Or to put it in a simpler way, have any of the goals been met?
Not according to the Center for American Progress.
Here are the benchmarks.On the one year anniversary of President Bush’s State of the Union address justifying his "New Way Forward" in Iraq, it is clear that the surge has failed to meet its objectives. One year ago, the president pledged that “America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced." Despite the fact that the Iraqi government has only met three of the 18 benchmarks laid out last year, an end to U.S. military and financial commitment is nowhere in sight.
Government Benchmarks:
Perform constitutional review.
Enact de-Ba’athification reform.
Form semi-autonomous regions.
Hold provincial elections.
Address amnesty.
Establish support for Baghdad Security Plan.
Ensure minority rights in Iraqi legislature.
Keep Iraqi Security Forces free from partisan interference.
Of these, only TWO have been enacted; Establish support for Baghdad Security Plan and Ensure minority rights in Iraqi legislature. De-Ba'athification reform is listed as a partial.
Security Benchmarks:
Disarm militias.
Provide military support in Baghdad.
Empower Iraqi Security Forces.
Ensure impartial law enforcement.
Establist support for Baghdad Security Plan by Maliki government.
Reduce sectarian violence.
Establish neighborhood security in Baghdad.
Increase independent Iraqi Security Focres.
Of these only one has been enacted; This is the one we all know by now - Establish neighborhood security in Baghdad. There are three other partials; Provide military support in Baghdad, Empower Iraqi Security Forces and Reduce Sectarian violence.
Economic Benchmarks:
Implement oil legislation.
Distribute Iraqi resources equitably.
Neither of these has been met. Only the second is listed as a partial.
Go take a look at the report.
And so for The Surge - yes there's been a reduction (if only partial) in sectarial violence and yes Baghdad is secure, but what about all that other stuff?
And what happens when The Surge has to end?
7 comments:
John K. says: Who says? Well not the liberals. They have invested in defeat. Their entire agenda is wrapped around it. Now KDKA did an interview at 10:00 with a BGen from Iraq who stated the facts. One fact being that attacks on US troops are down from a high of 25 to 5 of which 1 has the potential to inflict harm. Also 80% of combatants are from outside Iraq. But we have been telling you that for what 3 years now. So remain invested in defeat and ignore the actual facts. The major news outlets are. But your frustration, and this is the funny part, LMAO at this point, comes from the fact that you can't convince anyone that we are not winning. You lose!
I love the "invested in defeat" meme, particularly because it is so ironic: The administration has "invested" in this defeat by lying its way into the war and then running it so motherfucking badly.
So we "win," (whatever that means) and you "lose" (which I suspect has been the case your whole life).
Isn't it amazing how facts and common sense just bounce off these Wingnuts the way bullets bounce off Superman?
When it comes to Iraq, they have one -- count 'em, one -- argument: "Liberals want us to lose."
Hmmm, 57% of Americans want us out of Iraq within a year. So 57% of the voters are libs? We win!
If the surge's goal was only, as you refer to it, "to give the Iraqi government some time to reach a number of political and administrative goals", then it has achieved quite a bit of success. It has reduced the violence (in some places more than others), and therefore has provided the Iraqi government some breathing room to get their jobs done.
That they haven't availed themselves of this opportunity is a different matter. I think it's now abundantly clear that the U.S. military has done just about everything possible to produce the conditions needed for the Iraqis to avoid civil war.
But the Iraqis don't seem to want to avoid their forthcoming civil war. Which leaves me split about what in the hell we do next. On one hand, I feel disgusted in the "you break it, you bought it" sense. I see us as being directly responsible for the catastrophe which is poised to begin one we start drawing down.
On the other hand, I can't think of anything else that we can do to help the situation. At this stage, the only thing we can probably hope for is that Iran and Saudi Arabia don't end up throwing their own troops into the Iraqi civil war, leading to a massive Sunni-Shite regional war.
Neither C.H. nor shirock
Neither john k nor the cook
Neither Sunni nor Shia
Neither Zarqawi nor al-sadr
Neither Baghdad nor Basra
Neither olmert nor abbas
Niether fatah nor Hamas
Neither Bush nor Reid
Neither left nor right
will solve the problems facing the mideast on their own
long live the liberation of Iraq!
I appreciate the consideration, Mr. Christian, but I have no intention of trying to solve the problems of the Middle East. That's a job for the folks who live there.
I just want American troops and American money to stop stirring the pot.
No one in this country can do more than act as an honest broker facilitating communications among the various factions.
John K. says: Not only are we having huge success in Iraq, but we are getting ready to send US troops to help out the Pakistanis. Get some US troops!
Post a Comment