'Benchmark' Strategy
Bush's latest rhetorical tactic is unlikely to win over dissatisfied voters
By Howard Fineman
Newsweek
Updated: 1:33 p.m. MT Oct 25, 2006
The only way to achieve victory in Iraq is to set “benchmarks” for the new Iraqi government to meet (a better army, an end to sectarian violence, an equitable distribution of oil revenue, etc.). That said, we can’t unilaterally impose those "benchmarks," because Iraq is a sovereign nation. On the other hand, our patience is not “unlimited,” and it could reach its limit if the Iraq government doesn’t make “tough decisions.” In any case, “Americans can have confidence that we will prevail.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15416773/site/newsweek/or was it here:
Bush's Proposal of 'Benchmarks' for Iraq Sounds Familiar
The president talked repeatedly about "benchmarks" for progress in Iraq, using that word 13 times. But he did not discuss the consequences of the Iraqi government missing those targets. Such a question, he said, was "hypothetical."
That response left unclear how the benchmarks would be different from previous times when the United States has set out intentions, only to back down. For example, the original war plan envisioned the U.S. troop presence in Iraq being cut to 30,000 by the fall of 2003. Last year, some top U.S. commanders thought they would be able to significantly cut the U.S. troop level in Iraq this year -- a hope now officially abandoned. More recently, the U.S. military all but withdrew from Baghdad, only to have to have to reenter the capital as security evaporated from its streets and Iraqi forces proved unable to restore calm by themselves.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/25/AR2006102501635.html