It is evident, before these fourteen points are accepted as the basis for peace discussion, they should be stated in such straightforward language that we may understand what they mean. The prime necessities at present are simplicity of language and the squaring of deeds with words. The thing we do not need is adroit and supple rhetoric which can be interpreted to mean anything or nothing.
PERMANENT PREPAREDNESS AND THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
October 15, 1918
The vital military need of this country as regards its future international relations is the immediate adoption of the policy of permanent preparedness based on universal training. This is its prime duty from the standpoint of American nationalism and patriotism. Then, as an addition or supplement to, but under no conditions as substitute for, the policy of permanent preparedness, we can afford cautiously to enter into and try out the policy of a league of nations. There is no difficulty whatever in prattling cheerfully about such a league or in winning applause by rhetoric concerning it prior to the effort to make it work in practice; but there will be much difficulty in making it work at all when any serious strain comes, and it will prove entirely unworkable if the effort is made to unload upon it, in the name of internationalism, duties which in the present state of the world will be efficiently performed by the free nations only if they perform them as national duties.
In a recent adverse, but courteous and friendly article on my attitude in this matter which appeared in a great daily paper, the following language was used: “The colonel is letting himself be bothered, irritated, and sidetracked by fools. There is no way of preventing a fool from saying that he is in favor of the league of nations. The American people will be making up their minds about the league of nations and about permanent preparedness. They will be told by certain sorts of pacifists that if they accept the league they can safely reject preparedness. They will be told that the two ideas are opposites.”
The “certain sort of pacifist” who has made this statement to the people of the United States is the President of the United States in the now famous “fourteen points” which he enunciated last January. He advocated as one part of his plan the league or association of nations, as he has elsewhere advocated it, and he advocated as another part of his plan “the guarantees that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety.” Unless this language was used with intent to deceive, domestic safety must mean merely freedom from riot, and the President’s proposal is that America’s national preparedness be limited to a police force to prevent domestic disorder. Therefore, the President has told the American people that if they accept the league they can safely reject preparedness.
The President may change his mind, and I sincerely hope he will do so. Until he does so it is the duty of every sincere American patriot to lay far more emphasis on the onerous and indispensable duty of national preparedness than on the wholly untested scheme of a league of nations, which the President has presented as an alternative. I heartily favor true internationalism as an addition to, but never as substitute for, a fervid and intensely patriotic nationalism. I will gladly back any wise and honest effort to create a league of nations, but only on condition that it is treated as an addition to, and not as a substitute for, the full preparedness of our own strength for our own defense.
HIGH-SOUNDING PHRASES OF MUDDY MEANING
October 17, 1918
A keen observer of what is now happening in the world writes me that there is very grave danger that this country will be cheated out of the right kind of peace if our people remain fatuously content to accept high-sounding phrases of muddy meaning, instead of clear-cut and truthful statements of just what we demand and just what we intend to do.