link Report says Iraqis haven't fully met any of 18 goals By LOLITA C. BALDOR and ANNE FLAHERTY Associated Press The Iraqi government has not yet fully met any of 18 goals for political, military and economic reform, the Bush administration said today in an interim report certain to inflame debate in Congress over growing calls for a U.S. troop withdrawal. In an assessment required by Congress, the administration accused Syria of fostering a network that supplies as many as 50 to 80 suicide bombers per month for al-Qaida in Iraq. It also said Iran continues to fund extremist groups. The report said that despite progress on some fronts by the government of Nouri al-Maliki, "the security situation in Iraq remains complex and extremely challenging," the "economic picture is uneven" and political reconciliation is lagging. At a news conference that coincided with the report's release, President Bush said, "I believe we should succeed in Iraq and I know we must." The report warned of "tough fighting" during the summer, as U.S. and Iraqi forces "seek to seize the initiative from early gains and shape conditions of longer-term stabilization." While President Bush announced last winter he was ordering thousands of additional troops to the war zone, the full complement has only arrived in recent weeks. "The full surge in this respect has only just begun," the report said. In an evident jab at critics of Bush's war policies, the report also said progress toward political reconciliation was hampered by "increasing concern among Iraqi political leaders that the United States may not have a long term-commitment to Iraq." The report was issued in the fifth year of a war that has taken the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops, and is costing the United States an estimated $10 billion a month. In all, it credited the Iraqi government with satisfactory progress on eight benchmarks, unsatisfactory progress on another eight and mixed results on the other two. At the White House, press secretary Tony Snow said the fact that "satisfactory progress" has been made in several security areas "should provide some space for the government of Iraq to make progress on key political benchmarks." "The report is balanced and sober," he said in a statement. "It documents the challenges faced by U.S. and Iraqi forces and provides a basis for measuring progress as the surge enters the stage of full implementation." The report was designed as an interim assessment of the shift in policy that Bush announced last winter, in the wake of Republican defections in an election in which the war played a significant role. A second report is due in September from Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. The new assessment landed as both houses of Congress debated legislation to order the withdrawal of U.S. troops by next spring. The House appeared on track to approve its version of the bill later in the day, but opponents in the Senate appear to have the strength to prevent a final vote next week in the Senate. In either event, Bush has pledged to veto the legislation, and has enough support to make his rejection stick. Still, with polls showing scant public support for the war, and the U.S. casualty count climbing, Republicans whose names will be on the 2008 election ballot have shown increasing signs of restiveness in recent weeks. Several veteran Republicans have called on Bush to change course, and Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Oregon, on Wedneday became the first member of his party to announce on the Senate floor that he will support legislation that orders a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days, to be completed by next April 30. That announcement, along with other calls for a dramatic change in policy, prompted an acerbic response from Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio. "Wimps," he called fellow GOP lawmakers who part company with the president on the war. Bush in recent days rejected calls for any shift in strategy before September. But neither he nor administration officials have speculated about what might happen after that. The administration's report, however, referred repeatedly to the Iraq Study Group that issued a report last winter that drew widespread praise in Congress. The bipartisan panel said Bush should start handing off the combat mission to the Iraqi forces and pave the way for a drawdown of U.S. forces in 2008. "While all of those conditions have not yet been met, and the new strategy is still in its early stages, there are some encouraging signs that should, over time, point the way to a more normalized and sustainable level of U.S. engagement in Iraq, with a decreasing number of U.S. combat forces increasingly focused on a core set of missions, such as those set out by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group," the report states.
Report says Iraqis haven't fully met any of 18 goals ... and Uberidiot (independent Senator from Conn.) thinks the surge is working better than expected. Perhaps he expects he expected the number of goals to be meet was going to be a negative number.
The administration’s decision to qualify many of the political benchmarks will enable it to present a more optimistic assessment than if it had provided the pass-fail judgment sought by Congress when it approved funding for the war this spring. --------- Administration officials said the Pentagon had been much more willing than the State Department and the White House to make hard and fast calls about whether Iraqi progress was satisfactory. An assessment of political progress provided to the House Armed Services Committee by Thomas Fingar, the deputy director for analysis at the National Intelligence Council, painted a much bleaker picture than the White House report, saying there were “few appreciable gains.” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/12/w...2&hp=&oref=login&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
Iraqi's parliament quality vacation likely out of country? increase violence in the last three months? rumored near term vote of confidence? I guess it boils down to what you mean by 'progress'.
I guess it goes to how you define progress. If we kill a bunch of people trying to kill our troops that is progress of some sort. However, if at that same time, you're creating more people who want to kill our troops, that is not. If at the same time, you're running America in the ground, that is not. If at the same time, it is clear we can't sustain such "progress," that is not.
Of course Biden blows the punchline though as he should have said as the guy is falling past every floor, "so far so good."
At this point, the progress line just seems like the boy who cried wolf. We've heard it so many times over the past 4 years that it's become meaningless as a justification to do anything. Besides wasn't the point of the benchmarks to monitor Iraqi progress. If they aren't meeting them, then there isn't progress.
well realistically, what do you expect since there has been a change in tactics for only a couple of months? seriously. Several months ago people were complaining that things werent working, and rightfully so. Well there was a shift in tactics and there have been some progress in certain aspects, particularly the aspects that the US can directly effect, i.e. military operations. You cant 'make' the iraqi govt come to agreements on certain issues, you can try to persuade, but ultimately they have to do that on their own.
thats not true. you said they are there to monitor progress...not determine if there has been progress if everyone of them was not met. right? Was it the intentions that everyone of those items had to be met to verify progress? it wouldnt seem so. if all but one were not met, then you wouldnt say that there has been "no" progress. i am unsire of one thing.. Is this report just a 'midterm' progress report leading up to the september evaluation? BUt i agree, we've heard a lot over the last 4 years and people have become naturally jaded, and for good reason. But like someone else said about the boy who cried wolf...at some point a wolf will actually be there but we cannot help because we assumed it was just another prank.
Who you gonna trust? Me or your lying eyes? -- New U.S. intelligence assessment casts doubts on Bush's Iraq policy By Jonathan S. Landay and Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers WASHINGTON — The Shiite Muslim-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki has made only "halting efforts" to end the power struggle fueling the war between Iraq's religious and ethnic communities, a new U.S. intelligence report said Wednesday. Even if the bloodletting can be contained, Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders will be "hard pressed" to reach lasting political reconciliation, the report stated. The report, reflecting the consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, cast new uncertainty about the chances of success for President Bush's plan to contain the war through the deployment of an additional 28,000 U.S. troops, mostly in and around Baghdad. The conclusions also appeared to be bleaker than a White House assessment produced by the top U.S. officials in Baghdad, which found that Iraqi politicians have made satisfactory progress on some of the 18 benchmarks set by Congress in May. The new intelligence findings were contained in a 23-page Global Security Assessment presented to the House Armed Services Committee by Thomas Fingar, the chairman of the National Intelligence Council, the intelligence community's top analytical body. "The struggle among and within Iraqi communities over national identity and the distribution of power has eclipsed attacks by Iraqis against (U.S.-led) Coalition Forces as the greatest impediment to Iraq's future as a peaceful, democratic and unified state," said the report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. While there have been some "positive developments, communal violence and scant common ground between the Shias, Sunnis and Kurds continues to polarize politics," it said. Bush, facing growing pressure to change policy from key Republican senators, many of whom face re-election next year, has blamed the worsening violence on al Qaida in Iraq, a Sunni terrorist group inspired by Osama bin Laden. But the new report repeats a January intelligence assessment that the conflict is a "self-sustaining sectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis" for which al Qaida in Iraq attacks have served as "effective accelerants." The report rendered judgment on two benchmarks: submission of a draft petroleum revenue-sharing law to parliament — which stalled immediately — and the formation of an independent election commission as a first step toward local elections. But the report said Maliki's "agenda is still only at its initial stages." Other tests of progress set by Congress include legislation allowing the return of senior members of the former ruling Baath Party to government jobs, reforming the constitution and disarming sectarian militias. The benchmarks also call for deployment of three Iraqi army brigades in the U.S.-led Baghdad security operation, even-handed law enforcement by Shiite-dominated Iraqi security forces, an end to politicians' intervention in military operations and an increase in the number of Iraqi forces capable of operating independently. The White House assessment, based on a report submitted earlier this week by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, will be somewhat more upbeat, according to two military officials who read it. It will say that the Maliki government has made satisfactory progress on about half the benchmarks, largely those requiring it to provide resources and forces to the Baghdad security operation. The government, however, has performed unsatisfactorily on the other half, mostly those dealing with political measures, said the two officials, who declined to elaborate. They requested anonymity because the report is confidential. "We can only say that it's mixed at this point," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said when asked to characterize the report's overall findings. Bush and top U.S. diplomatic and defense officials have repeatedly said that the war can be ended only through a political settlement. A former senior military official who advises the Pentagon said there is mounting concern that hard-line Sunni and Shiite leaders, believing their side can prevail over the other in an all-out conflict, do not intend to implement the benchmarks so they can hasten a U.S. troop withdrawal. "Both sides believe there is no point in having part of the pie if they can have the whole pie, and they are both convinced they can overwhelm their opponent," said the official, who requested anonymity to protect his relationship with the Pentagon. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/17854.html
Yeah yeah yeah, but we've been waiting 4 years for results. Not just months. And we were promised results by September - which is only 6 weeks away. If nothing has been accomplished thus far, with Bagdad still raging out of control, what makes you think 6 weeks matters? It's all a collassol failure - it's just sad. Really, just very sad.
Increasingly, the real debate is not between hawks and doves, or even between Democrats and Republicans. It's shaping up to be between realists and the dwindling number of people who believe that success in the war in Iraq is still possible. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/07/12/BL2007071201059.html?topnews
Here is what I'm afraid is going to happen: 1.) Democrat is elected president 2.) Withdraws troops while clamoring about failed Bush war policy 3.) No US troop presence...Iraq Civil War 4.) Al Qaeda moves in and sets up shop with noone to stop them 5.) Now what? As crappy as it may be, we have to finish this job. The Dems answer for everything these days seems to be "withdraw troops because their dying". I think a lot more people are going to die if you do that...not just in Iraq but everywhere in the world from an emboldened Al Qaeda. The worst thing we can do IMO is withdraw the troops early. Unfortunately, we started this war and we are going to have to see it through to the end. That doesn't mean packing up early because the going is tough. We have to keep on keeping on for the foreseeable future...until the Iraqis can properly run their own country. Yes, it could be years down the road but the alternative is worse. Things are not going to just work themselves out if we leave. We leave now...what little security is in Iraq will be history and world security will be even worse. Leave now...and the war against Al Qaeda is a total loss. You may say it is already lost. But, I think the world will feel it much more if we just decide to withdraw from Iraq early. What are we going to do then? Lob cruise missiles at Iraq from our ships in the Gulf to stop Al Qaeda in Iraq? You think US credibility is at an all-time low now? Leave Iraq in chaos and see where it is. Blame Bush all you want for getting us into this mess but don't exacerbate the situation by withdrawing early and leaving Iraqis in even more chaos.
What if the choice really is stay and have the civil war play out over 10 years or leave and have the civil war play out in a year Probably same number of Iraqi casualties either way.
