Calculus and Benchmarks

“The United States strategy in Iraq, hereafter, shall be conditioned on the Iraqi government meeting benchmarks….” Thus sayeth Public Law 110-28 passed by Congress in May, which among other appropriations required the President and the Government Accountability Office to craft reports regarding the Iraqi government’s successful completion of 18 basic achievable benchmarks. To very little fanfare from the press, the White House released on Friday the Congressionally mandated second of two benchmark assessment reports (the first was released in July) to assess the progress of “the surge” in Iraq. As best I can tell, the White House graded 9 benchmarks as “satisfactory progress”, 4 benchmarks as multiple parts (part satisfactory, part unsatisfactory), 3 benchmarks as “not satisfactory” and two benchmarks as “not applicable”.

The White House benchmark assessment differs in two ways from the Government Accountability Office’s own dismal benchmark assessment released earlier in September, which found that the Iraqi government met 3, partially met 4, and did not meet 11 of the 18 benchmarks. The first difference, merely an academic point, is that the data from the GAO only accounts for activity through July, while the White House’s version goes through August. The second difference, and the much more important difference, is the method by which each benchmark is measured. The GAO gives a pass / fail grading to benchmark assessment, which is what the original meaning of the buzzword “benchmark” would indicate. The White House sees things differently:

To make this judgment (i.e., whether “satisfactory progress . . . is, or is not, being achieved”), we have carefully examined all the facts and circumstances with respect to each of the 18 benchmarks and asked the following question: As measured from a January 2007 baseline, do we assess that present trend data demonstrates a positive trajectory, which is tracking toward satisfactory accomplishment in the near term? If the answer is yes, we have provided a “Satisfactory” assessment; if the answer is no, the assessment is “Not Satisfactory.”

Not only does satisfactory progress not have to be met, but even the trend of satisfactory progress doesn’t have to be positive, as long as the change in trend data demonstrates a positive trajectory. So if we think of “progress in Iraq” as a function f(x), and if we set “benchmark” equal to zero, then the GAO assessment would count satisfactory progress if and only if f(x) > 0. The White House, on the other hand, counts satisfactory progress if and only if d²f / dx² > 0. And even with these low standards, half the benchmarks that the Iraqi government was supposed to have met by now cannot be assessed as satisfactory progress.

- QP

___________________________________________________________


The following is a benchmark-by-benchmark assessment of the White House’s reports and the GAO report, along with Quibbling Potatoes's grading comments.

Benchmark 1: Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and then completing the constitutional review.

WH July: S
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: S
Comments: No scheduled vote by Iraqi parliament. Should be U

Benchmark 2: Enacting and implementing legislation on de-Ba’athification reform.

WH July: U
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: S
Comments: Laws drafted, but no scheduled votes. Should be U

Benchmark 3: Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources to the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shi’a Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner.

WH July: U
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: U
Comments: Again, documents have been drafted. What makes this one U but the previous two S, I don’t know. Should be U.

Benchmark 4: Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions.

WH July: S
GAO Aug: half S
WH Sept: S
Comments: Implementation not yet occurred, but will in 2008. Technically a U.

Benchmark 5: Enacting and implementing legislation establishing an Independent High Electoral Commission, provincial elections law, provincial council authorities, and a date for provincial elections.

WH July: Quarter S
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: Half S
Comments: They’ve got an IHEC, but it doesn’t do anything yet. Part S = Whole U

Benchmark 6: Enacting and implementing legislation addressing amnesty.

WH July: NA
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: NA
Comments: Prerequisite not met, very much a U

Benchmark 7: Enacting and implementing legislation establishing a strong militia disarmament program to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the constitution of Iraq.

WH July: NA
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: NA
Comments: Prerequisite not met, very much a U

Benchmark 8: Establishing supporting political, media, economic, and services committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan.

WH July: S
GAO Aug: S
WH Sept: S
Comments: Probably done in one afternoon meeting, but a legitimate S.

Benchmark 9: Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations

WH July: S
GAO Aug: Half S
WH Sept: S
Comments: Some nitpicking by the GAO on the readiness of the brigades, I say S.

Benchmark 10: Providing Iraqi commanders with all authorities to execute this plan and to make tactical and operational decisions in consultation with U.S. Commanders, without political intervention to include the authority to pursue all extremists including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias.

WH July: U
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: Part S
Comments: Political meddling continues. What good is an army if it becomes a sectarian militia? Definite U.

Benchmark 11: Ensuring that Iraqi Security Forces are providing even-handed enforcement of the law.

WH July: U, but in some places S
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: Half S
Comments: How can the White House say “much has to be done” and still give it a partial S? Definite U.

Benchmark 12: Ensuring that, as President Bush quoted Prime Minister Maliki as saying, “the Baghdad Security Plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation.”

WH July: S
GAO Aug: Part S
WH Sept: S
Comments: Tricky word, that “ensure”. Seems to me that if there are “safe havens” like in Sadr City, and no one is actively stopping them, then this one gets a U.

Benchmark 13: Reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminating militia control of local security.

WH July: Part S
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: Part S
Comments: Don’t know which part the White House was looking at. Both parts of this benchmark have not been met. Definite U.

Benchmark 14: Establishing all of the planned joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad.

WH July: S
GAO Aug: S
WH Sept: S
Comments: What part of “all” don’t these organizations understand? Establishing 30 of 33 stations is not “all”, even though it is still a good thing. Technically a U.

Benchmark 15: Increasing the number of Iraqi Security Forces units capable of operating independently.

WH July: U
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: U
Comments: Decrease = U. Not even the White House could wriggle out of that one.

Benchmark 16: Ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected.

WH July: S
GAO Aug: S
WH Sept: S
Comments: Regardless of whether or not those minority political parties choose to participate in the legislature, this one is an S.

Benchmark 17: Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.

WH July: S
GAO Aug: S
WH Sept: S
Comments: The money is allocated, but can’t be spent all at once due to some long term projects. Technically a U, but I’ll give it an S for Spirit.

Benchmark 18: Ensuring that Iraq’s political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the ISF.

WH July: U
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: U
Comments: Goes with that whole political meddling benchmark.

Total:
WH July: 8 S, 6 U, 2 part S, 2 NA
GAO Aug: 3 S, 11 U, 4 part S
WH Sept: 9 S, 3 U, 4 part S, 2 NA
QP assessment: 4 S, 14 U

QP Grade = 22%

Will the Iraq strategy change now that this report has been released, as mandated by Congress? Yes, but not because of anything the Iraqi government has or has not done. "The Surge" is ending soon, partly because of the recommendations of General David Petraeus, but mostly because of necessity, as frequently stated by Slate.com's Fred Kaplan.

- QP