Other nation's casualties count too
As part of his argument defending the U.S. decision to go to war against Iraq, Rep. Stephen J. Solarz pointed out in an Evening Sun column (Other Voices, Jan. 21) that fewer than 150 Americans died during the conflict. He fails to mention that many thousands of civilians and soldiers from other nations perished as well.
A discussion about the cost of waging the war is not complete without including the death toll among all people, not just Americans. Yes, even Iraqi soldiers, forced to fight under the dictatorial rule of Saddam Hussein, should be counted.
Mr. Solarz, who helped lead the battle cry in Congress, is not alone in this omission. Disturbingly little attention has been paid in this country to the non-American lives lost during the war and to those who continue to suffer today in the war's aftermath. If we consider American casualties more important than other casualties, that means we feel American lives are more valuable than those of other people.
It means we feel some people are expendable because they happen to be of a different nationality, or because they happen to be caught on the other side of a war. And that makes us no better than the murderous Saddam Hussein.
As a Baltimore County resident and a former member of the Baltimore County Auxiliary Police, I find it disturbing that the county has taken a short sighted approach in dealing with its current budget crisis.
Rather than take advantage of the courageous and dedicated members of the auxiliary, the county has further restricted their activities. The primary purpose of the auxiliary is to supplement the Police Department with these volunteers.
Instead of limiting their effectiveness, the county would do better to increase training and equipment for the auxiliary while at the same time increasing their responsibilities. This would free up "regular" officers from routine duties and allow them more time to attack crime and provide critical services to citizens.
Keep writing, Ray!
The retirement of Ray Jenkins as the editorial page editor of The Evening Sun represents an immense loss. I have followed with keen interest his thoughtful, sage and illuminating columns on a wide spectrum of issues.
I have been particularly impressed with his sensitive understanding of the dynamics of black-white relations in our nation. Ray Jenkins has written with probity, wit and a sense of urgency on the need for socio-racial reconciliation, unity and fairness.
I hope that he will find his retirement, in the company of family, friends, and colleagues rich in felicity, abundant health and fulfillment. I hope, too, that he will find time to churn out books that address the urgent need for racial understanding, cooperation and socio-economic justice for all.
Samuel L. Banks
The retirements of Ray Jenkins and Lou Cedrone are most distressing to faithful readers of the paper. Both men have been distinguished by mature and wise treatment of their respective fields, rare characteristics in most media commentary.
We hope they will be invited to write many guest columns so that readers will not be bereft totally of their enlightened points of view.
Your Annapolis Watch '92 report (Jan. 20) offered five interesting items with amusing overtones. The item dealing with praise lavished by members of a Senate committee on a visitor, Benjamin C. Bradlee of the Washington Post, mentioned Mr. Bradlee's wife, "Sallie Quinn." However, Ms. Quinn's most recen novel, "Happy Endings," and all her previous works are by Sally ... Quinn.
Head in sand
I find it incredible that columnist Anna Quindlen can ignore the officially sanctioned policy of reverse discrimination currently practiced by corporations and government in the United States (Jan. 17). Putting white males at a disadvantage during employment consideration is a commonplace phenomenon in most employment departments.
Either Ms. Quindlen has been out of the country a very long time or she is just plain burying her head in the sand.
Edwin S. Moore
The Reagan-Bush gang over the last 12 years has lectured the poor continuously about their behavior. But most poor people are not lazy, as the Reagan-Bush mentality would have us believe. They are not to blame for their misery.
Reactionaries constantly bray about the poor's attitudes ` but what should poor people's attitudes be? They work hard at low-paying jobs, part-time jobs or are actively seeking non-existent jobs.
Would we had a Democratic presidential candidate with the guts to lecture the rich about their behavior and attitudes. ... Gerald Ben Shargel