Citizen Soldiers

Must the U.S., to stay at peace, have a mammoth standing army?

Last week General George Catlett Marshall, who is a citizen as well as a soldier, addressed himself to this question. His words were citizen-soldierly.

General Marshall came out flatly against a huge professional army. Such an army, said he, might be efficient, as it had been in Germany and Japan. But, he added: "Under such a system only the brawn of a people is developed for war [and not] the latent military leadership and genius of the people as a whole. It therefore has no place among the institutions of a modern democratic state based upon the conception of government by the people."

The U.S., said General Marshall, might need its wartime army for some time after the war (for occupation purposes). But after that, the policy should be: 1) a small professional army; 2) a vast army reserve, based upon universal military training for "a reasonable period . . . for every able-bodied young American." General Marshall said he assumed that Congress would pass some type of universal military-training law.

He listed the advantages of the small army with big reserves: it would cut military costs, would prevent establishment of a professional military caste, would encourage public interest in military policy. And finally, said George Marshall, it has been the way of the Republic from the beginning, and must continue to be so.

The reaction in Congress and in the U.S. was prompt and nonpartisan approval. And, while Congress will not tackle the politically ticklish job of passing a peacetime military-training law before elections, there was talk in Washington that such a proposal would be considered before year's end.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.