People Disagree on Afghanistan Policy

While most Harward students were secluded temporarily from the "real world" to prepare for exams, the proverbial men--and women--on the streets of Cambridge yesterday were eager to offer praise or criticism of the way President Carter is hadling the situation in Afghanistan.

Many people supported Carter's decision to impose economic sanctions on the Soviet Union after its invasion into Afghanistan. For instance, a middle-aged Cambridge matron said, "It beats drafting my son."

"I'm tired of seeing American boys taken away to fight." she added.

George J. Murphy, a construction worker from peabody, said he strongly favors the sanctions. He added that he hoped the Soviet people would react by pressuring their government to remove its troops from Afghanistan.

Isabell L. Simms of Dorchester said she thinks Carter is doing the best he can but she's a lot more worried about the hostages in Iran.

One man from Manchester, N.H., indicated the U.S. doesn't have many options but praised Carter for not overreacting. "Simplistic solutions won't help complex problems," he said.

Few Choices

A second year graduate student at the Faculty of Arts and Sciences condemned the Soviets and said that most of the government's actions are "pretty good or at least what could be done."

Other people questioned the effectiveness of economic sanctions but still support the way Carter is dealing with the situation. One Cambridge resident, dismissing military intervention as a solution, said, "Economic sanctions probably won't be effective, but what else is there?" A Northeastern University student said he has mixed feelings about the grain embargo imposed against Russia but said he was generally impressed with Carter's handling of foreign policy.

Gerry S. Johnson of Cambridge said the sanctions may not have much effect on the Soviets, but added that a policy should not necessarily be measured by its impact. "The value is in the fact that we're doing something," he said.

One man, Robert G. Mattle Jr. of Belmont, said the U.S. should take a less aggressive stance toward the Soviets, and suggested that the government should wait and see what happens in Afghanistan before imposing economic sanctions.

Who's Counting

A Cambridge woman, taking an opposite view, said the U.S. should have been more aggressive with the Soviets all along. In her view, the Afghanistan and Iranian situations are directly related, because, she said, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini is a Soviet plant. She explained she heard on a radio talk show the "real" Khomeini has nine fingers, but the Khomeini now in Iran has ten.

Timothy J. Crowley, a construction worker from Salem, wants the U.S. to take a harder line toward the Soviets, stopping only at armed intervention. Questioning the effectiveness of economic sanctions, Crowley believes the government should arm the Afgahanistan rebels.

Expert Advice

A government official from Bahrain, a Middle Eastern nation bordering Saudi Arabia, believes the U.S. should send troops into Afghanistan. He explained the Middle East is divided into right and left wings. The right wing--Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Emerites, Kuwait, Egypt and Quatar--lost faith in the U.S. when it didn't actively support the Shah, he said. "They are afraid the same thing will happen to them," he said.

There are others who didn't know how Carter should handle the crisis. A Harward history professor, who described himself as a pacifist, believes economic sanctions will fail but he couldn't offer any alternatives.

Some questioned whether the U.S. government is reporting Afghan events accurately. Charles A. Nicholas of Boston claimed that Carter is exaggerating the possibility of Soviet expansion into Iran. Don H. Perlo '83 wondered if the Soviets are right when they say their action isn't an invasion and the U.S. government is just propagandizing the situation