Military Spending

Your editorial, “A Crucial Investment for America” (Dec. 5), is a replay of the Reagan years for more money for the military. The only difference is that your call for more money to enable the military to be able to meet assigned missions is different than the fight to stop communism.

Why is it that throwing money at the military is always acceptable, but budget cuts are the only acceptable choice for all social problems?

Why isn’t $270 billion-plus enough for the armed forces? Why do we need three air forces? Why do we need each of the services competing with each other regarding supplies, etc.? Why do we still have armed forces in Europe? Why do we need to spend billions of dollars on weapon systems that in many instances are never used or completed or become obsolete before they are completed?

How much could be saved by an overall review of the military and its methods of squandering billions of dollars? This review would provide sufficient dollars to meet the assigned missions.

MELVIN WEISZ

Calabasas

*

* It is galling that President Clinton, who refuses to use the military to stop the genocide in Bosnia, has the chutzpah to ask for an increase in military spending. If he trembles so at the thought of sending in ground troops against a motley force of tenth-rate Serb fascists, then in what situation could he possibly envision using such a newly fortified military? This request is just one more (goose) step to the right for this “liberal” President.

RONALD OWEN RICHARDS

Los Angeles

*

* First an editorial, then a Column Left on defense funding (“$1.5 Trillion for Defense Isn’t Enough?,” Dec. 6). Living away from home is expensive, even if educational. Congress would not need to find so much extra money for Defense Department readiness if it precluded foreign adventures (Haiti, Somalia). This it could do by specifying that appropriated funds for consumables (fuel, ammunition, rations) be expended only at established bases and sea lanes, unless in time of war or national emergency.

It is high time for the legislative branch to reassert its proper role in foreign affairs. As things stand, Congress cowers in a shadow whenever the President (whoever is President) starts the meter running on a new enterprise. The power of the purse should be in play, because the purse is not of infinite capacity.

GILBERT S. BAHN

Moorpark