More on the Benchmarks

From Dan Froomkin (with my emphasis):

Julian E. Barnes writes in the Los Angeles Times: "The Bush administration's status report Thursday on the Iraq war gives the Iraqi government an even mix of 'satisfactory' and 'unsatisfactory' grades, but a closer look provides a more sobering impression: The least progress is being made on the most important goals. . . .

"Many of the goals on which the government earned 'satisfactory' marks were at best procedural. But where real political compromise was demanded, results were more disappointing."

Anthony Cordesman writes for the Center for Strategic and International Studies that the real score on the benchmarks is not 8-8-and-2, as the White House would have it, but more like 0-and-18.

"It is clear . . . that the Iraqi government has not really met the Bush administration's benchmarks in any major area. Seen from a more nuanced perspective, actual progress as has been more limited and had often had tenuous meaning unless it can eventually be shown that a faltering legislative start will be put into practice over the months and years to come in ways that Iraq's major factions will accept."

For example, the White House claims the Iraqis provided three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support operations in Baghdad. Cordesman writes: "The main elements of such Iraqi forces arrived more or less on schedule, but at manning levels were variously reported to be 50-75%. Some battalion elements had performed well but they seemed to total only one brigade equivalent and some have done little. Much of existing force was to rotate out."

Ilan Goldenberg writes for the National Security Network: "Some benchmarks claimed as 'satisfactory' only demonstrate minimal progress, not achievement. Others have been achieved on the surface, but fail to accomplish the overall purpose of the specific measurement."

For instance, the White House says that the Iraqi government, with substantial U.S. assistance, has made satisfactory progress toward establishing the planned Joint Security Stations in Baghdad. Goldenberg writes: "While the Joint Security Stations have been established there is little to [indicate] that they are having a substantial impact on security and in some cases are actually making Iraqis feel less safe."

Michael O'Hanlon and Jason Campbell write in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that as far as security goes, "the bottom line in Iraq this year is not very encouraging"; as far as the economy goes, "[h]ad the 18 benchmarks mandated by Congress included more such economic indicators, this week's report card would have been even bleaker"; and as far as politics goes, "[w]ithout major progress . . . soon, there is little hope for a reduction in sectarian tensions and thus little hope for the success of the overall strategy."