Brookings Institution: Iraq Is Making Political Progress, Too
The latest liberal talking point on Iraq goes something like this: sure, the surge worked, militarily (as if they had said that at the beginning, instead of arguing that more troops would lead to even greater violence), but Iraq has made zero progress politically, so it’s been a waste, and yes, we should bring the boys home as soon as possible.
Well, that’s not the case, and it’s not just conservatives or Bush supporters who are highlighting the real progress being made. The Brookings Institution has been issuing scorecards on Iraq from just about the beginning of the war, and they have often been gloomy reading, to say the least. Not so the latest iteration:
IRAQ’S security turnaround has continued through the winter. The question for 2008 is whether Iraqi security forces can preserve and build on this improvement as they increasingly bear more of the responsibility as the number of American troops declines (and as refugees and internally displaced Iraqis try to return to their homes).
…The most intriguing area of late is the sphere of politics. To track progress, we have established “Brookings benchmarks” — a set of goals on the political front similar to the broader benchmarks set for Baghdad by Congress last year. Our 11 benchmarks include establishing provincial election laws, reaching an oil-revenue sharing accord, enacting pension and amnesty laws, passing annual federal budgets, hiring Sunni volunteers into the security forces, holding a fair referendum on the disputed northern oil city of Kirkuk, and purging extremists from government ministries and security forces.
At the moment, we give the Iraqis a score of 5 out of 11 (our system allows a score of 0, 0.5, or 1 for each category, and is dynamic, meaning we can subtract points for backsliding). It is far too soon to predict that Iraq is headed for stability or sectarian reconciliation. But it is also clear that those who assert that its politics are totally broken have not kept up with the news.
There is a graphic associated with this short piece…it shows progress under every metric. There is a slight troop drawdown underway, as we all knew there would be as the troops involved in the surge face ending tours of duty. Any further drawdown, however, has to take place under the umbrella of improving conditions. Recently fired Obama adviser Samantha Powers is taking a lot of heat from Hillary’s campaign for suggesting that Obama’s 16-month withdrawal plan is a best-case scenario:
[Powers] said Obama’s position is that withdrawing all U.S. troops within 16 months is a “best-case scenario” that he will revisit if he becomes president.
“He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. senator,” she said. “He will rely upon a plan — an operational plan — that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn’t have daily access now, as a result of not being the president.”
Of course, as we saw with the NAFTA brouhaha, Obama’s campaign immediately backed off the commonsense, intelligent answer because it doesn’t play with Democratic primary voters. However, if Obama REALLY wanted to be the candidate of change, he would take a consistent stand both in public and in private, and his advisers wouldn’t be caught contradicting him.
Nevertheless, the fact remains: a set timeline for withdrawal has always been irresponsible. The time to withdraw should be made in consultation with the generals, and it should be predicated upon reaching our goals, not satisfying rabid activists.
It boils down to this, really: I COULD take Obama’s advisers at face value, and assume he’s going to do the right thing once elected, or I could listen to Obama’s public stance, and assume he will let domestic politics trump national security.
Or I could vote for John McCain, who promises in public and in private to do whatever it takes.
I suppose it is abundantly clear which candidate I find the more convincing…
“It boils down to this, really: I COULD take Obama’s advisers at face value, and assume he’s going to do the right thing once elected…”
This is one of Obama’s big strengths. I’ve heard even Republicans saying they don’t think he’d be an awful president because he’s smart and surrounds himself with good advisers. The problem of course is that he doesn’t appear to listen to any of them…
I don’t think it’s a strength that can last through November. Not if McCain’s getting competent political advice, at any rate.
That’s right, because telling voters they’re wrong is the way to win an election. Let’s ask Jim Oberweis how McCain’s chances look these days.
Again, Ryan, I must point out the difference between leadership and just reading the polls. There is nothing more important than national security, and if we let those decisions be made by the same people who have made American Idol the most-watched show on television…well, do I have to finish the sentence?…
So why do we let those people vote, Mark? Your disdain for the American public seems clear from that last comment.
And might I point out that “Brookings Benchmarks” is a concept that is fundamentally devoid of any meaning besides what Brookings wants to attach to it? In addition, the last time I checked, 5/11 is about 45%. Maybe we should let Brookings do education reform. Test scores would go through the roof, apparently, if 45% is passing.
Why is this true “a set timeline for withdrawal has always been irresponsible” if we can announce when we’re going to have a surge? If “the terrorists” are going to react to removal of troops by escalating violence as we are planning on leaving, wouldn’t one think that they would also react to the additional of troops by decreasing violence?
Was it irresponsible to announce the surge?
I declare Calvinball on the whole thing.
Do I have a disdain for the voting public? You bet I do…if that makes me an elitist, well, it is what it is. There is a reason we are a republic and not a direct democracy – and it’s the same reason we have a Senate along with the House.
Mike, let me ask you something – ponder the implications of your criticism. How could we have an unannounced surge? There’s this little matter of troop deployments that would kind of put a damper on any ‘secret surge’…
Fargus, if you bothered to look at the graphic that accompanied the article, we were at zero on the benchmarks the last survey – this time, we are at five. The benchmarks have not been pulled out of the air – they resemble the Congress’s benchmarks closely. And no one questioned the objectivity of the Brookings Institutions’s reports from the left when they were reporting on what a disaster Iraq was.
I think the last sentence of the excerpt I provided may need to be modified:
But it is also clear that those who assert that its politics are totally broken have not kept up with the news…or are so anti-war at this point that they just don’t give a damn…
Where, Mark, do you see a complete list of these “Brookings Benchmarks”? All I see is the partial list provided in your excerpt. I’d be happy to check it out myself, if you can point me to the list. You seem to know all about it.
And to point to an editorial co-authored by Michael O’Hanlon, of all people, and then argue that Brookings has been all kinds of anti-war all the time and this is some new development, is pretty ridiculous.
[...] Brookings Institution: Iraq Is Making Political Progress, Too [...]
What am I, a search engine? Here goes:
As for Michael O’Hanlon, aren’t you attacking the source rather than the data, as I have oft been accused of myself?…
No, I’m attacking your presentation of the source, as though it was coming from some devoted war critic, which O’Hanlon is certainly not. Full disclosure, and all that nonsense.
Look, the Brookings Institution is not some partisan think tank devoted to pushing the war. I’m telling you, read the reports – the ones from eighteen months ago or so were brutal reading. O’Hanlon is not the story here…the story is the improving conditions, and they’re backed up by data points throughout…
Based on an entirely arbitrary methodology. By what measure can you say a budget is as important as Kirkuk is as important as reforming de-Baathification? These are all weighted equally somehow.
I’d also look at some of the caveats here. They give a half point for passing the amnesty law, but the parenthetical following indicates that it has not actually been implemented. The Provincial Powers Act, also, appears to have been vetoed. How does that count as progress? Even half a point of progress? And are those two together as important as a provincial election law would be? Or resolving Kirkuk?
Do you see what I’m getting at? There’s no reason to have any faith whatsoever in this pseudo-methodology.
Mark: My point stands. It’s not irresponsible to announce what you’re planning on doing. If you have a problem with the plan (i.e. getting out by a certain date) you have a problem with the plan, but to just flatly say it’s irresponsible is just stupid. It’s not even an argument, but it shows how super serious you are about the “war against the terrorists”. Congratulations, you’re super-serial.
Fargus, there are real metrics in the graphic accompanying the original story, as I’ve pointed out several times, relating to measurable numbers, showing progress in every area. The “Brookings Benchmarks” are seperate from this data-driven graphic…