The Evening statesman. [volume] (Walla Walla, Wash.) 1903-1910, 1906-02-23
ARE WE READY FOR WAR?

Under the title rs the United
States prepared for war;" Mr.. Fred
erick Louis Huidekoper makes, in the
current North American Review, some
very pungent criticisms of the policy
of congress with reference to the
army. Beginning with the revolu-
tionary war, which, ne claims On the
authority Of Washington himself, was
unnecessarily prolonged by the policy
Of short enlistments, down to the
Spanish American war, he attempts
to show that congress has been actu-
ated all along our history by false
theory. After every war it has re-
duced the regular army to skeleton
so that during every war recourse has
had to be had to large levies of militia.
Militia have been called out often
without provision for arming, equip
ping or feeding them This was the
case in the campaign of 1914. In all
235O00 men were called out, but susn
were the faults of our organization
that the utmost strength We could
put forth On the field Of battle was
represented at Lundy's Lane by less
than 5000 men," These facts in regard
to organization were very nearly du-
plicated at the beginning of the Span
ish-American war.
Mr.. Huidekoper's point is that not
withstandng the fact We have had one
years of peace in our history congress
has always acted as though peace were
our inevitable condition and war some
thing unlikely and remote. Refusing
to learn from the mistakes of the past,
it has repeated and aggravated those
mistakes from time to time. The pol
icy has been expensive in men and
money. In every little war we have
had more militia nave been called out
than were needed. The expenses of
feeding, transporting and equipping
armies have been quadrupled and no
one has benefited but thieving army
contractors, who sold the government
embalmed beef and powderless bullets
1t may be answered that these mis-
takes belong to the past when We were
not a world power and when a scien-
tific military establishment was not
needed, that they will not be repeated
in the future. But the fact is they
are being repeated. The army is al
ready dwindling. 1t has fallen 1900
men below the maximum of $4,000 men
and officers. There is general com
plant that the number of officers is
insufficient, and the secretary of war
is appealing to congress to correct the
deficiency. The army is not taken Sc
riously by congress Or by itself, as is
evidenced by the fact that about AZ
per cent of officers from the grade of
captain up, are not with their COM
mands; that the making of cavalry
men out of recruits, a confessedly slow
process, is largely in the hands of sec
ond lieutenants; that the general staff
system has not given the results ex-
pected of it because it is still hamp-
cred by the political organizat ton of
the war department.
These are facts not of the past but
of the present. They may carry the
seed of a calamity of the future. The
United States has not recently had
the humiliation of defeat in open battle
in foreign war, but we are not I'M
mune. The British regular army was
beaten by the Beers and very likely if
we had the Beers to face in Cuba we
should have been beaten at first also.
There is no irreconcilable conflict
in this country between the advocates
and the opponents of a standing army.
They are talking only about things
re !ative. There is a basis upon which
they can meet-that of an army not
extravagant in numbers, but thorough
ly equipped for instant service.