On the Right

New York, March 9—What does Senator Javits want? Or for that matter Senator Saxbe, let alone all the Democratic senators who are pounding away at Nixon because the South Vietnamese incursion into Laos is not being greeted by little girls strewing roses, and the surrender of the entire North Vietnamese army? Senator Javits is saying that if all United States forces aren’t out of South Vietnam by the middle of 1972, Richard Nixon will lose the election. That is at once a prediction and a threat. As a prediction, it can be put alongside Javits’ prediction in 1963 that Goldwater would not be nominated in 1964, and his prediction in 1966 that Richard Nixon would not be nominated in 1968. As a threat, it would appear that Javits et al. are asking far too many questions, and that the time has come to ask Javits some questions.

Question Number One. Does Senator Javits recommend the liquidation of the SEATO Treaty? That is the treaty that calls on the United States to give aid to the signatory nations in the event of armed aggression by another nation. It was extended, by codicil, to South Vietnam. Now Mr. Nixon’s Vietnamization plan turned the United States in the proper direction, by specifying that aid should be, primarily, in the form of matériel, not American fighting men. But one cannot go from A to Z without passing through the alphabet. Mr. Nixon has met every deadline he promised in reducing the size of American troop involvement. But to commit himself to withdrawing all American troops means very simply to commit himself to undermining the SEATO Treaty. Because realistic aid cannot be given to South Vietnam, or to Cambodia, or Laos, or Thailand without the use of military personnel, for instance, to fly the airplanes, maintain the trucks and transport the troops. If Senator Javits means that no Americans should be left in South Vietnam after the summer of 1972, then he is saying that we should unilaterally rescind the SEATO Treaty. If that is what he means to say, let him say it. And let him, and the world, meditate the consequences of saying it. Senator Javits is precisely engaged in substantiating the doubts of Europeans—and of Israelis—who believe that the United States will not, in the crunch, discharge its obligations. Let all the leaders in Asia, and in Europe, and in the Middle East, unite in their distrust of American commitments, and we shall have the international chaos, followed by the gradual satellization of the free world, that Senator Javits is unlikely to associate himself with the causes of. And yet, as we have all been taught, who says A, must say B.

About the Author

William F. Buckley Jr.

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

Featured Tags

Manage following

William F. Buckley Jr.

New York, March 9—What does Senator Javits want? Or for that matter Senator Saxbe, let alone all the Democratic senators who are pounding away at Nixon because the South Vietnamese incursion into Laos is not being greeted by little girls strewing roses, and the surrender of the entire North Vietnamese army? Senator Javits is saying that if all United States forces aren’t out of South Vietnam by the middle of 1972, Richard Nixon will lose the election. That is at once a prediction and a threat. As a prediction, it can be put alongside Javits’ prediction in 1963 that Goldwater would not be nominated in 1964, and his prediction in 1966 that Richard Nixon would not be nominated in 1968. As a threat, it would appear that Javits et al. are asking far too many questions, and that the time has come to ask Javits some questions.

Question Number One. Does Senator Javits recommend the liquidation of the SEATO Treaty? That is the treaty that calls on the United States to give aid to the signatory nations in the event of armed aggression by another nation. It was extended, by codicil, to South Vietnam. Now Mr. Nixon’s Vietnamization plan turned the United States in the proper direction, by specifying that aid should be, primarily, in the form of matériel, not American fighting men. But one cannot go from A to Z without passing through the alphabet. Mr. Nixon has met every deadline he promised in reducing the size of American troop involvement. But to commit himself to withdrawing all American troops means very simply to commit himself to undermining the SEATO Treaty. Because realistic aid cannot be given to South Vietnam, or to Cambodia, or Laos, or Thailand without the use of military personnel, for instance, to fly the airplanes, maintain the trucks and transport the troops. If Senator Javits means that no Americans should be left in South Vietnam after the summer of 1972, then he is saying that we should unilaterally rescind the SEATO Treaty. If that is what he means to say, let him say it. And let him, and the world, meditate the consequences of saying it. Senator Javits is precisely engaged in substantiating the doubts of Europeans—and of Israelis—who believe that the United States will not, in the crunch, discharge its obligations. Let all the leaders in Asia, and in Europe, and in the Middle East, unite in their distrust of American commitments, and we shall have the international chaos, followed by the gradual satellization of the free world, that Senator Javits is unlikely to associate himself with the causes of. And yet, as we have all been taught, who says A, must say B.