Karen DeYoung and Tom Ricks write in today’s WaPo that unnamed senior administration officials involved in Iraq policy have admitted that “The Iraqi government is unlikely to meet any of the political and security goals or timelines President Bush set for it in January”, when he announced his launch of the notably unsuccessful surge policy. And that therefore,
- officials are marshaling alternative evidence of progress to persuade Congress to continue supporting the war.
In other words: Benchmarks? You thought we had benchmarks? No sirree, all we have is the marks made on the floor after we rapidly shifted the benches across it…
Turns out, though, that these benches can’t be shifted quite that easily… since in May, the Democratic-controlled Congress hoisted Bush on his own well-benchmarked petard and wrote into law not only the 18 goals he had established for Iraq but also a few of their own. They also set September 15 as the deadline by which Petraeus and Crocker need to come to DC to report on how well they have succeeded in meeting these benchmarks.
DeYoung and Ricks write:
- “That is a problem,” the official said. “These are congressionally mandated benchmarks now.” They require Bush to certify movement in areas ranging from the passage of specific legislation by the Iraqi parliament to the numbers of Iraqi military units able to operate independently. If he cannot make a convincing case, the legislation requires the president to explain how he will change his strategy.
Top administration officials are aware that the strategy’s stated goal — using U.S. forces to create breathing space for Iraqi political reconciliation — will not be met by September, said one person fresh from a White House meeting. But though some, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have indicated flexibility toward other options, including early troop redeployments, Bush has made no decisions on a possible new course.
“The heart of darkness is the president,” the person said. “Nobody knows what he thinks, even the people who work for him.”
Personally, I think it’s unfair to refer to Bush as “the heart of darkness.” Isn’t there someone else very close to him who deserves that monicker even more (and who, by all accounts, is the person who makes most of the presidential decisions)?
Another of the great quotes in this piece is this one, from a Pentagon official, talking about the Iraqi police:
- “half of them are part of the problem, not the solution.”
H’mm, if half of them are part of the problem, then that means that only half or perhaps significantly less than half are part of the solution. So wouldn’t the “problem” ones and the “solution” ones just about cancel each other out?
Why are US taxpayers putting up with this damaging nonsense?
What is the US doing inside that distant foreign country, anyway?
I have always thought the whole idea of “benchmarks” was extremely patronizing, colonialist, stupid, and counter-productive. But given that it has existed out there as an idea in the US political discourse, I do kind of enjoy seeing the administration squirming around trying to deal with it now.
Bottom line: Enough with all these attempts, however well-intentioned, at the complex social and political engineering of another people’s entire country. Just leave!
But it isn’t just about Bush’s views and Iraq postures. The UK is also facing its own terror challenges (Juan Cole wrote some good analysis on the latest medical UK terror gang and what it means, Helena wrote zippo).
Check out the latest UK views on a 15 year war on terror, and little to do with Iraq, this has been brewing for decades in Londonistan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6281388.stm
Oh, and Cole also tackles the Pakistan Red Mosque facedown, major event that somehow is too hot to handle for Helena, because the US ain’t to blame and the four M’s look pretty bad there.
Cole is finally allowing lots of commenters, so it may be time to move to Cole’s blog and leave the lady brewing alone here in her own vesicular juices.
A few comments…Doris, your utter hatred for HC is so obvious….why don’t you leave the website? It is vile…yes, the situation in the UK and Pakistan is down right frightening…Islamist radicals are dangerous and utter rejectionists of free societies…there is no question about this-
However, your posts are just unacceptable…in my view…
These benchmarks are the epitome of colonialism…
How many of our legislators have either openly commented, or stated as policy-the Iraqis need to take their security more seriously…I guess the victims of Virginia Tech deserve such an answer to their circumstances…what a whimpish copout…
well said kdj.
It happens that Juan has a past academic background on Pakistan — and nice to see him posting extensively on it, from that experience. (just as As’ad Abukhalil has been posting a “lot” from his quirky, insightful manner – as he happened to IN Pakistan — at angryarab blog spot.)
And since we’ve brought up Pakistan — how about this stunner, also from the NYT today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/washington/08intel.html?ex=1341633600&en=567bcc5fc5f85e0c&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
(where it’s revealed that the US CIA/DO got “shot down” by Rumsfeld in a past attempt to do a “snatch & grab” — apparently over Rumi’s fears it would expose too many US troops & snarl relations w/ Musharaf….
Apart from not wanting the operation to be “too large” and thus noticeable, I wonder if DR’s concerns about # of troops might also have had something to do with availability and their commitments, shall we say, elsewhere!???
Thanks, Scott! I wish I could find an email address for you-I hope you have written Senator Webb (as I have already) about the aid package for Lebanon, inclusive of the establishment of an historic first-A Lebanese National Museum of Art?
I have written the PMs’ of Italy, Luxembourg, France and Belgium already…this is my pet project! I hope you will join me…
Merci!
Kevin
Doris – Perhaps you are new to JWN and hadn’t noticed that Helena doesn’t use ad hominem attacks and expects the same from us. I’m sure she would welcome any substantive rebuttals you might want to post here.
Also, you may have overlooked this sentence in the BBC report you linked to:
“Sir Alan said he had never liked the expression “war on terror” and that he was very pleased the current government was looking at it in a different way.”
Gordon Brown’s government has a new policy of referring to the people who attempt to kill ordinary Britons as simply “criminals” rather than “terrorists” or “jihadis.”
The BBC world news had a panel discussion last week about the new policy, and one expert pointed out that in Brown’s weekend statement on the failed London car bombs and Glasgow airport attack he never mentioned “Muslims,” “Islam,” or “terrorists.” For the Brown government they are simply “criminals.”
His government realizes that to deal effectively with the threat, the police and intelligence agencies need the cooperation of the communities in which the criminals live and find their recruits. If you demonize a group by calling them names, it tends to make them less likely to give you a hand. What a concept for Americans to ponder!
Maybe if we withdraw from Iraq — totally, as Helena has been advising for years — we might see that “war” is the wrong frame for the long-term threat facing us, and referring to “Islamofacists” and “Muslim terrorists” is guaranteed to close ears.
I bet you’ll find the same thought over on Juan’s site. And you might find it instructive to consider how and why Helena and Juan disagree occasionally on the best strategy for the US in the ME — i. e., the extent to which the US has a constructive role to play in Iraq and in the region and what role, if any, the US military could play. Send some time here and you may just encounter some new ways of viewing the US in the world.
Doris – the Midge Decter of JWN
I don’t know…’Heart of Darkness’ dragged on forever and made me cry from frustration, just like this president.
“the strategy’s stated goal — using U.S. forces to create breathing space for Iraqi political reconciliation…”
What a huge, steaming, stinking pile of processed bull food that “stated goal” is to begin with. I makes exactly zero logical sense in any case. How do you “create breathing space for political reconciliation” by increasing the occupier’s violence?
“the whole idea of “benchmarks” was extremely patronizing, colonialist, stupid, and counter-productive.”
And meaningless – except for one of those benchmarks, which has a clear, self-serving purpose, and which IS, after all, the only one for which the Bush imperial regime has been putting extreme pressure on the Iraqi make-believe government. Yup, the oil law – i.e. the so-called “revenue sharing law, which actually IS about revenue sharing when you think about it. I mean, the western (mostly American) oil interests that will be given control over Iraq’s oil reserves and industry will share SOME of the revenues with the Iraqi people, won’t they?
A key point of discussion for H, S, and all:
Would a progressive withdrawal in fact not be better than a rapid withdrawal which would create a vacuum? What of the Iraqi government’s own fear of a rapid withdrawal?
It seems (unless I am missing something), that in our zest to end this war, we are leaving this key factor out of the discussion…
Your thoughts?
A key point of discussion for H, S, and all:
Would a progressive withdrawal in fact not be better than a rapid withdrawal which would create a vacuum? What of the Iraqi government’s own fear of a rapid withdrawal?
It seems (unless I am missing something), that in our zest to end this war, we are leaving this key factor out of the discussion…
Your thoughts?
Kurdish leaders spoke out Wednesday against a key oil law, raising further doubts over efforts to pass one of the political benchmarks sought by the United States at a time when the Bush administration is trying to fend off critics of its Iraq policy.
This is the most important “Benchmarks? for US administration, we will see this US/Oil giants Drafted law passing, will all thing will then seizing down and Iraq will be forgotten place in this world, then who is “Next” US to prepare for another enemy and another war by marking a new scary enemy inside /outside US.
Its along journey hunting for cheep oil for those ugly wealthy blood thirsty folks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6j3t82qCYI&mode=related&search=
“Would a progressive withdrawal in fact not be better than a rapid withdrawal which would create a vacuum?”
If by a “progressive” withdrawal you mean “redeployment over the horizon”, even “temporarily”, or “a drawdown of forces” or whatever the terminology is. You must know, kdj, that the Bush regime is spending billions building and equipping several enormous permanent – excuse me, “enduring” – military bases strategically located throughout Iraq. A “progressive” wothdrawal will only be used to make those bases and the personnel on them a fait accompli. It plays right into the hands of the administration imperialists.
As for it creating a vacuum, that requires one to assume that the occupation forces are actually providing some kind of useful service/protection/etc., for which I have not seen much evidence. It looks to me as if they are mostly creating increasing violence and chaos.
In fact, I recently spoke with Dahr Jamail, the completely independent, never-once-imbedded American journalist, who pointed out that the violence and chaos tend to be greater when and where the American presence is greater. The history of what happened in Falluja could be a useful case in point. In 2003, Falluja was quiet, and the leaders were doing a good job of keeping order there until late April when the Americans decided it needed their presence. and came charging in. We all know the rest of the story.
“What of the Iraqi government’s own fear of a rapid withdrawal?”
The only people in this whose fear of anything at all is of less importance than that of the Iraqi make-believe government is the Bush administration and their lackeys and sycophants in the military. Let them all fly off the roof with the rest of the invaders. They are a useless illusion of nothing with no real function, and most of them spend most of their time outside the country anyway.
kdj,
Further, regarding the “dangers” of a rapid withdrawal, we should take note of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis in Iraq not only want a rapid withdrawal, even more significantly the great majority believe that the United States is causing more violence and chaos than it is preventing, and that the violence will actually decrease once their presence has ended. The evidence strongly supports their view.
At the very least the massive very deadly and destructive violence that is being perpetrated directly every day by the Americans will end once they are gone. And so will the violence that has been directed specifically against the occupation and its proxies and agents. Most people have absolutely no idea exactly how extensive, how massive American violence is in Iraq, and how much death and destruction it causes every day. And the Bush military likes it like that.