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.
Sincerely,
Dana McGuinness Engineering 2
