Deconstructing the Benchmarks

Last week the Bush Administration announced that the Iraqi government had made "satisfactory" progress on just 8 of the 18 benchmarks the Administration and Congress set this spring. Yet little attention has been paid to what these benchmarks actually are and whether they matter.

McClatchy newspapers analyzed all 18 benchmarks. The Washington Post summarized the report thusly:

The report judged that progress was "satisfactory" in eight of 18 benchmarks, including a review of the Iraqi constitution; legislation to divide Iraq into semi-autonomous regions; the protection of minority rights; and government, military and civil support for the new strategy. But it noted mixed progress on new electoral laws, militia disarmament and the reduction in militia control of local areas.

Areas receiving unsatisfactory grades included reform of Iraq's de-Baathification laws; enactment of a new law governing oil revenue; the ability of Iraqi security forces to operate independently from U.S. forces; and a range of benchmarks measuring sectarian bias in the government.

So the most important targets--curbing sectarian violence, empowering Iraqi forces, cracking down on militias, fairly distributing oil revenues--remain unmet. The Administration has little to show for the $2 billion per week our government is spending in Iraq.

Yet the incessant talk about benchmarks, on both sides of the Iraq debate, misses the point. "By setting 18 benchmarks that will be nearly impossible to reach but saying you won't leave until they are met is a recipe for long-term occupation," says Erik Leaver, an Iraq expert at the Institute for Policy Studies in DC. "There's no need for benchmarks at this point if you believe the war is a failure and can't be won."

Leaver notes that there is no similar mechanism of accountability or official indexes of progress for US troops and reconstruction teams. We didn't benchmark our way into this war and we won't benchmark our way out.

Comments (40)

1. I've always said the "improvement" claimed by the White House and the 28%ers will be disengenuous at best.

   It'll be along the lines of "We're down to 3 road-side bombings a week from 5" and "We've had only 100 deaths in Baghdad in July, while it was nearly 200 in May of '07." and "We've lost more troops this summer, but we've killed more 'Al Queda' (folding in Sunni Iraqi insurgents as "AQ")" and similar Vietnam Era body counts.

   None of it will be "better" than it was in 2003 or probably even 2004. It'll be "better" than this past winter...maybe...but not much.

   Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 11:17am

2. The errorists are getting desperate.

   Posted by conshame at 07/17/2007 @ 11:24am

3. Damn it, Ari!

   I am so frustrated by the fact that the media, yourself included, are referring to the Iraq hydrocarbon law as a law for "fairly distributing oil revenues" between the different Iraqi factions. That is a misleading crock of shit. (Remember, Cheney and the big petro players were divvying up the oil fields before George W. even knew that there was more than one kind of Muslim.)

   The hydrocarbon law that BushCo seeks will provide for "fair" distribution of the 20% or less that will stay under the control of the Iraqis, while the other 80% stays under the control of the western oil companies, for 20 to 30 years.

   That is the only benchmark the neocons care about.

   Stop facilitating the propaganda.

   Posted by drhammer at 07/17/2007 @ 11:57am

4. The invasion of Iraq was always all about the oil. It was in the beginning and it still is. ---Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/17/2007 @ 12:15pm

   But that was unknown in 2003...when the Senate (and one particular Senator) voted for it...right?

   Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 12:18pm

5. None of it will be "better" than it was in 2003 or probably even 2004. It'll be "better" than this past winter...maybe...but not much.

   Posted by MASK 07/17/2007 @ 11:17am

   NOT EVEN THAT...

   According to reports I've read, the so-called "sectarian violence" has actually gotten WORSE since the "surge." It does make you wonder what it will take. Probably nothing short of impeachment of BOTH Bush and Cheney, if Congress is up to it which, as you've pointed out many times, it probably isn't.

   I strongly suspect that Petraeus's "eagerly awaited" September Report will cite similar "progress." (After all, it seems in his interest to hold on to his theater combat combat, a real plum -- even Iraq, one suspects -- for advancing military careers.) This "progress" will become a pretext for a "surge on the surge" that Bush/Cheney and the Pentagon seem to be contemplating, according to the latest news reports.

   Unfortunately, there doesn't seem much hope in sight. Evidently, Bush/Cheney are looking at the U.S. occupation of Iraq as, essentially, a kind of holding action and they intend to sustain it as long as possible. Nothing that happens is evidently going to cause them to change course short of the unlikely even of getting the two of 'em outta there.

   Posted by w_m_bear at 07/17/2007 @ 12:22pm

6. That should read "theater combat COMMAND." Sorry.

   Posted by w_m_bear at 07/17/2007 @ 12:23pm

7. Posted by W_M_BEAR 07/17/2007 @ 12:22pm

   BEAR, I was actually referring to the CLAIMS about how much "better" is was. They'll say things are better, but only "better" than it was a few months (or weeks) ago...not better than before we invaded.

   Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 12:28pm

8. Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/17/2007 @ 12:24pm

   I'm going to vote for Her Majesty if she's the nominee. And if she is the nominee, pretty good chance she'll win.

   But NOBODY, except the die-hard Hillary cult of personality types (like you) believes that she wasn't voting for an invasion of Iraq.

   They either don't care or they're supporting Obama. Edwards apologized....for what?, if it wasn't a vote for war?

   Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 12:31pm

9. Frankgrits -- I agree with you that it may be "all about oil" but that insight, honestly, doesn't strike me as terribly helpful. For one thing, we don't HAVE the oil and there doesn't seem much prospect of ever getting it either. Maybe if Bush/Cheney can loosen their grip on that particular greediness, they might be more amenable to some sort of phased withdrawal but I have to say, that doesn't seem terribly likely either. Greed tends to feed on itself.

   Posted by w_m_bear at 07/17/2007 @ 12:34pm

10. "They (the Iraqi government) have made not inconsequential movement forward...It's also not the case that they've done nothing...." Secretary of State Condoleezza (Mushroom Cloud Condi) Rice, 7/13/2007

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/17/2007 @ 12:45pm

11. Posted by MASK 07/17/2007 @ 12:31pm |

    50 foot queeny gets my vote if nominated too. sigh...

    bench marks...so easy to set...so impossible to meet...

    goddam black hole of baghdad! this is stupider by far than vietnam...you would think we would have learned...from vietnam.

    but stupid is as stupid does, and millions suffer...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/17/2007 @ 12:47pm

12. IBB, we're in agree on most of that, but...

    50 foot queeny gets my vote if nominated too. sigh... ---Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 07/17/2007 @ 12:47pm

    As a die-hard Allison Hayes...I find any allusions to Her Majesty Queen Hillary and Allison's ground-breaking, remarkable, and Oscar-deserving performance of 1958 [en.wikipedia.org] highly offensive!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 1:12pm

13. Posted by MASK 07/17/2007 @ 1:12pm |

    yeah, lol, then there's this...

    Link: pjharvey [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/17/2007 @ 2:00pm

14. i think this should be her majesty's campaign song...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/17/2007 @ 2:04pm

15. i think this should be her majesty's campaign song...

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 07/17/2007 @ 2:04pm

    Nope, I'm thinking this should be [youtube.com]

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 2:16pm

16. goddam black hole of baghdad! this is stupider by far than vietnam...you would think we would have learned...from vietnam.

    but stupid is as stupid does, and millions suffer...

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE

    That's what happens when you let "business" people run the show. You've gotta understand the history, culture. (And, of course, had Georgie and Cheney served in Vietnam they might not have been so gung-ho about putting troops in harm's way.)

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/17/2007 @ 2:33pm

17. Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/17/2007 @ 2:24pm

    If we did, FRANK...would it bother you less about us addressing HRH Hillary? Probably not.

    Besides what's "excellent" about Bush?...heheh

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 2:38pm

18. And, of course, had Georgie and Cheney served in Vietnam they might not have been so gung-ho about putting troops in harm's way.)

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/17/2007 @ 2:33pm

    Dang right....I mean, that's like letting people who don't vote, discuss politics!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 2:39pm

19. "Dang right....I mean, that's like letting people who don't vote, discuss politics!"

    heheh

    Posted by MASK 07/17/2007 @ 2:39pm

    So what's the latest casualty count from the blog sites?

    Posted by drhammer at 07/17/2007 @ 2:45pm

20. Posted by MASK

    Yeah, and the same can be said about allowing women trapped in a man's body to post on The Nation's site, mary.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/17/2007 @ 2:51pm

21. Posted by DRHAMMER 07/17/2007 @ 2:45pm

    Casualty count from the blog sites?!?!?!

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 2:58pm

22. Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/17/2007 @ 2:51pm

    Oh, Empty, Empty, Empty....always with the hatred. Something about homosexuality that bothers you?

    You have some encounter with Bogs Diamond, Andy Dufresne?

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 3:02pm

23. Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/17/2007 @ 2:25pm

    lol - frank...i've called that mushmouthed, silver spoon gagged, idiot a lot worse...like mushmouthed, silver spoon gagged, idiot...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/17/2007 @ 3:09pm

24. Homosexuality? No. Douche bags? Yes.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/17/2007 @ 3:09pm

25. Liberals told you so, Liberals were right, Liberals are geniuses.

    Conservatives ran around, ha ha ha, liberal liberal liberal, liberal socialist liberal, ha ha ha. While they ran this country, USA, into the ground. Conservatives still aim to accelerate the damage, telling more lies about Iran.

    Conservatives are now running around saying liberal liberal liberal, we gotta kill Iranians. We have to kill more Americans. We have to dig a deeper quagmire in the middle east for more Americans to die. After all, we're the greatest country in the world. America is the most powerful nation on the face of the Earth. Either give us your oil and agree to our laws, let us occupy your countries, or we'll wipe you off the face of the Earth, you dirty little Iranians. Give us your oil. America has become exactly like Nazi Germany, except Bush hasnt gotten to 6,000,000 yet. America is being led into a nightmare, needlessly so, based on lies, because of Conservatives, saying liberal liberal liberal, gotta kill Iranians, liberal liberal liberal, gotta kill Iranians, gotta kill more Americans, supporting Bushs next planned war.

    Conservatives: WRONG on Iraq, WRONG on Bush, WRONG on ____

    Posted by conshame at 07/17/2007 @ 3:11pm

26. Liberals are foreign policy geniuses.

    Posted by conshame at 07/17/2007 @ 3:13pm

27. Posted by MASK 07/17/2007 @ 2:16pm

    general zod...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/17/2007 @ 3:14pm

28. the most important benchmark is the number of american casualties.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/17/2007 @ 3:46pm

29. Posted by CONSHAME 07/17/2007 @ 3:13pm

    Hey CS, is Hillary a "liberal"?

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 3:54pm

30. general zod...

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 07/17/2007 @ 3:14pm

    Well, she sure as hell isn't "Ursa" (Sarah Douglas)...heheh. Though Bill is starting to look like "Non" lately.

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 3:55pm

31. Posted by MASK 07/17/2007 @ 3:55pm

    i'm sticking with "50 foot queenie"... "you will love me and respect me! rowwr!" smash smash!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/17/2007 @ 4:01pm

32. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 07/17/2007 @ 4:01pm

    YOU WILL BOW DOWN BEFORE ME, SON OF BUSH-EL! ONE DAY, YOU, AND THEN YOUR HEIRS!!!!

    (then she flies off in a mirror with a hot chick and a Richard Kiel-lookalike.)

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 4:42pm

33. "Hey I'm one big queen No one can stop me Red light red green Sat back and watching I'm your new one Second to no one No sweat I'm clean Nothing can touch me"

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/17/2007 @ 4:52pm

34. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/17/2007 @ 7:37pm

    Likely as not, LL, come November 8th 2009, ol' FRANK will be singing a happy tune....while you'll be wondering if there's something in St. John about the Antichrist potentially being a FEMALE with fat ankles!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 7:54pm

35. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/17/2007 @ 8:05pm

    True, she can peel paint...or atleast BORE it off the walls.

    But her fear of being a 1-termer (like Bill) will do a lot of mitigating good. She won't risk Congress (as he did in 1993) with a bunch of wild-eyed liberal programs (much to the dismay of "The Nation"). Rubinomics-II may resurrect and get that deficit under control. And the Supreme Court won't become the Heritage Foundation if Ginsburg, Stevens, and Breyer step down.

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 8:16pm

36. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/17/2007 @ 8:26pm

    No, would never say "It's the end of conservatism". Might say that NEO-conservatism is dead for a good solid decade though. No more nation-building, but it also means a public who's not going to go for LIBERAL foreign interventionism either (like Darfur).

    Religious Right is on the ropes though, LL (sorry). Schiavo idiocy, Pat Robertson insanity, and Haggard's hypocrisy...and plain ol' linkages to Bush the Born Again, have cut your influence.

    Proof?...the fact that even you will vote for a pro-gay rights, pro-choice multi-marriage Rudy Giuliani. And more people care about getting us out of Iraq than if gays marry or if the kids are taught that the world if 10K years old and dinosaurs drowned in Noah's Flood.

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 9:07pm

37. all this discussion about leaving iraq. the u.s. is going nowhere. why should it? it hasn't left okinawa, panama, turkmenistan, etc., the president, whoever he/she may be, isn't going to change any of this. perhaps a new distraction (and more military bases) will have people soon forgetting about iraq and the other hundreds of bases around the world. evil iran has no foreign bases. north korea, none. elect gore--his previous administration continued to wage war on iraq all through the nineties. these people are all bought and paid for by economic interests far beyond the power of even 300 million votes.

    i just wonder if one day the world will have leaders who care more about their own children (and mine) than money and power

    so it goes

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/17/2007 @ 9:39pm

38. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/17/2007 @ 9:14pm |

    Not for a while. How can libs who said "Iraq never attacked us"..."Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11"..."Saddam was a bad guy, but so what, lots of bad guys"...

    turn around and say "Sudan never attacked us, but let's invade Darfur"?..."Sudan is a haven for Al Queda...okay, a little bit...let's invade and find out"?...."Omar al-Bashir is a bad guy, let's overthrow him and snap his head off at the hanging"?

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 10:29pm

39. "And, of course, had Georgie and Cheney served in Vietnam they might not have been so gung-ho about putting troops in harm's way.)"

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/17/2007 @ 2:33pm

    "Dang right....I mean, that's like letting people who don't vote, discuss politics!"

    heheh

    Posted by MASK 07/17/2007 @ 2:39pm

    "So what's the latest casualty count from the blog sites?"

    Posted by DRHAMMER 07/17/2007 @ 2:45pm

    My point being that people who don't vote but discuss politics can do little more than annoy.

    The POTUS and VP who never served have sent over 3600 of our brave soldiers to their deaths.

    I was surprised to see you make the analogy, even for the purpose of yanking MT's chain.

    Posted by drhammer at 07/18/2007 @ 08:09am

40. I was surprised to see you make the analogy, even for the purpose of yanking MT's chain.

    Posted by DRHAMMER 07/18/2007 @ 08:09am

    Well, I don't think you "have to serve, to send troops off to die". The closest Franklin Roosevelt came to military service was being Asst. Secretary of the Navy. Johnson and Nixon served and ran Vietnam. Bush-41 was a pretty brave bomber pilot and did a good job with Gulf War-I. It's not really relevant.

    Empty's a kibbitzer (sp?). A Yiddish term for somebody who, for example, stands over a card game...not playing...but "advising" the players how to play the game. He won't vote, not out of "principle", but out of establishing for himself an ability to say "Well, I didn't vote for that idiot" (no matter what side wins, Dems or Repubs), ergo he gets to "stand above it all".

    His votes for Nader (supposedly) in 1996 was SOUNDS principled, as many on the Left had a problem with Clinton signing welfare reform. In 2000, he was a "guest of the state" for "liberating" some cash from a local bank, and in 2004 he was still on probation.

    His present refusal to participate in the System is the part where he's just trying to "put on airs".

    He CLAIMS he's some "anarcho-communist" (another excuse for not voting for either "corporatist party")...but claims also that he wants "balance", which he defines almost identically to 60s liberalism, not socialism. So which is it?!?!?

    Throw in his subtle racism ("mulatto" and "colored blood" for Barack Obama)...and his not-so-subtle homophobia ("fruit", "fag", and "mary" for his opponents here)....and you get one F'ed-up "progressive" who's politically irrelevant since he doesn't add to the body politic.

    Posted by Mask at 07/18/2007 @ 10:01am