ARMY REFORM.*
Tars Government have not yet formulated a new Army policy, for the very good reason, among others, that the transition from war to peace is very far from being complete. But it is none too soon for the public to give some attention to the matter. We shall obviously need an Army, which must be thoroughly efficient and must not cost too much. All parties would pre- sumably agree to this. The Bolsheviks, after posing as Pacifi- cists, have devoted their whole energies to the creation of a mercenary Army under iron discipline. Democratic America is establishing a very large Army on the basis of national service. Peace, it is clear, will not mean the abolition of armies, as a few unpractical idealists may have thought. The problem, then, is to determine what kind of an Army is best suited to our needs. One solution that deserves to be considered is put forward by Sir John Keir in a little book which, though devoid of literary arts and graces, shows much good sense and a practical know- ledge of the defects of the old system. Sir John Keir, an Artillery officer with a long Indian experience, commanded in turn the Sixth Division and the Sixth Corps in France. But, far from showing any professional bias against the Territorials and the troops of the Dominions, he speaks most highly of them, and commends the Australian system, for instance, as a model for a democratic country. Sir John Keir's main idea is that we should form a National Army—a Citizen Army for home defence —through which every young man would pass, as in Switzerland, and that we should have a small voluntary Regular Army or Colonial Army for service overseas. He points out that, if a great European war broke out, all men of military age would have to be called up. But for a " second-class war " a small Regular Army, supplemented by volunteers from the National and Dominion Armies, would, he thinks, suffice. The Volunteers, being partly trained, could soon be brought to a high standard of efficiency. " Educated men, and all will very soon be edu- cated, can very rapidly be made into the soldiers of to-day." `` In these days of trench and machine-gun warfare the costly maintenance of mechanically drilled men, who are little better than volunteers for actual fighting, seems out of date."
Sir John Keir emphasizes the importance of training the officers and non-commissioned officers of the National Army. He commends the Dominions' policy of promoting officers from the ranks, but he would institute special courses for the non-com- missioned officers, who, through no fault of their own, were a weak point in the old Territorial Force. He makes the useful suggestion that officers of the Indian Army might spend part of their home leave in training the National Army, with advantage to themselves as well as to the citizen battalions, whom he would organize permanently in Mixed Brigades. He would also open a career to talent in the Regular Army by cutting down unnecessary expenditure on mess, uniform, bands, and so forth,
• A "Soldier's-Eye-View" of Our Armies. By Lieutenant-General Sir John Reir. London ; John Murray. Lee. net.]
thus enabling an officer to live on his pay. He would, if possible, widen the area from which candidates for commissions are drawn, and would also promote the best of the young non- commissioned officers. But these changes presuppose a simpler standard of living, such as prevails in the French Army. " We can certainly point with pride to the deeds of our officers in the past, but have we not too much exaggerated the influence of military tradition and esprit de corps, and given too little credit to simple patriotism and to the inborn qualities of our race ? " Sir John Keir would encourage by rewards the competition for entrance to the Staff College. He speaks very plainly about the preference which Cavalry officers are said to enjoy in obtain- ing commands and high Staff appointments. It is certainly curious that the Cavalry, who had one officer to every ten in the Engineers, Artillery, and Infantry in 1914, and not one to every hundred when the war ended, should have displayed such wholly exceptional gifts of leadership. Sir H. Plumer and Sir H. Rawlinson, as well as the late Sir Stanley Maude, are among the very few prominent Generals not on the Cavalry list given by the author. Sir John Keir may or may not be right, but the mere fact that the feeling to which he gives expression is wide- spread shows that there is some defect in the system of training and promotion. The author goes too far in urging that cavalry are becoming obsolete. The truth is, of course, that they were not wanted on the Western Front, except in the early days and towards the end, but in the Eastern campaigns they were simply invaluable. The British Army must be prepared to go anywhere and do anything ; therefore it must include cavalry. Still, there is reason in Sir John Keir's contention that officers in all the fighting branches of the Service should have equal chances of promotion. He favours the automatic promotion by lapse of time which is in force in the Indian Army and, in a modified form, in the Royal Engineers.
The author is apparently inclined to support the old proposal for a separate British Army specially recruited for India, though he recognizes some of the difficulties. He would then be satis- fied with a Regular or Colonial Army that was ready to send two divisions abroad at a moment's notice. He discusses various ways of avoiding waste in the Army, notably by requiring officers to perform the Quartermaster's duties after a course of instruction at the London School of Economics or elsewhere. If the professional Army were so small in numbers, it is clear that even with the higher rates of pay it would cost far less than before the war, so that the training of the National Army need not impose an additional burden on the taxpayer in normal times. Si John Keir, however, says that far greater attention must be paid to the moral and physical well-being of the British troops in India. He is an enthusiast for Army education of the new kind, and would make the barracks a training school in the fullest sense, so that the soldier may be a better and wiser man when he leaves the Army than he was when he joined it. This ideal cannot be attained, we fear, if half his outspoken criticisms of the Indian Army administration are justified. His complaints about the Transport Service—a very old grievance— were re-echoed only the other day from the Afghan Frontier Forces. He illustrates the evils of red-tape--of the Babu system, as he calls it—by saying that for many years the lighting of the Indian barrack-rooms with ancient oil-lamps has been admittedly bad, but that the matter was still " under considera- tion " when he left India. To place a large British Army permanently under the control of so defective an administration might be very unwise. As it is, the flow of British battalions to and from India prevents complete stagnation in the Indian Army Headquarters. We have indicated some of Sir John Keir's main suggestions. His book will provoke controversy, but, as the work of a broad-minded soldier who is certainly no militarist, it deserves careful reading.
Previous page
