Magnifying Lens on Viet Nam

The latest Viet Cong offensive in Viet Nam left the U.S. press as divided as ever on the subject of the war. And perhaps even more so. Mostly, the attacks on the cities served as a magnifying lens; doves grew more dovish, hawks more hawkish, undecideds more undecided. Across the country, the division was more or less even between each of the three attitudes.

What has been demonstrated by the attacks, said the determinedly antiwar St. Louis Post-Dispatch, is the "hollowness of the Saigon government's pretensions to sovereignty in the cities, the fraud of our Government's claims of imminent victory, and the basic untenability of the American military position." The more hawkish Houston Post took a different view of the attacks. "Except for the loss of life," said the paper, "the raids would have had a comic book character. They were reminiscent of the raids upon the American naval vessels by Japanese kamikaze pilots during World War II. One is almost forced to the conclusion that the men in Ha noi and their backers are motivated by an overwhelming compulsion toward mass, national and individual suicide."

Never Much Doubt. While uncertain as to the ultimate military effect of the attack, many publications thought the U.S. and the South Vietnamese had suffered a severe loss of face. "The psychological damage," said the New York Times, "is tremendous. Exposure of the inability of the allied forces to shield the country's urban centers, long isolated from the fighting war, has certainly made the blow even heavier." Yet other papers, like the Washington Evening Star, questioned whether the enemy gained any psychological advantage. The Communists, to be sure, said the Star, have proved that they can "attack and disrupt life in almost any city." But that was never very much in doubt, and it hardly represents a victory--"not when one considers the staggering Communist losses, not when they failed to capture and hold any major installation or locality, not when one takes into consideration such atrocities as the savage murder of the wives and children of South Vietnamese officers. If this sort of thing adds up to victory, Hanoi can have it."

Few papers counseled anything like immediate disengagement or pulling out. The time of a possible setback, it was generally assumed, is not the time to back down. While admitting that the attacks may have been a "humbling experience" for the U.S., the somewhat dovish Chicago Daily News declared that they also bore a "message" that should not be missed in the "shock over the sight of blood." The "image of the enemy" said the News, "has altered from that of one stubborn but perhaps amenable to negotiation to that of one arrogantly confident he can smash the American will to fight. President Johnson was right in saying that it is not so much our power as our will and our character that are being tested here, and character starts with a strong stomach."

While some papers were understandably absorbed with the current round of battles, others tried to put things in perspective. The Los Angeles Times conceded that the "Communists have demonstrated again an ability to penetrate supposedly secure or well-protected civilian and military areas. They have shown a skill at coordination in their attacks which only the most careful planning could have achieved. They have once more made clear their willingness to sacrifice men for political gain." Despite all this, concluded the Times, "what the Communists have done in Viet Nam this week is hardly conclusive in terms of affecting the long-range course of the conflict."

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