Thread: The 'Benchmark' Excuse

The 'Benchmark' Excuse
Crocker and Petraeus speak some truths, if Senators are listening.

Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq, is a 36-year career diplomat who has served under seven administrations in Iran, Syria, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Pakistan. He's no partisan gunslinger. So it's worth listening to his views as Congressional Democrats and a growing number of Republicans press for a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq on the excuse that the Iraqi government hasn't met a set of political "benchmarks."

"The longer I'm here, the more I'm persuaded that Iraq cannot be analyzed by these kinds of discrete benchmarks," Mr. Crocker told the New York Times's John Burns in an interview on Saturday, referring to pending Iraqi legislation on an oil-sharing agreement and a relaxation of de-Baathification laws. "You could not achieve any of them, and still have a situation where arguably the country is moving in the right direction. And conversely, I think you could achieve them all and still not be heading towards stability, security and overall success in Iraq."

Mr. Crocker's comments are a useful reminder of the irrelevance--and disingenuousness--of much Washington commentary on Iraq. For proponents of early withdrawal, the "benchmarking" issue has provided a handy excuse to make the Iraqi government rather than al Qaeda the main culprit in the violence engulfing their country. A forthcoming Administration report indicating lagging political progress is certain to be seized on by Congress as it takes up a defense spending bill and debates an amendment ordering troop withdrawals by the fall. A proposal to mandate extended times between deployments (and thus force withdrawal) failed narrowly in the Senate yesterday, though not before winning the support of seven Republicans.


OpinionJournal - Featured Article

If you cannot view the web site, I can cut and paste the whole article here.

Whoopiedooe!

So, in your book, everyone else are not worth listening too, just this one person?

While I do not have a problem with having benchmarks to work towards, the notion that is espoused by Democrats who are invested in a defeat want these benchmarks met date certain, and if not, they will accuse this Administration and the Iraqi Parliament as failures. Therefore, we should give up on them and allow the country to descend into chaos.

This retarded and distorted view is about what the Democrats are saying. This makes about as much sense as declaring the current surge a failure before it even gets started. But that is what the moronic leadership of the Democrat party is saying.

As a veteran mentioned, we had the same kind of compromise in the Korean conflict. What we got is an over 50 year occupation on a border with a Communist nation that is still giving us problems to this day.

We had the same assumed compromise in Vietnam. What we got was a violation of that treaty and a Communist takeover of South Vietnam and Cambodia resulting in millions of lives lost and uprooted.

I guess, as is illustrative in the Democrat and mainstream media, we just can't seem to learn from history and, as a result of a campaign of ignorance, bound to repeat the mistakes of the past.

One thing is for certain, the Democrats have no problem hanging a defeat around the neck of a Republican President, but IF they have a candidate that becomes President, there is no doubt that they would not want a defeat hung around that person's neck.

Perhaps the desperation on the part of Democrats to demand a withdrawal and date certain timeline is an effort to avoid having to deal with this issue if they are successful in 2008. I think that unlikely, but it may explain their moronic and desperate attempts to declare defeat and pull out.

"For proponents of early withdrawal, the "benchmarking" issue has provided a handy excuse to make the Iraqi government rather than al Qaeda the main culprit in the violence engulfing their country."


It is not an excuse. It is a fact. Political reconciliation is the only way to end the sectarian violence. Lack of political progress just keeps it going.

The claim that AQ is the largest cause of violence is just more neocon porpoganda. All the stats on the attacks show that the VAST majority of the violence is Sunni on Shia and vice versa, not as your op-ed falsely claims, a function of AQ.

There is no solution in Iraq but a political solution. Or are you calling Patraeus a liar?

Originally Posted by Idletime

Whoopiedooe!

So, in your book, everyone else are not worth listening too, just this one person?

Do you EVER make any sense? Do you EVER have anything of substance to add to a debate?

If not, why do you post your moronic comments on EVERY thread I post; Just because?

Are you so desperate to show how patently pathetic your opinions and views really are, that you feel compelled to do it at every opportunity?

You don't need to prove it to me every day; I accept the fact that you add nothing to any debate and are profoundly uninformed.

okebrain:

Originally Posted by Distressed American

"For proponents of early withdrawal, the "benchmarking" issue has provided a handy excuse to make the Iraqi government rather than al Qaeda the main culprit in the violence engulfing their country."


It is not an excuse. It is a fact. Political reconciliation is the only way to end the sectarian violence. Lack of political progress just keeps it going.

The claim that AQ is the largest cause of violence is just more neocon porpoganda. All the stats on the attacks show that the VAST majority of the violence is Sunni on Shia and vice versa, not as your op-ed falsely claims, a function of AQ.

There is no solution in Iraq but a political solution. Or are you calling Patraeus a liar?

How am I calling Patraeus a liar? Is this a rhetorical question to the extreme nonsense you posted above?

Here are some questions for you; (1) How is an immediate withdrawal going to make the "political" situation in Iraq better or promote a political progress in Iraq? And (2) Do you REALLY think that an escalation of violence, which WILL be a direct result if we pull out, will promote better political progress? And (3) Can Democrats, or anyone here who supports a pullout, guarantee there will be political progress if we pull out?

How about an honest intellectual answer to that question instead of your typical DNC talking points?

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

How am I calling Patraeus a liar? Is this a rhetorical question to the extreme nonsense you posted above?

Here are some questions for you; (1) How is an immediate withdrawal going to make the "political" situation in Iraq better or promote a political progress in Iraq? And (2) Do you REALLY think that an escalation of violence, which WILL be a direct result if we pull out, will promote better political progress? And (3) Can Democrats, or anyone here who supports a pullout, guarantee there will be political progress if we pull out?

How about an honest intellectual answer to that question instead of your typical DNC talking points?

Funny how you call my post "extreme nonsense". But, I do not see you refuting a word of it. So like you. And you want to call others didhonest in their debating. That is "extreme nonsense".

Of course as it is a well known fact that AQ attacks are a small percentage of the violence (less than 10% by most etimated), I can't see how you could refute what I posted above. So, you have just blown it off.

How are you calling Patraeus a liar? The whole premise you and the op-ed are putting out there is that somehow political reconciliation is not critical to ending this successfully. Patraeus says that you are dead wrong.

No military solution to Iraq, U.S. general says - CNN.com

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The new commander of U.S. troops in Iraq has warned that military force alone will not be enough to quell the country's violent insurgency.

Speaking publicly Thursday for the first time since taking charge in Baghdad last month, Gen. David Petraeus said military action was necessary to improve security in Iraq but "not sufficient" to end violence altogether.
"There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq," Petraeus told a news conference, adding that political negotiations were crucial to forging any lasting peace.

Petraeus said talks should include "some of those who have felt the new Iraq did not have a place for them," and said a key challenge facing Iraq's government was to identify "reconcilable" militant groups and bring them inside the political process.


You seem to think that we can make things happen there without any of those goals being met. Your OP says essentially that. It says point blank that talk of political progress is just an "excuse". Clearly Patraeus does not agree with you or your op-ed.

Now to your questions. Not that they have anything to do with the core ideas in the OP or my response to them. But, I'll play:

1) It isn't. There is not going to be a political solution in Iraq without a different government to get it done. The current one wants only war and domination of the Sunnis.

2) I am not certain that an escalation in violance is the know end result of a pullout. But, it is funny how you assert it as proven fact. Reminds me of a lot of other claims and predictions made by neocons which have been flat wrong. When do they start greeting us as liberators again?

3) Just a repetition of #1. See above.


Stop insulting people with your assertions that they are not honest, entering the "circle of stupidity" etc. I am sick of it and will be alerting on it everytime I see it.

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

The 'Benchmark' Excuse
Crocker and Petraeus speak some truths, if Senators are listening.

Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq, is a 36-year career diplomat who has served under seven administrations in Iran, Syria, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Pakistan. He's no partisan gunslinger. So it's worth listening to his views as Congressional Democrats and a growing number of Republicans press for a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq on the excuse that the Iraqi government hasn't met a set of political "benchmarks."

"The longer I'm here, the more I'm persuaded that Iraq cannot be analyzed by these kinds of discrete benchmarks," Mr. Crocker told the New York Times's John Burns in an interview on Saturday, referring to pending Iraqi legislation on an oil-sharing agreement and a relaxation of de-Baathification laws. "You could not achieve any of them, and still have a situation where arguably the country is moving in the right direction. And conversely, I think you could achieve them all and still not be heading towards stability, security and overall success in Iraq."

Mr. Crocker's comments are a useful reminder of the irrelevance--and disingenuousness--of much Washington commentary on Iraq. For proponents of early withdrawal, the "benchmarking" issue has provided a handy excuse to make the Iraqi government rather than al Qaeda the main culprit in the violence engulfing their country. A forthcoming Administration report indicating lagging political progress is certain to be seized on by Congress as it takes up a defense spending bill and debates an amendment ordering troop withdrawals by the fall. A proposal to mandate extended times between deployments (and thus force withdrawal) failed narrowly in the Senate yesterday, though not before winning the support of seven Republicans.


OpinionJournal - Featured Article

If you cannot view the web site, I can cut and paste the whole article here.

So all the retired military brass who say the Iraqi War is A disaster and offer a political solution as the only way out of this quagmire, their opinion means shit?okebrainPretend the brain is a turd, and the turd represents Bush's Iraqi policies!)