AMERICA CAN WIN VIETNAM WAR IN SIX WEEKS!

Mr. Eric Butler, at present examining the North American political scene at first hand, provides the following extensive report on what a group of American military experts feel about the war in Vietnam:

Under the pressure of the challenge from Senators McCarthy and Kennedy, President Lyndon Johnson has taken what appears to be a harder line on the Vietnam War. A master politician President Johnson senses that perhaps his only way to win both the Democratic nomination and then the Presidential contest is to insist that he means to win in Vietnam. However, at the time of reporting, there is no evidence that President Johnson proposes to do the things which most American military experts are agreed must be done to achieve genuine victory.

A recent survey of the views of these American military experts reveals that they all agree that the number one priority is to blockade the North Vietnamese Port of Haiphong. This survey was undertaken by the monthly magazine Science and Mechanics, and a long report appeared in the March 1968 issue of that journal.
General Nathan F. Twining, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, states "either we should hit the North of Vietnam with everything we've got, bring them to their knees fast, or get out. My own opinion is that we should declare a state of war and invade the North. Then we could legally blockade the Harbor of Haiphong - and sink any shipping that attempts to violate the blockade. Running the blockade would be a tacit act of war against us - and the Russians as well as Red China and any other nation supplying the North well know this."

General Twining is not concerned at all about the threat of Red China coming into the war. He is worried that the longer the war goes on, the longer the time available to the Communists to build up their strength." General Twining is satisfied that the Vietnam War can be won within a matter of months.
Admiral Arleigh A. Burke, the only man to hold the position of Chief of Naval Operations for three successive terms, a member of the UN Truce Delegation which negotiated with the Communists in Korea, and at present Director for the Centre of Strategic Studies at the Georgetown University, warns, "At no time in the entire history of warfare has a war been won through minor escalations. Yet this is what we are doing in Vietnam…So the enemy must feel that he can hold out…At the present rate of minor escalation of the war, we'll be in Vietnam for another five or six years - or more."
In answer to the question about the possibility of the Soviet and Red China entering the war if America and allies applied to their total military strength against North Vietnam, Admiral Burke said, "Our Navy and Air Force could strike and destroy vital targets anywhere inside the great Chinese land mass…As for the USSR, their logistics would be formidable…
Asked how long it would take him to win in Vietnam. Admiral Burke said, " . . .considering the time required to mobilise and deploy the required forces, I would guess at from eight weeks to three months."

General George H. Decker, a former Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army said in answer to the question, "What can we do that we are not doing now, to win the war in Vietnam fast?" replied "Invade the North and blockade the Port of Haiphong. "
General Decker stressed that, "We do not have to fire shots to blockade. We merely tell the Soviet Union, Red China, Britain - whatever nation is delivering supplies to Hanoi - to keep their ships out of the area, if they do not want them damaged or sunk. This would be an effective deterrent. We have to be credible. Because of our present position of weakness, neither Hanoi, nor the Soviet Union, nor Red China believes us. They do not believe that we are determined to win."
General Decker's summary was that "We have never won the war in Korea - because of our methods. We are not winning in Vietnam for the same reason"

Air Force General Thomas S. Power, former Commander-in-Chief of the Strategic Air Command, said the first thing to be done to end the war in Vietnam was to close the Port of Haiphong. He also said that, "The worst thing you can do in a war is to fight it piecemeal - because then you encourage the enemy to keep going."

Air Force General Frederic H. Smith, Jr. former Vice Chief of the Air Staff warned "The war could continue for years if it is continued on at the present rate. " General Smith advocates choking Haiphong, bombing all targets inside North Vietnam, including the dykes and canals, and then dealing with the Viet Cong in the South. General Smith believes the war could be won in a short time, "three months - maybe less."

A military leader of wide experience, Lt. General Ira C. Eaker, a former Vice Chief of the Air Staff, stated that "Without question, Ho Chi Minh is encouraged to continue his efforts against us by the Vietnam war critics in this country... a few of our people give aid and comfort to the enemy appears to be the price we pay for fighting an undeclared war." General Eaker also urges closing the Port of Haiphong as the first step towards winning.

Lt.-General Arthur G. Trudeau, former Army Chief of Research and Development dismisses the risk of full-scale war with the Soviet Union and Red China if America blockaded Haiphong and invaded North Vietnam.

Air Force Major-General Gilbert L. Meyers, one of those directing the war in Vietnam until just over a year ago, is bitterly critical of the manner in which the Vietnam War is being conducted. He said, "What we are doing now violates every principle of warfare that we in the military have ever known. You can't win wars necessarily by killing people. You've got to overwhelm the enemy. And when you overwhelm him, you kill fewer people than you do by picking at him day after day…Westmoreland and the Army people certainly feel the same way about this as I do."

Brigadier-General Henry C. Huglin, a top specialist in strategic warfare, endorsed the views of all those mentioned in this report.

As the military experts are in agreement that the war in Vietnam can be won in a relatively short time by effectively cutting the Communist enemy's main supply lines, and by hitting all his main targets, large numbers of people are repeating dangerous propaganda by insisting that "The war in Vietnam cannot be won." It cannot be won while the military are not permitted to win.
Senators McCarthy and Kennedy may not know it, but they are Ho Chi Minh's greatest allies inside the United States at the present time.

PRESS SPECULATION ON VIETNAM POLICY

"The Prime Minister. Mr. Gorton said yesterday that, if there were great changes in U.S. involvement in Vietnam, Australia would be forced to accept them. - The Australian, March 26.

Since Mr. Butler forwarded his report the above statement by the Prime Minister associated with speculations by reporters in Saigon take the transfer to Washington of General Westmoreland as a portent that there is to be a radical change in Vietnam policy. If it is so we should know shortly whether policies of retreat and treason are to be replaced by those of strength and honesty. We would feel more confident had Mr. Gorton accompanied his statement with the assertion that our Government was doing everything within its power to influence the Americans to adopt a positive win policy.

SPIRITUAL DEATH

"A group of Australian church leaders said recently they would rather see a Communist take-over in South Vietnam than a continuation of the present fighting and killing. " - Kaniva Times, March 19.

The "leaders" referred to above comprise the executive committee of the Australian branch of the International Committee of Conscience on Vietnam, and comprises the Rev. A. Walker (Methodist) Archbishop C. Appleton and Rev. C.H. Norman, Rev. E.L. Williams (Church of Christ, Vic.), Rev. E. Miller (Presbyterian), and Father C. Bowers (Roman Catholic).

Communism teaches and practices that man is mere flesh without divine origin. In pursuit of the society erected on such a concept they have massacred over 90,000,000 people in this century and enslaved another 11,000,000,000.
In advocating policies which seek salvation of the body in exchange for the soul, the persons posing as ministers of Christ's flock are no more than the wolves in sheep's clothing Christ warned us about. Their voice should not be heard unless it also cries out for the release of those millions who are now no more than the repressed victims of the most vicious tyranny devised for man.

CHINA CRACKS THE TRADE WHIP

"Communist China is holding a $100 million whip over Japan." Frank Devine reporting from Tokyo in The Herald, Melbourne, March 13.

Mr. Devine was reporting on the outcome of trade talks between Japan and Communist China for 1968. He commented, "Politics came first and business second so far as the Chinese were concerned." The main purpose of the Chinese was to jolt Japan off its present pro-western path. The Japanese were forced to accept three precepts.
(1) That Japan will not act in a manner hostile to Communist China.
(2) Japan will not join in a plot to create two Chinas.
(3) The Japanese Government will not obstruct the establishment of normal (diplomatic) relations between Japan and China.

Once again the Communists are exploiting the weapon of economic determinism to gain political advantage. Under existing economic rules Japan is forced to rely on exports to maintain economic health. Recent statements by Mr. McEwen that the Australian motorcar industry is reaching absorption point so far as Japanese imports are concerned will be music to the ears of the Chinese Communists. All of Japan's friends have high industrial economies and like Japan seek to export. The huge Chinese market offers the salvation Japan seeks to feed her increasing economic output. The Communists will ensure not only their political advantage, but rather than alleviate the wants of the Chinese people, trade will be used to build up the war machine. Such is basic Lenin doctrine.

It is more than time Western nations realised that international trade should consist of genuine surplus production and not as an end in itself. The guidelines are set our in the London Chamber of Commerce report on International Trade available for 15 cents ea. posted from P.O. Box 1226L, Melbourne, 3001.

HYPOCRICY FROM SOUTH AFRICA'S CRITICS

"Non-whites are denied the elementary political, social and economic rights." - Letter to The Herald, Melbourne, March 20. Signatories Professor Sir John Crawford, Bishop Housden of Newcastle; Professor James McAuley, Edward St. John Q.C.A.M.P; Kiley Tennant; Patrick White; Gough Whitlam Q.C., M.P. Judith Wright.

The above extract from a letter written on behalf of the South Africa Defence and Aid Fund in Australia, marks somewhat of an advance in front techniques by the revolutionary apparatus seeking the destruction of South Africa. James McAuley has at least always been aligned to the Western position in Vietnam. The names of Sir John Crawford and Bishop Housden lend that respectability which is sought to advance otherwise ulterior causes, pursued by politicians St. John and Whitlam for the purpose of enhancing their fundamental political philosophy of one world government. While the leftist's position is well understood, those with a claim to objectiveness could well look to the assessment of men like Sir Alec Douglas-Hume, former British Prime Minister, and Sir Mahammad Zafrulla Khan, a prominent Pakistani statesman and judge of the International Court of Justice. Both men went to South Africa recently and returned with praise for South Africa's policies.
Sir Mahammad displayed an honesty the above critics could well emulate when he said, "I come here with certain preconceived opinions but I am constantly having to adjust my views as I come into first-hand contact with the people. "
He evidently consulted other than those on the intellectual left.