“De-escalation”

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31649, 8 April 1968, Page 12

“De-escalation”

Sir,—At the risk of exacerbating the recriminatory tenor of this correspondence, I would like, consequent on I. Trew’s letter, to disclaim any monopoly on obtuseness. He failed miserably to perceive that my letter was mainly a plea for more objectivity and less destructive comment particularly the avoidance of the emotional phrasing that bedevils many debates. Unwittingly he provides a good illustration of this point by using the phrase “the bombing of civilians.” There is a subtle difference between this and “the bombing of innocent women and children” with its emotional connotations. Mr Frew’s final rhetorical question “that is logical thinking isn’t it” plumbs the depths of absurdity as it is preceded by prime examples of “begging the question” namely his reference to “blanket destruction” (of civilians inferred) and “aggressor.”—Yours, etc., GEORGE KELLY. April 6, 1968.

Sir, —Your leader of April 2 states in part “contrary to the thesis of those who assert that prosperity in a capitalist society depends on wars and preparation for wars,” etc. Historically and economically, the rejuvenation of capitalist society is wholly dependant upon wars—conquest, or intervention. The world is limited and within this limit market hungry nations vie with each other to sell their products food, munitions, etc., a primary cause leading to wars. Under the guise of containment of Communist China, American imperialism laid the foundations in Vietnam for the recapture of a once-lucrative Asian market. Fallacious reasoning envisages the future departure of American capital and might from Vietnam—we shall see. —Yours, etc., NORTHWEST.

April 4, 1968. Sir, —The alternative to American de-escalation in Vietnam is too terrible to contemplate. The U.S.A, could win a military victory with nuclear weapons. This would almost certainly mean the destruction of Vietnam and World War 111. The consequent spread, most probably even to Europe and America, of napalm, the even more terrible white phosphorus (which liquidises flesh and flows it into grotesque forms), disease germs, crop and forest defoliation, added to nuclear warfare, would render a military victory of either side quite immaterial.—Yours, etc., SETH NEWELL. April 6, 1968. k