How about our own position in the United States? The proposal is a radical and subversive departure from the traditional policy of our country. Would it be wise for us to be parties to such an agreement? At the threshold of such a discussion one thing is clear. If we are not willing to urge our own government to join a movement for peace, we have no business to discuss any plan for the purpose. It is worse than futile, it is an impertinence, for Americans to advise the people of Europe how they ought to conduct their affairs if we have nothing in common with them; to suggest to them conventions with burdens which are well enough for them, but which we are not willing to share. If our peace organizations are not prepared to have us take part in the plans they devise, they had better disband, or confine their discussions to Pan-American questions.... _A. Lawrence Lowell, “A League to Enforce Peace,” Atlantic Monthly, Sept., 1915._ THE CONSTITUTION OF A LEAGUE [Sidenote: Force for defense vs. force for aggression.] The problem of the League of Peace is actually the problem of the use of force. Force internationally expressed is measured in armaments. The chief discussion which has been waged for the past decade between the pacifists and militarists has been over the question of armaments. The militarists claim that armaments insure national safety. The pacifists declare they inevitably lead to war. Both disputants insist that the present war furnishes irrefutable proof of their contentions. As is usual in cases of this kind the shield has two sides. The confusion has arisen from a failure to recognize the threefold function of force: 1. Force used for the maintenance of order—police force. 2. Force used for attack—aggression. 3. Force used to neutralize aggression—defense. Police force is almost wholly good. Offense is almost wholly bad. Defense is a necessary evil, and exists simply to neutralize force employed for aggression. The problem of the peace movement is how to abolish the use of force for aggression, and yet to maintain it for police purposes. Force for defense will of course automatically cease when force for aggression is abolished.