PAGE TWO
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN LAWRENCE, KANSAS
MONDAY, APRIL 30, 1951
Marvin Arth
the editorial page
MacArthur And West Point
Editor's note: Alan Kent Shearer, K.U. debater who recently debated at the United States Military Academy at West Point wrote the following observation on the feelings of the cadets toward the MacArthur-Truman controversy.
On April 19 General Douglas MacArthur presented his epic speech to a joint session of Congress. On the same day I was attending a debate tournament at the United States Military Academy, West Point, N.Y. I was naturally interested in what the corps of cadets thought about the controversy which involved the man who, as an undergraduate, had compiled a still unchallenged scholastic record and later, as an officer, had returned as Superintendent of the Point. I therefore undertook to engage a number of the cadets in rather lengthy and off-the-cuff conversations about General MacArthur in particular, and world military strategy in general.
An examination of the bodies of opinion reveals several interesting and somewhat enlightening lines of thought. Those who felt that Truman had acted according to his Presidential responsibilities set forth the argument which has gained currency within K.U. ivory tower circles. According to this contention the President is a commander-in-chief with an absolute right to discipline or dismiss any soldier who dares to break from the top to bottom orders issued to him.
Only one cadet was willing to defend the Chief Executive on both counts; he was from Missouri. There was a uniform belief, even then, that it would be a grave mistake to overemphasize the pathos of the "old soldier" phrase at the expense of the more basic concepts involved. They remarked, however, that fellow-travelers and common politicians would undoubtedly seize upon it and twist it in an attempt to make the General look ridiculous.
As might be expected the corps fell into two distinct bodies of opinion. The rather amazing factor is not this, but the specific division of belief which was evidenced; the cadets were inclined to feel either that Truman was within his rights in firing MacArthur but the General was correct with relation to strategy or that Truman had removed MacArthur illegally and was equally mistaken in matters of military content.
The cadets holding this belief said that it was the duty of a subordinate to avoid thinking for himself on any matters prescribed by his superiors. They considered it the only effective way in which an army could be run and pointed to the court marshal of Billy Mitchell (upon which MacArthur sat) as precedent for the haberdasher's move. Although they were openly distasteful toward the action, they maintained, in effect, that it was "just the way things are and have to be."
The individuals who disapproved of the ouster presented a number of contentions on their behalf. It is downright silly, they said, to pretend that civilians in the State Department and the office of the President are capable of determining military moves and then forcing the joint chiefs of staff to accept them. They pointed to the fact that, historically, the position of commander-in-chief was meant to be purely honorary.
Further argument ran along the line that any soldier has a right to gripe (this is not the precise word used) about orders as long as he doesn't take positive action contrary to directives. In other words, it was permissible for MacArthur to say that we should bomb Manchuria and blockade the Red China coast as long as he did not do so of his own volition. The cadets who thought thusly said that modern armies demand independent thinking if they are to survive. They, too, pointed to the Mitchell trail, but argued that the eventful justification of Mitchell's views had rendered obsolete the concept by which he, and MacArthur, were relieved of duty.
They all felt, however, that it would be suicide to allow the Communists to engage us in a Korean war of attrition which would only cost our adversaries expendible manpower and might gain them all of Asia. "We are only getting at their men," one cadet told me. "We're crazy. They can afford to lose men—they've got millions of them. They can't afford to lose bases or trade, but we're letting those things alone." The corps foresaw disaster if current State Department policy continued to dominate military necessity. They seemed to have a "the diplomats decide; the soldiers die" philosophy.
—Alan Kent Shearer.
Francis Kelley
- * *
Drinking at colleges and universities has always been a rather touchy situation. Faculty members and students try to hide it from each other, and only succeed in fooling nobody. But there is no community jug, so to speak. And sometimes feelings are hurt:
galley-west
Because the president of the University of Virginia felt there was too much drinking being done at the last concert on the "Grounds" there, he banned all future concerts. An irate student then wrote to the student paper, Cavalier Daily:
"My name is George Wahoo Jones. I was formerly a student at the University. One day I was having a beer in my closet when I was apprehended for exhibition drinking for leaving the door ajar. I am leaving tomorrow to enroll at Chapel Hill. I have room for four in my car."
(Because of space limitations, the editor reserves the right to condense letters of more than 100 words. Anonymous letters will not be published, but names will beheld on requied. Letters should be addressed to the editor of the Kansan.)
Letters—
Bennett's Views—
Editor's note: Mr. Bennett is a former student of the University, now serving with the armed forces in Japan. Ordinarily we limit letters to approximately 100 letters but Mr. Bennett may be construed as representing that of our Far Eastern fighting men, we have allowed it to run beyond our imposed limit.
To the editor:
Recently I read a clipping sent me by my wife concerning the deposing of Gen. Douglas MacArthur as supreme Allied Commander in the Far East. It was with some dismay that I read the views of F.J.K. in that editorial. As an "alum" of the University and as a member of the United Nations forces in the Far East, I justify this reply.
I must take issue with the contents of that article which denounced the General and espoused views not only hostile to him, but. I believe hostile to the successful pursuit of victory in Korea and peace for the world.
We here in the Orient were shocked. . to hear the news of the General's dismissal, and were even more shocked to hear the reasons ascribed to such action by the President. . . .
Anyone that knew the General's attitudes at all can readily realize that he is anything but a "saber rattler." We doubt that he sees himself as God's gift to the world. We admit that he has a way about him that may be called theatrical by some, but most of us who were under him feel that such does not detract from the fact that he is and was a great leader and a great General. Patton had his pistol, Ridgway his hand grenade, and MacArthur his battered cap and his corncob pipe, yet each were none the less leaders because of what he carried or wore.
Perhaps it is difficult for some in the states to realize the fight that we have and are facing in the Pacific. Perhaps some of you will soon find out how we feel to face an enemy who can freshen itself at will from supplies that are safe behind boundaries protected by political agreements based on fear. Contrary to every known principle of war we attempt to meet the enemy on the front lines alone and seek to defeat him there while he still has an inexhaustible supply of man power and equipment safe from our forces. To talk of not spreading the war is to speak of hopes and to turn our backs on the facts. . . .
. The General spoke out in hopes of saving the lives of men in his command. For this he was removed. . His only mistake was that he held the lives of his men and the safety of his country above his personal ambition, for surely had he remained silent he would still be here in command. . .
If F.J.K. should think that we enjoy spending our days separated from those we love, if he should think that it is better to spend the nights in a cold foxhole than in a warm living room, if he should think that we find joy in seeing our comrades killed and wounded needlessly, there is an error in his judgment of us, far greater than the one he has made of our General. None of us want anything more than to come home, but others have decided that we shall not return till the fight is over and the victory ours. This is nearly impossible as long as the enemy may fight a war of attrition
mainly because of our own protection of them.
We are all a little heartened by the reception accorded the General by the American people. In that we see, . a growing interest, . in our plight in the Far East. We hope that it indicates the desire to bring
to a speedy conclusion this war and the return of its citizen army. . . . It is the hope of many of us here. . that while the General may fade away. . , still the ideas that he stood for shall never fade away. Pfc. Robert E. Bennett, U.S.M.C., Yokasuka, Japan
"Shorty Always Likes to Read the Ads."
Colby Spa
Colly College
Waterville, Maine
In Waterville, Maine, there is always a friendly gathering of Colby College students at the Colby Spa. And, as in college campus haunts everywhere, ice-cold Coca-Cola helps make these get-togethers something to remember. As a refreshing pause from the study grind, or when the gang gathers around coke belongs.
Ask for it either way ... both trade-marks mean the same thing.
BOTTLED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE COCA-COLA COMPANY BY KANSAS CITY COCA-COLA BOTTLEL CO.
$ \textcircled{2} $1951, The Coca-Cola Company