Evening star., 1940-06-28
Proposes Permanent
Council on Policy
Would Give Agency Prestige
Comparable to Thot
Of Supreme Court
To the Editor Of The Star.

Of Supreme Court
To the Editor of The Star:
At all times since It's inception, this
country has been in need Of permanent
council on foreign policy, composed of
perhaps five members, to make plans
and to advise the President, Secretary
of State and Congress, with respect to
national defense and our attitudes to-
ward other nations. The council should
have a prestige equal to that of the
Supreme Court Members should be
appointed for life and should possess
the highest possible qualifications with
reference to international diplomacy,
land, water and air warfare finance and
economies. The council should be of
such high competency and so completely
free from partisanship and emotional
instability that its conclusions would
command universal respect. Such body
would be able to insulate itself from the
effects of unreliable propaganda, and it
would not be influenced by desire to
secure votes. Then the average citizen
(who is, of course, utterly incapable of
passing on the intricate problems con-
nected with foreign relations) would be
able, in the event of war, to offer his
property and life with the assurance
that the program he was supporting had
been well thought out.
In this very important matter of for
eign relations, we have always been at
the mercy of politicians, demagogues,
saber rattlers, amateurs and sentiment
talists, and the results have been most
unhappy. Two cases will illustrate the
point-the war with Spain and the first
World War.
AS to the Spanish controversy, in order
to get us into that war, the politicians
suppressed the fact that Spain was will
ing to accede to our demands. Then
the demagogues developed a slogan
which had no sound support in truth.
With monumental stupidity we went
over to the other side of the world and
captured the Philippines. To make a
hit with the sentimentalists, we paid
$20,000,000 for them. They have been a
red-hot poker in our hands ever since;
never hotter than at present. We have
lost millions of dollars and thousands
Of lives in this fruitless venture. Now
If the Japanese take possession of them,
we will have to send over ships needed
here, with good chance of getting
licked in the encounter 1000 miles from
home. All for what?
Our operations in the first World War
were essentially similar. We are still
quarreling over why we went in. Some
say 1t was to preserve a principle re-
specting the high seas, which we have
since abandoned as unwise. Many people
think it had something to do with
democracy, though just what Is dificult
to explain. Then there is the naive
idea that We were ending all wars. Quite
recently somebody discovered for the
first time that we went in to save the
British fleet. A great holiday 1t was for
the politicians, demagogues,, saber rat
tiers, amateurs and sentimentalists. Its
total cost, including future pensions, is
now estimated at about $65 900, 900 900.
What lot of effective American de-
lenses that sum would pay for today
1t we had it. Incidentally, it should
not be overlooked that this amount
would build, not one, but several British
fleets.
1t is a disturbing psychological fact,
that, given personal devil to hate. a.
catchy slogan to shout and a cause"
IN some other land to enthuse over, a
vociferous, aggressive minority which we
have here, can rather easily shove us
into war. In the Spanish conflict the
personal devil was Butcher" Weyler. the
slogan was Remember the Maine" and
the cause was the reformation of Cuba.
In the first World War the personal
devil was the Kaiser, the slogan was
MAKE the World Safe for Democracy"
and the cause was the elimination of
future European war. All of this in
both cases was unadulterated buncombe.
The proof is good Cbut too long to pre-
sent here) that neither of these wars
was ever approved by a majority of
American citizens. An obstreperous mi
nority fooled Congress and we we're
pushed in without the consent of the
governed"
With competent and trusted council
on foreign policy to guide us, the polis
ticians, demagogues, saber rattlers, anna
teurs and sentimentansts would, in a
large measure, be checkmated and the
country would be able to establish and
maintain consistent, workable foreign
policy, which would be a source of
strength instead of a source of weakness.
June %. PRO-AMERICAN.