ON VIETNAM
The following comments are in response to the «Statement
on
Vietnam and the Dominican Republic" that was printed in the Summer
PRo
In the next issue, the signers of the original statement will have an
opportunity to reply to 'some of the arguments and, allegations and to
examine the issues now brought intoo the discussion.
Lionel Abel
Quite frankly, I do not think the statement circulated by PR
on American action in Vietnam and in the Dominican Republic a good
statement or one worth signing. True, I already signed a very poor state–
ment protesting American policy, one which appeared in the
New York
Times
in a paid advertisement. I thought when I signed it-so did Irving
Howe and Philip Rahv whom I consulted-that it was more important
to disapprove publicly of American policy than to be too finicky about
the way in which such disapproval was expressed. A statement gotten out
by PR, not intended for a mass audience, is something else again and
would have to
be
very clear and forthright for me to want to sign it.
I do not think the statement in PR either clear or forthright. Is our
policy in Vietnam clearly wrong? The statement does indicate that our
policy in Santo Domingo is wrong, and clearly that. But on the question
of our policy in Vietnam, which might quite possibly lead to much greater
disasters than our policy in Santo Domingo, the statement in PR
is
rather hesitant and uncertain. Why this hesitancy? Why this uncertainty?
Why require those who criticize American policy to suggest an alternative
one which "would lead to a negotiated peace in vietnam or promote the
·interests of the people of Southeast Asia." Must we who protest the
President's policy indicate as our credentials for such criticism how a
negotiated peace in Southeast Asia could be arrived at? I
think'
the
stipulation preposterous. Very probably a negotiated peace in Vietnam
cannot be arrived at. Our past policies have taken care of that alternative.
Very probably all that we can do now is to step up the war, which is what
"
