Hanoi Bombing

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31108, 11 July 1966, Page 12

Hanoi Bombing

Sir, —Colonel Pham Ngoc Thao, a former member of the ruling Government Advisory Council of South Vietnam, attacked the Government for supporting mass bombing. The colonel was opposed to the bombing not only on moral grounds but because it drove the survivors into the arms of the Viet Cong. Colonel Thao protested against the bombing policies of Mr McNamara, calling him “a very bad adviser for President Johnson,” because the more bombs dropped by the United States on his country, the more quickly would America “lose the confidence of Vietnam and South-east Asia.” Lieutenant-Colonel J. P. Van, a Senior American adviser in Vietnam, resigned his commission in protest against the bombing because “it was disastrous politically, and in fact was turning the U.S. Air Force into a super recruiting agent for the Viet Cong.”— Yours, etc., SETH NEWELL. July 8, 1966.

Sir,—The original theory was that the bombing of North Vietnam would prevent infiltration, but it appears to have increased it “F. W. P. F.” is suffering from a form of paranoia with regard to communism and wants everyone else to suffer from it too. I was not responsible for sending men to fight in Vietnam; nor do I praise them. I am only sorry that they were sent to fight in an unjust war. The American presence in Vietnam has prevented elections provided for under the Geneva Agreement being held, and even the greatly modified elections which General Ky has been pressed by the Buddhists into conducting, are not held in favour by the United States. What has happened to democracy?—Yours, etc., DEMOCRACY. July 8, 1966.

Sir,—U Thant’s statement that one term of his “killing job” is enough implies that the vast power of the United States makes it difficult for the United Nations to operate efficiently. With surface warships, nuclear armed submarines, and bombers deployed world-wide, an irresponsible act could render parts of the world uninhabitable. There is no nation where the doctrines of containment apply more aptly. In spite of distortion of emphasis, and not infrequently of fact, the idealogical direction of United States policy has led it into