A New Iraq Question

So, our current mission in Iraq is to arm and train the country's armed forces so that they can maintain stability and we can leave. Does this ever work out for us? Just thinking through recent examples of the US arming and training opposing armies and the inevitable result -- that we wind up having to face down the beasts we've created.

1) Saddam Hussein. We armed him and assisted him against Iran during the 1980s. You all know what happened one and then two decades later.

2) Osama bin Laden, armed, trained and assisted to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980s. 20 years later? Right.

3) Manuel Noriega -- our strong man in Panama. Now in a Florida jail after we invaded his country to depose him.

One could point to Germany and Japan as counter-examples. We built up their countries and amred forces after World War II and haven't had a problem with them since. Israel, another US military project has turned out well for us and given us a dependable ally.

So, there's three successes and three disasters. I'm sure there's more to be added to either side. I can't help but wonder if Iraq won't be a little of both. Will we both successfully build a dependable and non-threatening military there, but, at the same time, create, train and motivate the next Osama bin Laden? I just don't see people discussing the fact that we have, on many occasions, created our own future enemies, and since I don't see the topic discussed, I do wonder if we're doing anything to keep our history of intervention from repeating itself.