In “The Situation along Route 9” [“The Week,” March 23] NR proclaimed that “as a strategy, Vietnamization seems very defective . . .” While agreeing with you, as you continue that sentence, “. . . that even a poor strategy, so long as it is fairly specific, is better than none,” I believe a good case can be made supporting Vietnamization as in fact a very good strategy.
Although the specific point of discussion here is the strategic implication of Vietnamization, and understanding of its tactical implications is essential to understanding its role in the context of world political realities. In fact the strategy is difficult to separate from its tactics in logical discourse.




Comments