Bush lied! We were taken to war on false pretense! We’ve already lost! The war in Iraq cannot be won!

These comments are, by now, all too familiar and were repeated with determination by many. The talking points were most frequently and dramatically voiced by Leader Reid, Speaker Pelosi and the lemmings who have, mistakenly, followed them down a path to an ever-growing point of political no return on Iraq.

Bush Lied! If President Bush did, in fact, lie about the dangers of Saddam’s Iraq he had a lot of company. A partial list of “others” that clearly and publicly castigated Iraq and warned of the dangers: President Bill Clinton, Senator John Kerry, Madeline Albright, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson and a long list of “others”.

Mr. Obama is quoted saying he did not think Saddam was that great of a threat. This perception, used to justify his ability to make the appropriate judgment demonstrates exactly the opposite. It was a very small island of opinion that did not think Saddam was dangerous. Europe, the U.S., the U.N., NATO and most of his neighbors in the Middle East were agreed on the dangers posed by Saddam, if not the method of resolution. Mr. Obama apparently missed the memo. What other dangers might he miss?  

The War is Lost and cannot be Won!

President Bush can, justifiably, be criticized on a wide variety of fronts related to the conduct of the war. However, in the face of incredible pressure to reduce the American commitment in Iraq he did just the opposite, the surge. Critics, you will no doubt, recall demanded daily a change in strategy and they got it, just not the change they wanted.. 

Now, even according to staunch critics progress is being made. This progress is, to be honest, tenuous. Arab tribes have for centuries “changed sides” based on the expediencies of the moment. Our new found allies could do so again, but for now the lines are holding. A Shiite controlled central government has decided to “take on” a Shiite militia, the Mahdi Army, if that’s not progress I’m not sure what is. 

The moving target of anti war talking points has moved again. Moved from lied to we have already lost to we cannot win to its too expensive. Hopefully, it will be easy for the opposition to hold on the too expensive argument, but then again, maybe not. Perhaps a cogent analysis of the cost of failure appears. The components of that cost analysis might include: rising oil prices, civil war in the absence of U.S. security guarantees, a Turkish invasion of Northern Iraq, no presence as a check on Iran and it’s aspirations for regional dominance and nuclear weapons, a nuclear weapons race including Saudi Arabia and Syria, new aggression against Israel, well the list could go on but you probably get the point. 

More moving target talking points appear: Iraqi Reconciliation must occur, the benchmarks have not been met, we need to deliver the message that the Iraqi Government must perform or we’re out of here, there is no military solution, the surge was supposed to create the space for political reconciliation and it has not!!!   

All true to varying degrees and with caveats. Insurgencies are not resolved with military force alone, a generally accepted principal. However, security conditions must form the basis for potential political solutions. No security no political solution, also a generally accepted principal.

The other, generally accepted principal is that insurgencies are much more of a bottom up than a top down exercise. “Hearts and Minds” is not a function of the central government, no matter who sits in the seat.   One of many flaws in the focus on “benchmarks” for the Iraqi Government is the absence of consideration or analysis of what has to happen to motivate a grassroots movement. In reality it is the grassroots movements that move the central government. General Petraeus has demonstrated stunning progress at the grass roots level. This in tern has pressured the central government. 

Iraqis are coming together to make fundamental decisions on the values that their state will rest on. The Copenhagen Accord is the best example so far. In Iraq and all over the Middle East there are movements attempting to flesh out the balance between tribes, ethnic groups, religion and, yes, democratic principals. Did we have a benchmark for that?  

Do we have a benchmark for the potential importance that a functional, fledgling democracy in Iraq could have on the region? 

(Please look up Robin Wright’s new book “Dreams and Shadows”)

On to the “Benchmarks” and the Iraqi failures. Frederick Kagan, who opposed benchmarks, has periodically published detailed updates on points of military progress in Iraq which have taken the bloom off the “we’re failing” rose, He now he applies the same analysis to the political in the form of evaluating the benchmarks.

On the legislative side there were seven benchmarks, four have been completed, two are in process and one is stalled. The stalled benchmark is related to oil revenue distribution. While legislation has not been completed the reality is that oil revenue is being distributed absent the demanded legislation. The benchmark calling for enacting semi-autonomous regions is stalled. The stall represents second thoughts on behalf of the Iraqis as to the wisdom of proceeding. Hey, it is their country.

According to Mr. Kagan all seven Security Benchmarks have been accomplished and in some cases exceeded.

Government Performance Benchmarks are only one for four, with three in process. A review of the specific benchmark goals cannot help but lead one to question exactly how the empirical measure of progress related to these benchmarks is going to be accomplished. These benchmarks deal with items such as insuring that political authorities are not making false accusations against Security Forces and that minority political parties’ rights are protected. In current day Iraq perhaps the best analysis is that none of those parties are happy.

In the event that the benchmarks are materially accomplished, security progress continues and we come to see the expense of failure what will be the next set of talking points?  Hard to know, outside of absolute confidence in the creativity of our political class when it comes to justifying their residence on a political tree branch that is about to break!