Detroit evening times. (Detroit, Mich) 1921-1958, 1944-09-19
BEHIND
THE NEWS
Paul.
MaIIon

WASHINGTON, Sept. 1S-An
w extraordinary public inter-
est in the postwar compulsory
military training plan has been
evident i'm mail reaction TO my
suggestion Aug. 81 that other
more democratic means of rails
ing and maintaining the needed
army might be found.
People generally appear to be
thinking and searching for a
plan. as indeed is the war de-
partment. There Gen. Marshall
has amended or expanded
War Secretary StimSons simple
youth draft proposition with
hunt for a program 10 build the
postwar defense on A small
standing army with a citizen re-
serve.
Marshall is unusually sensible
and practical in his approaches
To these problems (to wit the
excellent rehabilitation point
SYSTEM but he also wants 10
draft the youths through COM
pulsion for a year Of training.
THE army bills in Congress
l. call for taking the youngster
at II or upon graduation from
high school. Officers in charge
say they want all youths drawn
in, rich and poor, prospective
clergymen, doctors, lawyers,
technicianS as well as poets.
They think that by taking in
every one, under compulSion,
they are following the demo-
cratic way. They are not.
The compulsory draft is the
theory of RECOMMENDATION, dicta-
torShlpS, totalitarianiSm. The
voluntary inducement system is
the democratic theory, and il al
ways has proved more efficient
when intelligently directed.
The army seems a little
sheepish on this point. Slylyr it
SHES away from the title COM
pulSory military training 10
describe the plan, and calls it
universal military training"
1t is not TO be universal. But
ii is compulsory.
These military statesmen are
just beginning TO get into the
problem. They know European
nations. with their deficient
manpower, have long required a
year in the army for youths.
They have just jumped thought
lessly Tin my opinion), 10 the
conclusion that this is the only
way 10 get what they want.
WHAT they want-and what
w we needs an army. 1t
must be a sufficient and efficient
army, capable of defending the
country, else we might as well
not have one. g.
1t seems to me we have been
doing it somewhat in Gen. Mar
shall's way all along. and this
has not proved satisfactory.
We had a small army $4,000 at
the start of the war;, and a
citizens reserve (the national
guard In effect, we had
nothing.
The army was not adequate
or efficient. The national guard
was a drill unit for parades
(and a month in summer camp
Both together could not defend
Long Island against an invading
foe. That system will have TO
be declared obsolete and a new
plan adopted.
But will compulsory military
training do the job? l think
fair. objective analysis of the
facts will show that it will not,
and Furthermore that il is not
even important or material TO
the job.
A RMIES today are built on
"A technicians The foot SOL
der is not so often a fighter as
a policeman. He mostly goes 10
the place led by the highly
skilled gunner, artillery engi-
neer, plane combat pilot, tank
driver, for the last fighting.
The point that war today is
a complex cohesion Of all the
highly skilled scientific tech
niques needs no proof. A year
in the army TO make a soldier
may have been all right in
Napoleon's day when a man had
only 10 learn how TO shoot a
musket accurately, drill forma-
tions. etc, but not today land
not 17-year-olds, either then or
now.
Not only are the combat men
now long-trained technicians,
but so are the equally import
ant men in radio communica-
lions. engineering, bridge con-
Struction, and practically every
line.
There we're 1851 $50 males II
years old in the United States
in 1910. If all these had spent
a year in the army, would they
he what We must have or con-
tribute materially to IL? Do
not these skilled technicians re-
quire more than a year Of ap-
plication and more maturity
than II.
In 10 years you would have
from them a force nearly as
large as the military force we