Brookings Benchmarks

All that really happens after you read Michael O'Hanlon's efforts to elaborate on the meaning of "Brookings Benchmarks" is that this business of handing out scores (zero! one half! one!) on eleven separate metrics and then adding them up is fundamentally silly. O'Hanlon is trying to introduce a spurious sense of precision to an inherently subjective judgment. Try to ask a coherent question like "is there a broadly based government that enjoys legitimacy across sectarian divides for us to support in Iraq?" and the answer is clearly "no."

O'Hanlon concedes as much, but counters that it's not hopeless to think that such a government might emerge if we keep sticking around and trying to cajole them. I would counter that, on the one hand, hope is not a plan and, on the other hand, that there's nothing stopping us from "hoping for the best" in a withdrawal scenario. The tendency in the U.S. policy debate has been to assess dovish options in terms of worst-case scenarios (regional war! genocide! al-qaeda base!) and hawkish options in terms of best-case scenarios (reconciliation! a new democracy!) but this is completely arbitrary. It's not clear that the presence of a large U.S. military force in Iraq alters the incentives facing Iraqi political actors in favor of reconciliation.

The entire "benchmarks" concept, as was remarked to me by a wise man at lunch yesterday, is an artifact of a particular moment in American politics. Specifically, the Iraq Study Group put together by Baker, Hamilton, and their staffs. Benchmarks were intended to be part of a process by which political consensus in the United States was rebuilt around a policy that didn't mandate a timeline for withdrawal, but did contain an exit mechanism that prevented the ISG proposal from becoming a an open-ended commitment.

I wasn't a fan of the ISG's attempted political intervention, but the proposal was put together by smart people who devised a politically reasonable effort to achieve what they were trying to achieve. At this point, however, all that was a very long time ago and it doesn't make sense to let one specific element of their proposal -- "benchmarks" -- keep stalking the op-ed pages like a zombie. The real work in O'Hanlon's proposal about Iraq is in the analytical framework which says that "mixed results" implies "stay in Iraq." A lot of people believe that's correct, but that's an argument about America's larger strategic posture not an argument about how things are in Iraq. It's always going to be possible to argue that circumstances in Iraq are, in some sense, mixed (and, indeed, O'Hanlon's been arguing just that for years) but dressing it up with numbers doesn't actually add anything to shrugging and remarking that things could be worse.

DoD photo by Staff Sgt. Samuel Bendet, U.S. Air Force

Comments

Welcome to political science!

Posted by Anonymous | March 11, 2008 9:00 AM

Actually, I am not sure that I have a problem with creating metrics to put some type of psuedo-objective measure on an inherently subjective topic. The problem is what questions you ask and how you want to codify them. Trying to bring a complex, ever moving scenario under 11 simple metrics (most of which are tied to some law passing) is what is stupid. For far simpler issues like what IT projects to fund, I have seen far more metrics used and much more rigorous analysis done. O'Hanlon is just cherry picking and not doing anything to see the context of what is driving the 11 metrics. That is why he should be ignored.

Posted by Don B | March 11, 2008 9:01 AM

In our discussion of tragedy awhile back I quoted the line from King Lear that's even more useful than some of the lines from Ghostbusters:the worst is not So long as we can say 'This is the worst.'

(We can add, substituting the gangster Bush gang in the appropriate place: "As flies to wanton boys ...")

One of the reasons that the solution (departure) is so frustrating and elusive in Iraq is that Bush has never spelled out why we're there. Politically, that keeps the decks clear so that if things get "worse", we've got to stay and if things "improve", then it's hardly time to quit. It's an inspired gesture. Like grinding the military to sawdust rather than institute a draft.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 11, 2008 9:03 AM

I think the ridiculousness of the rankings is the use of those benchmarks to suggest progress from the last five years. The added the benchmarks to their "State of Iraq" table with zeroes for the first three years, a one for last year and a five for this year. The fact that in 2008, O'Hanlon has identified 11 things that need to be done before we can go - and that there had been progress almost halfway through the list is totally unpersuasive. We can only assume that in another five years he may figure out yet another list of things that they should have been doing. Adding a new measuring stick this late in the game does not show progress, it just shows how easily their table can be manipulated.

In other words, regardless of what the benchmarks measure, starting a brand new measurement five years in and then citing year over year change for the past five years as evidence of progress is meaningless in the extreme.

Posted by Merle | March 11, 2008 9:08 AM

Matt's getting lost in the reeds here. The salient point is that there is now political progress in Iraq, and advocates of bailing out can't deny this. Is there a long way to go yet? Sure. Do we have an implicit responsibility to stick it out? Yes. Is it in American interests to bail out before this progress is solidified and risk Iraq backsliding into becoming another Darfur? I'll let Matt answer that one.

Posted by Juan | March 11, 2008 9:12 AM

Matt's getting lost in the reeds here. The salient point is that there is now political progress in Iraq, and advocates of bailing out can't deny this.
Posted by Juan | March 11, 2008 9:12 AM

I'm an advocate of cutting our losses rather than bailing out, so maybe this doesn't count. But I deny that there's been any political progress on the national level, and whatever there's been at the local level isn't transferrable to the national level.

Posted by Kurzbein | March 11, 2008 9:20 AM

One has to love the Spinal tap nature of these benchmarks going up to eleven, obviously needed to push it over the cliff.

Posted by Tim Bassett | March 11, 2008 9:22 AM

The salient point is that there is now political progress in Iraq, and advocates of bailing out can't deny this. Is there a long way to go yet? Sure.

QED.

And right after my comment, too. It's like I drew up the play.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 11, 2008 9:23 AM

Punxsutawney Phil has more telling benchmarks than Michael O'Hanlon.

Posted by joejoejoe | March 11, 2008 9:23 AM

Why is this post paired with a picture of Ben Bernanke?

Posted by Delicious Pundit | March 11, 2008 9:28 AM

At any rate, we appear to have no clear goal in Iraq, other than to stay. And if there is some other goal, then what's the plan to get there?

The Surge was supposed to buy time for political reconciliation. There hasn't been any, and they've been papering over that reality by postponing things like provincial elections and the Kirkuk referendum that would bring that fact out into the daylight.

Seems like if we're going to be spending as much blood and treasure as we are in Iraq, there should be some clear objective, and some clear plan to get there.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | March 11, 2008 9:33 AM

"Is there a broadly based government that enjoys legitimacy across sectarian divides for us to support in Iraq?"

These go to eleven.

Posted by N. Tufnel | March 11, 2008 9:39 AM

"The tendency in the U.S. policy debate has been to assess dovish options in terms of worst-case scenarios (regional war! genocide! al-qaeda base!) and hawkish options in terms of best-case scenarios (reconciliation! a new democracy!) but this is completely arbitrary."

Excellent point, Matt. This might be an example of the bias in favor of action -- if anything bad happens, the other side can say "at least we were doing something!" and imply it would have been worse if they hadn't done that. Perhaps there's a need to propose a positive step (reinforcing in Afganistan?) that has the side of effect of withdrawing from Iraq.

Posted by BarryG | March 11, 2008 10:00 AM

low-tech:

But isn't the goal obvious? Staying in Iraq IS the goal. Stay in Iraq, build permanent bases and influence Iran, just as the neocon policy papers advised. All this excuse making for lack of progress is entirely part of the game plan.

Nigel - How's that Mach piece coming along?

Posted by Kurzbein | March 11, 2008 10:01 AM

O'Hanlon we can say charitably is a fool; unfortunately a fool in a position of some importance and influence is dangerous.

Posted by della Rovere | March 11, 2008 10:04 AM

And why do you measure your metrics in only 3 steps (0, .5, 1)?

The answer is, anything that isn't an empty glass becomes a half full glass. If you round up enough numbers and add them together, you get a REALLY misleading number.

Posted by Grogor | March 11, 2008 10:42 AM

I wonder if anyone formulated such silliness about Korea in the mid-fifties? In any case, taken with a grain of salt, there's nothing wrong with trying to quantify progress, or lack of it, towards goals we think are important by people who have data at their disposal to work with.

On the other hand, blanket negative statements without the benefit of any substantiation other than partisan bias, ("Is there a broadly-based government that enjoys legitimacy across the sectarian divides...no.") is typical of the Quisling press. Neither Matt nor any posters in the amen corner can name another Arab government that is more broadly-based and legitimate than that of Iraq.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 11, 2008 10:59 AM

Nice post, I like the best case assumption for war/ worst case assumption for peace insight.

Posted by JK | March 11, 2008 11:08 AM

O'Hanlon makes some reasonable points in today's USA Today, "Reality and the Iraq War".

Posted by Fred | March 11, 2008 11:13 AM

"....the answer is clearly "no."

And that answer holds for many other questions regarding Iraq.

Posted by Hedley Lamarr | March 11, 2008 11:17 AM

[i]Neither Matt nor any posters in the amen corner can name another Arab government that is more broadly-based and legitimate than that of Iraq.[/i]
How does the fact that the Arab region in general has a problem with crappy governments cause the Iraqi governement to meet a standard that, by the plain language of the standard, it obviously doesn't meet? I wouldn't propose that we spend American blood and treasure to prop up the Syrian govenrment either.

Anyway I think Matt's general point is that you can't say that while the situation as a whole is clearly FUBAR, that if we ignore the big picture and add up a variety of arbitrary standards, it doesn't look so bad.

Posted by JK | March 11, 2008 11:23 AM

How does the fact that the Arab region in general has a problem with crappy governments cause the Iraqi governement to meet a standard that, by the plain language of the standard, it obviously doesn't meet?

It sounds like someone must obviously be Quisling. Stop your Quisling, or I swear, I will turn this thing around.

Posted by El Cid | March 11, 2008 11:26 AM

"Quisling"? By saying that I don't think Iraq meets a certain standard of stability I am somehow comparable to a leader who aided the Nazis in the conquest of his own country?
Or are you being sarcastic? It’s sometimes hard to tell the difference between wingnuts and wingnut parodies at this point.

Posted by JK | March 11, 2008 11:38 AM

Many tens of thousands of Iraqis risked their lives to vote in a UN-certified election that has produced, by any reasonable standards, an extraordinarily broad-based and legitimate government. Comparing it to Syria's hereditary police-state tyranny is absurd.

Many things look bad, and no amount of "arbitrary standards" are going to change that. But do you have any idea what Poland looked like in 1948? Or Korea in 1958? War is BAD. Reconstructing a war-ravaged ex-totalitarian society is HARD. But to suggest that an astonishingly wealthy society of 300 millions can't effectively support two freely-elected allied governments in critical geostrategic locations against a few thousand terrorists with no infrastructure, no program or plan for governance, little popular support, and increasing international isolation, is defeatism of the worst kind.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 11, 2008 11:40 AM

JK--the "Quisling" refers to the defeatist press, of which I assume you are not a part. I don't think your statements here are unreasonable, but I do think they accept a picture of Iraq that's at least as wacky as the one O'Hanlon's accused of creating.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 11, 2008 11:46 AM

I'm going off on a bit of a tangent now, but isn't there a difference between "defeatism" and actively handing over sovereignty of your own nation to an evil and genocidal foreign power?

Maybe I shouldn’t be so surprised, I guess I just haven’t been following how bad the hyperbole has gotten in this debate. It looks like we’re at the point were when we have a factual disagreement with someone, it’s standard procedure to accuse them of being a traitor.

Posted by JK | March 11, 2008 12:05 PM

A fair point. I don't have any problem with factual disagreements, nor do I have any reason to think you are a traitor. But then, I don't think I've written anything that deserves the label "wingnut" either.

The performance of the press has been, and continues to be, reprehensible. Matt often, as in this case, provides evidence for this charge--see the quote I was citing. It's their job to get the facts straight, and to separate them from political spin as much as possible. The list of their crimes against the truth in Iraq is long, and still growing. I guess you could call the "Quisling" label hyperbole, but I like to think of it as creative license.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 11, 2008 12:21 PM

I don't have too much to add to that, but I want to clarify that I was referring to the comment by "El Cid" when I said wingnut, not you. I think "wingnut" was a pretty conservative term for someone who just compared me to a Nazi and a traitor.

I never know what to think about accusations of press bias. It seems like everyone of every political camp thinks that the press is in bed with their political opponents. My gut says that they're probably just trying to sell papers or get pageviews rather than push a particular political message, but who knows. I've come to trust the Wall St. Journal and the Economist, the two periodicals I read regularly. If they're biased I guess I'm probably screwed, because I really don't have time to fly around doing first hand investigations.

Posted by JK | March 11, 2008 12:38 PM

Many things look bad, and no amount of "arbitrary standards" are going to change that. But do you have any idea what Poland looked like in 1948? Or Korea in 1958

Like many people who think we should withdraw from Iraq to an over-the-horizon rapid response force, it had NEVER OCCURRED TO ME that post-war reconstruction is "HARD." Thank you. Obviously we lack your sense of historic insight. Inspired, I decided to look to the past, and I am now swayed by the research your argument inspired.

Particularly galling was the constant grinding insurrection based on centuries-old religious schisms within Poland and South Korea. The thousands of Poles, South Koreans and US soldiers who died every year from violence directed internally and externally toward administrating troops was crippling. Of course, the fact that the US unfortunately inflicted many civilian casualties during the justified struggle against said insurgents made the reconstruction periods particularly difficult.

Hey, let me help you there. Apple=apple.

Posted by jonrog1 | March 11, 2008 1:14 PM

Another major problem in Germany and Korea, of course, was the fact that most of the voters in those nations' elections voted for parties firmly devoted to further inflaming the murderous divisions within them. How lucky we are that Iraq's elections, by contrast, produced as broadly-based and stable a government as the one elected in the US in 1860!

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | March 11, 2008 3:26 PM

Wasn't Poland occupied by the Soviets in 1948? Didn't this lead to a new round of anti-Semitic pogroms? What's your point? Also, pointing to Korea, possibly the most homogeneous nation on earth, is a bit apples-and-oranges. Also, pointing to the country where troops that could only act under American command carried out the Kwangju Massacre in 1979 against hundreds of student democracy activists is a dumb idea. Between about the end of the Korean War and 1990, Korea only had civilian democratic rule from 1960-1961 before a military coup took place. It was rather hard to implement democracy in such a homogeneous nation.

Also, avoiding these very debates are why you go into foreign countries, especially in wars of choice, with as broad and deep an international coalition as possible. When 90% of the troops come from just one country, you make political progress in the occupied nation completely dependent on the occupier's civilian population's ability to spend blood and treasure forever. Even if we had still gone into Iraq but had gone in with a massive international coalition, at least there would be more options. Play with unipolarity and unilateralism and everyone gets burned. Conservatives can't seem to choose between their egos (we know what's best for the world) and their missions (does anybody know anymore what the mission is?).

Posted by Reality Man | March 11, 2008 4:55 PM

No analogy is perfect, but both Poland and Korea had devastating internal divisions and civil wars that made reconstruction hard. In the case of Korea, the conflict cost about 40,000 US lives.

The current Iraqi government looks great in comparison to the post-war regimes in Korea and Poland, with the former breaking out first in terms of legitimacy. Iraq has in some ways a tougher problem because, unlike in the case of Germany, Korea, Japan, Poland, and other cases of post-defeat reconstruction, the victorious power didn't kill or imprison a majority of the male population between the ages of 16 and 60. Under the circumstances, I think critics have unreasonable expectations. Christ, the Democrats can't even reconcile over the authorization vote, and they demand immediate reconciliation between people who waged genocidal war on each other? Only Americans can be so hubristic.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 11, 2008 5:53 PM

Christ, the Democrats can't even reconcile over the authorization vote, and they demand immediate reconciliation between people who waged genocidal war on each other?

I've heard someone on Harry Reid's staff went over to Pelosi's office wearing an explosive vest, but they caught him before he blew the place up. There's still sporadic AK-47 fire at caucus meetings, though.

Iraq has in some ways a tougher problem because, unlike in the case of Germany, Korea, Japan, Poland, and other cases of post-defeat reconstruction, the victorious power didn't kill or imprison a majority of the male population between the ages of 16 and 60.

Ah, the barely concealed longing for genocide. We did make a pretty good start on things if you count the refugees, though.

Posted by mq | March 11, 2008 7:09 PM

Why is this post paired with a picture of Ben Bernanke?

And we have a thread winner!

Posted by mq | March 11, 2008 7:11 PM

"But isn't the goal obvious? Staying in Iraq IS the goal. Stay in Iraq, build permanent bases and influence Iran, just as the neocon policy papers advised. All this excuse making for lack of progress is entirely part of the game plan."

Many experts considered this obvious even before the invasion. Here are posts from Stratfor, in which the role of bases in the US government's calculations grows more obvious over time:
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/stratfor-iraq-goals/

Also useful, here are our goals and benchmarks for the Iraq War, and various institutions' progress reports:
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/iraq-goals/

Posted by Fabius Maximus | March 11, 2008 10:09 PM

I was happy when Sistani forced the American proconsuls to hold an election. Unfortunately, as with many elections - for instance, those that crop up in Pakistan - the end result was proof that much more is needed in a democracy than an election. In Iran, when they have an election, it is fairly clear who you are voting for and what they stand for. Iran is by no means a perfect democratic state, although head and shoulders above Saudi Arabia and Egypt - and of course, just as the U.S. censored the candidate lists in the Iraq election, so, too, the Supreme leader and the religious council censor the candidates in the Iranian election. Even before the election, Sistani had forced the issue of making Iraq officially an Islamic state - which makes it hard to imagine that Christians, for instance, will ever serve in high positions in the government, as they did, for instance, under Saddam Hussein. But even given these limitations, the election system might have worked. However, with the Americans unwilling to relinquish their heavy role as occupiers, and with Iraq's interests and America's really so far apart (for instance, Iraq has a very strong interest in allying with Iran, which has been expressed by the Kurdish leadership as well as the Iraqi government - the Americans, on the other hand, want to seed hostility between the two countries), it has proved impossible. The oil law is a great example - it is the kind of American designed law which is outside the standards of most OPEC nations, and it wouldn't even be considered if it weren't for the Americans.

So, I suppose there should be a counter-benchmark system by the Iraqis for things the Americans should do, or get out. I wonder if O'Hanlon wants to set one up?

Posted by roger | March 12, 2008 12:39 AM

PS - hey,I thought of one for the Iraqis! Withdrawal of all private security forces involved in massacring Iraqis! An excellent place to start. America ranks 0 so far.

Posted by roger | March 12, 2008 12:42 AM

Anybody who says there is "political reconciliation" in Iraq on any level is a total idiot who only gets his news from Fox.

There are literally dozens of articles posted all over the place from journalists - journalists for the most part who have Middle Eastern backgrounds and thus aren't shot on sight - on the ground in Iraq who specifically interview numerous Iraqis - both Sunni and Shia - on all levels of society and it is perfectly clear from these interviews that there is ZERO reconciliation.

The only thing going on in Iraq right now is that the government is despised, the militias on each side are trying to figure out how to defeat the others, and all of them want the US out at some point. Numerous Sunni insurgents were promised a part in the government, which the Shia members of the government are sabotaging. The insurgents are getting restless, and sooner or later the US will stop paying them $300 a month not to shoot at US troops. Sooner or later, they will resume shooting at Shia, if they can figure out some way to offset their relative disparity in numbers. Support from Saudi Arabia is likely to help in that regard.

Meanwhile, Iran is not interested in having the US setting up bases in Iraq from which to launch a war against Iran. So sooner or later the Shia militias are going to be turned against the US. That won't be hard - even Ayatollah Sistani doesn't want the US in Iraq indefinitely, let alone al-Sadr.

Anybody who thinks this is going to work out is nuts. No matter how you slice it, the US is getting kicked out within the next couple of years. And then either Iraq collapses into a failed state, or a nationalist coalition takes power (probably bloodily). There is no third alternative.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 12, 2008 5:35 AM

Anyone who claims themselves able to "explain" Iraq without ever having been there, knowing no actual Iraqis, and with only a superficial and heavily politicized info from various anti-American websites, is easily discounted.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 12, 2008 7:43 AM

Anyone who claims themselves able to "explain" Iraq without ever having been there, knowing no actual Iraqis, and with only a superficial and heavily politicized info from various pro-war websites, is easily discounted.

Not mention a hallucinatory view of history that has to come from an advanced ketamine addiction.

You're a lying propagandist who is completely clueless about what is going on in Iraq.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 12, 2008 11:28 PM

Your information on Iraq seems to be based on the same kind of mystic powers of telepathy that allow you to "know" the inner thoughts and motives of public officials and my drug preferences.

Get help, Rich. I have confidence that you can do better if you're willing to get honest.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 13, 2008 4:23 AM