My original response to Mike:
--1) I'm curious how he would know, has he talked with a lot of Tikritis? Is he fluent in Arabic? or is his perspective filtered through those that soldiers communicate most with, namely those who speak English and are supportive of the occupiers.
--from that Dennis somehow has me out to hector the soldier and call him a liar...Sorry Dennis, it's plain that, 1) my comments were directed to the list and 2) I didn't call the guy a liar, nor would I tell him he was 'lying'. My sense is if I suggested to him that even though he was on the ground in a war zone that despite that he was speaking truthfully, given his limitations linguistically and his position as a soldier (i.e. someone who can't cavort freely with Iraqis), he is not necessarily as able to assess Iraqi opinion in Tikrit as he might assume. It's entirely likely he is being honest in his opinions and still not able to present an accurate assessment of what Tikritis think. It's also possible that he's, by pure luck, been able to assess what they think despite the limited interaction a soldier has with occupied peoples.
Your point that there are people who support invasions in the invaded country is right of course and there are surely those who support the invasion. Of course that is fluid too, as the example of the Iraqi translator who witnessed the murder of a man at a checkpoint mentioned in the "Baghdad Report" post...The situation is, alas, rife with contradictions...
steve