Evening star., 1945-11-09
Lengthy Training Bill
Seen Dead in Congress

Seen De00 IN congress
Writer Urges War Department
to Use Legislative Sense
By David Laurence
Universal military training In the
form proposed by the War Department
Is dead 30 far a. Congress Is concerned.
1t was killed by Its own sponsors, who
ignored the experience Of the past and
attempted to get through Congress q
bill that unnecessarily antasonized
large groups Of citizens.
Yet unquestionably some system Of
military training and preparation is es-
sential II the Nation is not again to be
caught unprepared. Unfortunately, the
War Department has insisted on its
own extreme measure and has not been
willing to recognize the merit Of any
other plan except It's own.
Back in 1919 the war plans division
OF the War Department also proposed
an extreme measure but Gen. Peyton
G. March, then chief of stan Of the
Army, was astute enough to see its
weaknesses and rejected It, Gen. March
directed the entire military operation
from washington during the World War
as did Gen. Marshall during World
War II. Yet Gen. March came up with
plan that proposed only three months
training instead Of . year.
"The period which nxed," wrote
Gen. March afterwards in his memoirs
in 1882, "for the length of the training
was three months, and In that respect
the Baker-March bill was in marked dis
agreement with the scheme proposed by
the war plans division Of the general
staff, which provided II months for such
training. This was simply out Of the
question.
"Old Army Belief"
II have already stated that one of
the things shown clearly to the heads
of the War Department by our expert
ence in handling the training of men
drafted into the Army during the war
was that the old Army belief that it
took from two to three years to make
soldier was entirely erroneous under
conditions as they existed during the
war and would be equally erroneous
under the conditions prescribed in uni
versal training for the youth of all the
| land.
AS a matter of fact the draft Army
was composed of men who under no
possible conditions would have enlisted
in the Regular Army previous to the
war and they threw themselves into the
training prescribed with an intelligence
and zeal and enthusiasm which made
them available soldiers after three
months of training. The application of
the old prewartime theory of two or
three years training was, under those
conditions, simply ridiculous"
Gen. Marshall, when he was arguing
against the cry for lengthy training of
18-year-olds, made almost the same
argument as Gen. March did, but now
reverses himself and asks for a years
training.
Under the present procedure" wrote
Gen. Marshall on April %. 1915, in q
letter to the Senate Military Affairs
Committee, "the newly inducted soldier
who is being prepared as replacement
for the ground forces undergoes train
ing course of from Is to II weeks. He Is
taught how to care for himself in the
field, how to employ both his primary
and secondary weapons, and how he and
his weapon fit into the squad and the
platoon. Satisfactory completion of the
course means that he is qualified for
service to which he is to be assigned"
Commenting on the above, Brig. Gen.
Albert L. Cox, long an expert on the
problem, testified last June before the
special House Committee on Postwar
Military Policy as follows:
If II weeks are adequate under war
conditions for boys who have never had
military training, why is there demand
from the same War Department leaders,
Secretary Stimson and Gen. Marshall.
for at least year of such training in
peacetime?"
Gen. Cox proposed constructive plan
whereby military training for our youth
would be conducted in much the same
manner as the National Guard used to
be trained, namely in ways that pre-
vented too much interference with the
regular occupations or education OF
youth.
Legislative Sense.
Gen. Peyton March had somewhat
the same idea. He suggested in his plan
that "a camp in an Eastern locality, for
example, where a large proportion OF
young men of 10 years of age are under
going instruction in schools or COLLEGES,
would have assigned for its months for
training the period of their summer va
cation from the school or college" He
added that in the Middle West or Far
West the time selected would be such
as not to conflict with sowing the crop
or gathering the grain
This is craftsmanship and legislative
sense. Certainly if the Army even asked
for two training periods of three months
each, to be taken any time within thres
or five year period, it would be far bet.
ter off than under Its one-year program.
which calls for interruption of education
and occupations without exemption of
any kind.
Clearly flexible program has more
chance OF congressional approval If tied
In with educational institutions or Ma.
tional Guard arrangements than does an
innexible scheme which takes a whole
year out of the life of youth and expects
that training to be remembered i've or
seven years afterward.
It the War Department will become
| practica1 m, fho e,,hya,& a. ~, :.