Vietnam: The Time is Now article by Senator George McGovern

Item

Other Media

s-leg_630_013_001_tr.txt

Extent (Dublin Core)

5 Pages

File Name (Dublin Core)

s-leg_630_013_001

Title (Dublin Core)

Vietnam: The Time is Now article by Senator George McGovern

Date (Dublin Core)

1969-09

Date Created (Dublin Core)

1969-09

Congress (Dublin Core)

91st (1969-1971)

Topics (Dublin Core)

See all items with this valueVietnam War, 1961-1975

Policy Area (Curation)

Armed Forces and National Security

Creator (Dublin Core)

McGovern, George S. (George Stanley), 1922-2012

Record Type (Dublin Core)

magazine clippings

Rights (Dublin Core)

http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/

Language (Dublin Core)

eng

Collection Finding Aid (Dublin Core)

https://dolearchivecollections.ku.edu/index.php?p=collections/controlcard&id=23&q=

Physical Location (Dublin Core)

Collection 003, Box 630, Folder 13

Institution (Dublin Core)

Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS

Archival Collection (Dublin Core)

Robert J. Dole Senate Papers-Legislative Relations, 1969-1996

Full Text (Extract Text)

This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas
http://dolearchives.ku.edu

(illegible header)
Additional copies FREE except for postage

Vietnam: The Time is NOW
by Senator George S. McGovern

One of the great ironies of our involvement in the war in Vietnam is that while intervening there to insure the independence of South Vietnam, we have apparently sacrificed much of our own independence. We have become chained to a repressive dictatorship in South Vietnam which has neither the will nor the ability to govern that nation democratically. After investing billions of dollars and thousands of lives in Saigon, we still (illegible) content to let the preferences of the Thieu-Ky regime decide the speed of our withdrawal.

While trying to plant the seeds of democracy in Southeast Asia, I fear we have woefully retarded the growth of our own democracy. What, we might ask ourselves, are the purposes and priorities of our nation? And how well do we measure up to those purposes and priorities in 1969 after the years of Asian war?

Taken together, our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution comprise an early statement of our country's priorities that still serves as an appropriate criterion of national excellence. Is the pursuit of happiness going well in America at the end of the 1980's - a decade which opened with John Kennedy's ringing assurance: "We can do better"?

Are we moving toward "a more perfect union" in this time which ranges (illegible) against white, youth against age, city against suburb, poor against rich? How fares "justice" and "tranquility" in our troubled land where danger lurks in the street, campus and city are in turmoil, and the (illegible) is being polluted? Do (illegible) mote either the "common defense" or the "general welfare" when we budget more than $80 billion for military defense while fifteen million of our citizens are rendered defenseless by malnutrition?

I cannot accept the diagnosis of some that we are a "sick society;" yet, I cannot find assurance in the state of the union, for our nation is laboring under a double burden - a cruel, self-defeating war abroad and a profoundly troubled domestic society strained by the paradox of affluence and neglect.

It is doubtless simplistic to contend that the malaise of today stems from only one cause - war, racism, technological revolution, or the quickening pace of social change. Yet, I firmly believe that our involvement in the Vietnam (illegible) at the base of the most acute (illegible) that beset us today.

Former Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford said that his growing doubts about the Vietnam policy have taken on the character of an "obsession." It is obvious that our former great ambassador and chief negotiator, Averell Harriman, and his brilliant deputy, Cyrus Vance, as well as such distinguished generals as Gavin and Shoup, share that obsession. I share it, too, and indeed, for me the war in Vietnam has been a nagging obsession for several years. Early in 1967, in the pages of The Progressive, I referred to our deepening war in Asia as "a policy of madness" -- "the most tragic diplomatic, military, and moral blunder in our national history."

It may seem ill-timed to repeat that verdict today when we are officially seeking a way out of the Vietnamese morass. But I am increasingly obsessed by the continuing folly that each week kills still more American and Vietnamese youth and wounds several thousand others, and is daily devastating Vietnam while poisoning and dividing our own society.

One would think that given more than a decade to witness the self-defeating efforts in Vietnam of previous Administrations, the new Administration would have moved quickly to stop the slaughter and extricate our troops. But it increasingly appears that there is no real change of policy, that we simply have a new management of the old assumptions, that we are following the same strategy that has produced our earlier years of grief. It is incredible that we continue to misuse the Vietnamese by land, sea, and air, our troops killing and being killed although we long ago abandoned the dream of military victory.
(half of the paragraph underlines and marked "USE")

It is equally incredible that we continue a virtually unqualified support of the Thieu-Ky regime while the regime jails its finest citizens and blocks

SENATOR GEORGE S. McGOVERN, South Dakota Democrat, has long been one of the most articulate spokesmen against U.S. involvement in Vietnam. His articles, "The Lessons of Vietnam" (May, 1967) and "The ABM: Unsafe at Any Price" (February, 1969), have been two of the most popular reprints of The Progressive in recent years. A bomber pilot in World War II and a professor of history and government before he was elected to Congress in 1956, Senator McGovern is the author of two books, "War Against Want" and "A Time of War/A Time of Peace."

Reprinted from (illegible) Madison, Wisconsin September, 1969

s-leg_630_013_001_A1b.pdf Page 1 of 5

This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas
http://dolearchives.ku.edu

the negotiating road to peace either in Paris or in Saigon. So long as we cling to our military policy of maximum pressure and our political embrace of General Thieu, the negotiations in Paris are a sham and a delusion, There is no peace ahead on the course we are now following; there is only more death and waste abroad and more serious crises in our own troubled land.
("So long as" to "sham and a delusion" underlines and marked "USE")

My views on the Vietnam issue are deeply held, first forged by long years of reading and study, conversation, and debate, then sharpened in late 1965 by a first-hand view of the battle areas. These views have recently been fortified by what I believe to be an important experience that until recently I have shared only in confidence with the White House and the State Department.

In late May, I presided as a layman over a consultation of the World Council of Churches in London. Before returning from that conference, I flew to Paris and after conferring with Ambassador Lodge and the State Department about my intentions, I devoted a long day to intensive discussions with the top negotiators in Paris representing Hanoi and the National Liberation Front.

After carefully explaining to the two delegations that under American law and practice, only authorized diplomatic officials may represent the negotiating position of our Government, I proceeded to interrogate them from ten a.m. until ten p.m., trying to get a better feeling and understanding of their position.

At one point I did depart from my questions to express strong disapproval of the North Vietnamese practice of withholding the names and conditions of American pilots taken or killed over North Vietnam. I made a special inquiry about Captain Sam Fantle, Jr. of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, a distinguished constituent of mine whose family has heard nothing since he was shot down over North Vietnam many months ago. I told the North Vietnamese that I regarded their policy of refusing even to say whether Captain Fantle and his fellow pilots are alive or dead as both inhumane and foolish.

At bottom of first page: "... we should now notify Saigon, Hanoi, the NFL (circled; note in margins reads: National Football League) ... that we are moving out all our forces ... and the only consideration on the speed ... will be the safety of our men."

In spite of my disappointment on the prisoner information matter, I left Paris with enhanced respect for the intelligence and the absolute devotion to their cause of both the North Vietnamese and their allies of the National Liberation Front (NLF). There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that however much some of our officials believe we are repelling aggression in Vietnam, the North Vietnamese and the NLF see us as the aggressors - the foreign invaders - the despoilers of their country. They have been trying to achieve independence for generations - struggling for a thousand years against the Chinese, for more than eighty years against the French, then the Japanese in World War II, then the French again, and finally against the United States.

When Ho Chi Minh first proclaimed the independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam September 2, 1945, at the end of World War II, he borrowed from our own Declaration of Independence. Ho's Declaration opens as follows: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples of the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free.

(image captioned: Mauldin in the Chicago Sun-Times; "What we'd like to do is extricate ourselves without exactly leaving.")

The Vietnamese who support Ho Chi Minh and the National Liberation Front see those Vietnamese who have resisted the "liberation" struggle - Bao Dai, Diem, Ky, and Thieu - not as patriots but as Benedict Arnolds. Beyond any resentment they feel toward us is their complete contempt for Generals Thieu and Ky. They regard them as the artificial creations of an outside power who are willing to slaughter their fellow Vietnamese to maintain the lavish support of their foreign keeper.

Although Hanoi and the NLF have set forth a number of proposals, there are only two points that are central to their position. First of all, they insist on the unconditional withdrawal of all American forces from Vietnam. Neither Hanoi nor the NLF is willing to talk about "mutual withdrawal" since they insist we are the only foreigners in Vietnam. I have no doubt, however, that if we accelerate the withdrawal of our troops at a far more meaningful rate than the President has yet proposed, while moving more rapidly toward a defensive, ceasefire strategy, the other side would quickly respond even more than it has up to now by easing off their military pressure at a greater rate.

s-leg630_013_001_A1b.pdf Page 2 of 5

This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas
http://dolearchives.ku.edu

Let us remember that in spite of many predictions that North Vietnam would greatly accelerate their attacks if we stopped the bombing of North Vietnam, they did just the opposite. Following the bombing halt of last November 1, the North Vietnamese withdrew twenty-two of their twenty-five regiments from South Vietnam. It is a tragedy of incalculable dimensions that we simultaneously stepped up all of our military operations in the South and thus missed an opportunity to reduce the killing, ease the military and diplomatic tensions, and open the way for a more hopeful negotiating atmosphere in both Paris and Saigon.

I am certain that we should now notify Saigon, Hanoi, the NLF, and other interested parties that we are definitely moving out all of our forces and that the only consideration on the speed of the withdrawal will be the safety of our men.

When I suggested to the Hanoi and NLF delegations that some Americans fear a bloodbath during or after an American withdrawal, they replied that just the opposite would happen- the killing would stop. They suggested that I talk with some of the French officials who were involved in the withdrawal of 1954. They are proud of the fact that they cooperated with the French during their withdrawal and took no reprisals. Xuan Thuy, the chief North Vietnamese negotiator, told me that the former French High Commissioner for Vietmam during the period before the French withdrew is now living in Paris and occasionally visits Minister Thuy on a friendly social basis. I verified this contention and, indeed, was assured by several well-informed French sources that the relations between France and Vietnam have steadily improved since the French withdrawal.

I was told, especially by the North Vietnamese, and I am inclined to believe it, that there is a potentially strong reservoir of admiration and good will toward the people and the ideals of the United States on the part of most Vietnamese. For example, even during the heaviest bombing of North Vietnam, the schools of Hanoi continued to teach American history and literature - always distinguishing between our great historic ideals and our currently mistaken policies. They believe our policy toward them was foisted upon the American people by shortsighted leaders who will be increasingly repudiated by the American electorate. They gave repeated expressions to me of their desire to end the war and to establish peaceful relations with the United States.

As for reprisals against those Vietnamese who have stood with our forces, they said that it would be in the self-interest of any regime to try to broaden its support and unify the country which would call not for reprisals but accommodation. Nevertheless, I believe we should accompany our withdrawal from Vietnam with an offer of asylum to any Vietnamese who are concerned about their safety.

But let us be clear on this first point: There will be no negotiations in Paris or elsewhere worthy of the name until we stop our offensive military operations and begin at once the systematic withdrawal, not of 50,000 or 100,000 men but of all of our forces, and complete it - preferably during the next twelve months.
(paragraph underlined and marked "USE")

The second point which Hanoi and the NLF make clear is that there will be no negotiations so long as we continue our unqualified embrace of the Thieu-Ky regime. Our adversaries believe, and I share their belief, as do many of our most qualified American observers, that the Saigon generals do not really want an end to the war; nor do they want an authentic process of self-determination. The reasons are clear: The Saigon regime has little real support or respect from its own people and would be quickly replaced by the local citizens were it not for the overwhelming presence of American power. The fear of popular resentment is increasingly manifested by the Thieu-Ky regime as the generals imprison even their moderate, middle-of-the-road critics.
("The Saigon regime has" to "presence of American power" underlined and marked "USE")

(image captioned: Mauldin in Chicago Sun-Times; "Remember, we're in this together")

A recent survey team of distinguished Americans, including Methodist Bishop James Armstrong from my state, has reported that the jails of Saigon are increasingly jammed with tens of thousands of political critics, journalists, clergymen, students, teachers, business and professional men -- some of them comparable in character and motivation as the Founding Fathers who signed our own Declaration of Independence - sincere South Vietnamese patriots whose only crime is to advocate a more democratic government devoted to peace.

Generals Thieu and Ky stubbornly insist that they will never share their power, even provisionally, with the National Liberation Front. Furthermore, they will tolerate no dissent even from non-Communist moderates who favor a neutral, peaceful, independent South Vietnam. As long as these rigid, oppressive positions are held by Thieu and Ky with the backing of American power, there can be no peace. It is a delusion to believe that the South Vietnamese people and their army will really fight effectively to preserve a narrowly based mercenary regime of this kind. It is American troops that will do the effective fighting and the dying- and to what end? To buy time for a political tyranny.
("As long as" to the end of the paragraph underlined and marked "USE")

It seems inconceivable to me that at this late date and in the face of a mountain of evidence that confirms the depravity and antidemocratic character of the Saigon regime that the President of the United States would now, in mid-August, proclaim his complete confidence in President Thieu.

s-leg_630_013_001_A1b.pdf Page 3 of 5

This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas
http://dolearchives.ku.edu

Yet this is precisely what he did at a White House briefing of Senate and House leaders following his world tour. In characterizing Thieu as "probably one of the four or five best political leaders in the world" - to quote the language in the Associated Press report - the President confirms the fear I expressed earlier in this article that "we have a new management of the old assumptions."

I plead for us to declare our independence of a monstrous folly that is surely weakening our nation at home and abroad. "A decent respect to the opinions of mankind" commands us "to dissolve the political bands" that have bound the Vietnamese albatross to our backs. Having long ago asserted for ourselves the right to "throw off" a government guilty of "a long train of abuses and usurpations," history demands that we not deny to the people of Vietnam the right to resolve their own struggle with the rulers of Saigon. If we truly seek for ourselves and for others "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," let us in the name of God and our own history end now the slaughter and devastation that at once drain the blood of both Vietnam and America.

As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, I have been profoundly moved by the inexcusable fact that fifteen million of our fellow citizens suffer from malnutrition. It is past time for us to quit killing Asians and to begin feeding Americans.

If we cannot hear the anguished cries of Vietnam, let us at least look to what we are doing to our own beloved land:
- 200,000 young Americans killed or wounded.
- $100 billion swallowed in a blood-soaked jungle.
- Millions of Americans, especially the young, confused, frustrated or alienated from their own government.
- Great American cities and universities caught up in turmoil, violence, and neglect.
- Costly wartime inflation, high interest rates, rising taxes, and a continued drain on our dollar and gold reserves.
- Perhaps, worst of all, a widespread loss of confidence in ourselves and on the part of others around the globe as to our prudence and humanity.

It is painful in our personal lives, in our business ventures, or in our social enterprises to confess error, to declare bankruptcy, or to seek a reordering of life. It is far easier to begin a war than to end it. It is sometimes more tempting to policymakers to save face than to save lives.

Yet, I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of our people, having taken so many risks for war, are now ready to follow leaders who will take some risks for peace. The one vindication that can console us is that our Vietnam involvement, for all its blood and heartache, may yet be redeemed if we learn from that bitter experience not to repeat it elsewhere. Those brave men who have died in Vietnam - American and Vietnamese alike - can teach us by their too great sacrifice that this is not the way for alien peoples to live on this shrinking planet.

The Biblical wisdom still challenges us: "I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live."

I would plead again that we throw off the curse of Vietnam, that we turn away from death without further delay, and set our course toward blessing and toward life.

Asian Fever
Mr. President, it would seem that there is, in addition to the Asian flu, a new fever that sometimes afflicts American Presidents traveling in Asia. Its most striking symptom is a remarkable expansion of rhetoric.

In one week, our traveling President made the following observations from Asia:

One-Neil Armstrong and his associates have accomplished a feat exceeded only by God at the Creation.
Two-Our interminable, inconclusive frustrations in the jungles of Vietnam represent "our finest hour."
Three-If Thailand gets into trouble from within or without, we will rush in to open up a second front in Southeast Asia.
Four-President Thieu is one of the great statesmen of our age.

It seems clear that whereas the more common Asian flu leaves the patient weak and subdued, the new Asian fever intoxicates its victims with a powerful euphoria that is almost beyond comprehension.

Perhaps until we know more about this new strain of Asian virus, the President, after his next journey eastward, would be willing to return to the United States in the quarantine chamber recently used by the astronauts following their return from the moon. This would provide a period of safe observation while medical scientists and national security experts considered whether to isolate the new virus or to encourage its spread over the entire populace.
SENATOR GEORGE MCGOVERN
United States Senate
August 1, 1969

S-leg_630_013_001_A1b.pdf Page 4 of 5

This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas
http://dolearchives.ku.edu

Handwritten: For Directions Pres - to General Abrams and statistics

Also directions on rules of engagement - border control

s-leg_630_013_001_A1b.pdf Page 5 of 5