dubya "progressed" his bullsh!t lies yesterday.

[boutons_]

You Call That Progress?

By Fred Kaplan
Slate Thursday 12 July 2000

The outrageous White House report on Iraq.

The White House report released today, on how far Iraq has progressed toward 18 political and military benchmarks, is a sham.

According to the report, which was required by Congress, progress has been

"satisfactory" on eight of the benchmarks,
and mixed on two.

At his press conference this morning, President Bush, seeing the glass half full, pronounced the report "a cause for optimism"-and for staying on course.

Yet a close look at the 25-page report reveals a far more dismal picture and a deliberately distorted assessment. The eight instances of "satisfactory" progress are not at all satisfactory by any reasonable measure-or, in some cases, they indicate a purely procedural advance. The eight "unsatisfactory" categories concern the central issues of Iraqi politics-the disputes that must be resolved if Iraq is to be a viable state and if the U.S. mission is to have the slightest chance of success.

Here are the benchmarks at which, even the White House acknowledges, the Iraqi government has not made satisfactory progress:

• Legislation on de-Baathification reform
• Legislation to ensure equitable distribution of oil revenue without regard to sect or ethnicity
• Setting up provincial elections
• Establishing a strong militia-disarmament program
• Allowing Iraqi commanders to pursue militias without political interference
• Ensuring that the Iraqi army and police enforce the law evenhandedly
• Increasing the number of Iraqi security forces capable of operating independently (here, the number has actually gone down)
• Ensuring that Iraq's political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of Iraqi security forces

The status of former Baathists, distribution of oil revenue, local elections, disarming militias, sectarianism within the police, the legitimacy of the national army-these are the main issues grinding the parliament to a standstill, aggravating ethnic conflict, and forcing millions of Iraqis to flee the country. These are the issues that the Iraqi political leaders are supposed to be resolving while American troops fight and die to make Baghdad secure.

Yet the White House is admitting that the Iraqis have made no real progress on any of these fronts.

In its legislation requiring this report, Congress stated, "The United States strategy in Iraq, hereafter, shall be conditioned on the Iraqi government meeting [these 18] benchmarks." Yet even on the eight benchmarks that it admits are not met, the White House report explicitly denies the need to change strategy.

The report's account of the eight supposedly successful benchmarks is, on inspection, no less dismaying.

Take Benchmark No. 1: "Forming a Cons utional Review Committee and then completing the cons utional review." The report admits that Iraq's "political blocs still need to reach an accommodation on these difficult political issues." (The report neglects to point out that many of the Sunni blocs are boycotting the parliament.) And yet it declares that the Iraqi government has made "satisfactory progress" because the cons utional review is "now underway."

Or Benchmark No. 9: "Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations." The report admits, "Manning levels for deploying units continues to be of concern." The report doesn't explain what this means-namely, that Iraq's brigades have only 50 percent to 75 percent of their soldiers. And yet it concludes that the Iraqi government has made "satisfactory progress" because it "has provided" the brigades.

Then there's Benchmark No. 12: "Ensuring that … the Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of sectarian or political affiliation." The report admits this task "remains a significant challenge" in "some parts of Baghdad." However, it claims "satisfactory progress" because U.S. commanders report "overall satisfaction with their ability to target any and all extremist groups" and because U.S. diplomats, in their talks with Iraqi officials, "continue to stress the importance" of the topic.

The good mark for Benchmark No. 17 is particularly dubious: "Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis." The report admits that the Iraqi government has spent only 22 percent of its capital budget, that "it remains unclear" whether the oil ministry has "made any real effort" to spend its share of the funds, that it's hard to track the budget, and that the effects of new spending are felt "unevenly." Still, it claims "satisfactory progress" because some of the revenue is dribbling into the economy.

The other four "satisfactory" grades concern purely procedural matters. They assess legislation on "procedures to form semi-autonomous regions" (not on whether the regions have been formed); "establishing … political, media, economic, and service committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan" (not whether their support has been effective); "establishing … joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad" (not whether they're effective, either); and "ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected" (not in Iraqi society).

The report card was rigged from the outset by how the White House defined "satisfactory."

The legislation required the president to submit a report "declaring, in his judgment, whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is, or is not, being achieved."

The White House report states, "In order to make this judgment … we … asked the following question: As measured from a January 2007 baseline, do we assess that present trend data demonstrates a positive trajectory, which is tracking toward satisfactory accomplishment in the near term? If the answer is yes, we have provided a 'Satisfactory' assessment; if the answer is no, the assessment is 'Unsatisfactory.' " (All italics added.)

Subtle but pernicious wordplay is going on here. "Satisfactory progress" toward a benchmark is very different from "a positive trajectory … toward satisfactory accomplishment." The congressional language requires a satisfactory degree of progress. The White House interpretation allows high marks for the slightest bit of progress-the "positive trajectory" could be an angstrom, as long as it's "tracking toward" the goal; the degree of progress doesn't need to be addressed.

Yet even by this extraordinarily lenient standard, the White House authors could not bring themselves to give a passing grade to the Iraqi government on half of the benchmarks-and the most important benchmarks, at that.

This is no academic matter. As President Bush and Gen. David Petraeus have said many times, the point of the surge and its strategy is to make Baghdad secure, so that Iraq's political leaders have the "breathing room" to resolve their disputes. Yet if they are incapable of resolving their disputes-if they have made no measurable progress on the major issues and if the Iraqi military hasn't advanced much either-then the surge may be a hopeless cause. Certainly, members of Congress are right to question the strategy, and Bush is deceptive in dismissing their challenges out of hand.

--------

Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate. He can be reached at [email protected].


===============


situation: no matter how much the surge has or hasn't helped stabilize Bagdad, the Iraqi govt is ing around while US troop die, and are maimed at a record rate, and the US military is stetched to the breaking point.


Let's not even mention the 10s of $Bs wasted (much of which is pocketed by dubya and head's friendly MIC corps, which have huge interest in "staying the course" and keeping those $Bs pouring in).

[Wild Cobra]

Keep in mind, the 25 page report is the summary. The entire source material is rather large, and classified.

Links to summary:

Initial Benchmark Assessment Report in HTML with more links.

Initial Benchmark Assessment Report in PDF

Slate article:

The outrageous White House report on Iraq By Fred Kaplan

Boutons, why couldn't you give us the links? Did you not follow the links yourself, and just repeat this guys story, without even linking it? Did you just copy it from a leftist blog?

Doesn't that class as a Kool-Aid drinking Lemming? And lazy?

Now Kaplan asserts silly questions like "(The report neglects to point out that many of the Sunni blocs are boycotting the parliament.)" So what. Isn't this report an unclassified summary? "THE" report probably contains that information. Did he read "THE REPORT?"

Note he only speaks of some points on four of the eighteen, and asserts his opinion... Is that objective journalism?

Read the report. Face it, this report shows progress. The "I Want it Now" crowd (liberals) just don't get it. Good things rarely come easy and fast in life.

[boutons_]

what's your obsession with links? isn't the byline and publication enough for you?

Wait for Sept 15 and Petraeus for more "progress".

The US mlitary is building (trying to build) an embassy and 4 huge military bases to occupy Iraq for decades, to try protect the US/UK ownership of Iraqi oilfields. This progress bull is nothing but stringing everybody along, killing/passing time.

The progress has been way under what the surge, and the cost of the surge, were supposed to produce.


dubya refuses to give the Iraqi a " or get off the pot" utlimatum becase dubya/ head are in no hurry to leave, intend to occupy Iraq for decades.

The Iraqi govt is incapable of governing, has made insufficient progress, or not progresss on the key points, while the US is wasting lives, time, and $$$.

Your standards for progress are typically low, anything that supports your boys dubya and head.

So you are guessing there has been (great) progress, but the WH has chosen to classify the progress?

Sep 15 is the drop-dead date, going back to January with the military surge was proposed. 9 months, nearly a year, for our kick-ass military, with 4 years operational experience in Iraq, to kick ass. Maybe the military isn't as kick-ass as advertized. Much worse, there has been no diplomatic surge, which dubya and Petraeus say is the ONLY solution.

The whole situation is a ing charade. dubya and head continue to us over. They can't win in Iraq, the Iraqi govt is ineffective, and dubya and head can't deliver the oil fields to the US/UK oilcos. A total ing failure.

[sabar]

The report shows a stalemate, not progress; not failure.

I'm sure with enough time (20-30 years) the region would be stable, but the last time the U.S. had the patience for that was post-war Korea (which is technically still unstable). The last real successes in post-war occupation were Germany and Japan, and that was a long process.

The question is then...
Will the public and congress support Iraq for that long? All signs point to "no". You're delusional if you think we're on the verge of victory and delusional if you think we're on the breaking point of utter failure. That's the problem with this country's view on Iraq and as a matter of fact, the rest of the worlds view on Iraq.

They want results NOW. Not happening.

[Wild Cobra]

what's your obsession with links? isn't the byline and publication enough for you?

You're already there copying the text, save us all some search time. Is that too much to ask?

Sometimes links are hard to search for.

Wait for Sept 15 and Petraeus for more "progress".

No problem. Maybe it will silence the naysayers.

The US mlitary is building (trying to build) an embassy and 4 huge military bases to occupy Iraq for decades, to try protect the US/UK ownership of Iraqi oilfields. This progress bull is nothing but stringing everybody along, killing/passing time.

I guess all endeavors that have death are useless. Revolutionary war, WWI, WWII.

I dread the day the anti-war crowd wins. When that day comes, the world loses.

What if the views of your kind won out during any of those wars above?

The progress has been way under what the surge, and the cost of the surge, were supposed to produce.

Really? I thought the numbers of troops are just recently at surge levels. It takes time...

dubya refuses to give the Iraqi a " or get off the pot" utlimatum becase dubya/ head are in no hurry to leave, intend to occupy Iraq for decades.

We don't know that for fact, and I would suggest that all things considered, things are going well.

The Iraqi govt is incapable of governing, has made insufficient progress, or not progresss on the key points, while the US is wasting lives, time, and $$$.

Insufficient by whose standards? Considering the government they are coming out of, setbacks are expected. The question isn't the progress now, but if there is progress. I could care less how slow or fast the progress is as ling as there is progress overall.

Your standards for progress are typically low, anything that supports your boys dubya and head.

You obviously read what you want to from my posts. I am not a loyal Bush supporter. Continue implying I am and I will continue to point out your stupidity.... Ooops, I will probably do that anyway.

So you are guessing there has been (great) progress, but the WH has chosen to classify the progress?

What? You're joking right? Or do you always assume what you want?

Sep 15 is the drop-dead date, going back to January with the military surge was proposed. 9 months, nearly a year, for our kick-ass military, with 4 years operational experience in Iraq, to kick ass. Maybe the military isn't as kick-ass as advertized. Much worse, there has been no diplomatic surge, which dubya and Petraeus say is the ONLY solution.

How do I address such stupidity?

Drop dead date? I never heard an insider refer to it as that. Just that we would know if it was working by then.

Our Army is Kick-ass. Problem is, we want to rebuild Iraq, not destroy it.

We are too diplomatic and nice at times! If we were less so, the world wouldn’t be as bad as it is today!

Read what our national seal stands for sometime. Particularly the olive branches and arrows.

The whole situation is a ing charade. dubya and head continue to us over. They can't win in Iraq, the Iraqi govt is ineffective, and dubya and head can't deliver the oil fields to the US/UK oilcos. A total ing failure.

Can't you stop ranting for a moment and consider maybe the basis of your beliefs are wrong?

It's not about oil!

We can win, but the left has already staked out the failure position, so they are doing all they can to lose, so they are right rather than wrong.

I wish the naysayers would stop being anti-American and take a wait-n-see tactic. If we lose, then bask in your pride. Unless it happens that way, people like me will never see people like you other than traitors to the American way.

Let the process take place uninhibited!