Columnists: A Man & His Times

It was a typical Sunday in the New York Times. The lead editorial urged limitation of U.S. forces in Viet Nam and endorsed the idea of "an interim national government acceptable to both sides." Columnist James Reston, also questioning U.S. policy in Viet Nam, brooded over the "gap between the evangelical rhetoric of official Washington and the political realities of the world." The lead letter in the letters-to-the-editor column, written by an assistant professor of humanities, excoriated the U.S. Government for its "blind antiCommunism" and detected a "nascent war psychosis" in the American public.

Standing alone on the Times editorial page was Columnist Cyrus L. Sulzberger. He took a firm stand against "flabbiness in Viet Nam" and reminded all concerned that the U.S. "inherited the position of global superpower in 1945 and cannot escape its obligations." He recalled that "the 1947 Greek commitment under the Truman Doctrine was also originally unpopular. Many naive Americans and their newspapers then preferred the Communist rebels to the Athens government." And in the tone of a man delivering an urgent warning to his friends, he wrote: "If we crawl out of Viet Nam now, it is obvious that Southeast Asia right down to Australia will join our adversaries and that India will be outflanked."

Debating the Debate. This pattern of dissent by a Times columnist is not necessarily unique. Arthur Krock differs from the paper's policy on some issues, notably economics; Hanson Baldwin tends to differ on military policy. However, it is Sulzberger's independent line on Viet Nam that has become more and more conspicuous in recent months.

Times editorialists have long argued against a major U.S. commitment in Viet Nam.* The general Times approach comes under the guidance of Arthur Ochs ("Punch") Sulzberger, the publisher, who is Cy's first cousin, and John B. Oakes, editor of the editorial page, who is also a member of the Times family hierarchy. It is no secret that the Times editorial line on Viet Nam does not meet with universal approval among Timesmen, and the best public view of the continuing debate is Cy Sulzberger's consistent disagreement with his paper.

Last April the Times editorialized: "President Johnson's offer of 'unconditional discussions' was a splendid move on the diplomatic/political front, in the effort to achieve a peaceful solution of the quarrel." Sulzberger dissented: "It is fair to ask why Mr. Johnson chose this moment seemingly to alter a Viet Nam strategy that had but recently become more resolute. Waving a carrot may be seen by our adversaries as a sign of weakness." Times editorials have consistently called for deescalation: "What the U.S. is doing in Viet Nam is playing directly into the hands of Communist China by taking actions that lead to a steadily escalating, more dangerous, conflict." Sulzberger has disagreed: "This is admittedly a dangerous game, an experiment in gradual escalation. Yet the blank refusal of Peking or Hanoi to consider any negotiated settlement eliminates any other alternative save a disastrous withdrawal which we cannot contemplate."