Debate Quashing

"ONE fact is clear as a result of the challenge posed by the Tet offensive," General Westmoreland told the Associated Press Sunday: "The time has come for debating to end, for everyone to close ranks, roll up their (sic) sleeves and get on with the job." The General's decision to revive the venerable, but by no means honorable, American tradition of the Bloody shirt is sensationally illtimed.

Even with a narrow view to the present military pinch, Westmoreland's jingoism does not make much sense; this is the wrong time for the United States to close her options. Continuing the bombing is the reflex reaction to the enemy's offensive, but there still is no reason to believe that tactical bombing of the North has been, or is, militarily effective.

On the other hand there have been clear indications in the last week that a bombing halt would be productive. The North Vietnamese clarified their January position on negotiations--if the bombing stopped negotiation could start within three weeks. U Thant returned from his trip to Southeast Asia with the same message--a U.S. bombing halt remains the prerequisite for any end to the conflict.

Westmoreland's slam at Vietnam critics echoed a recent attempt by President Johnson to insure a minimum of strafing from his opponents, as his reelection campaign gets underway. "Men may debate and men may dissent, men may disagree, and God forbid that a time should come when men of this land may not," the President said, but he added that now was the time when debate should quiet and "men must stand."

JOHNSON has reason to be jittery over what debate on the larger questions of the war may uncover. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee opened a sore wound for the Administration last week with its hearing on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which is the closest thing the President has to a legal excuse for waging war on North Vietnam. It is hard to prove that the United States ship provoked the attacks that led to he step-up of our involvement, but it is clear that the Administration was dishonestly selective in what it chose to reveal to Congress.

Senator J. W Fulbright has rightly called for a Congressional investigation of the U.S. war policy, and Senator John S. Cooper's suggestion that the Foreign Relations Committee hold open hearings on how to institute peace negotiations could be even more useful. Cooper's plan could place the weight of the whole Foreign Relations Committee behind a critical examination of the war--not just individual dissenting senators.

Both proposals could turn into dead ends, but the pressure on the President from respected public officials is welcome. It may expose the duplicity of Johnson's attempts to suppress debate by collapsing the fictions he uses to justify the war.