Posted on 02/05/2009 11:38:13 AM PST by neverdem
In the summer of 1966 on Martha's Vineyard, where the mail was rendered sticky and soft by the damp salt air, as if permeated by a melting island unreality, I received a questionnaire from some British editors asking—in the manner of a book compiled, thirty years before, of opinions oh the Spanish Civil War—“Are you for, or against, the intervention of the United States in Vietnam?” and “How, in your opinion, should the conflict in Vietnam be resolved?” Had the questions arrived on the mainland, where I had so much else to do, I would probably have left them unanswered: but in the mood of islanded leisure and seclusion that I had come to afford I sat down at my makeshift desk and typed out, with some irritation, this response:
Like most Americans I am uncomfortable about our military adventure in South Vietnam; but in honesty I wonder how much of the discomfort has to do with its high cost, in lives and money, and how much with its moral legitimacy. I do not believe that the Vietcong and Ho Chi Minh have a moral edge over us, nor do I believe that great powers can always avoid using their power. I am for our intervention if it does some good—specifically, if it enables the people of South Vietnam to seek their own political future. It is absurd to suggest that a village in the grip of guerrillas has freely chosen, or that we owe it to history to bow before a wave of the future engineered by terrorists. The crying need is for genuine elections whereby the South Vietnamese can express their will. If their will is for Communism, we should pick up our chips and leave. Until such a will is expressed, and as long...
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
1 For years I carried in my wallet, like a fortune-cookie slip somehow more than amusing, a statement from the underground Weathermen: “We are against everything that's good and decent in honky America. We will loot, burn, and destroy. We are the incubation of your mother's nightmare.”
About the Author
John Updike, the novelist and critic, has written 35 books and has won both the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award. The present article has been adapted from his forthcoming memoir, Self-Consciousness, which will be published by Knopf later this month. Copyright © 1989 by John Updike.
"In honor of the life and work of John Updike, we offer his 'On Not Being a Dove,' from the March 1989 issue of COMMENTARY."
P.S. I never read Updike before. It was a pleasant surprise.
Replace the name "Johnson" with "Bush" and you will find that nothing at all has changed.
The boy could write. RIP.
“On not being a dove”
translates into “On being a hawk”
Long, but excellent read.
It must be comfortable living in a black-and-white world.
No subtleties there. No need for thought and/or judgement, or nuanced choices.
Ol' John just wasted a whole lot of words.
New Hampshire Soverignty Resolution - HCR 0006 An attempt to limit the fed's power to the Constitution!
Opening Appellate Brief Filed Comment# 3 has Gura et al. appellant brief against Chicago's handgun ban. Comment# 5 has zeugma's HTML version of it.
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Definitely worth clicking through to read the whole (longish) piece. If you squint your eyes just a little, he could have been writing about Iraq. Click through and read, it’s a an interesting bit of political history and observation.
bookmark
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.