Vietnamese -- and under this crust of suspicion lies a caldron of anti- Americanism which has yet to surface."
KENNEDY ADMITS U.S. CANNOT WIN IN VIETNAM
By Les Evans
An important indication of the seriousness of the blow administered to the U.S. forces in Vietnam by the National Liberation Front offensive of the last few weeks is the new posture assumed by Senator Robert Kennedy.
Kennedy, who aspires to the presidency in 1972 tit not before), has heretofore been a public supporter of Lyndon Johnson. True, he has occasionally made a few mild criticisms of the tactical conduct of the U.S. aggression in Vietnan. He has even encouraged the rumor that he secretly holds sharper differences with the president than he has revealed in public.
Nevertheless, until now his "antiwar" sentiments have been muted, to say the least, and he has continued to pledge support to Johnson in 1968, refusing to be associated with even the milk-andwater opposition of Senator Eugene Mc- Carthy.
Then, on February 8, in the wake of the NLF offensive, Kennedy, in a speech in Chicago, shifted position.
The battles in the cities of South Vietnam, he said, have "finally shattered the mask of official illusion with which we have concealed our true circumstances..."
The NLF offensive showed that "no part or person of South Vietnam is secure from their attacks: neither district capitals nor American bases, neither the peas-
ant in his rice paddy nor the commanding general of our own great forces."
After his comment that Westmoreland himself stood in personal danger, Kennedy took up Johnson's claim that the outcome of the events constitutes a "victory" for the U.S.:
"We must, first of all, rid ourselves of the illusion that the events of the past two weeks represent some sort of victory. That is not so.
"It is said the Vietcong will not be able to hold the cities. This is probably true. But they have demonstrated despite all our reports of progress, of government strength and enemy weakness, that half a million American soldiers with 700,000 Vietnamese allies, with total command of the air, total command of the sea, backed by huge resources and the most modern weapons, are unable to secure even a single city from the attacks of an enemy whose total strength is about 250,000."
The Democratic politician even took up the assertions by the White House and the military that "body counts" showed disastrous losses for the NLF soldiers:
"Now our intelligence chief tells us that of 60,000 men thrown into the attacks on the cities, 20,000 have been killed. If only two men have been seriously wounded for every one dead -- a very conservative estimate -- the entire enemy force has been put out of action. Who, then, is doing the fighting?"
Kennedy dropped the pretense that the Saigon military clique is a "democrat-— ic ally" of American imperialism:
"People will not fight to line the pockets of generals or swell the bank accounts of the wealthy. They are far more likely to close their eyes and shut their doors in the face of their government -even as they did last week.
"More than any election, more than any proud boast, that single fact reveals the truth. We have an ally in name only. We support a government without supporters. Without the efforts of American arms that government would not last a day."
As for future prospects for the U.S. in Vietnam, Kennedy was gloomy.
It is an illusion, he said, "that this war can be settled in our own way and in our own time on our own terms. Such a settlement is the privilege of the triumphant: of those who crush their enemies in battle or wear away their will to fight.
"We have not done this, nor is there any prospect we will achieve such a victory.
"Unable to defeat our enemy or break his will -- at least without a huge, long and ever more costly effort -- we must actively: seek a peaceful settlement."
In the rest of his speech, Kennedy continually asserted that "a total military victory is not within sight or around the corner; that, in fact, it is probably beyond our grasp...."; and that "the progress we have claimed toward increasing our control over the country and the security of the population is largely illusory."
Such an admission of defeat by one of the most powerful political figures in the U.S. is an impressive indication of the effect of the NLF thrust in deepening the divisions on the war within the American ruling class.
It is also a good indicator of the seriousness of the blow that has been dealt to the U.S. position in Vietnam.
Kennedy certainly has access to information on the situation in Vietnam not available to the average American. If there were anything in the past few weeks that could be painted up as a U.S. achievement, he would surely have preferred to seize it as an excuse for maintaining his formal solidarity with Johnson.
Instead, he has chosen to admit a disastrous setback for American imperialism in Vietnam, breaking with the most noisome Johnson apologists (but not with imperialist policy).
Kennedy is a very smooth capitalist politician. Unlike Johnson, he knows when it is politic to tell the truth. This is one of those moments. Without dissociating himself from the aims of imperialist policy in Vietnam, Kennedy has decided it is a good time to publicly dissociate himself from Johnson's way of carrying out those aims. He recognizes the massive revulsion over the war among the American people, a revulsion that has been immeasurably deepened by the new exposure of the government's lies. Kennedy sees the need to concede something to that revulsion, if only demagogically and if only in hope of channeling the opposition within the two-party system.
But also there is deep concern among a sector of the ruling class that this setback may be the prelude to a truly disastrous defeat. They would like to negotiate a settlement now that would salvage something for imperialism, rather than face a possible rout that would further alter the balance of forces against imperialism and in favor of revolutionary movements on a world scale.
Kennedy, of course, is primarily interested in his own political fortunes, and it is plain to him that a demonstrative gesture separating himself from Johnson's policies in Vietnam is imperative if he is to save his own political neck.
Statements such as Kennedy's can be of great value to opponents of the war in exposing some of the government's lies. But it would be a terrible mistake for the antiwar movement in the U.S. to allow . itself to be captured for the political ends of a Robert Kennedy. Kennedy, after all, has no fundamental differences with Johnson -- even on the question of Vietnam.
In fact, Kennedy's critical stand testifies to the impact already registered in American politics by the NLF victories. The big gainer can be the antiwar movement -- but only if it resists the blandishments of Kennedy and his stripe.
NATIONAL LIBERATION FRONT