YOUTH QUESTIONS THE WAR

An impressive testament to the young American's skeptical sagacity was a letter to President Johnson sent last week by student leaders at 100 American colleges and universities. Polite in tone, but perturbed --and perturbing--in content, it questioned the conduct, rationale and very aims of the war in Viet Nam. Excerpts:

SIGNIFICANT and growing numbers of our contemporaries are deeply troubled about the posture of their Government in Viet Nam. A great many of those faced with the prospect of military duty find it hard to square performance of that duty with concepts of personal integrity and conscience. Even more are torn by reluctance to participate in a war whose toll keeps escalating, but about whose purpose and value to the U.S. they remain unclear.

The truces have highlighted a growing conviction on American campuses that if our objective in the fighting in Viet Nam is a negotiated settlement, continued escalation cannot be justified by the failure of the other side to negotiate.

If, on the other hand, our objective is no longer a negotiated settlement, the nature and attainability of our objectives in Viet Nam raise serious new doubts. There is thus increasing confusion about both our basic purpose and our tactics, and there is increasing fear that the course now being pursued may lead us irrevocably into a major land war in Asia--a war which many feel could not be won without recourse to nuclear weapons, if then.

Many of our contemporaries, raised in the democratic tradition of thinking for themselves, are finding a growing conflict between their own observations and the statements by Administration leaders. These are people as devoted to the Constitution, to the democratic process, and to law and order as were their fathers and brothers who served willingly in two world wars and in Korea.

Unless this conflict can be eased, the U.S. will find some of her most loyal and courageous young people choosing to go to jail rather than to bear their country's arms.

We write in the hope that this letter will encourage a frank discussion of these problems. If such a discussion clarified American objectives in Viet Nam, it might help reverse the drift, which is now from confusion toward disaffection. Some questions:

o There is doubt that America's vital interests are sufficiently threatened in Viet Nam to necessitate the growing commitment there.

o There is doubt that such vital interests are best protected by this growing commitment.

o There is doubt that a war which may devastate much of the countryside can lead to the stable and prosperous Viet Nam we once hoped to create.

o There is considerable concern about apparent contradictions in the American position on efforts to negotiate a settlement. High Government officials reiterate our eagerness to negotiate "unconditionally," but we remain unclear about our willingness to accept full participation by the Viet Cong as an independent party to negotiations.

Similarly, Administration spokesmen reiterate our commitment to self-determination for South Viet Nam, but we remain unclear about our willingness to accept a coalition (or proCommunist) government should the people of South Viet Nam eventually choose such a government under responsible international supervision.

Finally, we must report a growing sense that too often there is a wide disparity between American statements about Viet Nam and American actions there.

The rising confusion about national purpose can undermine mutual trust and respect among our people. This seems to us as urgent a problem as any that confronts the nation today.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.