V I£TN-AM
633
Hanoi might disagree with what's said, and Bundy along with the CIA,
but who in between?
So to the probfem, American anned force in Vietnam and the
Dominican Republic: here again I want to avoid the absurd. I could
not
begin
to argue with the Pentagon about men and materiel in Vietnam.
Nobody prospers in an argument based on his ability to guess the color
of the elephant in the other guy's hand. One totally absurd aspect of the
teach-ins is the intense little man trying to make his case against our
role in Vietnam by patching together alternatives served up by the
New
Y~)Tk
Times,
CBS, the
Nation,
etc.
What I would prefer to say about Vietnam and the Dominican
situation is that they point up what the Cold War has brought us,
and what it is still bringing. A conspiratorial view of all occurrences,
trivial or serious, which constitutes the long-hard-look, the sophisticated–
not-the-naive estimate of Communist aims, which separates the men
from the boys,
~nd
clearly indicates whom you would like to have
behind a tree with you, and whom not. The Bundy Baroque vision is
not as crude as the Legion'S, or as inelegant as a Bircher's, yet shares
with them the blunting of distinction, and the potentially hysterical
response-that the Cold War makes every statement and every institution
subject to our notion of.a clear and present danger. Why not "manage
the news" in a life-and-death struggle against Communism? Why not use
U-2's and CIA tricks against this dedicated worldwide conspiracy? Why
not separate the "tl1ose who-are for us" hom the "those who are against
us" irrevocably? Why not -say, with Johnson, that intellectuals and
Administration critics aren't upset by the sapping of an American billet
but terribly distraught over American bombing, two-hundred-planes–
always-on-the-money, of only bridges and ammunition dumps and Viet–
cong hiding places? Why not have an Administration spokesman spend
five or six hours on the University of Wisconsin campus and then make
a definitive statement separating the frat boys and the YAF-ers and
the engineers from the "extremists" who think two hundred bombers may
be hitting not only iron but women .and children in their peace-forcing
daily raids? Why not have Bundy prove that Hans Morgenthau changes
his
mind or contradicts himself and is therefore not a fit person to criticize
Administration policies which, it follows, must then be without an alter–
native? Why not play the we-are-only-human role, admit "goofs" in the
past, concede fallibility, and yet plunge on in a manner which only
infallibility could sanction?
Because, I submit, these views of reality are massive oversimplifica–
tions of the Cold War, appreciated only by a computer. The Cold War
