i
Page Two
THE SALEMITE
Wednesday, October I5
19
Nixon" Unaware” Of
Vietnam Moratorium
October 15 is unofficially a day of protest against
the Vietnamese conflict across the nation. But we
feel that it should be more than that at Salem Col
lege—it should be a day of Awareness. Whether you
are opposed or not to American presence in Vietnam,
you should be aware of a situation with such far
reaching consequences and such personal involve
ment. You owe this to yourselves, your government
and to those men fighting and dying in Vietnam.
If you do not wish to or cannot for some reason
boycott class on October 15, then ask your professors
to moderate a discussion on the topic. Your pro
fessor isn't completely aware about Vietnam—and
neither are you, but together, as a group, perhaps
you can aid in increasing everyone's awareness.
Sheehan Cites Class Struggle As
Major Source Of Vietnam Wa
For those of us who wish to go beyond awareness
and onto protest—Wednesday is the perfect day and
the Square an ideal place.
President Nixon recently remarked at a press con
ference that "under no circumstances will I be
affected whatsoever" by anti-Vietnam activity on
college and university campuses across the nation.
This blatant refusal of the President to be affected
by sentiments of a significantly large group causes
serious questioning of Nixon's own interpretation of
his role as President. The President obviously needs
to be reminded that as an elected official, he is re
sponsible to his *constituants and supposedly recep
tive to public opinion.
Let us remind him by answering his challenge.
Let us affect him. Let us make him aware of how
we feel.
SK
Neil Sheehan was a reporter in Vietnam from 1V62-19M
and again in 1965. In an article in the New York Times m
1966, reprinted by the National Committee for SANli Nu
clear Policy, Inc., Mr. Sheehan discusses his initial en
thusiasm for the U. S. policy of limited intervention m the
Vietnam war and his later change in attitude. His article
is entitled “Not a Dove, But No Longer a Hawk.
Originally, Mr. Sheehan believed that the U. S. followed
a commendable and realistic policy by aiding the non-
Communist Vietnamese in their struggle against the com
munist guerrilla movement which prevented the building of
a united independent Vietnamese nation. He believed that
the Communist forces could win the war against iheir
enemy and he was proud of the economic and military aid
provided by the U. S. When he left Vietnarn in 1964, there
,were 17,000 American servicemen involved in the conflict,
and Mr.Sheehan styled himself a hawk.
Since that time, Mr. Sheehan has decided that he vvas
unwise not to forsee the consequences of limited U. S. in
tervention and naive to believe that the non-Communist
forces could defeat the guerrillas and establish an inde
pendent, progressive society. Mr. Sheehan reviews the
forces of the last twenty years which have shaped the
present state of the conflict.
He notes first of all that as the U. S. has gradually re
placed France's role in Vietnam in the early 1950 s, she in
herited the same pattern of relationship with the native
Vietncimese leaders. The native mandarin aristocracy who
served as the colonial civil service under the French con
tinued under the Americans to act as intermediaries be
tween their countrymen and the foreign influence which
upheld their traditional aristocratic power. American pro
posals of land reform and rent reduction were sabotaged
by the powerful mandarin families who were unwilling to
give up their land and wealth for the American ideal of
social progress. Their power is channeled toward maintain
ing and regaining the privileges they are accustomed to.
The need for land reform is an acute and desperate one.
The Vietnamese peasants are ambitious for social change,
for they have endured the oppression of the mandrin aris
tocracy for generations. A deeply felt nationalism shared
by North and South Vietnamese found its only hope for
success in the Communist program of revolution and social
change. Originating in the era of French rule and con
tinuing today, the nationalistic movement of the late Ho
Chi Minh and his North Vietnamese Communist Party has
directed the movement for an independent Vietnamese
u. s.
Tries To Save Face,
‘Trotect” Smaller Countries
Dear Editor,
I will never cease to be amazed at the way people are
always asking why the United States is involved in Viet
nam. Can’t the public realize that the Vietnamese war is
not an isolated instance in the history of our foreign en
tanglements ? Our involvement there can be very easily
seen as a natural step in our long chain of imperialistic
aggressions. Of course the United States is going to stick
its nose into Indochinese affairs. W^e haven t minded our
own business in years. , ■ j
A couple of centuries ago we the people seemed inclined
to confiscate British property, to declare ourselves capable
of governing ourselves, and to throw off all bonds of vas
salage to our “mother country.” I cannot persuade myself
to believe that the Founding Fathers would have accepted
any settlement which declared the Atlantic seaboard to be
a protectorate of Great Britain. Also, once the Revolution
ended, I seriously doubt if they w'ould have been overly
pleased to have Red Coat troops on our soil or to be gifted
with Parliamentary “assistance” until we proved ourselves
capable of self rule. tt j
But of course this is all in the past. Today the United
States has grown to be a Super Power. Don t we quite
“naturally” need to make certain that the underprivileged
nations of the world realize the complete superiority of
s
is
^ 2
£ o
o o
N U
C O
o D
4) o
O’ • *5 2
E S .E
o> 0
>N
u
c =
= ?; c
i I 5
>v
^ -Q
2 "o J3
u O
O (/)
U
. it
o>
^ .£
= 1
D
® £ 't: T3
> o .2 0
*tJ -C -c ®
 a. U X
o
u
0“D O
"D 3 u
>• a.
-£ o
JC
I -
CO o
i/>
u
O -V
w • 5
O c M
*5 *5
“D 3 2
UJ 
0)
’6)
0
c
o
our culture and mode of government? Does not the simple
fact that our success prove that the “American way of life”
is best?
Our ego would have been gravely damaged if we had
ever thought it remotely possible that any nation on earth
would not desire to follow this same magnificient ideal.
Yes, the United States simply had to involve itself in
Vietnam. It was our “humanitarian” duty to help those
poor and simple-minded Asians solve their problems and
choose a truly “good” way of life. There was no reason
to wait until they asked us for help. Hasn’t the United
(.states always been more than willing to help and protect
nations, especially those threatened by the big red enemy?
Of course, the American ideal is to allow national self-
determination to freely exert itself in all countries but, after
all, what nation would dream of voluntarily deciding to
follow policies alien to the United States?
Therefore, since our way of living is sought after by
everyone, we simply had to intervene in the Vietnam con
flict when it became evident that without our aid, the striv
ing little nation would be “forced” to follow another style
of existence.
Ho Chi Minh? Soviet Russia? Red China? Heaven
forbid if their venom be allowed to penetrate into the
Vietnamese culture. Their ideas could only hinder pro
gress. The United States, the benevolent overseer of the
underprivileged nations of the whole world was duty bound
to show the backward people of Vietnam what they really
really wanted! ’
So the next time anyone asks why we are fighting in
Southeast Asia just tell them the truth. We have our
pride to protect. We can’t get behind. Prestige is the
epitome of the “American way of life” and by rook or by
tfrook we’re going to keep up that damn prestige.
Anonymously,
A senior
U. S. Troops Abroad
These figures are a recording of July,
Vietnam ’
Western Pacific
(including South China Sea)
Thailand
Okinawa
Korea
Japan
Philippines
Eastern Pacific
West Germany
Mediterranean
Britain
Atlantic
Latin America
Canada, Greenland, Iceland
Spain
Turkey
Middle East and Africa
Taiwan
1969
538,500
97.000
47.000
45.000
55.000
40.000
30.000
43.000
228,000
28,900
22.000
20,000
16,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
and the U. S., on the other hand, hold no appe I
peasants and only drive them closer to the C
“Sns of F,a
cause.
Comi
Hint
Mr. Sheehan notes that tragically, the war which stai
as a united independence movement against the Fre
developed into a civil struggle between different ef" *
of Vietnamese society, regardless of which side of th™''
visional 17th parallel line they live on.
War cannot bes|
to exist in North and South Vietnam for each j
latio!
ing the non-Corninunist South Vietnamese gov'er"nme?n
v^t-nlnnfrp/d fho rivil ronflirt '
its support between those who support Communist natioi
movement and-those who reject it. The U. S,, by
prolonged the civil conflict.
The bravery and loyalty of the Viet Cong “Charlie" i
a much larger advantage the almost mercinary attifi.H'
the South Vietnamese. The “Charlies” are fighting a pu
Vietnamese battle and do not have foreign soldiers in tl*
own group. Other aspects of the lack of understanding!
tween the U. S. and South Vietnam is in the cultural rea
where the propiety system differs .so greatly from the s
cial, educational and political feeling.
The size of the war has- certainly grown since Sheehai
last stay in Vietnam and still the end seems distant. Haiio
hope that the Americans would tire of hearing of tl
casualties and conflict has been realized, as America:
openly proclaim their opposition to American military i
tervention in Vietnam.
- Chronology -
(Continued from Page 1)
Johnson fears collapse of -Siagon govern
ment.
1966 U. S. forces “Americanize” the war in
Vietnam by assuming the major burden of
fighting. By end of year, 350,000 U.S.
troops in Shuot and 45,(XX) North Viet
namese regulars. South Vietnamese play
secondary role of pacification (while U.S.
U.S. engages “main force” Viet Cong and
North Vietnamese.
1967 North Vietnam subjected to American
naval gunfire and the air attacks now
concentrate on destroying the economic
structure of the nation rather than merely
disrupting the transit of military supplies
to the South.
Elections under new constitution (1965)
result in minority victory for military-
ticket of Thieu and Ky. Runner-up Dzu
imprisoned.
19(58 Tet Offensive by Communists results
in stunning psychological victory which
causes major reevaluation in American
public opinion. Anti-war sentiments in
creases over the level of 1965-1967.
Pres. Johnson announces that he will
not seek reelection and orders halt to
bombing of North Vietnam. Refuses Gen.
Westmoreland’s request for an additional
200,C(K) troops.
Paris Peace talks begin.
1969 Nixon Adminstration begins delicate
task of simultaneously negotiating at Paris
and slowly withdrawing American troops
with the objective of “Vietnamizing” the
war once again.
"The Academic Principle"