There is an undoubted prejudice among the so-called seagoing officers against the Naval War College. One has but to start in a wardroom mess the subject of the War College to hear violent arraignments of the "Brain Trust." There must be some reason for this. Why is it? Is it the fault of the War College, its graduates, or the narrow-mindedness of its critics? All of these play their part. During the last two years my duties have made me shipmates with some ten different wardroom messes and in each one the same criticisms have been heard.
These consist briefly as follows:
1. In the past, many officers have been sent to the War College, whose service reputation for efficiency was not above the average, and whose capabilities were not looked upon by seagoing officers as in any respect qualifying them for a special course at the War College.
2. A number of officers who were on the list of the "Plucking Board" were sent to the War College to await their fate.
3. The attitude of some graduates was that no one was fit to command or to be promoted unless he had had a course at the War College. This attitude is particularly resented inasmuch as it was often taken by officers whose capabilities were felt by many to be in no way superior to their own.
4. Many essays and lectures emanating from the War College were so verbose and full of words that had to be looked up in a dictionary, that searching for the germ of truth contained in the article was like searching for a needle in a haystack—and about as irritating and exasperating.
And so on, ad lib.
That such feelings do exist, it is useless to deny. That they do exist is proof that there is something radically wrong. Everyone will freely admit that the principle of studying the carrying on of war is correct. If it is necessary to study four years at the Naval Academy to become an ensign, is not any further study necessary to become an admiral? How better learn to wage war than by studying the manner of working of past masters of the art of war? How profit by the experience of others without finding out what their experience was? The most violent critic will always admit that "there should be a War College, but —," and then come the same old criticisms.
My experience with the War College has been limited to one week's attendance at Newport and the correspondence course. With this limited experience I have been converted to an ardent supporter of the fundamental necessity of the War College. And yet in the criticisms above enumerated, I recognize phases that I have myself passed through. In each one of these criticisms there is a certain degree of truth.
What is the remedy? To the writer it is simple. Send to the War College at one time or another in their career all officers. If this is impossible owing to the exigencies of the service, send a selected few whose capabilities and service reputations stand out above those of their fellows. But it may be said that these officers are so efficient, specialists in one thing or another, that it is necessary to utilize their services elsewhere. This is wrong. Could anything be more important than training for war command? As the principle on which the War College is founded is fundamentally sound, there is no doubt but that all officers sent there will be its ardent supporters, at least in principle. If these officers are of the best "practical" type, the opinions of the "seagoing" officer will change.
In this connection another point might be mentioned. The keynote of military discipline is loyalty to superiors. This implies trust and belief in the leader's ability. In our service loyalty and trust will never be obtained unless the leader is worthy of it. No amount of War College training will inspire this trust unless the trained leader is the right man. By this is not meant that all should not be trained or that training will not improve everyone, but if only a few are to be trained, why not train the best?
The above may appear to be arraignment of the War College. It is not intended as such. The necessity of a War College is so apparent that it would only show total ignorance to deny it. What is intended, however, is to show that there is some reason for the opposition to the manner in which it has been conducted.
There always has been this opposition and undoubtedly to-day there is far less than in the past, due to the fact that even the average naval officer is beginning to see the need of the War College.
How much of this opposition is due to the positive pain it causes some naval minds to receive a new idea, and how much is due to the War College and the way it has been run? I do not know; but why should it be necessary to have any opposition to an institution whose existence is admittedly essential?