The New Alibi

A new alibi for incompetence and neglect of duty appeared recently.

It is that “all of us were responsible” and hence Pearl Harbor happened.

This is but another way of saying that everybody’s business was nobody’s business, that under our system of government whereby power is delegated by the people to the President and the Congress it was up to the electorate to tell the Government how to take proper measures to assure the safety of American lives and property. This is a plea in avoidance.

It is time the American people were told the unvarnished truth.

It is time all the facts about Pearl Harbor — both inside and outside the Harbor on those fateful days of last December — were revealed, and not half-truths or adroitly worded phrases that conceal the true nature of the defeat suffered by the United States Army and Navy at Hawaii.

It is time that responsibility be fixed for what has happened. The American people can “take it.” But can the Administration stand the scrutiny of an objective investigation?

Since Pearl Harbor, the Administration has squelched an investigation by members of the House Naval Affairs Committee. Orders came from the Executive to vote down the resolution of inquiry. Nor has any court-martial of Admiral Kimmel or General Short been ordered. If hush-hush is to be the policy, then the courts-martial may never be held, because every officer has a right to be heard in his own defense and a court-martial proceeding would give us all the facts. So far as is known no charges have as yet been formally filed against either Admiral Kimmel or General Short, so they cannot ask for a court-martial to defend themselves.

AVERT MORE PEARL HARBORS

The explanation of this may be that the Administration fears an inquiry will make the people jittery. Another argument is that no good can be accomplished now by a post-mortem.

But if the same incompetence still remains, if the same attitude toward major strategy still prevails, then an airing of the mistakes and a fixing of responsibility may save America from more Pearl Harbors.

What the American people are entitled to know is who is really running the Army and Navy. Is it the civilians who guessed wrong in relation to the events prior to December 7th? Have the men who know Pacific strategy been permitted to function? Have the men who know the Far East been given a real voice in making naval strategy? Are naval officers still being hampered by civilian interference?

NEED FOR INQUIRY

It is no use to make Admiral Kimmel and General Short the goats. Some students of naval affairs are convinced that, despite the lack of co-operation between the local commanders at Hawaii, the primary mistake made was in deploying the fleet as it was deployed according to orders from Washington.

Who, for instance, ordered virtually the entire Pacific Fleet concentrated in one place — Pearl Harbor — so it could be a target for sudden attack? Who over-ruled the officers who objected to such strategy? To answer those questions is not to bring back the 3,000 boys who died because of that blunder, but it may be effective in saving other lives. For the American people have a right to see operating the high command only those men who are entitled by training and experience to direct the destinies of our naval forces today.

This is no time for the venting of service grudges and petty grievances inside the Government. Too many naval officers have felt the sting of what might be called political interference and too many have been impressed by the oft-heard report in Washington that if you are a “yes man” and possess the favor of the Administration you can go places in the Navy. Too many naval officers are afraid even to talk privately to the congressional committee members for fear of reprisals.

Why hasn’t the public been told the story of how the commanders for important posts like Hawaii were chosen? Why were the jumped over the other officers who were in line for such promotion?

Isn’t this the task of the Senate and House Naval Affairs Committees respectively? Why are the members of Congress silent? Have they been forced into silence by Executive pressure or by the gag placed on naval officers from whom alone evidence and testimony could come?

The average citizen feels helpless when he knows things are going wrong in Government. He says “what can I do?” But he, too, can put pressure on his Senator or Representative. He can get others to do likewise. No false propaganda about “morale” should dissuade the people from demanding that no matter how black the news or how adverse the tidings, Congress should do its duty. Congress must insist that efficiency shall replace inefficiency, fairness shall replace unfairness, and that intrigue and petty politics shall be eradicated from the offices of Government when there’s a war on. It isn’t necessary to disclose troop movements or war plans to ferret out inefficiency or inexperience.

How seriously is the Administration taking some aspects of this war? If the forecasts that we may suffer air bombardments are true, then why has the civilian defense organization been managed by a group of social welfare workers and brain trusters? Isn’t this a military matter? Why wasn’t some retired officer of proved experience given charge of the whole civilian defense job from the beginning? What possible reason was there for putting James Landis — Harvard Law School dean and left winter — or flighty Mayor La Guardia, and a retinue of artists, motion picture stars and the like into key posts in an agency which has such a grave military responsibility?

And why does the President of the United States find time to arrange a fireside chat on “the progress of the war” to be hooked up by radio with the Democratic National Committee’s series of dinners across the country on February 23^rd, at which $100 a plate is to be collected from officeholders, defense contractors and the like to help pay off the $600,000 Democratic Party debt? And why was the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee permitted to issue that statement of innuendo — the statement that to elect a Republican Congress next autumn would be equivalent to a major military defeat, because such a Congress supposedly would be hostile to the President.

AN AID TO UNITY

Mr. Roosevelt told the newspapermen last Friday that he favored the election of members of Congress loyal to the Government’s war program irrespective of party and that he had not read Mr. Flynn’s statement. But isn’t it the duty of the leader of the Democratic Party to know when such an important statement is issued by the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee? For such a blunder as this, should not Mr. Flynn be publicly reproved and the statement repudiated by the Democratic National Committee members themselves in all parts of the country?

Mr. Flynn thinks a Congress of one party and Executive of another would create confusion. This is tantamount to urging that no election be held at all. The Republicans have cooperated one hundred per cent since Pearl Harbor and can be expected to give all the support needed to prosecute the war effectively. But would it not be desirable on domestic policy at least to have a check on the Executive?

DANGERS OF COMPLACENCY

Supposing Willkie Republicans controlled the new Congress? Has Wendell Willkie been “hostile”? If Republicans who feel as Willkie did and does about foreign policy should be nominated for Congress would they still be considered obstructionists and unfit to be given power? Is this the kind of statesmanship we are to have during the most critical time in world history? Is this going to produce national unity or more discord?

The press in wartime can accept the hush-hush policy under the convenient cloak of “censorship,” abandon criticism, neglect its duty and pray to God that another Pearl Harbor will not befall our forces. But if disaster comes again will our consciences be untroubled if we have made no record of our protests?

The present course of the Administration in squelching the investigation by Congress of those factors in the Pearl Harbor tragedy that were omitted by the Roberts report is a disquieting decision. The American people must be given all the facts that Japan already possesses. Her announcements and airplane photographs of the damage done inside and outside Pearl Harbor ought to be confirmed or denied officially by our Government.

Why is it that mostly the favorable news is given out? Have we had no losses, military or naval, since December 7^th? Isn’t the public being led to believe that all is well, and isn’t this going to produce the very complacency that lulls people to sleep and slows up production? A reasonable frankness is essential to the winning of the war and to the morale of the American people, who will double and redouble their efforts and sacrifices when they know the truth about the most difficult and dangerous war the United States has ever faced since the Republic was founded. 

This was originally published in the February 20, 1942 issue of PAW.