THE CIVILIAN AND THE MILITARY.

By Arthur A. Ekirch Jr. '37. New York: Oxford University Press, 1956. 340 pp. $6.50.

The last chapter of this book is entitled "Toward the Garrison State." The book itself is a careful, calm account of the 200-year effort on the part of free civilians to prevent domination of the United States by professional soldiers. The conclusion seems to be that this battle has now been lost, and that the future of American democracy is, therefore, highly dubious.

In the course of this long struggle a basic change has taken place in the personnel and attitudes of the anti-militarist movement itself.

Opposition to the regular army in Revolutionary days came from men who based their faith upon a citizen, volunteer militia whose definite mission was the literal defense of the actual boundaries of the nation. This was an active, definite policy. It was explained in detail by Thomas Jefferson, embodied in the second amendment to the Constitution, and measurably justified by volunteer victories in our earlier wars.

Twentieth century opposition to militarism has been led by idealistic, pacifistic internationalists who personally abhor warfare. These reformers offer no specific alternative to the system of conscripted soldiery and "top brass" chiefs-of-staff which now prevails. The anti-military lobbies have simply urged the Congress to vote down whatever the armed services proposed. With the military people always asking more and more, the reformers merely try to give the military less and less. This is the sort of vague utopianism that invites defeat.

The data for this major change in antimilitarism are given by Professor Ekirch in copious and scholarly detail. But he merely indicates the general nature of the fundamental problem. As he points out, many of his own pacifistic associates have in modern crises become the loud supporters of an all-out militarism. "The liberal and anti-militarist ranks were split between the poles of an uncompromising, isolationist pacifism and an increasingly war-minded internationalism, (p. 247)." Woodrow Wilson himself was a startling example of this contradictory-mindedness.

The red, white, and blue of our flag have been said to represent red-blooded militarists, white-blooded pacifists and blue-blooded diplomatists. These three groups of loyal Ameri- cans need desperately to understand each other. Professor Ekirch's book is a useful step toward such an understanding.