VIETNAM
653
for "new thinking" is silly. Tha,t it could have been written-and signed–
by people of intelligence and
good
will illustrates the danger of falling
into grooves of thought; partic\.!larly when one is busy with other matters.
Why is the statement reactionary? Because after declaring that "we
do not think the present or past policies of the United States in Vietnam
are good ones," it devotes t{le rest of its long opening paragraph to
attacking the critics of those policies. "We have not heard of any alterna–
tive policy . . . which would . . . promote the interests of the people of
Southeast Asia."
An
amazing assertion! One alternative policy would
be
not
to burn down hundreds of homes of the South Vietnamese and kill
women and children. Such a "negative" policy would, in my opinion,
"promote the interests" of the South Vietnamese-and apparently, the
South Vietnamese think so,
too,
to judge by the demonstrations in
Saigon (not Hanoi) against the burnings.
Granted that rehaining from burning villages and committing other
atrocities would r.ot guarantee a peace satisfactory to the U.S. Still, it
would be an improvement Over the present violence and
ought to be
urged.
But the statement in PR does not urge it. Instead, it criticizes
those who do urge an end to this policy for their failure to supply a policy
that would deal with the peril of Communism.
If
you want an example
of anti-Communism at work, this is it: it consists in rejecting as "unreal"
any criticism that doesn't make "stopping Communism" the primary issue
and the ultimate test of progressive politics.
The statement denies that it requires critics to propose a "specific
policy." It deems it "not unfair," however, to ask that they base their
criticism on political realities and not on the "assumption that power
politics, the Cold War, and Communists are merely American inven–
tions.... and that everything would be fine if only the Yanks would go
home." Who said the Communists are American inventions? Senator
Morse? Hans Morgenthau? The professors at the teach-ins? No message
which I signed, or was asked to sign, put the sole responsibility for the
Cold War on the United States. No doubt some Communists or Com–
munist sympathizers have been advocating getting the Americans out.
But the statement says that
"most
of the criticism ... at the teach-ins
and in the various petitions simply" asks for withdrawal. This amounts
to subsuming all the critics of our Vietnam actions under the Communist
line, except those who, like PR and the Right, are careful
to
proclaim
their implacable anti-Communism. Worse, it constructs this amalgam by
generalization and innuendo, without a single quotation, and then under–
lines the Communist connections of all critics by slander: "It
is
not clear
whether these critics think Asia will not go Communist . . . or whether
they don't care. Nor is it clear whether they really care what happens to
