Since the beginning of our intervention in Vietnam there has been much criticism of our ill-fated policy there. Much of it, however, has been aimed at our tactics and techniques and therefore has not been very effective because, once the basic premises and assumptions of the government's policy in Vietnam are accepted, a good case can be made out by the Administration for the means employed. What should be criticized and attacked are the basic premises and assumptions, for these seem, in almost every instance, to be demonstrably false.

Before examining these basic premises, however, it may be well to say a few words about the climate in which all of our foreign policy since World War II has been conducted. The two words which most succinctly characterize this climate are fear and hate.

The frequency with which myths about the war in Vietnam are given some degree of credibility is an indication of the lack of real understanding on the part of many Americans, not only average citizens who might not be. expected to understand the nuances of international law and diplomatic wrangling, but also those often self-proclaimed “sophisticated observers” who, on occasion, seem to understand so much that they fail to grasp the central point at issue.

Let me begin by confessing that my personal opposition to the American military operations in North and S.outh Vietnam derives from a broader commitment to religious pacifism. I regard the acts being performed by our government and its forces as a direct violation of the letter and the spirit of the Christian revelation. To the extent that they are conducted “in my name,” so to speak, without affording me or the others who share my convictions some effective and still legal way to dissociate myself from this immorality, my rights as a citizen to live according to my religious beliefs are also being violated.