CALCULATES THE RISKS
By Joseph Hansen
Should Johnson extend the undeclared war now being waged by the United States in South Vietnam into another undeclared war with North Vietnen? The question is being debated among the circles who head the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency, the State Department and the Democratic party.
The insane logic of this discussion is even affecting such ordinarily staid journalists as C0, L. Sulzberger, the New York Times speci= alist on foreign affairs. Recalling with approval the "showdown" over Cuba in 1962, Sulzberger declares: "The question is whether it has not become imperative for a similar showdown with China over South Vietnam." [New York Times February 26, |
; Here is what he advocates: "It is time to proclaim our intention of standing by our commitments and to destroy foreign bases of insurrection, We should not contemplate invading North Vietnam or east Laos but we should deliberately pulverize both bases and commun= ications, thus moving the counter-guerrilla war into the third dimension.
That "third dimension" may escalate into the "fourth dimension"
oe Dee
of war with China which in turn would bring in the Soviet Union and the exchange of nuclear weapons that would leave this planet a smoke ing ruin, The possibility is frankly acknowledged by top Washington circles,
Yet Johnson surely will not want to endanger his election plans by plunging the United States deeper into a war adventure at this . time, Surely the risk is much too great that a swift popular reac~ tion will sweep the United States as it did during the Korean War, when the Democrats lost the White House in face of General Eisenhower'ts campaign promise to end the conflict.
Johnson no doubt hesitates about taking such a gamble. Most likely he calculates that it is sufficient to make a show of "firmness" by threatening talk and menacing moves.
- But a far bigger question looms over his election problem, The . military morass in which the United States finds itself in South Vietnam is a consequence of its whole bankrupt policy in the Western Pacific since the end of World War II which has hinged on backing the Chiang Kai-sheks and opposing the colonial revolution. The mightiest imperialist power the world has ever seen now faces another defeat, this time at the hands of the heroic Vietnamese who have had to tear most of their arms from the foe seeking to keep them enslaved,
Gan Johnson permit the United States to suffer this "indignity"? Can Wall Street afford to "lose" South Vietnam after "losing" Guba and North Vietnam and China, not to mention Eastern Europe? oo
The issue, as U.S. imperialism sees it, is growing sharper and sharper, “If we let the Communists train and equip guerrillas in safe havens and then march them in," says Sulzberger in his graphic ‘way, "we are doomed to be first nibbled, then gnawed to death,"
Can this situation be reversed by extending the war? The dilemma that faces Johnson is whether to risk a probable election victory. next November by undertaking a monstrous gamble in Wall Street's mad effort to avoid a military defeat that can hasten the doom of the entire system it represents, .
The Chinese government issued a stern warning through a frontepage editorial in the People's Daily [March 4] that Johnson was en- © gaging in an “extremely dangerous game," This was a direct reply to a belligerent statement made by Johnson in Los Angeles February 22,
The Soviet government also timéd . sharp statomont directed at the West Gorman government March 7 to coincide with the crisis over South Vietnam,
These warnings may cause Johnson to hesitate long before plunging the American people deeper into the hopeless adventure in South Vietname a
aQem