The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Nun Uro. FRIDAY, JUNE 11, 1920. THE DEFENCE QUESTION.

Southland Times, Issue 18846, 11 June 1920, Page 4

The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Nun Uro. FRIDAY, JUNE 11, 1920. THE DEFENCE QUESTION.

There i.s no need for querulous utterances in regard to the appointment of an advisory committee to assist the Minister of Defence in connection with tlie important ■ <iuestion of defence. The fact that this . committee is to consist of soldiers who have J had war experience i.s a matter for gratij fioation, because it suggests that the gov--1 vernment i.s going to tackle the problem ! in a sensible way. The appointment of the committee docs not in itself suggest that there is the threat of immediate war, but it is undoubtedly correct lo say that the most important part of its duties is to prepare for the "next war,” whenever it may come. That after all is the object of every system of defence. If the Parliament is to decide upon a scheme that will give the dominion value for the money expended upon it—bo the sum large or small—it is advisable that it should have, in the drafting of such a scheme, the assistance of men who know what war is and who can give, us an authoritative opinion as to the requirements from the purely military standpoint. The melancholy fact that the tlisregard of the opinions of the technical experts in times of peace has put more than Britain in an awkward position when war came, should not be ignored by this country. Obviously wc cannot afford to ignore the responsibility : of defending ourselves from possible attack, and just as obviously we must be in a position, if we are not to go wasting money, j to know what our experienced military men think any particular scheme will do for us. In this subject there is always a danger that the public will run away with halftruths and ill-digested facts and dismiss the opinions of the men who know what they - arc talking about with the [)lea that they I are “professional soldiers.” In this matter | to whom but professional soldiers should we

go for advice, who else are capable of advising us on technical matters? To say that the government should be able to devise a scheme that will give us efficiency is to mistake theories for practical working. The defence system that is ultimately adopted will be subject to the approval of the House of Parliament, but the advisory committee that has been set up will at least be able to furnish members of the government and the legislature with important information and comment upon a subject about which they know very little. To say, in reference to the old territorial system that “we could not have got into the war earlier nor provided a more liberal share of fighting men had ten times the amount of money been spent during the previous ten years of military' training,” is to dis close a poor idea of the result of multiplication and of the actual facts. It must be admitted that this country could not have stood the expenditure of "ten times the amount of money” on military training, but if that sum had been spent, if the defence system had cost £7,000,000 per annum. the troops who went from this country would have been so close in efficiency j to regular soldiers, (hat they would have been despatched not to Egypt but to France where they were badly needed. Instead ol going into action eight months after the declaration of war they would have been fighting in France before the end of five. We do not suggest that anything like “ten times” should have been spent, but we do suggest that the statement based on that sum which we quote is pure nonsense. The production of non-commissioned officers and of staff officers, two classes badly needed in any war, is impossible without some sort of an organised force in order to provide the field in which they can be trained. They cannot be made by book-work alone. Any scheme that is prepared for New Zealand will have to take into consideration the undoubted demand that the interference with industry' shall be reduced to a minimum, We do not propose at this stage to worry ourselves over (he details of a scheme that so far has no existence, but we do protest, that it is sheer nonsense to talk about “military cliques” and “conspiracies” because the government has set up an advisory board consisting of men who have fought and won distinctions and who believe that some system of defence is necessary. If it is necessary then let us have a scheme that has the approval of men who know what war is, men who will be able to tell us with some show- of authority whether or not it is advisable to rely solely on aerial defences. To start imputing motives at this stage, before there is any evidence of the proposals for the future defensive system, is to do small service to the country. It is surely not unreasonable to ask the public to -wait vmtll it has something definite to go upon, before advising it that certain “professional soldiers”, one of whom is a farmer, are out to impose upon the taxpayers of this country an overburdensome system.