Although it's been quite a long time, I think I recall some complaints that when we attacked Iraq we immediately demolished all civil police and military units.

Anyone recall something different?

Attempts have been made to set up new army and police forces, under the supposed "control" of a fragile "government" that hates us.

There is ample evidence that elements of the "new army" and "new police" have used the weapons and the organization for their own purposes of "ethnic cleansing."

Every "tribe" in Iraq appears to have its own military organization. To call them "militia" in any sense of the term as used in US history is nonsense. They vary from "Tribal Armies" to "street gangs."

The country is divided by religion into two camps, but within both camps there are those who want to attack us and those who think if they ignore us we'll leave sooner.

The country is also divided between those who give lip service to supporting the "government" and those (warlords) who are - sometimes violently - opposed to the "government. Within both of these factions, there are many willing to attack us and others who thus far prefer to let us die off at the hands of others.

Essentially, we have no "friends" in Iraq. If there are any who can "be trusted" we are apparently unable to identify them.

Giving weapons to any Iraqi is potentially arming someone who well later shoot you in the back.

Giving limited weapons, adequate for defensive purposes, to anyone who comes forward with help - no matter how temporary - makes as much sense as arming the Iraqi military or police with their known corrupt and infiltrated memberships.

Ideally, we would convince them all that we are their friends and have only their best interests. Shouting it on the street corners hasn't worked. Perhaps defending them, whether friend or enemy, from "our other friends" on the other three sides may have some effect on changing at least a few, from blindly hating and indiscriminately attacking us to "repectfully trying to blow us away."

No matter how you split them up, according any preconcieved division of beliefs or politics, or any other arbitrary dividing factor, the safest assumption is that everyone in Iraq considers us the enemy.

Being there is the risk that should never have happened.

Impartially assisting and defending anyone who's not attacking us today, and who gives us help in preventing an attack (today) by someone else, may be the best we can do.

At least the negotiating of what support will be given does get a few of them to talk to us. ... ...

I've seen nothing indicating an intent to provide massive assault weapons to any of them. Does someone have a more specific summary of this "new plan?"

John