Anbar Comes Home
In 2006, the tribal leaders in the Sunni province of Anbar, Iraq decided they had had enough of the al-Qaeda killers and Iranian bully boys among them. They rose up in something that was later called the Anbar Awakening and, with the assistance of the US military, drove the Islamists from the province.
Two years later, Anbar is ready to become the tenth of Iraq’s eighteen provinces to come under complete Iraqi control. That is, by any means and measure, tremendously good news. It means that over half of the country which only recently was considered broken nearly beyond repair, will be run by Iraqis and for Iraqis. Anbar will be the first Sunni province to unite with its Shia-dominated brothers. This is a sign of healing as sure as the first robin presages spring.
Of course, you’re not going to find that good news being spread much around here. Confederate Yankee has prowled the internet looking for any sign that the MSM or any lefty blogger would anounce this news with anything close to the vigor they used to report on the bad news that came out of Anbar to no avail. Even the Congressional Democrats, never shy about putting out a press release, are quiet. This leads him to write what I think is a blunt but very accurate accusation.
With ever passing day that Iraq inches towards success or takes a dramatic leap, it becomes ever more apparent that many Democrats in this country, be they members of the news media, the new media, elected officials, or the activist left, don’t just want the United States out of Iraq. They want us cast out or withdrawn in defeat.
The al Anbar handover is symbolic in nature as well as practical, and good news for two Democratic nations. Sadly Democratic leaders cannot join in sharing the good news, because what is good for the United States and what is good for the citizens of Iraq is not good for Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi, or Barack Obama.
Sadly, that seems to be the truth. I’ve not seen anything to make me think otherwise.
Other Posts of Interest:
- More Political Progress in Iraq.
- The Washington Post Can’t Imagine Why Democrats Oppose a US/Iraq Alliance
- Kick Islamist Heinie from Pillar to Post? Win Hearts and Minds? Yes, We Can!
Category: Fighting the Islamists, Oh, THAT liberal media., The Long War Here At Home
If I'm not mistaken "complete control" does not mean US forces are not required to back the "complete control" because no Iraqi units have been designated as competent to keep control sans US troops.
The WaPo and the NY Times both report:
For example, in an analysis based on a classified study of Iraqi Army battalions, the office concludes that just 10 percent of them are capable of operating independently in counterinsurgency operations and that even then they rely on American support.
No, "complete control" is exactly what it means. The Iraqis are in charge. If they want help, they ask us for it. That's what's happened elsewhere.
See, the Iraqi army and police force is going to require assistance for a number of years. You don't just build an entire security apparatus in six years, or even ten. Logistical assistance takes time and a lot of money to build and that will come along after the more immediate requirements. Also, experienced mid-level NCOs and police officers (Sergeants and Lieutenants), which are critical to the efficient and effective operation of any police department or military take time to get. You can't just hire them and they don't just spring from the ground.
But make no mistake. The Iraqis are calling the shots in these provinces.
I seriously have doubts that there will be enough time to complete the mission. The Dems are so determined to make sure we lose & that a whole bunch of people get killed. It will help their election chances…
But I'm glad at least for a little good news.
Yeah, well, as Juan Cole comments on the 29th, the US killed a Maliki relative, so its s.o.f. demands to be in control while allowing dupes like Jimmie to say it is not in control, look like doomed attempts.
At any rate when you need back up you are not in complete control. If the US required Canadian back up to keep Seattle in line, it would not be in complete control. Notice I use Seattle, because to use Detroit would be to argue Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan's case-come home America, we don't even have peace in our own cities. What arrogance to believe we can install peace in the Mideast.
Ken, you're bound and determined to find the bad news, yes? The Iraqis say they are in control. The US military leaders in-theater say it's in Iraqi control.
Why do you so desperately disbelieve them? Are you so afraid that President Bush might at last find the success he predicted that you are willing to spit on the whole situation? What's your sad little scrap of political power worth to you? What arrogance to put your pathetic little piece of the pie ahead of the self-determination of a couple dozen million Arabs.
Chalk up another Iraqi oficial who agrees that American occupiers, not Iraqis, are in control.
Meanwhile, the dispute between the al-Maliki government and the US military in Karbala province, over the US operation that killed a relative of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, has worsened, according to McClatchy. Hannah Allam writes:
' Kurdish legislator Mahmoud Othman called Friday's operation "unacceptable" and had strained relations between the countries. "This is a big embarrassment for Prime Minister Maliki because he was in that area two days before the incident, telling his people that we are the masters in our country and the decisions were ours to make," Othman said. "This is why we are afraid of agreements and immunity. … If there are wanted people in any area, why not send an Iraqi force to do the job?"