Administration Must Set Real Benchmarks
Special to Roll Call
The frustration recently demonstrated on the floor of the House of Representatives reflected the frustration of many with the current course of the war in Iraq. American lives continue to be lost as attacks continue in Iraq, and the American people are not seeing the progress that would make them believe American forces will be able to be come home anytime soon.
We know there has been progress, largely due to the tremendous efforts of the Iraqi people and our troops. A plebiscite has been held; a constitution has been approved; an interim government has been formed; and a permanent government will be elected in December.
Yet, 2006 will be a critical year — critical for Iraq’s democratic progress and critical in turning over real responsibility for Iraq’s security to its own forces. It also is critical that both the Iraqi and American people see real evidence of this progress. Therefore, the administration must lay out a clear strategy with real benchmarks, and it must demonstrate how we are meeting these benchmarks.
At the same time, redeployment of U.S. troops cannot be precipitous. It must be linked to real improvements in the capability of Iraqi security forces so that their political system has a real chance of thriving and its military can provide for real security. The process must be orderly and well-thought out — not driven by political expediency or other factors that fail to consider long-term implications of our actions.
Success in Iraq is vital to U.S. national security interests. Failure not only would result in increased violence and lawlessness across the country, creating a breeding ground for more terrorism and energizing the Islamic fundamentalist movement around the world. It also would have broader geopolitical consequences. It almost certainly would produce civil war that would not be contained within the borders of Iraq, which in turn could destabilize the entire region.
We can succeed in Iraq — but only if public and Congressional support for the war holds fast. The center of gravity for this fight lies in Washington, D.C., not Iraq. Yet support in the U.S. for the war is clearly waning. The commitment to see the task through is in jeopardy, in large part because the administration has failed to put forward a clear strategy for success and clearly explain this strategy to the American people.
Americans cannot be expected to support something they do not understand. U.S. support must be based on a clear understanding of 1) the end goal; and 2) the administration’s strategy for achieving that goal, including the U.S. commitment required and the measurement of progress along the way. This, I suggest, is the formula for success.
In terms of security, the end goal should be an Iraq that is able to ensure the effectiveness of its government and provide for its own security as soon as possible. Only this will permit the successful redeployment of U.S. troops. However, achieving this goal will require serious and sustained U.S. commitment from the whole of government, including a commitment to a clearly defined benchmark for measuring progress along the way.
First, we must redouble our efforts to train Iraqi security forces. If more advisory teams would do the job faster, we should add them. We should staff them with our very best officers — those selected for command of U.S. units. These are, after all, the officers that the services have determined to be their very best. Further, we should make every effort to name next year’s advisers today and get them in adviser and language schools now.
Most importantly, we need a measurement tool that the Iraqi and American people can use to see progress on U.S. redeployments over time. The benchmark must be easy to understand; linked to a sound operational analysis of events on the ground; and set reasonable, achievable standards for both our forces and the Iraqis. This is important for two reasons. First, it will clearly explain the critical connection between improvements in Iraqi security force capability and the reduced need for U.S. forces over time. Second, it will reduce temptations to begin redeployment prematurely for reasons of political expediency.
In a recent letter to President Bush, I have proposed such a benchmark: For every three Iraqi security force combat brigades rated at “level 1,” or fully capable, an American brigade or unit of similar size, type and mission should be strategically redeployed from Iraq. This standard is based on a serious consideration of both quantitative and qualitative factors — and I believe it is reasonable and makes good sense. Although I am still awaiting an answer to my letter, I have been told my “3:1 formula” is being discussed inside the Pentagon.
Some have suggested the 3:1 formula limits necessary flexibility. Others say it is too narrow — success in Iraq requires a broad political and economic solution. But we’ve gone too long with an ill-defined strategy for a war that still has no end in sight. Our troops deserve much more for the sacrifices they are making every day.
I believe this 3:1 formula is a step in the right direction and will result in a more focused, strategic and effective use of resources that will actually increase flexibility of military operations and other U.S. efforts. Already, more than 200,000 Iraqis have been trained and equipped in providing security, including a good number rated at “level 1” and “level 2.” With the right U.S. commitment, this trend is promising.
Still, I would welcome counterproposals to the 3:1 formula, provided their rationale is made clear and there is some linkage between improvements in Iraqi security force capability and the reduced need for U.S. forces over time. So far, I have seen nothing along these lines.
Winning the war in Iraq must be a top bipartisan priority and requires a formula for success that is clearly articulated and implemented by the political leadership of this country. I stand ready to assist with this endeavor on the road ahead and urge my esteemed colleagues in Congress to do the same — for the sake of our courageous men and women in uniform and the security of all Americans.
Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) is the ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee.
Taylor: Preventing Another Underwear Bomber
March 19, 4:09 p.m.
The intelligence community faces challenges daily. No example is more emblematic of the problems faced than the so-called underwear bomber of 2009. As threats emerge, the hunt for “persons of interest” must occur in a more reliable and efficient manner because the consequences of inaction can be catastrophic. Read Full Article
Roll Call Video Channels
