European Stars And Stripes (Newspaper) - December 7, 1987, Darmstadt, Hesse                                Page 10 Cal Oniris the stars and stripes monday december 7, 1987 William Buckley Reagan using language of communist press the reporter for the new York times report cd thai president Reagan was clearly agitated when asked by one of the four network reporters who inter viewed him last week to account for opposition by conservatives to the forthcoming treaty with the soviet Union. Clearly agitated wrote the new York times Ste Ven Rohs. Or. Reagan continued now. I think that some of the people who Are objecting the most and just refusing even to accede to the idea of Ever getting any understanding whether they realize it or not. Those people basically Down in their deepest thoughts have accepted that War is inevitable and that there must come to be a War Between the two superpowers " never mind the president s agitation for a moment his statement is certainly going to agitate a great Many other people. The bitterest aspect of the president s comments is that he is using Here precisely the kind of language used by the communist press. If you wish to read statements about those americans who want or at any rate expect War turn to pravda or inv Celia. Not even Jesse Jackson accuses conservatives of believing that War is inevitable. Tell me do you know anybody who thinks War is inevitable i Don to and i know As Many conservatives As anybody this Side of Jesse Helms. What some of us suspect inheriting the tormented vision of Whitla or Chambers when he whole that in leaving the communist party to join the West he was leaving the win Ning Side in order to join the losing Side is that our policies Are heading us toward a situation in which the Chr Sci of War will no longer serve to deter the Aims of inc soviet Union. These Aims Are by no Means to inherit a nuclear rubble when the time comes to assert Dominion Over the world. But they do look Forward to the Day when the enemy will Lay Down its arms having calculated that military conflict is a suicidal alternative. What or. Reagan refuses to dwell on is that men and women who by no Means believe War is inevitable believe that the inf treaty weakens the West s deter rent posture. And we need to Bear in mind that a deterrent seeks not Only to keep soviet tanks out of our Way but also soviet policemen e flier in the interview the president was asked whether the treaty would encounter difficulties on the floor of the Senate in virtue of opposition by conserva Tives combined with his status As a lame Duck presi Dent. Well i Hope it s going to sail through anyway he said. I think that the object ions that we arc hearing George will and yes from some of our own you might say allies and own forces they arc based on a Lack of of cowl Curc 113 ii Iii Mii Iris in a gains and Liakim Lily Are they ignorant of the advances that have been made in verification no Ira to before has Ever been based on As much verification and on site inspection and so Forth As this  now that statement is wildly off the Point. 1. Even though previous treaties do not provide for such close verification what verification procedures we do have were sufficient to convince us and 1o convince president Reagan that inc soviet Union has been cheating. Cheating on Salt i on the prom Iselo abide by the unreal Ifird Salt ii. On the chemical and biological weapons treaty and of course on the abm Ira to. What is inc Point conservatives Are asking of verification when having verified that there is cheating we Don t know what to do about it 2. It in t really plausible to suppose that Alexander Haig to cite one conspicuous opponent of the treaty is ignorant of verification technology. Or. Reagan talks Sas though most of inc opposition is based on doubts about verification. But if Lite treaty provides for a  of Cood you us pig so Camp div ssi every former ss-20 site in Eastern Europe that would not critically affect the reasoning of conservatives who oppose the arrangement. Verification figures in the analysis but what if verification were absolutely guaranteed still we will have immobile cd Europe from a nuclear defense that would reach into soviet territory. It is such a defense that is the surest deterrent 10 1hc exercise of maximum soviet Power military or Diplo Matic senators of keen mind will be up against it in the weeks to come. The objections to the treaty raised by such As Haig and Ninon and Kissinger and Kirk Pat Rick find Kemp and Art analogous to a virus against which the superpowers can Colicho Alively inoculate themselves. To the extent that the inf agreement accelerates de nuclear i action it will re store the bad old Days making Europe Safe again for conventional War a Possi Bly positive feature of the agreement is soviet acceptance of asymmetrical reductions. Thai is it will be positive in the unlikely event that the soviets allow inc principle to be extended to conventional forces. Bui even if so cuts in conventional forces could be problematic. Soviet forces moved East of inc urals could be returned quickly . Forces mod to North Carolina could not be returned without Large logistical and larger Politi Cal problems. A european speaking about the notion of moving from nuclear to conventional deterrence says a thousand years of european history leached us one thing conventional deterrence dts not work Wootsey says the inf agreement May be a Small step militarily and a Ralef larger slip philosophically Back toward the troubled millennium of warring european Stales that ended in 15," this is a result of what could become a calamitous asymmetry the soviets want victories we want agreements or As Jeane Kirkpatrick has said they arc playing to win and we want to get nut of the game