Iraqi Government Fails to Meet Benchmarks
And in Other News, The Sun Rose in the East this Morning…
By Mark I Posted in Featured Stories | War — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Note by Jeff: Embedded documentarian JD Johannes weighs in over at his site with this pithy perspective:
The Democratic controlled Congress has yet to meet hardly any of the benchmarks they set for themselves.
Maybe we should declare the United States a failure.
The mainstream media and the left went all agog yesterday over the leak from the impending July 15 status report to Congress on the effectiveness of the troop surge in Iraq.
A progress report on Iraq will conclude that the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad has not met any of its targets for political, economic and other reform[s], speeding up the Bush administration's reckoning on what to do next, a U.S. official said Monday.
One likely result of the report will be a vastly accelerated debate among President Bush's top aides on withdrawing troops and scaling back the U.S. presence in Iraq.
The "pivot point" for addressing the matter will no longer be Sept. 15, as initially envisioned, when a full report on Bush's so-called "surge" plan is due, but instead will come this week when the interim mid-July assessment is released, the official said.
While it is definitely not a comforting report, that the elected government of the Iraqi people has been thus far unable to mend political fences for the benefit of the people who entrusted it with power, the hysteria with which the report has been greeted by Democrats, the media, and the left is vastly premature and overblown. To demonstrate the truth in that statement, one need only Google the words “Iraqi Government misses deadline.”
Read on…
Here’s a sampling of the results from just the first page of that search:
Iraq misses deadline for probe on torture allegations
Rice: Iraq Missed Political Deadlines
8 killed in Iraq as Maliki misses deadline for new cabinet.
Iraqi Lawmakers Miss, Dismiss Constitution Deadline
Iraqis miss another deadline on charter
Iraq battles to avoid political turmoil after missed deadline
Even the most cursory look back at Iraq’s short history with democracy readily reveals that the Iraqi government, in all of it’s various forms since the election of the interim assembly, practices political brinksmanship. The government has missed every deadline that it has set, or that has been set for it. It matters not what the issue is, or who it is driving the agenda. This government operates on its own time schedule and according to its own interests, no one else’s. Neither the United States Ambassador, nor the President, nor even the Democratic Congress has been successful at getting Iraqi politicians to act until they good and well are ready to act.
The mainstream media, however, apparently doesn’t believe in context, and the Democrats have proven time and again that their collective memory only goes back to the last time they opened their mouths. The result is that stories like yesterday’s are treated as bombshells, when in reality they could have been predicted with near certainty.
Notice that we have not even addressed the fact that the troop surge was only completed within the last three weeks. In the end, that is probably the more relevant reason for all the caterwauling from the left over this latest “revelation.” The surge must fail in order for them to have any credibility on the war going into the 2008 elections, therefore, it must be declared a failure before it even begins.
Make no mistake, all of this sound and fury over the missed deadlines, benchmarks, or measuring sticks will in the end signify nothing. Congress may pass one or two of their show amendments to the Defense appropriation, but the president will veto the bill and the Congress as a whole won’t override it, even if one of the houses manages to get enough votes. It’s all political posturing designed to appeal to the Democrats' base. Democrats went far out on a limb with their base during the 2006 election, promising practically everything from ending the war, to free heath care, to a cure for cancer, and thus far have delivered precious little. This Democrat Congress will be judged by their success in ending the war. It’s the reason they were put in charge, and their base is in no mood to wait patiently while Sen. Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi play their political games. They expect results. The Democrats know this and are furiously trying to prepare the ground for their next assault.
It’s always suspicious when conclusions from an as yet unseen document make the front pages. It usually means that someone is trying to pre-spin the document to one side's political advantage. So plan on being surprised when the report actually becomes public later this week. Recall the controversy over the National Intelligence Estimate that was leaked to the New York Times in the run up to the 2006 Congressional elections. Democrats seized on leaked conclusions from the NIE that supposedly stated that the Iraq war was creating more terrorists. In particular they focused on one sentence from the unseen document.
The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.
Taken on its own, this conclusion seemed to bolster the Democrats' contention that invading Iraq was a strategic blunder that had only led to more terrorism and resentment of the United States. But they failed to include the very next sentence, which completely changes the meaning of the previous, more ominous one.
Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.
The conclusion actually chided the Democrats' line of thinking that leaving Iraq would make the United States safer. When President Bush ordered the key judgments of the NIE declassified to counter dishonest reporting and commentary on the report, the controversy, such as it was, died. It may well be the same with the upcoming status report on the troop surge. Democrats have a lot riding on failure in Iraq. They have been caught at least once before trying to sift the grains of pessimism from an optimistic harvest. The smart money is betting that they are doing it again in this case.
Regardless of the actual wording of the report, though, the real deadline is September. This is when commanding Gen. David Petraeus is set to give his status report to Congress on the progress toward pacifying Baghdad and its environs. To the extent that this depends on the Iraqi government meeting a threshold of some kind, count on them missing it. They haven’t disappointed yet.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | Misanthropy Justified — Comments (4) »
Iraqi Government Fails to Meet Benchmarks 30 Comments (0 topical, 30 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
If the report is lousy then it is in the Admin's best interest to leak parts of it before it comes out to lower the impact on "official" day.
Haven't meet the benchmarks that the American People established for them back in November. Why should the Iraq Government be any different? Isn't it learn by example?
Perhaps the Republicans would do well to show the same tolerance for the Democrats as they do the Iraqis when it comes to benchmarks.
Obviously we just need to give the Democrat Congress a chance to work.
Expeditionary Unit to the Capitol, preferably preceded by air strikes.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Flip jokes about murdering half our government weren't funny before 9/11, and now they're downright creepy.
NeitherParty, well said.
Priorities should dictate who we vanquish first.
Remember, Al Qaeda wants to take away more than your tax cuts.
...get it together or we commend you bound hand-and-foot to AQI's tender mercies. Same timeframe, too.
--furious
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
for someone to make that observation, that Congressional Democrats have failed to meet every single one of their own benchmarks, and the Iraqi parliament should only be expected to follow their example, just as you said. I expected more wit from talk radio. I might have missed someone in the conservative media from mentioning it once but surely it would bear repeating if they'd thought of it.
Maybe this is another reason why"Red State Radio" has a bright future.
I don't buy the Administration's position on benchmarks anyway.
- The commitment is not open-ended.
- We will never withdraw from Iraq before the job is done.
- Benchmarks have not been met when we wanted them to be.
- We won't specify a consequence for missing a benchmark deadline.
The Administration is trying to get the best of both worlds here while a) never abandoning the Iraqis and b) pretending to hold them to task.
But I think it really is the best strategy, given the circumstances. If we can't get the Iraqis to stand up, Bush looks bad. If we withdraw, Bush looks worse. And the American people are already irritated, and the Press are fueling that fire for as much advertising space as it will consume.
We who support the goals of the war and see clearly the disastrous consequences of failure can be very, very blind to the fact there has been precious little evidence that better times are coming soon.
There are many disingenuous and politically motivated criticisms of the war, but in my book, criticizing the Iraqis for not stepping up more and sooner isn't one of them. It's a legit gripe. The emergence of a great and inspirational leader to move Iraq forward is a break we haven't seem to have caught.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
To the extent that this depends on the Iraqi government meeting a threshold of some kind. . .
Do you mean to suggest that the success of our efforts doesn't ultimately depend on this?
It seems to me that you're correct in pointing to this constant, inescapable tendency on the part of the Iraqi government to act according to its own preferred schedules and priorities rather than ours.
What's bizarre to me is that you then abandon this line of reasoning -- as if you can't afford to let it call the premises of our ongoing military effort into question.
In fact, I'm pretty sure most Democrats -- along with most of the rest of the world -- have concluded that our continued efforts are going to be unavailing precisely because the factions we're supporting have aims of their own that aren't in accord with ours -- and that those factions don't and won't accept the American political plan for Iraq. They'll just keep paying lip service to it for as long as it keeps us there killing their rivals.
If this weren't true, then they might be willing to meet our benchmarks. Since it's not true, then the whole point of the benchmarks is to demonstrate this to people who don't yet grasp it.
Yeah, I mangled that last sentence. Take the "not" out of "Since it's not true..."
It seems to me that you're correct in pointing to this constant, inescapable tendency on the part of the Iraqi government to act according to its own preferred schedules and priorities rather than ours.
What's bizarre to me is that you then abandon this line of reasoning -- as if you can't afford to let it call the premises of our ongoing military effort into question.
I'm not sure I abandoned that line of reasoning.
My point in this piece was that, just as the Iraqi government moves at its pace according to its interests, so must the United States, according to our interests. Democrats and skittish Republicans are imposing the artificial timeline of the 2008 elections on their thinking about the war. That is the wrong approach.
Our ongoing military effort should be driven by our security needs. All but the most radical lefties agree that a precipitous withdrawl from Iraq would have disastrous consequences for that country, the region, and US security. As long as that remains true, it is in our interest to continue fighting in Iraq, whether or not that government ever passes an oil law.
Withdrawl should only come when that condition is no longer true, or when it can be reasonably believed that Iraq will be able to handle the results of a US pull out. It should not come because some 5 term incumbent wants to serve a sixth or becuase a political party wants to win the White House.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
You have to take the country to war.
One of the Democrats said this recently (I don't remember which), and I think that is the largest part of the problem. The administration has simply failed to make it's case for this war. It doesn't matter if that was because the headwinds created by the Democrats and the media, it's true all the same. The country isn't signed up for this war.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
But I challenge your premise that the country is not signed up for this war. They are definitely not signed up for the violence and the reporting on it, but they are equally not signed up for losing or for leaving a bloody mess behind. If they were, the US would be a lot closer to being out of Iraq than it is.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
the 2006 elections made this pretty clear. Iraq was not the only issue, but Americans were not pleased at the Republican's blank-check handling of the matter.
I'm confident you're right that Americans aren't interested in losing. But what the White House has continually failed to establish is that there's a victory to be won. There needs to be a promise of a carrot, if we're to endure the sticks.
Some interesting figures from Rasmussen today on attitudes on the war and withdrawal:
Will there be violence in Iraq after we pull out troops?
45% yes
19% no
15% no change
Will Iraq be better off after we leave than they were under Saddam Hussein?
44% yes
21% no
11% no change
So, people reject the idea that we destroyed Iraq by invading it. Also, they understand the dire consequences of leaving precipitately.
What then is the problem? This:
Has the surge succeeded?
19% yes
43% no
24% too early to tell
I would say this is a failure of communication, but also of leadership. And I don't just mean the President.
Paris Hilton, American Idol, iPhones, Xboxes, the NFL/NBA/MLB, Lotto, booze and sex. AQ lighting off a nuke in SF, NYC or DC is beyond "this Country's" comprehension. The Democrats are pretty much insane with the concept of acquiring power at any cost inclusive of the nuke downside. So, why should I care?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Given that the violence in Iraq is sectarian Sunni V Shiite violence, and given that there are still a lot of scores to settle, when, in your opinion, would it be prudent to pull out?
In other words, yes things are going to get worse when we withdraw, but since we're not going to stay forever, will they be worse if we pull out soon or in five years?
Here's my preference:
All but the most radical lefties agree that a precipitous withdrawl from Iraq would have disastrous consequences for that country, the region, and US security. As long as that remains true, it is in our interest to continue fighting in Iraq, whether or not that government ever passes an oil law.
Withdrawl should only come when that condition is no longer true, or when it can be reasonably believed that Iraq will be able to handle the results of a US pull out.
I can't put a time frame on that, but there it is. Also the violence isn't all Sunni on Shia. It is increasingly Sunni on Sunni with the tribes in Anbar turing on al-Qaeda. That represents progress for the US.
I'd love for the US to have the five years you suggest. If we did, I'd argue that things would be much worse if we pull out now.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
The problem for the Admin or its supporters trying to argue the "it will be a bloodbath" card is that the American public no longer trusts the predictions of what will happen where the Admin and Iraq are concerned.
Almost everyone agrees that Iraq will be a bloodbath if the US leaves now. The only difference is who they place the blame on, and how much they care.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
"Regardless of the actual wording of the report, though, the real deadline is September. This is when commanding Gen. David Petraeus is set to give his status report to Congress on the progress toward pacifying Baghdad and its environs."
Besides the great reporting by Michael Yon, in today's Wall Street Journal Kimberly Kagan gives an excellent update on the progress in Iraq via the "surge" under General Petraeus.
That the doubters in Congress would take the time to consider this is, unfortunately, hoping for too much.
Jack
The World's Ruined
Paloozi and Reid have failed to meet their stated objectives. I recommend they redeploy thier party to Okinawa where they can continue their war of mass distortion - to an audience of uncaring goony birds.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
I think it's a bit unfair to equate failing to raise the minimum wage or to cut student loan rates with failing to do things like:
(vii) Enacting and implementing legislation establishing a strong militia disarmament program to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the Constitution of Iraq.
-or-
(xiii) Reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminating militia control of local security.
-or-
(xv) Increasing the number of Iraqi security forces units capable of operating independently.
The Democrats failure will result in teenages continuing to flip burgers for $5.15 rather than $7.00. The Iraqi parliament's failure is leading to high level Iraqi politicians suggesting that the Iraqi people arm themselves. I don't see how the former is comparable to the latter. Unless you were just being witty, in which case, I'm sorry for failing to get the joke.
Umm... I've seen several references to Democrats failing to raise the minimum wage in this thread, but didn't the Iraq emergency spending bill signed in late May contain the federal minimum wage increase promised?
It's set to
* $5.85 an hour on July 24, 2007
* $6.55 an hour on July 24, 2008, and
* $7.25 an hour on July 24, 2009.
The time table will be measured in September. Unti then, let's all chill!
http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org
With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see right.
For an Administration that is “known” for their secrecy…
And they can’t keep a un-classified report due next week secret for 6 more days…
WOW