Since many citizens of the United States have become convinced of the necessity of preparedness against war, this book is presented in order to make available information as to the methods in use in other countries, where preparedness has long been accepted in principle and practice. From the experience of other nations, we may receive the light wherewith to resolve our own problem.
Out of a study of the defense-service of other peoples, American citizens can decide which plan, if any, best suits our race and our traditions. No system of citizen soldiery was evolved in a day. Undoubtedly legislators and staff officers will have to experiment largely with different schemes before our people are satisfied with results. If we begin on the right principle, however, it is safe to assume that American business sense will gradually build up a defensive organization commensurate with the needs of our menaced position.
But we must begin and we must work on the right principle.
As an indication of the unpreparedness of the United States, the maneuver problem suggested in Chapter VII was, in a measure, worked out on the Mexican border. With the greatest difficulty, and with the forces stationed in close vicinity of the expected conflict, an ill-proportioned American brigade was mobilized for active service within eight days. What would be the outcome, were we menaced by a first-class power, can easily be deduced.
I have availed myself of the publications of the War Department for many of the facts herein contained. Where my personal opinion is advanced, it is based upon ten years’ service in the United States Army, together with observations made during the Spanish-American war; Philippine insurrection; as military attaché with the Japanese army in front of Port Arthur; as correspondent in Morocco during the Riff war; and finally from experiences with the different armies in the European war of 1914.
Recent legislation affecting the military organization of the United States, is more a compromise with partisan politics than an honest effort in the line of preparedness. The Army Bill of 1916 was accepted by Army officers, Senators, and Congressmen who understand its faults, because it contains certain commendable features (such as helping the enlisted men more easily to obtain commissions, as suggested in this book on page 174, and the enlargement of West Point), and, under the antagonisms of parties, the advocates of preparedness were obliged to accept a large proportion of faulty provisions, or see all military legislation fail. It follows that such procedure is fundamentally wrong. But in the end, the plain people of the United States will determine the military course of the country. A knowledge of the plans in practice in other lands may help towards a correct decision of our country’s most urgent problem.
Washington, D. C.