USE OF FORCE

To the Editors of the Crimson:

I would like to register several objections to the Crimson editorial of January 9, 1975, whose stated purpose is to urge "all Americans" to "reject" Dr. Kissinger's refusal to rule out the "use of force" in the Middle East.

1. The editors neatly dodge the fact that the U.S. taxpayer already pays for very considerable "use of force" in the Middle East. The Israeli armed forces, which have been engaged in armed conflict for the past quarter-century, are really no different from CIA-financed operations in Iran, Laos, Cuba or elsewhere. The only difference is one of size. Idealists that they are, one can only assume the editors advocate immediate cessation of all military aid to Israel, so that the U.S. won't be using any force in the Middle East. Why don't they come out and say it?

2. This is of course absurd, because the need for force just doesn't go away. Yassir Arafat, a man who claims to stand for the sovereignty and well-being of his people, like the Crimson editors, will not stop his butchery one fine morning.

3. The Crimson then changes gears rather abruptly and comes up with a solution to the world's problems. Eureka! Socialism, obviously somewhat of a cause celebre on these pages, is a panacea that will save us; all we must do is "change the system," like changing from one brand of gasoline to another. This is a remarkably good example of what The Crimson has told us it abhors only a few paragraphs before--"simplistic--but useful--political analysis."

4. Conflict and the need for force will not go away. The Arabs will still want money, and they will still want the destruction of Israel (which, by the way, is socialist).

5. Western countries will still need oil from the Arabs. Sweden, England, and West Germany all have socialist governments, but they still have to pay oil bills.

6. Lastly, there is no evidence that I know of to support the contention that a lowering in the standard of living in Western countries will result in a proportional rise in that of underdeveloped nations. Quite possibly, the opposite is true. Also, it is a historical fact that the only reason socialism has been successful in Europe recently is because it promises a consistently rising living standard--for everyone except the very rich. Now, in Germany, conservative elements are making big electoral gains. The reason is that the living standard, for the first time since the Second World War, has failed to rise.

The starry eyes in evidence on the pages of The Crimson Thursday is particularly surprising, since the editors of this highly professionalized (some would even say obnoxiously so) newspaper are reputed to be the most pragmatic, serious-minded people around. For the future Lippmanns, Sulzbergers, and Restons of this world, "No 'Use of Force'" is a pretty poor showing. David H. Peipers