‘No Interest in Peace’
Your rationalizations on behalf of the Sandinistas grow more transparent with each new editorial. Witness your latest (June 19), “No Interest in Peace.” Sweeping statements such as “the contras have no chance of winning” is the height of intellectual arrogance and dishonesty.
It took the Sandinistas more than 15 years to take power. What psychic abilities does The Times editorial board boast of to back up such a myopic statement? It is obvious that with the largest guerrilla army in the history of Central and South America, that given time, the contras do indeed have a good chance of winning.
Your editorial goes on to say, “A shrewd observer of the war says the Sandinistas want to build their revolution on the backs of the Red Army, and the United States has obligingly furnished then with a White Army to fight against.”
Such a comparison is not only not shrewd, it is a blatant example of wishful thinking and a misapplied analogy. The White Army never had ex-Bolsheviks in their ranks as the contras have ex-Sandinistas. Conversely, the Red Army never had significant ex-Czarist elements in its ranks as the Sandinistas have ex-Somocistas in theirs.
Does The Times make the same comparison in U.S. support of the Afghan resistance?
I advise The Times not to worry about the actions of Ronald Reagan as much as the committed support to the resistance by ordinary American citizens like myself. Because where there’s me--there’s more. And we’re growing.
ROBERT MILTENBERG
San Diego
Miltenberg is chairman of the 41st Congressional District Citizens for America, a Reagan support group.
Start your day right
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
