« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
When last we left the Bush administration's so-called benchmarks for strategic progress in Iraq -- that is, the political progress that military success allows -- they weren't being met, and the White House didn't care. Now that the year's almost over and the administration is beginning to bring the "surge" troops home, it's worth asking: what happened to the benchmarks? The New York Times reports that the administration has quietly given up on them, preferring nebulous goals for which it's easier to claim success.
With American military successes outpacing political gains in Iraq, the Bush administration has lowered its expectation of quickly achieving major steps toward unifying the country, including passage of a long-stymied plan to share oil revenues and holding regional elections.Instead, administration officials say they are focusing their immediate efforts on several more limited but achievable goals in the hope of convincing Iraqis, foreign governments and Americans that progress is being made toward the political breakthroughs that the military campaign of the past 10 months was supposed to promote.
The short-term American targets include passage of a $48 billion Iraqi budget, something the Iraqis say they are on their way to doing anyway; renewing the United Nations mandate that authorizes an American presence in the country, which the Iraqis have done repeatedly before; and passing legislation to allow thousands of Baath Party members from Saddam Hussein’s era to rejoin the government. A senior Bush administration official described that goal as largely symbolic since rehirings have been quietly taking place already.
In January, the entire point of the surge, according to President Bush, was to achieve sectarian reconciliation. The surge has had quite a few tactical successes, as would be expected with an infusion of 30,000 troops and a smarter, population-centric approach. But that's an unfortunate footnote to a four-plus-year war -- and one susceptible to reversal -- without political progress, as any half-awake counterinsurgency expert can attest. And, once again, the Bush administration has substituted at least some tangible definition of success for what amounts to a PR strategy. Remember this when Bush and the 2008 GOP presidential candidates praise the surge to high heaven and castigate liberals for opposing its manifest, shining wisdom.
What's more, while everyone was focused on Iraq, the same pattern has taken hold in Afghanistan.
A White House assessment of the war in Afghanistan has concluded that wide-ranging strategic goals that the Bush administration set for 2007 have not been met, even as U.S. and NATO forces have scored significant combat successes against resurgent Taliban fighters, according to U.S. officials.The evaluation this month by the National Security Council followed an in-depth review in late 2006 that laid out a series of projected improvements for this year, including progress in security, governance and the economy. But the latest assessment concluded that only "the kinetic piece" -- individual battles against Taliban fighters -- has shown substantial progress, while improvements in the other areas continue to lag, a senior administration official said.
This judgment reflects sharp differences between U.S. military and intelligence officials on where the Afghan war is headed. Intelligence analysts acknowledge the battlefield victories, but they highlight the Taliban's unchallenged expansion into new territory, an increase in opium poppy cultivation and the weakness of the government of President Hamid Karzai as signs that the war effort is deteriorating.
It should be surprising that military officials, who should have institutional knowledge of an earlier war in which all the battles were won and the greater conflict lost, still conflate tactical success with strategic victory. But it all makes sense if the greater imperative is to avoid admitting a war is lost for domestic political reasons.
But even as a PR strategy, the Bush administration's push to trumpet minor advances as heralds of the inexorable, forthcoming victory is sure to hit some snags. Consider the de-debaathification effort, highlighted in the Times piece as one of Bush's post-benchmark benchmarks.
Reforms that would ease curbs on former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party rejoining Iraq's civil service and military appeared headed for legislative gridlock after attempts Sunday to read a draft bill in parliament disintegrated into yelling and finger-pointing.It was the first time that Iraqi lawmakers had taken up any of the so-called major benchmarks that Washington has deemed crucial for the long-term cessation of sectarian violence and national reconciliation.
Squint hard enough and it kind of sort of maybe looks like victory.





By mid-2008, their "victory benchmarks" will include the sun always rising East of Baghdad, the presence of 3 freshly-painted schools, and electricity in the Green Zone.
Oh, and that car bombings are down from 10 a day to just 6. That makes Baghdad a veritible vacation hotspot!
November 26, 2007 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only tangible goal that ever really mattered was the oil theft law. If they have given up on that then they really have despaired.
November 26, 2007 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mike Tyson said:
"I'm going to eat your children". He didn't, of course.
But in Iraq, we do, but say we don't...except for the ones who deserve to be eaten.
November 26, 2007 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Duh. It's not news, it's the Bush administration. Did someone expect something different??
November 26, 2007 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
But, but, but Krauthammer said the surge was working and that you had to have your head in the sand not to see it. Surely he can't be wrong, can he? Charlie's never been wrong before, has he?
Bush said he was all about lowering expectations, so here they are, lowered.
November 26, 2007 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one could have anticipated that all that Bush administration bluff and bluster was just a BS PR strategy.
November 26, 2007 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Last week, the Guardian reported the Taliban may retake Kabul next year. Some success in Afghanistan.
November 26, 2007 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only measurable progress is the steady decimation of the Iraqi civilian population. Way to go, you cold blooded murderers!
November 26, 2007 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
why does reality hate Amurika ???
November 26, 2007 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is pathetic when you think about it. The right wing noise machine is gaga about the military having some success in Iraq. The traditional media has succeeded in spectacular fashion by lowering expectations of the most vaunted military force in history. How easy it is to forget the trillions of dollars spent for carriers, B-2 bombers, Abrahms tanks, helicopter gunships, satellite surveillance, laser weaponry, night vision optics, cruise missles and computer linked battlefield communications. Add to this the highest trained soldiers and support personnel we have an unstoppable force, right? You wish. This seemingly irresistable force has been fought to a standoff by an opposing force armed with AK-47s, RPGs, IEDs made from armaments left lying around by an insufficient invading force and boxes of black market cellphones.
It really staggers the mind when you think of it. These insurgents have none of this overpriced weapons yet they have forced the great superpower on earth to negotiate. Our soldiers are still dying every week, but you won't hear the stories of troops on patrol pulling into to vacant fields to park, notifying the locals "Hey, were not doing anything so leave us alone, don't bother us we won't bother you." This is how the troops are saving their own lives, without the knowledge of their superiors. It is one way to bring down casualty numbers. Don't engage, get home safe. Imagine how betrayed the troops feel. They know there won't be a withdrawal and they will be there forever. It is all about the oil and always has been.
November 26, 2007 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iraqis may offer US deal to stay longer
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, AP Writer
"...The Iraqi officials said that under the proposed formula, Iraq would get full responsibility for internal security and U.S. troops would relocate to bases outside the cities. Iraqi officials foresee a long-term presence of about 50,000 U.S. troops, down from the current figure of more than 160,000."
November 26, 2007 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure the administration has a goal. They just keep it secret.
Iran is the focus, is it not ? The Maliki government is completely comfortable with the government in Iran. This is a problem for the people running our government.
The goal is to recruit a Sunni faction that is to replace the Maliki government. Americans are now training Sunni insurgents. There is no political reconciliation being arranged to bring Sunnis into the Maliki government. So our new Sunni friends are being trained to fight ... whom ?
The public is bamboozled by the phony declaration that 'the surge is working' - a slogan made up by the thank-you-for-smoking people.
Thus there is no talk of leaving Iraq any time soon. And there is zero hope of this mess being cleaned up, ever. Iraq is like Lebanon now but bigger and even more unstable.
We proceed, logically, into worse and worse error.
November 26, 2007 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I'm rooting for war with Iran.
If this country is gonna go down the shitter, might as well do it with a very, very big BANG.
November 26, 2007 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It has occurred to me that the Iraq situation isn't a lot different than it was under the prior regime. By that I mean a new regime is in place that is politically unstable and has little choice but to resort to armed force to retain some semblance of order and security. I honestly have no idea how to measure progress under this circumstance but if you were to base an evaluation on Iraqi lives that have been lost, things are going the wrong way. There is simply no way to call this progress. All the wingers and administration hacks that applaud the lessening of violence have chosen to ignore the social and political inequities that exist and in all likelihood will not go away.
So is Bush, his winger supporters and the GOP in general this stupid or have they done this just for the sake of oil with full knowledge of the cost that would be borne by both Americans and Iraqis? Stupidity or greed. Some choice.
November 26, 2007 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, how soon they forget.
January 10, 2007: a "senior administration official" assures us that "you’re going to have some opportunities to judge very quickly" by comparing benchmarks (specifically the three Iraqi brigade promise).
That same day: Bush says "America will hold the Iraqi Government to the benchmarks it has announced.”
How soon they forget. BUSH and BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS put forward the benchmarks, THEY told AMERICA to judge whether the benchmarks were being met, and THEY claimed Iraq would be held to them.
You can't just walk away from that.
I see no reason why it should be forgotten.
November 26, 2007 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink