WHO IS THE DEFEATIST?
One reason that was given for the banning of “Communism on the Map”
from military installations was that it was defeatist. If a diagnosis
of the dangerous situation we are in is defeatism a doctor should not
diagnose a serious disease. It is not a defeatist film, although it
does show that we are in real danger. Senator Fulbright himself said:
“We are confronted by the most formidable and resourceful adversary
ever to have challenged us...”[168] President Kennedy on October 12,
1961, stated that mankind is in the most dangerous situation the human
race has ever been in.
An examination of some of Senator Fulbright’s positions shows that
he is a defeatist in that he indicates that we should not try to win
victory over communism. The Senator does not think in terms of victory
over the communist enemy; although he seemed to think in terms of
victory, and that immediately, over the military in his effort to knock
them out of the cold war!
The Senator does not seem to understand the principle set forth by
Anthony Harrigan, director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute,
that: “As important to a navy as new ships and late-model weapons is a
victory psychology. In the last analysis, it is the will to win that
turns the tide of battle. The great conflicts of former centuries
are replete with illustrations of the truth that the nation that is
emotionally dedicated to victory is the nation that triumphs, even
though its weapons may not be a match for the enemy’s weapons. To
cite only one example, the outnumbered airmen of the Royal Air Force
defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain because they had the
will to win.”[169]
_Victory not Sought_
Senator Fulbright said that both “World Wars ended in total victory,
but the world is far less safe for democracy today than it was in 1914,
when the current era of upheavals began. One of the principle lessons
of two World Wars is that wars, and total victories, generate more
problems than they solve.”[170] What if we had lost these wars? The
trouble was not that we won the wars but that we failed to keep the
peace after the wars were won.
Senator Fulbright, to be consistent, should take the position that
we should not fight communism even if war is forced on us, since he
says that war and victory create more problems than they solve. The
Senator says that he is not for total victory, and by that he means
such a victory as we won in World War I and World War II, and that
even if we won we would have the additional problem of what to do with
victory![171]
What is it but defeatism for one to say that we should not seek victory
over communism, and that if we did win it would create more problems
than it would solve?
_Defeatism concerning Cuba_
In the campaign for the Presidency, John F. Kennedy said that he
would do something about Cuba. The Monroe Doctrine calls on us to do
something about Cuba. The influence of Senator Fulbright, according
to Charles J. V. Murphy, helped bring about a change in plans which
contributed to the “fatal dismemberment of the whole plan.”[172] The
Senator thought that the invasion was a bad thing to do even if we
succeeded. World opinion would label us as an aggressor, and we would
have to support Cuba after we had thrown out Castro, and this would be
a drain on our Treasury![173] It is strange that the Senator did not
think of such arguments when U.N. troops, with United States support,
waged war on Katanga. Furthermore, the Senator approved the State
Department’s action in the show of force of American troops, ships and
planes off the coast of the Dominican Republic in the fall of 1961.[174]
Fulbright is such a defeatist that he thinks that we cannot do much
about Cuba, and that communist-controlled Cuba seems to be here to
stay[175].
The rejection of the idea of victory over communism may be the reason
that Edgar Ansel Mowrer, on returning to the United States after being
in Europe, wrote: “In short, I find the Washington official attitude
one of basic defeatism hidden behind a hot air screen of talk about the
historical trend being on our side.”[176]
FOOTNOTES:
[168] Stanford Speech, p. 11.
[169] “The Will to Win”, _Congressional Record_, August 29, 1961, p.
A6794.
[170] _Congressional Record_, July 24, 1961, pp. 12280-12281, col. 3,b.
The Senator thought that possible action on our part might provoke the
Soviets to an unrestricted nuclear arms race. At the very moment he
was saying this, the Communists were finishing their preparations for
renewed atmospheric testing, although we had not prepared for such and
had not “provoked” them into doing this! When will some people learn
that the driving power of communist activity is not reaction to our
moves, but a positive program of world conquest based on their world
view.
[171] Same as 3.
[172] _Congressional Record_, September 7, 1961, p. A7040. Senator
Fulbright thought that it violated the OAS Charter. This statement in
the quotation concerning Kennedy’s change of plans, does not imply that
Senator Fulbright had anything to do with planning or executing the
project.
[173] _Arkansas Gazette_, July 30, 1961, p. 5E. This quotation from the
_Gazette_ is based on the Senator’s speech of July 24. _Congressional
Record_, July 24, 1961, p. 12281.
[174] _Arkansas Democrat_, December 4, 1961.
[175] _Congressional Record_, June 29, 1961, p. 10874. The Senator
once said that he did not know whether Castro was a Communist or not,
but the main thing was that we must be patient and understanding and
drive him toward the Communists. We must not confuse communism with
nationalism, he said. He reprinted an article by Walter Lippmann which
attacked the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee for indicating
that Castro and his revolutionists were pro-communist. _Congressional
Record_, August 11, 1959, p. 14100, _New York Times_, August 12, 1959.
[176] Edgar Ansel Mowrer, “Washington Attitude is one of Defeatism,”
_Congressional Record_, July 23, 1962, p. A5660.