On the Right

New York, Mar. 10—The decision of General Haig to dispatch Ambassador Lawrence Eagleburger with the documentation that El Salvador’s insurrectionists are being armed by the Soviet Union is a refreshing departure from the see-no-evil hear-no-evil practices of the preceding Administration. If the Soviet ambassador had pulled out a pistol and shot Arnaud de Borchgrave live on the Johnny Carson Show, the Andy Youngs of this world would have said it was all trompe l’oeil. Secretary Haig wants to cut out the mystifications. If the Soviet Union is training the PLO, then let’s say it: “The Soviet Union is training the PLO.

Now Soviet apologists are marvelous. Their favorite device is flat denial, almost inevitably preceded by the high effrontery, “as everybody knows . . .” as in, “as everybody knows, the Soviet Union entered Afghanistan only at the invitation of the democratic government.” The second line of defense is the drawing of eristic distinctions. For instance, “How can you hold the Soviet Union responsible for training the PLO, when in fact the PLO isn’t even being trained in the Soviet Union?” Unhappily, such ventures in sophistry grow old and fat, feeding on the public credulity. The assumption is: The people who are training the PLO aren’t Russians. But many in fact are. And it is Russians who train the people who are training the PLO. Or—-another one— “Where is the PLO getting its weapons?” If the answer to that one is “Czechoslovakia,” then the next question is: “Does Czechoslovakia sell weapons other than to nations the Soviet Union authorizes Czechoslovakia to sell weapons to?” For instance: Would Czechoslovakia sell weapons to the People’s Republic of China?

About the Author

William F. Buckley Jr.

William F. Buckley Jr. founded National Review magazine in 1955.

Featured Tags

New York, Mar. 10—The decision of General Haig to dispatch Ambassador Lawrence Eagleburger with the documentation that El Salvador’s insurrectionists are being armed by the Soviet Union is a refreshing departure from the see-no-evil hear-no-evil practices of the preceding Administration. If the Soviet ambassador had pulled out a pistol and shot Arnaud de Borchgrave live on the Johnny Carson Show, the Andy Youngs of this world would have said it was all trompe l’oeil. Secretary Haig wants to cut out the mystifications. If the Soviet Union is training the PLO, then let’s say it: “The Soviet Union is training the PLO.

Now Soviet apologists are marvelous. Their favorite device is flat denial, almost inevitably preceded by the high effrontery, “as everybody knows . . .” as in, “as everybody knows, the Soviet Union entered Afghanistan only at the invitation of the democratic government.” The second line of defense is the drawing of eristic distinctions. For instance, “How can you hold the Soviet Union responsible for training the PLO, when in fact the PLO isn’t even being trained in the Soviet Union?” Unhappily, such ventures in sophistry grow old and fat, feeding on the public credulity. The assumption is: The people who are training the PLO aren’t Russians. But many in fact are. And it is Russians who train the people who are training the PLO. Or—-another one— “Where is the PLO getting its weapons?” If the answer to that one is “Czechoslovakia,” then the next question is: “Does Czechoslovakia sell weapons other than to nations the Soviet Union authorizes Czechoslovakia to sell weapons to?” For instance: Would Czechoslovakia sell weapons to the People’s Republic of China?