NATIONAL DEFENCR
[To THE EDITOR OF TKs " SrEcTAToR."] SIR,—Mr. John Mackay's letter, which appeared in your issue of November 9th, is an excellent example of the lack of reason- ing power and logical inference that so many people exhibit when they rush into print over this much-debated question of the adequacy of our Army forces. We are not a military Power so far as our home defences are concerned, and we have no need to be, but primarily a naval Power, for if our naval forces were to be defeated it would not matter one iota how strong our military organization was; it would be sufficient for the -victorious enemy to starve us into submission. Our efforts to "keep our adversary at bay" would be futile because unnecessary. "Assume our naval success." It would be sufficient for us to shatter the navy of the enemy; we would not wish to carry our Army forces into the Con- tinent, presumably "to follow up our victory" and embroil ourselves and other Powers as an inevitable consequence in a Continental conflagration. "Assume our naval defeat." My answer has already been given. No matter how strong our Army might be, there will always be those who will be disp—ed. to call in question its adequacy to meet any hypothetical situation that might arise, but surely those responsible for our Army organization, whether Liberal or Conservative, cannot be regarded as bereft of all necessary judgment in a matter which is their daily and hourly concern ; and to liken them to the sluggard and suggest that our "national maxim" is characteristic of this unenviable creature is to take a lament- able view of our national situation, and one that is by no means supported by either clear thinking or logic.—I am, Sir, &c., N. M. 11ACGREGOR.
Previous page
