-Commentaries
POWs once bombed with impunity
By GUIDO PALANDRI
Editor’s note: Paiandri is assistant head
of the catalog department in the
University library.
Although Operation Homecoming is
winding down, the Pentagon’s repatriation
spectacular will not end until the media
have exhibited the last POW celebrating
his first Mothers Day (Fourth of July,
Christmas, National Spanish Green Olive
Week, etc.) in the bosom of his family back
in the Land of the Free.
The Pentagon staged its first showing of
the operation with the assistance of eighty
Public Information Officers (PR men);
similar crews of opinion manipulators
were doubtlessly on hand during sub
sequent performances
Following identical scripts
Hie many pro-Administration com
mercials turned out by the Pentagon ad
men have followed nearly identical
scripts. Viewers of the six o’clock news
saw exuberant crowds greet arriving
POWs who saluted smartly, embraced
radiant wives, tearfully grateful mothers
and freshly scrubbed children, and then
delivered similar (coached) statements of
gratitude to their Commander-In-Chief, to
country, and to God.
Perhaps better than expected, the
spectacle has lived up to the government’s
expectations: the stirring up of patriotic
fervor and flag-waving emotionalism.
These are the only heroes we’ve got, and
the Nixon Administration intends to ex
ploit them to the fullest. (Nixon gave the
cold shoulder to those few POWs who
spoke out for peace while imprisoned; the
crowds received them with a stony
silence.)
Bombing with impunity
And what had these repatriates done to
merit a hero’s welcome? What were they
engaged in — with impunity they felt —
when they were inconsiderately shot from
the sky by those they were attempting to
liquidate? They were, many of them,
carrying out “surgical” air strikes from
50.000 feet, dropping bombs on schools,
hospitals, hamlets and similar military
targets. Others took part in the bombing of
Laos. The intensive bombing of that
country was so brutal and murderous that
by September of 1969 American fly-guy
hero types had destroyed the society and
culture of the Plain of Jars. Most Laotians
of that area who were not killed by the
United States Air Force, or who did not
join the Pathet Lao were herded into
“refugee” camps by American-supported
Meo tribesmen.
Contrary to the beliefs of most
Americans, premeditated terror bombing
of the rural areas of Vietnam and Laos was
standard operating procedure from the
very beginning of American escalation in
1965. Early in that year, social scientists at
the Rand Corporation — a Pentagon para
university staffed in large part by co
op table professors from less rewarding
academic posts — became
collaborationists in American war crimes
against the Vietnamese.
At the request of the Pentagon they
produced a study that drew a most
ingenious conclusion: since current levels
of U.S. bombing of villages was already
being effectively exploited by Viet Cong
propagandists, the escalation of this
bombing would not be likely to increase
significantly Vietnamese hostility towards
the Americans and the South Vietnamese
government. 1105 scholarly document
gave a virtual go-ahead to American
scorched earth policy in South Vietnam.
Lengthy secret stndy
In the summer of 1966 a lengthy secret
study of this massive bombing was done
for the U.S. Embassy and military
headquarters in Saigon. Why this study
was requested is not clear, but it con
firmed that not only was indiscriminate
bombing killing innocent civilians; it also
found that it was creating hundreds of
thousands of refugees and driving them
into urban slums and squalid refugee
centers.
The study recommended among other
things that the practice of indiscriminate
bombing be carefully re-examined,
perhaps in the unrealistic hope that the
American military would order it stopped.
The proposal was vetoed at the highest
levels of American authority in Saigon.
And why not? The study had provided
justification for continuing the massive
bombing; it was working better than
expected.
The United States Air Force was
reversing Mao’s axiom: it was drying up
(killing) the sea (peasantry) from which
the guerrillas drew sustenance.
Questionable ends justified immoral
means. American air power had become a
weapon of terror.
Much of this information was made
public early in the war by concerned
scholars and the press of the Left. But
Americans were not outraged. Most chose
to believe that the death of innocent mm,
women and children was a tragic but
inevitable side effect of any war. Others,
like good Germans, were afraid to ask
themselves the overwhelming question;
they could not bear the reality of the made
in-USA Auschwitzes and Mauthausens that
had been fashioned in their name.
Part of American tradition
But Vietnam has been part of American
tradition from the beginning. Like the
murder of twenty-two South Vietnamese at
My Lai by another American hero, Lt.
William Laws Calley, Jr., the mass
murder of countless thousands of civilians
in North and South Vietnam and in Laos by
American pilots, navigators and bom
bardiers was no hideous exception. (Of his
own war crimes Lt. Calley said, “It was no
big deal.”).
These are discovered instances of a
continuing pattern that has been part of
the “American way” since the first set
tlers massacred the first Native
Americans. From Wounded Knee to
Dresden, Hiroshima, My Lai and the Plain
of Jars it has been the same story of
deliberate violence.
None of the defendants at the Nurem
berg trials were convicted of crimes
connected with the bombing of civilians;
victors and vanquished were equally
guilty. If Nuremberg was silent an the
problem of terror bombing, the unspoken
question was certainly raised there. In
legal terms it is still unanswered. Set in a
moral framework, the same question can
be answered by each of us as we watch the
reruns of the heroes’ return.
Selecting the Emerald editor
By DAVID SON.NENFELD
Editor’s note: SonnenfeW is a member
of the Oregon Daily Emerald Board of
Directors.
. Students and other people interested in
how the editor of the Emerald comes to be
in her or his position should note that the
selection process has now begun.
The editor of the Emerald is selected in
April to serve from May until the next
May. Those making the selection are the
members of the Board of Directors of the
Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing
Company, Inc., the “parent” company of
the Emerald.
Three Board members are students
appointed annually by the ASUO
president; three board members are
faculty persons, serving staggered three
year terms, and appointed by the
University President; and three board
members are Emerald staff people, one
being the editor (ex officio), and the other
two being elected from the news and
production-advertising-business staffs,
respectively.
Any student registered for at least six
credit hours at the University may apply
for the position.
I believe (as one member of the Board,
only) that the Board does, however, have
certain biases in terms of the kind of
people that they will appoint as editor.
(Before going any further, I must note
that a majority of Board members will not
admit that they have biases — they are
afraid that people will hear of these biases
and attempt to conform to them.)
Certainly there is not unanimity of
biases on the Board. I think, though, that it
is fair to say that two biases held by many
(if not most) Board members are (a) that
an editor should have worked for a con
siderable (at least two or three months)
amount of time on the Emerald, and (b)
that an editor should be a person who could
“stand to learn a lot” in the position — ie.
highly qualified, near-professional ap
plicants may not cut the salt.
I would posit, also, that a majority of
Board members are not believers in af
firmative action — most Board members
will do absolutely nothing to give, have
made no attempt to seek out, to actively
encourage, or to work with women and
minority people who might possibly be
interested in applying for editor. Indeed,
some Board members may be biased
against aggressive and competent women
and minority people.
As for my own biases, I must say that I
am steadfastly biased for (a) minority
people, and (b) women (in that order) and
against Anglo males. I also bold strong
ideological convictions and am biased
toward people of like convictions.
Realizing that there probably is no one
meeting this description, the “ideal”
editor, as far as I am concerned, would be
a minority person and-or woman, of strong
ideological convictions (ready to be a
leader and an advocate), with adequate
journalistic skills (not necessarily “the
best,’’ but at least “fair”), and with
organizational (administrative)
capabilities.
So here it is: part of the story about how
the editor of the Emerald is selected,
there are parts that you would like me
further demystify, please drop me a note
(in care of the Consumer Research Center,
College of Business), and I’ll be most
happy to get in touch with you and try.
Letter s —
‘Abolish him’
I would like to supplement Lee Siegel’s
recent article in the Emerald (if that’s
passible) with one of my favorite quotes
from Michael Bakunin “If God existed, it
would be necessary to abolish him.”
Dean Nolan
Parrish finances
As the treasurer of the Committee to
Elect the Parrish-Vemon ticket, I would
like to take this opportunity to reveal the
funds that we have received from con
tributors. So far we have received in
contributions $80.55. The list of con
tributors and amount follows.
Howard M.Svigals $9.00
Ken Gritzmacher 5.00
Linda S. Cannon 5.00
John E. Hamagel 5.00
Rosemary Zuelke 5.00
Mark Faber 5.00
Marietta Morris 5.00
Cathy Ralston 3.00
Charles B. Fisk 3.00
Ross Lienhart 3.00
Joan Baker 3.00
William Bryan 2.50
Jim Burge 2.50
Christy Hammond 2.50
DanFeltz2.50
total contributions 00.00
Committee Fund Raising 20.55
grand total 80.55
Hie committee has spent of total of 17.00
so far.
000 flyers 0.30
flyer materials 7.70
sign materials3JJ0
total 17.00
At this time our balance from the
committee stands at $63.56. We will issue a
complete financial account of our ex- •
penses at the end of the primary cam
paign. We would like to issue a challenge to
our opponents to do the same.
Howard M. Svigais
Treasurer
Not Jackson
As everyone knows, the ASUO has had
problems this year. The ASUO is destined
to fall apart unless a strong executive with
a clear sense of direction is elected. Paige
Jackson is not that executive.
I have known Paige for quite some time
now. I worked with her on the Mock
Democratic Convention last year and in
the ASUO this year. When Paige speaks of
her work on grievance procedures she
neglects to add that she was the one who
first brought forth a grievance against a
faculty member — and then dropped it for
fear of reprisals.
This is the kind of executive we do net
need next year.
Although the ASUO made strides toward
co-governance this year, this was not the
part of the ASUO Paige was involved in. It
is part of Paige’s duties (this year) to
make appointments for the ASUO. But she
needed help to make the appointments to
the co-governance committee. For her to
now make co-governance a key issue in
her campaign is absurd and misleading.
Paige switched running mates from Tim
Travis to Rich Sanchez (both are ex
tremely capable people) two days before
filing; as she thought she would have a
better chance of winning with Rich.
Granted, this may be a good “political
move” — but next year we cannot afford
politicians.
Cliff Zukin
Senior Pol. Sci.