Dear Margaret:1 Many thanks for your note of the tenth. I truly value your thoughts on world affairs.2
The tricky problem that is posed these days is this: if firm opposition to the spread of Communism requires fighting, as in Korea and Indo China, how can the free world turn its attention to the solution of these great humanitarian problems which must be tackled in order to eliminate conditions that promote Communism?
One of the reasons this problem is a difficult one is, of course, that it is not always easy to convince an overwhelming majority of free people, everywhere, that they should pull in their belts, endure marked recessions in living standards, in order that we may at one and the same time develop backward countries and relieve starvation, while bearing the expenses and costs of battle in the more fortunate countries.
Added to all this is the fact that people grow weary of war, particularly when they see no decisive and victorious end to it. In the present instance, victory would require such an expansion of the present conflict as to demand, practically, a general mobilization. This means regimentation--and the question arises as to the length of time that we could endure regimentation without losing important parts of our free system.
I am not attempting to argue out, here, all of these questions and their implications. I am merely pointing out that while we are and must always be, uncompromising foes of the spread of communism, that we have to adjust our tactics and employ our resources even more skillfully than do they in the whole global battle. Above all things, our causes must be so clearly understood by the masses of the free people that they stand ready to sacrifice for them. In this case the issue is particularly clouded; positions are too arguable as to hope to have people regard them as vital. I do not believe that this great struggle is going to be won or lost in Korea as long as we do not recede from our originally announced position.
