Bush reports few gains in new Iraq report
White House’s Iraq “benchmarks” report to Congress on Friday to show improvement in only one of 18 areas and satisfactory progress in only half how can American’s see this as a success?
Politico-A congressionally-mandated “Iraq Benchmarks Report” that the White House plans to send Capitol Hill on Friday finds the Iraqi government has made satisfactory progress toward meeting nine of the 18 political and security goals, according to officials who have seen it. That is up by just one from the first such report, which was issued in July.
Here is a summary of the September report’s findings:
Benchmark:
1) Forming a Constitutional Review Committee (CRC) and then completing the constitutional review.
Assessment: Satisfactory
2) Enacting and implementing legislation on de-Ba’athification reform.
Assessment: Satisfactory (This is the one that improved from “Not satisfactory” in the July report.)
3) Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources of the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner.
Assessment: Not satisfactory
4) Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions.
Assessment: Satisfactory
5) Enacting and implementing legislation establishing an Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC), provincial elections law, provincial council authorities, and a date for provincial elections.
Assessment: Mixed progress
6) Enacting and implementing legislation addressing amnesty.
Assessment: Too early to assess
7) 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.
Assessment: Too early to assess
Establishing supporting political, media, economic and services committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan.
Assessment: Satisfactory
9) Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations.
Assessment: Satisfactory
10) Providing Iraq commanders with all authorities to execute this plan and to make tactical and operational decisions in consultation with U.S. Commanders without political intervention to include the authority to pursue all extremists including Sunni insurgents and Shia militias.
Assessment: Mixed progress
11) Ensuring that Iraqi Security Forces are providing even-handed enforcement of the law.
Assessment: Mixed progress
12) Ensuring that, as Prime Minister al-Maliki was quoted by President Bush saying, “the Baghdad Security Plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation.”
Assessment: Satisfactory
13) Reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminating militia control of local security.
Assessment: Mixed progress
14) Establishing all of the planned joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad.
Assessment: Satisfactory
15) Increasing the number of Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) units capable of operating independently.
Assessment: Not satisfactory
16) Ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected.
Assessment: Satisfactory
17) Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.
Assessment: Satisfactory
18) Ensuring that Iraq’s political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the Iraqi Security Forces.
Assessment: Not satisfactory
FROM USA TODAY
In for the long term? Maybe. But not with a blank check.
When President Bush brought down the curtain on a week of extraordinary political stagecraft Thursday night, the audience was left to contemplate the course of the Iraq war in a new way: one stripped of benchmarks, and one that would commit some undefined number of U.S. forces to Iraq for many years to come.
READ MORE
Iraq debate shifts to next move of ‘endless mission’
Bangor (Maine) Daily News, in an editorial: “Over two days this week, Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker spelled out clearly what achieving security and transition goals in Iraq would mean: many more years of occupation, many more American lives, hundreds of billions of dollars and no guarantee of success. Whatever action the United States takes in Iraq, including rapid withdrawal, it will remain engaged there, and that should push Congress to find an alternative to the endless mission chosen by President Bush. … It can decide to leave Iraq and watch it deteriorate before it sees improvement, however long that may take, or stay the course and check in with Gen. Petraeus again in six months to learn that, again, more progress is being made and more time is needed. Or it can and should choose a mission similar to the one outlined in the Baker-Hamilton report, which encourages the Iraqi military to play a more central role and pulls U.S. troops back to focusing on this nation’s strategic interests without abandoning the millions of civilians this nation has put at risk through inadequate planning.”
READ MORE
George F. Will, syndicated columnist: “Before Gen. Petraeus’ report, and to give it a context of optimism, the president visited Iraq’s Anbar province to underscore the success of the surge in making some hitherto anarchic areas less so. More significant, however, was the fact that the president did not visit Baghdad. This underscored the fact that the surge has failed, as measured by the president’s and Petraeus’ standards of success. … A democracy, wrote the diplomat and scholar George Kennan, ‘fights for the very reason that it was forced to go to war. It fights to punish the power that was rash enough and hostile enough to provoke it to teach that power a lesson it will not forget, to prevent the thing from happening again. Such a war must be carried to the bitter end.’ Which is why ‘unconditional surrender’ was a natural U.S. goal in World War II, and why Americans were so uncomfortable with three ‘wars of choice’ since then in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. What ‘forced’ America to go to war in 2003 — the ‘gathering danger’ of weapons of mass destruction — was fictitious. That is one reason this war will not be fought, at least not by Americans, to the bitter end. The end of the war will, however, be bitter for Americans, partly because the president’s decision to visit Iraq without visiting its capital confirmed the flimsiness of the fallback rationale for the war: the creation of a unified, pluralist Iraq.”
The Deseret Morning News, Salt Lake City, in an editorial: “For years, extreme right-wing groups exacerbated divisions in Congress by applying political pressure to the Republican majority. Now that Democrats are in control, the extreme left is flexing its muscle. If this keeps Congress from a realistic approach to the war in Iraq, the results could be devastating. … There are no quick fixes, no easy ways to help the Iraqis overcome their own divisions and establish independent self-rule. That effort will need time and a huge continued investment of human and financial resources. But to pull out now would result in a chaos and struggle that ‘will mean massive human suffering — well beyond what has already occurred within Iraq’s border,’ Crocker said. Those two realities must be the foundation for any future Iraq policy.”
The Charlotte Observer, in an editorial: “Six years ago today, the civilized world watched in horror as the Twin Towers fell and the Pentagon burned. … The anniversary of that harrowing day (came) as Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker (testified) before Congress about Iraq. … A new American strategy is needed that takes a larger and more pragmatic view. These would be among its priorities. Involve Iraq’s neighbors and the international community in building a new Iraq. Prevent a sectarian slaughter and a regional war. Make sure Iraq does not become a terrorist haven. Counter the influence of Iran. Assure continued flow of oil. Reduce U.S. troop presence over time to 50,000 or so, and greatly increase U.S. efforts to train Iraqis. Achieving these goals won’t be easy, but working to do so would help restore U.S. credibility in the region and the world. It also would help the next president, who will be dealing with Iraq long after George W. Bush is back in Texas.”
Akron (Ohio) Beacon Journal, in an editorial: “The timing of Gen. Petraeus’ appearance on Capitol Hill proved revealing in one way. His testimony … came on the eve of the sixth anniversary of the ghastly attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The hearing reinforced the distraction the war in Iraq has become, diverting time and resources from the larger effort of combating al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks. President Bush often describes the conflict in Iraq as the central front in the war against terrorists. To a substantial extent, he has made it so. The American presence works as a recruiting tool for al-Qaeda. Iraq serves as the emblem of the White House overreaction in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.”
The Union Leader, Manchester, N.H., in an editorial: “It is clear that by President Bush’s most important measure of success, the surge so far has not succeeded. It has not given the Iraqi government the ‘breathing room’ needed to work out political solutions to what Petraeus calls Iraq’s ‘ethnosectarian conflicts.’ The question at this point is whether there is sufficient evidence that the surge might produce the desired result if it is continued. … That is the dilemma America now faces. Do we choose honor via a limited victory, or certain defeat via an early withdrawal? … The evidence thus far, while depressing, does not prove that a worthwhile victory in Iraq is impossible. We owe it to our men and women in uniform who have sacrificed so much for this cause, to the Iraqi people and to our country to continue pushing toward victory. There may come a time when cutting our losses and withdrawing is the best option. Now is not that time.”
This was a great comment on TownHall!
conservativation writes:
OMG
Lets look logically at some basic facts. First though, as I listened to the president tick off all the accomplishements, he kept refering to how bad it was a year ago.
Well weren’t all the conservatives (I am one) panting about how a year ago things were better and just not reported? Its a broken friggin record.
So, if we stay we lose more troops right
But we are told that by staying we are averting a terror attack here (somehow) so we have a net gain.
We are told we are containing Iran by being there.
But wait, we hear all the time that an attack here is not IF but WHEN…so I would strike that benefit off the list of reasons to stay. A net zero gain, they will attack here again no matter what…who cares if they organize it in Baghdad or Chicago.
If we leave, we save some soldiers lives…agreed if stated that simple?
That would be a net gain.
As to Iran, our troops preoccupied passing out candy and taking IEDs up the wazoo would seem less able to contain Iran than a ready and rested force nearby sitting in a base.
Honestly the arguments for keeping the Iraqi’s from killing one another just don’t work anymore…which really means they never did.
Spouting patriotic slogans is cold comfort, and not intellectually honest. But call me a flip flopper…I can take it.
Bush speech unlikely to reassure nervous GOP
From Politico
President Bush felt good going into last night’s Oval Office address, aides said, since he finally had some fresh facts on his side and was able to describe a partial drawdown of troops as a “return on success” after years of setbacks and frustrations.
“Hopefully, the numbers are only going down from here,” said one administration official. A White House official talked about a “plan for success” and insisted that the speech outlined “a mission change based on success and progress on the ground and not a timetable for a hasty withdrawal.”
READ MORE
John,
So the WH is finally admitting that there’s been years of setbacks and frustations? They’re finally admitting that they’ve been lying to us all along about Iraq? How’s that going to play with the rank and file GOP? The other 3/4 of the country will greet that with a yawn? We stopped believing him years ago.
Who do you believe caroline…Hillary, Barack, Johnny haircut, Dennis Kucinich????
bb,
Why do you believe Bush? He told us “mission accomplished” years ago. “Insurgency in it’s last throes” ROTFLMAO! I love to play with conservatives. They are so gullible and have a limitless capacity to be duped!
I’ll try again — Who do you believe caroline…Hillary, Barack, Johnny haircut, Dennis Kucinich????
Hey, all of them have a reputation of telling the truth more than Bush! LOL! Thanks for proving me right! How does it feel to be constantly treated like an idiot by your own party? Heh, I guess it doesn’t bother you because you can’t discern fact from fiction.