# Iraq Government Misses All Targets **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 10, 2007, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-government-misses-all-targets/411165 "2007-07-10T05:23:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2007, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-government-misses-all-targets/411165/1 "2007-07-10T05:23:05Z")
[The headline](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070709/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq;_ylt=Anne9T9HseXIFxyHwbW8ZHqs0NUE) says it all. At the start of this year, Bush and his various mouthpieces explained that the surge would coincide with certain targets for progress by the Iraq government. They promised that this time they would produce success, in contrast to all of that government’s previous failures. Now the results are in. > [@](#): > > A progress report on Iraq will conclude that the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad has not met any of its targets for political, economic and other reform, So that settles the question of whether or not the surge and the associated pressure on the Iraqi Parliment will work. It has already failed. Now we’ve all heard about the increasing number of Republican Senators speaking out against the administration’s Iraq policy, but the truth is that they’ve been few in number thus far. Will this be the bursting of the dam? Specifically, Congress is about to consider an amendment to the next spending bill that will require that the troops start coming home this fall. Other possible amendments–some authored by Republicans–limit military action in Iraq in various ways. Will enough Republicans abandon this sinking ship that the war opponents will be able to override Bush’s inevitable veto? ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2007, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-government-misses-all-targets/411165/2 "2007-07-10T07:16:54Z")
I don’t expect troops to start being withdrawn by the fall. Speaking out against the Iraq war and actually backing it up casting a vote to override a veto are two very different things. I don’t think enough Republicans are convinced that there is no path to victory left, yet. I’m more worried about what will happen in Iraq when we leave, actually. There’s no way that government will be able to stabilize the country without any foreign intervention. I’m actually kind of hoping that Iran’s influence can be a politically stabilizing factor in Iraq after we’re gone. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2007, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-government-misses-all-targets/411165/3 "2007-07-10T08:17:28Z")
[QUOTE=Mosier] I’m more worried about what will happen in Iraq when we leave, actually. [/QUOTE] Well, for one thing we won’t be spending $3 billion a week in there just to maintain an unnaceptable status quo. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2007, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-government-misses-all-targets/411165/4 "2007-07-11T03:18:24Z")
[QUOTE=Mosier] Speaking out against the Iraq war and actually backing it up casting a vote to override a veto are two very different things. I don’t think enough Republicans are convinced that there is no path to victory left, yet. [/QUOTE] Undoubtedly true. But for some Republicans, the more relevant question is whether there’s a path to victory in 2008. Some seem to think, quite reasonably, that staying the course with Bush isn’t their ticket to victory. That could be the deciding factor. Currently it seems that we can count on anti-war votes from Snowe, Collins, Lugar, and Dominici (plus Hagel and Smith, who voted anti-war already.) In addition, there seem to be about a dozen Senators who are leaning against the war. It’s only a matter of time before they agree to put their votes where their mouth is. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2007, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-government-misses-all-targets/411165/5 "2007-07-11T14:37:19Z")
Its still a daunting choice for them. The nightmare scenario number one is that they leap overboard and then the Surge Miracle takes effect, the Sunni and Shia are dancing around the oil derrick, holding hands and singing the praises of The Leader, pausing only for moments to hang garlands of flowers around the necks of Our Heroes… The Dems theme of “responsible redeployment” offers them cover. From one side of their mouth, they can claim to have voted for withdrawal, out of the other, they can deplore the Dems for advocating “cut and run” policies. Which, I suspect, is why the WH is pressing so hard on the AlQ aspect to all of this: “Sure, we’re for withdrawal, just as soon as we defeat AlQ, then we can go…” ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2007, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-government-misses-all-targets/411165/6 "2007-07-11T15:24:41Z")
[QUOTE=ITR champion] Undoubtedly true. But for some Republicans, the more relevant question is whether there’s a path to victory in 2008. Some seem to think, quite reasonably, that staying the course with Bush isn’t their ticket to victory. That could be the deciding factor. [/quote] Their problem is primaries. Suppose you’re a GOP Congresscritter. Start voting against Bush, and you get a primary challenger next spring who is more of a true believer than you are. You’ll probably win, but there’s a real chance you could lose, so you’ll have to spend beaucoups of bucks fending off the challenge, and having to emphasize your conservative credentials to do so. If you win, it’ll be after a bruising primary battle, you’ll be low on cash, and you’ll have had to put on your most conservative face - which won’t play well with the electorate in the general election. So you keep voting for Bush for now, avoid the primary challenge, and once the filing deadline passes, you might or might not change your tune; who knows? But I doubt that very many GOP Congresscritters will change their tunes _before_ the possibility of a primary challenge next year has receded. > [@](#): > > Currently it seems that we can count on anti-war votes from Snowe, Collins, Lugar, and Dominici (plus Hagel and Smith, who voted anti-war already.) In addition, there seem to be about a dozen Senators who are leaning against the war. It’s only a matter of time before they agree to put their votes where their mouth is. We’ve heard a lot of negative _talk_ by GOP Congresscritters about the war, but with only four exceptions to date (two in each house), their votes haven’t corresponded. I don’t think we can count on any Pubbie’s vote on anything until they give their word that they’re voting our way. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2007, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-government-misses-all-targets/411165/7 "2007-07-11T15:29:12Z")
This will give some of the Republicans a “reason” to vote contrary to Bush’s desires and to explain why they changed their position. Actually, it’s not a bad “reason” at all-- it’s a pretty good one. But I think many of them have wanted to vote differently for awhile and have been waiting for a good excuse. Keep in mind, though, that a resolution for complete withdrawal isn’t going to go anywhere. None of the top Democratic presidential contenders, for instance, is calling for a complete withdrawal. “Strategic redeployment” usually means some troops (maybe as many as 60k) will still be left in Iraq to “defend America’s interests there and to fight al Qaeda”. One might argue that 60k troops in Iraq will be more vulnerable than 150k-- I’m not really sure which side is right on this point. I’m afraid that we’re still going to be asking 5 years from now when we’re going to get all of our troops out of Iraq… ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2007, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-government-misses-all-targets/411165/8 "2007-07-11T15:32:24Z")
I would bet that way in the back of Bush’s mind he is hoping that they will be able to override the veto. Then he will be able to say, for the rest of his life, that he was on the verge of victory in Iraq when those traitorous democrat surrender monkeys forced him to cut and run, and just when the insurgency was in its last throes too. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2007, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-government-misses-all-targets/411165/9 "2007-07-11T15:38:36Z")
Fine. Whatever. Offer me the choice, get our people out of the goddam fever swamp, and it means that Americans pour out _en masse_ to swear their undying love for The Leader and His Party, I’d say, go for it! Do it! I’ll go puke my guts out immediately after, for sure, but I’d do it. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2007, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-government-misses-all-targets/411165/10 "2007-07-11T16:15:17Z")
[QUOTE=ITR champion] So that settles the question of whether or not the surge and the associated pressure on the Iraqi Parliment will work. It has already failed. [/QUOTE] Huh? No, it doesn’t. It’s like people are being willfully ignorant here. Maybe the surge is a guaranteed failure, maybe it isn’t. It’s still _too early to see_, have you guys not heard anything Odierno and Petraeus have been saying? They’ve both been very candid that the full effects of the surge just simply can’t be analyzed yet, and can’t be analyzed properly until September. The current spending bill has _two_ dates in which Congress is supposed to get a progress report for a reason. Petraeus and Odierno have been saying pretty much since the surge started that its efficacy can’t be properly analyzed until the full report in September. The specific goals that were set, were, in fact, optimistic and unrealistic crap. They weren’t goals set by professional military men like Petraeus and Odierno because they would have known better, the administration has to be criticized for a hilarious level of stupid optimism in agreeing to those goals. However, if you guys have actually paid attention to any of the highly informative reports that Odierno has made thus far you’d see his assessment is that the current combat operations in Baghdad and the surrounding areas are going very well. They’re hitting insurgent groups in ways they’ve never hit them before, and they’re learning from past failures. In the past anytime we’ve successfully cleared insurgents out of an area, we’ve withdrawn combat forces or switched security responsibility over to the Iraqi Security Forces. What happens? The insurgents hide for a few months then come back. This time the military is making commitments to keep soldiers in an area for much longer periods of time. They’ve also had successes in destroying IED factories and disrupting supply lines all the way to other cities, where some insurgent groups operating in Baghdad have been getting supplies. The current approach has been the most successful operations in Baghdad since we drove Saddam Hussein’s forces out of the city in 2003, it’s been a holistic approach that has involved forward deployments throughout the city, and most importantly surrounding areas where large weapons caches used by insurgents had until now been left unmolested. So the surge may certainly fail, but the stuff Petraeus and Odierno have been saying is promising, although they both warn that it is too early to make a general assessment be it negative or positive. What is definitely certain is that you can’t judge whether or not the surge is failing right now. That’s the opinion of the military leaders in Iraq who are implementing the surge, and that has been their line for _months_ now, that the surge could not be properly assessed at this stage. The final troops who were supposed to be sent over as part of the surge haven’t even been in theater that long at present. I understand the reasons for saying the surge has already failed though, people who oppose the Iraq war have reached a point where “Iraq = failure” is one of the core principles of their lives. It’s like creationists, they’ll always do everything in the world to convince themselves that evolution is tripe. Iraq defeatists will do everything to convince themselves that Iraq is failing, no matter the actual evidence. Someone with a true interest in intellectual honesty would analyze the situation in Iraq based not on pre-conceived biases but on what’s actually happening there. For several years, doing that would have lead one to the conclusion that things are doing _badly_. However each time you look at the situation you have to be primarily interested in the _present tense_ as well as the _future tense_ framing your entire opinion on Iraq based on past failures is the thought process that people who want to convince themselves Iraq is the worst thing ever engage in. Edit: Here is a [link](http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3998) to Odierno’s most recent press conference, in case anyone happened to miss it. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2007, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-government-misses-all-targets/411165/11 "2007-07-11T16:39:53Z")
This is all from a Department of Defense press briefing, so I do not believe there are any copyright issues in copying some of it directly (the briefing in its entirety is available at the link above, I’ve omitted Odierno’s opening statement and several of the less interesting questions) to show the kind of questions Odierno has answered and how: > [@](#): > > Q General Odierno, Barbara Starr from CNN. Even with this very detailed assessment you’ve given us here this morning, you’ve been down this road so many times before in so many operations. What fundamentally long term will be different about this one, and what will make the difference? Will U.S. troops stay in these areas that they have entered? How long? And what does that possibly mean for your assessment now about the need for the length of the surge? > > ``` > GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah, what I would I say is in fact that is the most important part of this operation, and it's what we call the phase three and four part of the operation, and that is maintaining and sustaining security for the populace once it's been cleared. And our ability to do that is the fundamental difference. With the amount of forces that we now have, we will be able to stay in these areas I just pointed out, these areas in fact where we've had either no or very little capability to do this previously. So the Iraqi security forces will be able to sustain and continue to improve their ability to maintain security. > > As we go into Baqubah and clear, the key piece will be the follow-on operation of Iraqi police, Iraqi army and coalition forces maintaining key areas within Baqubah to maintain that security; down in Arab Jabour and Salman Pak, the same thing -- our ability to stay there over time and sustain ourselves. > > In terms of how long the surge would have to last in order to accommodate this will totally depend on how well the Iraqi security forces are able to take over a large majority of this security, so that will be an assessment that we have to conduct as we continue this operation down the road. > > ``` > [@](#): > > ``` > MR. WHITMAN: Jonathan. > > Q General, Jonathan Karl with ABC News. Can you give us a sense of, with this operation under way, how many of the additional surge forces are in the city of Baghdad itself, and how many are outside of Baghdad, in the belts and up in Baqubah? And then secondly, can you bring me up to date on the efforts to reach out to these tribal groups and former insurgent groups? What -- (inaudible) -- be prepared to see next on that front? > > GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah -- and it's difficult, because we have clearly task organized our forces, but within Baghdad itself, the surge has added 12 battalions and two brigade headquarters within Baghdad itself, a significant amount of combat power...... > > .....So we have been able to use these not only to secure inside of Baghdad but the perimeter itself. And I thank you for asking me the question about the reconciliation, because that's an important one. > > I want to make one thing very clear: We are not arming these groups. > > I have done -- we just took a hard look at this, and the best I can tell, we armed 10 security detachment personnel for a mayor in one town because he was being threatened, and so we did give him 10 AK- 47s. Beyond that, we have not given weapons to any insurgents groups. They have plenty of weapons. > > The point about reconciliation is, I want those weapons to be used against al Qaeda and not against coalition forces or Iraqi security forces. That's the point about reconciliation. These groups are reaching out to us and we are reaching back. They want to fight al Qaeda, and we think they can help us. And there's a few things that they have to do. > > And finally, the key point is we want them, then, to connect them to the government of Iraq, and we will ultimately connect them to the government of Iraq. And that's when we'll have successful reconciliation. First, turn your weapons away from coalition-Iraqi security forces. Second, let's link them back into the government of Iraq and get them involved in the Iraqi security force structure. That's our goal with the reconciliation. > > We have groups reaching out. We had a group that used to be part of the 1920 Revolutionary Brigade, who has helped us in Baqubah. We did not supply them with weapons. What did they do? They showed us in one area in one day 16 deep-buried IEDs -- which protected our forces. And what did they want? They wanted us to help them to defeat al Qaeda in their neighborhoods. > > In Radwaniyah, which is south of Baghdad, in the area where we've reached out to some former Sunnis and we are now working with them, we have not given them weapons. But they have shown us that they would like to join the Iraqi security forces, so linking them up with the government of Iraq. Since we've done that, our "found and cleared" rate for IEDs in that area is 80 percent -- 80 percent -- where the normal "found and cleared" rate is about 40 percent. That's what we're trying to achieve. > > So we think it's an extremely important thing. We are working it very carefully and we are working it very closely with the government of Iraq. > > ``` > [@](#): > > ``` > Q General, Pauline Jelinek with the Associated Press. Could you talk a little bit about what you've seen of ISF performance of late and how confident you are that they'll be able -- be capable of this follow-through that you're talking about, be able to maintain whatever gains are made in this fighting. > > GEN. ODIERNO: Every day I see the Iraqi security forces getting better. I see the army continuing to get better, I see the army continue to grow. They are now getting additional equipment in; they have armored vehicles that are now coming in. They are staying and fighting. They are taking casualties. It comes down to can we build them fast enough, can they produce the leaders necessary in order for them to do the things that they need to do to secure themselves? I see progress being made. What I don't know is when they're going to be able to do it. I mean, that's -- when are they going to have enough forces, enough leaders to sustain this over time? It could be this fall, because we continue to build and they continue to improve. It might take a little bit longer than that -- it might be till the spring, I don't know. But that's what we have to continue work with them. > > We are producing 7,500 new soldiers every five weeks. So we are doing it in a very quick pace. They are going through very good initial training, but then we have to get them to their units and continue to do unit training. The government of Iraq, along with our assistance, are attacking what I see as the fundamental problem, and that's the sectarian nature of some of the units. And they are attacking that. We are finding out who is acting in a sectarian way and we are eliminating. They have fired 17 out of 24 battalion commanders in the national police. > > They have replaced a large number of the brigade commanders. They are replacing the leadership that are involved in sectarian violence. That's a positive sign, and that's one of the other things that we have to have done in order for us to be successful. > > ``` And: > [@](#): > > Q (Off mike) – I guess it goes back to Barbara’s question of, if they aren’t ready when the fighting is over, you think, maybe by the end of the summer, how much of the follow-on will U.S. forces themselves have to do? > > ``` > GEN. ODIERNO: Well, again, I can't answer that question. I mean, maybe I'll answer it at the end of the summer. What I don't know is, again, how much they'll be able to take over and how much coalition force will still be needed. We'll make that determination. And if we think -- if I think I need it through December, I'll say that. If I think we need a little bit longer, I will say that, but I don't know right now. And I'm not going to guess because, you know, it doesn't do me any good to guess. I mean, I could give you an educated guess obviously, but I'm not going to do that. > > ``` I think it is obvious from Odierno’s responses that he doesn’t know how well, in the grand scheme of things, the operation is going at present. For whatever reason I think that I will put the assessment of the military leader who is actually overseeing combat operations in Baghdad higher in credibility than I will the opinions of any individual poster on the SDMB. So while it looks like there’s a great deal of uncertainty, I think there have been some very promising developments. It is unfortunate that the news media does not report on these things very often or very prominently, but instead reports on how many dead bodies there are in a given week. It creates a very simplistic view of war in both the eyes of the public and decision makers who should know better. There are many ways to assess the success or failure of a military operation, strictly focusing on the number of casualties really isn’t a valid way to assess success or failure. You have to look at the number of casualties in the context of how many of the enemy have been killed, how much their efforts have been set back, and the size of the operation as a whole. I mean, if you have 7500 soldiers in a battle against 7500 enemy and you lose 6500 and they lose 4000, but you drive them out, that’s arguably a pretty Pyrrhic victory. However if you lose say, 5,000 out of 120,000, and you have achieved key strategic goals and done great damage to the enemy, then that’s an acceptable level of loss. Look at the casualty rate during the Normandy invasion, in some cases it was very high, sometimes high casualty rates are acceptable and sometimes they aren’t. You can’t make that determination without looking within the context of the actual battles themselves, just looking exclusively at the number of dead with no frame of reference is a terrible way to analyze things and it is a trap many people fall into because the mainstream media tends to report almost exclusively on the number of military dead on our side and civilian dead. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2007, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-government-misses-all-targets/411165/12 "2007-07-11T16:41:50Z")
As for the question about the political implications of this, I don’t think there are any, I think enough members of Congress are honest enough that they won’t try to effect major change until after the second report, they put in the two progress reports for a reason. I also think it is either an act of wishful thinking or pure foolishness on behalf of the anti-war crowd to start postulating about a complete withdrawal. Congress has always had the power to force a withdrawal, your Democratic leaders have shown very clearly they are not going to exercise this power. You are just setting yourselves up for disappointment if you think any change in Iraq is going to change that stance, the Democrats have spoken, and they have spoken lightly and without force. They do not have the willpower to contradict the President and force a withdrawal, that isn’t going to change, for the duration of Bush’s Presidency. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2007, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-government-misses-all-targets/411165/13 "2007-07-11T16:59:39Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] Congress has always had the power to force a withdrawal, your Democratic leaders have shown very clearly they are not going to exercise this power. You are just setting yourselves up for disappointment if you think any change in Iraq is going to change that stance, the Democrats have spoken, and they have spoken lightly and without force. They do not have the willpower to contradict the President and force a withdrawal, that isn’t going to change, for the duration of Bush’s Presidency. [/QUOTE] It isn’t willpower that’s lacking, it’s votes. When enough Republican senators come to their senses this will all change. Snowe, Hagel, Lugar, Domenici are but the first of what will soon be a critical mass that will end this madness. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2007, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-government-misses-all-targets/411165/14 "2007-07-11T19:43:24Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Huh? No, it doesn’t. It’s like people are being willfully ignorant here. Maybe the surge is a guaranteed failure, maybe it isn’t. It’s still too early to see, have you guys not heard anything Odierno and Petraeus have been saying? They’ve both been very candid that the full effects of the surge just simply can’t be analyzed yet, and can’t be analyzed properly until September. The current spending bill has two dates in which Congress is supposed to get a progress report for a reason. Petraeus and Odierno have been saying pretty much since the surge started that its efficacy can’t be properly analyzed until the full report in September. Yeah, the same shit we’ve been hearing for years. Over and over again, for the last several years, someone in the administration would say “the next six months are going to be critical.” Then, six months later, they would say “the next six months will be critical.” What they never said was “the _last_ six months _were_ critical, and they were a total disaster.” So now it’s just more of the same, kick the can down the road a little farther, and a little farther, and a little farther, until it’s no longer your problem and you can blame your successor for the failure. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2007, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-government-misses-all-targets/411165/15 "2007-07-11T21:35:09Z")
I don’t know if Iraqi government has missed all targets…but this article on [CNN](http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/11/iraq.main/index.html) seems encouraging. > [@](#): > > BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) – Civilians helped coalition and Iraqi forces conduct a massive raid on an al Qaeda hideout in the town of Sherween, leaving 20 suspected terrorists dead and 20 more in coalition custody, the U.S. military said Wednesday. > > A member of a Sunni militia guards two suspected al Qaeda member in Diyala province Wednesday. > > The militants were caught off guard when U.S. aircraft dropped eight 2,000-pound bombs and 14 quarter-ton bombs on river crossings and a bridge in the town northeast of Baghdad, said Staff Maj. Gen. Abdul Kareem. > > Kareem, who commands the Iraqi Security Forces in Diyala province, said the bombings isolated the terrorists who had infiltrated Sherween. The town’s residents fought alongside the Iraqi forces during the raid, helping them kill and capture the terrorists, a U.S. military news release said. > > “This operation was very important for the people of Sherween because we were able to find a very big hideout for the terrorists,” Kareem said of Operation Saber Guardian, which began early Tuesday. “It was a very big surprise for the terrorists and the people that support them.” > > The raid will have a political impact on Diyala, which the U.S. military says has become a hotbed for al Qaeda terrorists who fled Baghdad after the U.S.-led security crackdown there, said Maj. John Woodward, executive officer of the U.S. troops involved in the operation. > > The raid will help “facilitate Sunni resistance fighting in the Muqdadiya area as the people have grown tired of the destruction al Qaeda offers,” he said. Looking at a map, this seems to be in central Iraq…not northern Iraq. Thats sort of…interesting, no? Not that this makes everything all goodness and light…but perhaps something to think on when everything seems so gloom and doom these days. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2007, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-government-misses-all-targets/411165/16 "2007-07-11T22:18:18Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > The specific goals that were set, were, in fact, optimistic and unrealistic crap. They weren’t goals set by professional military men like Petraeus and Odierno because they would have known better, the administration has to be criticized for a hilarious level of stupid optimism in agreeing to those goals. Well gosh, now they tell us. It would have been nice if Petraeus had mentioned that the Administration’s stated benchmarks were “in fact optimistic and unrealistic crap” back when he was [discussing them with the Senate Armed Services Committee after his nomination last January](http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=or-110-1-13#Link3): > [@](#): > > GEN. PETRAEUS: […] I want to assure you that should I determine that the new strategy cannot succeed, I will provide such an assessment. […] > > SEN. BILL NELSON: When you come to testify before us again with the civilian leadership at your side, will you be silent if your civilian leaders provide false or misleading information? > > GEN. PETRAEUS: No, sir. Hmmm. So since, according to you, the administration **was** in fact providing “false or misleading information” by telling us that a bunch of “optimistic and unrealistic crap” was a realistic set of goals for Iraqi progress, I wonder how come General Petraeus didn’t tell us so. > [@Martin Hyde](#): > > For whatever reason I think that I will put the assessment of the military leader who is actually overseeing combat operations in Baghdad higher in credibility than I will the opinions of any individual poster on the SDMB. Credibility isn’t just about professional expertise and insider knowledge but also about trustworthiness. I have to say I’d rank General Petraeus’s credibility somewhat higher if he hadn’t shown himself willing to collude with the administration in deceiving Congress and the public about what constitutes a realistically attainable goal in Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2007, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-government-misses-all-targets/411165/17 "2007-07-11T22:35:58Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] Well gosh, now they tell us. It would have been nice if Petraeus had mentioned that the Administration’s stated benchmarks were “in fact optimistic and unrealistic crap” back when he was [discussing them with the Senate Armed Services Committee after his nomination last January](http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=or-110-1-13#Link3): Hmmm. So since, according to you, the administration **was** in fact providing “false or misleading information” by telling us that a bunch of “optimistic and unrealistic crap” was a realistic set of goals for Iraqi progress, I wonder how come General Petraeus didn’t tell us so. Credibility isn’t just about professional expertise and insider knowledge but also about trustworthiness. I have to say I’d rank General Petraeus’s credibility somewhat higher if he hadn’t shown himself willing to collude with the administration in deceiving Congress and the public about what constitutes a realistically attainable goal in Iraq. [/QUOTE] While I share your pessimism over progress in the Iraq War, I think some stuff is being lost in translation here. The “goals” that were referenced in the OP are the goals of the Iraqi government that they set for themselves, not the US government. And just because Martin says he thinks they were unrealistic doesn’t mean that Petreaus thought they were. Nor does it mean that Petreaus is going to offer a bunch of BS when he next gives an update to Congress, although I would expect Bush to do so. Let’s give Petraeus a chance and see what he has to say. I also don’t expect Petraeus to throw up his hands at this point and declare the surge a failure when the full compliment of troops has only been over there for 1 month, despite what the OP says on the matter. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2007, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-government-misses-all-targets/411165/18 "2007-07-11T22:45:01Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] I don’t know if Iraqi government has missed all targets…but this article on [CNN](http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/11/iraq.main/index.html) seems encouraging. [/QUOTE] I hear that coalition forces control nearly _half_ of Baghdad these days, still some of that progress might be better directed towards securing _important_ parts of the capital: [Shelling in Green Zone kills 3](http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq11jul11,0,5216733.story?coll=la-home-center) > [@](#): > > At least 20 mortar rounds and Katyusha rockets struck the fortified Green Zone on Tuesday afternoon, killing an American service member and two other people in an attack on the heart of U.S. and Iraqi government facilities in the capital. > > Those killed included an Iraqi and a person whose nationality was unknown, according to a statement released by the U.S. Embassy. About 18 people were injured, including two U.S. military personnel and three American contract employees, the statement said. > … > A U.S. Embassy spokesman said he could not confirm whether the embassy was a target, and that the frequent attacks on the Green Zone are not a barometer of the security situation in the capital. > > “There’s fire into the Green Zone virtually every day, so I can’t draw any conclusions about the security situation based on that,” he said. > … > U.N. and U.S. military leaders acknowledged last month that militants were increasingly targeting the area. There were about 39 attacks in May, compared with 17 in March, according to a U.N. report. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2007, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-government-misses-all-targets/411165/19 "2007-07-11T23:02:49Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > The “goals” that were referenced in the OP are the goals of the Iraqi government that they set for themselves, not the US government. I don’t get you. Both reports seem to be talking about the same set of so-called “benchmarks” that were agreed upon in January by the US and Iraqi governments. From the OP’s link: > [@](#): > > GOP support for the war has eroded steadily since Bush’s decision in January to send some 30,000 additional troops to Iraq. At the time, Bush said the Iraqis agreed to meet certain benchmarks, such as enacting a law to divide the nation’s oil reserves. […] > > White House Press Secretary Tony Snow on Monday tried to lower expectations on the report, contending that all of the additional troops had just gotten in place and it would be unrealistic to expect major progress by now. > > “You are not going to expect all the benchmarks to be met at the beginning of something,” Snow said. “I’m not sure everyone’s going to get an `A’ on the first report.” From the transcript of the January hearings that I linked to earlier: > [@](#): > > SEN. LEVIN: All right. Now, we understand from columnist David Broder and from what you’ve said here this morning that you’re willing to provide a regular report every couple weeks on Iraqi progress on meeting the agreed-upon benchmarks. Is that accurate? > > GEN. PETRAEUS: Sir, I’d be happy to provide updates to this body on whatever basis. I’d like to make sure it’s long enough so that it’s meaningful and yet certainly short enough so that you can keep track of what’s going on. [This article](http://theiraqinsider.blogspot.com/2007/06/benchmarks-for-iraq-government-in-final.html) lays out what the specified “benchmarks” are: > [@](#): > > The Supp [FY 2007 Supplemental spending package] states that the "United States strategy in Iraq, hereafter, shall be conditioned on the Iraqi government meeting benchmarks.” Eighteen specific benchmarks are laid out and the President is required to submit a report to Congress on the status of the benchmarks no later than July 15, 2007, and to submit a second report no later than September 15. […] Prior to the September report, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (Crocker) and the Commander of the Multi-National Forces in Iraq (Petraeus) must be made available to testify before Congress. > > Here is the text of the benchmarks in full. > > Benchmarks For The Iraq Government > > (1) Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and then completing the constitutional review. > > (2) Enacting and implementing legislation on de-Baathification. > > (3) Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources of the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner. [That’s the one mentioned in the above quote from the OP’s link.] > > (4) Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions. > > (5) Enacting and implementing legislation establishing an Independent High Electoral Commission, provincial elections law, provincial council authorities, and a date for provincial elections. > > (6) Enacting and implementing legislation addressing amnesty. > > (7) Enacting and implementing legislation establishing a strong militia disarmament program to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the Constitution of Iraq. > > (8) Establishing supporting political, media, economic, and services committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan. > > (9) Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations. > > (10) Providing Iraqi commanders with all authorities to execute this plan and to make tactical and operational decisions, in consultation with U.S commanders, without political intervention, to include the authority to pursue all extremists, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias. > > (11) Ensuring that the Iraqi Security Forces are providing even handed enforcement of the law. > > (12) Ensuring that, according to President Bush, Prime Minister Maliki said `the Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation’. > > (13) Reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminating militia control of local security. > > (14) Establishing all of the planned joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad. > > (15) Increasing the number of Iraqi security forces units capable of operating independently. > > (16) Ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected. > > (17) Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis. > > (18) Ensuring that Iraq’s political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the Iraqi Security Forces. > [@John Mace](#): > > And just because **Martin** says he thinks they were unrealistic doesn’t mean that Petreaus thought they were. Sure. But we can’t have it both ways. If the benchmarks **were** in fact “optimistic and unrealistic crap” that Petraeus himself “would have known better” than to believe in, then why didn’t he blow the whistle on them back in January, as he promised he would do? On the other hand, if the benchmarks **were** realistic within the projected timetable of the “surge”, then why haven’t any of them been achieved yet? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2007, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-government-misses-all-targets/411165/20 "2007-07-11T23:12:35Z")
[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley] Yeah, the same shit we’ve been hearing for years. Over and over again, for the last several years, someone in the administration would say “the next six months are going to be critical.” Then, six months later, they would say “the next six months will be critical.” What they never said was “the _last_ six months _were_ critical, and they were a total disaster.” So now it’s just more of the same, kick the can down the road a little farther, and a little farther, and a little farther, until it’s no longer your problem and you can blame your successor for the failure. [/QUOTE] General Petraeus isn’t part of the Administration, he hasn’t been saying those things for years, he is saying them now. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-government-misses-all-targets/411165.md?page=2)