CRIMSON COMPLICITY

To the Editors of The Crimson:

The editorial by "a majority of The Crimson staff" that attacks The Crimson's decision to publish a Marine recruiting advertisement falsely describes the purpose of the Marines as an institution, and fails to acknowledge the reasons underlying the ad campaign.

First, the writers claim that the Marines can be "plausibly described as genocidal." Whatever the role of the Marines in Vietnam, that organization was under civilian direction, by the elected officials of the United States government. If Marine actions in Vietnam were "genocidal," then they were determined by those officials. However much one may disagree with U.S. actions in Vietnam, where is the evidence to suggest that a planned program of annihilation of the civilian population was ever ordered or carried out? This is what "genocide" means, and to misuse the word in the manner of the editorial both cheapens its meaning, and significantly reduces the possibility of rational discussion about the inherent immorality of genocide. I challenge any of the writers of the editorial to provide evidence that the present purpose, or past actions, of the Marines is "genocidal."

Second, the Marines obviously need to recruit members if there is no draft. Unless the editorial writers are prepared to advocate a resumption of the draft, in place of volunteer military forces, then their objections to the Marine ad are not very solid. It makes no sense whatsoever to advocate that both the United States government and the Marines be "abolished."

Finally, since the writers clearly believe that the Marines are "genocidal," how can they, in good conscience, continue to work for The Crimson, which by printing the ad must surely now be complicit in such "genocide?" If the students who wrote the editorial truly believe in their principles, and truly object as strenuously to the Marines as their words suggest, then why don't they resign from The Crimson? I doubt that anyone has actually resigned, and I think that their failure to do so is indicative of the complex nature of such problems that they themselves have refused to acknowledge in this editorial. Jonathan Tumin   GSAS-1 Dept. of Government