Has America Succeeded in Iraq? That Depends
In May 2007, Congress established 18 benchmarks that it would use to determine whether America was succeeding in Iraq. Now, a year and a half later, whether those benchmarks have been met depends on whom you talk to.
FOXNews.com
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Is it time for America to declare success in Iraq? That depends on whom you ask. While the nation has been consumed with its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, the war -- the early focal point of the presidential campaign -- has moved to the back burner.
In May 2007, at the start of the troop "surge" that is credited with quelling much of the violence in Iraq, Congress established 18 benchmarks that it would use to determine whether America was succeeding there. Now, a year and a half later, whether those benchmarks have been met depends on whom you talk to.
White House officials say Iraq has met most of the goals, rendering the benchmarks irrelevant. But others say Iraq still has a lot of work to do.
The Government Accountability Office released a report in the summer that cited little improvement in the political and economic areas and noted continuing military problems despite a significant decline in overall violence.
The White House, which in May declared to Congress that Iraq's efforts on 15 benchmarks were "satisfactory" -- told FOXNews.com that it didn't have an update on benchmarks.
"For the most part, they are not a relevant metric any longer," spokesman Gordon Johndroe said via e-mail. "There are better metrics more relevant now than these that are about two years old."
Johndroe cited security incidents, the number of provinces U.S. security forces have handed over to Iraq control, embassies established by regional government in Baghdad and budget execution.
But critics say only a few benchmarks have been met.
The Center for American Progress declared in a report in September that only four of the 18 benchmarks had been met, crediting the troop surge with reducing violence in Iraq but failing to deliver on its central objective: "achieving a sustainable power consolidation among Iraq's different political forces."
Iraqi lawmakers are expected to vote Wednesday on a pact that would remove U.S. combat troops from Iraqi cities and towns by June 30, and remove all U.S. troops from the country by Jan. 1, 2012. The pact would also reduce the autonomy of the remaining American forces there.
Critics say the lack of attention to the 18 benchmarks does not signal that America has succeeded in Iraq.
"I think it's more of a sign that violence is down and that therefore, it's a less sexy story and these are very thorny issues," said Matthew Duss, a research associate with the Center for American Progress.
Here is a list of all benchmarks that Iraq needed to meet:
* Perform a Constitutional review;
* Enact and implement de-Ba-athification reform legislation;
* Ensure equal distribution of hydrocarbon resources to Iraqis;
* Form semi-autonomous regions;
* Hold provincial elections;
* Enact and implement legislation addressing amnesty;
* Disarm militias;
* Establish support for Baghdad Security Plan;
* Ensure minority rights in Iraqi legislature;
* Keep Iraqi Security Forces free from partisan interference;
* Provide military support in Baghdad;
* Empower Iraqi Security Forces;
* Ensure Iraqi Security Forces provide impartial law enforcement;
* Reduce sectarian violence;
* Establish neighborhood security in Baghdad;
* Increase the number of independent Iraqi security forces;
* Allocate and spend $10 billion in Iraq revenues equally;
* Ensure that Iraq's political authorities do not undermine or make false accusations against members of the Iraqi Security Forces.
In May 2008 the White House concluded that only two of the benchmarks -- enacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenues -- were unsatisfactory.
Rep. Mike McIntyre, D-NC, who requested the administration's updated assessment, derided the May report, which he said used the false standard of determining whether progress on a goal is "satisfactory" versus whether the benchmark had been met. He estimated that only a few of the 18 benchmarks had been fully achieved.
The State Department issued its own evaluation in April and determined that all but one of the benchmarks -- ensuring that Iraqi Security Forces are not undermined by political authorities -- had been met.
It is unknown whether President-elect Barack Obama will use these benchmarks to measure the progress of the Iraqi government. He has said he wants to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office in January, an even speedier timetable than the one outlined in the security pact.
But despite Obama's pledge, most agree that a functional democracy in Iraq could still be years away because of the complexities of the issue involved and the deeply rooted distrust among the nation's sectarian groups.
They have passed, for example, legislation that grants amnesty for some prisoners and allows former members of Saddam Hussein's political party to recover lost jobs or pensions. They also determined that provincial elections would be held by the end of January, delayed from the initial dates of Oct. 1 and then the end of December.
If the elections are held, they will be the first in four years. But that breakthrough came only after Iraqi lawmakers agreed to set aside the divisive issues of power-sharing in the oil-rich northern province of Tamim, as well as the issue of how many minorities will be represented.
But challenges remain for many of the benchmarks.
Amnesty requests are backlogged, and in question is whether the new law will speed the release of those in U.S. custody. It also remains unclear just how many Baath members will be able to return to their jobs.
Militias and sectarian interests among Iraq's leaders still play a central role in the conflict. And U.S. military officials say they do not know if violence levels will stay down as troop levels are reduced.
In the May progress report, one benchmark was deemed to have brought mixed results: The Iraqi army has made satisfactory progress on the goal of fairly enforcing the law, while the nation's police force remains plagued by sectarianism.
Overall, militia control has declined and Baghdad's security forces have "demonstrated [their] willingness and effectiveness to use these authorities to pursue extremists in all provinces, regardless of population or extremist demographics," as illustrated by recent operations, the White House concluded.
According to the report by the Center for American Progress, the four benchmarks that Iraq has met are sending troops and establishing joint security stations in Baghdad, protecting minority parties in Parliament, and establishing Baghdad Security Plan support committees. Six other goals were partially met, the group said.
Duss, CAP's research associate, said that peace and reconciliation in Iraq won't be possible until U.S. forces leave.
"It's long past time we admitted that, best intentions aside, the U.S. presence in Iraq is not neutral, and that it continues to provide an excuse for Iraq's various factions to avoid making tough choices necessary to achieve a sustainable political accommodation," Duss wrote in his blog on Monday.
"It's tragic and more than a little baffling that the Bush administration wasted so much time and energy bargaining with the Iraqis to let the U.S. stay, rather than use the prospect of withdrawal as incentive for Iraq's leaders to make that accommodation."
In an interview the FOXNews.com, Duss said the White House report card was misleading in that it focused on the passing of legislation rather than implementation.
"I think [the benchmarks] are useful to gauge where we are in Iraq's reconstruction," he said. "I don't think it helps to misrepresent the progress."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
foxnews.com |
