Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Fight Over Benchmarks in Iraq
As the Democratic consensus in Washington stumbles reluctantly towards acceptance of Congressional funding for Iraq, there needs to be a clearer focus on the forthcoming issue of "benchmarks". If the Democrats act as tough negotiators, the benchmarks can become more than symbolic window-dressing. Since the current Baghdad regime is unlikely to comply with any meaningful benchmarks, a deeper showdown is almost guaranteed in the next six months.
Bush has retreated in the negotiations to include benchmarks in the appropriation process immediately ahead. The generals in the field will issue their verdict on the "surge" in September. If al-Maliki remains recalcitrant, and the surge continues to go nowhere, many in Congress will be obsessing about their political lives going into 2008.
Faced with the alternatives, Bush may opt for the "constitutional" overthrow of al-Maliki and his replacement by someone more pliable like the CIA asset Iyad Allawi or the neo-liberal former finance minister, Adel Abdul Mahdi. The response within the Iraqi parliament, with 144 signers of a withdrawal petition, promises to be volatile.
Bush will wish for changing faces in Baghdad's high places, but the structure of occupation will be threatened by powerful forces in both countries.
That is why the peace Democrats need to fight for enforceable benchmarks that clearly resonate with most Americans.
One benchmark to advocate for is an amendment to suspend US funding for any training, equipping or American advising of the sectarian militias hidden within the Iraqi interior and defense ministries. These are the foundation of the "El Salvador option" of low-visibility dirty war that some hope will last long after the departure of US combat troops.
This month is the agreed deadline for the "militia reform" measure agreed to in principle by al-Maliki, the White House and the Baker-Hamilton Report. Congress can ignore the deadline or insist on consequences for the continued violation of this measure.
As the Baker-Hamilton Report says on the subject of consequences, "if the Iraqi government does not make substantial progress towards the achievement of milestones…the United States should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government." [recommendation # 21]
If Congress is afraid to cut funding for American troops, how about direct or indirect funding for advisers to militias and death squads. Isn't "no taxes for torture" a supportable benchmark?
Other benchmarks already past their due date include:
By end of 2006-early 2007:
• the provincial election law which would empower Sunnis where they are a majority [no progress]; • the de-Baathification law [token progress amidst violent attacks on Sunni lawmakers]; • by March 2007, a referendum on the constitution designed to accommodate Sunni interests [no progress]; • by May, the militia control law [no progress], amnesty [no progress] , and completion of national reconciliation efforts [ditto]. • Completion of non-sectarian petroleum law [stalled];
By June 2007:
• holding of provincial elections [not happening so far];
From April to September 2007:
• Iraqi control of the Iraqi army by April [not happening]; • Greater Iraqi spending on its army [promised]; • Iraqi control of all provinces and security self-reliance [unlikely at best].
Clearly any progress on these fronts will be chimerical, designed for media and congressional consumption. The gap between benchmarks and budgets will widen as next year's budget (yes, the election year budget), is only six months from preparation and delivery to a panicky Congress.
Here in the outback, we always listen to politicians, especially Republicans, calling for tough love, Georgia rules, consequences and boundaries, but they act like frightened flower children while their former Iraqi dependents turn into Frankenstein masters.
The coming calendar of flash-points includes:
• between now and July, Congress either passes a toothless and token supplemental or one that recognizes that Iraq has become a sectarian state that harbors US-financed militias and ignores its own elected parliament; • between now and September, when the "surge" will be judged either as a public relations "success" or as a failure that has only expanded the range of insurgent violence; • between Labor Day until February 2008, when the shortened presidential primary season will dominate all politics; • Between September 2007 and November 2008 when the presidency and control of Congress will revolve around Iraq.
If Congress only demands full Iraqi compliance with the current benchmarks, and Iraq does the impossible and complies, that will be a good thing for the victims of ethnic cleansing and death squads while setting stage for modest withdrawals of US combat troops as the election season begins. Don't hold your breath, but be prepared too.
If Congressional benchmarks are exposed and denounced as window-dressing for the war, those foolish members of Congress will be targets for voter wrath for the following 18 months.
If Congress sets clear and enforceable benchmarks, the case for ending the war by "blaming the Iraqis" may become overpowering as the 2008 budgets and elections approach. The Iraqi parliament even may pass its resolution requesting and charting the withdrawal of American troops — unless the CIA and US embassy subvert their will.
What began in November 2006 with the voter mandate for peace is far from over. It's not even intermission, and the American people are watching closely and taking names. The thunderclouds are being seeded, and unpredictable storms are nearing. Like they say, prepare for heavy weather.
Tom Hayden is a former state senator and leader of Sixties peace, justice and environmental movements. He currently teaches at Pitzer College in Los Angeles. His books include The Port Huron Statement [new edition], Street Wars and The Zapatista Reader.
21 Comments so far
Show AllThe whole notion of "benchmarks" for any Iraqi government is legally laughable, morally cowardly, humanly irresponsible and historically absurd.
The U.S., Brits and allies pounded Iraq with bombs, cluster weapons, depleted uranium, etc in the "Gulf War" slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and encouraging a Shia uprising in the South which resulted in yet more slaughter and environmental degradation.
During the ensuing 12 years, we forced a sanctions regime on the country that resulted in more than a million civilian deaths and additional untold misery.
Since the March 2003 invasion and ensuing occupation, we successfully destroyed what was left of Iraq's infrastructure, state and society and killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Yet we call on the Iraqis to get their act together if they want any more of our beneficence. We should be on our knees begging forgiveness and developing a reparations regime.
The hipocricy of the benchmarks discussion is beyond human imagination. Or at least mine.
Democrats as tough negotiators? What a laugh! For the Democrats, the question is "How long do we pretend we want to end the occupation of Iraq before it is safe to capitulate?" It's all about the corporate interests who fund the Democrats, including the petroleum companies who need a continued troop presence there so they can complete the theft of Iraq's oil.
What ever happened to the Tom Hayden that "told it like it is"? Now he sounds like a Hilary clone. The two previous post are correct. This benchmark thing is so much B.S. rolled out by a Democratic leadership afraid of being labeled as "not supporting the troops" or "pro-terrorist" in a frantic attempt to appear to not be obstructive yet "get the troops home (some year).
I am sick of them all.
The only benchmark that matters to Washington is that Iraqi Petroleum Law that if passed will probably signal the beginning of the drawdown of US and British troops. It is afterall the real mission, isn't it? That's what it looks like to me.
There's an international petition circulating in favor of Iraq keeping control of all of its own oil, to be read out in the Iraqi Parliament when the bill comes to a vote. If you'd care to sign on:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/iraqi_oil_law
Tom is looking for a political answer because this is all political to him. He has no other real interest in Iraq. The people who continue this war are those who have an economic interest in Iraq. The United States of Everything is playing a game with the world.
Hoa Binh
Agreed with Ragdoll and I would like to add that Iran is the next area of 'interest'. To the neocons and their congressional supporters, this is a golden opportunity to begin some kind of military incursion on Iranian soil. It has been reported that the troop level in Iraq will be over 200,000 by Christmas, 07.
I hope all peace loving people will come out en masse at the next demonstration to form groups that can help to vote all the war mongers out of office in the next election no matter which party.
A largly passive and apathetic U.S. citizenry has created this deporable situation. The Bush administration is not under pressure from angry militant street demonstations, as with Vietnam, and the Democrats are not being proded to seriously challenge Bush's Iraq policy. Until the American public wakes up and gets it's lazy TV-celebrity-gossip-dazed ass into the streets by the millions, nothing will change for the better.
badminton you are soooo correct (almost said "right"). There will have to be mobs of people protesting, so many that the mainstream media cant call them "hundreds" and point our the counter-demonstrators as it they were significant. Yes, mobs overflowing the demonstration zones set aside for them 5 mile from the person being demonstrated against. Will it happen? I doubt it.
For some time, I thought the problem was Bush. He marches on and on without the least serious attempt by the elected elite to rein him in. Then, after more consideration, like badminton, I realized the problem was the passive and apathetic citizenry badminton identifies. It's not Bush doesn't care; it's that Americans don't care. There will be no demonstrations, another Bush or Bush clone will be elected, more young men and women in service will be slaughtered in distant lands, and the U.S. will continue its decline.
It's unpleasant to see a 60s 'peace veteran' repeating the arrogant and stupid approach of the Bush Administration. We have no right to impose 'benchmarks' on the Iraqi people, which should really be called 'conditions for withdrawal of troops' - the primary one is apparently that Western oil corporations be given unfettered access to Iraqi oil fields, under the terms of the 'non-secratian oil law'.
In fact, there are a great many 'benchmarks' that our own American government has failed to meet: a majority of Americans are for the largescale development of renewable energy, for the removal of troops from Iraq without any conditions, and for an end to a foreign policy based on warfare, military occupation and economic coercion.
The author perpetuates the myth that the Iraqi people cannot take care of their own political and economic situation without 'guidance' from the US and Britain. It's really about political maneuvering and image perception issues prior to the 2008 elections, and has little to do with getting the troops and the permanent bases out of Iraq for good.
What this piece demonstrates is that a real discussion of the future of the foreign empire managed by the US has yet to take place - the secretive 'bipartisan free trade deal' that is moving through Congress is yet another example of this.
Tom Hayden is merely up to his usual tricks again. His role has been to play the part of the naughty but cute little bad boy within the corrupt duopoly. He really is no threat to them and they actually like him because he serves their interests by convincing others who might have become involved in revolutionary activity to waste their time and efforts by joining him.
Pointless to verbally flog Tom Hayden....key point made above is WHY organized opposition to Iraq War is so weak?!!!! Many complex reasons, including:
Unlike Vietnam war era, we have no draft; futhermore, even as volunteer soldier recruitment "slows," the private mercenary military industry has been secretly riveted into the US Empire war-without-end foreign policy with hardly a whimper from Congress, exception: Rep. Waxman.(There are at least 120,000 contractors in Iraq today with hardly any accountability.) Sadly, it took some years in the l960s and very high casuality rates before the Antiwar Movement gained stature and attention!! Finally, the press was then more diverse and freer, but not much.
The discussion of "benchmarks" seems to be a cover for the Democrats' sellout of their mandate to de-fund the war. Of course people can stop delivering mandates to the Democrats and start delivering mandates to the Green Party.
tj's comment, the first one above, says it all.
That Hayden seems to suggest 18 more months of this crap is perfectly okay is a scary disappointment.
I think the Democrats have to impeach Cheney-Bush -- if Bush can waive the "benchmarks" for whatever puppet government will still talk to him, it all means NOTHING, in any case -- or we have to get into the streets and shut it down, recall most of the Congress, whatever.
OR we should just shut up and accept fascism.
One thing's for damn sure: Nancy Pelosi ought to step aside for Maxine Waters or whoever, or borrow some -- one hates to say such a thing -- balls from somebody.
ASIDE from what's being done to Iraq, young service people are getting their legs blown off while these Bush-symps simper.
Seems to me it's time to bring this war home, or simply to admit we're on board with global race-war, okay with poverty at home, and that freedom and equality will best be served, beginning in 2008, by a crypto-fascist Mormon regime.
Great to see all the strong comments here -- after this, i am reregistering Green, and not going back to the Dems. i will vote for Kucinich, Feingold, Boxer and a handful of others -- but i will not give one penny to the Dems in general. we need a wholesale change. many good strong comments also over at DailyKos.com.
If we really believe that we entered this occupation under false pretenses...let's give bush what he wants IF HIS ADMINISTRATION WITH TESTIFY UNDER OATH REGARDING THE STEPS THEY TOOK AND STATEMENTS THEY MADE. Can they refuse to say they won't tell the truth?
Benchmarks is a term for doing nothing.
CUT OFF THE CASH OR START IMPEACHMENT.
Bu$h the inferior and Dick 'shotgun' Cheney are all bluff. Unfortunately, the Democrats are pantywaist light.
mssgill writes:
"after this, i am reregistering Green, and not going back to the Dems."
-----
This is a most mistaken response, though refraining from giving money -- except to John Edwards, the candidate whose actions show he's honorable and on the side of the people -- makes sense.
The Green Party is a nothing -- a ticket of convenience which is somewhat useful in some local situations, whose "leadership" is as convoluted and corrupt as the Dems'.
With full-tilt fascism just a shot away, splitting the non-right electorate with silly symbolic candidacies -- like Peter Camejo's self-indulgent run for governor, that helped elect Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor of California -- only assures that Republicans (whose party's been taken over by fascism) can "win" elections in which a majority of the voters oppose them.
There is nothing more important than the coming Democratic primaries -- if Democrats hang together for Edwards, it's just barely possible this country can be turned back from fascism.
Our energy in general should be directed to recalling, or forcefully reeducating, the right-wing "leaders" and spokesmen of our party, and to fighting like junkyard dogs -- being confrontational and "impolite" in great numbers -- in every county committee and -- in the near term -- Memorial Day picnic.
If we fail to follow through on the work of FDR, the war crime of Iraq is only the beginning of the horror the white right will wreak on the rest of the world, including most of the non-rich population of the United States.
I agree with Tj's first remark. Our country has way too much hubris coupled with total ignorance of the heavy handed damage we do on the world stage. Heaven help us all when we finally get our true comeupance. It aint gonna be pretty. As for Hayden, like so many in the current so called oppostion party all I can say is, you folks will eventually become as irrelevant as you are toothless and cowardly. What a bunch of gutless sellouts. Many Dems are as much a part of the problem as the Bushies. Pox on both their houses!!!
Iraqis didn't invite us in. Therefore we are conquerors or occupiers, even if we don't care to call ourselves that.
But we are not the boss of them, and they know it.
One benchmark Tom Hayden suggests is the passage of the Hydrocarbons Law. He seems to believe the line that it is about fairly dividing up the oil revenues. What it will in fact do is give the lion's share of oil wealth to foreign investors such as Chevron. It can be read in full here:
http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=12987
We MUST NOT let PDA strategy include benchmarks like this--they do nothing for Iraq. The Iraqi government is simply a puppet regime joined at the hip with the U.S. occupation, anyway. It is a bit like watching a puppet show. One hand (U.S.) says "Clean up your act, Iraqi government!" and the other (Iraq puppets inside the Green Zone ) says "We're doing the best we can under the circumstances, don't leave us now!". Meanwhile, over 60% of Iraqis favor armed attacks on U.S. forces. No evidence supports the idea that the U.S. presence is helping reduce violence.