Houston Democrats

The defense-spending bill passed by Congress in May this year included a clause that requires Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to send Congress a "comprehensive set of performance indicators and measures of stability and security" two years after the fall of Saddam Hussein..." That deadline is Monday, July 11. The clause also included a requirement that Rumsfeld provide updates to Congress at three month intervals.

The information required is specific and detailed. It includes measures of the security environment, including the number of engagements per day, the count of trained Iraqi forces and more. It orders up indicators of economic activity. It directs Rumsfeld to provide -- either in public or in classified annexes -- an estimate of U.S. military forces needed in Iraq through the end of calendar 2006 and the criteria the administration will use to determine when it is safe to begin withdrawing forces.

The following is the exact clause that requires the setting of specific benchmarks for progress in Iraq:

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief Act, 2005

MEASURING STABILITY AND SECURITY IN IRAQ

In the wake of the recent Iraqi elections, public discourse about the U.S. occupation of that country has focused on the need for and the advisability of declaring a timetable for U.S. military withdrawal. Instead of focusing on exit strategies, however, the conferees believe there is a need to recast this debate by considering `strategies for success'. Success in Iraq will be achieved, of course, only to the extent any new Iraqi government can legitimately and effectively rule the country, which in turn largely depends on that government's ability to protect its people and secure its borders.

The discussion on this issue should not be simply about how many Iraqi forces have been trained and equipped, but about how many can perform to reasonable standards so that they may be expected to successfully conduct their assigned missions. This is the basis for assessing U.S. military readiness, and should serve as the basis for judging the capabilities of Iraqi security forces.

The conferees believe that the Administration must develop and provide to the Congress a more comprehensive set of performance indicators and measures of stability and security in Iraq than is currently available. This undoubtedly will lead to a more informed debate over how best to allocate U.S. resources to help secure Iraq. As such, the conferees direct the Secretary of Defense (in consultation with other appropriate members of the National Security Council) to provide a report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Majority Leader of the Senate, and the congressional defense committees that identifies security, economic, and Iraqi security force training performance standards and goals, accompanied by a notional timetable for achieving these goals. At a minimum, the report should include detailed descriptions of the following:

Stability and Security in Iraq:

Key measures of political stability, including the important political milestones that must be achieved over the next several years.

The primary indicators of a stable security environment in Iraq, such as number of engagements per day, numbers of trained Iraqi forces, trends describing numbers and types of ethnic and religious-based hostile encounters, and so on. In addition, the report should include:

--The estimated strength of the Iraqi insurgency and the extent to which it is composed of non-Iraqi fighters; and,

--A description of all militias operating in Iraq, including the number, size, equipment strength, military effectiveness, sources of support, legal status, and efforts to disarm or reintegrate each militia.

The key indicators of economic activity that should be considered as the most important for determining the prospects of stability in Iraq, including: unemployment levels; electricity, water, and oil production rates; and hunger and poverty levels.

The criteria the Administration will use to determine when it is safe to begin withdrawing our forces from Iraq.

Security Force Training and Performance:

The training Iraqi military and other Ministry of Defense forces have received and what equipment they are using. In particular, the report should include the key criteria for assessing the capabilities and readiness of the Iraqi military forces, goals for achieving certain capability and readiness levels (as well as for recruiting, training, and equipping these forces), and the milestones and notional timetable for achieving these goals.

The operational readiness status of the Iraqi military forces, including: the type, number, size, and organizational structure of Iraqi battalions that are:

--Capable of conducting counterinsurgency operations independently;

--Capable of conducting counterinsurgency operations with the support of U.S. or coalition forces; and,

--Not ready to conduct counterinsurgency operations.

The rates of absenteeism in the Iraqi military forces and the extent to which insurgents have infiltrated these forces.

The training Iraqi police and other Ministry of Interior forces have received and what equipment they are using. In particular, the report should include the key criteria for assessing the capabilities and readiness of these forces, goals for achieving certain capability and readiness levels (as well as for recruiting, training, and equipping), and the milestones and notional timetable for achieving these goals. This should include:

--The number of police recruits that have received classroom training and the duration of such instruction;

--The number of veteran police officers who have received classroom instruction and the duration of such instruction;

--The number of police candidates screened by the Iraqi Police Screening Service, the number of candidates derived from other entry procedures, and the success rates of those groups of candidates;

--The number of Iraqi police forces who have received field training by international police trainers and the duration of such instruction; and,

--Attrition rates and measures of absenteeism and infiltration by insurgents.

The estimated total number of Iraqi battalions needed for the Iraqi security forces to perform duties now being undertaken by coalition forces, including defending Iraq's borders and providing adequate levels of law and order throughout the country.

The effectiveness of the Iraqi military and police officer cadres and the chain of command.

The number of U.S. and coalition advisors needed to support the Iraqi security forces and associated ministries.

Finally, the conferees direct the Secretary to include in this report (or classified annex to the report, as necessary) an assessment of U.S. military requirements, including planned force rotations, through the end of calendar year 2006. The conferees direct the Secretary to submit this report not later than 60 days after the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter through the end of fiscal year 2006. (Link to full the complete bill.)

Of course there is no guarantee that what Rumsfeld or the administration says is happening, is really what the situation is on the ground. They do seem to view the war in Iraq with a huge dose of Rose Garden optimism. It's possible that Rumsfeld will just ignore the Congressional mandate or release the report late, possibly admidst all the other bad information the administration would rather we didn't take notice of on Friday evenings.

The repeated and defiant refusal to set anything that might resemble a benchmark or some kind of measure of progress is odd when you consider Bush pushed so hard for No Child Left Behind. The ironic aspect about that program is that the benchmarks are set so high, or expensive to implement, that most schools didn't stand a chance to meet them, particularly since it has been severely underfunded since its inception.

This is our first M.B.A. president, a business school grad who generally operates on the principle that if you can't measure something, you are flying blind. He insists that his Office of Management and Budget keep score on how well each department and agency is meeting its program responsibilities. Why not measure the enormously expensive investment in Iraq? (Read the article.)

It's obvious why the administration doesn't want to monitor progress -- because there isn't any of significant substance to measure, and if anything the number of insurgents being recruited, the rate of attacks and killings have increased.

Bush's mantra is "We are fighting these terrorists with our military in Afghanistan and Iraq and beyond so we do not have to face them in the streets of our own cities."

So now tell that to the British in light of the recent attacks on the Underground and the bus in Tavistock Square. Ken Livingstone, Lord Mayor of London, cautioned Tony Blair about how going to war in Iraq could threaten Britain's security.

Here's what he said:

An assault on Iraq will inflame world opinion and jeopardise security and peace everywhere. London, as one of the major world cities, has a great deal to lose from war and a lot to gain from peace, international cooperation and global stability. (Read the article.)

Unfortunately, Ken Livingstone is right, and his statement is actually what has happened because of the war in Iraq. It's also something likely to occur in the United States again the longer our troops remain in Iraq, increasingly viewed as an oppressive occupying force. Ironically, we have become the best recruiter for international terrorism.

As of July 9, there have been 1,753 US troop casualties, another 90 UK troops killed, and another 100 coalition troops killed -- a total of 1,943 troops killed since the beginning of the war (Source).

In Afghanistan, another 210 US troops have been killed (Source).

If you consider the Iraqi police deaths the numbers are even worse. The number killed in 2005 alone is 1,262, on top of another 1,300 killed before 2005 -- a total of 2,562 (Source).

The number of Iraqi civilians killed is largely unknowned and no number is maintained by the US government of which I am aware. I know some non-governmental aid organizations are trying to keep a tally that ranges in the tens of thousands.

I think the case for going to Afghanistan and taking out the Taliban was reasonable and justified, but going on to Iraq has turned into a much bigger problem, where Westerners are basically confined to the Green Zone because outside the walls it's too dangerous. Even if you only count Americans killed, we are quickly closing in on the 2,762 killed in the World Trade Center attacks (Source).

I'm impressed by the "culture of life" Bush is trying to spread.

I hope the administration will set benchmarks as mandated by Congress and provide regular update reports, but their past track record does not give me much hope. However, we may learn more about it soon if Rumsfeld does not choose to break the law (again).

I don't think it is possible to just pull out (not suddenly anyway), but we certainly need some kind of oversight on this administration, and hold the administration accountable to Congress and the American people.

This may be Bush's war but he is fighting it with the American population that has realized the argument for war was false, and that invading Iraq was a mistake. It's obvious Bush's mandate for war is gone, and we need to set about bringing it to a close before the situation gets worse.