Letters to the Editor

Trading terms

Pedro J. Torres-Díaz is off the mark when he uses the term “isolationism” in his analysis of current U.S. policy (“Reach out — U.S. isolationism a useless policy,” March 28).

After the Vietnam War ended, “non-interventionism” replaced isolationism, and correctly so.

Vietnam was no Japan — a nation with modern aircraft and a powerful navy.

Japan posed a direct threat, while Vietnam did not.

In the aftermath of World War II, international organizations took on the role of bringing nations together, but in Vietnam it wasn’t so much of lack of interaction, as too much intervention.

Unfortunately, we moved away from this perception in recent years.

I hope Torres-Díaz keeps this in mind as he glad-hands some of the so-called free-thinking liberals.

Frank DeBenedictis,

Plantation

  Comments