A top U.S. general who signed the Korean truce gives his views on a controversial question
Is the United States right in bombing North Viet Nam? In the following discussion of this current controversy, no mention will be made of the pros and cons of pacifism, since the discussion would be irrelevant if pacifism were the norm. Neither will an opinion be expressed of the propriety of American military intervention in the conflict. Suffice it to say that successive presidents of the United States, both Democratic and Republican, have decided that, for the security of the United States and of the so-called free world, resisting the Communists’ military effort to take over South Viet Nam is necessary. And it is evident that the American public as a whole supports this policy.
Many people think that the purpose of bombing cities is to terrorize the civilians, causing them to surrender. This is not so. Experience shows instead that bombings infuriate the people and increase their will to fight. Neither are bombs intended to overcome ideological Communism; ideas cannot be destroyed militarily.
What then is the purpose of bombing? It is part of the total effort to defeat decisively the military aggression of the Communists in South Viet Nam. Once an aggressor has committed himself to conquering by armed warfare, he has abandoned intentions of negotiating a settlement, at least until his military effort has proved a failure. Under these circumstances, for the other side to seek to negotiate will be futile; indeed, taken as a sign of unwillingness to fight, it will only encourage the aggressor to strive harder for military victory. That the constantly expressed desire of the United States to negotiate is answered with immediate scorn by the Communists is clear evidence of this.
Having accepted the challenge, the United States is faced with the alternatives of defeating the aggressor by military effort or of failing to do so. The latter would entail national humiliation, loss of prestige and influence in the world, and desertion of the South Vietnamese, who have every right to expect our full support and will be lost without it. It is probable that all of Southeast Asia would then fall to Communist military control. The worst effect, however, would very likely be the effect on the American people. This weakening of the moral fiber would bode ill for the future.
Wars are fought by men with weapons that can destroy life and property. Victory comes when one side destroys the other’s weapons and men faster than it loses its own, thus assuring the ultimate total destruction of its enemy’s forces if the conflict is continued. The greater the applied superiority, the quicker and cheaper the victory. A major factor in superiority is numerical strength, both initially and in the replacement of losses. Another is the ability to employ the forces when and where desired. It follows that proper targets for attack include not only the men and weapons in actual combat but also anything necessary to their number, movement, and employment, such as raw materials, factories, power plants, hydroelectric dams, railroads, highways, bridges, harbors, storage facilities, communications, command posts, and government installations. The amount of damage to such targets reduces by that much the physical capability of the related combat forces to fight effectively, and might therefore determine victory or defeat. A government that fails to attack such targets not only reduces its chance of victory but also greatly increases loss of life and suffering among its own men.
Can bombing really be effective in North Viet Nam, an agricultural country with few industries? Some argue that the farmers harvest their crops, travel at night, and either repair the roads and bridges or use ferries or boat bridges. Life goes on, though hindered and inconvenienced, it is said, and hatred of the Americans increases. Such an argument overlooks the fact that the purpose of the bombing is not to destroy the people or their farms or even their cities, but to cause the greatest handicap possible to their ability to maintain an effective fighting army in South Viet Nam. The fewer the significant targets in North Viet Nam, the easier it is to knock them out temporarily or permanently. All destruction causes some reduction of the war effort.
The Korean War affords a good example of this. Bombing of the Communists in North Korea prevented them from maintaining enough of a resupply of munitions to take advantage of their numerical superiority in manpower, and made possible their repulse. Had bombing been permitted in Manchuria, the Chinese would, in the opinion of this writer, have been driven out of Korea and the country unified under democratic procedures.
Unfortunately, many non-military writers and speakers seem to have a serious misconception of the purpose of bombing. Assuming the incorrect purpose, they assess the results accordingly: they decide that the attacks are futile and result only in useless loss of life and property, adding to the horrors of war and making the achievement of peace more difficult. With or without bombing, war is horrible; but an aggressor must either be fought or allowed to wreak his wrath on his victim. If he is fought, there is no substitute for victory. The maximum war effort against him should be undertaken from the beginning in order to make victory certain, and that most quickly and cheaply for all.
Since the immediate bombing of North Vietnamese military targets is a military necessity, the decision to avoid it would have to be based on overriding moral or political considerations. If such reasons exist, it follows logically that it might be better not to continue any military intervention at all, because the chance of success is lessened and the cost in American lives and resources will be greatly increased.
The strictly military targets and industrial and other facilities must be located near the labor market—that is, near population centers, as is evident in cities everywhere. Where the worker lives, there his family is also. Around them are all the stores, utilities, and other services that make up any civilian community. Certainly there is no need to attack these areas; they are not producing munitions or firing weapons. Unfortunately, however, under the conditions that prevail in bombing raids the destructive effect of blast and fire spreads far beyond the actual targets. And the more powerful the bomb, the greater and more widespread will be the damage. No one has been able to find a way to hit the targets without causing serious harm to non-combatants in the general locality. Now the basic reason such persons are endangered is that their government, in precipitating the tear, actually exposes them to its destructive effect. It and they accept this risk. Were one side to refrain from bombing in order to avoid hitting non-combatants, the other might win the war by crowding the women and children in and around the military targets.
The preceding paragraph states that the people accept the risk of being bombed when their country goes to war. Some may challenge this on the grounds that it is the government, not the people, that makes the decision. Yet the mass of the people must share the responsibility for engaging in war and risking the consequences. The chief of state does make the decision, but that decision could have no meaning without the active or passive support of the population. As the international situation grows more dangerous, a reversal of policy tends to appear as a public surrender, a step that reinforces the general public in support of its government. Once war begins, public support increases. Whether or not a government deceives its people about policies and war, the people almost always support it.
The nation, not merely the armed forces, goes to war. As for responsibility, there is no way to separate the population from the ruler. Government is essential, but government implies obedience. It is a historical fact that the people can overthrow their government. It follows that the nation as a whole supports the war its government initiates. Accordingly, all alike share the responsibility and in so doing expose themselves and their children to enemy bombs.
Much of the opposition to bombing North Vietnamese military targets appears to arise from the fear of Communist China’s intervention, as in Korea. If this did occur, it would expose China to bombing and destruction against which it could neither defend itself nor effectively retaliate. Bombing of North Viet Nam is a warning to the Communist Chinese of action that would be very dangerous to them, and therefore is a deterrent rather than an incitement to intervention. The Chinese might intervene in order to prevent an American victory in Viet Nam, as happened in Korea, whether or not North Viet Nam were bombed. When the United States committed itself to seek victory, it accepted this risk; it can hardly back down now.
The whole problem of the war in Viet Nam is complicated by the sincere but erroneous idea that mankind can in some way bring peace to the world. Men who are willing to resort to military aggression and crime to gain their ends are for peace only on their own terms or when under external compulsion. No one has found a way to prevent such men from becoming heads of states. Their victims, having no alternatives but to fight or to surrender, usually fight, if victory seems reasonably probable. This is the age-old course of history.
What men overlook is that there can be no peace until the Prince of Peace comes at the Second Advent. As a revelation of his wrath over human rebellion against himself, God has given men up to those moral evils that cause war and the other troubles of society (Rom. 1:18–32). Apart from God’s intervention there can be no lasting peace. Wars will continue until man’s rebellion runs its full course, terminating in the wars of the great tribulation at the end of this age. Only the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, as so often foretold in the Bible, will end the rebellion and bring an age of peace and prosperity (Matt. 24; Isa. 2:1–5).
In the meantime, Christians who do not subscribe to pacifism can only look to God in faith for guidance and wisdom for their government and for themselves, that they may follow a path of integrity and justice, seeking-peace but not afraid to fight if necessary, and withal not hating their enemies.
