything like an adequate and necessary amount of personnel, civilian and clerical personnel, as set up with respect to the office of the Secretary of National Defense as called for in this bill?

General EDSON. That is getting a little beyond my information. Senator ROBERTSON of Wyoming. I realize that. I will withdraw that question, if I may. I realize that it is.

You have read the Executive order, General, that is supposed to be issued by the President in the event this bill should pass the Congress, have you not?

General EDSON. Yes.

Senator ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Do you feel that that Executive order would in any way protect the Marine Corps or the functions of the Marine Corps?

General EDSON. Not definitely, sir.

I think a study of that proposed Executive order would disclose this fact, that only two functions of the Marine Corps are for the Marine Corps itself, those two being the furnishing of ships detachments and the furnishing of Navy guards.

The vital functions of the Fleet Marine Force, concerned with amphibious operations, are written across the board in almost identical language for the Army, the Air Force, and the Marine Corps.

One instance also includes the Navy. To me that sets up a duplication of functions, the elimination of which was supposed to be one of the features of this bill, and that within an Executive order, or perhaps within the Bureau of the Budget, or by a delegation of those overlapping functions, the functions which are written across the board, can in fact be given to one service rather than to another.

Senator MCCARTHY. May I interrupt.

In connection with General Edson's statement, I call attention to the fact that on page 3 of the hearings 758, it sets forth the proposed Execuive order. If you refer to section 2, "Functions of the United States Army," and then go on down to 1 (b), and then turn over to page 4, section 3. "Functions of the United States Navy," and refer to 1 (d), you will find a complete duplication, as far as amphibious operations are concerned.

In other words, the same missions are assigned to the Marine Corps as are assigned to the Army, so this Executive order does not eliminate duplications.

General Edson. I know that there have been several remarks made before this committee as to the dangers of writing into legislation the functions of the services. It is my personal opinion that there is no question about the basic functions of the services.

There is no question at all about the fact that the Army is organized, trained, and equipped to conduct major land operations to defend the continental United States. That the basic functions of the Navy is to control the sea and that the basic functions of the Air Force is to control the air and carry out strategic bombing missions.

I think those can be written into legislation in very general terms and that there can be no question about them.

The point at issue, however, is that which I mentioned early this morning, the two theories of organization of the armed forces: One, that all forces which fight on the land and should belong to the Army, all of those which fight on the sea should belong to the Navy, and everything that flies through the air should belong to the Air Force.

The other concept which we have maintained in this country up until now, and which I believe is proper for a maritime nation, it believes that the Ground Forces should have the tools to carry out their basic functions and that the Air Force should have their tools to carry out their job, and the Navy should have within itself the tools to carry out its job of controlling the sea.

In all of the discussions on roles and missions which took place last year, there was no disagreement on the broad functions of the three major services.

Only in the area of overlap between the two theories of organizations, was there any disagreement. That is that Naval Aviation performed a function which should be performed by the Air Force, and that the Fleet Marine Force performed a function because it fights on land, which belonged to the Army.

I believe very strongly that when the Congress legislates an organization, such as the Army or the Navy, the Marine Corps or the Air Force, it should specify the reason for which that body is established. Under the present Executive order, it is entirely possible, I believe, that one or the other functions can be eliminated in one force and taken by the other.

I think that if each service knows that it is supposed to do, it can go ahead and do that job. Unless it can be certain of continuing that function for the immediate future, then it never knows from one day to the next where it stands.

The Executive order does not solve it, but Congress itself must solve the problem.

Senator ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Also, General, a new Executive order could be issued 2 days later which would practically cancel anything in the Executive order issued immediately after the passage of this bill.

Now, General, do you believe that in the functions of the Marines, for instance, that their functions are generally in amphibious operations and that they should have with them, for those amphibious operations or any functions the Marines carry out, organically there

should be the necessary air and sea support necessary to carry out those functions, under the control of the Marines?

General EDSON. Yes, sir.

Senator ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Do you believe that with the Navy, that in order for it to carry out the functions of control of the seas, that in addition to the warships and other ships that float on and under the sea, that they should have air support of their own to make the carrying out of their functions more effective, whether that is a carrier-based airplane or a land-based airplane?

General EDSON. Yes, sir; that plus their amphibious forces.

Senator ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Do you believe that the Army in its land operations should have with those land operations, the necessary ships at sea to carry them out, and also the air support for tactical use in operations?

General EDSON. I agree with that. I believe that the close air support of the Army is as much an adjunct or part of the Army as artillery, tanks, or any other part of the Ground Forces.

Senator ROBERTSON of Wyoming. May I go back to the Navy functions: In addition to the land-based and carrier-based planes, do you believe that they should develop and use and have ready for use, guide missiles and rockets to carry out their functions?

General EDSON. Yes, sir.

Senator ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Would that apply also to the Army?

General EDSON. Yes, sir.

Senator ROBERTSON of Wyoming. We have taken the tactical Air Force and placed it as a function of the Army, we have taken the landbased Navy planes for the Navy, and we have of course the Marine planes. That makes the chief functions of the Air Force strategic bombing?

General EDSON. I think, sir, the function of the Air Force is that of strategic bombing and air defense of the continental United States, and its possessions.

Senator ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Do you refer to fighter protection?

General EDSON. Yes, fighter protection, and that another army that is closely allied with that is that of antiaircraft artillery.

During the last war the fighter aircraft and antiaircraft artillery were habitually brought under common command because they functioned so closely together.

Senator ROBERTSON of Wyoming. The antiaircraft artillery and the fighter plane on the ground and the fighter planes in the sky must coordinate and fight together to have a proper protection? General EDSON. They have the same function.

Senator ROBERTSON of Wyoming. You would agree that the function of the Air Force is also again guided missiles for the carrying out of their particular functions?

General EDSON. Yes, sir.

Senator ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Where you use the antiaircraft guns on the ground you would not suggest for one minute, because those guns were being used on the ground, that they must be used by the Army?

General EDSON. I do not think that is a proper place for them, sir. Senator ROBERTSON of Wyoming. Any more than the planes to protect the Navy might be turned over to the Air Force?

General EDSON. That is right.

Senator ROBERTSON of Wyoming. To carry it a bit further and exaggerate it a little, you do not believe that the only men who could carry and use a rifle are men in the Army?

General EDSON. That is right; I do not believe it.

Senator ROBERTSON of Wyoming. You believe, then, that the broad functions of the Army, the Navy, the Marines, and the Air Force should cover every possible weapon, and the use of that weapon, which would be advantageous to their doing the best possible job?

General EDSON. I believe that a majority of campaigns can be broken down into three classes: Land campaigns, which were exemplified in this last war by the fighting in Europe which was conducted primarily by the Ground Forces and its close air support; the air campaigns, such as the strategic bombing of Germany; the air defense of Great Britain; the strategic bombing of Japan, were essentially air campaigns conducted by that force.

The naval campaigns were exemplified by the march across the Pacific.

The only exception is a true joint operation which requires the combined Army, Navy, and Air Force. Such huge joint operations are the exception and not the rule.

Senator ROBERTSON of Wyoming. They would naturally be under a unified command in the field?

General EDSON. Absolutely.

Senator ROBERTSON of Wyoming. General, is there any other point you would like to bring out in connection with this bill?

General EDSON. In connection with the Joint Staff, I have here a pamphlet entitled "American Problems," issue No. 1, January 1947, which was published by Paul M. Robinett, former general staff officer and combat officer of the Second World War.

I would like to insert in the record this marked page here. The CHAIRMAN. It will be printed in the record at this point. (The information is as follows:)

EXCERPT FROM AMERICAN PROBLEMS, ISSUE No. 1, OF JANUARY 1947

Published by Paul M. Robinett

Paul McD. Robinett biographical data: Army officer; born Mountain Grove, Mo., December 19, 1893; B. S. in agriculture, University of Missouri, 1917; special student, University of Paris, 1925, Harvard University, 1935; graduate Calvalry School, Fort Riley, Kans., 1922, French Cavalry School, Saumur, France, 1926; Command and General Staff School, 1934, Army War College, 1937; commissioned second lieutenant, First Cavalry, November 1917, and advanced through the grades to brigadier general, November 1942; instructor Cavalry School, 1922-23 and 1934-36: aide-de-camp to Gen. Malin Craig, July 1927-August 1932; War Department General Staff, 1937-41; G-2, G. H. Q., 1941-42; commanding officer, Thirteenth Armored Regiment, 1942-43; commanding general Combat Command B, First Armored Division, January 1943-May 1943; commandant, the Armored School, Fort Knox, March 1944-September 1945. Participated in engagements at Oran, Tebourba, Medjez-el-Bab, Ousseltia Valley, Sbeitla, recapture of Kasserine Pass, Maknessey, and Mateur-Bizerte. Awarded Distinguished Service Medal, Purple Heart; Legion of Honor, Croix de Guerre with two palms; commander, Order Military Merit of Brazil.

60266-47-pt. 3- -10