The President's speech on Vietnam seems to represent a hardening and a softening at the same time. The same thing has happened before; first we bombed North Vietnam and then we agreed to negotiate. Now we increase our troop commitment and announce that our determination has redoubled, while the President quietly drops the hint that all he really wants is free elections under the Geneva Agreement, and Arthur Goldberg is sent to the U.N. to ask U Thant to set up negotiations.

The added troops drew the bulk of the headlines, but it should be noted that a willingness to hold free elections is a substantial concession on the President's part, though it comes somewhat late. It was Eisenhower's unwillingness to hold these elections nine years ago that left Vietnam divided, and we might well have had elections for the asking last summer.

How do we get them now? The President did not say. It seems safe to assume that the 50,000 additional troops mean only that the present village-hopping war will be enlarged, and that the fighting will be brought back to villages that have seen enough of it already. If American policy is merely to stand like the Rock of Gibraltar and assure the Viet Cong that we cannot be expelled, there are less costly ways of doing it. Perhaps the President would explain why the "coastal bastions" policy espoused by Sen. Fulbright among others, is any less effective a way of making our presence felt. It is a policy designed for the same purpose. Further, its adoption might be a beginning towards convincing the world that we understand our responsibility to preserve as much as possible of the country we are fighting in while we wait for the Viet Cong to negotiate. And perhaps the wait would be shorter if the President decided to forget the formula about negotiating only with governments. If "the Viet Cong can certainly find a government that will represent their views," why refuse any longer to negotiate with them directly?