Benchmarks A-Go-Go

NYTimes today: "President Bush’s new Iraq policy will establish a series of goals that the Iraqi government will be expected to meet to try to ease sectarian tensions and stabilize the country politically and economically, senior administration officials said Sunday. Among these 'benchmarks' are steps that would draw more Sunnis into the political process, finalize a long-delayed measure on the distribution of oil revenue and ease the government’s policy toward former Baath Party members, the officials said." Benchmarks, whoah! I remember back in December 2005 when benchmarks were surrender and only cheese-eating surrender monkeys thought we needed them.

But of course Bush changed his mind on October 25, 2006, telling Byron York, "“The idea is to develop with the Iraqi government a series of benchmarks — oil, federalism, constitutional reform, there’s like 20 different things — and have that developed in a way that they’re comfortable with and we’re comfortable with." That prompted Thomas Ricks' October 26, 2006 takedown "Bush's Proposal for Benchmarks Sounds Familiar" noting that Bush's remarks "left unclear how the benchmarks would be different from previous times when the United States has set out intentions, only to back down."

Never fear, though. There's a new strategy now: Benchmarks!

Comments

Benchmarks are cool, but timetables are for pussies.

Posted by Tim | January 8, 2007 9:50 AM

I think they're self-consciously trying to make people think that they're reading a Doonesbury re-run.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | January 8, 2007 10:22 AM

two more years...two more years....two more years

Posted by MinorRipper | January 8, 2007 12:05 PM

Isn't the real question 'what reward will be coming if the benchmarks are met, or what punishment if benchmarks are not met'?

Nothing in the NYT article, and I'll bet nothing in Wednesday's "major speech".

Posted by Robert Earle | January 8, 2007 12:59 PM

If a Democrat proposed benchmarks, Joe Klein would call him an ill-informed dilettante.

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | January 8, 2007 1:11 PM

Bush has one, and only one, strategy for Iraq, and he said as much this summer: run down the shot clock until it reads January 20, 2009. Everything else is just means to that end, so spending time arguing about "strategies", "benchmarks", "surges", whatever, is just playing Bush's game.

Posted by Kafka | January 8, 2007 9:31 PM

Bush has one, and only one, strategy for Iraq, and he said as much this summer: run down the shot clock until it reads January 20, 2009.

He's trying to send the Peshmerga to Baghdad. Not that that's a brilliant idea, it's beyond stupid, it's evil. That's not something you do to run down the clock though. If that was my goal I'd tuck everyone into hardened bases until 2008, the American media could care less if Iraqi's die. Unless a hundred die nowadays at a single crack it's a crawl on the bottom of your news channel. I wish he was just trying to run out the clock, God knows how many people would keep drawing air between now and 2008.

Posted by Ed Marshall | January 8, 2007 11:41 PM