State of the Union AddressesTaft, William H. (William Howard)
History
State of the Union Addresses
Taft, William H. (William Howard)
Presidents -- United States -- Messages; United States -- Politics and government -- Sources
I am opposed to any plan the result of which would be to break up or
interfere with the essential principles of the detail system in the Staff
Corps established by the act of February 2, 1901, and I am opposed to any
plan the result of which would be to give to the officer selected as Chief
of Staff or to any other member of the General Staff Corps greater
permanency of office than he now has. Under the existing law neither the
Chief. of Staff nor any other member of the General Staff Corps can remain
in office for a period of more than four years, and there must be an
interval of two years between successive tours of duty.
The bill referred to provides that certain persons shall become permanent
members of the General Staff Corps, and that certain others are subject to
re-detail without an interval of two years. Such provision is fraught with
danger to the welfare of the Army, and would practically nullify the main
purpose of the law creating the [missing text].
In making the consolidations no reduction should be made in the total
number of officers of the Army, of whom there are now too few to perform
the duties imposed by law. I have in the past recommended an increase in
the number of officers by 600 in order to provide sufficient officers to
perform all classes of staff duty and to reduce the number of line officers
detached from their commands. Congress at the last session increased the
total number of officers by 200, but this is not enough. Promotion in the
line of the Army is too slow. Officers do not attain command rank at an age
early enough properly to exercise it. It would be a mistake further to
retard this already slow promotion by throwing back into the line of the
Arm a number of high-ranking officers to be absorbed as is provided in the
[missing text].
Another feature of the bill which I believe to be a mistake is the proposed
increase in the term of enlistment from three to five ears I believe it
would be better to enlist men for six years, release them at the end of
three years from active service, and put them in reserve for the remaining
three years. Reenlistments should be largely confined to the
noncommissioned officers and other enlisted men in the skilled grades. This
plan by the payment of a comparatively small compensation during the three
years of reserve, would keep a large body of men at the call of the
Government, trained and ready for [missing text].
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account