Evening star., 1941-05-07
Saws Whole Public
Should Discuss War
Professor Argues Thot
Military Men Ought Not
To Decide Policy Alone
To the Editor OF The Star:

To the Editor OF The Star:
The statement by Mrs Kathleen Norris
is your issue of April 26, headlined
"Lindbergh Defended" seems to me to
deserve some special consideration.
In the first place I should like to offer
| the comment that Mrs. Norris article
seems to be designed to create heat
and confusion and not to shed light on
any of the real issues with regard to
the foreign policy Of the United States
at the present time The question before
the American people is not one Of the
personal merits or personal faults of
any of ouI columnists. 1t is as to the
ultimate substantive choice to be made
in our foreign policy. 1t seems to me
that it is the obligation of every person
who offers comment on these issues to
endeavor to illuminate the issues them
selves anc not to confuse the discussion.
In the second place. I should like to
differ with a proposition that Mrs.
Norris evidently has In mind, although
it is not clearly formulated I draw the
inference that this proposition is part
of Mrs. Norriss credo. from statements
like the following toward the end of
her communication: Very few of these
fire eaters of today participated in the
last wal My men did, and in the
Spanish War, the Civil War, and one
of them lies buried on Breeds Hill
But when the sons of mothers and
fathers in humble little towns and farm
steads of America are on the red battle
line or drift to and fro under the icy
Atlantic tides, Dorothy Thompson,
Walter Iippmann and all the rest will
still be safe on the sidelines."
These words suggest that persons who
have no. participated in active military
service in recent wars have no right to
advocate anything other than supine
nonresistance to foreign aggression.
1t seems to me that this proposition
is wholly untenable. The first qualifi-
cation for public discussion is ability in
discussion, the power to make some real
contribution to public knowledge or to
public opinion. 1t certainly is not the
abstract fact OF the possession of
War, Jefferson. The author of the Decla-
ration OF Independence, did not partici-
pate in the military service. Neither
did James Madison. one of the most
prominent members Of the Constitutional
Convention. On the other hand, Alex
ander Hamilton and James Monroe did
participate in the actual fighting Would
IL he
and Madison should have been gagged
when the discussion of war issues later
arose, as in connection with the War
of 1912, while only old Revolutionary
soldiers were admitted to the debate?
Second it is especially true under
selective service system such as We
now have established that the courage
and the moral integrity of prominent
citizens should not be impugned on the
ground that they do not make special
efforts to enter the military service The
selective service system is established
in ordec tc produce the most efficient
fighting forces. For this purpose young
men especially are required. The occa-
sion is not one for gestures or de-
nunciations or f1ag-Wavings. 1t is a
question of efficient organization with
the purpose of producing the best pos
sible results.
Third, i we were to carry out the
proposition that only persons with mill
tary records should be allowed to ad-
vocate war, this would seem to imply
that persons without military records
ought to be excluded altogether from
participation in the crucial debates on
the issue. of peace and war In other
words. the power to decide these issues
ought 10 be turned over to the group
with military experience.
Now, the logical outcome of such a sys-
tenn would be to confne the discussion
of the issues of war and peace exclu-
slvely to groups of men with military
experience. In other words public
opinion on this subject would have to
be formed entirely by military men. The
exclusion of non-military people from
the discussion of public affairs is un-
democratic and unjustifiable under our
system of government. It also in the
long rur. would tend to create a sort
of military government or at least
government by military class. It Ger
talnly would not be a guarantee of peace
to have the discussion of war issues
limited to men who had fought in
battles ir recent wars
But, fourth, the issues now before us
relate TO the future. not to the past.
1t is not the old soldiers who will be
Jeopard'zed in the battle lines, but
young r;en without experience. Are
they likely to receive more consideration
from men who are military men by
profession or men who have had mill
tary experience in a more or less remote
past than from the great body of Ameri-
can opinion, including the many millions
who have not had military experience?
All members of the Nation will par
ticipate iE dangers if war eventuates.
Certainly the civilian population in
Great Britain now is subject to dangers
very similar to those that are thrown
upon the men actively engaged in mill
tary service. The civilian population is
identiIied with the Army through in
Vulnerable family ties. The sentimental
interests Of almost any individual that
can be selected cut both ways But all
Americans are profoundly interested in
this issue and all have a right to speak
and write On the subject, Mrs Norris to
the contrary notwithstanding