Aero Dynamite

A select Committee of the House was chosen some time ago to investigate the operations of the Air Services (TIME, Jan. 26, AERONAUTICS). Its business was to make a survey sufficiently technical in nature to lead to an adequate legislative program for aeronautics. But, before its work was done, a great deal of feeling had been aroused. The storm center was Brigadier General William Mitchell, Assistant Chief of the Army Air Service.

He is an advocate of a united Air Service for the Army, the Navy and for all other departments of the Government using aircraft. He based his demand for this on present inefficiency of the Air arm, and on its potential power in war time. On both of these points, there were officers of each service ready to contradict his sweeping statements, which indicted the War and Navy Departments among others, with unresponsive, inbred, damning conservatism.

Then word reached the investigating Committee that General Mitchell, whose rank is only temporary because of his position as Assistant Chief of the Army Air Service, might soon be detailed to other duty, automatically reducing him to his regular rank as Colonel. The cry went up that the War and Navy Departments were threatening officers with this indirect kind of discipline if they testified as to their true opinions. This was denied in official quarters; but, at the same time, Secretary of War Weeks wrote a letter demanding of General Mitchell an explanation of his statements before the Committee. General Mitchell's reply was forthright but not calculated to allay the atmosphere of excitement which had settled over the investigation.

Generally speaking, there are three prohibitions which may prevent a service officer from expressing himself freely in public: First is that he will not make public confidential military or naval information. The Departments set forth with sufficient clarity what information is of this character, and it is taboo on the lips of an officer in public. Second is that he will not make public any information derogatory to the service unless its publication may benefit the service. The limits of this class of information are largely a matter of opinion, but the spirit of the service sets up certain standards which are observed by "an officer and a gentleman." Third is entirely a question of self-interest that may prevent an officer from criticizing his superiors, if only from the natural fear that they, being human, may be prejudiced thereby against his advancement. This class of matter is also in the realm of opinion. Many a devoted officer is willing to sacrifice his personal glory if the result redounds to the advantage of the service.

There is small doubt that General Mitchell believes he is doing this very (third) thing. Where there is disposition in the service to frown upon General Mitchell's activities, it comes in part from the belief that he is going contrary to the second rule of silence, or that he does not know whereof he speaks.

The main points of General Mitchell's attack are: P:There should be a single Air Service for Army and Navy. This, he maintains, is necessary for efficiency and to prevent aeronautics from being slighted. Many officers, especially of the Navy, doubt the wisdom of such a plan, say it is impossible to get the necessary cooperation between a major arm and its auxiliary (the Air force) unless the latter is placed directly under the former. P: Appropriations made by Congress for air activities would have been ample if they had been available for use each year in a lump to one Department of the Air. General Mitchell maintains that the inadequacy of the funds has come mainly from their division. P: Airplanes are the great aim of future warfare, are able to sink any warship, are not an auxiliary to the other services but a great independent power in themselves. This is the real point of difference between General Mitchell and his opponents. The Navy is prepared to deny that statement vigorously. So is, in a large part, the Army. Whereas General Mitchell declared that in tests made in sinking condemned naval vessels by aircraft, the Navy imposed condi- tions unnecessarily, almost impossibly difficult, many naval officers have maintained that the tests were far too easy and did not approximate battle conditions.

So the battle waxes and wanes, with little immediate prospect except in the possibilities that it holds of hurting General Mitchell's standing with the War Department. His criticism of other witnesses, including his superiors, was most outspoken, e. g.:

"I believe that there has been woeful ignorance and, in some cases, plain distortion of facts by some of the witnesses before this committee, tending to confuse the country and Congress.

"If any civil officer should be found guilty of such distortion, he should be impeached, and if a naval or military officer, he should be court-martialed."

Again he was questioned in regard to Brigadier General Hugh A. Drum, who served during the War as Assistant Chief of Staff to General Pershing and Chief of Staff of the First Army, and who is now Assistant Chief of the War Department's General Staff. According to press reports, the questions put to General Mitchell and his replies were:

"General Drum said this country was second in aviation; does that co- incide with your view?"

"We are certainly not above fifth. England, Japan, France and Italy are ahead of us and we are falling behind all the time."

"Does General Drum know anything about the Air Service?"

"Nothing whatever."