Measuring the Benchmarks

An interim report from Rand Beers and Ilan Goldenberg details the costs of escalation (600 dead soldiers; 3,000 wounded; $10 billion per month) before concluding:

Unfortunately, this investment has yielded no real progress. The President’s policies have failed to bring security to Iraq. The country remains mired in multiple civil wars with Sunnis fighting Shi’a, Sunnis fighting each other in Anbar and Diyala, Shi’a fighting each other in the South, and Kurds fighting Sunnis around Kirkuk and Mosul. Iraqi Security Forces, who are supposed to be taking on greater responsibilities, cannot be trusted to enforce the law fairly, and all too often turn on American troops or take part in sectarian violence. Meanwhile, the Iraqi government is teetering on the verge of collapse. One third of the Cabinet, including the major Sunni party as well as the party of Muqtada Al Sadr, is currently boycotting the government. Without the participation of these groups there can be no meaningful progress on any of the key political benchmarks including the oil law, de-Baathification, or amending the constitution.

See the full report in PDF. What Beers and Goldenberg don't seem to consider, however, is that by simply adopting new, different benchmarks we can achieve Success By Definition, the ultimate accomplishment of any armed force.

Comments

"by simply adopting new, different benchmarks we can achieve Success By Definition, the ultimate accomplishment of any armed force."

We don't need no stinking benchmarks.

If the Green Zone remains intact on January 20th, 2009, our armed forces will have officially won the war.

Posted by Petey | July 11, 2007 9:54 AM

"we can achieve Success By Definition, the ultimate accomplishment of any armed force"

Sorry, Matt, but you're going for a cheap joke here and missing the real point, which Petey gets:

The real definition of success here was is and always well be domestic political success, i.e. keeping Republicans in power and trashing Democrats.

Yeah, sure Bush himself has his own private psycho-drama issues with Iraq per se, but for the rest of the power structure, it's purely a matter of trying to ensure the Permanent Republican Majority, and failing that, trying to keep a permanent Republican lock on executive power (i.e. unchecked authoritarian power).

Being able to stave off the chaos in Iraq until after Bush's shift is over means success in that venture. It really will give another entire generation of Republicans and their slavish media scribes a new Vietnam myth of their own to show that Democrats cannot be trusted with foreign policy.

The real motives for stalling here are too important to obscure with a joke.

Posted by Count Cant | July 11, 2007 10:26 AM

We hear Bush exhort giving our military the time and resources to win the war. On other occasions we hear admin officials (and Bush?) remind us this war on terror can't be won solely via military means. Yet seemingly every report on the horizon informing us of our status in Iraq is military in nature. Why no cautioning patience while we wait on reports from Rice or Crocker? Reports detailing their diplomatic efforts at mending the poltical and sectarian rifts keeping Iraq at full boil? I'm sure Bush would say the violence has to be lessened before talks can bear fruit and only the military can accomplish that. Seems many other wars had efforts at a diplomatic solution ongoing as bullets flew. Yet we let Bush use this excuse now. I'd like to see Rice and Crocker and a few other non-military officials have the onus put on them to show results. Progress isn't always or solely ground held, bad guys killed and populations pacified.

Posted by steve duncan | July 11, 2007 10:26 AM

Bush has always disregarded the professional military's advice when it suits his political needs, and he's always used that "advice" as a PR bulwark.

What a loathsome creep.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 11, 2007 10:45 AM