Foreign Relations: The Viet Nam Debate

FOREIGN RELATIONS

There seemed to be so much else to talk about: the State of the Union speech, the early battles in the new Congress. Yet as Senators and Representatives met in the members’ dining rooms or broke out the bourbon in their office suites, one subject held constant attention: Viet Nam. There was a growing feeling that a debate on U.S. policy was overdue, that mere continuation of the present line could only lead to disaster.

Contrary to public-opinion polls, which have suggested apathy and ignorance about Viet Nam, Congressman after Congressman returned to Washington after the Christmas holidays convinced that the voters are profoundly concerned. When Secretary of State Dean Rusk last week briefed the House Foreign Affairs Committee, one member interrupted him: “You’d damn well better find a solution to this in the next two years, because that is about all the time the American public is going to give you.”

Such a Mess. But events in Viet Nam may not give the U.S. that much time. Said Illinois Democrat Barratt O’Hara of Rusk’s remarks: “I have never known him to speak with more gravity.” Said Ohio Democrat Wayne Hays: “You hardly know where to start, it’s such a mess. We don’t want to go in full force, like the French. They failed. But a pull-out would be even worse. We need two things right now—some patience and a little bit of good news from out there.”

Giving a similar briefing to William Fulbright’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Rusk hardly had better news. In effect, he told the committee what he had been saying for weeks: that the political situation in South Viet Nam is in a mess, that because of it the military effort against the Communists has deteriorated, and that once the Saigon political climate is stabilized, the battle against the Communists should go better. In addition, Rusk noted that there are no present U.S. plans for escalating the war into North Viet Nam, nor is there any thought of the U.S.’s withdrawing from the fight. “An un inspired forenoon,” grumped Vermont Republican George Aiken about the session.

Opposite Views. Oregon Democrat Wayne Morse meanwhile continued pushing his own recommendation— “a fair, negotiated settlement.” Questioned on his ideas for achieving this miracle, Morse allowed as how “that would be for the United Nations to determine.” All he knew, he said, was that “this argument will continue, and I intend to continue it.”

While Morse was not alone in calling for an end to U.S. involvement in South Viet Nam’s affairs, he certainly was in a minority. Among those taking the opposite view were former U.S. Ambassador to Saigon Henry Cabot Lodge and Senate Republican Leader Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois. Lodge called such a course “the most dangerous and imprudent” the U.S. could take and equated it with “getting out of West Berlin.” Dirksen foresaw that “the rank of the United States in the Orient would plummet” if the U.S. pulled out.

In an Associated Press poll of 83 Senators, only two—Louisiana Democrat Allen Ellender and South Carolina Democrat Olin Johnston— joined Morse in speaking up for an end to U.S. intervention. Another three— South Carolina’s newly Republican Strom Thurmond, Texas’ Republican John Tower and Utah’s Republican Wallace Bennet —urged expansion of the war into North Viet Nam. By far the greatest number expressed views similar to that of Oklahoma Democrat Mike Monroney, who has recently returned from a trip to Viet Nam. Said he: “We should do what we are doing, but do it even better.” The situation, said South Dakota’s Republican Karl Mundt weakly, “is worse today than it was three or four months ago. It’s a holding and hoping operation.”