Vietnam War Report; Student Protest

A student protest an intellectual point of view. The student protests comes from all parts of the globe and concerns themselves with all sorts of subjects. Currently the popular subject is Vietnam and the protesters are American college students both here and abroad. You will listen to an interview with two American students studying in England. They align themselves with an intellectual community in the United States which argues the United States position in the Vietnam War. Then we'll talk with Professor Noam Chomsky an MIT professor of linguistics and an instructor of political philosophy and get his reactions to a foreign affairs article. This article is critical of the intellectual community that same intellectual community students have turned to for support of their arguments. This is Vietnam War report. The topic of student protest

and intellectual point of view. I'm Sanford Henry. On April 15th of this year a group of students in England formed an anti-war organization calling themselves the STOP IT committee. It began small but grew to include not only English students but even more American students studying abroad. The Anglo American organization formed committees to protest directly as they did on their day of inception in front of the U.S. embassy. They also strove to inform and educate with propaganda supporting their cause and organize special project committees which recently began an angry arts week which attracted many individuals included in the English theater community such as Paul Scofield and Vanessa Redgrave. They showed there are many angry art forms of dissatisfaction and protest with the Vietnam conflict. The members of the committee some 150 Americans among them did not seem to be derelict in their emotion but rather logical in their protest. Frank White an American Rhodes Scholar in England talk with two of the individuals Harry Pincus and David

Holmstrom. Those Americans currently studying at the London School of Economics. These are the leaders of the committee and their protest. They had these words what it means to you as individuals to have made this bright with American society. I think it's remarkable that the amount of frustration that you present among our member is we we felt now that the peace movement in the United States is is bigger than anything we could have ever hoped for and still it gets nowhere we have a demonstration you know with hundreds of thousands of people when Johnson goes ahead and escalates the war the next day. I think that's why new forms of protest such as the draft resistance movement and the angry arts program here have been have been the projects in the committee which you know really taken hold and gotten the most support. We have an awful lot of trouble getting people to try to just come out and conventional types of political demonstrations. The idea behind draft resistance.

Well it's not entirely new. People have been conscientiously objecting to to the war and to other wars and you know at least and well some will win and will want to be very pleased to see now that this type of moral sentiment as a whole harbored state and said you've been translating into an effective political opposition to the war. Well how about the relationship to the society as a whole you said you don't view this as a break and in fact I think you're very much. Very much is in the opposite way that I think of it much more as an affirmation of American society. I think. What the American government is doing in Vietnam is very much a break with the the principles America is supposed to stand for and has stood for in the past and that people who are refusing to participate in the real barbarism and

folly of this war are standing up and in defense of really the best that American side is supposed to stand for and to think of it as a breaker or disloyal act as it is I think gone. Virtue or title I find that particularly among Americans abroad the kind of genesis of the discontent with the war. Is a realization that the government is systematically lying to them. They get contradictory reports about about the nature of the war in Vietnam or the government claims things which you just obviously can't substantiate for instance that that the war is in fact an aggression from the north rather than on. And a civil war in the south. And this would you know what's been called in the states the credibility gap is much more apparent you're in Europe because we get different sources a lot

of news and I think that this is the beginning for a lot of us some of our disillusionment with the policy. All of this goes on when we see that a very large protest movement in what is supposedly a democratic country has absolutely no effect. Now while it's clearly true that you know the majority of the American people don't you know don't actively oppose the war certainly need at least the amount of opposition to the war isn't at all reflected in in Congress or or in the policy making circles. And this again begins to make a lot of people on. You know I have suspicions about you know you know me in American democracy. I make a turn to other forms of protest outside the regional political channels and draft resistance we hope will be one of them. Oddly enough it seems to me that this is the real issue that unites and

the peace movement and the civil rights movement. There's been a lot of obfuscation about this and laws claiming that you know that the the two issues are really separate them. We have a really unified is that people when they start trying to oppose any government policy. Become progressively rather radicalized and they realize that you know the issues aren't separate to get a peace in Vietnam to get the kind of society we have to live in your home. We have to answer to radical changes and that binds us together on the on the sort of last point I think I think there's a very real similarity between the civil disobedience of the people who originally said and in the south are breaking the law sometimes customs but often laws. And people who are who are now pledging their intention to refuse military service while the government is still in Vietnam. It is a form of civil disobedience and.

As was shown in the south that it ultimately led to very good changes. You find that students abroad both in England and perhaps those that you have contact with on the continent. American students that is find it easier to make this affirmation because perhaps they have been here they've been away they've they've seen America in a different light. Well I think it's true that the issues are are clarified for a lot of us here and I think it's you can't underestimate the influence of reading the foreign press when when we go back now in media American papers they seem just incredibly ideological and distorted compared with the coverage for instance in Amman. There are American peace committees a newly formed one in Berlin and one is about two years old in Paris. They did surprisingly enough don't

recruit entirely from students but also from Iran. Resonance. I was as we do here in London and it seems to me that there's much less factional dispute. We didn't need groups then. Then there is no more political society in the States I think this is partly because of my distance the issue seemed seemed clear. Also one of the. One of the liberating elements of being outside the United States I think is in addition to having a different press coverage. One sees the whole American religious strain of anti-communism the completely different way and what one is liberated from it in a very meaningful sense. You know when I when I first came to London I heard of. A communist oven on Speakers Corner and I had the very much the gut reaction to him and I tried to formulate organise and explain to my he was wrong and it was only one time that that I began to see how this is a complete their

reaction which really had been instilled in me completely by my society and was based on no knowledge at all. And I feel no uptick in Vietnam the people who are. We are willing to kill just because they are communists which in or in a real sense is no different from being will willing. Hitler being willing to kill people just because they were Jews for no other reason should organize their government run their life doesn't seem to make any difference to them. Same for you. Well I'm I would say so yes and I'm not opposed. You want some kind of general principle to lie. To. Intervention in need in the affairs of foreign countries you just it's very striking that be American intervention is always on one side and it usually seems on one side against the people. I agree with Ireland with a particularly obnoxious about this war is the is the

whole war of myth and lie there that goes along with it. As Frank White quoted Tom Wicker a columnist for The New York Times. So must dive for it summarizes their protest. He says 100000 Mohammed Ali's of course could be jailed. But of the Johnson administration had to prosecute 100000 Americans in order to maintain its authority. Its real power to pursue the Vietnamese war or any other policy would be destroyed. It would then be faced with not merely desertion but with civil disobedience on a scale amounting to revolt. This is a student protest not fanatical but seemingly reasonable. In the July issue of Foreign Affairs Irving Kristol executive vice president of basic books and coeditor of a book the public interest and a magazine the encounter was quite critical of the intellectual community especially as it affected the Vietnam War. He said the intellectual community in mass disaffected from established power

even as it tries to establish a power base of its own feels no sense of responsibility. It did now and says it mocks it vilifies. And even if one were to concede that its indignation was justified by extraordinary ineptitude in high places the fact remains that its activity is singularly unhelpful. The student population represented by the interviewers of Frank White is by no means a vast majority of those that object they turn to the same intellectual community in the United States for their answers. Crystal attacks this community as do other critics. Now the community you are representative of that intellectual community should be heard from. I talk with Professor noway am a professor of linguistics an instructor of political theory at MIT in an interview which offers arguments to Crystal and support of a student protest. My first question was a quote from Crystal's article in a recent article in Foreign Affairs by Mr Irving Kristol entitled The American

intellectual and foreign policy. He quotes a recent letter to The New York Times complaining about the role the academic community in opposing President Johnson. It was not clear why people trained in mathematics religion music etc believe their opinions in military and international problems should carry much validity. Certainly they and the professors would have unqualified Pentagon generals telling them how to teach their course. Crystal does not maintain that it is the intellectual competence or the intellectual validity that is important is what the intellectuals arguments actually are. Rather a moral authority. Can you tell me what your reaction to such a statement. Tell us also how you feel concerning Crystal's argument. I think a letter the critical quotes which represents a position that he takes entirely misses the point.

It's quite true that professors would undoubtedly oppose an unqualified Pentagon generals telling them how to teach their courses but I'm sure that those same generals would oppose professors telling generals what the tactics they use in fighting a war. The issue however is not what the tactics to use to fight the war that of course should be left to the qualified Pentagon generals but rather the issue is whether to fight the war and that the an issue concerning which the Pentagon generals have no particular qualifications. And it seems to me that this is the. This is the fundamental. Error I think an analysis that underlies the principles argument. His point he is quite happy to accept the kind of hard to at least consider that sort of criticism which is based on practical considerations which says maybe we're not we're not carrying out a policy in quite the correct way or we should modify thing here and there and so on and so forth. But he's not willing to even face the fundamental question as to whether the policy is basically Mr. Recht for example as to whether we ought to be fighting this war.

So for example here perfectly he's perfectly happy to consider the issue of a change in tactics but not the issue of a change of policy. Do you feel in and of yourself as a representative of the intellectual community that the actual In another themselves does have something to say in those who have something to offer or say contrary to Crystal's opinion of course the opinion of say other individuals that are represented in you know current modern day society. I think some intellectuals have something to offer and others have nothing to offer and I think that some government officials have something to offer and others have nothing to offer. Judgement as to policy should be based not on an appeal to authority of intellectuals or of the government officials but rather should be based on the quality of the arguments and the quality of the advice that they give me the crystal is trying to replace an appeal to argument and to reason and the fact is trying to replace this by an appeal to authority and he's simply trying

to discount in events or opinions which do not fall within an hour range that he circumscribes as legitimate. When somebody does a replace an appeal to reason then the fact that an appeal to authority I think one has a right to be very skeptical about the motives including Crystal once again he says no modern nation has ever constructed a foreign policy that was acceptable to its intellectuals. True at moments of national peril or national exaltation intellectuals will feel the same patriotic emotions as everybody else and will subscribe as enthusiastically to the common cause. But these moments pass in the process of this and gauge one begins and it usually does not take long for a disengagement to eventually turn into alienation. How do you react to such a statement. Is the intellectual on the outside looking in but there certainly have been periods not just periods of national peril when intellectual and large numbers of intellectuals in the United States and similarly in many other countries of have

backed right or wrong have backed the foreign policy of their government. Just to pick one recent example the early years of the new frontier the Kennedy administration were a period in which a very large number of intellectuals became quite absorbed in affairs of government and then conduct the public affairs and at least if they had any integrity criticize this and that many of them felt rather firm commitment to the general orientation of of both foreign policy and domestic policy. At the moment we haven't had a case where a large number by no means every electoral but a large number of people in the intellectual academic communities who are extremely disaffected and unaided. But this is not because they have some fundamental interest in opposing any policy that their government carries out. Rather that they feel that the particular policies are specific specifically in Vietnam or are simply intolerable on many grounds. I think again by refusing to

face this issue and by moving it to a level of extremely vague generality Crystal is in a sense giving away his his inability to construct an argument to back the policy that he wants everyone to accept. But the question is whether. Realistic for a student to adopt and advocate a policy of unilateral withdrawal of the sort that I'm proposing and the many others have proposed I think it's very realistic in fact I think that this is the only realistic policy open to the United States in Vietnam and hence the only realistic policy the only policy that a concerned citizen whether he be student or anyone else should advocate. The reason why I think this is politically realistic is very simple. It seems to me quite unlikely that the Johnson administration will be willing to face the 1968 elections with an unwinnable war on its hands. It also makes no sense whatsoever for the government to extend the war to North

or they'll simply have twice as unwinnable war on their hands. Instead of having a war only against the rural population of South Vietnam They'll also have a guerrilla war to fight against the population of North Vietnam which of course won't improve the situation since they can't win the first guerilla war at the present level of force. Therefore I think that it's likely that there will be a very. I don't think that pursuing the war along the lines which is now being pursued is politically feasible because the Johnson administration will not I suppose will not be willing to face the elections with. With this unresolved and apparently quite an resolvable situation that means there are one of two things that they will have will have to do one thing. One possibility would be for them to to withdraw under whatever appropriate propaganda cover this could be developed which is essentially a public relations matter and they can call it a victory they can do anything they like. The

second alternative would be to sharply escalate the war or perhaps to use tactical nuclear weapons which might very well succeed in stealing the domestic opposition to the American occupation army or perhaps increasing the. Maybe they might for example think of trying to raise the level of the conflict to an international conflict let's say to a confrontation with China. And I suppose with sufficient provocation the Chinese would involve themselves. That might put the administration into a into a position which is politically feasible as far as internal domestic American politics are concerned since. No doubt the Johnson administration could win the elections if it was facing a let's say a war with China was imminent or something of that sort and could appeal to the nation to back it in this very dangerous confrontation. But the sense of the various

alternatives that can be imagined one namely continuing the war at the present level seems feasible and unrealistic in terms of American domestic politics. It seems to me that basically. One of the prospects are either for a very sharp and extremely dangerous and rather vicious escalation or else for American disengagement and withdrawal in whatever terms it's couched. And since I don't see how any responsible American citizen can be either interested in the destruction of Vietnam with tactical nuclear weapons or can be interested in a Third World War I would suggest that the politically realistic proposal that he should follow is one that permits us to this gauged to put an end to offensive military action and to permit the establishment of a political entity in South Vietnam with enough of a political base so that it would have the

local power and prestige to demand of us or ask us kindly to get out and leave them alone because once again we're going to take all American intellectual and foreign policy says that these arguments your arguments in specific are more on moral grounds rather than on actual you know realistic social political grounds. And therefore also my inner Jack the student population also is objecting to this highly on moral grounds. Now you were offered two solutions or two alternatives as far as wooden drawl is concerned. There are obvious solutions they seem realistic they all operating under the basic assumption that victory is not possible. What. What other areas what what other appeals would you direct in confrontation with the student population in particular the university the postgraduate individual

what what. What other arguments would you offer to these individuals. I'd like to make it clear that I'm not proposing withdrawal because I think that victory is impossible. If victory were possible I would still propose withdrawal because I think that an American victory over the Vietnamese people would be an international tragedy. And in this. This is one respect for and in which I would differ very sharply from many other critics of the administration. For example Arthur Schlesinger who has stated repeatedly in particular in his book that the bitter heritage that if an American victory military victory were attainable then he would be in favor of the policies that we are now following. And in fact he says that we would all be applauding the wisdom and statesmanship of our leaders if it turned out that they could succeed in a painting a military victory. Along the lines that they're now following which as he admits would turn the country into a land of wreck and ruin with its political and social fabric destroyed.

Differently it seems to me that if we could obtain a military victory by the means that we are now pursuing or in fact by any means that would be a tragedy for the Vietnamese people since they would simply subjugate them once again either to a foreign authority or else to the most reactionary and corrupt elements in their own society which we have insisted on imposing upon them as their government. Hence I don't oppose I don't say that we should withdraw because victory is on a paintable. What I have said is something rather different namely that since victory is probably one of the unobtainable along. The lines which are now being pursued the prospects for a very sharp escalation. And for this reason it seems to me that a policy of American withdrawal is not only correct as I think it would be whether or not victory was noble but is also politically realistic. Very often a policy which is correct is not politically realistic but in this case I think the policy is both correct and politically realistic.

I asked whether he agreed with Crystal's labeling of the intellectual community dissenters on moral grounds. He said he would essentially agree with him. I think that there is a kind of a model issue there namely the issue as to whether a great power has the right to ram down the throats of small people its conception of how they must live. And I think that basically that is a moral issue. Unfortunately Crystal seems to believe that I've noticed many other people who regard themselves as political realists also seem to believe that by that they are not taking a model position when they assume without argument that it is the right of the United States to force on other peoples any form of society that the United States chooses. But that's quite wrong that is a moral judgement I think it kind of an unspeakable and hideous moral judgement but nevertheless it's just as much of a moral judgement as as the alternative which which I propose which of course is not original with me but that is the at least the more official position

of the more or less official American ideology. So I think that I would like to take my stand on this case and on the official American ideology which is a belief in the right of independence of peoples large and small rather than on the opposing position which Kristol for example advocates namely that the United States has a kind of basic and inherent right to impose its will by whatever means on anyone who is not strong enough to resist. I responded to you find inconsistency among critics such as either Celestion Jr. and their approach in the following fashion things quite carefully and I think the position that he maintains is quite untenable in fact I think his position is really not good. Also the real difference is that at the moment I was somewhat more sensitive than Crystal is to the vast human cost of the war that we're waging but basically it

seems to me except that he accepts. The critical considerations of expediency as does the position openly that is the policy that we're pursuing. Then he will certainly back it. His opposition is based on the fact that he doesn't think it can succeed and I think you're quite right in saying that this is inconsistent with the ideological commitment that he would be quite sure here to at least at a verbal level. To the last question What was the impact of the protest movement on American society. He responded the impact of the war protest is concerned. It's extremely hard to judge. There is no way of knowing what the government would have done by now had there been no protest in the United States. I think it perfectly possible that had it not been for the peace movement and the work

activities that the level of hostilities carried out by the American forces might be very much a VERY MUCH higher. It might be for example that the tactical nuclear weapons would already have been used in South Vietnam and perhaps even in North Vietnam although it's less relevant there if it hadn't been that there was this upsurge of protest and dissatisfaction. And it may also be that one can't prove this but the protest and activity is one of the factors that's stopping that at least preventing or delaying at least the provocation of China which would maybe lead to an all out attack on China something which would be an incredible world tragedy and disaster. I think the stoppered committee and professor know m Shah of MIT the topic of student protest and intellectual point of view. The answers to war are many. They may come from various

sectors of a community but the actual solutions seemingly few. This is because they must combine those various points of view opposite and diverse from student military intellectual and functionary sides or sectors of a community. This is been Vietnam War Report and my name is Sanford Henry.