From: New Liberation News Service <nlns@igc.apc.org>
Subject: THIS MONTH IN HISTORY: 9/25/69...
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: ?
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 20:16:25 GMT

THIS MONTH IN HISTORY: September 25, 1969

from LIBERATION News Service #197

Nixon Withdrawals: Keeping the War Awar From Home
LIBERATION News Service

WASHINGTON, D.C. (LNS)--Nixon and his friends just can't take to
the idea of losing a war (any more than Johnson or Kennedy could
before him). But in order to prosecute the war they have to
disarm the loud opposition at home.
	So they have a plan for passification on the domestic front:
The name of the plan is "withdrawal" and the way it works is,
bring home 25,000 or 60,000 troops (making sure that draft calls
are high enough to offset this for the time being), make a big
deal about it, win the help of the obliging media, and gradually
reduce the number of GIs to the point where its enough to keep up
the level of aggression, without attracting too much attention.
In the words of our military officials, "We are going to reduce
the fighting to a level the American public will tolerate for a
long pull."
	Nixon is trying it out again. But it didn't fool the North
Vietnamese, or the PRG, and it's not likely to fool too many
Americans.
	There seems to be some disagreement among ruling class
strategists, however. None of them wants to lose the war, but
apparently some of them realize they might already have. Cyrus
Vance, from back in the Johnson days of the Paris talks, outlined
his strategy for face-saving-despite-defeat-ism in the N.Y. Times
Sunday Magazine recently. He advocates a "stand-still cease-fire"
where the country would be divided up into many small regions
controlled either by the NLF, Saigon or some ethnic or regional
minority.
	These regions would then be represented in a national
legislature where they could fight it out peacefully.
	What's new about this is that Vance recognizes that the PRG
has already gained the allegiance of a large part of South
Vietnam (although he probably doesn't realize how much). He
recognizes the liberated zones as political, not just military,
entities.
	But Vance still has his heart in the same place. His plan
would maintain U.S. imperialist interests in full force in
Southeast Asia. It would also give the Saigon government full
legitimacy, and would allow the U.S. military time to fully
refurbish itself before breaking the cease-fire.
	These plans won't work. The PRG will obviously not accept a
plan like Vance's, and there's no reason to think that the people
of Vietnam couldn't handle 200,000 U.S. troops if they can handle
500,000 of them.
	Furthermore, GIs are rebelling. In addition to a continually
growing number of anti-war movements on American Army bases, the
incidents of companies refusing to fight in Vietnam or turning
their guns on their officers is also growing. There's no reason
to think that they'll want to fight any more when the number of
troops is smaller, their positions more vulnerable, than they do
now.
	So Nixon and his friends have a little problem on their
hands.
	Where do they draw the line and fight in defense of their
empire? Laos? Thailand? Korea? The Philippines? Pearl Harbor?
Oakland? And who will they get to do their fighting for them?

----------------------------- 30 ---------------------------

Dutifully transcribed by humble NLNS staffer Phillip Zerbo.
Comments, suggestions and requests welcome: <nlns>,
<nlns@igc.apc.org>.

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive