Arizona republican., 1914-03-01

proposals begin at the wrong end. When we have persuaded the man with a gun in the Khyber Pass or the TShernagOIa to disarm. we may be able to follow his example safely; if it is We who begin, he is quite certain not to follow our example, and our last state will be worse than the first.
 The Great Illusion passes as d pacifist book, though it's author al gues squarely in favor of maintain
 ing the preponderance of the British navy. and in general passages, notab- Ky that on Khartoum, reveals how high he places a good soldier. Doubt less the reason for the welcome the book received in pacifist quarters is it's uncompromisingly materialistic argument: War doesn't pay, war
 is constantly becoming more eXpen- sve therefore war is futile, and must soon be ended by general con sent, the theory is conveniently easy one of the unreflecting to grasp. As a problem of arithmetic, it may be admitted that the thesis is ire pl oachable, yet it could not be Sus- taned for five minutes before an audience of schoolboys. school boy would perhaps not be able to demonstrate to Mr. Angelr' that some of the greatest and most jus tified wars have been waged in spite of economic considerations; he might i,a l1 h. ftt- ture, while great and complex mod ern communities will feel the mili- tary burden more and more intense ly, smaller and less civilized com munities will not, and will continue to wage war just as in the past un- less they are prevented by force of arms-which brings us back to the same thing; but he could tell Mr Angel" with vigorous schoolboy emphasis and scorn, that profit or loss is not the sole tset of conduct, that to fight in spite of loss. to value generosity beyond cash. cour- age beyond profit, has always and will always win the hearts of nine teen well constituted boys out of twenty. He would dismiss Mir "Angelrs" ultra economic thesis if not as childish. certainly as middle aged.
 But pacifism has already carried us too far. The issue is not pa cifism or miitarism. Such formulas as these may well be useful for col leSe debates or for the endowment cf propagandist trusts, but they are
 totally unprofitable for the man whose chief concern is the interest 1 of his country. They are indeed worse than unprofitable they con- l fuse real issues. For it is one of | the worst habits of the human mind | to catch at formula for superficial or inadequate reasons and then to riake of it q fetish. The out t-and- out militarist pooh poohs every ar gument that tells against him and ! scornfully labels it pacificsm; the pacifist returns the compliment: and
 mere vehemence of conviction. coveIs 1 what is really sluggishness of mind and of conscience. For questions af- 1 fecting the military organization of d
 country are questions so vital. so diff | ficult and so variously adjusted. that
 TO formulas can solve them: a real effort of will and of intellect is nec- essary.
 However much the press and the fropa gandists may make it appear. l this country is really not faced by any such issue as pacificism or mili-
 tarism. It is at most true to say | that owing to the pacific disposition
 of our people and their favorable geographical situation, war is rapidly l becoming an obsolete conception to
 tEem It is all to the credit of our
 civilization that a Nebra ska farmer i cannot imagine the possibility of crossing the border of Iowa, or even I of Canada. with d gun in his hand.
 But is that in itself any reason for
 not maintaining an army commen- | surate with our needs? Such an army
 would have saved us from our dis l graces of the war of 1872: it would i have avoided us the civil war and
 forced an economic settlement of the
 slave question: it would now relieve
 us of many perplexities.
 If our past has demonstrated any
 thing beyond question, it is the frightful cost, in blood and in money. of being unprepared for war and of
 employing volunteers or militia to i make good our deficiencies Military
 problems will be presented to us by | foreign countries at recurring inter-
 Nals of time, whether We are in favor
 of peace or otherwise. Is this to be 1 the one field of national activity in ! which we refuse to listen to expert advice? Is it when the lives of our 1 try ale at stake that we will decline to examine the facts and seek refuge
 in cant phrase? Is it ''militarism'' to create an army sufficient to de- fend ones country? And if it were,
 what of it?
 Switzerland has one of the most
 powerful military organizations in
 the world. compared to her resources
 and population. Australia has uni
 versal military service. Are these countries militarst? Is there any | danger they will launch out into a
 career of conquest and destruction
 Every one knows that these are nec-
 essary measures of protection on the | part of industrial and pacific democ-
 racies. and that they cannot eonceiv- ably be converted to purposes of az gression. Would that we had a
 small proportion of the foresight and
 patriotism of our Swiss and Austra- Han friends,