US benchmarks for Iraq may be hazy

While Congress presses for clarity, the White House and Pentagon opt for ambiguity.

from the May 7, 2007 edition

Page 2 of 2

Page 1 | 2

Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, said April 26 they will likely encompass four major areas: security, economics, politics and governance, and the establishment of a viable criminal-justice system. But he left much open to interpretation.

Security, he suggested, is a relative term, and criteria to measure the security environment in Iraq by late summer will have to reflect the fact that suicide bombings and other kinds of attacks will not stop anytime soon. [Editor's note: The original version misstated the general's view of the security situation.]

"I think you have to be realistic and acknowledge there is going to be a continuation of some level of sensational attacks," said General Petraeus, comparing a future Iraq to Northern Ireland.

Petraeus said he had provided a "first-draft pre-decisional think piece" – essentially an assessment of how he'll conduct an assessment – to senior Pentagon officials on April 25.

To Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, benchmarks are even broader. While Americans can look at how the Iraqi forces have been trained and equipped, or the number of attacks each month or how many banks have opened, it all really comes down to a simple question, said General Pace, during an interview with defense reporters last month: Are Iraqis better off?

"I'd recommend a very simple but straightforward metric and that is a two-part question," Pace said. "One, do the people in Baghdad feel more secure today ... and [two,] do they believe that the next day and the days beyond they'll be even more secure than they are today? When the answer to both those questions is yes, then the impact of the military, governance, and economics will have had the impact desired. And if not, then all the other metrics may be of interest but aren't as compelling as that one is to me."

All of this suggests that the administration is not prepared to dole out any tough love to the Iraqi government anytime soon, says Paul Eaton, a retired Army two-star general who most recently led the US command in Iraq that trained Iraqi forces. Mr. Eaton has been very critical of the administration, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and the way in which President Bush has executed the war. He believes the US won't significantly withdraw forces until Mr. Bush leaves office in January 2009.

"This undisciplined government cannot hope to provide discipline to another government and that is the basis of our problem," Eaton says. "They will not impose discipline."

1 | Page 2