HERMAN KAHN

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Herman Kahn has berated the CRIMSON (letter, May 13). He feels that his slighting remarks about moral arguments (speech, March 16) were terribly misrepresented, claims that he put morals aside because they are too complicated to be dealt with.

But Herman Kahin is lying. I heard that speech, and the CRIMSON's version was accurate, if brief. There wasn't the faintest suggestion in Kahn's statements that he considered morality too complex an issue. Indeed, his attitude was one of simple scorn. Kahn very cavalierly dimissed moral factors as irrelevant and, despite his claims to the contrary, made no distinctions between kinds of moral arguments. His view was that if you use moral arguments, "it implies that you're better than anybody else" (Kahn's version of "who're you to decide what's right?"). After some mumbling along these lines, he capped his preamble with the following gem, which I q?ute nearly verbatim: "Samuel Johnson once said that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. I'd like to change that to 'Morality is the last refuge of a scoundrel.'"

As far as the rest of Kahn's speech is concerned, the CRIMSON story was too charitable. It politely omitted the incredible nonsense and absurdities which comprised much of his speech. as for example: "What would we do, say, if East Germany invaded Sweden?", or "The 19th century British Navy was a good thing because it ended slavery," or "North Vietnam has an army big enough to conquer all of Southeast Asia as far as Burma." He poked fun at basic humanitarian arguments (which he called "anti-anti-Communism") by saying mockingly, "Oh, sure, Communists are human. I suppose a Communist baby is still a baby." (Chuckle). Kahn's talk bristled with this sort of thing; it was a hodge-podge of airy speculation, cynical game plans, and cold-blooded technical recommendations as to how the U. S. an win in Indochina. He showed no sympathy for the victims of our bombs-although he managed to express some concern as to what might happen to poor Marshal Ky if the NLF ever got hold of him....

But someone finally asked why we should stay in Vietnam. And all that Kahn could dig up was something to the effect that "there'd be a bloodbath if we pulled out." Familiars? Aside from the obvious six-year bloodbath which he'd rather ignore, Kahn's reply strongly suggests that he's against bloodbaths - a moral argument if ever there was one! For Herman Kahn wants to play it both ways. His moral sensibilities are most upset about what "the Communists" might do, or about the highly doubtful events at Hue. But the morality of free-fire zones, of B-52 raids? Ah, well... that's "complicated," Kahn doesn't want to "divide the country," and besides, those moral arguments are quite "beside the point"!