THE MILITARY CAMPS--III

The CRIMSON has received many more communication regarding its policy towards the military camps than it has been possible to print. The desirability of so doing, however, is much decreased by the fact that the CRIMSON completely agrees with the larger portion of the statements contained even in the dissenting letters. That military strength has played an important part in the past history of nations we considered too obvious to need discussion. So long as there remain peoples as uncivilized as are a large part of the Mexicans, it must continue to play a part. If a nation is so unfortunate as to be situated between two large over-armed powers, it is doubtless the part of wisdom to sacrifice a portion of its wealth and resources in national defences. But no one can possibly conceive of the United States as in a position analogous to that of Belgium; or of the summer military camps as other than part of a new armament policy entered into in competition with similar policies of other nations.

No communication has yet directly challenged the statement that such policies are a result of a mutual misinterpretation of the needs of national defense, resulting from the failure of international law and political organization to keep pace with the growth of economic and intellectual interdependence. Thus, because we believe the self-interest of every civilized nation coincides with the limitation of armaments and the prevention of war, we are very optimistic as to the possibility of permanent peace provided only the peoples of the nations can be educated as to what their self-interest is; and provided the necessary machinery for the judicial settlement of international disputes can be created.

We grant the charge of idealism; but think it preferable to the "vice of looking backwards." History may teach that war has always been; but the present war is teaching with a bitterness that must lead to action the impotence of war, the need for taking long delayed and tremendous strides forward.

The advocates of the military camps say that they also are hopeful, but that in the meantime we must be practical, we must face the situation as we find it. Ability to build a pontoon bridge, to "shoot straight", has a suggestion of practicality which it is hard to overcome. But one clear-sighted diplomat, one President Wilson, is of more practical worth for the actual preservation of peace than all our present navies and soldiers combined. As one correspondent has said, it is the voter who must ultimately decide this question, who must understand his own interests well enough to secure and support the right diplomatists. Consequently it seems evident to us that one voter correctly informed is worth several voters who can merely "shoot a raight."

The crux of the whole problem is as to just what will be the influence of the military camps on those who must be expected to educate the voter and supply the diplomatists. Fortunately the correspondents have themselves indirectly answered this question for us. No one can read the letters of those who support the camps or have actually been to them without being convinced as to just what their contributions will be for the settlement of international problems. The question of the military camps is not one of aggressive militarism; it is one of making a beginning towards a consistent policy which may be followed in the future to give the maximum security for this country. The old form of national defense has proved antiquated; we must invest in a new. A practical beginning must be made and there is no better place to make it than in the American universities. The summer military camps are a movement in exactly the opposite direction.