A Positive Proposal

What do the Republicans propose to do in Korea? The question, so recently a taunt in angry campaign debate, is now a challenge written in the hard facts of the precarious U.S. position in Asia. Last week the U.S. got a look at a strong "positive proposal" for Korea drawn by New Hampshire's Senator Styles Bridges, a ranking Republican policymaker. Bridges' proposal, published in the American Mercury, carried special weight because Ike Eisenhower reportedly read it in manuscript during the last days of the campaign.

The War Is Now. The third world war is not in the future, writes Bridges, "we are in it now; we were in it even before the Second World War ended . . . The President we have elected will be a war President; our economy will continue to be a war economy. Our taxes will be high; our sons will be drafted . . .

"Once our ground forces were joined on the Asiatic mainland with those of the enemy, it became unlikely that we could ever, short of the collapse of world Communist power, establish a 'line' where we could find 'peace' and 'go home' . . . The Communists on any day, of course, may decide to cut their losses and give us an 'armistice' . . . but while [this] may mean a temporary lull in the dying, [itj will not mean peace, and we cannot go home . . . Lasting peace can come to Korea only with the collapse of armed Communist power in Asia."

Beyond Stalemate. If the great, portentous strategic decision is made that Communist armed power in Asia must be destroyed, how may it be done? Answers Bridges: first, a reassessment of Asia's anti-Communist resources; second, the careful planning of a long struggle which must end in the enemy's collapse.

Salient points in Bridges' program:

P: No withdrawal from Korea--"We have to stay, not in despair but with resolution." Like Eisenhower, however, Bridges believes that South Koreans can be trained and equipped to take over more of the front, while U.S. troops remain as a reserve.

P: Rally to arms all the U.S.'s Asiatic allies--not only the "truly gallant" South Koreans, but the Japanese, Filipinos and Southeast Asians who are opposed to Red tyranny.

P: "Cease our bickerings over Formosa and calmly fit it into our overall plan for the salvation of Asia"--"If there breathes an able-bodied man on Formosa who yearns to fight Communists, is there any reason why we should hinder him?"

P: No political restriction on weapons used in the field against armed Communists--"We didn't hesitate to employ atomic weapons against the Japanese in 1945; if they can be used in 1953 to save American and South Korean lives, as well as to disarm Communists, then why shouldn't we use them?"

P: Blockade the Communist coast of Asia --"If the ship isn't operating to the advantage of free men who are dying on Korean ridges, then let the ship be turned back. Or sunk . . ."

P: Keep China's Red masters insecure everywhere--"Why shouldn't the Chinese Communists live in fear of a commando raid along any area of their long coast line on any dark night? . . ."

Bridges' conclusion: "For years we have heard little but talk about how many millions of Asiatics are arrayed against us. What we need to recognize now is that there are even more millions of Asiatics waiting to be arrayed against Communism. They are waiting only on American leadership."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.