Benchmarks, we don't need to stinkin' benchmarks

... the fact is in war, mistakes will be made, and people will die as a result. The only way to win a war therefore, is to adapt, after the mistake has been made, and then gain advantage....hopefully, the backbone of the President will gain us the precious time to turn the situation around ... -- Americans for Freedom...Afghanistan Iraq Lebanon Egypt Syria Saudi Arabia Iran Belarus..., January 13, 2007

The above statement holds many truths. The troop surge in Iraq could be considered our way of 'adapting' to mistakes previously made. Perhaps President George W. Bush's backbone will be enough. One thing is for sure, the American people don't have the will to stand up for Iraq the way they stood up against the Senate immigration bill. Because if they did, the phone lines in Washington would be ringing, fax machines would be singing, and email boxes would be full. They are not. But the same thing could be said for the Iraqi people.

We have placed 'benchmarks' on the Iraqi Parliament and in yesterday's progress report we are told they have met half of those benchmarks. But does that really mean anything? Is this of any value to gaining peace and victory in Iraq? Some people don't think so. The following is from Pros and Cons, and you can go there to read the entire article:

The first two paragraphs of an editorial in today’s Opinion Journal speaks volumes about Washington’s mindset.

Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq, is a 36-year career diplomat who has served under seven administrations in Iran, Syria, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Pakistan. He’s no partisan gunslinger. So it’s worth listening to his views as Congressional Democrats and a growing number of Republicans press for a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq on the excuse that the Iraqi government hasn’t met a set of political “benchmarks.”

“The longer I’m here, the more I’m persuaded that Iraq cannot be analyzed by these kinds of discrete benchmarks,” Mr. Crocker told the New York Times’s John Burns in an interview on Saturday, referring to pending Iraqi legislation on an oil-sharing agreement and a relaxation of de-Baathification laws. “You could not achieve any of them, and still have a situation where arguably the country is moving in the right direction. And conversely, I think you could achieve them all and still not be heading towards stability, security and overall success in Iraq.”

Well, assuming Mr. Crocker is right (and his credentials certainly give him credibility), what that tells me is that the benchmarks we have are useless. Benchmarks are intended to provide a point of reference or a standard from which you can measure progress (or retreat). If, as Mr. Crocker suggests, our current benchmarks are useless for measuring progress in Iraq, then we are looking at the wrong measuring stick.

The question then becomes, "what is the correct measuring stick for the situation in Iraq?" I'm afraid I can't answer that question, and would love to hear some suggestions. How do we judge progress in Iraq? Other bloggers are asking questions and giving their ideas:

Texas Fred would like to know if the terrorists will really follow us home if we leave Iraq.

Seaspook's Rants has his own plan for Iraq:

Our silly PC notions won't let us do the right thing; dissolve the Iraqi government, impose martial law, and really get tough. That would actually pacify Iraq and save a lot of American and Iraqi lives and a lot of money, but nooo, we can't do that. [snip]

Redeploy them to Iraq's Eastern, Western, and Southern borders (the Kurds can and will take care of Northern Iraq) and seal the borders; no one comes or goes into or out of Iraq.

Let the Iraqis sort out who's in charge on their own. If we can't live with the result, we stay on the border and keep a clamp on the country; if we can, we partially move back in and help the winners get organized. (read it all)

Andrew Sullivan, at The Atlantic Online, is revisiting the reasons we went to Iraq in the first place, with an email from a reader.

On Iran, which we must now consider when talking about Iraq, David Fiderer at Huffington Post says:

Money talks, and it says that U.S. efforts to isolate Iran from our non-Western allies went nowhere. The messages from Bahrain, Oman, United Arab Emirates, India, Pakistan and others were direct and blunt. Neither U.S. sanctions nor the threat of military action will deter them from investing billions in their Persian neighbor.

The Jacksonian Party looks at "the cost of 'Realism' in Foreign Policy."

Stories like the Iraqi police "planning roadside bomb and mortar attacks on U.S. forces," and having close ties with Iranians, doesn't help the situation in Iraq or at home, and again makes one of the benchmarks of having "X" number of Iraqi police and military in place, not very valuable.

Some in Congress are gearing up to pose new legislation against funding the soldiers in Iraq, and legislation to set up benchmarks (timelines) to "bring them home," so President Bush has put the Veto back on the table. Shadowscope has the video.

On a side note, I would like to introduce you to Think Israel. Think Israel features essays and commentaries that provide context for the continuing crisis in Israel. They report on global anti-Semitism. The war Islam is waging against Israel and the West is their top priority.
______________________________________________________________________
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Allie Is Wired, DeMediacratic Nation, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Webloggin, The Pink Flamingo, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Conservative Cat, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Comments

[Scott G]

The link to my article (Pros and Cons) doesn't work right, but that's o.k. The reference and quote were very kind.

[TexasFred]

Thank you so much for the 'Hat Tip', it is greatly appreciated...