A new government report on progress in Iraq - disputed most notably by the Pentagon - will be viewed as a typical Beltway he-said, she-said conversation between agencies with competing objectives. Yet the report by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, cannot be dismissed out of hand.
It makes a point mostly drowned out in the cheering over how well "the surge" is working in Iraq. That would be that the surge was not intended to be an end unto itself, reducing violence just for the indisputable good of reducing death and mayhem. It also was to enable Iraqis to take the political steps so that they might achieve sustainable government for all of the people.
The report makes the salient point that much of this has gone undone while the progress on security hinges on fragile factors that may implode at any moment.
The report confirms the gains secured by the surge. It argues, however, that these improvements must be part of a bigger picture that recognizes that achieving a stable Iraq is not purely a matter measured by military gains.
It concludes that a new strategy is needed. We agree but would add one that goes beyond mere benchmarks and includes a flexible timetable for withdrawal that can pressure Iraqis to make broader progress but which takes into account the situation on the ground.
The GAO disputes that gains in Iraq have been as substantial as billed by the administration - on the number of provinces handed over to Iraqis, citing the readiness of Iraqi troops, reconstruction and provision of basic services. This is not a matter of glass half-full or half-empty. It's about knowing what victory looks like - minus spin.
See the GAO report at www.gao.gov/new.items/d08837.pdf.
Reprinted from The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
