Self-Preservation & Arming Terrorist

There is a notion that, "because we have/had to deal with the *real world*" that the U.S. arming the likes of Saddam Hussein and the Mujahaddin were "the right thing to do at the time". Along with that goes the idea or challenge of "what would you do otherwise" [not wage war against the scurge of 'communism'?]

Well, I think the following analogy shows how problematic that is:
[Particularly regarding the fact that the U.S. 'armed' Iraq in it's fight against Iran....]

Such a deal is like arming a rival street gang against another supposedly more threatening street gang. Despite the intentions, the fact that both groups are "thugs" remains. By arming Gang A to fight Gang B then whatever amount of "terror" and consequentially the greater degree of "terror" Gang A causes within its own "community" has at least some bearing (direct or not) on Gang A's increased capacity to supress organic resistance from within its own community.

No 'policing agency' would dare arm "criminals" much less organized gangs.

No 'policing agency' worth its ethical salt would unleash such a plan as effective policing.... and that's talking about the *real world*. Consider the consequences.... It is not a stretch to say it is a complete dereliction of their duty. It is both reckless and irresponsible to arm "thugs" in hopes that the "thugs" just kill themselves with no other unfortunate consequences. The nature of the "thug"/gang, again, remains what it is, "thugish". They will continue to prey on the "weak", etc.

The most troublesome thing of all is that this strategy or tactic as well meaning as it may be, completely abandons and threaten[ed] the innocent people "trapped" in those "gang infested" neighborhoods. Whatever movements that may have made to rid them of those gangs, in the midst of such the Gang vs. Gang 'policing policy', are consequently stifled. Many lives lie ruined if not directly by violent victimization then by their lives held under seige of a now more imposing "terror" from the armed gang.

ALTERNATIVE:
Unless one thinks that there are no people within those communities under seige that want the gangs removed and that all of them are complicit with them, then this notion of dealing with the Lesser Of Two Evils and using one evil to hopefully destroy another is innane. By supporting the unsavory types your are by extension supporting whatever they do and the repression of the "good" people and their movements to rid themselves of those "thugs".

This 'policing policy' stark contrast to other U.S. policies where the "arming" support has been cast to non-governing entities - aka freedom fighters. Again, one must believe that there are no good people - no right-head organic liberation movements - if Evil, lesser or not, is the favored option.

Well, if after the "gang fight" is over with and the "new" policy is based on the idea that "the people's liberation struggle" and the brutality of the regime that repressed them had to go... then the same remained true when the gangs were fighting.

Good Policing policy necessarily means good community policy from the start. Responsible policing means no matter how dirty or dangerous, that the police themselves are the only one's fit to do the job....