[tomder55]

Petraeus is quoted as saying that the arms sales are an important part of the initiative to keep the Iraqis "rapidly expanding their security forces." Of course, these U.S. arms might help the Iraqi security forces for the short term, but isn't there a chance that the U.S. military could lose control this entire initiative?--weapons we sold turned on us or on each other in a civil war?

Indeed that could happen . It would not be the first time that American weapons in the hands of former allies were turned on us . We have become close allies with former enemies and enemies of former allies before . The best example of this would be the Lend Lease program ,arming the Soviet Union during WWII .

There is no chance of a stable Iraq emerging without an Iraqi security force to take over the role that our forces have assumed. That means they have to be properly armed.

[tomder55]

DC ; the anonymous author of the Washington Compost blog dares to compare the sacrifices of the US troops liberating Western Europe to the Soviet expelling the Germans from Russia and then enslaving all of Eastern Europe ?

The broader point that Thompson makes is that the US did not fight for territorial gain in the 20th Century(I will take license and put the Spanish-American War in the 19th Century :) ) but in the cases mentioned in the article , the US fought for the cause of freedom. If Thompson in making that case is jingoistic then so be it. I would like for more of our leaders to be so .

[excon]

Is resentment against the Americans up or down

Hello DC:

The fact is, we're the good guys. Are we ALWAYS the good guys? No. But, my measure isn't a short term one. The responsibility for letting the world know about us, rests with our government. And, the government failed miserably. Call it PR or Diplomacy, we didn't do it. We're STILL not doing it.

So, resentment is up.

excon

[Dark_crow]

Now, Now, Tom, you got to know I'm not going to let you create some straw-man here.

“The broader point that Thompson makes... ”

What Fred did was make a great sounding political statement, but not a factual statement; and that is OK, it goes with the job. :D

[Dark_crow]

Hello DC:

The fact is, we're the good guys. Are we ALWAYS the good guys? No. But, my measure isn't a short term one. The responsibility for letting the world know about us, rests with our government. And, the government failed miserably. Call it PR or Diplomacy, we didn't do it. We're STILL not doing it.

So, resentment is up.

excon

Hi excon

As I see it there is an underlying problem and that is that one faction of the Republican Party believes we can give the people of other countries liberty, when in fact each generation here must fight to keep its own liberty. :p

[NeedKarma]

Resentment of our freedoms,

How does someone hate someone else's freedom? What does "hate our freedom" even mean? If they envied the freedom of another place then they are admiting they they are not free where they are and would abandon fighting in the name of their current ideology.

[ordinaryguy]

There is no chance of a stable Iraq emerging without an Iraqi security force to take over the role that our forces have assumed.

And what role is that, exactly? Referee? Jailer? Employer? Arms supplier? Banker? Enforcer? Mediator?

Whatever anybody might think their "role" is, the actual position our troops are in is smack dab in the middle of MANY armed groups and factions, all the way from fundamentalist sectarian militias to gangs of outlaws, thugs, and robbers, to foreign jihadis, to remnants of Saddam's "security" machine.

While none of these people like us much, they really, REALLY hate each other, based on a centuries-long history of animosity and outrage. So even though none of them really want us there, they are all perfectly willing to use and manipulate us in any way they can to give their faction an advantage over its rivals. This is a no-win position that no military person should be put in.

So where is this Iraqi security force that transcends these societal divisions going to be recruited from, do you think? And how can it possibly be expected to "take over the role that our forces have assumed"? No Iraqi force can take on the role of "foreign enforcer/dupe", which is what we are in Iraqi eyes.

Does the presence of US troops in the middle of this tinder box delay all-out civil war? Maybe for awhile. Prevent it? Probably not.

[tomder55]

I think the threat of civil war peaked last year when al-Qaeda was attacking Shia interests ;especially after the Samarra mosque bombing. Is there a risk still ? Probably but it diminishes with the increased security . The threat is not existential to the Iraqi government since it is Shia dominated .The Sunni have come to understand that the message of al-Qaeda and Zarqawi did not serve their best interests ; Neither did their general boycotts of the political process.

But talk of civil war does serve the interests of the American war opposition and progress in Iraq does not. The truth is Iraq is getting better, and the opposition to the war is starting to shift away from the “war is lost” mantra to“stabilizing the government over time would not be worth the cumulative cost in American lives and treasure.”That is certainly worth a debate. But at least admit that Iraq is stabilizing . You should at least take comfort in the fact that the security situation has improved enough that even the President is suggesting troop reductions.

[BABRAM]

Probably the same or up slightly. I would not had gone about this war the same way our President chose. However, we are resented and criticized, usually out of ignorance. And while our international savvy has dwindled and we do appear arrogant at times, those same people that would criticized us from afar would dearly love to immigrate and become part of the US.


Bobby