Posted by Mark Silva at 11:50 am CDT
How much violence is acceptable in Iraq, the White House was asked today. This is the White House’s answer:
“We’re now playing the adjective game,’’ Tony Snow, White House press secretary, said somewhat dismissively. “In abstract terms, zero violence is acceptable.’’
But “violence, unfortunately at least for a while, is going to be a fact of Iraqi life,’’ he said. The goal for U.S. military forces and the Iraqi government is “trying to create a level of security’’ for people to go about their lives, Snow said. “What you’re trying to do is address the kinds of violence that are designed to destroy Iraq… What you want to do is… have the government in a position where it can stand by itself.’’
As the White House negotiates with congressional leaders over a new war spending bill absent the timelines for troop withdrawals which President Bush has vetoed, the question of measuring any progress in Iraq is becoming central to the equation. The buzzword for the measurement: “Benchmarks.’’
The White House may resist adjectives, but it is pursuing benchmarks.
By the White House’s measure, the Iraqi government already has started meeting some of the benchmarks it has set for establishing a stable government and society. “They have stepped up on the things we have asked them to do... They have put their lives on the line,’’ Snow said today….This is a government that is operational on a whole series of fronts.’’
With the White House asserting that “there is no give’’ on the question of timelines for troop withdrawals, it also is suggesting that there could be ground for negotiation on the question of setting benchmarks for progress in the war in Iraq. But it is also clear that the White House will insist upon “flexibility’’ in any plan finally approved.
Josh Bolten, the president’s chief of staff, met with Senate Democratic and Republican leaders today, but the White House was mum about what they discussed or how long it might take to resolve the conflict over a $100-billion-plus bill for the conduct of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“There are trial balloons all over the place… We will let people float them,’’ Snow said earlier this week. “But it's very important to maintain the flexibility of the president…. A benchmark is basically, somebody says we want to achieve a certain goal. You're assuming that we're going to get out and talk about benchmarks… Most of the conversation using that term has come from Capitol Hill.’’
Yet Bush himself has made benchmarks part of the war debate.
Since Bush announced a new strategy for the U.S. military in Iraq, with a televised address to the nation on Jan. 10 announcing an escalation of military force, he has been holding the Iraqis to a series of “benchmarks’’ which his administration credits Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for seeking when the two leaders met in Oman last year.
“America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced,’’ Bush said in that televised address in January. Among the Iraqi commitments: “The Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November.’’
Among the other benchmarks announced: Iraq will enact legislation to share revenue from its oilfields among all its people, commit $10 billion of its own to reconstruction and projects that create new jobs and allow more Iraqis to “re-enter their nation's political life,’’ reforming de-Baathification laws.
Bush reiterated this commitment in his State of the Union address on Jan. 23: “Iraqi leaders have committed themselves to a series of benchmarks… But for all of this to happen, Baghdad must be secure. And our plan will help the Iraqi government take back its capital and make good on its commitments.’’
And, now, with the potential for benchmarks to become part of a new war-spending bill that Democrats might accept as a means of holding the administration to some measurable progress in an unpopular war, the president is playing the word heavily in his defense of his war policy.
And on Wednesday, in issuing a long argument for his war strategy and veto of the spending bill that demanded timelines for troop withdrawal, Bush told an assembly of the Associated General Contractors in Washington:
“You know, the Iraq government has been in office about a year. And they're beginning to make some progress toward political benchmarks it has set -- political benchmarks I support. The legislature has passed a budget that commits $10 billion for reconstruction projects.’’
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Bush has lowered his own standards; no mean feat when you're at minus-1.
Now, there's "violence" in the U.S., and the trick is for Iraq to equal that??? When was our last domestic sectarian violence? Where do we have "a certain level of violence" comparable to Iraq, in terms of percentage of population??? Where do we have anything comparable to millions of refugees trying to escape violence?
Bush is stuck with the fact that a military "victory" has been disavowed by his own Generals, who realize that the problem is political, rather than military. In a desperate attempt to divert back to a military solution, letting the failed Iraqi leadership off the hook, al Qaeda is now the declared problem, rather than the Shiite militia and native Sunni insurgency. The "surge" was supposed to allow Iraq time for a political solution by reducing violence, at the expense of the lives of our own troops. That's not working, either, as we've spread our troops into smaller groups more widely spread, counting on the support of the Iraqi troops - and of course, that's not working, either.
Meanwhile, the recent report on reconstruction indicates a total waste of U.S. taxpayer funds, and 2 million Iraqis have fled the country, and another 2 million are refugees within Iraq.
If this is "success", I hope we never get to witness "failure".
Posted by: pb | May 3, 2007 12:45 PM
More important news of the day; raising the question of when the central Iraqi goverment will ever function as one, so that our troops can begin to "stand down as they stand up":
ERBIL, Iraq, May 2 — Kurdish and Sunni Arab officials expressed deep reservations on Wednesday about the draft version of a national oil law and related legislation, misgivings that could derail one of the benchmark measures of progress in Iraq laid down by President Bush.
The draft law, which establishes a framework for the distribution of oil revenues, was approved by the Iraqi cabinet in late February after months of negotiations. The White House was hoping for quick passage to lay the groundwork for a political settlement among the country’s ethnic and sectarian factions. But the new Kurdish concerns have created doubts about the bill even before Parliament is to pick it up for debate.
The issue comes at a delicate moment for Mr. Bush, who on Wednesday began negotiations with Congressional Democrats over a new war-spending measure.
Posted by: pb | May 3, 2007 12:49 PM
PB-
The perfect companion for your story is this one:
"Lawmakers divided over whether to keep U.S. troops in Iraq are finding common ground on at least one topic: They are furious that Iraqi politicians are considering a lengthy break this summer.
"If they go off on vacation for two months while our troops fight _ that would be the outrage of outrages," said Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn.
The Iraq parliament's recess, starting this July, would likely come without Baghdad politicians reaching agreements considered key to easing sectarian tensions. Examples include regulating distribution of the country's oil wealth and reversing measures that have excluded many Sunnis from jobs and government positions because of Baath party membership.
Iraqi politicians said Thursday the break might not happen or may be less than two months, but said it should be of no concern to U.S. lawmakers."
Our troops will keep fighting and dying while the Iraqi government vacations. Is that a benchmark?
Posted by: Tony | May 3, 2007 1:26 PM
So the latest justification of the Iraq war is that we are there to reduce the violence to some point only somewhat greater than the level of violence in Iraq back when Sadaam Hussein was in power?
And we're propping up this nascent democracy with our treasure and soldier's lives so that it can elect an Islamic Theocracy where there once was a secular government?
Great.
Posted by: dave k | May 3, 2007 1:26 PM
"There's Your Timetable":
http://cartoonbox.slate.com/tomtoles/
Posted by: dt | May 3, 2007 3:37 PM
dt
you rule
great cartoon
Posted by: C.Morris | May 3, 2007 4:56 PM
Benchmarks? Nobody tells the Commander Guy what to do!
Posted by: athena | May 3, 2007 5:51 PM
Re: "Benchmarks? Nobody tells the Commander Guy what to do!"
"We don't need no stinkin' badges"
"Either we'll succeed, or we won't succeed." --George W. Bush, on Iraq, Washington, D.C., May 2, 2007
"And so, what Gen. Petraeus is saying, some early signs, still dangerous, but give me -- give my chance a plan to work." --George W. Bush, in an interview with Charlie Rose, April 24, 2007
"There are jobs Americans aren't doing. ... If you've got a chicken factory, a chicken-plucking factory, or whatever you call them, you know what I'm talking about." --George W. Bush. Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007
"There are some similarities, of course (between Iraq and Vietnam). Death is terrible." --George W. Bush, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007
"My job is a job to make decisions. I'm a decision -- if the job description were, what do you do -- it's decision maker." --George W. Bush, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007
(Is there such a thing as verbal kaopectate?)
Posted by: pb | May 3, 2007 6:51 PM
Succeeding in Iraq, using the Bush team's policies, is an almost undoable task.
No one has had a bigger impact on the conditions in Iraq than the Bush team. An yet, look what it has gotten the Iraqi people. Only "In-Denial" and low press coverage can make the Iraqi civilian conditions look like the Bush team should continue its "managing" of Iraq.
The best thing that could happen to Iraq is to remove those whose "thinking" produced, after four years of trying, the current Iraqi state of CHAOS.
The Bush team does not want to let go or share an Iraqi solution with anyone. That is, in itself, strange. Most doers don't like to be in untenable conditions. Most would love to have help.
But the Bush team is different.
Could letting go of that HUGE American credit card have anything to do with the Bush team's insistence that it and only it is the ONE to manage the horrible Iraqi conditions.
If, in one's state of "In-Denial", one refuses to believe all the mistakes one makes, one might consider ones self to produce world class management output. That, of course, would be a tragedy, similar to what is happening in Iraq.
Posted by: bezelt | May 5, 2007 7:38 AM
pb said:
More important news of the day; raising the question of when the central Iraqi goverment will ever function as one, so that our troops can begin to "stand down as they stand up":
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Don't blame the new, fledgling Iraqi government.
The Bush team dismantled the old Iraqi government by removing its head. After that government was replaced, anarchy "controlled" the streets of Baghdad. And actually anarchy has been a fact of Iraqi life ever since.
Now, out of this CHAOS a new government is trying to form(way late and perhaps a dollar short). The Bush team handed this group of Iraqis the OUTPUT of a Bush team operation. And that is scary.
It won't be easy for the new government to get it all together after being handed something the Bush team "fixed".
Posted by: bezelt | May 5, 2007 9:57 AM