Newspapers: Editorial Unease

A gradual shift has taken place in the support that a majority of U.S. newspapers had been giving President Johnson's policies in Viet Nam.

Typical is the change that has come over the Los Angeles Times. A recent editorial served notice that it would deplore any extension of the war by invading North Viet Nam, bombing or blockading the port of Haiphong or even adding many new targets to be bombed. There is a "growing danger," said the paper, "that the means being used to prevent a Communist takeover may soon pass beyond the military boundaries which define limited war." According to Editorial Director James Bassett, "There's been an evolution in our thinking. As we begin to come up against the last of the options, we become gravely concerned about proliferation of the war and the limits to which our offensive actions should go in Viet Nam."

Too Rigid for Peace. It is this concern about getting too deeply involved that is most often expressed in editorials. "There must be a better way to carry on this war and bring it to an honorable conclusion," said Virginius Dabney's Richmond Times-Dispatch. "As things are going now, it will never end and the U.S. will be bled white. It has become obvious that little progress is being made, despite the presence of 500,000 U.S. soldiers in Viet Nam." The same fear has been expressed by the Miami Herald. "Politically, militarily and most important, honorably," said the paper, "the time for change has come. The alternative is to fight the war on the terms dictated by the terrain, climate and enemy methods. This would probably require an invasion of North Viet Nam and the deployment of tens of thousands of fresh troops from the U.S."

Many papers complain that Johnson is not showing enough resourcefulness as a peacemaker. While supporting the recent troop increase in Viet Nam, the Minneapolis Tribune fretted: "Reluctant as we are to criticize the President's handling of the war, escalation of the bombing in such a dangerous way makes us wonder whether the Administration is in a rut and needs some fresh thinking about our entire Asian policy." Usually an eloquent backer of the President's Viet Nam policy, the Washington Post was disturbed by his latest comments on the war. "The President's speech and other Administration pronouncements are beginning to be colored by a fixity and rigidity that does not encourage belief that the strategy and tactics of diminishing the scale of the effort always get full examination."