‘Benchmarks’ make a comeback — with the same questions and problems

[ProSense]

‘Benchmarks’ make a comeback — with the same questions and problems

Snip…

Nonsense. By all indications, the administration is drawing a line in the sand, which it’s prepared to redraw over and over again without penalty.

The same thing came up way back in March 2006, when the president suggested he was getting a little impatient with the progress — or lack thereof — in Iraq. He wanted Iraq to know his expectations, but not to hear a word about consequences. He said Iraq needs to “get governing,” but he wouldn’t say what happens if it doesn’t.

I don’t agree with Steven Taylor with much, but his questions this morning were very much in line with my own.

1) Part of the conventional wisdom is that the US has been trying not to appear like occupiers … yet, we are now going to start giving the Iraqi government a public checklist of things to do? <…>

2) I’d have to go back and look to confirm my memory, but didn’t John Kerry suggest something like this (i.e., benchmarks) back during the campaign only to have the notion summarily dismissed by the administration?

3) What good is a list of benchmarks if there is no clear penalty for failure? Such a situation smacks of managerial incompetence, like when the boss sends out a memo about a new policy but everyone in the office knows that there is no way for the policy to be enforced. All those kind of things do is make everyone ignore memos and loose respect for the boss.

In this sense, the entire exercise is dubious. It’s like the old joke about the unarmed policeman seeing a criminal and shouting, “Stop! Or I’ll say ‘Stop’ again!” The administration is telling the Iraqis, “Establish a new de-Baathification policy! Or we might ask again sometime soon!”

more...

Time to withdraw:

October 22, 2006

"This Week" with guest Senator John Kerry

Snip...

KERRY: It has to be completely redefined, what it's going to be. And then you have John McCain, of all people, saying what you got to do is put 100,000 more troops in, which is a fantasy, when you look at the fact that, in the last few days, they put more troops in, 15,000. They brought more troops from Kuwait. They concentrated the troops in Baghdad, and they have failed miserably.

Our own generals tell us the solution in Iraq is not military. If it's not military, don't talk, as John McCain does, about putting more troops in. Talk about how you resolve the political and diplomatic dilemma and sectarian dilemma between Shia and Sunni and the region.

STEPHANOPOULOS: They also say that pulling out those troops, the threat of pulling out those troops, right now, is going to create chaos.

KERRY: A year from now? That's not an abandonment. Are you telling me that, a year from now, after all this administration has said about standing up and, while they stand up, we'll stand down -- that was a lie.

They said, as they stand up, we'll stand down. Well, we're now at about 320,000 troops trained. That's not going to make the difference. Either they resolve the political differences within this year because they want to, or they don't want to.

If they don't want to, there's nothing American troops can do. If they do resolve it, so much the better, and our troops can withdraw.

Setting a date for a year from now is not waving a flag of surrender. And I resent the president of the United States suggesting that. It is, in fact, the best way to protect our troops.

It's the best way to solve the problem. It's the best way to regain our moral authority in the region. It's the best way to be successful. It's the best way to protect America's security.

And this administration has set America's security back in North Korea; set it back in Iran. Iran is delighted with what's happening in Iraq.

They've set us back in Iraq itself. They've set back the Middle East peace process. We can't do anything in Darfur. And they're the only nation in the world that denies global climate change. Let's debate security, George.

[Tom Joad]

1. Even more crazy now as it was back when Kerry first proposed it.

We should stand down, admit US defeat of its aggression, and start with reparations. Sending some leaders to stand trial for crimes against humanity.

[The Magistrate]

2. Not Likely To Get Many Votes, That, Mr. Joad

Reparations are out of the question: one of the things people do not like about the war is its money cost, and they will have the head of any political figure who urges money for Iraq after U.S. soldiers are out of the place.

Nor will people much like, even a few months down the road, a withdrawl that is pictured as an admission of defeat. Some form of camouflage is a political necessity, and there will be bad consequences from a withdrawl, that will be felt for some time.

Certainly there should be some domestic pressure for trials under the Federal War Crimes Act in U.S. courts, but no one is going to be turned over to any overseas entity, nor would the people stand for that action.

[Tom Joad]

3. Just tellin it like it is. I know none of these war criminals will every face trial.

Kissinger never did. That is because of bipartisan (by the elite) support for imperialism abroad.

[The Magistrate]

4. Are You Familiar With "All Hail Marx And Lennon!", Sir?

"Put on that wide belt and work-shirt and tell it like it was!"

Denunciation of imperialism is beside the point: elite support is not the problem with it as a political line, the problem is that people do not care about it, and view the very term as part of a radical jargon they have no patience for. The line that works, to some degree, is the traditional "It's none of our business how people overseas want to screw themselves up. We should just keep of it."

[wisteria]

5. Frustrating! I was in favor of "benchmarks" months ago, Kerry was ridiculed because he suggested

them months ago. Now, Bush is considering them? I don't know how Kerry stands it, other than knowing his goal is to ultimately bring this war to an end and bring our soldiers home.