University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Corrects Vietnam Editorial

Your editorial "The Vietnam
Tragedy" is a typical blend of
the misinformation and faulty reasoning
which has done so much
to confuse the American people.
The false and misleading statements
you made are far too numerous
to list so I will attempt to
point out just a few of the more
glaring errors.

1) "a rich powerful "white"
nation trying to impose its will
upon a weaker non-Western
people." If this statement is true,
then why did the people of South
Viet Nam flock to the polls in
the recent elections? Surely these
people did not risk their lives just
to lend a sense of legality to what
would be a puppet government
controlled by the United States.
(In case you haven't heard, those
patriotic "agrarian reformers," the
Viet Cong, killed, wounded, and
kidnapped over a thousand Vietnamese
civilians in an attempt to
disrupt the elections.

2) "the bombing can do little
'to stop' the infiltration of men
and supplies"—The bombing cannot
stop the infiltration, but
without the bombing the infiltration
rate would be much higher,
resulting in a much greater loss
of life.

3) "the barefooted "regulars in
black pajamas have far from lost
the war"—A large portion of those
barefooted "regulars have traded-in
their black pajamas for khaki
uniforms and modern weapons.
Also, there are upwards of 50,000
well-equipped regulars from North
Viet Nam fighting in South Viet
Nam. (Those shells which daily fall
on Conthien are definitely not
fired by some black-pajamed irregulars.)

4) "the United States should
extricate itself from South Viet
Nam, preferably leaving behind a
neutralized government of the sort
that seems to work in Laos."—
The neutralist government of Laos
is a farce. The Communist cabinet
ministers have refused to cooperate
in the neutralist government and
the Communist Army has refused
to be integrated into the Laotian
Army as was prescribed in the
Geneva Convention. Today, Laos
is divided into two sections—one
controlled by the Communists, the
other by the government. Between
these two sections there is an uneasy
truce that is often broken by
open warfare.

In conclusion, I would just like
to state that I do not completely
agree with "President Johnson's
handling of the war. However, this
is a war which must be fought
and won regardless of cost.

Congratulations

The editorial "The Vietnam
Tragedy" which appeared in the
October 3rd edition of The Cavalier
Daily is the best single piece
of writing and perhaps the most
important article to appear in your
paper for many years.

Blasts Union

The September 29 editorial concerning
the Temptations seemed to
place most of the blame for the
failure of booking the Temptations
on the wrong party. One can certainly
understand Union director
Herring's "disinclination to ever
deal with the William Morris
agency again." The agency apparently
committed the gross injustice
of breaking a verbal agreement
with Mr. Herring, Perhaps,
someone should explain to Mr.
Herring that one doesn't merely
pick up the phone and casually
invite the Temptations down to
Virginia for a weekend, and then
send a telegram to make the conversation
binding. Although The
Cavalier Daily mentioned this
point the article then seemed to
exonerate the union and blame
the agency involved.

The result of this situation is
that once again University students
will have to travel to some big
school such as Hampden-Sydney
or Washington and Lee to hear the
Temptations. Apparently the William
Morris Agency has not treated
these schools in such a "shoddy
manner." Fortunately the University
can still hold its head
high, for the union has promised
with pride that rather than have
second rate entertainment for
Homecomings there shall be none.

Miscalculations

Although I salute your Viet
Nam editorial of October 3, for
accomplishing its primary goal of
encouraging reader response, I do
believe you sacrificed all rationality
in printing what you did. The
fallacies contained in your statement
negate the value of a thousand
letters.

I could easily fill two columns
writing on all your miscalculations,
but attacking the most glaring inaccuracies
will suffice.

You contend "the war has cost
us the confidence of our European
allies who cannot understand our
preoccupation with South East
Asia..." One, you're certainly not
giving Britain and France much
credit for understanding something
they at one time monopolized;
and two, who gives a damn exactly
what Charles de Gaulle
thinks? The line about the 'nonaligned'
world viewing us as a
"powerful 'white' nation imposing
its will upon a weaker non-Western
people," sounds like something out
of Stokely Carmichael.

Proceeding to the so-called U.S.-U.S.S.R.
detente, you neglected to
mention the Soviet Union's numerous
violations of tension-casing,
such as their own support of the
war's perpetuation, their ridiculous
attempt to sustain the Arabs, their
activity in Cuba, their Berlin Wall,
and their intensified program of
nuclear build-up.

Concluding that our confined
bombing has done nothing toward
our goals, as Mr. MacNamara asserts,
you deflated your own charge
in explaining the proposals of the
"more responsible hawks" to escalate.
Has it ever occurred to you
that the ineffectiveness of the
bombing is due to its limited
nature?

Even a more obvious error is
your parallel of the Viet Nam
war with World War II. Your
tone is as though the military is
always at fault. But look, if you
will, at the military successes and
diplomatic failures in W. W. II.
To have any meaningful and fruitful
diplomatic success one must
possess a military advantage, if
not a total victory.

And finally your suggestion to
"leave behind a neutralized
government of the sort that seems
to work in Laos," is most amusing.
Certainly the coalition under
Souvanna Phouma works—for the
communists, that is. A neutral
Viet Nam would hardly be advantageous
to our national
interests or those of South Viet
Nam, and these interests, after
all, are what we're trying to preserve
and protect, among other
things.

Would it be such a mighty chore
for you to refrain from printing
controversial absurdities just for
the sake of argument?

Warning To Offender

"Warning—to the 'gentleman'
who unlawfully removed a camera,
flashlight, and knife from the glove
box of my '67 Fairlane in the A-School
parking lot the night of
10/3/67—I saw your face, and I
know who you are; you have a
short duration of time in which
you can replace these items from
whence you found them: 24 hrs.
You know where to find my car."