U.S. Policy on Intervention

* Re your editorial “Really Easy to Get In--Not So Easy to Get Out,” Sept. 28): That’s utter nonsense. It’s obvious we shouldn’t be getting in in the first place. Stop invading other countries and killing the people living there. Now that wasn’t difficult, was it?

PATRICIA ELLISON

Ventura

* Calling for “courageous and visionary decisions to be made quickly,” the un-elected overseers of the world are beginning to squirm as the U.S. and Europe stand pat on trade differences and other cracks and strains appear around the globe.

For far too many years, our resources have been drained and we are visibly suffering the consequences. If one looks closely at the tactics used by the “new world order” organizations, one can see a parallel to the religious Inquisition of the past. Instead of the sword being used, money is the ultimate weapon used to force nations to accept certain political and economical dogmas.

A “visionary and courageous” response to the IMF, World Bank, GATT and NATO would be: We have given until it hurts, we appreciate your sincere desires to achieve utopia on Earth but have reservations about your methods of accomplishing this goal and the reality of it ever being accomplished. You will no longer receive American credits, tax dollars, support or recognition.

In 1796, George Washington warned about foreign entanglements in his farewell address: “The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relation, to have with them as little political connection as possible.”

JACK R. DORTIGNAC

La Habra

* Did World War II have an exit strategy? Something is drastically out of kilter on the new turf of global force. No longer are the soldiers from the West, or those operating within the consortium of countries as the U.N., fixing bayonets and threatening to rush mine-strewn beaches to retake the moral high ground. As the international borders and enmities change, soldiers in battle fatigues are being sent, or threatened to be sent, on missions to keep the peace--a hoax as terrible on the public as is the fallaciousness of its argument of ultimate purpose.

This is not to say that the lofty principles of peacekeeping are to be ignored. On the contrary, if there were not such a politically incorrect stigma attendant “policeman of the world,” the world might well be a better place if weaponed presence kept global hot spots cool. However, a state of controlled world tensions cannot come about until those who would misbehave are forcefully informed that their planned misdeeds will not be tolerated--now, or in the future; in Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, or any other place with which the Administration has recently been concerned with first having to formulate an exit strategy before committing soldiers to battle stations.

Predetermined and announced timetables of departure send the wrong signal--a signal that allows by its utterance that which it professes to prevent: that temporary behavior produces the opportunity for long-term misbehavior. Soldiers throughout history have never masked inexperience, naivete or lack of political will behind the flimsy facade that we won’t engage the evil unless we first know what time we’ll be home. There is no question that it wasn’t necessary in WWI, WWII, Korea, Grenada, Panama or the Gulf. The real question is why is it necessary now?

LAWRENCE R. GORDON

Santa Monica