Evening star., 1919-11-09
Pershing Before ideas con
Military Committee. nationa

ly raolcal
Pershing Before ideas con
Military Committee. nationa
military situation. His Introductory
statement that American success In
the present war was due to excep-
tional circumstance that afforded op-
portunity for preparation rather than
to the remarkable military power Of
the nation was a distinct shock to the
many who still believe that the
American is a natural born fighting
man. He argued against lack of pre-
paredness in the future. asserting his
belief that had the country been pre-
pared 1t would not have been forced
into the conflict. His next statement
was to the effect that the permanent
military esta blishment Of the country
should be limited to a force sufficient
to meet any sudden attack from
without; to provide any small expe-
dictionary force that may be required; !;
to meet internal requirements. and
that the great force for the defense
OF the country should be in reserve
to be created from graduates Of
training camps and to be based upon
Tue SoiuhleeT ana drafted oiN1slOHS
that served in the world war. The
total number Of such an army ought
not to exceed 100000 men. This in
principle and policy was directly in
opposition to the provision of the War
Department bill.
the congressman that many Of the
questions concerning army and War
Department organization involved in
the bill and which Gen. Pershing was
asked to discuss were foreign to the
, subjects he has been handling for the
of these matters the commander of
the A. E. F. asked to be excused from
giving an opinion: but on the ques-
tion OF major policy he never hesi-
tated for an instant. Thus he strong
ly favored universal military train
ing. urging that the training period
should be at least six months.
| Gen. Pershing said that many criti-
, clsms OF the general stan were well
founded and arose from the fact that
up to the time war was declared a
proper conception Of the duties of
staff officers had not been developed
| In the American Army. For that rea-
son stan omcers had undertaken du-
ties that were not stan duties, and in
so doing had exceeded their author
ity, but that they had gone 50 far was
due in great measure to the weak
ness OF the bureaus.
The basis of his statement was that
the War Department bill does not
provide democratic and accepta BILE
military policy for the United States.
y \ X
The statement Of Col. John McA
Palmer has added a military classic
to the literature OF
4 Military warfare. The hearing
rI...;, printed for the use OF
'A~' the committee on mill
tary affairs Of the Senate, shows that
the author. although q practical SOL
der Of the first order. was not at
tempting to make recommendation
for concrete legislation, but was
dealing with military principles in a
way hardly approached since Gen.
Emory Upton wrote his Military
Policy"
When asked to discuss the several
bills pending before the committee
he first laid down some general prin-
ciples. He put it in this way:
THE first question is. What is the
measure of war strength? The next
question Is. What should be the size
Of the peace establishment? and the
next is. What should be the form OF
institution in order to have a peace
establishment that will develop the
necessary war strength?
be the size of the peace establish
ment? and the next is, What should
be the form Of institution in order to
have a peace establishment that will
develop the necessary war strength?
He held that as long as war Is q
possible contingency there is no
measure of ultimate war strength
other than the total man power Of a
nation, and that the military policy
should be so constructed as to de-
velop all or any necessary part OF
that man power to meet any given
emergency. He instanced the fact