Evening star., 1940-07-12

President Bars Charles G. Ross.
Sending Men Abroad; that he
Pledges Americans VIII Not Fight
Overseas
This is what the President wrote
in his message:
That we are opposed to war Is
known not only to every American,
but to every government in the
world. We will not use our arms IN
a war of aggression; we will not send
our men to take part in European
wars"
This is proper commitment. No
body should have any quarrel with
1t. OF course We are opposed to war.
OF course we shall not use our arms
in war Of aggression. No nation,
in any case, ever fights a war Of
aggression. OF course we are NOT
going to send troops to take part in
European wars. The President SIM
ply states the obvious. If 1t were
not for the special circumstances in
which the statement is made, it
would have no more significance
than an Endorsement Of the al
phabet
I only want to suggest, without
criticism of the President, that the
headlines read into his pledge some
thing that is not there. 1t is not to
be believed that the President
wants, or ever has wanted, to send
American troops into the present
European conflict 1t is to be be-
lieved that he made his statement
in order to quiet fears to this effect,
and to cut the ground from under
those who have been branding him
an 'interventionist." But note the
careful wording of the commitment.
I'VE will not send our men to take
part in European wars does not say
that never under any circumstances
will we send men to fight in Europe.
If that is what Senators Wheeler
and Clark are demanding they
don't get it in this statement: they
don't get it any more than the "lso-
lationist" group got what they
wanted in the wide-open foreign
relations plank adopted at Phila-
delphia.
This is not to say that the "iso-
lationists and others-haye not
scored victory in driving the Pres
ident from a position that al times
haC seemed overprovocative. They
have But they have not procured
pledge of the extreme no drop
Of American blood to be shed on
European soil" type. For if by un-
happy chance we should get into the
war now raging in Europe. or any
later war, it would Immediately
become not European war merely.
but our war-an American war.
The war of lel4-l9l8 started out as
a European war, but after our en-
trance it became, from our point OF
view, an American war.
And if we get into war, the
present war or any other, and thus
make it our war. we are going to
send troops where they will do this
country the most good. 1t doesn't
necessarily follow that We would
send them to Europe, but the door
against sending them to Europe, or
anywhere else on the face of the
globe, is certainly not closed by the
Presidents message.
Nor should it have been closed.
The Presidents careful phraseology
his hedging, if you please-takes
gratifying account of the realities.
1t is not to argue for the sending
of troops to Europe, which is some
thing that hardly anybody in the
United States would now favor, to
say that by no faintest commit.
ment or pledge should this country,
in the present state Of world affairs,
hamstring itself in any future course
of military action.
We need not only to keep our
powder dry; we need to keep our
hands free. We need 10 keep our
hands utterly free to fight on foreign
soil, or in foreign waters, or in
foreign air, if, having got into a war,
we shall decide that this is the best
way to defend the soil of America.
The headlines are also glaringly
at fault in saying that the Presi-
dent pledged himself against the
sending of men abroad or "over-
seas" He did nothing of the sort.
The limit of his commitment was
against the sending of our men TO
take part in European wars. He
left the way wide open for the send
ing of our armed forces anywhere
we may please to send them on the
two American continents, or any,
where else, for the defense of this
hemisphere
If the President in his quoted
statement has written, in essense,
the Democratic party plank on for
eign relations-aS apparently he
has-then any attempt to draw
distinction between this plank and
the corresponding plank of the Re-
publican party, any effort to label
either party the peace party" or
the war party" on the strength Of
its platform declaration, will be
mere playing with words.
The Democratic plank will be
written, as was the Republican
plank, with a view primarily to
catching votes; or, in another man
ner OF speaking, with view to max
ing 1t roomy enough for both the
"isolationists' and the others.
Forget the planks. Both of them
will be open to any Interpretation
The interaction of our elected lead
ers' views and of public opinion, at
any given moment, will determine
any war-peace issue that may arise.
Meantime, it is important that the
words Of leaders and candidates
should be placed under the micro
scope of "semantics," lest meanings
be read into them that are not
there.