Readers React: How long will Americans’ election-year war weariness last?

To the editor: Americans have decided to put interventionism back on the radar. (“Campaign 2016: Candidates need to say more about the U.S. role as the world’s policeman,” editorial, April 3)

The time for us has come in our election year ritual to remember how reckless it is to flaunt our military about with no centralized purpose other than “national security” — only to place such rare rational thinking on the shelf to watch candidates beat themselves and their opponents with clubs to prove their strength as hopeful commander and chief.

This editorial gives some guidelines as to the proper use of the military. However, these “criteria” front the armed forces as a global social program to aid in humanitarian missions and as a force to defend foreign nations. This is tomfoolery.

It makes no sense to address other nations’ needs with our blood and tax dollars. The purpose of the military is to defend our nation and further our interests as a world power.

Daniel Sobhi, Fountain Valley

..

To the editor: Thank you for your editorial on the importance of candidates addressing the issue of military intervention. It is time that politicians be held accountable for their positions — or lack thereof — on the high cost and low benefit of our national military adventures.

Indeed, many politicians do not even feel it is necessary to address the issue at all.

My own congresswoman, Rep. Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park), lists 16 “issues” on her website, but foreign policy or war are not among them. The failure to address the largest single item in our nation’s discretionary budget as an “issue” can only be understood as a calculation that taking a forthright stand may not yield political benefit. But this is an underestimation of the intelligence of constituents.

Your call for candor and specifics on the use of military force is timely and important.

Cynthia Cannady, Altadena

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook