◆ SpookStack

Following are excerpts from a remarkable dotument — "The Wer tx Vietnam,” a white po’ 4 jpared b; tbe staf of the Senate Republican Policy C. nittee. Despite efforts 40 limiz its aveilavility, The New York Times carried these excerpts on May 2, For eS ext, see below. INTE TION OT, the ard to contain Communist aggres- assumed for the United States these ua- ans & coadict that has escaiaced from a smali force > Amezican technicians to over # haif-million fighting ii means over 8,000 men killed. it means over 50,000 wounded. . . bi aneans Greatly increased American conscripfion at a time the rest of ‘the Western world has done away with its since the Americen Revol=tion — e and yet the men who Eght axe was which is not simply fought over this tiny inad ef Viczam; for this war, unlike ail others in American isiory, is moze and moze justified as much on geopolitical defense of one small goverament. i: rans our relative isolation as the world’s policeman, for ¢ oo Grand Alliance as in World War II, no as Combined Forces 25 in Korea. In addition to t Vietnamese troops, four Pacific nations have provided Eghing belp — with our financial assistance. - means sizing a people who claim this is a civil war, and who in tura are spurred on by two giant powers quarrel- ing openiy with each other. . Powers Assumta by President Ie means that while we have committed 300,000 men to bare communism, neithe: the Soviet Union nor Red China — the great Comaiunist powers — has found it necessary to cozamit troops, Ir coeans the most frustrating sort of war, with no front lites, which breaks out here and there, even across national borders is Laos and Cambodia, neither of which is involved. 1k means spending over $390,000 to kill each enemy soldier, I: means spending $24-billion a yeaz, with another increase in taxes threatened, a further drain on an already inadequate Boia sapply, and an escalation of infation. It tasans enormous discretionary powers assumed by the President, with Congress asked to approve his actions after the fi Ir gicans the nation which staited the war — France — and Tost it, now bas become our most outspoken critic while profit ing heavily from the war. Ic means a war where, in the eyes of many Asiatics, we are Aghtiag against indigenous Asiatic nationalism, much as France “did in the past. Jt means the first war in our history fought not only on the barlefieid but brought into the American livingroom, every day, through the raw emotionalism of today’s mass communi- a war in which religious controversy between and Budchist majority has come dangerously collapse of the successive governments of WN VWVietaiae cee DP Ve challenges within Co: wishin the press, + gtee not experici, colienes and universitics, pexforce rely Om muai siestion, “or are obs from ovher jon is necessiny. Deep oxrrents, Asian in s.r oay ! Viewnem ye cane tna is asialy Bed ian, both ethical religions without a personal ged. Tiwus, Asiatic communis as espoused by Asiatics can masuerade as an ally in the older, more familiar struggle agains: Western theism, Western. colonialism, and Western capitalism, Bitference in Asian #ttitudes Ta a larger sense much more can be cited to confound the best of minds in resolving che Vietnamese condict. Tne West divides good and evil, and thinks that evil can be conquered. Yet in Asia, a man is generally capable of believing that some- thing is simultaneously good and bad, right and wrong, black and white, in such a manner as to render most dificult reas understanding by the Western mentality. Just as dificult to comprehend are the “politics of the Buddhists, or the meaning of theic proposals for a peaceful, Vietnam; we dismiss them as visiontry or unrealistic, yet they may be more acceptable and understandable to the South Vietnamese — after 27 years of warfare — than anythiag we propose in our Western political terminology. In short, we Ameficans cannot simply go to Asia, wipe the slate clean, and say to them, " “This is how it shall be.” The Vietnamese have their own view of nationalism, quite different from ours, the Vietnamese Communists identify with it, and it rendezs our involvement immeesuzably dificult. . Does the Republican Party serve America best by saying that politics stops at the water's edge? That we must sally behind the President? Does bipartisanship mean that Demo- cratic mistakes are Republican responsibilities? Republicans — for two decades — have believed the United States must not become involved in a land war on the Asian contineat. We are so involved today. Republicans have believed that no American military inter- vention should be unilateral. Our commitment today in Viet- nam is primarily unilateral . Republicans, in 1954, made a limited commitment to the South Vietnam Government. Under the Democrats, our com- mitment has become open-ended, Before making any further decisions to support or diffe: with the President, ‘Republicans might agree to seek hard, realistic answers to two basic questions; 2, What precisely is our national interest in Thailand Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos? 2. To what further lengths ace We D: pared, t to go in sus port of this interest? pa 5 The full text of the paper, “ins Was Sa pam™ (58 pp.), is avi le from. Pubiic Afairs Press, 419 New _ Jersey Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20063, for $1.00. Repzinis 3x these excerpts are available from SANE for 1¢ each.