The Evening Star SATURDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1925. THE PLACE OF THE AIR ARM.

Evening Star, Issue 19127, 19 December 1925, Page 6

The Evening Star SATURDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1925. THE PLACE OF THE AIR ARM.

The climax of years of disagreement between William Mitchell and the General Staff of the United States Army hits now passed. He is what some people call an agitator, and others a reformer. In the eyes of the latter he has now become a martyr. For the punishment inflicted on him by a court-martial of generals is suspension from the army for five years, with forfeiture of rank and pay. His “ degradation " has been gradual When ho first came into prominence over his country’s administration of the “ third arm ” in warfare ho was a general, and second in command of the United States Army Air Forces. First ho was reduced to the rank of colonel, and now he is plain “ Mr.” When President Coolidge ordered tips last of the Mitchell inquiries it was expected in American Army and Navy circles that lie would be charged under the 62nd Article of War, covering insubordination ; but the charges were laid under the 96th Article, covering conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline. The punishment on conviction for this, the leas grave offence, was at the discretion of the court within prescribed Hunts, the maximum being dismissal from the service and the minimum reduction in files. Virtually he has been given the maximum sentence, for in effect there can be no real difference between dismissal and suspension for five years. Evidently this show of lenience was on account of Mitchell's brilliant record in the service, admitted by the courtmartial, despite the vituperative statement of the colonel conducting the case for the prosecution that Mitchell labored under “ egotistic self-deception regarding his own experience and qualifications. ”

It is difficult at this distance to form an opinion of the rights and wrongs of the case, bnt from the considerable volume of literature which, has gathered around this long-drawn-oat controversy in America there is more than a mere splash of truth in Mitchell’s brief final speech in his own defence, wherein he characterised the case as “ the culmination of the efforts of the General Staff to depreciate the value of air power.” America has been no exception to the jealousy shown by the land and sea branches of defence towards the air branch since the development of aviation and its application for the purposes of war. Both the army and the navy are glad enough to utilise the services of the airmen, but without allowing them an independent status and keeping them in strict subordination.' Conservatism finds its greatest strongholds in the army and navy, and as the develop-

ment of aviation is perhaps the greatest feature of the -world’s recent history there was hound to be a battle royal. At this recent court-martial the army generals sought to evado the issue. Among the seventy-three witnesses called by Mitchell to prove the truth of what ho has said about the Army and Navy Air Services were the Secretary of War and the Secretary of tho Navy, but the prosecution s contention was that tho issue was not the truth or falsity of Mitchell’s statements, but only whether or not .they wore prejudicial to discipline. It is an unsound argument. Efficiency is the supreme aim of a defence force, and discipline is merely a means towards efficiency. Mitchell’s contention was that the army and navy utilisation and administration of tho air branch was a far remove from efficiency, and if in his attempts to alter conditions so as to secure efficiency he overstepped the bounds of discipline, he may have been merely discarding something which in this case was more of a hindrance than a help towards efficiency. But such views are anathema to the hide-bound “ brass hats.” Their only object was the upholding of discipline, and probably in achieving this through their sent once the causo of efficiency has suffered infinitely more than it h as gained. Tho trouble among tho aviators remains alter the remoral of Mitchell, their mouthpiece, commonly known as the Stormy Petrel. That trouble may bo briefly outlined in tho words of Colonel Briggs, of tho United States Air Service; — A clear distinction should be drawn between the terms “air force” and “ air sendee ” as applied to air warfare. Air service is tho service accomplished by the aviator lor tho benefit of tho other arms, such as observing and reporting; such as mapping enemy territory, correcting artillery fire by wireless, doing patrol scouting. Such contributions to tho information of naval fleets or to tho armies iu the field should be designated as air service. Air force is the inherent power of the airplane itself —its guus and its bombs—to cfloct a victory over an opponent. Thus in a contest between two hostile air forces only fighting machines are engaged. The supremacy of the air depends upon the superiority of one or the other force, Regardless of tho activities of tho army and tho navy, this contest between the air forces must ho decided before cither the army or the navy can operate without fear from tho air. It is tho Air Force that American aviators want divorced from its old masters. They have no desire to take away from tho navy the “ aviation which is an integral part of tho very fabric of the navy.” Nor do they feel so deeply indignant over tho fate of tho Corps Observation Squadrons which the armies in tho field require for their information as to enemy movements. But they insist that tho pnrely Air Force, which at no time has any other function than that of meeting and defeating another air force, should be selected, trained., and operated solely by airmen, and not by soldiers and sailors.

Colonel Driggs declares on behalf of the naval airmen that, though they would not rnn the risk of openly backing Mitchell in this revolt because Mitchell might not win, yet they are quite generally united under the banner flung aloft by Mitchell On one proposition all flyers are united —flying should be under the sole control of flyers. No flying man denies the validity of the claims that airplane service is an integral part of tho navy and of the army, and that separation would be fatal to national dofeaje. The aviator is willing to provide all machines and appliances and turn over to tho army and tho navy the flyers and machines required for each sen ice, army or navy commanding their various functions, but tho flyers to those functions in their own way, mt in tho army’s way nor in the navy’s way, because flyer's know the flying game better than landsmen or sailor's know it. “ Give us complete control of our own element and we will leave you in control of your own,” they say.