VIETNAM
621
the President is doing, or get out. Where does PR stand on the matter
as thus formulated. Is it for getting out or stepping up the war? I am for
getting out.
- It is said that if we get out of Vietnam, we shall lose prestige. No
doubt, we shall. But we are also losing prestige as well as lives by stepping
up the war. Besides, nobody doubts America's military strength and so
the prestige we should lose in leaving Vietnam would hardly be shattering
to our world-position. Nobody will think America weak militarily if we
leave Southeast Asia now. But people all over the world think that we
are politically and intellectually weak and they
think
this because we are
stepping up the war in- Southeast Asia. In other words there are no
military laurels for us to gain in that part of the world. But we could
gain prestige for our political wisdom and intellectual strength if we hit
upon some way of turning that part of the world over to the people who
inhabit it, instead of imposing on them a war they obviously do not
want.
Mter some remarks about our policy in Santo Domingo which I
thoroughly endorse, the statement in PR says, "Obviously the time has
tome for some new thinking," to which President Johnson and his advisers
could easily reply, "Very good, tell us some of your new thoughts," and
what would the editors of PR say then? Besides, I do not believe "new
thinking" is required at all to judge the issue posed either in the Domin–
ican Republic or in South Vietnam. The issue is simply this: can military
power make up for a wrong policy? Let us not forget that the German
army under Hitler won one tremendous victory after another and through
these military victories brought about the total defeat of the German
people. Was any naval victory greater than the victory the Japanese won
at Pearl Harbor aJ}.,d through which victory they lost their empire? Let us
not then put our hopes in gaining prestige through military measures
against Ho Chi ¥inh. And since original .thinking on the matter is not
at all required, or
t~rribly
difficult for that matter, let not PR call for
such thinking, but for a policy that can be defended without equivoca–
tions or reservations.
Henry David Aiken
Let me make one or two general comments before talking to
the specific question raised
by
the formulation "on Vietnam and the
Dominican Republic" in PRo The American government frequently
defends our policy in Vietnam on the ground that we have a commitment
