European Stars And Stripes (Newspaper) - April 24, 1988, Darmstadt, Hesse Page 10 columns the stars and stripes James j. Kilpatrick decisive action will avoid another Vietnam recent events in the persian Gulf provide fresh confirmation if any were needed of Santayana s most famous aphorism those who cannot remember the past Are condemned to repeat by out measured response to iranian belligerence pc Are condemning ourselves to repent the miserable history of Vietnam. That War was lost by measured responses. Must we Wail until More of our vessels arc damaged More or our servicemen killed before taking bold and decisive action Iran now stands exposed before the whole world for its crimes against International Law. Wilfully recklessly. Iran hns sown mines in the International Waters of inc persian Gulf it has widened its War with Iraq to imperil All those who maintain legitimate presence there. The time has come in concert with such allies As Brit Ain and France to declare a blockade of iranian ports. 11 is not necessary to formally invoke the Power of Congress to declare War. It is necessary Only hat the president As commander in chief do what has 10 be done. Lacking such decisive action an intolerable situation can Only become More intolerable As Gross provocations Are Mei by measured responses. Our naval vessels m ight As Well have hulls cacs painted on i hair hulls. J Ami s to ebb who served As Secretary of the Navy until his abrupt resignation in february expressed a sound View in an article written last week for the Washington Post. He sounded a Call to arms. Proportional or measured responses he said Are futile one would imagine thai 25 years of failure would be enough for any concept. Proportional response doomed us in Vietnam enabling the enemy to adjust continually and even o control the Tempo of the War. Those in the military who watched vietnamese rail Road tracks and Bridges destroyed and then quickly replaced in Exchange Tor attacks on people know full Well that the destruction of iranian Oil platforms in Exchange for attacks on people will nol work. The Way to eliminate mine laying is not to blow up Oil platforms or even continually to sweep mines to is to eliminate the mine layers if we arc nol prepared to do so we have no moral right to expose dozens of and thousands of . Lives to the consequences of our it May be Hal "cowardice1 is Loo Strong a word but it is nol much too Strong. On the same Day hat Webb s impassioned article appeared a headline told us thai lawmakers express caution urge re examination on members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have responded tentatively ambivalent try. They arc As fearless As Lions in denouncing the Ayal Ollan Khomeini. They arc As timid As rabbits in taking him on. As Webb said they arc afraid someone might accuse them of being Well Robert j. Willaard Given Lutr reality of Iran s barbarian conduct what is wrong with a warlike response listen again to Webb if retaliatory Force is necessary it must be properly directed hut it must also be ruthless and without such a response our naval vessels serve merely As floating targets that Are invite Lions to an International the object of a blockade would be to impose the will of civilized nations upon a brigand regime. Properly enforced and enforcement would be crucial a blockade might succeed where lesser measures would surely fail. Iran s Oil production on which its entire Economy depends would be thrill cd. Civilian lives would not be needlessly endangered. The mine laying would Slop. The weapon of blockade has a Long history in the annals of conflict. The creeks used it 2,000 years ago. Its terms were defined by the declaration of Paris at the end of the crimean War in i8s6. John f. Kennedy invoked what was termed a Pacific blockade against Cuba in 1962. His purpose was to keep soviet missile out of Cuba and in that purpose he succeeded. One senses a kind of nervous Hope on Capitol Hill and in the White House As Well thai things will now Calm Down. The mad Ayatollah. It is conjectured will have been so alarmed and impressed that he will halt the mine laying and take no further action lie will be a Good a Altah. This is the stuff of pipe dreamt. We must steel ourselves for acts of terrorism against Amer ican installations we must expect the worst. If Hie administration and our Noble allies Are unwilling to proclaim a blockade Al the very least 1 bipartisan decision must be quickly forged. The next time and there Wilt be a next time the United slates must not temp Orize. The next Lime we must strike to kill. Denmark s nuclear stance undercuts nato plan Denmark s move to bolster its ban on visiting nuclear armed warships has focused attention on a nato ally that already suffers from a reputation As an unreliable Comrade in arms. Nato Long has complained that Denmark does nol pulpits weight in inc North Atlantic treaty Organiza Tion. Its annual defense spending 2,2 percent of its Gross National product in 1987 is the lowest of nato s european members except for Greece an Italy. For 31 years Denmark has had a general policy Banning nuclear arms from its soil in peacetime. Until now danish officials took the position of assuming that visiting warships would obey. Last week parliament voted to demand that warships be Low they cannot carry nuclear arms int danish Pons. Al nato Headquarters in Brussels officials say the measure if implemented would Render nato s reinforcement strategy for Denmark useless. The measure led danish prime minister Pulsch Lueler s minority government to Call for Early elections May 10. The Center right government opposes the nuclear armed warship measure and maintains Danes remain Loyal to nato. One danish nato official said that in a marriage. " it behoves either partner nol to be confrontational we should not exaggerate the situation but accept there Are differences of opinion within nato Vaid the official who spoke on condition of anonymity. Such comments do Little to Calm the nerves of nato officials whose primary concern is to maintain an Iron Clad consensus about defense notably nuclear arms. Nato members Norway and Spain both prohibit he stationing of nuclear arms on their soil during peacetime but neither requires visiting nato warships to declare whether they arc carrying such arms. In i9hthe United sta1k and Britain broke off military cooperation with new zealand after that country began insisting Hal warships say whether Ornot Tivey carry nuclear weapons. We know that in some cases Allied warships carried nuclear Al null into our ports Taid the danish official. This of course was not allowed but we closed on Eye said the danish official to Tell visiting warships they cannot carry nuclear arms into danish ports would said nato Secretary general lord a Amnion run counter to the basis of nato strategy and the principles of shared Burden Sand benefits of Allianic membership. The United Stales and Britain which would Rush to Denmark s Aid in limes of crisis with troops and male rid have a policy of never saying whether Hei warships have nuclear arms. A . Nato official said this week thai the stricter anti nuclear stand if taken to its logical conclusion would mean nato allies cannot reinforce Denmark during a crisis before inc outbreak of War failure to reinforce nato s choke Point on the so Viet Union s Bajlicz Fleet would affect not Only Den Mark but also neighbouring West Germany. It s Clear ibis is nol a danish american or danish British problem Siut a Nailer Ftp All of the Alliance said a senior West German nato source also speak ing privately. The controversy Ltd nato to move Neil week j nato defense ministers meeting from Denmark to Brussels. The meeting will focus on nuclear defense issues. In 1985, Michael a Culline. Then British defense Secretary warned the Danes nol to Cipech British sol Dier to come to their Aid if they Don t do More for their own defense. Last March danish i. Gen. Poul Thonen nato s top commander for the Baltic approaches resigned and said he could no longer represent Den Mark in a reasonable he said danish Defnie was being maltreated through Aniis
