Bad News Benchmarks

The Brookings Institution's Iraq Index provides the most authoritative measure of how much progress is being made in Iraq. Their recent findings? Not much.

The latest chart compares every May since the fall of Saddam in 2003. US troop deaths per month, American fatalities from homemade bombs, monthly insurgent attacks against coalition troops and civilians, and Iraqi civilian deaths are at an all-time high.

The number of foreign troops in the "coalition of the willing" are at an all-time low. So are the percentage of Iraqis who say their country is heading in the right direction. That's down from 70 percent after the liberation of Baghdad to 36 percent today, just above George W. Bush's own approval rating in this country.

"Overall levels of violence are down somewhat in Baghdad," the authors write. Yet across the country, "bad news still dominates."

Some Republicans have suggested using the "Iraq Index" as official benchmarks. That won't provide their party much relief.

Comments (42)

1. Well, shit, if the take now is that there hasn't been much progress, and of course, the Dems just knew this all along, it certainly becomes even more appalling that the Dems voted to CONTINUE THE WAR just last month!

   Posted by Happy at 06/11/2007 @ 11:43am

2. that there are some members of congress still clinging to the fantasy of democratization in iraq, and even regime change in iran, is evidence of the prevailing "wisdom" in washington.

   whenever our pundit classes characterize lieberman as "centrist", then you know where the political and media elite in this country stand (read: far right). meanwhile, anyone critical of the war, in fox news parlance, is "far left".

   Posted by darladoon at 06/11/2007 @ 11:43am

3. that the Dems voted to CONTINUE THE WAR just last month!

   some did, some didn't.

   Posted by darladoon at 06/11/2007 @ 11:44am

4. I wonder why there are no articles on the evidence ABC had on Iraian complicity in American deaths recently as well as helping the Taliban with arms and explosives...are they not concerned here at the Nation, that Iran is spreading violence, especially in Afganistan?

   Does the silence mean they are waiting to be outraged if the US attcks in retaliation...and by rage, I mean against the US?

   Posted by john maasch at 06/11/2007 @ 11:47am

5. some did, some didn't.

   Posted by DARLADOON 06/11/2007 @ 11:44am

   Ahh, Ms. DOON, a grand total of what, 12 Senators? Tell me again, how many Dem & Indy Senators are there?

   Fact is, MOST Dem Senators and about HALF of Dems in the House, voted for continuing this War! Cowards without the spine to stand up for what they espouse! There is no worse politicians than these scoundrels that represent your end of the spectrum!

   Posted by Happy at 06/11/2007 @ 11:56am

6. Replacing the speaker of parliament for gross abuse and corruption, then planning on taking 2 months vacation.

   Oil production is lower than pre-war levels, violence is off the charts.

   It's going swimmingly.

   Gee, John, is it so far outside the parameters of your box that a country with 2 wars on 2 sides of their country would get involved? I do not condone their actions, but don't you think after 4 years Chimpy could do something about his new state and supply some of the "leadership" he is known for on the world stage, getting Iran to back off?

   HAHAHAHA, sorry, to much even for me! Chimpy...leadership. Guffaw!

   Posted by crabwalk at 06/11/2007 @ 11:57am

7. There is no worse politicians than these scoundrels that represent your end of the spectrum!

   Posted by HAPPY 06/11/2007 @ 11:56am

   Except the convicted republicans, right Happy?

   Can you reach that far?

   Posted by crabwalk at 06/11/2007 @ 11:58am

8. Mr. Berman,

   Don't you know that the insurgency is in its "last throes"?

   Posted by freedomplease at 06/11/2007 @ 12:08pm

9. .." getting Iran to back off? ..

   I am just watching and seeing a constant movement by Iran...aiding insurgency in Iraq, support Hellsboola, fund families like Saddam with cash for the idiots who think virgins await them after slaughter house brutality, threatening Israel with extinction, supplying IED material to Iraq, "helping" allies in South America, nuclear drives, telling UN to fuck off,(no problem or cost there), aiding Taliban...

   What you you have the US do , or anyone for that matter, to avoid a clash, which Iran seems to be begging for, as, they believe the "Big Imam" will return...IOW, they got God with them on this one..

   What are you perpared to say to Armijihad, exactly?

   I am curious...I am not sure what I would say...but with the Dems in control of congress and the MSM, the left frothing over here,...if I were Armijihad, I would push for confrontation, knowing nothing will happen...the left would do more to shut down a US response that anything they(Iran) could do...IMO.

   Posted by john maasch at 06/11/2007 @ 12:17pm

10. Happy-Do you have any evidence to show that those Democrats who voted for funding said that they would never vote to fund the war if elected.My senator and congressperson's votes were consistent with their campaign promises.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 06/11/2007 @ 12:21pm

11. Maybe they voted to continue the war because they realize millions will be killed if we withdraw. Or maybe they realized that a US defeat in Iraq would be more disastrous than the war itself.

    Posted by abell12ct at 06/11/2007 @ 12:31pm

12. Well, first....HAPPY, I don't think it's fair to bring the US House of Representatives into this. After all, Democrats don't really control that body or have any leaders in power in the House....just a nice ineffictive lady who's a "cat-herder".

    Second, ABELL, I'm thinking, you might want to be careful with that kind of talk. Hints out there that BUSH might start a withdrawal (to salvage SOME of his Presidency and save the Republicans a monumental defeat in 2008).

    "No, no! He'd never do that without 'victory'!"....oh, yeah? Well, he can call "victory" anything he likes, right? And if he did it to you on the IMMIGRATION BILL, who's to say he might not sell you out on Iraq?

    Posted by Mask at 06/11/2007 @ 12:58pm

13. If Gore-Lieberman had been elected in 2000, then the VP would have been a figure who today has exactly the same Middle East policy positions as Richard Cheney.----Posted by ZERO 06/11/2007 @ 1:27pm

    Hey, THERE's an excuse that Ralph Nader can use....."I saved you from a Lieberman Vice-Presidency, when I gave you the Bush Presidency!"

    Posted by Mask at 06/11/2007 @ 1:28pm

14. Masky,

    You are too ,much...but we are on many ignore lists..so, many will never know how much..

    Posted by john maasch at 06/11/2007 @ 1:30pm

15. Mask-The people who gave us the Bush presidency are those who voted for Bush and not those who voted against Bush.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 06/11/2007 @ 1:32pm

16. Lieberman should just admit that he is a Zionist. His entire middle east position is all about what is best for Israel not what is best for America. He's so transparent that its ridiculous.

    Posted by freedomplease at 06/11/2007 @ 1:39pm

17. Here's a good Benchmark in the War on Terror that never should have changed in the first place: Just heard on NPR that the Court, for obvious Constitutional reasons, declared the American from the Midwest in question cannot be held indefinitely without officially being charged with something, that its not enough to just declare him an enemy combatant. Good for the Court, Goddamnit, he's an American. Can't wait till '08.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 06/11/2007 @ 2:07pm

18. Mirable dictu; Chip and I agree on something. Due process rules!

    Posted by The Goods at 06/11/2007 @ 2:15pm

19. maasch, the evidence on the IEDs from iran is, at best, highly dubious, as is the larger claim of it aiding the insurgency in iraq and/or afghanistan.

    funding hezbollah is, again, highly dubious, and even if it were true, it wouldn't be particularly surprising or unethical, given the standards that we set by supplying arms to countless regimes, israel's included.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/11/2007 @ 2:18pm

20. Zero,

    I'm with you. There isn't a difference between corporate party R and corporate party D. Lieberman is extra special though in that he's so obviously in the pockets of the Israel lobby that it's hard to vote for him even if you're pro-corporatist. In other words, what I'm saying to those that vote basis the "lesser of two evils" philosophy is that the R would be the "lesser evil" than this guy.

    Posted by freedomplease at 06/11/2007 @ 2:22pm

21. and not only that, maasch, but given our behavior in the entire region, what with the threat of remaining in iraq for 50 years (!) is just a tad bit aggressive, and therefore, it is not at all shocking that iran is attempting to make life difficult for us.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/11/2007 @ 2:22pm

22. Ah but the libs want to surrender Iraq to Al Qaeda so they can gloat that Bush lost Iraq. Then when nuclear war transpires with Iran or an Al Qaeda led nuclear Iraq against Israel...they will again try and blame Bush instead of looking in the mirror.

    The from the anti-Jewish rants of Zero to the denials by Darladoon of an Al Qaeda threat in the world,,,far left libs are trying to rush the US into a suicidal position.

    June 9, 2007 updated 6/10/07 5:03 am EDT

    BAGHDAD (AP) - A suspected Al Qaeda suicide bomber rammed a speeding gasoline truck into an Iraqi army checkpoint outside the capital on Saturday, killing at least 14 soldiers as militants hammered the country's shaky security forces.

    The terror campaign against Iraqi troops and police appears designed to blunt America progress in creating a stable local force so the Americans can go home. American military officers began noticing the new pattern of attacks last month.

    Lieutenant Colonel Troy D. Perry, the battalion commander in the area, told Fil there was an increasing pattern of bombers allowing American patrols to pass hidden roadside bombs that were then detonated a short time later as Iraqi forces drove by.

    General Fil and Colonel Perry speculated Al Qaeda was focusing on Iraqi forces to unnerve the soldiers and police who are working with U.S. forces to clamp off violence in the capital.

    "Al Qaeda is the biggest problem you've got right now," Fil said in a brief meeting with Iraqi army 1st Lieutenant Ziad Tariq, at an Iraqi base adjacent to the American joint security station in Karradah late last month.

    http://www.nysun.com/article/56226

    Al Qaeda growing in Africa

    http://www.thestar.com/article/205922

    Al Qaeda growing in Spain

    06/11/2007 - By Kathryn Haahr (from Terrorism Monitor, June 7) - The strengthening of Islamist groups, combined with an increase in jihadi networks and activities in and around Barcelona, underscores Catalonia's status as a European center for al-Qaeda-associated terrorism operations. Statements by al-Qaeda leaders that emphasize Spain's unique "status" within the Global Salafi-Jihad, coupled with recently disclosed terrorism trends for Spain, reveal that the culture of global jihad has consolidated in Spain's northern autonomous region. Once seemingly disparate Salafi Islamist groups and neophyte militant Muslim grassroots networks have coalesced into radicalized Islamist collectives throughout Catalonia to pose a national threat to Spain, as well as to Western interests in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. According to Spanish counter-terrorism officials, the Spanish Confederation of Police and various terrorism experts, Catalonia has become the "principle focus" of the development of jihadi terrorism in Spain and, more specifically, the largest jihadi recruitment center in Europe (La Vanguardia, June 3). "The study about the imprisoned terrorists in Spain--more than 300 since the end of the 1990s--shows that Catalonia is unquestionably the epicenter of jihadi activities in our country," stated Fernando Reinares, the main researcher and director of the Global Terrorism Program of Elcano Royal Institute and the adviser for anti-terrorism policies in the Interior Ministry between 2004 and 2006. Reinares believes that the analysis about Muslim extremism shows Catalonia as the meeting point for jihadis, and he clarifies that if the study had been made on the basis of the number of detentions instead of imprisonments, the percentage would be even higher. According to officials and various studies, the majority of Islamist terrorists in Spain now regard Muslim communities throughout Catalonia as "safe-havens" for building their Islamist ideological support bases, logistical and terrorism financing and recruitment of suicide jihadis for the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as for potential targets in Spain and elsewhere in Europe.

    According to the Catalonian Advisor of the Interior Joan Saura, the three cities of Badalona, Santa Coloma de Gramenet and Sant Adria de Besos form the "most important triangle of jihadi recruitment in Europe" (El Pais, May 30). Every month, approximately three to five Muslim residents of Catalonia travel to Iraq, Chechnya and Afghanistan for terrorism training (El Periodico de Catalunya, September 9, 2006). Spanish counter-terrorism officials observe that many recruits come out of Catalonia due to the strong influence of Salafi Islamism and the susceptibility of young, marginalized and predominantly foreign-born Moroccan men. Many of the jihadi recruiters are foreign-born, typically from France and Belgium, and they reportedly travel throughout Spain on recruitment missions. After Catalonia, the other recruitment mills for militant Islamists are in Madrid and the Spanish enclaves Ceuta and Melilla (Terrorism Monitor, May 4, 2006; Terrorism Monitor, February 15).

    http://www.jamestown.org/news_details.php?news_id=250#

    Al Qaeda declares jihad against India

    Posted on Sat, Jun. 09, 2007

    Al-Qaida declares holy war on India

    By AIJAZ HUSSAIN - Associated Press Writer

    "We declare righteous holy war against India on behalf of God the great in which Jammu and Kashmir will be the launch pad for holy war in India," said the statement signed by Abu Abdul Rehman al-Ansari, purportedly the chief of al-Qaida Fil Hind or al-Qaida in India.

    http://www.thestate.com/372/story/86940.html

    But the suicidal libs want to surrender to Al Qaeda in Iraq and around the world by coming home and pretending George Bush caused all of this.

    Posted by antiliberal at 06/11/2007 @ 2:55pm

23. Whoops, I stand corrected on one point: he was not an American. Nevertheless, holding people without DP is wrong. We don't stop it now, soon it WILL be our own people we're hearing about

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 06/11/2007 @ 3:19pm

24. Posted by I'M NOBODY 06/11/2007 @ 1:32pm

    As did the ones who split the anti-Bush vote, because they didn't want to vote for the "lesser of two evils".

    But if you feel comfortable with your theory...then push for 4-5 left-wing party candidates to run (as well as the Dem nominee) and then explain in 2009 how it's "just" the fault of the ones that voted for Thompson (or whoever), even if he gets less than the popular vote, but wins the Electoral College.

    Posted by Mask at 06/11/2007 @ 4:18pm

25. Posted by ANTILIBERAL 06/11/2007 @ 2:55pm

    A.L.....if BUSH pulls out of Iraq, with only a claim to "victory"....will he become a "suicidal lib"?

    (rumblings out there of just such a flip-flop from The Decider)

    Posted by Mask at 06/11/2007 @ 4:38pm

26. Posted by MASK 06/11/2007 @ 4:38pm

    He would be just as bad if not worse because he knows better.

    Posted by antiliberal at 06/11/2007 @ 4:53pm

27. Mask-If you vote for someone and that someone screws up then it is your fault for voting for them and certainly not the fault of those who voted against that person.That isn't a theory.It's a fact.The war is the fault of those in congress who voted for it and not the fault of those who voted against it.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 06/11/2007 @ 4:56pm

28. He would be just as bad if not worse because he knows better.

    Posted by ANTILIBERAL 06/11/2007 @ 4:53pm

    If Bush (trying to try to save his Presidency and 2008 for the GOP) does it....it'll be interesting to see the reactions. Of course those of us who don't support the war, will be grateful but unimpressed....

    but the neo-cons may (as young WILL said) be mopping up brain matter from the walls of "The Weekly Standard" and the E.I.B. studios.

    Posted by Mask at 06/11/2007 @ 4:58pm

29. Posted by I'M NOBODY 06/11/2007 @ 4:56pm

    Great, I'M....let's run John Edwards as a third party guy ("Anti-Poverty Party")....Al Gore ("Inconvenient Party")...Obama ("New Politics Party")....a couple of anarcho-syndicalists...socialists,natch...and of course Hillary....

    and then bitch about Fred Thompson having no mandate with only 45% of the vote (with 55% split among 5-6 guys/gals), but him still getting Inaugurated on January 20, 2009...

    and all the Edwards', Gore, Obama, and Hillary voters, who "did the right thing", can claim it's not their fault.

    Posted by Mask at 06/11/2007 @ 5:01pm

30. I see the libs ignore the facts concerning the worldwide spread of Al Qaeda. It doesn't fit into their little surrender box.

    Posted by antiliberal at 06/11/2007 @ 5:12pm

31. and then bitch about Fred Thompson having no mandate with only 45% of the vote (with 55% split among 5-6 guys/gals), but him still getting Inaugurated on January 20, 2009...

    and all the Edwards', Gore, Obama, and Hillary voters, who "did the right thing", can claim it's not their fault.

    Posted by MASK 06/11/2007 @ 5:01pm

    Sounds like a replay of 1992 when we conservatives didn't trust Bush 1 and we paid for it by getting Bubba who got 43%

    Posted by antiliberal at 06/11/2007 @ 5:14pm

32. Posted by ANTILIBERAL 06/11/2007 @ 2:55pm

    thats not possible ANTIINTELLECTUAL, Chimpies GWOT is killing Al Qaeda in its crib, no?

    Or, could it be that the war in Iraq is just what bin Laden ordered?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/11/2007 @ 7:23pm

33. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 06/11/2007 @ 3:19pm

    whats this? An America hatin' conservative? Due process? Can't fight AL Qaeda with American values now Chippy, we need to use Castro values. Just ask LUVVY or RIOKORESH.

    Like Ahnold smoking a cuban in Canada.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/11/2007 @ 7:25pm

34. See, the funny thing ANTIINTELECTUAL, is that Saddam was tracking down Al Qaeda, and did not tolerate them in Iraq. Now, they are welcomed.

    What changed? Who changed it?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/11/2007 @ 7:27pm

35. Answer: you.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/11/2007 @ 7:28pm

36. Perhaps, maybe, if our troops were not bogged down fighting an urban civil war that was never going to happen in Chimpyworld, they could be chasing them down across the world, or bringing new schools and hospitals to the failing states, thereby winning the hearts and minds.

    Instead, Al Qaeda is winning the hearts and minds.

    another failure of ChimpCo, amongst a long list of failures. Especially in the US court system. John Yoo should give back every dime Chimy paid him.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/11/2007 @ 7:31pm

37. Sounds like a replay of 1992 when we conservatives didn't trust Bush 1 and we paid for it by getting Bubba who got 43%

    Posted by ANTILIBERAL 06/11/2007 @ 5:14pm

    Exactly....but I thought "progressives" were smart enough to learn from others' mistakes, if never their own.

    Posted by Mask at 06/11/2007 @ 7:42pm

38. Crabwalk,

    You continuously demonstrate the lib ignorance of Al Qaeda and the entire jihadist movement.

    If we had never gone to Iraq or if we left tomorrow, it would not change the goals of Al Qaeda.

    Posted by antiliberal at 06/11/2007 @ 8:01pm

39. Posted by ANTI-CHILDLABORLAWS 06/11/2007 @ 8:01pm |

    One of Al Qaedas goals was to get us mired in a middle eastern war.

    Mission accomplished

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/12/2007 @ 08:23am

40. Why is Al Qaeda larger now than in 2001?

    Chimpy.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/12/2007 @ 08:26am

41. Anti Liberal aka love liberty-You really need to get out of your fantasy and hate filled world and learn about liberals and stop making ignorant statements about liberals not understanding AQ and their goals.Obviously,you aren't watching news shows or listening to debates and just listening to right wing propaganda.You should get out in the real world more.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 06/12/2007 @ 11:28am

42. Anti Liberal aka love liberty-You really need to get out of your fantasy and hate filled world and learn about liberals and stop making ignorant statements about liberals not understanding AQ and their goals.Obviously,you aren't watching news shows or listening to debates and just listening to right wing propaganda.You should get out in the real world more.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 06/12/2007 @ 11:28am

    Far more than you I would gather. Just as libs constantly lump all conservatives in the same grouping, I place libs the same way. Any thinking person knows that a generalization is just that. Only a dunce would believe that 100% of any group thinks, believes, and acts in the identical manner.

    I actually spend very little (and most weeks none) no time on right wing TV, radio, or news sights. I instead spend my time gathering information from news sources around the world. I view daily Muslim news and blogging sites. I watch Free Speech TV and Link TV daily, both far left TV sites. I watch Amy Goodman every day on Democracy Now. I listen every morning and late afternoon (unless not possible) to Pacifica Radio which features far left hosts up to and including members of the Revolutionary Communist Party.

    Unlike most liberals, I form my opinions as the result of my research rather than listening or reading people who may share my views.

    As to the characterization again about libs and AQ; you are more the exception in this regard. Some here like Darla don't believe AQ even exists. They cheer when an idiot like John Edwards says there is no Global War on Terror, that it is just a bumper sticker.

    I appreciate your desire to separate yourself from the liberal masses on this subject; but you are the exception and not the rule on this subject.

    Posted by antiliberal at 06/12/2007 @ 1:56pm