Borosage on GOP Foreign Policy

In “GOP Embrace of Yesterday’s Foreign Policy Undoes Today’s Principles” (Opinion, April 2), Robert L. Borosage rightly suggests that the GOP’s “contract with America” would hobble U.S. participation in, and funding for, U.N. peacekeeping activities. Apparently that is exactly what the Republicans want. If they were to prevail, the United States would virtually abandon the world’s foremost international organization dedicated to the maintenance of peace and security in the world. In spite of its avowed weaknesses, the U.N. has done a remarkable job in resolving many regional disputes and in its work on long-range problems such as disarmament and control of nuclear weapons. The organization should be strengthened rather than weakened.

Republican opposition to the United Nations is not new. If the party had prevailed at the organization’s creation 50 years ago, the U.S. might not be a member today, and the U.N. most likely would have crumbled like the League of Nations. Fortunately, one powerful and eloquent Republican senator, Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan, succeeded in quelling his party’s opposition. It was a rare and historic triumph of bipartisanship in the U.S. Congress. Another Vandenberg is desperately needed in that body today.

JAMES C. MOSLEY

Laguna Hills

Borosage’s commentary lacked one insight that most critics of defense spending overlook. With all the military personnel we have, a good proportion of them are career oriented. That may be a sound indicator of high morale and goal-oriented behavior, both elements of a crackerjack military team. But what might not be fully understood is that all of these millions who stay in the military for multiple hitches will earn pensions that, over time, will become severe drains on the defense budget and exacerbate the deficit-ridden economic picture for the future.

Consider this: A 20-year-old volunteer spends 20 years in the service. Then, at age 40, with a life expectancy of 75-85 years, the pensioner begin to receive a monthly check (read: entitlement) that will increase with COLAs over a long, long time. This actuarial fact should be food for thought on the table of representatives who would dramatically increase the military budget without thinking about the consequences.

CHARLES R. BARR

Upland