624
MARSHALL COHEN
Marshall Cohen
I t seems to me either empty or disingenuous to say that you do
not think present policies in Vietnam are good ones unless you yourselves
have some idea of better ones. Otherwise, you simply think the situation
is unfortunate. How, then, can you say that you haven't heard of any,
and imply that you yourselves can't formulate any, better ones? I my–
self think there are a considerable number of policies that would bt
preferable to the Administration's (insofar as I can determine what it is).
I have already signed a petition protesting against johnson's "escalation"
policy-drafted, I believe, by Robert A. Dahl and circulated to the staff
at Yale-and I feel, consequently, that I would be engaging in an un–
justified act of self-criticism
if
I now signed the one in PRo Nor can I
accept your representation of other 'petitioners and critics who have, I
believe, already done a great deal of "fresh thinking." Surely, Lippmann,
Morgenthau and Galbraith-to mention only a few whose' credentials
are impeccably anti-Communist-cannot be accused of thinking that
everything would be "fine" if the Yanks went home, or of not "caring"
whether "Asia goes Communist." (Even if one were to acquiesce in some
degree or form of Communist "control" of Vietnam it does not follow,
as you suggest, that one would acquiesce in, still less show that one did not
care whether, Asia as a whole went "Communist.") It is excessively
paradoxical to suggest that the critics have based their criticism "on the
apolitical assumption that power politics, the Cold War, and Communists
are merely American inventions." Morgenthau has been, after all, our
leading exponent of power politics. And it was Lippmann who gave the
very phrase, "the Cold War," popular currency. It seems to me that many
of the critics-not all of whom are beatniks-have shown a far greater
sensitivity
to
political (not
to
mention other) realities than the govern–
ment has. I think it particularly unfortunate that PR has chosen to focus
its criticism so sharply on the alleged naivete and deficient anti-Com–
munism of the critics. The administration's not infrequent displays of
disingenuousness, ineptitude and wrong-headedness are the more pertinent
objects of criticism. I had hoped that PR was entering a period in which
it would show less zeal in policing the American Left than it
has
on
some occasions in the past. Do you take it for your Caribbean?
Norm Fruchter
Why is your statement so pusillanimous? Beyond the carping
insinuations, what does it say? American policies in Vietnam and the
