Respectable Posture

One of the most explosive subjects in Congress is postwar universal military training. But last week the House Committee on Postwar Military Policy put into the debate a document which was a model of temperate, careful thought.

For weeks, under able, studious Chairman Clifton Woodrum, the special committee had pondered the whole idea. Their object was not to write a law but to study "the field of policy." For two weeks members had listened to more than 100 witnesses; hearings filled over 600 pages. Among the witnesses: General of the Army George Marshall, Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King, B. F. McLaurin of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, Mrs. Charles D. Rockel, chairman of the international relations committee of the Royersford (Pa.) Woman's Club.

On the basis of this varied testimony the committee wrote a report which 16 of its 22 members signed (one objected, five hung on the fence). Its net:

"The eminent position of the U.S. in the family of nations is supported by her balanced elements of greatness, one of which is ... military power." The success of the world security organization may well depend upon U.S. military power. But it is not "feasible" for the U.S. to support a large standing force. The alternative: "A trained citizenry is . . . necessary to a respectable military posture for our nation in the postwar period." Far from being unAmerican, the report declared, the plan for military training "is in accordance with our best traditions."

The Woodrum Committee bowed out. Next move was for the House Military Affairs Committee to write a bill and for the House to debate it with the same careful thought.

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