November 28, 1973

Early-Vietnam Psychology Invitation to a New War

What worries me about the Mideast situation is its encouragement of an early-Vietnam psychology in the United States.

In our desire to promote peace and-or renew the flow of oil from Arab countries, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger talks about a "guarantee" by the U.S. of Israeli independence.  This in return for a pull-back of Israel to the tight boundaries of the Jewish nation prior to the Six-Day War of 1967.

A trial balloon has been lofted suggesting a formal treaty of "mutual support" between the U.S. and Israel.  So far, no one has tried to shoot it down.

I am immensely surprised that the pacificists who rioted in the streets against U.S. help of South Vietnam and Cambodia have not said word one about our proposed military involvement with Israel.

Shortly after World War II, President Harry Truman undertook to defend the entire free world against rampant Communism.  Foundation for this ambitious "Truman Doctrine" was the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the South East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO).

A signatory to the SEATO treaty was France who immediately invoked its mutual defense clause.  Truman began the shipment of equipment and advisors to Vietnam, then a French colony.  President Eisenhower continued limited support of Vietnam and extended the SEATO treaty to South Vietnam when that entity was recognized as legal successor to France.

History has yet to render its verdict of the wisdom of our signing a military defense pact with other nations scattered around the globe.

However, five presidents continued our involvement so the reasons for it were patently important.  There is no question that we bought precious time for the Communist giants to fall out among themselves and for the free nations to rebuild war-ravaged economies.

The significance of all this in 1973 - a quarter century after our participation in a mutual defense pact - is that we fought a long and unpopular war trying to guarantee some one else's freedom.

It was a noble effort.

But are we ready so soon to do it again?  I think not.

The troops in the Mideast have now been resupplied with arms - Egypt and Syria by Russia, Israel by the U.S.

Both sides are still full of fight.  Israel is determined to keep a buffer zone between her and the Arab armies which repeatedly have attacked her.  The Arabs are equally determined to win back the land they lost in their ill-advised aggressions.

This is a tough dispute to arbitrate.  Both are right and both are wrong.  Historically it has been might that makes right, and perhaps this is the only long term solution here.

Yet, a dangerous ingredient has been injected into what otherwise might be confined to a "Brush War" - oil!

In their frustration, the Arab states are attempting economic blackmail against Israel's friends - principally the United States.

Unfortunately for the Arabs - and the peace of the World - The United States has sufficient energy reserves to carry on with just some belt-tightening.

The European nations, however, are not so well situated.  Without oil their economies will collapse, and 80 percent of their oil comes from the Arab states.

Moral principles against war mean little when survival is at stake.  Throughout history wars begin when vital resources are not available through peaceful commerce.

Europe has always been trigger-happy because of critical shortages within its small nations.

The withholding of Arab oil is an open invitation to war.

When the winter chill creeps into European homes, and employment dries up as factories grind to a halt, a war of relief against the Arabs will take on the character of a holy crusade.

In this event, it is not likely that Russia will sit by and allow the Arab oil to fall into unfriendly hands.  And President Richard Nixon has made it abundantly clear by his swift mobilization of U.S. military forces last month that the U.S. will not tolerate Russian intervention.

The ingredients for a third World War are dumped into Mars' crucible.  One little stir and we may face Armageddon.

Israel is the child of the United Nations - unlike SEATO which was the creation of a few interested countries.

As such, it is beholden upon the UN to resolve the limited interests of the Arabs and Israelis lest they drag in unnecessarily the vital interests of more powerful neighbors.

Israel says she wants to live in peace within the area assigned to her by the UN.  Egypt says it wants only justice for the Palestinians displaced by the UN award of land to the Jews.

Let the UN take these avowed aims at face value.

Let the middle powers of Europe - who have a vital stake in Mideast peace - guarantee Israeli safety under UN supervision.

Let the super powers of U.S. and Russia - who have an awesome responsibility for peace - finance resettlement of the Palestinians under UN supervision.

Above all, let us quench the psychology that the only solution to world peace is another U.S. treaty.

If the UN is ever to work, it must work now.  It can because it must.

Author: Lindsey Williams