Surge Report Update III
From Military.com/Defense Tech friend and contributor Winslow Wheeler, we receive an interesting perspective on the Initial Benchmark Assessment Report released yesterday.
Grading on a Curve for the Wrong Test
President George W. Bush’s report today to Congress on Iraq, the White House’s “Initial Benchmark Assessment Report,” presents a series of assessments of Iraq’s performance on 18 benchmarks that have been jointly imposed by Congress and the President. Reading the report makes two things painfully obvious: 1) President Bush is grading Iraq on a curve; and 2) he and Congress are administering the wrong test.
While the Iraqis are assessed in the White House’s report to have achieved “satisfactory progress” on only eight of 18 “benchmarks” (six are rated “unsatisfactory”; two are given mixed ratings, and two are rated unable to be rated), it is painfully clear from reading the report that the “satisfactory” assessments are graded on a sharp curve. On political issues, any change — even a decision to delay a decision — is deemed “satisfactory.” On military questions, characteristics that would mean a military unit is unfit to fight in the American Army (such as the three brigades the Iraqis barely managed to cobble together to deploy to Baghdad) are deemed “satisfactory” in this report.
However, we are missing a far more fundamental and important point if all we take from this White House report is its transparent effort to make the situation in Iraq appear slightly less of a mess than others might perceive.
What comes through even more clearly is the imposition of alien benchmarks on the Iraqi society and its faltering government. These benchmarks are not an effort to assist Iraq recover from the disaster of the American invasion and occupation, they are an effort to impose Western, if not American, values and methods on a society that has been resisting them, mostly violently, for the last four years. Perhaps even more to the point, the benchmarks have every appearance of an effort to make American politicians, not Iraqi citizens, feel better about themselves. An oil law to assist non-Iraqi oil companies extract resources, Western notions of constitutional law and minority rights, federalism — if not regionalism leading to virtual partition — and ending forthwith centuries old divisions in the society are just some of the end states the benchmarks seek to effect.
Moreover, the politicians in the White House and Congress pushing the benchmarks are probably thankful these tests are not being imposed on them, if the thought of oversight of themselves were ever to occur to them. For example -
Benchmark X seeks to permit Iraqi military commanders “to make tactical and operational decisions … without political intervention …” That would have been an excellent suggestion for former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and several others during the run up to the initial American invasion and for the political wrangling going on this very week in Congress from both sides of the political aisle.
The discussion in the White House report on benchmark XI (“Ensuring that Iraqi Security Forces are providing even-handed enforcement of the law”) complains that, “There have been inadequate efforts to detain some senior … officials believed responsible for human rights abuses.…” The hypocrisy of this “benchmark” pains the core of every decent American’s soul.
Benchmark VI calls on Iraqis to enact amnesty legislation, something that was a long time in coming after the American Civil War and that today’s anti-immigration activists scream against from the rooftops; it bespeaks a frame of mind that many Republicans and Democrats in Congress never fail to reject as they pretend to lament the absence of bipartisanship.
Are the benchmarks an honest and soundly based effort to assist Iraqi society and government? Or, are they an excuse-in-waiting for American politicians to exploit when they try to explain away the failure of a half decade of misbegotten policy, more than half a trillion dollars, and 3,600-plus American military lives.
Bush’s new “Initial Benchmark Assessment Report” is an interesting document, but it should be read to understand American political maneuvering with respect to the war, rather than a measure of “progress” in Iraq.
…However, we are missing a far more fundamental and important point if all we take from this White House report is its transparent effort to make the situation in Iraq appear slightly less of a mess than others might perceive.
What comes through even more clearly is the imposition of alien benchmarks on the Iraqi society and its faltering government. These benchmarks are not an effort to assist Iraq recover from the disaster of the American invasion and occupation
[UH YEAH, THINGS WERE JUST FINE BEFORE WE INVADED],
they are an effort to impose Western, if not American, values and methods on a society that has been resisting them, mostly violently, for the last four years
[DOES WHEELER REALLY BELIEVE THAT A SUNNI ARAB SUICIDE BOMBER BLOWS HIMSELF UP IN A SHITE MARKETPLACE BECAUSE HE WANTS TO RESIST THE IMPOSITION OF WESTERN VALUES? DOES HE THINK THAT A GROUP OF SHITE THUGS ATTEMPTING TO DRIVE SUNNIS OUT OF A PARTICULAR BAGHDAD NEIGHBORHOOD THROUGH MURDER AND INTIMIDATION ARE REALLY THINKING TO THEMSELVES: “YOU KNOW, IF NOT FOR THESE ATTEMPTS TO TO IMPOSE WESTERN VALUES ON ME, I WOULD BE TREATING THESE SUNNIS A LOT BETTER”]
Perhaps even more to the point, the benchmarks have every appearance of an effort to make American politicians, not Iraqi citizens, feel better about themselves. An oil law to assist non-Iraqi oil companies extract resources, Western notions of constitutional law
[WHICH SOCIETIES THAT LACK CONSTITUTIONAL LAW DOES WHEELER BELIEVE WOULD PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATE MODEL FOR IRAQ?]
and minority rights
[WHICH IRAQI ETHNIC GROUPS DOES WHEELER THINK SHOULDN’T HAVE RIGHTS?]
federalism — if not regionalism leading to virtual partition
[AS OPPOSED TO IRAQ’S PREVIOUS MODEL IN WHICH A SUNNI ARAB STRONGMAN SAT IN BAGHDAD AND RAN ROUGHSHOD OVER THE 80% NON SUNNI ARAB POPULATION AND AS OPPOSED TO AN IMMEDIATE FULL SCALE CIVIL WAR IN WHICH ORDINARY IRAQIS MURDER THE FAMILY DOWN THE STREET IN AN EFFORT TO SECURE UNITY THROUGH GENOCIDE (THINK RURAL INDIA CIRCA 1947 AND RWANDA IN THE EARLY 1990S)
– and ending forthwith centuries old divisions in the society
[YUP, THOSE CENTURIES OLD DIVISIONS WERE WORKING JUST FINE THE WAY THEY WERE]
are just some of the end states the benchmarks seek to effect.
Moreover, the politicians in the White House and Congress pushing the benchmarks are probably thankful these tests are not being imposed on them, if the thought of oversight of themselves were ever to occur to them. For example -
[DOES WHEELER REALLY BELIEVE THAT A SUNNI ARAB SUICIDE BOMBER BLOWS HIMSELF UP IN A SHITE MARKETPLACE BECAUSE HE WANTS TO RESIST THE IMPOSITION OF WESTERN VALUES? DOES HE THINK THAT A GROUP OF SHITE THUGS ATTEMPTING TO DRIVE SUNNIS OUT OF A PARTICULAR BAGHDAD NEIGHBORHOOD THROUGH MURDER AND INTIMIDATION ARE REALLY THINKING TO THEMSELVES: “YOU KNOW, IF NOT FOR THESE ATTEMPTS TO TO IMPOSE WESTERN VALUES ON ME, I WOULD BE TREATING THESE SUNNIS A LOT BETTER”]
J. Brenner:
Most of your comments on the Wheeler post are lacking in substance and meaning; the one above is a typical example. It is a feeble attempt at sarcasm, but doesn’t make much sense. There are many Sunnis and Shiites that are both violently opposed to each other and to the Western occupation. The resentment caused by US mistakes during the reconstruction is a real and significant issue in the failure of the Iraq war. Rather than address that with reasoned argument, you try to dismiss it by creating fictional dialogue in some mythical Iraqi’s head. Most of your other responses are in a similar vein.
M. Hack,
Wheeler has pretended to present a substantive and comprehensive critique of U.S. benchmarks, while what he has actually done is engage in a bitch session. For instance, if he actually believes that it is wrong to attempt to point Iraq in the direction of a constitutional government, as he implies, then he should state an alternative. That he does not, is an indication that he is not serious and it is perfectly legitimate point for me to call him on. Ditto for minority rights, federalism, amnesty, human rights abuses and Wheeler’s weird attempt to bring our own imigration debate into this issue. That you have have not attempted to address any of these issues is a sign that you, like Wheeler, just don’t have that much to say. Twit.
J. Brenner says:
“Wheeler has pretended to present a substantive and comprehensive critique of U.S. benchmarks, while what he has actually done is engage in a bitch session. For instance, if he actually believes that it is wrong to attempt to point Iraq in the direction of a constitutional government, as he implies, then he should state an alternative.“
So, according to you, a critique can only be substantive and comprehensive if it presents an alternative? I think it’s pretty clear who’s the real twit here.
M.Hack (a twit) asks:
“So, according to you, a critique can only be substantive and comprehensive if it presents an alternative?“
Yes, in this context that’s exactly what I’m saying he needs to do. For instance (as I stated in my first post), if he believes that it is wrong to press the Iraqis toward a constitutional government, then, what should we have done? Does Wheeler believe that we should be looking for Sadam II? Should we revive the Iraqi monarchy? Divide the country between the Saudis and the Turks? You’ll get no clue of the path favored by Wheeler because he doesn’t give one. But, not to worry, in our current political climate shrill screeds against the U.S. and against G.W. Bush are enough to impress the impressionable — M. Hack is a case in point.
Yeah, well I guess it’s pretty hard keeping up with all of the truly deep and profound comments that you’ve contributed so far.
M. Hack,
I’m not really concerned with being deep or profound. My posting on this thread was originally motivated by Wheeler’s dismissive comment re: the inclusion of minority rights as a U.S. concern in Iraq. As far as I can discern, based on his silly little tirade, is that Wheeler is of the opinion that Iraqi minorities should be dealt with according to the whim of whichever group has the upper hand at the moment and that the U.S has no valid claim to say otherwise– a view which I believe is reprehensible. If you have any opinion on the question of minority rights in Iraq, or on any of the issues raised here, then state it. I’m being rhetorical of course, because nothing that you have posted thus far indicates that you have a thought in your empty little head.
Well actually, I don’t have an empty head, but even if I did, it would better off than your head, which is clearly packed full of bullsh**t
Anyhoooo.…Back to the post itself.
A reminder/disclosure of the fact somewhere in the piece that Wheeler is a CDI staffer and thus CDI should be assumed to be the font of this post would have been nice.
If I just missed the reference — please accept my apologies in advance.