To the Editors of The Crimson:

In his essay of April 5. "Too Many Vietnams," Per Jebsen attacks Senator Gary Hart for his unwillingness to use force. He further goes on to claim that removing American military forces from Central American will jeopardize stability in that region.

Jebsen recognizes that the problem in El Salvador is one of "economic and political fairness." Yet somehow he feels that these problems can best be addressed through military solutions. Propping up the current authoritarian regime in El Salvador will only create bloodshed, not fairness.

The fact that elections were held on March 25 does not mean that El Salvador has become a democracy. Jebsen cites high turnout as proof that these were "true" elections. I wonder if Mr. Jebsen thinks that the Soviet Union with its 99% voter turnout is a democracy? His response would probably be no, because opposition parties are excluded from the electoral process. Yet in El Salvador, Jebsen admits that the Social Democrats were, if not legally, certainly practically excluded from the elections by fear of assassination.

Jebsen claims that an American military presence is needed to provide stability in Central America. But what kind of stability is this? As Jebsen says, right-wine death squads are murdering hundreds of innocent civilians each month. He goes on to point out that the leftist gugerillas control one-fourth of El Salvador and are growing stronger. According to Jebsen, these are reasons to leave American troops in El Salvador. He says that without American support the government that is providing all this stability would collapse. He suggests that this would result in "Marxist domination" of El Salvador. In the first place, this is an example of falling prey to the standard right wing flaw of seeing all Socialist groups as monolithic supporters of the Kremlin. Governments usually do not turn to the Soviets out of choice, but out of necessity. While America provided some support to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, its indifference (and now active opposition) has pushed Nicaragua toward the Soviet camp.

Even if Jebsen's scenario is correct, and U.S. military withdrawal does lead to an El Salvador controlled by a Soviet-backed regime, the question is how bad would that be? Jebsen suggests that El Salvador is different from Vietnam because it is closer to home. But Cuba is only 90 miles from the American shore, and although it has been a Communist state for twenty-five years. American children still aren't taught in Russian. Jebsen says El Salvador is of strategic importance, but this simply isn't the case. El Salvador itself is of no military importance; it is only important because of its proximity to the Panama Canal. Thus Jebsen argues the domino theory. But El Salvador only borders Guatemala and Honduras, two countries that already have unstable dictatorships.

Jebsen seems to argue that since insurgents on the left and right have guns, we should provide weapons to the "legitimate" government. This sounds dangerously like the arguments of those who oppose gun control. They claim that criminals will always get weapons, and therefore, gun control will only keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Unfortunately the facts don't support his theory. Just as the guns that are owned by our upright citizens are often used against them, the rebels in El Salvador capture much of their artillery from supplies that the U.S. sends to the Salvadoran government.

A further point that Jebsen obscures is that most of us who argue against an American military presence in Central America and against giving military aid to countries in that region, would not have the U.S. abandon that region entirely. The U.S. would still provide economic aid and use its influence through diplomatic channels.

The real danger in American foreign policy has never been an unwillingness to use force, but rather a feeling that all problems have military solutions. Jebsen tries to cloud his arguments in a tone of reasonableness, but we should be wary of a man who faults someone for opposing the deployment of American troops in Lebanon. Jebsen suggests that El Salvador is different from Vietnam because it has only 5 million people, not 40 million, implying that we could "win" in El Salvador. This kind of thinking led the Reagan administration to invade the tiny island of Grenada. It is unfortunate that public opinion polls about the Grenada invasion indicate that America loves a war that it can win.

Ever since the days of Theodore Roosevelt our response to any unrest in Central America and the Caribbean has been to "send in the marines". Isn't about time to reassess this policy? There is only one true democracy in Central America--Costa Rica. Costa Rica is also the only nation in the region without a standing army. There is a lesson to be learned here. The way to achieve democracy is not through military might, but by improving economic conditions to create a climate for peaceful political reform. Andrew L. Strom '87