To the Editors of The Crimson:

In his editorial on U.S. support for the contras (April 20), David S. Graham arrives at the correct conclusion--that our policy of low intensity war and economic aggression the people of Nicaragua "has thus far only created more corpses"--but does so in a manner that ignores the history of U.S. intervention in Nicaragua and distorts the current situation in that country.

Graham states that "if we had done something about Somaza's corrupt dictatorship in 1974 or 1977, we would not be where we are in 1987." He apparently does not recall that Luis Somoza Debayle began his corrupt and murderous regime with U.S. backing in 1956, and that his father, Anastasio Somoza (who ordered the assassination of Auigusto Cesar Sandino), was handed the dictatorship of Nicaragua by the U.S. Marines in 1937. In fact, if Mr. Graham laments the situation we find ourselves presently, perhaps he should explore the earliest episode of U.S. intervention in Nicaragua--the 1855 invasion led by William Walker--to find some answers.

Graham, in summing up the current situation in Nicaragua, also states that, "Now only two unpleasant alternatives remain," which he says are "either invade or let the Sandinistas do what they will." If Graham were to look at the enormous gains made by the Sandinista government between the Revolution in 1979 and the first U.S.-backed contra attacks in 1982--gains that include decreasing infant mortality from 120 deaths per 1000 to 80 deaths per 1000; eliminating polio for the first time in Central American history; decreasing the illiteracy rate from 75 percent to 30 percent; and giving the Nicaraguan peoiple pride in themselves, their work, and their country--he might realize that letting the Sandinistas "do what they will" is not such an "unpleasant alternative" afterall. Jonathan Foster '87   Health and Human Rights   Group Harvard School of Public Health