AGAINST CONSCRIPTION

When a singularly undistinguished book written in 1943 is the subject of review in a recent Crimson (November 8th), one suspects that the review serves a loftier purpose. And indeed after several paragraphs of critical subterfuge the real purpose of Mr. Geoffrey Garin's review of Katherine Chorley's Armies and the Art of Revolution emerges. Mr. Garin is worried about the lack of effective civilian control of the military and he correspondingly calls for the re-introduction of compulsory military service as a means of overcoming this problem.

Now Mr. Garin's concern is worthy and important, but, as always, good intent is no guarantee of understanding (as Thoreau well recognized when he remarked that if he knew for a certainty that a man was coming to his house with the conscious design of doing him good, he would run for his life). In this particular case Mr. Garin's knee-jerk panacea of conscription must be looked at a lot more closely and must not just be adopted because a certain Richard M. Nixon happened to support the all-volunteer military--after all so did George McGovern, Henry Rosovsky, Playboy magazine and Barry Goldwater.

The considerations on this issue are many and complex. Suffice it to point out in response to Mr. Garin that the political loyalties and actions of the military will be determined by an officer corps which will remain a volunteer career group irrespective of conscription. The forced infusion of a few luckless young men into the bottom ranks of the military is a hardly effective, let alone worthy, means of controlling the military. We must clearly seek other methods of innoculation against future Vietnams. Glenn A. Withers   Resident Economics Tutor