KANSAN COMMENT If, in the end...
"I know I did what I believe was right," President Nixon told reporters after a briefing session on Cambodia Friday morning. "What really matters," he said, "is if it turns out all right."
President Nixon may someday be able to say that his ordering American ground troops into Cambodia turned out "all right." In fact, it is almost certain that he will. Nixon's predecessor for years held that things in South Vietnam were rosy for the United States, that all our tunnels had light at the end of them.
On into those tunnels we marched, 500,000 strong, while a specter raced farther ahead carrying a lantern, for which we groped. But that light was not what we wanted anyway and even it eluded us.
Now American troops will sweep those Cambodian geographical protrusions called the "fishhook" and the "parrot's beak." They will evict the enemy with the U.S.' unmatched armed might; the President will turn to us and say that the situation is "all right."
But it won't be. Because we will have to leave troops there to prevent the areas from being recaptured and we will have to move troops deeper into the nation to prevent the capital city and the government of Premier Lon Nol from being overrun.
Years will pass and someone will notice that we are back where we started, bogged down in an Asia land war and supporting a corrupt and inefficient government. And lest we hear the crash of dominoes around our positions, we must, of course, extend ourselves to protect those other states and our own soldiers in their evacuation of Cambodia.
It is not an unlikely scenario, because the dominoes are falling. They are falling the other
way, though, under U.S. impetus. First Vietnam then Laos, then Cambodia. It's strange to hear the old story reversed.
In the United States, students read and hear of the President's moves. Where, they ask, did our "low profile" policy go? How can the President be working within his ballyhooed "system" or the spirit of it when he blithely slides around the Senate and continues on his way?
Tensions rise, violence erupts and, as the President says, tragedy results. In Kent, Ohio, the tragedy was that of Allison Krause, Sandy Scheuer, Jeffrey Miller and William Schneider, who died in the midst of a set-to between outraged Kent State University students and the National Guard.
Students elsewhere may wish to return the violence. Such acts are inexcusable if they are intended to lash out at the President to even the score. The argument that "I may be one, but you're another," is still fallacious.
The President will have that rejoinder ready and it is a valid one. But the fact that it was his own arbitrary decision to extend our war effort to other parts of Indochina makes him nonetheless guilty of inflaming the passions whose directions are unknowable.
More students may die; more soldiers will certainly die. Unless, of course, Nixon heeds the wise counsel of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the moderate voices in his party and among the Democrats, and the inevitably increasing plains of the citizenry.
Retreat too, can be honorable. To retreat now from his involvement in Cambodia would be one of the most honorable things Nixon has ever done. Only then would the situation turn out truly "all right."
—Monroe Dodd
hearing voices一
To the editor:
Today (April 29) I just heard that the U.S. is going to send "air support and logistics assistance" to Cambodia to support South Vietnamese military actions there. But will American support stop merely at "air support and logistics assistance" or will it escalate into a second Vietnam with thousands of Americans as well as civilians dying needlessly?
Until now my views on South Asia had supported the side of the military, namely that we were protecting the South Vietnamese from the northern aggressor and even though we committed a few atrocities, the V.C. committed many more so it was all right for us to bomb and napalm anyone who "might" be a V.C. But now the U.S. has chosen to help escalate the war into the neighboring country. To me, this seems to be a direct contradiction of President Nixon's policy of "Vietnamizing the war." How many years from now will we find out that American "advisers" have been on combat duty in Cambodia? Will we be lied to about America's involvement in Cambodia like we were misled with regard to our involvement in Vietnam? I pray to God that we will not. Personally, I love this country and what it stands for—peace, freedom, hope, brotherhood—too much to see its ideals abused by a group of politicians, or a group of military men, or a group of business men with economic interests in Southeast Asia.
So let me be one of the first to say, "GET OUT OF CAMBODIA."
Mark Wendleton Kansas City senior
To the editor:
★ ★ ★
I am getting pretty sick and tired of our President supporting those brave young men in Southeast Asia. I have yet to meet one of those brave young veterans who liked what he did over there. I support our men in Vietnam too; I say BRING THEM HOME.
Steve Nafus Tonganoxie senior
'We'll make certain this can never become an environmental disaster.'
Others on issues
This column is made available periodically for campus leaders to discuss current issues.
By DAVE MILLER
(Editor's note—Miller is a former Treasurer of the Student Senate.)
On April 30, one day after the 1970-71 Student Senate had been sworn in, the Lawrence Daily Journal World reported that the 1969-70 Student Senate Executive Committee (StudEx) had recommended that student fees be used to help finance Wescoe Hall. This recommendation contradicted the students' April 7 vote against the use of fees for academic buildings (2,075 to 649), and contradicted the students' vote against the use of fees for Wescoe Hall (1,886 to 828).
The article said the April 7 vote against fee use for the hall was "interpreted as not binding, because procedures for petitioning for a referendum were not fully complied with." The article also said this recommendation to the Chancellor would be used as the basis for a similar recommendation to the Board of Regents.
The vote interpretation by StudEx as "not binding" is in direct contradiction of the elections committee. The decision of the elections committee (as a legal and valid referendum) was upheld by the Student Court. (It is interesting to note that pending Senate legislation now seeks to control the jurisdiction of the Student Court subject to either the Student Senate or the University Senate. Why should the faculty-dominated University Senate be able to control a student judicial body?)
This action by StudEx raises some serious questions;
How much power should this committee have? This committee can act in emergency situations for the Student Senate. But isn't it possible for it to decide that any situation is an emergency and make decisions it desires? Consider for a moment the possible membership on this powerful committee. Three members of the executive committee are the three students on the University Senate Executive Committee. These three (of seven) are not chosen by the Student Senate, for whom they act, but by the University Council. Moreover, these three can be the same three held over from the previous Student Senate. It is, therefore, possible that 3 of 7 members of this powerful committee will be responsible to no one except themselves!
- What about lame-duck committees? Shouldn't the new Executive Committee, if any Executive Committee, render a decision on this issue?
- The Journal World article says StudEx decided to accept the vote on the Hospital and the Satellite Union. It seems obvious that the decisions of the student body are okay if they go along with the opinions of the Student Senate Executive Committee. But if student votes differ, they must not be accepted. This is sad indeed.
The Executive Committee could have used its power to uphold a student body vote. But it didn't.
In the spring elections, the Alliance party issued a position paper on student fees. In that paper they called for student votes on fee uses for buildings. Following that election, on April 7, the students voted against the $7.50 fee increase for the humanities building. It now remains to be seen if the Senate, and the Alliance in particular, does anything to respect that vote.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN An All-American college newspaper
Kansas Telephone Numbers
Newsroom—UN 4-3464 Business Office—UN 4-4358
Published at the University of Kansas daily during the academic year except holidays and examination periods. Mail subscription rates: $6 a semester, $10 a year. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kan. 66044. Accommodations, goods, services and employment advertised offered to all students without regard to color, creed or national origin. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of Kansas or the State Board of Regents.
Member Associated Collegiate Press
REPRESENTED FOR NATIONAL ADVERTISING BY
National Educational Advertising Services
A DIVISION OF
READER'S DIGEST SALES & SERVICES, ING.
360 Lexington Ave., New York, N.Y. 10017