THE INVASION of Laos points up two important shifts in the conduct of the war, one military and the other political. Militarily, the war appears to be developing a new objective: Dividing Southeast Asia in half, split near the 17th parallel, giving the United States full control of the entire Southern region, specifically Cambodia, Thailand, and South Vietnam. The United States government, while not yet admitting such a policy, has given indications of just such a scheme.

The New York Times recently reported that the government is drawing up plans for the forced evacuation of civilians from the five northern provinces of South Vietnam. It seems that the population is hostile to the American cause and is getting to be quite a nuisance to American soldiers. "Refugee" camps in the South are reportedly being prepared, camps similar to those where nearly six million Vietnamese already live, driven from their homes by "enforced urbanization." Such a forced migration is in clear violation of the Geneva Agreements of 1954, but legality is now only a plea of naivete in light of the invasions of Cambodia and Laos. Such a move, of course, would turn the Northern provinces into an area for saturation bombing and defoliation, thus militarily rendering the area useless as a base of support for the PRG and incidentally destroying the homes and lives of Vietnamese civilians.

The military argued for the invasion of Laos to stop supply routes going into Cambodia and Vietnam from the North. With all the advance notice given before this move, it is pretty obvious that no North Vietnamese or Pathet Lao troops are going to be in the area waiting to be attacked. Now that the area has been opened up to South Vietnamese troops, they may busy themselves extending the DMZ westward through Laos, planting mines in a "MacNamara's line" type of war.

Is a plan like this actually being formulated by the military? Is there any basis for speculation? These questions point up the political shift the war has taken-the conduct of the war is completely out of control of the democratic process. The government does not explain its actions to the country once they have taken place and does not consult or inform elected representatives about the action beforehand. Instead, it installs tight censorship of all news concerning the military conduct of the war.

There is no way of knowing whether speculation about American plans to divide Asia is likely to be true; the important point is that it cannot be laughed away as impossibly grotesque. Secret government policies are believable even-when they are incredible. American soldiers last week in Detroit stated that U. S. troops have been on the ground in Laos since the fall of 1969. But the war has become the plaything of a government clique which makes decisions, implements policy, and announces or hides information without the necessary responsiveness to the people or to other nations. Will the U. S. invade North Vietnam? The fact that the idea is not at all laughable is an indication of just how far out of control the situation really is.

THERE'S a new book out, called The People vs. Presidential War. It's about Vietnam and the Shea Bill, the state law that protects Massachusetts men from combat service in undeclared wars. One year ago today the bill's supporters massed in Gardner Auditorium in the State House to begin to work for the bill's passage. The bill became a prime trial for the people's right to govern themselves, and the book reflects basic liberal hopes and idealism. A jacket blurb quotes George McGovern:

The People vs. Presidential War starkly illustrates the deep-rooted faith that the American people-from alienated youth to the more patient elderly-have in the continuing potentiality of our democratic institutions.

The bill passed, of course, and the law is now tied up in the courts, perhaps for years. And the war goes on.

A chapter in the book written by Fred King, a Harvard physics lab instructor, quotes Howard Zinn as saying "the war had to be opposed on all levels" and that the Shea Bill, even though it would not end the war, was a step in the right direction. So it was, but the liberal idealists who supported the Shea Bill must now see that their idealism is being outmaneuvered and subverted. At a time when the government is unresponsive to the people on the conduct of the war strong opposition is needed. Faith in our democratic institutions-as McGovern would have it-does not flourish in a system where the institutions are antidemocratic. While the military conducts devastating war against Southeast Asia, American politics become more seclusive.

What will the liberals who worked for the Shea Bill do to end the war this year? They'll be involved in political intrigues to get an antiwar candidate whom the moderates and conservatives can like. And they'll probably express concern that the conduct of the Vietnamese elections this year under the Thieu-Ky regime is democratic even though political intimidation and exclusion have made those elections a hoax even now. All right-the war must be opposed on all levels, but while all that money and power is being bled into the American political viper the military destruction of Asia will continue.

Maybe the Laos invasion has brought the antiwar movement back to life. Maybe, Peace Action Coalition wants mass demonstrations in Washington on April 24 while other groups have announced militant actions on Mayday. It can certainly not be expected that mass demonstrations will sway foreign policy by voicing public outrage; rather, this spring the antiwar movement must clearly indicate that it is physically and unalterably opposed to those men and institutions who continue to wage war in Asia.