Some Metrics For Rumsfeld!

[ProfessorGAC]

So, Donny says we have no metrics for the war on terror, huh? I would also submit that we likewise have no VALID metrics for the Iraqi situation.

In addition, the administration has been suggesting that we only hear the bad news about Iraq and the improvements are going underreported. (A PR campaign that, by the way, worked, since the networks just rolled over for it.)

So, in the interest of comity and patriotism, let me propose some metrics, first on the Iraq situation.

1. The percentage of people who have full-time, full demand electrical power as a ratio of those that had it BEFORE we bombed. The last i read, it was about 60%. When that number EXCEEDS 100%, that is progress, Donny boy.

2. The percentage of people who have full-time, full demand fresh water in their homes. Same criteria for success Rummy. If it's not 100%, it's not improving. It's merely a slow restoration of the service YOU SCREWED UP! Getting to 100% is NOT PROGRESS!

3. The percentage of homeless people. When that number falls below what it was before we blew up 14 cities, THAT'S PROGRESS!

4. The percentage of elected Iraqi representatives NOT VETTED by the U.S. provisional authority. When that number exceeds 50%, it will be a true improvement in the form of government. Until then, it's imperialism.

5. The percentage of high school graduates. Remember, of course, Donnie boy, that Iraq had a high literacy rate (in the urban areas), and a high graduation rate. If that number is still below what it was, it's not an improvement. Let's remember that, shall we.

6. The percentage of Iraqi situation appropriations that is NOT going to replenishing the inventory of U.S. military armaments. I think it's pretty obvious that a huge proportion of the $66B is to backfill the inventory. I know you won't admit that Donnie, but it's too obvious for us to debate it.

All in all, maybe the reason why the media hasn't been reporting the "good things" is that the Bushies have a skewed interpretation of the word "improvement". Even as the media rolled over, the "good things" reported upon were focused on restoration of services, but not on expansion of them. So, maybe the media weren't reported the "good things" because by any thoughtful definition, NOTHING HAS IMPROVED YET. (Idiots!)

As to the war on terror, try these out Rummy:
1. If it's an international war, all terrorism counts. So, include attacks on Israel and other U.S. allies. When the number goes down by a statistically significant degree, you have a metric that matters. Suggesting that no further attacks on U.S. soil is a good sign is wrong and a little too convenient.

2. Measure the dollars flowing from your pals in Saudi Arabia to known anti-Western organizations. When that dollar volume drops to historic lows, without adjusting for inflation, you will know you've made progress. Until then, you are barking up the wrong tree.

3. Another convenient metric would be the percentage of foreign aid that is NOT used to enhance military hardware by our "allies" who do not oversee a fully functional democratic system. (Hmmmm! Who would that be again?) When that number hits a value so low as to statistically be considered zero, we've succeeded in reducing the probability of a terrorist attack against U.S. interests.

4. This one you won't like: Show the world that we are a real democracy by reducing the influence of money in our elections. If the world sees that buffoons like Georgie cannot buy an election in this country, they might take the whole democracy thing a little more seriously. I'd say the short term goals should be a 25% reduction in the $ spent on elections for 3 cycles, and then a change in the ratio between special interest and public funds by 50%. If people see that democracy can actually work, they might listen to what we have to say.

Well, Donnie boy, that's just a start, but because you had NO metrics, i thought i'd help you out a bit. These are all strategic in nature (and your CEO background ought to let you understand the value of bigshots thinking strategically and not tactically) and are all measurable and achievable.

Let me know if you need any more help. On second thought, call me Donnie boy, because i know that with your crowd you will definitely need more help in thinking these things out.
The Professor

[chiburb]

1. Kick, for an intelligent post... n/t

.

[GOPisEvil]

2. Wow. That's excellent.

Nice work, Professor!

[JackRiddler]

6. kick

k

[chiburb]

3. Have you seen this site yet?

http://www.centerforamericanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?cid={E9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03}&bin_id={FA23596B-F0DA-414B-A997-8EFB5BACBBC7}

Snip:

Q: Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror? Is our current situation such that "the harder we work, the behinder we get?"

A: We agree with your observations that we are having “mixed results” with Al Qaeda; making some progress on finding the top Iraqis and much less when it comes to the Taliban.

We disagree, however, with your observation that “we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing.” Let us suggest some indicators, keeping in mind that President Bush has defined Iraq as the “central front” in the global war on terrorism.

• Gen. Sanchez reports that the attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq have risen to 35 per day from 25 per day.
• Lt. Gen. Schwartz told reporters yesterday that Ansar al Islam is our “principal organized terrorist adversary in Iraq right now.” Your memo says we’re doing nothing about this.
• An August AEI-Zogby poll asked Iraqis whether they felt the U.S. would help or hurt Iraq over the next five years. 35 percent said they thought the US would help. In comparison, 61 percent said Saudi Arabia (which, as you might have heard, is attending the Donor Conference for Iraq with a “basket of thoughts” – and no cash) would help.
• The expected contributions at the donor conference in Madrid will provide little more than a tenth of what we need, in addition to the $20 billion we’ve put on the table. We all know what this means – as your friend Tom DeLay said on Fox News Wednesday, “It's all the same war on terror. And in order to win this war, we have to do everything that we can to win the war. Part of that is the reconstruction of Iraq.


Looking beyond Iraq, we also find mixed results. On the public opinion front, we refer you to the 2003 Pew Global Attitudes Project, which found that fewer than one-quarter of respondents in Indonesia, Turkey, Pakistan, and Jordan said they support the war on terrorism.

You might also find interesting the final report of the administration’s Advisory Panel on “Changing Minds, Winning Peace,” which calls for “an immediate end to the absurd and dangerous underfunding of public diplomacy in a time of peril, when our enemies have succeeded in spreading viciously inaccurate claims about our intentions and our actions.”

On who’s winning the struggle for hearts and minds, we refer you to the most recent audiotape from Osama bin Laden and the most recent videotape of General Boykin’s sermons.

[ProfessorGAC]

4. No I Hadn't. Thanks

I've seen all these data already but it's nice to have it all in one spot.

And thanks to you and GOPisEvil for the kind words.
The Professor

[newyawker99]

5. kick

:kick: