According to almost every news source in America, the Democratic Party will win big on November 4. Presidential candidate Barack Obama is far from the only Democrat who will ride into Washington on the coattails of bad feelings for President George W. Bush. Almost every Democratic candidate for office in America, fairly or not, has enjoyed a bounce in popularity by campaigning on a platform of being anti-Bush, or by linking his/her opponent to the "failed policies of the Bush administration". Indeed, George W. Bush has never had a lower approval rating than right now, partly because of the recent financial crisis. But what these Democratic candidates are not doing is reminding people what it is that is so bad about the "failed policies of George W. Bush" in the first place. If the American public remembers that it can't stand that Bush guy but can't remember why, then the "failed policies" will surely be repeated by elected members of the Government. So to serve as a reminder mostly to myself, I've jotted down 33 "failed policies" that I think have made our country worse off thanks to the 43rd President of the United States of America.
1) "The United States doesn't torture." Except when it does. George W. Bush vetoed anti-torture bills, watered down water-boarding by referring to it as an interrogation technique (like how rape is just a sexual technique), and flauted the Geneva Conventions time after time when confronted in interviews or press conferences.
2) Unfounded wars on sovereign nations. Bad intelligence that should have been ignored about WMD and yellow cake fissile material led to a war against Iraq. The previous sentence was the best-case, most P.C. explanations for George W. Bush's intentions in the Middle East. Speculation abounds as to his real reasons for war with Iraq, most of which would be inconceivable if you told it to anyone eight years ago.
3) Secrecy. Over-classification of classified documents.
4) The Patriot Act
5) Bullying. Bullying of foreign nations for support for the above unjust Iraq war. Bullying of congressional leaders for support. Bullying of the U.N. to pass the war resolution, or else. It's called negotiating when there's a give and a take, and it's called persuasion when there's a well-explained and well-grounded rationale for action. It's called bullying if threats are made and fear is induced in entities that should be our allies.
6) Over-simplification of foreign viewpoints. You don't have to be either "for us or against us".
7) "Axis of evil". Well so much for negotiation.
8) Isolating North Korea to the point that they needed to build an atomic weapon to get any bilateral negotiation with the U.S.
9) War on terror. How does one win a war against extremism? You can't kill 'em all. There are always fringe elements in even the most tightly regulated societies, like gay people in Iran, bloggers in China, and terrorists in America.
10) Pre-emptive wars. The "Bush Doctrine", I think. Even police *should* have to wait until a crime is committed to detain people. And speaking of detaining people...
11) Guantanamo Bay. And more importantly, the lack of trials for prisoners there. (I hesitate to call them "detainees".)
12) Oh wait, not "prisoners" or "detainees". "Unlawful Combatants".
13) "Extraordinary renditions". They lead to "erroneous renditions" in the absence of the law.
14) Over-reaching of executive power to facilitate illegal wiretapping. FISA courts are just not necessary anymore.
15) The Alberto Gonzales Department of Justice. Attorney firings for partisan reasons, mealymouthed testimony by most Department of Justice officials including the Attorney General himself on several occasions, the approval of warrantless wiretapping, and the attempted repeal of Habeas Corpus.
16) Incompetent "loyal Bushies" like "heckuva job" Brownie.
17) Highly competent yet highly evil "loyal Bushies" like Dick "Overlord" Cheney.
18) Anti-choice-ism
19) Anti-intellectualism
20) Anti-Europeanism.
21) Right-wing judicial nominees. I'm not talking about Roberts or Alito, which almost any other Republican president would have nominated. I mean all the other judicial appointments to lower courts that add unfounded legitimacy to an extreme right-wing judicial viewpoint by giving high-level careers to cronies. This will lead to future right-wing judicial nominees to the Supreme Court who should have gotten rejected long ago for their lack of objectivity being seen as legitimate. These juditial nominees also nearly tore up the rules of the Senate.
22) Federal Marriage Amendment. So glad that one didn't get anywhere.
23) Stem cell research. Not so much for the position (federal funds only for "existing" stem cell lines) but for the process of letting the church's viewpoint into a science decision.
24) Not signing the Kyoto protocol for anti-UN reasons.
25) While we're at it, John Bolton.
26) Sabotaging the EPA to the point where entities are now suing the EPA because it's not strict enough in regulating emissions.
27) Trying to privatize social security. How's that stock market idea looking now?
28) Increasing the national debt from about $5 trillion to about $10 trillion. This riles me up so much, I'm going to need some more bullet points about the budget.
29) Tax cuts benefitting the wealthiest of our society at a time when we were finally getting Reagan's debt under control.
30) Massive non-mandatory spending increases primarily benefitting the military industrial complex. We've got loads of money for super advanced fighter jets, but we're losing wars against people who make explosives out of pvc pipe and wire.
31) Making war spending separate from the budget. This would make sense only if the expenses were unforseeable.
32) Not addressing health care at all. Seriously, during a decade in which health care spending rose faster than any other industry, how was health care almost completely ignored by the Bush administration?
33) Well, he did address one thing. He vetoed SCHIP.
I'm sure there are plenty more policies I dislike, and I know there are plenty more policies that others dislike (No Child Left Behind, immigration). But none of this stuff gets specifically talked about by any of the Democratic candidates. We need to remember this so that we can hold future administrations accountable.
Showing posts with label Iraq War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq War. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Why is No One Challenging This Notion That the Surge is a Success?
So the new thing in the McCain campaign is to retort Barack Obama's claims of superior judgment about the disaster of starting the Iraq War with claims of superior judgment about the success story the "surge" turned out to be. And this story of campaign talking points gets passed around in the surficially non-partisan election-year coverage from the media without any analysis. What gets lost in this traditional election year back-and-forth is that the fiction about the surge's success remains unchallenged.
It's like everyone has forgotten why we had this surge of troops in the first place. We were tired of getting our asses kicked, so congress set up the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group to come up with some things we could do to stop the hurtin'. When their report came out, Bush ignored most of the recommendations and keyed in on a footnote developed by some of the more hawkish members which suggested that the U.S. increase the number of soldiers in Baghdad by lengthening tours and whatnot. Strategy was developed to give purpose to these extra brigades, and the White House came up with the overarching goals, including reducing the violence enough to allow the Iraqis to come up with and enforce their own laws, training Iraqi security and law enforcement more quickly, and in general guiding Iraqis towards stable democracy. Good points certainly, but it required Iraqi leaders to take up the initiative. This is why the strategy was flawed.
The surge started in January of 2007 and would last through this month, July 2008. The new Democrat-controlled Congress gritted its teeth and passed many non-binding resolutions in full awareness of their lack of constitutional oversight into the executive branch's war powers. But they did manage to pass what would turn out to be completely irrelevant benchmark legislation that required the military to evaluate itself. They did evaluate themselves, dishonestly but still poorly, and the surge bumbled along. After the reporting frenzy of September 2007, the media started not caring about Iraq anymore, choosing instead to start Election 2008 coverage.
It wasn't until about November 2007 that violent attacks finally started to decline, which mostly went unnoticed at first. Eventually the media caught on to the fact that merely dozens of Americans instead of hundreds of Americans were being killed every month and reported it unequivocably as a success story, even though about a thousand Iraqi civilians still die every month from sectarian gunfire and suicide bombers. But since the whole stated purpose of the Surge was dependant on the Iraqis developing a functioning civil society, can we really call it a success? Have the Iraqis properly dealt with their problem of training militia members who turn around and become loyal to sectarian leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr? Are the national police loyal to the state? Are the Iraq Security Forces able to take our place yet? Do the people recognize the Iraqi parliament as the creator of laws? Are there oil-revenue sharing laws yet (I actually don't know about this one)? If these benchmarks of the surge aren't met, how can we call the surge a success? Someone needs to call John McCain's bluff.
It's like everyone has forgotten why we had this surge of troops in the first place. We were tired of getting our asses kicked, so congress set up the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group to come up with some things we could do to stop the hurtin'. When their report came out, Bush ignored most of the recommendations and keyed in on a footnote developed by some of the more hawkish members which suggested that the U.S. increase the number of soldiers in Baghdad by lengthening tours and whatnot. Strategy was developed to give purpose to these extra brigades, and the White House came up with the overarching goals, including reducing the violence enough to allow the Iraqis to come up with and enforce their own laws, training Iraqi security and law enforcement more quickly, and in general guiding Iraqis towards stable democracy. Good points certainly, but it required Iraqi leaders to take up the initiative. This is why the strategy was flawed.
The surge started in January of 2007 and would last through this month, July 2008. The new Democrat-controlled Congress gritted its teeth and passed many non-binding resolutions in full awareness of their lack of constitutional oversight into the executive branch's war powers. But they did manage to pass what would turn out to be completely irrelevant benchmark legislation that required the military to evaluate itself. They did evaluate themselves, dishonestly but still poorly, and the surge bumbled along. After the reporting frenzy of September 2007, the media started not caring about Iraq anymore, choosing instead to start Election 2008 coverage.
It wasn't until about November 2007 that violent attacks finally started to decline, which mostly went unnoticed at first. Eventually the media caught on to the fact that merely dozens of Americans instead of hundreds of Americans were being killed every month and reported it unequivocably as a success story, even though about a thousand Iraqi civilians still die every month from sectarian gunfire and suicide bombers. But since the whole stated purpose of the Surge was dependant on the Iraqis developing a functioning civil society, can we really call it a success? Have the Iraqis properly dealt with their problem of training militia members who turn around and become loyal to sectarian leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr? Are the national police loyal to the state? Are the Iraq Security Forces able to take our place yet? Do the people recognize the Iraqi parliament as the creator of laws? Are there oil-revenue sharing laws yet (I actually don't know about this one)? If these benchmarks of the surge aren't met, how can we call the surge a success? Someone needs to call John McCain's bluff.
Friday, October 05, 2007
The Solution for Iraq: Lots and Lots of Sick Kids
President George W. Bush decided it would be much too expensive to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program, designed to provide insurance to children who live in households with incomes higher than Medicaid levels but lower than middle class levels. So he used his fourth veto in office to keep a bipartisan health insurance bill from becoming law, because he wants everyone to know how fiscally responsible he is. In January, our hypocrite-in-chief will once again ask for more money to continue funding the war in Iraq. Would we save enough money by denying expansion of SCHIP to be able to spend another year killing Iraqi thugs and miscreants at will? Can we just consider this a way for our children be able to sacrifice a part of themselves for the good of our nation's security?
Sadly, no. Far from it, in fact. According to the CBO, the plan that Bush vetoed would have cost on average $7 billion extra per year on top of existing coverage until 2012 in order to make sure that 3.8 million children who were previously uninsured could become insured, an average of 760,000 children a year. Also according to the CBO, the U.S. government will spend $113 billion this year on the war in Iraq. In other words, by denying health care coverage to 760,000 American children, our government is able to buy 22 days of gun battles and IED's in Iraq. That's not nearly enough to win the global war on terror. We are going to need a lot more uninsured children in order to pay for this thing. At this rate, the only way we could win in Iraq is if our government could figure out a way to deny health insurance coverage to 12.3 million children a year. We're going to need a lot more vetoes.
Sadly, no. Far from it, in fact. According to the CBO, the plan that Bush vetoed would have cost on average $7 billion extra per year on top of existing coverage until 2012 in order to make sure that 3.8 million children who were previously uninsured could become insured, an average of 760,000 children a year. Also according to the CBO, the U.S. government will spend $113 billion this year on the war in Iraq. In other words, by denying health care coverage to 760,000 American children, our government is able to buy 22 days of gun battles and IED's in Iraq. That's not nearly enough to win the global war on terror. We are going to need a lot more uninsured children in order to pay for this thing. At this rate, the only way we could win in Iraq is if our government could figure out a way to deny health insurance coverage to 12.3 million children a year. We're going to need a lot more vetoes.
Monday, September 17, 2007
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:
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
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
Friday, September 14, 2007
We need you, Abu Dhabi
Throughout the Iraq War, George W. Bush has made sure to recognize and thank the other nations besides the United States that compose the Multi-National Force, the Coalition of the Willing, or whatever other term the occupying army is called. And yes, even though the United States makes up 90% of this force, it is still seen as a statement of where a nation stands on the war. The Taliban captured South Korean missionaries in Afghanistan in part because the South Koreans have a few soldiers there. Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands, among other European nations, sent in a token 3,200, 1,300, and 1,345 troops, respectively, during the early phases of the war, but completely withdrew them before this year, not because of devastating loss of life or completion of mission, but because of pressure from within to change their nations' stance on the war. Even Iceland's two soldiers have been redeployed.
America understands that even though the war is for all intents and purposes only an American war, it adds legitimacy to mention other nations of the world, especially if the argument for being there is fighting global terror, 'cause fighting global terror helps everybody, y'all. In last night's speech, Bush thanked the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq, because "[t]he success of a free Iraq matters to every civilized nation." Which brings me to my point: if it matters so much, where are all the Muslim nations in our coalition? If this is really about fighting global terror, why hasn't Indonesia contributed to stopping the spread of extremism in Iraq? You'd think with so many Moldovans, Tongans, and Norwegians, at least a couple of Yemeni could slip in there, or a few Qatari to add legitimacy to this global struggle. You won't find a nation with a crescent on it's flag among those willing to stand with the U.S. in Iraq. I can see why Iranians aren't there fighting (well actually, they are, just not with us), but at least some soldiers from hyper-capitalist Dubai ought to join the Multi-National Force. Terrorism is bad for global investments.
I guess what I'm saying is, it doesn't look good when a bunch of Christian nations get together, march to the Holy Land, and impose their will on an Islamic nation. It would have appeared much more solid if one of the following nations had contributed soldiers: Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Egypt, our new friends Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Tunisia, Turkey (especially Turkey), U.A.E. or Yemen. If we could have gotten some ground support from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan (I know, don't laugh), that would have been a coup. But as it is, it just looks like another Crusade, even if it isn't.
- QP
America understands that even though the war is for all intents and purposes only an American war, it adds legitimacy to mention other nations of the world, especially if the argument for being there is fighting global terror, 'cause fighting global terror helps everybody, y'all. In last night's speech, Bush thanked the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq, because "[t]he success of a free Iraq matters to every civilized nation." Which brings me to my point: if it matters so much, where are all the Muslim nations in our coalition? If this is really about fighting global terror, why hasn't Indonesia contributed to stopping the spread of extremism in Iraq? You'd think with so many Moldovans, Tongans, and Norwegians, at least a couple of Yemeni could slip in there, or a few Qatari to add legitimacy to this global struggle. You won't find a nation with a crescent on it's flag among those willing to stand with the U.S. in Iraq. I can see why Iranians aren't there fighting (well actually, they are, just not with us), but at least some soldiers from hyper-capitalist Dubai ought to join the Multi-National Force. Terrorism is bad for global investments.
I guess what I'm saying is, it doesn't look good when a bunch of Christian nations get together, march to the Holy Land, and impose their will on an Islamic nation. It would have appeared much more solid if one of the following nations had contributed soldiers: Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Egypt, our new friends Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Tunisia, Turkey (especially Turkey), U.A.E. or Yemen. If we could have gotten some ground support from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan (I know, don't laugh), that would have been a coup. But as it is, it just looks like another Crusade, even if it isn't.
- QP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)