Protection Without Militarism.

(The Crimson invites all men in the University to submit signed communications of timely interest. It assumes no responsibility, however, for sentiments expressed under this head and reserves the right to exclude any whose publication would be palpably inappropriate.)

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Having been induced to fight a costly war in the hope of getting rid of the need for military training, we are now advised that this war, far from making the world safe for democracy, has only emphasized the need for more extensive preparation than this nation has ever before witnessed. We were told, in fact, that, unless we went to war, we should have to organize the nation on a military basis in order to protect ourselves from an aggressive Germany. The implication was that the alternative would be freedom from this incubus which has-drained the treasuries of Europe.

In carrying out this program of universal training we must, as Colonel Goetz states, be careful to avoid "the odium of professional militarism". To accomplish this, our army camps are to embody the "worthy and important object of training first of all for better citizenship." This, of course, begs the whole question.

The problem seems to be, how to have a professional military, without incurring the odium attached to it. It certainly is a big problem and it certainly is a big problem and it certainly is an enormous odium. Even a professional soldier wishes to avoid the odium of militarism, and so our army is to be that fine institution, a school! This certainly is a notable transformation.

No, this will not do. Let us not be afraid of names. If we are to be militaristic let us try the case on its merits and not befog the issue. If universal military training has anywhere proved a guarantee of peace and prosperity, let us know it. If militarism has an odium, let us know that too, and guide ourselves accordingly. J. W. MILLER 1G.