The General Accounting Office issued a report (summary, 94 page .pdf) on the New Way Forward in Iraq, popularly known as the surge. There is coverage in the Times and WaPo, and David Brooks lauds Bush's vision and resolution in pushing the surge.
From the summary (my paragraph breaks):
The New Way Forward responded to failures in prior strategies that prematurely transferred security responsibilities to Iraqi forces or belatedly responded to growing sectarian violence. Overall violence, as measured by enemy-initiated attacks, fell about 70 percent in Iraq, from about 180 attacks per day in June 2007 to about 50 attacks per day in February 2008. Security gains have largely resulted from (1) the increase in U.S. combat forces, (2) the creation of nongovernmental security forces such as Sons of Iraq, and (3) the Mahdi Army's declaration of a cease fire. Average daily attacks were at higher levels in March and April before declining in May 2008. The security environment remains volatile and dangerous.
The number of trained Iraqi forces has increased from 323,000 in January 2007 to 478,000 in May 2008; many units are leading counterinsurgency operations. However, the Department of Defense reported in March 2008 that the number of Iraqi units capable of performing operations without U.S. assistance has remained at about 10 percent....
The Iraqi government has enacted key legislation to return some Ba'athists to government, give amnesty to detained Iraqis, and define provincial powers. However, it has not yet enacted other important legislation for sharing oil resources or holding provincial elections. Efforts to complete the constitutional review have also stalled. A goal of The New Way Forward was to facilitate the Iraqis' efforts to enact all key legislation by the end of 2007.
Between 2005 and 2007, Iraq spent only 24 percent of the $27 billion it budgeted for its own reconstruction efforts. More specifically, Iraq's central ministries, responsible for security and essential services, spent only 11 percent of their capital investment budgets in 2007--down from similarly low rates of 14 and 13 percent in the 2 prior years. Violence and sectarian strife, shortage of skilled labor, and weak procurement and budgeting systems have hampered Iraq's efforts to spend its capital budgets.
Although oil production has improved for short periods, the May 2008 production level of about 2.5 million barrels per day (mbpd) was below the U.S. goal of 3 mbpd. The daily supply of electricity met only about half of demand in early May 2008. Conversely, State reports that U.S. goals for Iraq's water sector are close to being reached. The unstable security environment, corruption, and lack of technical capacity have contributed to the shortfalls.
The Departments disagreed with our recommendation, stating that The New Way Forward strategy remains valid but the strategy shall be reviewed and refined as necessary. We reaffirm the need for an updated strategy given the important changes that have occurred in Iraq since January 2007. An updated strategy should build on recent gains, address unmet goals and objectives and articulate the U.S. strategy beyond July 2008.
Times coverage is here, and the WaPo. The WaPo leads with the absence of a longer-term strategic plan to build on our initial success (shades of 2003!):
The administration lacks an updated and comprehensive Iraq strategy to move beyond the "surge" of combat troops President Bush launched in January 2007 as an 18-month effort to curtail violence and build Iraqi democracy, government investigators said yesterday.
While agreeing with the administration that violence has decreased sharply, a report released yesterday by the Government Accountability Office concluded that many other goals Bush outlined a year and a half ago in the "New Way Forward" strategy remain unmet.
The report, after a bleak GAO assessment last summer, cited little improvement in the ability of the Iraqi security forces to act independently of the U.S. military, and noted that key legislation passed by the Iraqi parliament had not been implemented while other crucial laws had not been passed. The report also judged that key Iraqi ministries spent less of their allocated budgets last year than in previous years, and said that oil and electricity production had repeatedly not met U.S. targets.
And the Times:
Beyond the declines in overall violence in Iraq, several crucial measures the Bush administration uses to demonstrate economic, political and security progress are either incorrect or far more mixed than the administration has acknowledged, according to a report released Monday by the Government Accountability Office.
Over all, the report says, the American plan for a stable Iraq lacks a strategic framework that meshes with the administration’s goals, is falling out of touch with the realities on the ground and contains serious flaws in its operational guidelines.
The Times solicits an outside expert (one more than the WaPo, for those scoring at home):
“Clearly there are substantial changes in the security situation on the ground,” said Nathan Freier, a retired Army officer who served in Iraq in 2005 and 2007 and is now a senior fellow in the international security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
The administration prefers to focus on those improvements, Mr. Freier said. But the accountability office report, which Mr. Freier read on Monday, and his own observations in Iraq contain a different message, he said.
“Iraq remains a mixed bag and will continue to do so in perpetuity, to be quite honest,” he added.
Although the Times won the battle of expert quotes the WaPo scores points for citing a newly released Pentagon report (news release) which was dated June 13 but made public yesterday, possibly in response to the GAO study. Here is the summary paragraph of the Pentagon Executive Summary:
In summary, the security, political and economic trends in Iraq continue to be positive; however, they remain fragile, reversible and uneven. Recent events in Basrah, Sadr City and elsewhere have generated new challenges and opportunities for the future. As in the past, continued progress will require Iraqi leaders to take additional selfless and nationally-oriented actions in the spirit of reconciliation and compromise if Iraq is to achieve its potential as a stable, secure, multi-ethnic and multi-sectarian democracy under the rule of law.
I don't see how any of this supports the notion that a prompt US withdrawal will improve the security situation there or push the government towards quicker and more meaningful reconciliation, but I am not a Dem military or political strategist.
Have we started the 100 year peaceful occupation already?
Posted by: Martin | June 24, 2008 at 10:41 AM
"in perpetuity, to be quite honest'. Well, he blew it for me right there.
==============================
Posted by: kim | June 24, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Of course there has been enormous progress from the surge, on all fronts. Violence wise, politically, and economically
If the benchmark is: "But we havent met 110% of all of our goals in one year" then sure, the squawking defeatists in the MSM and in the Dem party can say "we're losing!!"
Its a self writing meme, and complete bullshit, of course
Posted by: TMF | June 24, 2008 at 11:06 AM
There is a simple Dem strategy ..
George W. Bush loses
Posted by: Neo | June 24, 2008 at 11:29 AM
When did the GAO become the Wikipedia of every government program; they have experts in oil finance, law enforcement and military training, I hold about as much stock in these as the NIE's which seem to focus on the recollections of one asset (Asghari for the Iran 2007 one) ignore details like the Mousavian letter to Khameini; showing the extent of Iranian deceptions to the IAEA and the PC2 group. This does not even consider that Rouhani and Larijani continued those operations.
Posted by: narciso | June 24, 2008 at 11:38 AM
All three items are within the purview of the Corps of Engineers. Anyone caring to examine facts, rather than trust this gargle, can trace progress fairly easily by examining the Reconstruction Fact Sheets prepared monthly. The June fact sheet states:
I would note that the decision to produce 2.5 mbd is the responsibility of the Iraqi Oil Ministry, that the 4,744 megawatts is higher than Iraq ever achieved prior to 2004 (and that demand for heavily subsidized power is unlikely to ever be filled) and that contracts have been let and construction started on the remaining water projects.
I would also note that the Iraqis have the money to revamp their entire infrastructure on their own dime. They won't, of course, because the muslim sheik's propensity for keeping his serfs thoroughly immiserated hasn't changed one iota and is extraordinarily unlikely to change regardless of the composition of the government.
It's very possible that the agreement on oil pelf sharing will occurr quite soon. The Iraqi elections are scheduled for October and Maliki needs the Kurds on his side in the new government.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | June 24, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Violence is way down in Iraq, but the Iraqis aren't running their government the way Democrats want.
The Dems say Iraqi government officials need to start hiding money in refrigerators or accusing their soldiers of murder the way Congressman Murtha does. They should get involved in more shady land deals like Harry Reid or shady mortgage deals like Cris Dodd.
On top of that the Iraqis should get a guy who believes in nothing to give them Change they can believe in.
Posted by: MikeS | June 24, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Brooks' article is a good one, and hints at one of the larger truths of the past seven years, and the underlying cause of BDS: no democrat, short of fighting joe, can ever admit that Bush was right about anything, even if they get to stipulate he was wrong on everything else.
Posted by: woodford | June 24, 2008 at 11:54 AM
---
They should get involved in more shady land deals
---
Don't forget Cunningham who introduced economies of scale to the business of corruption.
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5 | June 24, 2008 at 12:01 PM
On top of that the Iraqis should get a guy who believes in nothing to give them Change they can believe in.
Maybe we could help: airlift the Obamessiah and his ego in to straighten things out.
Why, he'll sort out hundreds of years of ethnic, tribal and religious divisiveness in a matter of months, if not weeks. He'll simply explain what a distraction it is.
Posted by: Soylent Red | June 24, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Don't forget Cunningham...
Though he is a scumbag, Cunningham stands apart from the corrupt politicians I mentioned, in that Democrats actually criticized his misdeeds.
Posted by: MikeS | June 24, 2008 at 12:07 PM
---
Why, he'll sort out hundreds of years of ethnic, tribal and religious divisiveness in a matter of months
---
Funny, but someone is on the record claiming he'll accomplish this very thing.
link
---
The president's comments came after his meeting with Palestinian leaders in the West Bank, where Bush predicted that a peace treaty would be signed by the time he leaves office in 2009.
---
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5 | June 24, 2008 at 12:10 PM
...airlift the Obamessiah...
I hope McCain makes Brocko the Ambassador to Waziristan.
Posted by: MikeS | June 24, 2008 at 12:13 PM
He'll simply explain what a distraction it is.
And how it does nothing to help Michelle's children.
Posted by: Sue | June 24, 2008 at 12:24 PM
In the Dept. of Be Careful What You Wish For...
Will those concerns now be reevaluated?
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | June 24, 2008 at 12:25 PM
---
"I called upon both leaders to make sure their teams negotiate seriously, starting right now."
---
Then Bush stomped his little footsie, and all was well.
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5 | June 24, 2008 at 12:29 PM
I thought they had sent the Uighurs over to Albania, or was it Elbonia. Zinjiang Province is a nasty place, remember that's
where they sent Jack Bauer for 18 monthes.
Well not really, but it is China's Chechnya
;on the Turkestani issue. This does raise one of the issues in Boumedienne, to send the aforementioned back to Bosnia, where his crimes allegedly occurred, to Tunisia where he's from, and who following the script, will be blowing someone up in the next few years, or be an accessory to those who do.
Posted by: narciso | June 24, 2008 at 12:36 PM
narciso;
there was a James Burke SciAm series called 'Connections'; your posts are reminiscent of that column.
Have you ever read it?
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5 | June 24, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Had liberals and radicals not covered up the predations of Arafat's clique so thoroughly, maybe Hamas wouldn't have had half a chance; someone like Fayyad might have had a better chance at governing. The
Palestinians since 1920 had plenty of chances to have a state, but Haj Amin Husseini, this nephew Arafat, and now Hamas
have forestalled this possibility. Russia has been an imperial power at least since the 16th century, the on again of again campaign in the Caucasus is just the most notable example. China, when did they take over Zinjiang; it was an independent region
before.
Posted by: narciso | June 24, 2008 at 12:58 PM
"Bush is a stubborn man."
"Bush is an outrageously self-confident man."
"when it comes to Iraq, Bush was ...at his best when he was arrogantly overruling them"
Why is it that Bush is stubborn and arrogant? Perhaps Brooks is merely echoing the Democrat meme, but I think he believes this as well. Why didn't anyone in the msm call Clinton "stubborn" when he ignored the generals who told him that ethnic cleansing in Kosovo could not be stopped by bombing raids from 15,000 feet. According to the former NATO general who commanded the air forces, not only did it fail to stop the ethnic cleansing, it sped it up.
Bush had a job to do in Iraq and he has continued to do it. Finishing a job you start isn't stubborn or arrogant, it's what you're supposed to do. Of course that concept is foreign to most Democrats who only do something as long as polls tell them it's in their best interest to keep going.
Posted by: JT007 | June 24, 2008 at 01:02 PM
---
as long as polls tell them it's in their best interest
---
Maybe sometimes polls have important information; like McCain switching his stance on offshore drilling.
My position on ANWR has been to treat it like a strategic petroleum reserve. So I was against drilling until oil went over the $100 mark. Now we're over that threshold, I have no problem drilling there; it made less sense when oil was $20/bbl.
But we should still think about the strategic value of anwr; maybe drill and cap a portion of the wells to hold in reserve for emergencies.
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5 | June 24, 2008 at 01:16 PM
Presto!
Posted by: Jane | June 24, 2008 at 01:36 PM
chango!
Posted by: Jane | June 24, 2008 at 01:37 PM
I give up
Posted by: Jane | June 24, 2008 at 01:37 PM
What's with the incantation?
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5 | June 24, 2008 at 01:50 PM
Italics should be OK now
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5 | June 24, 2008 at 01:55 PM
Patrick, I hope we do send them back or say we will and that they then BEG to be allowed to stay in Gitmo.
Game,set,match.
Posted by: clarice | June 24, 2008 at 02:21 PM
Patrick R Sullivan-
Will those concerns now be reevaluated?
Doubtful, however, he will probably be able to claim political asylum here. In a twisted way its a bit funny, the Bourdieme decision was based, in part, on the amount of time it taken but every time a set of rules are drafted and the process starts, the courts step in and say "no we want something different, but we are not going to tell you exactly what it is". The case of the Uighur Muslims is a good demonstration of this-the DOD has wanted to release them since at least 2006 and has appealed to Turkey, Sweden, and Germany-they all denied asylum. Albania took some of them, but not all.
It is almost as if all those who are solcitious of human rights and the rule of law are more interested in keeping Gitmo open and the issue alive until an Obama Administration can take charge and begin the real war crimes trials-the Bush Administration officials that opened Gitmo in the first place with the first exhibit being the remaining prisoners.
Posted by: RichatUF | June 24, 2008 at 02:32 PM
bad day today for html
Posted by: RichatUF | June 24, 2008 at 02:33 PM
Posted by: bad | June 24, 2008 at 02:33 PM
what is with all this intalico?
Posted by: Jane | June 24, 2008 at 02:39 PM
mismatched tag
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5 | June 24, 2008 at 02:43 PM
I think it is ok now. No more tags until my afternoon coffee kicks in.
Posted by: RichatUF | June 24, 2008 at 02:46 PM
10% of 323,000 = 32,300
10% of 478,000 = 47,800
32,300 to 47,800 is an improvement of 48%. Or, in WaPo Land -- "little improvement".
(idjits...)
Ok, let's try some Arithmetic For Dummies (or the MSM, which is Dumber than Dummies). Ok:Posted by: cathyf | June 24, 2008 at 03:27 PM
Man, talk about a "glass half-empty" assessment. Seems to me the DoD complaint about the yardstick is spot-on. The only legitimate metric when comparing things like legislation, oil exports, electricity generation, etc. are how they've changed over time since the strategy was implemented (or the last report). But using that as a baseline would yield a positive across the board report. So they compare legislation against a wish list, oil exports to an arbitrary goal, and electricity production as a percentage of rapidly rising demand. This report is past biased into borderline dishonest, and it starts with the title: "Progress Report: Some Gains Made, Updated Strategy Needed." I'd also note the report appears to be a Democrat-only affair, citing the Chairmen of various committees, and an interim Comptroller General appointed earlier this year by an outgoing Clinton appointee. Further, the title of the cited classified report is instructive: Stabilizing Iraq: DOD Should Identify and Prioritize the Conditions Necessary for the Continued Drawdown of U.S. Forces. Note to Dems: if the goal is victory, we can leave afterward. If the goal is to leave, victory is very difficult.
But the part of this report that really stands out is the ongoing security assessment. First, the way they measure progress is in the level of enemy-initiated attacks. Which makes some sense, until you realize they classify enemy responses to ongoing security operations as such. Thus the successful operations of the Iraqi Army in Basrah contributed to a reported upsurge in violence in March. Similarly, the assumptions are fatuous. For example:
They're actually talking about two cease-fires here, one last year, and the second following their defeat in Sadr City. But rather than credit the clearing operation . . .The assessment of Iraqi security forces is also out-to-lunch. In the midst of ongoing Iraqi-initiated clearing operations, what could be easier than assessing performance of the armed forces based on results? But instead they rely on a listing of administrative assessments, when Iraqi forces in the field are in fact
Seems to me that if the inadequate security forces are accomplishing the mission, maybe they aren't so inadequate. Short version: when presented with competing security assessments from DoD and GAO, throw the latter away."taking the lead":
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 24, 2008 at 03:52 PM
Cathyf,
The quote you pulled is even better if you leave in the "However", which indicates that the positive news was caveated by negative news. News that turns out, per your logical approach, to be not bad after all.
It still amazes me that straight reportage would have yielded two positive nuggets while instead somebody? decided to turn a positive nugget into a negative through mixing percentage and absolute changes. This is simple dishonesty that the MSM excels in, as does, apparently, the GAO.
Posted by: Sweetie | June 24, 2008 at 04:38 PM
The Brooks OpEd is an interesting take, and has a reasonably accurate assessment of the shift in security environment, but the premise is seriously flawed. In particular, this claim appears more drawn from headlines than actual statements of the officers cited:
But that's not what they actually said: And that sentiment was hardly unique amongst those most familiar with the situation: Gen Casey's view was much the same. If the "surge" had just been about a troop increase, they'd have opposed it (as would I), but that's not what it was--Petraeus had outlined a very ambitious plan, complete with underlying doctrine. Abizaid was in fact against the surge, but he'd already had his turn at the wheel, and had nothing new to offer.In short, President Bush had to choose between a bunch of guys without a plan, and one guy with one. Not surprisingly, he went with Petraeus.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 24, 2008 at 05:40 PM
The Roman went through two other commanders before they employed Marius, the victor of the Jugurthan War. Closer ro home, Lincoln
had McClellan, then Burnside before settling
on Grant. Montgomery wasn't the firstchoice for the North African operation; that went to Auchinleck; who ended up in India. It takes time to develop a counter insurgency strategy like the one Petraeus developed in Mosul, but perfected at Ft. Leavenworth, with input from the likes of McMaster,(based on his experience at Tall AFar) Nagl, Mansour. It took the alienation of the tribes of the Dulaimi and Salahuddin provinces from AQ; as well as the reckoning of the Shia militias; to make it stick. It took 8-10 years for the Brits to prevail in Malaysia; and almost as long for the Americans to do so in the Phillipines.
Posted by: narciso | June 24, 2008 at 09:38 PM
About Petraeus, heh, 'He fights'.
========================
Posted by: kim | June 24, 2008 at 09:57 PM
Tom Friedman in the NYT
Posted by: Neo | June 25, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Under public financing, would Obama be allowed to “buyout” Hiliary’s debt ?
I seem to remember reading that he couldn’t.
Posted by: Neo | June 25, 2008 at 12:37 PM
I would invite the GAO report preparers to spend a little time with me in Iraq. I just finished three months down Basrah way and watched the IA manage to be "adequate" - if by "adequate" you mean "win"...
Bah.
Posted by: Major John | June 25, 2008 at 10:17 PM