Preparing for war

Nicholas von Hoffman

Washington I f Europe is surprised at President Reagan's taking an axe to the pipeline, it

should not be. From the day he assumed of- fice he has told the world that a de facto state of war exists between him at least, and possibly the United States as well, and the Soviet Union. The first weapon to be used in this war is economic. Last June, Thomas Reed, a senior White House adviser and consultant to National Security Adviser William Clark since that quiety powerful man took over from Richard Allen, laid out American strategy:

`There is a crisis in the Soviet Union where the demands of the economy are col- liding with those of the political order. The Soviet Union is an economic basket case, and yet the Soviet leadership continues to pour resources into its military establish- ment. Despite its immense size it cannot feed its own people, it is hard pressed to finance the import of food and other pro- ducts necessary to prop up its mismanaged and misdirected economy ... We should not provide the trade credits necessary to prop up the Soviet economy except in ex- change for specific and meaningful Soviet actions that promote stability, peace and the well-being of everyone, including the citizens of the Soviet Union.'

It is the last phrase which demands the closest attention, for what it means is that the Administration is abandoning the live- and-let-live attitude toward Russian com- munism which has guided American policy since Franklin Roosevelt's time. In the same speech, Reed dismissed the detente of the Nixon administration and the containment approach of the Truman administration. `Through both of those policies ran the unspoken fear that the Soviet military in- dustrial locomotive might be unstoppable,' Mr Reed said. 'That is no longer our view. Prevailing with pride is the principal new in- gredient of American security policy.'

Since that speech 'prevail' has become a

catchword around Washington. Secretary of Defence Weinberger has used it so much it has become a verb of controversy, the more so in the light of a Pentagon five-year development plan, published by the New York Times in May, which says: 'The United States nuclear capability must prevail even under the condition of a pro- longed war.' To which Mr Weinberger adds! 'You show me a Secretary of Defence who's not planning to prevail, and I'll show you a Secretary of Defence who ought to be impeached.'

In short the Administration will prevail in overseeing 'the well-being of everyone, in- cluding the citizens of the Soviet Union' by economic coercion or, failing that, by force. We have returned to the Wilson- Hoover era policy of trying to destroy Rus- sian communisim in its Kremlin nest as compared to opposing its attempts to ad- vance its power into new places. That, more than Russian failure to do or refrain from doing some unamed thing in Poland, is the motive for blowing up the pipeline.

Nato is being changed from a defensive to an offensive alliance without prior con- sultation or approval of the other members. Going to economic war against the Soviet Union constitutes the 'Bold leadership qualities' Mr Reagan and his associates tax- ed the hapless Plains, Georgia, peanut farmer with not having.

Up and down the line, the United States, is gearing up and going over to the attack. In a period when some say Castro is agreeable to talking out problems, the Government here has redoubled its effort to isolate and starve out the island; a powerful radio transmitter is being bet up in Florida to broadcast pro-American propaganda to Cuba while Washington, even as it is being warned it is driving Nicaragua into the arms of the Reds, as it once did Castro, has said it has no desire to have talks with that miserable little country.

At the same time the United States has turned its back on an Atomic Test Ban Treaty although it can get one with the on- site inspections in Russia that would end the debate over who was or wasn't cheating. The fact that the Russians have agreed to inspections is not widely appreciated here and isn't being advertised by an Admin- istration that thinks it can destroy the Soviet Union economically by forcing it in- to an arms race it cannot afford.

Economics aside, the Administration has lots of weapons it wants to test. There is the yet-to-be perfected Trident-2F and D5 missiles and Lord knows what other 'invest- ment on weapons systems that render the accumulated Soviet equipment stocks obso- lescent', to quote from the Pentagon's five- year war plan.

The plan, now being put into effect, has encountered little organised opposition on Capitol Hill or from politicians generally. Those with little power but great know- ledge are alarmed. 'The plan,' says Hans Bethe, Nobel prize-winner in physics who helped build the first bomb, 'reveals a nonchalance toward nuclear war, an inabili- ty to distinguish real dangers from far- fetched nightmares, an unwillingness to learn that many of our technological breakthroughs have returned to haunt us ... Take, for example, the multiple warhead missile, or MIRY, which we in- troduced even though the arms control and disarmament agency warned that eventually

it would be advantageous to the Russians because their larger missiles could accom- modate more warheads.'

It is unlikely that Reagan, Weinberger, Reed or Clark recognise Hans Bethe's name and, if they do, it has not deterred their car- rying on the conflict now or preparing for a larger one in the future. The nation is being conditioned for war. The first two draft registration refusers have been convicted, the prosecutor of one, in a fine touch, being a woman, every department of Government is pushing ahead with post atomic attack survival plans, the newest being a 300-Page document issued by the postal service for after the holocaust mail deliveries. Every post office has been given emergency change of address forms and five central of- fices have been stocked with food and medical supplies to keep the wounded postmen on their rounds. Hollywood, which is ever attuned to current political emanations, has come out with a flash): movie glorifying military careers entitled `An Officer and a Gentleman'. A slick and sleazy remake of the West Point movie genre, it even ends with the mandatory graduation scene in which the hero, his character purified and made manly by a drill sergeant, stands at attention in his white uniform with gold sword and gets commissioned an ensign. One man who is not enamoured with the direction of events is Richard Nixon. The former President has pubished two articles attacking the entire Reagan foreign and military policy. On the pipeline controver- sy, he quotes Dwight Eisenhower: `Vie should sell the Russians anything they can't shoot back.' But Nixon is urging more than refraining from economic warfare: he wants to stimulate trade, saying: 'The more we engage the Soviet Union in an intricate network of commercial relations, the more we increase its stake in peace — and also its incentive to maintain good relations with us.' Mr Nixon writes: 'The Soviet leaders want what the West produces, and they are willing to give up something to get it. They will give up more in private than in public . . . . For example, Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union was increased from 1,000 in 1968 to 35,000 as a result of private pressure . . . . Trade can advance peaceful change with the Soviet bloc . . . . Trade cart serve our interests . . . opening the way for 'agreements in other fields. Used this waY trade can be a powerful instrument for peace.' As to Mr Reagan's new form of , Nato leadership, Mr Nixon observes that `11 some nations are coerced into a mere sullen acquiescence on particular restrictions, the Alliance will be weakened and the restric- tions will not hold.'

While the White House gives out that detente is near treason, Mr Nixon makes one more plea for that policy which has given the world the only years of relaxation and lessened anxiety it has had since Winston Churchill's Fulton, Missouri, speech: 'Detente is a means of broadening competition: expanding contacts, opening the way to Western ideas and Western in

fluence, weaving a web of economic in- terdependence that raises the cost to the Soviet Union of stepping beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior .... We can call this peaceful competition. We can call it waging a struggle by non-military means. We can call it detente. Whatever we call it, it is better than the alternatives either sterile confronation. or nuclear conflict.'

But Mr Nixon has no following. The Reaganites despise him as only ideologues and fanatics can despise a compromise, an impurist, a muddler through, a consistent practitioner of statecraft who worms his Way ahead the best he can. Liberals, depen- ding on their age, rejected him ten, 20 or 30 Years ago. So hope for policy moderation devolves on George Shultz, who is probably the ablest and most intelligent high ranking of- ficial in the American Government. But that he is smart and soft spoken and likeable does not guarantee that he is any less of an inflexible Reaganite than his colleagues with whom he is very popular. Mr Shultz hired Mr Weinberger at the Bechtel cor- poration, Mr Shultz resigned from the Nix- on Cabinet because he considered the Ad- ministration's policies too liberal, too left. If you are anticipating George Shultz changing the direction of American policies towards Nato, the EEC or Russia, then don't. At least not yet, for he may carry out the present policies more effectively.