The Military Obligation of Citizenship

Friday 17 April 2009
1345

I recently learned about a book entitled “The Military Obligation of Citizenship” by Leonard Wood. I had never heard of it before, but immediately knew that I wanted to read it. In addition to the intriguing title (which in itself would have been enough to engage my interest), the fact that it was written by Leonard Wood made it a “must read”.

For those who may not know, Major General Leonard Wood was an enormously important figure in U.S. Army history. As a Colonel, he was the commanding officer of the 1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry (The “Rough Riders”) and was thus Teddy Roosevelt’s commander in the Spanish American war. He had an illustrious career before that war, campaigning against Geronimo and earning the Medal of Honor for his deeds. He was actually a doctor, and was the personal physician to Presidents Grover Cleveland and William McKinley. After the Spanish American war he commanded in the Phillipines during the Moro rebellion, and later became Army Chief of Staff. During his tenure he was instrumental in the founding of the Reserve Officer Training Corps (R.O.T.C.) and in advocating universal military preparedness. He developed the concept of the Mobile Army (about which I wrote a research paper for CGSC ILE) and created the U.S. Army General Staff Corps.

I took my U.S. Army basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, MO. Coincidentally, it is now the home of both the Corps of Engineers and the Military Police Corps, the two branches of the Army to which I have belonged. Funny how it’s taken me nearly 30 years to learn how appropriate it is for a major TRADOC post to bear his name!

When I first read about this book, I was aware of his early exploits but less familiar with his role in laying the groundwork for R.O.T.C. and the Army training system. From the title, I imagined that the book would be primarily about the philosophy underlying the idea of a universal military service obligation, a subject I find interesting to explore because it conflicts with my fundamental philosophy of the primacy of individual rights.

I searched for the book on Amazon.com and was able to find a copy through one of the many second-hand book dealers who list their selections there. I was fortunate enough to get a first edition, first printing (Princeton University Press, November 1915) that is in remarkably good condition. When it arrived, I eagerly settled down to read it.

It is a slim volume, only 75 pages long. The first thing I learned was that it is not primarily a written work per se, but actually consists of the transcribed texts of three related public speeches given by MG Wood during the course of 1915. These speeches were:

1. The Policy of the United States in Raising and Maintaining Armies (April 15th 1915)
2. The Military Obligation of Citizenship (May 20th 1915)
3. The Civil Obligation of the Military (June 15th 1915)

The first essay is the longest. It is an exposition on the necessity for the United States to change our military policy to create a modernized professional standing Army, along with a much larger force of trained and ready reserve military forces with standardized organization, equipment, and training.

Up until the time of WWI (1914-1918), the U.S. Army was essentially a small frontier constabulary force. With the exception of the Civil War, it never got very large, and rarely fought against the organized military force of a developed nation. The method of raising additional troops was for states to form regiments for federal service. They would commission officers (often on the basis of wealth or position), and they would be armed and equipped with whatever the state (or the commander) chose, could afford, or could get their hands on. Even uniforms were not standardized except in very broad terms.

The only source of full time trained military officers was the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Other officers might have had some military training from one of the military colleges (e.g. VMI), but in general they were not extensively trained in military science. MG Wood’s argument in this and the succeeding essays is that this system was outdated and would no longer serve adequately to defend the U.S.

He devotes several pages in this and subsequent essays to describing the onset of a war against a prepared modern industrial nation as coming quickly with little warning. He also describes the changes in the techniques and technology of warfare, which even then made it a much more complex affair requiring extensive industrial mobilization and prior planning and funding to design, build, field, and train on the weapons and equipment necessary to fight a modern war.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this part of the book is the discussion of the size and organization of the Army relative to the population before, during, and after the various armed conflicts in our history up until that time. We would generally enter into a war with an inadequate force, raise a larger force painfully and slowly, train and field it hastily at great cost in lives and lost opportunities, and then largely disband it at the end of hostilities. Essentially we had to learn the same lessons over and over again.

MG Wood advocated a permanent system of training camps, extensive training for a cadre of reserve officers, and universal compulsory service for long enough to train each man in the basic martial skills. He also advocated a standing Army adequate for time of peace, a good militia, and the largest possible number of men trained in basic military skills. This policy was intended to ensure that the country had an adequate active and ready military force and was much better prepared for rapid mobilization in case of a major crisis.

Nothing about this seems especially profound or revolutionary from a modern point of view –these are policies and institutions that we take for granted now. But at that time it was quite a radical departure from the traditional American way of doing things, and it was not uncontroversial. Aspects of it are, of course, still controversial. Although we have a very large institutional Army with a well-established doctrine, training, and logistics base as well as an extensive system of reserve units, the draft was phased out in the mid 1970's, and since then we have relied upon the all volunteer system that MG Wood argued forcefully against. (He was not in favor of the draft per se – universal service would make a draft superfluous, as in the event of a national emergency all the eligible men would already have been trained and would be subject to being called up.)

“The Military Obligation of Citizenship” is the second essay in the book. It is not really what I expected based on the title, however. It was not an argument about the moral obligation of the individual to serve, but rather an argument for the necessity of providing universal military training before a conflict rather than waiting until the need arises and then training the men raised in response to the crisis. The universal obligation of individual military service in wartime is simply assumed, and the entire essay is aimed at convincing the audience that a system of universal peacetime training will field a more effective Army, more quickly, at a lower cost in lives lost due to inadequate or hasty training.

Among other references to historical figures is this quote from Light-Horse Harry Lee of the American Revolution: “Convinced as I am that a government is the murderer of its citizens which sends them to the field uninformed and untaught, where they are to meet men of the same age and strength, mechanized by education and discipline for battle, I cannot withhold my denunciation of its wickedness and folly.” It would seem that MG Wood’s real subject is the obligation of the government to the people rather than the other way round. Many years ago I read a similar statement in a book from the late 1970's called "Common Sense Training" that was popular among officers when I first joined the Army. I no longer remember which general said it, but I do remember the quote: “I have always thought that it is a crime to excuse men from the types and kinds of training that would give them a decent chance for survival in battle.”

Several references in this section caused me to reflect on the fact that the book was published (and the speeches on which it was based were delivered) while Europe was becoming more deeply embroiled in World War I, and the United States was still officially neutral. MG Wood points out the deterrent effect of a well-trained and easily-mobilized military establishment, and its consequent role as a guarantor of peace. He also makes the point that such preparedness is completely consistent with the American preference to be left alone in peace to get on with business, as opposed to promoting militarism and aggressiveness. This is not a new sentiment –my own military email signature contains a quote from the Roman general Vegetius: Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum” (“If you wish for peace, prepare for war”). Apparently it is also nothing new that portions of the civilian population need to be reminded of this from time to time in order to ensure continued support for the military.

In the final essay in the book (“The Civil Obligation of the Army”) MG Wood goes over the same ground as the first two essays, albeit in somewhat modified form. He goes into more detail on the proposed organization of the military establishment (Active, Militia, and Reserve). It is in this essay that he explicitly addresses the obligation of the individual citizen to serve. A part of this section might have served as a good introduction to the entire book:

“... there has been little or no interest in this country on the great question of military training. There has been a general haphazard policy and a blind dependence upon volunteers; in other words a dependence upon someone else doing one’s work. It is an illogical system. There is no reason why one group of the population should assume that another group is going to voluntarily perform their military duties. The obligation to military service is universal. It is a tax upon which all others depend, and a nation which fails to recognize this prepares its own downfall.”

He continues: “This general training can be effected as has been done in Switzerland and Australia, without a trace of militarism, without any departure from ideals, and with a great resulting improvement in the morals, physique and character of our youth.”

His discussion of the military system of Switzerland as a model worthy of emulation is a sentiment with which I am inclined to agree. (In fact, I went and bought a couple of books on Switzerland which I am reading now, on which I will report once I am finished).

In this last section of the book, MG Wood extends his discussion into what he calls the “life-saving” as opposed to destructive functions of the Army. He describes the role of the Army in eradicating or controlling several very serious tropical diseases in its areas of operation, including hookworm disease, yellow fever, Berri Berri, malaria, and typhoid. While it was certainly not the primary purpose of the Army to eliminate disease, the necessity to protect soldiers from these diseases led to research and discoveries with benefits far beyond the Army. In his descriptions of the work the Army undertook with civil authorities of occupied areas to apply these discoveries to their populations, he anticipates one of the central features of modern civil affairs and counterinsurgency doctrine.

It is clear that MG Wood was trying to convince his civilian audiences of the necessity and benefit of a well-prepared military establishment during a time when public sentiment leaned toward ideals of peace, isolationism and neutrality. His closing paragraph is an interesting summary which applies equally well to the Army today: ”I tell you all this in order that you may understand more fully what the real work of the army has been - that its life saving has counterbalanced scores of times its work as a destructive force, if one may apply the term “destructive force” to a force used to terminate intolerable conditions and to establish humane, just, and equitable governments among dependent peoples.”

Mood: Happy and Proud to Serve
Music: Mozart: Piano Concertos #8, 9, 10, 11, and 12