I am proud of the work we are doing in Iraq

This is in regard to Robert M. Goetz's March 24 letter ("Proud of This?"), in which he asked if a National Guard sergeant is proud of his service. As a member of the armed forces serving in Iraq, I can say that I am.

He calls us an invading and occupying army. Our native interpreter says the insurgents are the invaders, many coming from other countries to fight us and oppress the Iraqi people. Mr. Goetz calls this an illegal war. It is a congressionally approved partial mobilization of our military.

He accuses the military of direct responsibility, along with the insurgents, for more than 100,000 civilian deaths. While I am not sure of the numbers or their source, I do know two things. The first is that I will not accept culpability in any crimes the insurgents commit while we are over here dying trying to stop them. Yes, that innocent people get caught in the cross-fire is a regrettable fact of war. I have held in my arms a child who was killed in this war -- it was those we are trying to stop who placed the bomb -- and I have treated soldiers who were injured and killed in similar blasts. The second is that Saddam Hussein and his forces deliberately killed more than 150,000 of his own unarmed citizens while he was in power; there was no cross-fire then.

While I am proud of the work we are doing, I don't like being here. I don't like being half a world away from my home as my children grow up. I don't enjoy seeing the pain and suffering of these people. I am here because I took an oath to protect those who cannot protect themselves, to obey my legal orders and to defend the Constitution, which allows Mr. Goetz to demonize our service.

SGT. 1ST CLASS PETER B. BALFE
Al Anbar Province, Iraq

Editor's note: The writer is from Brookline.

---

Free to be insulting

Regarding the letter by Robert Goetz of Wilkinsburg about the March 20 article "Voices from the War": Sir, based on my own experiences in Iraq in 2003-2004, you do Sgt. Chris Arndt and all service members a disservice by your implication that his involvement as a soldier doing his duty assigns him a portion of guilt for this conflict.

Sir, you seem to believe that our military deals only in destruction. On the contrary, U.S. forces have gone to extreme lengths to minimize casualties among the enemy and civilians, at times placing our own military at grave risk. Additionally, the extent of civic action projects in Iraq that we have performed is enormous and only space prohibits me from listing them here. I'm sure the citizens of the Gulf states appreciated the efforts of the men and women of our forces in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and hold a somewhat different view than yours. Should a disaster strike the Wilkinsburg area, you might then understand what our servicemen and -women do every day without complaint -- under conditions that you in your comfort cannot possibly fathom.

Sir, you have the right as a free citizen to condemn the strategic decisions made by the president as illegal and unjustified. I would, however, point out that doing so in Iraq prior to 2003 would have earned you death. I remain proud to serve with soldiers of Sgt. Arndt's caliber. Your condemnation of servicemen and -women is an insult, sir, to the memory of those fallen and their families.

COL. STEVE PATARCITY
Robinson

Editor's note: The writer serves in the U.S. Army.

---

Misplaced outrage

The letter from Robert Goetz ("Proud of This?" March 24) lacked any real perspective. It was totally off base in that Mr. Goetz made Sgt. Chris Arndt, who appeared in a photo on the PG's front page, his primary target. Who is Mr. Goetz to ask such questions about a man of whom he knows so little? Many have strong feelings about this war, not all of them supportive. That's probably good. Most, though, don't target individual soldiers. They direct their feelings toward decision-makers.

Was it Mr. Goetz's intention to ask all Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans such pointed questions? Probably. My answer, then, as an OIF veteran, is this: you, sir, know nothing about me. Neither do you know, based on the article, anything about Sgt. Arndt. Perhaps his job in Iraq was that of a medic or Civil Affairs soldier.

For my part, I am sure that my team and I helped save a number of Iraqi lives. We have been awarded medals for valor earned by tending to wounded Iraqis while under enemy fire. It is in accomplishments such as these that we soldiers take such pride. Based on what (little) he knows, how dare Mr. Goetz question either Sgt. Arndt or myself?

It is true that without the war, those I helped probably wouldn't have been wounded in the first place, but the individual soldier didn't start this war. Mr. Goetz would do well to save his outrage for those who did. They are probably more deserving.

HANS J. WEEKLEY
Squirrel Hill

---

So long, 'to be'

The March 21 piece "This Story Needs Read, Not Redd-ed Up" sure hit home with me! When I moved to Pittsburgh 30 years ago I had to explain to my son's first-grade teacher that he might have some trouble understanding the accent, particularly the o's. After all, I moved here from Baltimore, where we got "earl" in our car. And I grew up in Delaware, where we drank "wudder." My husband moved here from Rochester. I still can't pronounce it the way he does. He worked for a "bax" company.

Years later I was teaching in a local preschool and a 3-year-old, newly arrived from Philadelphia, asked me why no one here talked the way he and I did! He drank "wudder" too. After a while it wasn't hard to recognize the Pittsburgh accent and be able to distinguish the differences. I never could figure out what happened to the proper "to be." Eventually, I accepted it and then one day I found myself eliminating "to be." Two of my kids moved to Cleveland. No "to be's" there either!

Now that we're moving to New Mexico, I find I want to leave that "to be" back on the East Coast, where I learned it. My English teacher daughter might shake her head, but guess what? Pittsburgh is in my blood, and those "to be's"? They don't need packed.

MARY H. RIKER
Mt. Lebanon

---

Our society cannot afford to redefine marriage

The Pennsylvania Legislature will vote on the proposed state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman in the coming weeks.

Nationwide, activist groups are asking courts to redefine marriage as something other than one man and one woman. The legalization of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and "civil unions" in Vermont have created an urgent need for Pennsylvania to join the 19 other states that protect marriage in their constitutions.

Without this amendment, a fundamental change in the definition of marriage could be forced upon the citizens of Pennsylvania, which will deprive this timeless institution of its unique and special status -- a status that is embraced by the majority as the societal norm. Numerous studies find that the marital relationship between one man and one woman is the most effective mechanism for encouraging men and women to make the commitment that creates the best atmosphere for children.

Certainly not all families meet this ideal, but from a public policy perspective we must stand for what is best for the common good. Our society already suffers from growing rates of divorce, single-parent households and unplanned pregnancies. Granting status to something that is "substantially equivalent" to marriage is really just revoking the status of traditional marriage. We cannot afford to have marriage redefined. In these troubled times, we must work to rebuild the family, not give up on it entirely. We will not improve our communities by diluting marriage even further.

AMY L. BEISEL
Director of Communications
Pennsylvania Catholic Conference
Harrisburg

---

This is intentional discrimination

Is your marriage protected by the state constitution?

My wife and I have been married for more than 34 years. We are the proud parents of three wonderful daughters, one of whom happens to be a lesbian.

How will the "Marriage Protection Amendment" (House Bill 2381) protect my marriage? From what will it protect me? How will it protect my daughters?

If our present state constitution does not define marriage, what will be amended? It seems to me that this is not an amendment to protect anything. This legislation intentionally limits civil liberties. I view this action as purposeful discrimination.

We don't need any more discrimination -- nor does Pennsylvania need another amendment to our constitution.

DAVID L. SCHELBE
Shaler

Editor's note: The writer is co-president of PFLAG -- Pittsburgh (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays).

---