Fifteen of Eighteen Benchmarks Met in Iraq
Wednesday, July 2, 2008 at 09:19AM Remember those infamous 18 benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress? You remember, the ones Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi kept saying were proof the war was lost because most had not been met.
Now the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has reported that Iraq has met 15 of those 18 benchmarks set by Congress.
So while top Democrats kept saying “Hurry up and leave Iraq now” and top Generals, Republicans, the Commander in Chief and Iraqi officials kept saying, “Patience, progress takes time”, Iraqis were hard at work putting aside their enormous differences to pave the way forward.
How many “benchmarks” has the Democratically controlled Congress met? I mean besides funding the war they vowed to end.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1962194
Iraq 
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (17)
So while top Democrats kept saying “Hurry up and leave Iraq now” and top Generals, Republicans, the Commander in Chief and Iraqi officials kept saying, “Patience, progress takes time”, Amy
I'd have to agree with you except one word instead of "leave" the Democrats really wanted to "lose" Iraq now. And where's NERD this fine day??? His Democrats have lost their "panties" again and have funded a war that they say (paraphrasing) "immoral, lied to about and isn't worth another American soldiers life." Boy, the Democrats sure have the backbone of a jellyfish. I guess they have no internal fortitude like President Bush. The Democrats and their left-wing allies have labeled Bush everything in the book and he still got the funds. In spite fo the polls that NERD loves to keep reminding us.
Hey, NERD the only poll that counted recently was when President Bush got funding from those democrats. LOLOLOL!!!
Amy, IMO, the "cheerleading" has got to stop and a rational, objective look at what is happening is warranted. Do you know what's happening in Afghanistan? Well, things are going so well, that President Bush is now considering whether to send more troops.
there.
Face facts...Afghanistan was a mission incomplete...many of "us" have known that since 2003-4. Whether or not Iraq is meeting milestones is alot less important than whether or not the progress will hold. This is not a Democrat/Republican issue. This is a resiliency and willingness of the Iraqi government, not the U.S. Congress. This is a question of whether a disconnected Bedouin people can come together as a country. And it is a question of dominoes. Which one will stand? Which one will fall?
As I said in my last comment on your other thread (the one about foundational U.S. documents), I respect your beliefs and faith even if I don't share them...and I most certainly commend you as a wife of a U.S. soldier serving overseas. But I do disagree with alot of your take on the world...and most certainly disagree with your interpretation of the foundational U.S. documents.
Storm Warning,
The Iraqi government was elected by its people (The only Arab nation that could say that) ,has 100,000's of troops willing to die for their country, sits on the 4th largest known oil reserves, and is about to sign an alliance with the USA. The Progress will continue and a majoritarian government will exist in the heart of the Middle East. You raise serious concerns and I tried to answer them in a serious manner.
Face facts...Afghanistan was a mission incomplete...many of "us" have known that since 2003-4. Whether or not Iraq is meeting milestones is alot less important than whether or not the progress will hold. This is not a Democrat/Republican issue. STORM
Really, Storm. Try telling that to Al Qaeda they just got their asses kicked in Iraq. Osama bin Laden thought Iraq was important. They invested a lot of men and money in Iraq and they got their asses handed to them. Support for suicide bombings has even gone down amongst the average muslim and arab. The US has an emerging ally in Iraq and an even stronger ally amongst the Sunnis, because they know what Al Qaeda's version of "paradise" is. Try to down play it as much as you want; if we had listened to the democrats and their allies the terrorist would have a stronghold in Iraq and the price of gas probably would've been $10.
Hi Pete. And am I one of those "Democrats?" I'm not downplaying "it" Dawg. Ever read Jeffrey Record's paper on the strategic issues relating to Iraq and Afghanistan. No? I'm not surprised. Do you have any idea of what my position was on the invasion of Iraq? No? I'm not surprised.
All of this aside from the fact that you decided to cut off the quote of my words...
You just don't want to look a bit deeper than the media. Afghanistan is not over. Iraq is an open question.
Is that the same Jeffrey Record who argues for the rehabilitation of appeasement alla Chamberlian? And is he the same guy argueing the al-Qaida and terrorist are two diferent things?
If so, why would we want to read the work of a fool?
I didn'tknow that he has written that. Still, the analysis of the strategic distraction of Iraq, leaving Afghanistan unfinished is on the table. And I was in favor of the Iraq invasion. The issue is and was military resources or lack of...
As for al Qaeda and terrorism being different...they are...not all terrorists are al Qaeda...all al Qaeda are terrorists. FARC is not al Qaeda...Abu Sayaff existed long before al Qaeda. The alignment of a number of terrorist orgs with al Qaeda occurred long after the legacy orgs existed. Or did I read your comment wrong?
Storm, why the hell do you ask me questions and then anwer them? If you wanted to have debate with yourself; more power to, ya.
Now, IMO, you started out by chastising Amy for cheerleading the Iraq War. It's a fact 15 of the 18 benchmarks that congress stated have been meet. I don't see how that's cheerleading by stating a fact. What is coming in loud and clear is how wrong the Democrats were about the surge... Who's more disappointed that the US didn't tuck tail and abandon Iraq? Terrorists, Syria & Iran or the Democrats... hmmm that's a tough one.
So you supported the invasion of Iraq... good for you. Based on the intelligence around the world and what the US government had it was the right thing to do. In my opinion if President Bush didn't listen to that idiot Powell and waste a year going back and forth with the UN we probably would of found WMD; instead some future President or worse Jerusalem might fight out via Syria that Iraq did have WMD's. But not finishing the job in Iraq shouldn't be based on some calculation like; no, WMD's oh well let's abandon Iraq. or we think we don't have enough resources so let's lose in Iraq." Nobody that I know who's in favor of Iraq is stating that we should abandon Afghanistan.
At this moment I don't give a rats ass about South Korea. Those people have seem to forgotten the sacrifices Americans made for their freedom. If they want to make peace with the dictator with platform shoes, to hell with them. Those 35,000 soldiers who would be nothing but a speed bump if China and North Korea decided to invade would be better utilized in Afghanistan. Hell, the Europeans should be helping out a whole lot more, but they're the frog slowly cooking to death. Losing in either Iraq or Afghanistan isn't an option. Why are you trying to make us choose???
If I was perfect, I'd be President.
But I didn't say anything about not finishing the job in Iraq. You know what happens with premature withdrawal (or premature anything). I think that the reports of WMD being shipped to Syria pre-invasion are more accurate than not. Abandon Afghanistan is exactly what we did when we redeployed to Iraq and left Afghanistan to NATO. Who the hell said anything about chooseing???!!! You are reading alot into what I wrote, and I think for obvious reasons. But you're correct (actually "right" but I suspect that's far right).
Now step back and evaluate what our options are...well, that's what you did. And you're probably right...move troops from S. Korea.
But no where in what I wrote here said to abandon either Iraq or Afghanistan (I've just re-read my comments). All of the sabre rattling done by people like you is irrelevent. Making peace with N.Korea is bad? Why? Making peace with Libya is bad? Why?
Would somehow resolving Iran with a shot being fired or a missile being launched would be bad? Why? Despite the Internet and blogs and everyone's kitchen-sink opinions, diplomacy and negotiation still works (not always, then you have a shooting war). The tactic in Iran should have been (and just may have been) to undermine Ahmadinejad from within with covert ops (ever consider that Hersh is only half right - or less - and that the covert ops is helping an Iranian resistence movement?).
Shoot missiles and bombs! Go ahead. "Everything on the table" means just that. But you're right, losing is not an option.
And for that reason, make sure that McCain is elected. There is no option.
Storm, I'm not sure how pointing out something positive on a subject that Democrats have pointed out as negative. Surely Democrats don't have the monopoly on what should be reported on Iraq, do they? Its not cheerleading to correct a misconception about Iraqi benchmarks.
And yes, I know what's going on in Afghanistan. Why is that important to you? Is it because it's a way of dissing Bush or is there some other reason for your concern?
How would you defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda? How would Obama? They are a resilient enemy that regroups and has elements in every corner of teh world. It is a war that will go on for decades in some shape or another.
Now that Iraq is stablizing in a vital part of the world, Saddam and his heirs are dead, there is no nuke program in Iraq, and millions of people are liberated to the point where they have driven out the enemy themselves (with our help), would you say it was worth it? I would.
Iraq may or may not have taken troops away from Afghanistan. I don't think so. Most of those myths have been debunked but and the fact is that Afghanistan is a difficult part of the world to tame. Resurgence is normal for this type of warfare.
storm said:
That's just non-sense. Many of my friends fought in Afghanistan since 2003. We certainly did not abandon it. Can you prove it?
We turned over control of operations in Afghanistan to NATO, did we not? That's abandonment. We simply didn't have the military resources to fight two fronts. Iraq took precedence.
Why is Afghanistan important (to me or anyone else)? Because on the border, there is no difference between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Afghanistan is no where near stabilized. The poppy crops are booming and helping to finance the Taliban...they are not defunct.
And one last point. Questioning strategy and tactics is not "dissing" Bush. I voted for the fool...I'll vote for McCain. Doing that doesn't stop me from criticizing. Criticizing does not make me unpatriotic etc.
Have a safe 4th of July.
You know, it is funny. You ask me to prove something that is obvious. We handed over Afghanistan to NATO, the US is not in control...we abandoned the effort. You're evading the issue once again by selectively changing it...just like you did on the question of the U.S. (NOT) being a Christian Nation.
If we defacto hand over control to someone other than one of our Commanders, we've abandoned it...sorry, we disagree, but you can't force me into being something that I am not. The fact is that despite all of your retention posts, the military is still undermanned for the various engagements facing us. The fact is that the Taliban, whether they were in your eyes "defeated" in Afghanistan still exist, and move freely across the mountains. They have said just that!
As for the "other" post, with you asking me to prove it, you asserted that the Lincoln Memorial had scripture on its walls. Best I can tell, that is wrong. You asserted that just because 70 some odd percent of the US population is Christian, that it is a Christian Nation. Its not! You asserted that the U.S. Constitution was not a secular document. You still can't support that assertion either.
Objectively, we messed up strategically in Afghanistan. Maybe only because we trusted NATO to do the job, but possibly we've missed other targets.
Just don't you and your followers turn me into something I'm not. Have a safe 4th of July.
Stormy, I'd like to thank you for not asking me questions, only to have you answer them.
Next, Afghanistan isn't the basket case that Iraq was two years ago. Osama Bin Laden named Iraq as the central front against the Americans. He invested major resources to try to defeat us there and he failed. What I don't understand is why isn't the media trumpeting this basic fact. They love to report when Americans seem to be losing, but are damn silent when we are winning. It would've been and still could be a major disaster if we abandon Iraq. Hopefully,if the Obama is elected president he'll flip-flop on Iraq since he's flip-flopped on many other issues. Because as we all know that at the same time the Obama has been saying the surge has been a failure, he's been receiving briefings from the Pentagon on the successes we've been achieving in Iraq. So we all know he's a duplicitous candidate, the candidate of changing his mind.
But I digress, Afghanistan is far from being overrun from the Taliban or Al Queda. The major population centers are safe. The government there isn't as conflicted as Iraq was. The terrorists there are in no condition to take back Afghanistan. America right now just has to hold the positions that the coalition does control. Once Iraq's army becomes more capable (as shown when they took back Basra from Mookie) we can probably send the Marines to Afghanistan. But Storm when it comes to Afghanistan don't be like the Democrats and think that it's just a case of troop levels for us to win. Alexander the Great said he could have a million soldiers and he still wouldn't be able to conquer a place like Afghanistan. It's probably the most desolate place on Earth. It might as well as be on the moon. The Pashtuns have never been conquered as a people. The area of Whazirastan makes Iraq look like a metropolitan paradise. And Osama Bin Laden has decided to isolate himself in the middle of 7th century. He's cutoff from the rest of the world and his organization isn't even a tenth what it used to be. Either way if this was a poker game I wouldn't want Osama's hand.
I'll tell y'all what. You're all correct.
However, "Doggie," since you raised the bar:
1) I'm not the media
2) I never implied or said to withdraw from Iraq
3) We're all in trouble if Obama is elected
4) bin Laden is alive and kicking (that's an issue)
5) question in Afghanistan is stability in the outer regions and to the drug trade (I'm not as naive as you'd like to think - in fact you have no idea)
6) "bye-bye"
stormwarning said:
My understanding is that the United States via CENTCOM is "in charge" of Afghanistan. NATO assists. In fact, according to US commanders, the Sec. of Def, etc., NATO has NOT taken the intiatiaves to support the war effort and their involvement is lacking. They simply don't offer enough to the war.
I completely agree Afghanistan is extremely important in the war effort/GWOT, but disagree that we abandoned it for Iraq. That simply isn't a fact.
I do agree that questioning strategy isn't disrespectful. It's all in the manner in which it is done.
Recently you claimed that the Taliban was defunct. Its not the first time that someone has made that claim. It won't be the last time that the claim was wrong. We're parsing words when it comes to control...yes, CENTCOM is in "charge." Who is the majority of troops and who mounts the operations?
We will have to disagree over whether the state of affairs in Afghanistan reflect a redeployment of available resources, but NATO was expected to pick up the slack, they haven't. Now what? We scramble to deploy more troops (what was the number? - plus the 2000 or so who will have their tours extended). Admiral Mullen just said the other day: "I don't have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach, to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq." Currently there are 32000 troops in Afghanistan, with 14K deployed with NATO and 18K doing training and counterinsurgency.
Taliban dead? At least not yet.