The trouble with U.S. policy in Vietnam Carl Oglesby, president of SDS said last night, is that American policymakers have tried to apply a cold-war European formula to revolutionary Asia.

"We must see American policy as an almost poignant attempt of good men to make a better world possible," he said. "I think they failed."

Oglesby said that the fault with the policy formula was that it viewed history as an "interruption of wars by truces." He said that the policy rested on four assumptions; both sides of a global pact must agree that global warfare is an unsatisfactory way to solving the conflict, a truce line must be rigidly drawn, both sides must cooperate in maintaining the truce line. And, given the first three conditions, common interests between the two sides will gradually take root.

The trouble with this model," he continued, "is that there is no pluralistic balance of forces--there is no victory and defeat." Furthermore, he added, the model does not acknowledge that the U.S. is an imperialist, power. "We want peace in which the world is safe for the American businessman to do his business everywhere."

Oglesby said that American policy makers believe that Vietnam is the truce line between the United States and China and that eventually the Chinese "will join hands with American Bankers." But this will never happen, he continued, because Asia is revolutionary, while Europe was not. The Asian people are deeply committed to change because of "national aspiration combined with national resentment."