University of Virginia Library

Asian War Policy Hit

Lawn Party

By David Cox

That tempest in a chamber pot
in which the United States has
become trapped has wreaked havoc
with our carefully planned policies
and long-nourished hopes. The
Asian war has become such a catastrophe
that nearly everyone regrets
our becoming involved in the
first place.

Take just one aspect: our relations
with other countries. This
war that we are waging has done
more harm to our foreign policy
than Russia ever could. We have
made countless enemies among
the peoples of the world, and
strained our relations with others-including
our allies. Britain is cool
toward the war; France is openly
hostile.

In the "third world," our
image as a peace loving nation has
been shattered. War is an abomination,
no matter where it is fought
or why, and people recoil with
righteous indignation at the
horrors and victims of battle-particularly
the innocents.

Underdeveloped nations are
particularly shocked at this war,
in which a tiny, underdeveloped
country is pitted against the
premier nation of the world. And
the United States, no matter how
hard it tries, cannot convince the
world that this war is a "necessary
evil."

WE HAVE BEEN shown up as
hypocrites. How can our words
calling for world peace be believed
when we wage such a war? How
can underdeveloped nations accept
our expressions of interest when
we bomb the hell out of one of
them? How can the world see the
sincerity in our hopes for peace
in Vietnam when we refuse even
to stop that bombing?

I said earlier that the Communists
could not have done a
better job of embarrassing us than
we did ourselves. It is almost as
if they set a gigantic trap for us,
knowing that we would blunder
in and, in our desperate thrashings
to get out, only become more
entangled.

Perhaps this is what happened.
But we are to blame for following
a faulty policy.

WE SHOULD NOT get so involved
with nations in which we
have little or no interest. Take
Laos (to which a correspondent
to this journal referred last week).
President Kennedy wisely decided
not to waste our strength on that
insignificant kingdom when we
were facing a crisis in Berlin at
the same time. As a result, Laos
may teem with Communists, but
who cares? West Berlin doesn't,
which for us-and Germany-is
infinitely more important.

The United States simply cannot
protect every nation in the world
from aggression or especially from
revolution. In case some Americans
haven't yet realized, the
United States is not omnipotent.

It could be said that, generally,
the welfare of the United States
lies in the welfare of the people
of the world, especially of the
underdeveloped countries. This
does not mean we should take our
money and arms and soldiers to
convert a nation to the American
Way of Life; we tried that in
Vietnam. Contrary to what some
of our politicians believe, the
United States cannot decide what
is best for a country; leave that
to its own people.

Generally, we should encourage
the nationalist, reform-minded
movements, for indeed, reform is
sorely needed in most underdeveloped
countries. What we
should NOT do is to support repressive,
rightist regimes-even if
pro-Western-over reformers.

On occasion, as Sen. Fulbright
points out in his brilliant work,
"The Arrogance of Power," we
may be confronted with a popular
nationalist but also Communist
takeover, in which case we could
support it or a toppling rightist
regime.

IF WE WERE TRUE to our
ideals and our words, we would
assist the reformers, Communist
or no, in the hope that the people
would benefit and that the Communist
regime would be moderate
and realistic. The U. S. would
really have little to lose, for theoretical
Communism does not work,
and in practical application is a
form of socialism as in Sweden.

Through our influence on the
country, perhaps we co avoid
the pitfalls of dictatorship.
Assisting a communist-led movement
would indeed be truly novel,
with results which would no doubt
be amazing.

AS FOR THE MESS in Vietnam,
our goal is clear and oft-expressed;
to extricate ourselves as
quickly and as honorably as we
can, before we shoot the rest of
our policy.

To fight for total victory "regardless
of cost" (as someone
suggested last week), is impossible
and only more foolish than dropping
everything and leaving.
Negotiation is the sole way out,
with a re-examination of our policy
immediately afterwards to insure
that we never get in such a mess
again.

For as George Kennan said
last year, "There is more respect
to be won in the opinion of the
world by a resolute and courageous
liquidation of unsound positions
than in the most stubborn pursuit
of extravagant or unpromising objectives."

. . . . . . .

I have been requested to proclaim
the following:

"Gamma Kappa Epsilon is
pleased to announce the initiation
and retirement of the W. L.
Heartwell memorial award for
meritorious service above and beyond
the call of duty. R.I.P."

. . . . . . .

IN RE "Persona," now at the
Uniflicks: Said one baffled
viewer, "Whatever it was trying
to prove, it did it well."

. . . . . . .