WP:Bush's Proposal of 'Benchmarks' for Iraq Sounds Familiar

[cal04]

The text of President Bush's news conference yesterday ran to nearly 10,000 words, but what may have been more significant were the things he did not say.

The president talked repeatedly about "benchmarks" for progress in Iraq, using that word 13 times. But he did not discuss the consequences of the Iraqi government missing those targets. Such a question, he said, was "hypothetical."

That response left unclear how the benchmarks would be different from previous times when the United States has set out intentions, only to back down. For example, the original war plan envisioned the U.S. troop presence in Iraq being cut to 30,000 by the fall of 2003. Last year, some top U.S. commanders thought they would be able to significantly cut the U.S. troop level in Iraq this year -- a hope now officially abandoned. More recently, the U.S. military all but withdrew from Baghdad, only to have to have to reenter the capital as security evaporated from its streets and Iraqi forces proved unable to restore calm by themselves.

President Bush also spoke several times yesterday about his flexibility, apparently as a way of countering critics calling for a major change in his approach to Iraq. But he made it clear that he was talking about tactical adjustments, rather than the kind of sweeping strategic revision being mulled by the Iraq Study Group led by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former representative Lee H. Hamilton, and also being urged by a host of members of Congress and political pundits.

Thomas E. Ricks
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/25/AR2006102501635.html

[rodeodance]

1. He demands it of NCLB--measurable outcomes!

[rodeodance]

2. He no longer was talking about a democratic Iraq---this was pointed

out by E.J. Dieejn (? spelling) on jim lehrer news hour tonight

[Tom Joad]

3. We should demand not "benchmarks" but all troops out, without

qualifications. The Iraqi people have proven themselves capable of defending themselves against a very strong invader (the US) and will be able to do so after the US military leaves. It has no reason to be there.