Even though I usually get heartburn from reading the Letters to the Editor in the NY Times, sometimes it's fun to find a comment so radical that you know it HAS to come from someone who not only has a far-left opinion, but must be an active supporter of communist, anarchist or other "out-of-the-mainstream" groups.

Such is the case with today's letter from Rachelle Marshall of Stanford California.

The spreading insurgency in Iraq, and the anger aroused by the American military response to it in Najaf and other Iraqi cities, should be convincing evidence that it is time to withdraw our forces from Iraq (front page, Aug. 18).

As long as they remain, American soldiers will be seen as an occupying army, and any Iraqis associated with them or with a United States-backed government will be targets of attack.

The Iraqi people were once able to create a functioning government on their own, and there is no reason they can't do so again, without our interference. With the help of American financial aid and international organizations, they should be able to rebuild their country.

But first there has to be an end to the fighting, and although there is no guarantee the violence will end if we leave, it is certain to continue if we stay.

You just know this doesn't come from some working stiff blue state woman who took offense to a particular article - it must come from someone with an agenda.

A quick search shows Ms. Marshall to be a freelance writer who is a big supporter of the view that Palestinians and other Arabs would be better off if we (and Israel) weren't so evil. Her articles include The Saudi Peace Initiative - Will Israel Turn Down Yet Another Arab Peace Proposal? and US and Israel's Interests Converge in Iraq posted on Al-Jazeerah's website where she is noted as being a member of the Jewish International Peace Union.

Obviously there's nothing wrong with Ms. Marshall's opinions being published and I don't think that her activism is deliberately hidden by here. It's just that you would think with such a tremendous readerdship the Times could find one other reader viewpoint other than someone who is demonstrably on the fringe of the political debate. The Times policy of not letting it's readers respond to Letters to the Editor doesn't help.