el viajero,

I don't believe our military figured that the people would come out in throngs to greet them. I do believe they knew that the Shiites in the South, and the Kurds, in the North, would eventually support what we're doing, to gain their own freedom. Of course there's optimism on our part, and always will be. But that was guarded optimism, since it was well known that the UN abandoned these same people during the Gulf War, when they had the Hussein regime under pressure, and could have taken him out.

Had the UN allowed the coalition to finish the job, these people would have been lining the streets in support, as coalition forces moved by, since they had taken up arms against Hussein.

But, once burned, because of the self-righteous attitude of the UN members who were using the withdrawal at that time to gain a foothold in Iraqi sales, we withdrew. A terribly stupid thing to have done, and we can thank the UN for it.

The stories as to what happened to the Shiites after we withdrew should more than tell you why they aren't overly ready to accept us as liberators today.

But, let's look at certain aspects of the news. The ability of coalition planes to identify exactly which targets should be hit throoughout the country. It's obvious that there are Iraqis stepping forward and helping us, even though they and their families would be slaughtered by Saddam's faithful. There is absolutely no way we would be able to gather the intelligence we're getting on targets without their help. Consider that, and you might find the people are really thankful we are there.

Are we disappointed that the people aren't reacting totally in favor of us? Of course. We can always hope it would be there, and when it doesn't happen, there has to be a bit of disappointment. But don't mix disappointment with it being something we had expected, military plans aren't based on specifics that are like that.

You might also want to ask the thousands of Kurdish troops who are helping the small contingent of U.S. paratroopers in the north, to contain, and help drive back the Iraqi forces there, as well as their deployment in the attacks against the terrorists cells operating freely under Iraqi military protection.

Wolf

When Saddam and his henchmen are toppled, there will still be some fighting, but by and large, the Iraqi people will see their new world is one of opportunity, and escape from tyrany. That's when the healing will really begin.

I don't know what interviews you're watching, or what you consider as being "bewildered," but I do see American Commanders avoiding giving information that would be helpful to the enemy. I think you're seeing the disgust they have over the questions asked, more than bewilderment. You'd think these reporters would have more common sense than to step into the face of a field commander and say; "And tell me General Halftrack, do the attacks by Iraqi soldiers in civilian clothes, surrounded by human shields disturb you, and have you changed your tactics about handling these situations in the future?"

Those are question asked by idiots, and I'm afraid there are too many of them who have license to attend briefings, and push a mic in front of a person.

As for Peter Arnett being canned by MSNBC, and NBC, I realize it may be "censorship." Yet, what he did say was giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Still, I am not certain that he should have been fired, because I've always considered him somewhat neutral, just like I did back in the Gulf War. He's a solid reporter, and even if he has started to feel compassion for the Iraqi military, it's akin to the Stockholm Syndrom in some respects, because he's seen the results it holds for people. Anyway, it was only his opinion, that our attacks weren't breaking the will of the Iraqi military.