New-York tribune., 1915-03-28
Hv WILLIAM L. MCPHERSON.

HE military policy OF tho United States
n has always been extremely short
sighted. So far as national defence
j goes we have been content TO live
,.. hand 70 mouth. We have nourished the
,.,,sion that military machinery can be I'M
s..vsed. and that patriotic fervor can make up
Z, Deficiencies in equipment. training, organi-
.s,o and general education In the practice OF
In every war that we have fought our
.a,ry system has broken down completely.
-, 81 have learned little or nothing from
-, costly experiences. We are living to-
=, sader an administration which holds that
eMef reliance in war must be on "a cit-
-, trained and accustomed to arms"-that
A.. an citizens who in their younger days occa-
.:.,,ly hunted birds with a shotgun, or bigger
,,ns with a rifle. II is the easy acceptance
= me Ole frontier tradition that every man
\, can shoulder a musket is competent 10
-, which has made us pay in all our wars an
.a,bitsnt penalty in lives and money for our
,spreparedness.
Fortunately for the national defence it has
Nh recognized even in the backwoods that
.,rv abe-bodied citizen is not born sailor
:, vel as r. born militiaman. Jefferson was
a, onlv President who ever tried to put the
.,vv or pure militia basis He undertook TO
-srs the ships of the line and to replace them
4, defensive purposes with small gunboats,
,sich could be mounted on wheels, and trans
,s-tsd overland 70 any part Cf the coast that
-lsht be threatened. But Jefferson's great
rb.re never got a trial When the War of
u2 came on VIC began to create a genuine
,,vy with trained seamen and an officers
,,rps Of high professional distinction. That
,,yy saved our military prestige, sadly dam
,,.d By repeated hascos in land warfare.
UBLIC OPINION INSISTED FORTY
YEARS AGO ON MODERN NAVY.
Stree 1872 we have often allowed the navy
:, deter.orcte. The great establishment
-,a,ed during the Civil War was dismantled
o. rottsd away, until in 1873 we had hardly
e,rls vessel that was not obsolete. Public
opinion then became aroused and demanded
he construction Of a modern navy. When the
Spanish War broke we had feet which could
10 its work although we were handicapped
BY an army organization paralyzed in all its
branches and grotesquely unfit to discharge
even the very moderate military tasks assigned
on
ousao opinion is more concerned about
-s1ta.r.1g an efficient navy than it is about
-sa,a.- ne an efficient army. The reason for
-e discrimination is obvious. The navy is the
rs. .-e Of national defence. It is also the
8. line i rs consider the present vulnera-.
g C land lorts 10 naval attack and the
s.ae i-su1iciency Of our mobile army. 1t
the c7.y weapon available for the protection
our outlying possessions. 1t is the only
g.ncy on which we can depend in trying to
zee; the political obligations imposed upon US
y the Monroe Doctrine. Our future in the
,oLdcs Of this hemisphere and in world poll
tts IS staked on the efficiency Of our navy.
We must have feet OF the first rank in
ud,r 20 garry out ou- national policies. A
few years ago our navy stood very near the
Top Great Britain alone was stronger. Now
We have sunk to fourth place as a naval power,
osng outraaEed by Germany and by France,
a vel as Great Britain. Yet on the sea we
rs immeasarably stronger than we are on