Surge - The Iraqi Benchmarks One Year Later

Great Debates
1

Today is the one year anniversary of the announcement of the surge. So how has it done in achieving the benchmarks that laid for the Iraqi government? Let’s look at the benchmarks:

The Iraqi government to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November 2007.

Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.

The Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects.

Iraqi to hold provincial elections at some point in 2007.

The Iraqi government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.

Have any of these benchmarks been met?

2

If you don’t appreciate this line of thought you can tell me to shut up and go away and that’ll be fine. But really, why worry about the Iraq benchmarks? Why attach any importance to them? They were crafted in the bubble of the U.S. Congress. These have been handed off to a Baghdad political enclave surrounded and secured by an enormous amounts of U.S. soldiers, protecting them from their own countrymen. Baghdad resembles a city state more than the supposed center of political power in Iraq.

Let’s say, somehow, that all the benchmarks are satisfactorily met, even the dismembering of the militias and the passing of the oil law.

So, does that mean we’re leaving? No.

Let’s say, more likely, than they are never met. So? Does that mean we’re not leaving? No. As long as one understands that, eventually, we will have to pull out several tens to a hundred thousand troops because the current occupation is unsustainable. Whatever happens, we are leaving behind considerable garrisons so we can have a long, enduring relationship with Iraq for many decades to come.

Whether you’re against or for the occupation, I just don’t see how these are useful. The logic either side can use “works” no matter what happens. Tails I win, heads you lose.

3

Our company issues benchmarks every year - targets to be met, commitments to be kept. They’re useful in that they help people focus, and they tell us what the company feels is important to its long term profitability. So we try, to varying degrees, to hit those benchmarks. Invariably, in many years we miss them. Some years we exceed them. What do you think the company does if we miss? Fire everyone? Shut down the offices that missed their numbers? No. They analyze why the benchmarks weren’t met, try to understand if they were overly optimistic, or whether they have problems internally which need addressing, or whether unforeseen problems and issues are at fault. Then they issue new benchmarks for the next year.

Why would this be any different? If there are clear signs of progress and a growing possibility that a peaceful conclusion can be found which results in a reasonably stable Iraq which is reasonably friendly to the U.S., and the alternative is civil war, a rise once again in terrorism in the region, and possibly the war spilling over into the greater Middle East, why would you stamp your feet and pull everyone out because some arbitrary numbers weren’t met?

There has been progress. Just today it was announced that al-Anbar province, which not long ago was one of the most dangerous places in Iraq, is being handed back over to the Iraqi military and government because of the progress that has been made there. That’s part of one the benchmarks completed.

Iraq now has more electricity than it did before the war. The economy is booming. Refugees are returning rapidly (50,000 recently). GDP growth is in double digits. Thousands of new businesses have been registered in the past couple of years. Violence is way, way down. Iran is not shipping weapons in any more, or if it is it’s in greatly reduced numbers. There’s a long way to go, and there are still lots of ways it could all fail, but right now, the trajectory is looking pretty good.

I think the biggest change in political strategy is that as the U.S. military realized that the top-down leadership was ineffectual and gridlocked, they decided to build support from the bottom up, rebuilding the economy and working with local political institutions, hoping that the Iraqi people themselves will start demanding concessions and an end to violence, and will therefore be now more willing to work together to seek compromise. This seems like a reasonable idea, and there are signs that it’s working.

As for the benchmarks, I’d do exactly what our company does. Look at why the benchmarks failed, try to determine why and if there are any course corrections you should take. For the things that went right, put more resources or focus there. Then come up with a reasonable set of benchmarks again.

4

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Our company issues benchmarks every year - targets to be met, commitments to be kept. They’re useful in that they help people focus, and they tell us what the company feels is important to its long term profitability. So we try, to varying degrees, to hit those benchmarks. Invariably, in many years we miss them. Some years we exceed them. What do you think the company does if we miss? Fire everyone? Shut down the offices that missed their numbers? No. They analyze why the benchmarks weren’t met, try to understand if they were overly optimistic, or whether they have problems internally which need addressing, or whether unforeseen problems and issues are at fault. Then they issue new benchmarks for the next year.

[/QUOTE]

On the other hand I worked for a leading computer company that had benchmarks for design progress, which were mostly missed. Oh, some were hit - for instance detailed design for blocks which weren’t correct yet. They plowed right on with the project, and it was a billion dollar disaster - and a disappointment to this day. If they canned it a lot of people would have looked bad, but it would have been better.

Here is a chart showing electricity production recovering presurge. I couldn’t find anything more recent. Any data showing it really recovered? It looks like Saddam did a much better job in 2001 then we did.

Pre-surge there were predictions that Iraqi casualties would go down and US casualties would go up, both true. But the purpose of the surge was to give cover for the Iraqi government to get it together. That was considered critical, and it hasn’t happened. I believe the benchmarks were from the administration, not Congress, by the way. Without the government really governing, how do you know that the insurgents aren’t biding their time? They are not stupid. The surge has been a failure based on the original goals, we won’t know for sure if it turned out to be a good idea or not until we stop holding things together and withdraw at least the number of troops sent for the surge.

5

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
If there are clear signs of progress
[/QUOTE]

If you can pick the metrics of progress post hoc you can always find progress. The reason for the benchmarks was so we could finally have objective measures to judge progress.

6

The benchmarks help us to evaluate the success of the surge strategy.

Based upon the criteria originally put forth by the Bush administration, the surge failed. Period. There was little or no progress towards political reconciliation.
On the other hand, the fighting has eased somewhat. As of Nov 2007, unemployment remained unchanged at 33%, but electricity production increased to 4.1 GW, up from 3.7 the previous year and meeting the pre-war level of 4.0 for the first time. So the economy improved somewhat, although lowering unemployment will be critical if we want to relocate young men away from the Sunni or Shiite insurgency.

7

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]

On the other hand, the fighting has eased somewhat. As of Nov 2007, unemployment remained unchanged at 33%, but electricity production increased to 4.1 GW, up from 3.7 the previous year and meeting the pre-war level of 4.0 for the first time. So the economy improved somewhat, although lowering unemployment will be critical if we want to relocate young men away from the Sunni or Shiite insurgency.
[/QUOTE]

I know nothing about anything, but isn’t 33% a mind-bogglingly scary number of people unemployed? Or does that not take into account little mini-enterprises like concession stands, shoe-shiners, etc.?

8

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
On the other hand, the fighting has eased somewhat. As of Nov 2007, unemployment remained unchanged at 33%, but electricity production increased to 4.1 GW, up from 3.7 the previous year and meeting the pre-war level of 4.0 for the first time.
[/QUOTE]
33% is huge, as said. And how much of that electricity is actually getting to anyone ? And for how many hours of the day ?

And as has been pointed out before, fighting has somewhat died down in large part because the people doing the killing are done, for the moment; they’ve ethnically cleansed their little factional zone. It’s not really progress when the people we are supposedly trying to stop win. And any lowering of violence that really is due to the temporary surge is temporary, anyway.

And there’s still little problems like the lack of food, cholera, no clean water, a fled professional class, millions of refugees, and on and on.

And where are you getting any of these claims anyway ? If it’s from the US government, the military, or our puppet Iraqi government, or anyone associated with them, then it isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

9

If anybody wants my data, here it is: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/12/22/opinion/22opchart.large.jpg

Spin away.

Is 33% unemployment high? Well, it’s a war zone, gang: what do you expect? In Nov 2003, it was 50%. Under such circumstances, one wage earner will support a whole raft of people.

Der:
------ It’s not really progress when the people we are supposedly trying to stop win.

Oh. Really. Generally the way things work is that one side wins, then the war stops. US security interests hinge on the extent to which Al Q operates training camps in Iraq. If the Sunnis or Shiites sort themselves into separate enclaves[sup]1[/sup], then the US can back off and hand the problem over to the government. We need a manageable situation, like Northern Ireland during the 1970s.

That happened today. Ban eased on Saddam-era officials

This is good news. Look, I wish we hadn’t invaded. But methinks the Iraqi people have received their share of hardship. So I’m glad that one year later, we’ve finally (perhaps) hit one of the benchmarks. I hope the new law has been crafted adequately.

Apropos Nothing
For more on day to day life in Bagdhad, set aside your newspaper and check out this blog: http://washingtonbureau.typepad.com/baghdad/
[sup]1[/sup]I congratulate myself on my mastery of euphemism.

10

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And where are you getting any of these claims anyway ? If it’s from the US government, the military, or our puppet Iraqi government, or anyone associated with them, then it isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.
[/QUOTE]
It’s from The Brookings Institution, who made it their mission to track these things in the beginning of the war. They issue a monthly report. (Incidentally, there’s a break in the civilian casualty series, so interpreting that very important variable requires a lot of work.)

Kudos to Brookings. http://www.brookings.edu/saban/iraq-index.aspx

11

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
Oh. Really. Generally the way things work is that one side wins, then the war stops. US security interests hinge on the extent to which Al Q operates training camps in Iraq.
[/QUOTE]
Garbage. Al Qaeda is only a tiny factor in Iraq, and would be none at all if we left. And wars like this can drag off and on indefinitely, not just stop when one side “wins”. And at any rate, we can’t even properly define “winning” here, much less achieve it - and we aren’t the ones who won that aspect of it, anyway.

12

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Garbage. Al Qaeda is only a tiny factor in Iraq, and would be none at all if we left. And wars like this can drag off and on indefinitely, not just stop when one side “wins”. And at any rate, we can’t even properly define “winning” here, much less achieve it - and we aren’t the ones who won that aspect of it, anyway.
[/QUOTE]
Er, maybe I wasn’t clear. Al Q is a pretty small player and the side that will win will be the Shiites (Al Q represents a portion of the Sunni; Al Q is one of many insurgent groups and are not overwhelmingly powerful …and actually we’re talking about Al Q in Iraq which is different than Al Q anyway.)

And victory for the Sunnis and Shiites is pretty well defined locally: it involves clearing out the opposition from your neighborhood.

Yes war is bad: no kidding. But some say that war never solves anything: that’s just wishful thinking. The US Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WW II: quite a bit was resolved after these conflicts.

13

Rebaathification passed today. It’s to soon to tell what it means.

14

NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

15

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
If anybody wants my data, here it is: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/12/22/opinion/22opchart.large.jpg

Spin away.

[/QUOTE]

…that graph is disgracefully misleading. Despite your assertion and despite the impression given by the New York Times graph, electricity has exceeded 4.0 GW in Febuary, March, June, July, August and September of 2004, it exceeded this amount in June, July, August, September of 2005, and in June, July, August, September, October of 2006, and in June, July, August, September October November and December of 2007. (Citation provided by Measure for Measure, December 2007 Iraq Index Page 37)

The amount of electricity available nationwide has constantly flucuated since the invasion in 2003: and we are currently on another downward dip. Considering the billions that have been spent on reconstruction, the electricity situation (despite assertions in this thread) has really only stayed the same as the situation pre-war. In Baghdad people enjoy a fabulous 8.9 hours of electricity per day: where pre-war they experienced between 16 and 24 hours. I challenge anyone to show me how this can be seen as an improvement.

16

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
Yes war is bad: no kidding. But some say that war never solves anything: that’s just wishful thinking. The US Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WW II: quite a bit was resolved after these conflicts.
[/QUOTE]
The war has created problems, not solved them. And a great many of the “problems solved” in those wars were “solved” in the same sense that dropping your cat in molten steel “solves” his flea problem.

17

[QUOTE=Banquet Bear]
…that graph is disgracefully misleading. Despite your assertion and despite the impression given by the New York Times graph, electricity has exceeded 4.0 GW in Febuary, March, June, July, August and September of 2004, it exceeded this amount in June, July, August, September of 2005, and in June, July, August, September, October of 2006, and in June, July, August, September October November and December of 2007. (Citation provided by Measure for Measure, December 2007 Iraq Index Page 37)

The amount of electricity available nationwide has constantly fluctuated since the invasion in 2003: and we are currently on another downward dip. Considering the billions that have been spent on reconstruction, the electricity situation (despite assertions in this thread) has really only stayed the same as the situation pre-war. In Baghdad people enjoy a fabulous 8.9 hours of electricity per day: where pre-war they experienced between 16 and 24 hours. I challenge anyone to show me how this can be seen as an improvement.
[/QUOTE]
BB gets partial credit for digging into the original source. (BTW everybody: the unemployment numbers are basically garbage, as far as I can tell).

Electricity is the best single measure I know of for the extent to which the Iraqi economy operates during wartime chaos.

Yes, the figures fluctuate, which is why you can’t just eyeball the data. Here’s my spreadsheet:



		Iraq	Iraq	Bagdhad
		MWH	hours	hours
2006	Sep	4000	10.8	5.3
2006	Oct	4000	12.3	6.7
2006	Nov	3700	10.9	6.9
2006	Dec	3500	9.2	6.7
	Ave	3800	10.8	6.4
				
2007	Sep	4860	11.8	7.4
2007	Oct	4725	12.9	9
2007	Nov	4140	12.3	9
2007	Dec	4240	11.9	8.9
	Ave	4491	12.2	8.6
Summary				
Pre-war		3958	4-8	16-24
Fall 06		3800	10.8	6.4
Fall 07		4491	12	9

MWH represents the total electricity available in the country: it was higher last Fall than in the previous Fall. Same for hours of electricity in both Bagdhad and Iraq as a whole.

Look, the Iraqi civil war isn’t over. Nationally, electrical service is better than levels under the Saddam sanctions regime, but Baghdad has unsurprisingly fared worse.

I mentioned the US Revolutionary and Civil Wars. I see we have a difference of opinion. In my view, replacing colonial occupation with self-rule is a good solution to an underlying problem of governance. As for the US conflict 60 years later, I would suggest that abolishing slavery was a good thing, and not comparable to a minor veterinary problem. Nonetheless, I also believe in free speech and welcome other observations from the Paleo-Royalist perspective.

18

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
I mentioned the US Revolutionary and Civil Wars. I see we have a difference of opinion. In my view, replacing colonial occupation with self-rule is a good solution to an underlying problem of governance.
[/QUOTE]
In other words, by invading and occupying Iraq we’ve ADDED to their problems, not solved them. On top of everything else, they have to get rid of us.