VI ETNAM
647
After diS$OCiating itself, in the opening sentence, from the "military
involvements" required by American policy, the statement immediately
proceeds to blame the critics of this policy for their "apolitical assumption
that power politi.cs, the Cold War, and Communism are merely American
inventions." This criticism is directed against a straw man; I know of
no serious criticism which is based on this assumption.
Then, the opposition is censured because it "is not clear whether
these critics think Asia will not go Communist if American troops are
withdrawn or whether they don't care. Nor is
it
clear whether they really
care what happens to the people of Southeast Asia so long as America
gets out." These sentences imply assumptions which turn the critique of
American policy into a critique of its critics and suggest a defense of
American policy. Here are these assumptions:
1.
If
one advocates the withdrawal of American troops, one does not
consider, or does not care about a Communist take-over.
2.
If
one does not care about a Communist take-over, one does not
care what happens to the people in the respective countries.
No matter how one answers, the reply must appear as "un-American"
according to the current usage of the term. But I shall offer an answer.
1. In my view, there are no facts which could corroborate the thesis
that Asia
(I
~
will go Communist if America gets out. There are, however,
reasons to believe that Communism will be strengthened if America does
not get out.
2. The question is not, whether one "really cares" if Asia goes Com–
munist but whether American policy must be based on the proposition
that Communism must be combatted, with military and semi-military
power, wherever Communism appears. The question may be answered in
the negative without offending against the national interest. According
to the statement in PR, the creation of free societies should be the goal of
any international policy. In the contemporary world, Communism takes
many forms; not all of them must be irreconcilable with the goal of
establishing a free society. In the Lackward countries (and perhaps not
only in the backward countries), the emergence of free societies depends
on fundamental social and economic changes which would abolish exist–
ing inequality, privilege and repression. Communism could carry through
these changes (which are the historical prerequisite, not the advent of
liberation). The signers of the statement seem to believe that "democratic
revolutionary groups" can perform this function. I suggest that "demo–
cratic revolutionary" is a contradiction in terms-at least under the
conditions prevailing in the backward countries. In as much as the
necessary changes are revolutionary, they involve suppression of the estab-
