Change In U.S. Opinion Seen

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31627, 13 March 1968, Page 15

Change In U.S. Opinion Seen

(N.Z. Press Assn. —Copyright)

WASHINGTON, March 10. Slowly, perhaps not quite surely, but with increasing momentum, American public opinion seems to be moving to the conclusion that the war in Vietnam is a creeping disaster that military means cannot salvage, the “New York Times” News Service reports. This is not a matter of marches on the Pentagon, nor is there any’ suggestion that Americans generally are now ready to “turn tail and run”

—in the derisive phrase of those in the Johnson Administration, and elsewhere, who equate any questioning of the war with appeasement, cowardice and lack of patriotism.

Rather, there is more apparent collection of straws in the wind that suggests, a painful and hesitant re-appraisal of the war—of what it is all about and of what ought to be done about it—by many moderate Americans who have tended to support without much question the President, the troops, and their country’s foreign policy. Almost all political observers now expect Senator Eugene McCarthy to make a strong showing in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday. When he first opened his low-key campaign against Mr Johnson, Senator McCarthy was not expected to get more than perhaps 10 per cent of the vote. Now it is being freely predicted that he may get 25 to 35 per cent of it. The upturn in Senator McCarthy’s fortunes apparently has attracted the attention of Senator Robert Kennedy of New York, from whose camp guarded reports are issuing to the effect that he is “reconsidering” his decision not to challenge Mr Johnson. If Senator Kennedy reconsiders himself into the race, however, it is not clear just how he could get Senator Mc-

Carthy out of it. In the Senate this week, “hawks” resorted to Parliamentary tactics to limit a debate that was extremely critical of the war, and in which Senator Fulbright, of Arkansas, demanded that the Administration consult Congress before committing more troops to Vietnam. The tactics did not end the debate before Senators Jack Miller, of lowa and Norris Cotton, of New Hampshire, both Republican conservatives who have supported the war, expressed agreement with Senator Fulbright. The whole debate left the impression that not even Senate “hawks” like John Stennis, of Mississippi, had much enthusiasm for defending the way the war is being conducted, or any plans for it now pending. Such a Conservative Senator as Mr Harry Byrd, jun., of ' Virginia, said recently: “If I sense accurately the mood of my fellow Virginians, the • national leadership has lost to a considerable degree the confidence of the public in its > handling of the Vietnam war. Is not now the time for a re- . appraisal of our policies and ■ objectives.” 1 Perhaps the caution of the > Republican Presidential can- ■ didates is even more signifi- ■ cant. Just before the withI drawal of Governor George Romney forced him into the i open, Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York, for in-

stance, expressed this view at a news conference: “I do think that we are living in a period of high tension, high frustrations, and what we need is to find moderate solutions, and that to reach for a gun or to call in the military is not necessarily the best solution.” Governor Rockefeller refused to say specifically that this meant he no longer favoured military escalation in Vietnam, but that obviously was the intent of his remarks. Mr Nixon clearly had a similar purpose when he declared in New Hampshire this week that if elected he would “end the war and win the peace in the Pacific.” While that could mean as

much to “hawks” as to “doves,” Mr Nixon also has taken to reminding his audiences that he was part of a Republican administration that came into office in 1953 and ended the Korean War by a negotiated settlement. This is substantially different from the “hawkish” approach of using military power more massively and efficient ly Mr Nixon has been advocating for years. Whatever his other qualities, he always has been adept at sensing which way the wind is blowing and therefore his cautious shuffle toward the “dove” vote ought not to be taken lightly. Even Mr Johnson might want to consider what it means.