The Basis for National Military Training

The pamphlet I chose to expand upon, “The Basis for National Military Training” by Henry Stimson, was published in 1917 through the National Security League. The pamphlet brings to light Stimson’s rationale for why and how the United States should develop a standard foundation for national military training as a proper form of national security. Published just before the United States’ decision to declare war on Germany, Mr. Stimson’s pamphlet warned that the readiness of America’s “discredited militia system” would not be able to defend itself in the occurrence of an invasion. He argues that the time is now to reform the military while the public’s attention is squared on national defense.

Henry Stimson, a former Secretary of War, starts his proposition by offering the argument that the volunteer system has historically failed the United States in all prior military engagements from the Revolutionary War up to the War of 1898. He proposes a system of conscription where all military aged males would conduct obligatory training like structures initiated by Switzerland, France, and Chile. Stimson propounds that this universal system would avoid a scenario where “a citizen feels aggrieved if he is asked to do a national duty which his fellow citizen escapes” (2).

The next leg of the proposed standard military training is the developing and regard of America’s military officers. Stimson states that no one maintains more consistently than officers, the traditions of the United States’ “free institutions” (3). He suggests that a premium must be placed on the development and education of commissioned and non-commissioned officers as they are the leaders of the Nation’s military. The success and effectiveness of these leaders is vital in the conscription style system Stimson proposes.

Stimson believes he can solve a few societal problems with the next component in his national military training strategy. Regarding the influx immigration at the time, Stimson argues that the military is a perfect place to add immigrants to its ranks. First off, there is no better method than conscribing them to the military to show “that free government has responsibilities as well as privileges…as well as assimilate them into our present population” (4). According to his proposition, the problem concerning immigrant’s loyalty and ability to assimilate to American society can be solved by enlisting them in the military. Additionally, Stimson notes “(Military) Practice for six months in the rapidly decaying art of obedience would teach our undisciplined youth (immigrant and native-born) …much needed self-control (4).

Henry Stimson also deems that national military training would moreover resolve the pressing ‘masculinity issues’ facing the country as more and more men are moving out of rural farm areas and becoming city-dwellers. Six-months of military training in the field will reinstitute those “hearty outdoor virtues” lost by the migration and is the “secret ideal of every right-thinking boy” (6).

This pamphlet outlines a former Secretary of War’s response to an ever-growing military insecurity in the United States. While it is true that the military really doesn’t exist in an effective formal capacity in 1917 and it must be strengthened, full conscription in military training is not the answer. It is important to make the distinction between military training conscription and a draft. In a time of war, where the nation needs individuals ready to defend the nation, a draft takes place. However, the enrolling of all military aged males in military training during peacetime is militarized conscription. It is not logistically feasible (in 1917) nor consistent with social and democratic ideals to initiate this form of nationwide training; that structure seems more aligned with a fully militarized state. Stimson attempts to offer a solution of America’s poor national defense in 1917. However, his plan and ideology are rooted in stereotypical assumptions and undemocratic ideals.