Seven Rules, One Oath
One of the toughest tasks facing the Americans in Iraq is the building of a truly national security force, both as an Army and as a police force. Up to now, the police forces have tended towards the sectarian, and ineffective as a result, althought the Army has fared better. As part of his reporting from Iraq, Michael Yon describes a conference held by the US military that included Iraqi Army officers and leaders from insurgent and tribal groups that have committed to solidarity as Iraqis in a unified security force.
But how to get there? Colonel Steve Townsend presided over the conference, which developed into a negotiation -- and a remarkably civil and effective negotiation at that:
Colonel Townsend clarified the purpose of the meeting; it was not to formalize relations or to establish a chain of command, but to work out ways of cooperating to bring better days to Baqubah.Colonel Townsend’s staff had prepared a slideshow that started off with a draft of “7 Rules.” The final version of the 7 Rules were open to discussion and suggestions from those in attendance. The rules were followed by an Oath, also still in draft. ...
After the proposal for the 7 Rules and the Oath were presented, the most interesting—fascinating, really—part of the meeting unfolded.
The Iraqi Army officers and the insurgents known as the Baqubah Guardians took these discussions very seriously. They made thoughtful objections to some portions of both, and the debate resulted in better versions. The former enemies in the field appeared ready to work together to bring quiet and security to Baqubah and Diyala in general, which may have been the most surprising aspect of the conference.
This is what Generals David Petraeus and Ray Odierno meant when they warned Congress that the legislative benchmarks had much less relevance than the progress on the ground. If the diverse elements of Iraqi society are to live together and champion an Iraqi nationality, these developments will be how that happens. It's not that revenue sharing and reversing the effects of de-Baathification aren't good legislative priorities -- it's that they are secondary to the kinds of alliances that the bolstered American military presence is creating in western and central Iraq.
Be sure to read all of Yon's post. Don't forget to throw a few dollars in the tip jar while you're there.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on July 20, 2007 4:10 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (11)
Posted by rbj | July 20, 2007 4:48 PM
Sounds like a good start. It should be instructive that it took many years for the Colonies to actually form the United States of America under the Constitution -- and that the most contentious issue, slavery, was punted far down the road.
Posted by david | July 20, 2007 8:25 PM
Gen Petraeus was on the cover of Time magazine in July 2004. The headline, "can this man save Iraq"? I love our Media's short attention span. They forgot they already the gave Petraeus a shot. He failed.
Posted by crossdotcurve | July 20, 2007 9:24 PM
Michael Yon's posts are incredible for their...small vision. To extrapolate from a partisan's hundred yard gaze to an entire country of 23 million - oh, whoops, 2 million have bugged out - is the height of idiocy.
That's why we rely on people with experience for the big picture:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020901917.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020901917.html
I wonder how all the August gold-star mothers will feel, as the Iraqi government chills at the beach...
Posted by gaffo | July 20, 2007 9:47 PM
" If the diverse elements of Iraqi society are to live together and champion an Iraqi nationality, these developments will be how that happens."
all puppydogs and balloons - yep. sky is still green, trees blue.
oh ya, you are right; AFTER the civil war in Iraqnam, there will be peace - but it will be AFTER our declaired victory retreat and after their civil war to restore equilibruim.
Posted by gaffo | July 20, 2007 9:54 PM
"Sounds like a good start. It should be instructive that it took many years for the Colonies to actually form the United States of America under the Constitution -- and that the most contentious issue, slavery, was punted far down the road."
Last history book I read - I don't think the Redcoats arrived in NYC to impliment Democracy or Inalienable Rights upon the Colonialists.
as for slavery - purely economic issue. by 1900 the entire world had outlawed it due to the industrial revolution. in fact had we simply put off the Civil War another 30 or 40 years the whole thing could have been averted and millions spared.
Posted by RBMN | July 21, 2007 1:13 AM
What Petraeus and the American military are trying now (on a larger scale than before) is going over and around the Iraq government, to get the average Iraqi on the street to do what the government is either too lazy or too cautious to do--spy on the bad guys and report back. It's the same motivation Reagan used--go over and around the government bureaucracy to inspire the clever average people directly.
Posted by Adriane | July 21, 2007 1:33 AM
More slaves bought and sold today than ever before.
iAbolish.com
Posted by Nicholas | July 21, 2007 1:41 AM
crossdotcurve, same old tactics as usual, eh?
Every time there is good news, it "doesn't matter" because there is bad news somewhere else? I'm sure there's some clever name for this logical fallacy, but I'll just call it "changing the subject", and it speaks volumes of the smallness of your mind.
Who is the one being myopic, I wonder?
Posted by Terry Gain | July 21, 2007 7:21 AM
TROLL ALERT
For those of you who are interested, crossdotcurve's linked article -which he claims refutes the significance of the development reported by Yon- is a pre-Surge (February 11, 2007) opinion article by William Odom.
This makes cdc a troll- someone whose posts should be ignored.
Posted by Dale Michaud aka TexasDude | July 21, 2007 7:29 AM
gaffo ...
All one has to do is to read the 4 declaratons of secession to see exactly why the South left the Union ... and it was purely over slavery!
The North was in no way doing any unconstitutional except for not living up to the fugitive slave act, but even that did not deserve the dissolution of the Union by the South.
No, the South was NOT content upon leaving slavery to wither and die on the vine, which is what Lincoln, at first, wanted it to do, but to grow and prosper.
But, then again, the truth escapes those that rely on myth and propaganda!
Posted by TOM C | July 21, 2007 11:27 AM
There is only one benchmark ... How many people are dying? Everything else is truly irrelevant.