Rusted Sky

Michael Yon : Online Magazine � Blog Archive � 7 Rules: 1 Oath

Today marks D 30 since the start of Operation Arrowhead Ripper. The initial goal of Arrowhead Ripper was to clear Baqubah of al Qaeda, and then attempt to “jump start” the city back into civic life, which had all but ceased while the terrorists were in control. Though relatively minor clearing operations are still underway, there is little combat in the city.

Today Colonel Steve Townsend, the American commander of the 3-2 Stryker Brigade Combat Team, presided over a meeting with Iraqi Army officers and former insurgent leaders. The insurgent leaders who seem to be sincerely working toward peace are now collectively referred to as “the Baqubah Guardians.” I was allowed to attend the meeting, but was—understandably—not permitted to photograph or videotape the proceedings.

The meeting is detalied, along with the 7 rules and 1 oath. The sheiks have had a bellyful of the fighting and killing, and are willing to cooperate and turn their area around. It's a very good start, and one which shows great promise.

Seeing “God is Great” written on the Iraqi flag might provoke some to protest “Why did we come here just to stand up a country who would write such things on their flag?” But I sat there in that meeting, which was completely civil and professional, and I thought about another flag, the one flying over South Carolina. Some people call that flag “heritage,” while others call it “hateful,” “painful” and “demeaning.” And today in that meeting, I thought about the descendants of slaves who are now top military commanders in the American Army, and in that moment I knew that Iraq could make it.

And in Washington - well, some are trying very hard to make it clear to the Iraqi government, and the terrorists that our patience isn't without limits. I'm all for wanting to see progress - but I'm also aware that this is going to take time and we will see setbacks along with the progress. However, with an election coming up next year, the pressure to bail is going to be high.

Commanders and U.S. envoy seek more time for Iraq - Print Version - International Herald Tribune

But senior lawmakers sought on Thursday to signal that they would regard September as a deadline for deciding the future of the American commitment to Iraq.

"We're not staying," added Senator Joseph R. Biden, the Delaware Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee. "You don't have much time."

At the Pentagon, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the senior ground commander in Iraq, said that while he would be able to provide an assessment of the progress of the new military strategy in mid-September, it would take at least 45 days beyond that to know with more certainty whether the strategy was working.

"In order to do a good assessment I need at least until November," he said during a video briefing with Pentagon reporters.

General Odierno said there had been "significant success" in rooting out insurgents, both within Baghdad and in towns surrounding the capital. But in an implicit argument for more time, he said it would not be possible to know by September whether these were "just a blip."

How long does it take to build a country, when the countries around it are trying hard to tear it down? How long does it take to build a country, when there are those within it who see sowing distrust among political factions in that country as a means to gain power for THEIR faction?

How long does it take to fight an insurgency when weekly you have people WHO SHOULD BE SUPPORTING THAT FIGHT demanding we leave NOW, and doing damn near everything in their power to politically hamstring the President? How long does it take to get a government operational when the people in it who need your support are quite aware that support can disappear real damn quick if it's politically expedient for it to vanish?

FOXNews.com - Bush Calls on Congress to 'Rise Above Partisanship' on Iraq - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

WASHINGTON — President Bush on Friday called on Congress to set aside partisanship in the increasingly tense Iraq debate and asked for patience on his strategy there even as administration officials set out to clarify apparently misinterpreted remarks by a general over when Congress next would be briefed on progress in Iraq.

Wouldn't it be a real hoot if the Democrats pulled another Viet Nam play and forced a withdrawl, and a bloodbath was started... but stopped when the government and people of Iraq realize they've got one final chance to get their shit together, at which point they stabilize the country and shove out all the foriegn jihadis? Think the Dems would be unhappy at the success of Iraq, or glad the country stabilized and try to take credit for it?

Now, extend it further. A Democratic president is elected in '08. Iran gets very shakey a year or two later, but tries to compensate by announcing they're working hard on a nuclear weapon. We know where the nuke complex is, only we need to stage in Iraq to get at it with the proper equipment and troops.

We request assistance from Iraq.

Iraq tells us to go piss up a rope.

We wouldn't help them, and now they won't help us. If a REPUBLICAN President were to ask, they say, they would seriously consider it. But a Democrat? No, because it's quite clear that the Democrats aren't friends of the Iraqi people, and they'd likely quit the attack before the job was half-complete.

And then, in the spirit of friendship that the Democrats demonstrated to the Iraqi people, the President of Iraq sends the President of the United States two things.

A 50 lb bag of Iraqi desert sand... and a rusty hammer.

J.