AMONG the many contributions made by David Rioch during his twenty years at WRAIR, not the least of these has been his very significant role in mapping out for American psychiatry a new field which, in the very significant seminar held here at WRAIR in 1957, he labelled ‘Preventive and Social Psychiatry’.’ In the design of the program for that meeting, and in other publications by him prior to and since the date of that symposium, Rioch defined the scope of this new field and the importance of the relationship between psychiatry and the basic behavioral and social sciences. His interest in the development of this area has appeared to stem from his fascination with the implications of the unique observations and formulations of military psychiatrists from Thomas Salmon, in World War I, through those workers who have made contributions in all of the later wars and intervening periods up to and including the current struggle in Vietnam. In 1967 I was privileged to write a paper with Dr. Rioch on Military Psychiatry in which the lessons of Thomas Salmon and of later military psychiatrists, particularly Albert J. Glass, were re-explored and restated.2 We dealt with implications of the concepts of immediacy, proximity and expectancy which were first described, although in other terms, by Salmon and later, in these particular terms, by ARTISS;~ and we drew attention to BUCHARD’S important statements on commitment and concurrence. 4 The three levels of prevention (primary, secondary and tertiary), the terminology of which probably originated in the Army motor pool, but which have become guidelines to the development of thinking about the various levels of intervention, were also elaborated in this paper. None of these issues was completely new. In addition to others, 3,5 Rioch had discussed some aspects of them in several papers during the previous years .6.7 Subsequent to that paper several other authors have also commented on the significance of the lessons of military psychiatry for contemporary civilian practice. 8*g I would like to take the opportunity here to further expand the implications of these contributions, particularly as they apply to education. My thoughts are drawn both from my service career and, more particularly, from my experiences since retiring from the Army in 1966. To briefly repeat our restatement of the fundamental principles of immediacy, proximity and expectancy, as developed in the earlier paper, we viewed the civilian equivalent of immediacy essentially in terms of the temporal aspect of crisis intervention. Proximity,