« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
For the Bush administration's PR push on Iraq, this is the storm before next week's calm. Next Monday and Tuesday, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testify before Congress on the surge, where they'll make an argument for continuing the war instead of giving an independent assessment of how the war is going. That's the relatively favorable part for the White House. But before Petraeus and Crocker arrive in Washington, the administration will have to deal with two less pleasant spectacles: a Government Accountability Office report concluding that the war has met only three of 18 benchmarks for progress; and an independent commission's finding that the Iraqi police need a radical overhaul.
So how does the administration get past the two reports and seed the bed for Petraeus and Crocker's testimony? Introduce the concept of "mini-benchmarks" -- statistics that support the administration.
Today's Los Angeles Times points out that the objective of the surge -- reducing violence to provide "breathing room" for sectarian reconciliation -- has failed. Iraqi politics, as even Michael O'Hanlon concedes, is a shambles, with Sunnis boycotting an increasingly insular Maliki government and a "parliamentary coup" led by Ayad Allawi waiting in the wings. But in the middle of the LAT's piece, Crocker is quoted urging people to pay attention to the indicators that truly matter -- not the ones where the administration and the war effort fall short.
"There are . . . if you will, mini-benchmarks where things are happening," U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker said Aug. 21. Crocker cited Anbar province, west of Baghdad, where violence has dropped substantially since Sunni Arab leaders there began working with U.S. and Iraqi security forces."We've seen that phenomenon in different forms move through different parts of the country," Crocker said. "It's the steps these tribes, communities, individuals are taking. . . . You've got to keep an eye on that too."
Highlighting the "mini-benchmarks" was the point of President Bush's visit yesterday to Anbar Province. It's necessary to draw attention away from the failures of Baghdad in order to convince a restive U.S. public that the sacrifice of U.S. troops is yielding tangible Iraqi political progress. "When you have bottom-up reconciliation like you're seeing here in Anbar, it'll begin to translate into central government action," Bush said. Only two problems: there aren't any Shiites in Anbar to "reconcile" with; and even if there were, the Iraqi political system -- designed by the U.S., of course -- doesn't send provincial representatives to parliament.
Crocker laid the seeds of this "mini-benchmark" argument in July, when he emphasized "bottom-up" political progress and downplayed the Baghdad political contest. All indications over the past few days lead to the conclusion that Crocker and Petraeus will shift the justification for this latest phase of the war from the strategic aim of achieving sectarian reconciliation to the new goal of vanquishing al-Qaeda (and, in the mix, curbing Iranian hegemony). It's not fooling an anonymous Marine officer quoted in the Times piece, who has to bear the brunt of the effort:
"I don't know anyone who said, 'Let's have an argument on whether 20,000 troops can have an impact on some neighborhoods,' " the officer said. "I heard a debate about whether a 20,000-man surge would appreciably enhance the security of the Iraqi people and end the sectarian violence so political reconciliation could occur across the country, not just in Baghdad neighborhoods."This is not a military contest," he said.
The lesson of this next week? Keep your eyes on the prize -- that is, the agreed-upon benchmarks for success or failure.
Comments (20)
Anamika wrote on September 4, 2007 9:42 AM:Dawa is PM Maliki's political party.
Dawa was on the side of Iran during Iran-Iraq War.
Dawa was recently taken off the US' terrorist list.
How is the empowering of Dawa a just response to the horrific attacks of 9/11?
See:
1) War Seems to Bolster Khomeini's Appeal to the People Across the Arab World. By YOUSSEF M. IBRAHIM. NYT, Oct 26, 1980 [snip]
Baath Socialist Party officers in Iraq and Iraqi Embassies abroad have been targets of bombings, all of them the work of the Daawa party, the religious-political organization of the Shiite opposition in Iraq.
It is financed and helped by the clerical ruling establishment of Iran.
The Daawa, which means The Call, is a bigger threat to Iraq's Baath party than the Kurds, the Communists or the Arab nationalists, all of whom have been in the opposition for years.
Its potent appeal, enhanced by fiery broadcasts from Tehran, touched religious sentiments of Iraqi Shiites, paricularly in the south, where they are concentrated.
2) KUWAIT ROUNDS UP BOMBING SUSPECTS. Chicago Tribune. Jul 13, 1985.
The outlawed Iraqi Al-Daawa Party, which professes allegiance to Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, was blamed for bomb attacks on the U.S. and French Embassies and on four economic targets in Kuwait in December, 1983. Five people were killed and 86 injured.
3) 'Walk Free' Prediction Gets Puzzled Reaction. San Francisco Chronicle. Jul 15, 1987.
State Department officials indicated yesterday they were perplexed by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North's assertion that 17 men convicted in Kuwait of bomb attacks on the U.S. and French embassies will eventually "walk free." .... The 17 are mainly Iraqi Shiites identified as members of the underground Al-Daawa Party, which is pro-Iranian.
4) Warships in Gulf Convoy. LAT, Oct 1, 1987.
Three pro-Iranian Shia Muslim organizations in Lebanon warned Tunisia against executing seven fundamentalists convicted earlier this week of trying to overthrow the government of President Habib Bourguiba.
The groups-Hezbollah (Party of God), the umbrella organization for those holding Western hostages in Lebanon; the Daawa Party, a Hezbollah ally, and the Islamic Coalition-warned of a confrontation and a "sweeping storm" if the "unjust death sentences" are carried out.
5) Iraq's Hussein; Arab who smote the Persians is riding high on the victory. By ALAN COWELL. The Gazette. Oct 9, 1988. [snip]
When Iraq's Shiites showed signs of restiveness at the beginning of the war with the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's revolutionary Shia state, President Hussein moved quickly and brutally to deal with them. He responded to an assassination attempt on Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz by executing Mohammad Bakr al-Sadr, one of the nation's most prominent Shiite clerics and the leader of the pro-Khomeini Al Daawa Party, and his sister Amina bint al-Huda.
"Membership of the Shiite-based Al Daawa Party was made retroactively punishable by death," wrote two experts on the region, Shahram Chubin and Charles Tripp, in their recent book, Iran and Iraq at War (Westview). "Thousands of Shia in Najaf, Karbala and Al-Thawra township in Baghdad were arrested; and a campaign was initiated to expel from Iraq any Iraqi who had even the remotest connection with Iran, by birth, marriage or name."
Anamika wrote on September 4, 2007 9:46 AM:Keywords: Al Dawa, Islamic Fundamentalism, Sharia, Iran and Iraq, terrorism, US Embassy attack
PM Maliki's party Al Dawa has a long history with Iran and with terrorism.
1) Large Turnout Reported For 1st Iraqi Vote Since '58 The Washington Post, June 21, 1980
In another development today, Al Dawa, a clandestine Iraqi fundamentalist Moslem organization, claimed responsibility for yesterday's grenade attack on the British Embassy here in which three gunmen reportedly were killed.
An Al Dawa spokesman told Agence France-Presse by phone that the attack was a "punitive operation against a center of British and American plotters."
2) Iraq Keeps a Tight Rein on Shiites While Bidding to Win Their Loyalty The Washington Post, November 30, 1982
Membership in Dawa, which means "the call," is punishable by execution. Dawa guerrillas were known for hurling grenades into crowds during religious ceremonies, and attacks claimed by the party were frequent until the middle of 1980.
3) U.S. HAS LIST OF BOMB SUSPECTS, LEBANESE SAYS Detroit Free Press, October 29, 1983
The source said the drivers of the two bomb-laden trucks were blessed before their mission by Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, leader of the Iranian-backed Dawa Party, a Lebanese Shiite Muslim splinter group.
4) SHULTZ SEES LINK BETWEEN BEIRUT, KUWAIT ATTACKS OFFICIALS IDENTIFY MAN WHO DROVE TRUCK BOMB, The Miami Herald, December 14, 1983
Secretary of State George Shultz said Tuesday that there "quite likely" was a link between the U.S. Embassy bombing in Kuwait and attacks on American facilities in Lebanon. He warned of possible retaliation.
(snip)
The sources said the investigators matched the prints on the fingers with those on file with Kuwaiti authorities and
tentatively identified the assailant as Raed Mukbil, an Iraqi automobile mechanic who lived in Kuwait and was a member of Hezb Al Dawa, a fundamentalist Iraqi Shiite Moslem group based in Iran.
5) KUWAIT NABS 10 SHIITES IN BOMBINGS 7 IRAQIS, 3 LEBANESE 'ADMIT' TERROR ATTACKS
The Miami Herald, December 19, 1983
Kuwait Sunday announced the arrests of 10 Shiite Moslems with ties to Iran in the terrorist bombings that killed four people and wounded 66 last week at the U.S. Embassy and other targets.
(snip)
Hussein said fingerprints from the driver who died in the blast at the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait identified him as Raad Akeel al Badran, an Iraqi mechanic who lived in Kuwait and belonged to the Dawa party.
6) 10 Pro-Iranian Shiites Held in Kuwait Bombings, The Washington Post December 19, 1983
Kuwait announced yesterday the arrest of 10 Shiite Moslems with ties to Iran in terrorist bombings that killed four people and wounded 66 last Monday at the U.S. Embassy and other targets.
"All 10 have admitted involvement in the incidents as well as participating in planning the blasts," Abdul Aziz Hussein, minister of state for Cabinet affairs, told reporters after a Cabinet session, United Press International reported.
Hussein said the seven Iraqis and three Lebanese were members of the Al Dawa party, a radical Iraqi Shiite Moslem group with close ties to Iran.
7) Beirut Bombers Seen Front for Iranian-Supported Shiite Faction, The Washington Post, January 4, 1984
The terrorist group that claimed responsibility for the bombing of the U.S. Marine compound and the French military headquarters here may be a front for an exiled Iraqi Shiite opposition party based in Iran, in the view of a number of Arab and western diplomatic sources.
Authorities in Kuwait say their questioning of suspects in the recent bombing there of the U.S. and French embassies indicates a clear link between Islamic Jihad, a shadowy group that says it carried out the Beirut attacks, and Al Dawa Islamiyah, the main source of resistance to the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Al Dawa (The Call) has been outlawed in Iraq, where it wants to establish a fundamentalist Islamic state to replace the secular Baath Socialist government of Saddam Hussein, who is a Sunni Moslem.
It draws its strength from the large Shiite population in southern Iraq. Thousands of its most militant members were expelled to Iran in 1980 before the outbreak of the Iranian-Iraqi war and joined Al Dawa there. But it also has a large following in Lebanon among Iraqi exiles and sympathetic Lebanese Shiites.
While Al Dawa operates out of Tehran, it is not clear whether its activities abroad are under direct Iranian control or merely have Iran's tacit acceptance.
8)Baalbek Seen As Staging Area For Terrorism, The Washington Post, January 9, 1984
Al Dawa, according to Arab and western sources, is believed to have had a role in the Oct. 23 suicide bomb attacks on the U.S. Marine and French military compounds in Beirut.
Toxophilite wrote on September 4, 2007 10:12 AM:The war in Iraq is not the only place this administration has used the idea of "benchmarks"; however, the assessment of whether the target group is meeting the benchmarks varies wildly. Under No Child Left Behind, each school in the country must meet "benchmark" criteria in as many as 44 categories. If one too few children in one of those categories fails to take the test (flu?), the entire school is labeled a failure and draconian economic measures ensue. The special ed kids are 2% low? Failure. Failure. Failure. No excuses, no reprieves. No "mini-benchmarks."
So it is interesting that while the failure of a 10 year old to show adequate growth is a fatal flaw, the failure of a government to come anywhere near the mark is encouraging because one can see "steps" - if one tries hard enough. If you're a school that hits 98% of the benchmarks, you're a failure. If you're the president and your surge produces a 2% meeting of newly announced "mini-benchmarks" you're a success. Interesting.
djcrow22 wrote on September 4, 2007 10:28 AM:Bottom line: politics and security aside, it has always been about the oil. Troop withdrawals? What a joke. The lies and posturing have the singular goal of deflecting attention away from why the US invaded Iraq in the first place. These clowns don't give a damn about the Iraqi people. The US military slaughters them like cattle. Oil is the lifeblood of this juggernaut of consumption and greed called America. Everything that happens in Iraq is centered on securing the oil for American hegemony,power and economic consumption. Get with the program. We are never leaving Iraq.
Waiting for Truth wrote on September 4, 2007 10:36 AM:Mini Benchmarks = Benchmarks Lite?
donkey wrote on September 4, 2007 11:24 AM:Faux Marks?
Bench-Warmers?
Close-But-No=Cigar Marks?
and... I see
restive took a break
from anbar province and now
is resting comfortably with the american public
heh...
Anonymous wrote on September 4, 2007 11:30 AM:"Close-But-No=Cigar Marks"
Posted by: Waiting for Truth
Date: September 4, 2007 10:36 AM
heh...
Keith wrote on September 4, 2007 11:31 AM:All this matters for not, if the members of Congress don't address this issues in the hearings.
Don wrote on September 4, 2007 11:41 AM:sounds like the Iraqi's are suffering from the soft bigotry of low expectations. What we need is some standardized testing.
dfong63 wrote on September 4, 2007 12:17 PM:in the old lexicon this technique was known as
Eric wrote on September 4, 2007 12:43 PM:"lowering expectations", a sign of preparation for "moving the goalposts".
Bush's visit to Iraq seems much more like the visit of an emperor to a colony than the visit of a foreign head of state to a nominally independent, sovereign country. (Imagine that.)
What do the Iraqis think of Bush's visit? How about the "Arab street"?
Austin Cooper wrote on September 4, 2007 1:27 PM:Why doesn't Cheney / Bush just hold a press conference, announce that they will do "whatever they want because we will anyway" and "shut up", refuse to take questions, and walk away?
I mean -- why waste everyone's time with more lies?
Code = poison
epistemology wrote on September 4, 2007 3:02 PM:Mini-benchmarks?
Sounds like the soft bigotry of low expectations.
pugg wrote on September 4, 2007 3:10 PM:So... Dubya wants to keep the war going so he can end it later?
Anyone else out there notice that our president is an idiot?
I'm just sayin'...
pugg wrote on September 4, 2007 3:11 PM:So... Dubya wants to keep the war going so he can end it later?
Anyone else out there notice that our president is an idiot?
I'm just sayin'...
Roberta wrote on September 4, 2007 4:40 PM:This could be an entirely paranoid rant coming up, or maybe there's at least an element of truth in it. You be the judge.
Oil keeps nagging the back of my mind whenever I think of Iraq. And as I was reading the posts above--particularly the long ones with cites from newspapers stories that read like a blast from the past--a sublimely paranoid thought came to me:
If, as I believe, it is not possible both for an Administration to get itself elected twice (no matter how) AND to be so completely inept at everything it attempts, could it be that those puzzlingly low oil-output figures since the fall of Saddam Hussein are masking the true volume of oil being produced in Iraq?
To be in sole control of the huge amount of oil that could/should have been produced in Iraq in these last four years would ostensibly give the controllers domination over the US and most of the world for years to come.
Have all of these blunders been about diverting attention ("nothin' up my sleeve") from what has already been taken out? I know that many of us look at the Administration's goal as giving themselves the opportunity to control vast oil reserves in the future, but maybe it's already happened.
This actual power--Iraq's produced oil in Bush and Cheney's hands NOW--would explain for me how so many screw-ups could occur in Iraq, since the last thing they want is to leave before they've got it all. The promise of future world domination seemed too unsafe a bet to help me understand their complete lack of conscience regarding everything (and I mean everything) they've done. Knowing that they may already have the oil supply locked up--ready to manipulate the world's economy the moment they're out of office--would help me understand.
I've made myself queasy.
Jane wrote on September 4, 2007 5:08 PM:Fantasizing this clever plot on behalf of our village idiot is less scary than realizing that he has his paws on the levers of the mightiest military machine on the planet and is truly an idiot.
Part of his camouflage is that no one is willing to believe he is as stupid as his actions and words reveal.
714Day wrote on September 4, 2007 5:19 PM:spooky posts here.
slb wrote on September 4, 2007 6:21 PM:And didn't the U.S. just start to arm some Shia groups in Anbar a week or two ago with the clever notion of setting these various factions against one another?
Hell.
We are so impotent.
And some of us can see that there couldn't be a more certain prescription for attacks here in America than this bloody monkey business being perpetrated in our name.
What can we do other than keep disaster preparedness kits at the ready? The government has nothing to do with us or our interests anymore. These psychos running the show can't pony up for New Orleans or Minnesota but hundreds of billions go into this black hole that may well suck all light and life from the planet eventually.
Prestidigitation. That's all this "mini-benchmarks" crap is. Sleight-of-hand to deflect attention away from the real story, which is that while the surge has been a strategic failure.
Oh, sure, maybe it has had some degree of tactical success. (But who can really tell, the way they cook the numbers?) Tactical success does not necessarily lead to strategic success, though, and if your strategy is not succeeding, then the tactical success means nothing.
This is maybe an imperfect analogy, but it's the one that comes to mind for me, because I've been immersed in the American Revolution all summer. I am reminded of Gen. Howe's completely useless occupation of Philadelphia in 1777. Sure, that was a tactical success -- he forced the Americans to retreat from Philadelphia. But the Brits' strategic objective for 1777 was to gain complete control of the Hudson River from New York City to Lake Champlain and cut the New England colonies off from the mid-Atlantic and Southern colonies -- divide and conquer. The result of Howe's capture of Philadelphia was to leave Gen. Burgoyne stranded with too few troops on a mission to capture Albany, and the Americans were able to defeat the British at Saratoga and capture Burgoyne in the process. Saratoga was the turning point of the war; on the strength of that victory, the French entered the war openly against Britain, and Spain and the Netherlands followed suit. Howe's tactical success led to strategic defeat.
In fact, our whole misadventure in Iraq is like Howe's capture of Philadelphia. We should have concentrated on crushing al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan rather than knocking over Iraq because we thought it would be easy and make an impressive notch in our belt.
Richard Jacobs wrote on September 5, 2007 2:35 PM:"bottom up", Trickle down" - same bullshit, different direction.