Analysis: Defining 'Benchmarks' in Iraq
Council on Foreign Relations
May 15, 2007
Prepared by: Lionel Beehner
As a battle over congressional funding for the war overtakes Washington, the question of benchmarks has arisen again. The White House had previously resisted linking Iraq’s performance on meeting its benchmarks with the funding of U.S. troops. Now, lawmakers eagerly anticipate the end of summer when Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker are expected to give an assessment of the so-called surge and whether Iraqis have achieved the benchmarks.
But as this Backgrounder notes, the question that looms over the benchmarks debate is: How does one define progress? Many of the benchmarks are vague because the metrics to measure them are imprecise. As Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) told the New York Times, “Imagine building a house without a ruler.” Military officials also hold different interpretations of what benchmarks mean. Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whittles it down to one question: Are Iraqis better off? (CSMonitor).
Read the rest of this article on the cfr.org website.
Copyright 2007 by the Council on Foreign Relations. This material is republished on GlobalSecurity.org with specific permission from the cfr.org. Reprint and republication queries for this article should be directed to cfr.org.
NEWSLETTER
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|