Government Report: Bush Lacks Post "Surge" Plan

[RunInRed 16,454]

GAO Report Faults Post-'Surge' Planning

By Karen DeYoung

Washington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, June 24, 2008; Page A14

The administration lacks an updated and comprehensive Iraq strategy to move beyond the "surge" of combat troops President Bush launched in January 2007 as an 18-month effort to curtail violence and build Iraqi democracy, government investigators said yesterday.

While agreeing with the administration that violence has decreased sharply, a report released yesterday by the Government Accountability Office concluded that many other goals Bush outlined a year and a half ago in the "New Way Forward" strategy remain unmet.

The report, after a bleak GAO assessment last summer, cited little improvement in the ability of the Iraqi security forces to act independently of the U.S. military, and noted that key legislation passed by the Iraqi parliament had not been implemented while other crucial laws had not been passed. The report also judged that key Iraqi ministries spent less of their allocated budgets last year than in previous years, and said that oil and electricity production had repeatedly not met U.S. targets.

Bush's strategy of January 2007, the GAO said, "defined the original goals and objectives that the Administration believed were achievable by the end of this phase in July 2008." Not meeting many of them changed circumstances on the ground and the pending withdrawal of the last of the additional U.S. forces mean that strategy is now outdated, the report said. The GAO recommends that the State and Defense departments work together to fashion a new approach.

The GAO report contrasted with a Pentagon report, dated June 13 but not released until yesterday. The Defense Department's quarterly assessment to Congress, "Measuring Security and Stability in Iraq," said that "security, political and economic trends in Iraq continue to be positive, although they remain fragile, reversible and uneven."

In many respects, the two reports seemed to assess wholly different realities. The 74-page Pentagon document emphasized what it called the "negative role" in Iraqi security that Iran and Syria have played. The 94-page GAO report did not mention Iran and referred to Syria only in the context of Iraqi refugees who had settled there.

Lawmakers in the House and Senate last year ordered the GAO -- Congress's investigative arm -- to assess the progress of U.S. objectives in Iraq. Yesterday's GAO report, which cites statistics through early June, said its work drew on a review of U.S. and Iraqi documents; interviews with officials across the U.S. government and intelligence agencies; and military and diplomatic personnel in Iraq.

In comments appended to the GAO report, the State, Treasury and Defense departments objected to its conclusions, especially the judgment that the administration needs to fashion a new strategy.

"We do not require a new strategic document," the State Department wrote. The Pentagon said it "nonconcurs with the GAO recommendation" to update the strategy, adding that the "New Way Forward . . . remains valid."

The Defense Department also disagreed with a separate GAO criticism -- contained in a classified appendix that was not publicly released -- that the Pentagon's year-old Joint Campaign Plan, written in Baghdad, "is not a strategic plan; it is an operational plan with limitations."

The Pentagon said the GAO chose a "misleading" measurement of Iraqi security capabilities -- that only 10 percent of Iraqi units had reached full operational readiness. A better measurement, it said, was the number of Iraqi units "in the lead" in joint operations, which it put at 70 percent.

The GAO's assessment of electricity, the Pentagon said, was flawed because it was measured against "an ever-rising demand." The Pentagon noted that output is now higher than before the U.S. invasion in March 2003.

The Pentagon also criticized the GAO's conclusion that Iraqi oil production is lagging. The "arbitrary goal" of 3 million barrels a day, the Pentagon said, had been set by the U.S. occupation government -- the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority -- and "fail to capture the fact that oil exports" are now higher than at any time since the invasion.

The Treasury Department disputed the GAO's assessment of the Iraqi government's expenditures. It said investigators had used the wrong metrics to conclude that "Iraq's central ministries spent only 11 percent of their capital investment budgets in 2007, a decline from similarly low spending rates of 14 and 13 percent in 2005 and 2006, respectively."

On numerous points, the GAO report countered the rebuttals. "We agree that Iraq's budget doubled in size between 2005 and 2008," it said in one response to Treasury's objections. "However, much of the increase was due to a 25 percent appreciation of the Iraqi dinar and a four-fold increase in the budgets of Iraq's security ministries."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...l?nav=rss_world

[GoAU 1,600]

Hmm, who to believe: the Pentagon, that has guys on the ground every single day or the GAO - the investigative arm of Congress (essentially government bean counters) that never sets foot on the ground?

Sorry, I'll side with the military about military matters. I guess the dims just can't stand to see us actually winning - kind of takes the wind out of their sails, eh?

[RunInRed 16,454]

Who to believe - the Pentagon who has been in lock-step with this administration since day one, or an independent authority who is specifically tasked with providing an unbiased opinion and holding the Governement accountable.

[CCTAU 3,338]

Ahh yes. Show my plan to a dim controlled committee and let them publish it to the world. Or just act like I can't hear them...again. Gimme door number two Bob.

[GoAU 1,600]

Who to believe - the Pentagon who has been in lock-step with this administration since day one, or an independent authority who is specifically tasked with providing an unbiased opinion and holding the Governement accountable.

The guys who have a vested interest in the success of the mission because they have their asses on the line. The guys who want to win and come home more than you could ever understand. And most importantly the guys who will be over there again if we don't do the job right and run home with our tails between our legs. Once again, I'll side with our military.

[RunInRed 16,454]

You can side and spin all you want to. But in the end, it is what it is.

[GoAU 1,600]

You can side and spin all you want to. But in the end, it is what it is.

Call it "spin" call it "siding", I call it trusting the guys who know what they're doing - the guys on the ground. People trying to run a war from DC didn't work in Vietnam, and it surely won't work because some libtards in DC want to paint a "doom and gloom" picture in an election year. It's killing the libs that we're making progress and winning the war in Iraq. Where are the daily updates of the US body counts we saw on CNN every day when things weren't going as well? Face it, your party wants us to struggle or loose just for election ammunition.

[RunInRed 16,454]

It is not about winning or losing - IT IS NOT OUR WAR TO WIN. It's about a failed policy to spend blood and treasure on a war that has not made us any safer. It's about shifting resources from Afghanistan and Pakistan to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. It's about not bringing Bin Laden to justice. It's about an overstretched military that could not face another threat because we are myriad in some one else's civil war. We are now less safe, more hated, and ill-positioned to face new threats and lead the world because of this administrations failed policies and that's a fact.

[autigeremt 6,661]

runinred just put it where I can't forget......

This quote pisses me off to no end

"IT IS NOT OUR WAR TO WIN."

As you said earlier....IT IS WHAT IT IS! And we will WIN THIS THING and come home better for it!!!!!! Get over it! There's no time capsule to go back and get a "do over" here...... We must protect what we have achieved and come home. I'm glad you are not the coach of our Tigers.....we'd give up at the half every game.

[RunInRed 16,454]

Well whether you like it or not it's the truth. At some point (and after five years we have well passed that point) the Iraqi people have to stand up and fight for their own independence. We can not keep sending them the message that they have a blank check from the U.S.

Hate to break it to you, but if you still think this our war to win, then you really don't understand geopolitics and you have certainly been duped by the Bush propaganda machine.

[GoAU 1,600]

Well said autigeremt. What, may I ask, is the reason Afganistan became the breeding ground for people like Osama anyway? We helped them beat the Russians and left prematurely resulting in a power vacuum that was filled in no short order by the Taliban. A similar, if not worse situation would also happen in Iraq. The issue here isnot whether or not we should have went there to begin with (although I believe it was right, but that is another topic) it is what we have to do now that we are there. We have to finish the job, pure and simple. the worst thing we can do is to pull out and leave that country to fall to pieces. Walking away and saying "we never should have been there to begin with" would cause a much larger threat than finishing the job.

[Tigermike 3,047]

Who to believe - the Pentagon who has been in lock-step with this administration since day one, or an independent authority who is specifically tasked with providing an unbiased opinion and holding the Governement accountable.

Who to believe? Who to believe? Who to believe?

First off not you. Not in this area and not in the area of energy. You take your opinions from the far left therefore your "facts", your "truth" is suspect at best.

So in a nutshell, who to believe?

As GoAU has said:

Hmm, who to believe: the Pentagon, that has guys on the ground every single day or the GAO - the investigative arm of Congress (essentially government bean counters) that never sets foot on the ground?

Sorry, I'll side with the military about military matters. I guess the dims just can't stand to see us actually winning - kind of takes the wind out of their sails, eh?

But all you can do is spout the talking points of the far left blogs, so no I don't believe you or take your rants and diatribes seriously. Except to seriously dismiss.

[autigeremt 6,661]

Well whether you like it or not it's the truth. At some point (and after five years we have well passed that point) the Iraqi people have to stand up and fight for their own independence. We can not keep sending them the message that they have a blank check from the U.S.

Hate to break it to you, but if you still think this our war to win, then you really don't understand geopolitics and you have certainly been duped by the Bush propaganda machine.

Hate to break it to you, but you and the rest of your liberal friends would rather see the U.S. cut and run, leaving chaos in the wake......than to roll up the sleeves, take care of our duties, and leave with a better, more stable nation behind. If you haven't noticed, the IRAQI people have been standing up for themselves. But you will not accept it, because it proves how much of a liar and a yellow belly the left is.

The United States couldn't push the Brits out and survive without the help of the French. If the French had used your strategy, we'd still be under colonial rule. It will take a team approach to finish this war off, and your side would rather give up and raise the hammer and sickle than to be accountable.

[RunInRed 16,454]

Who to believe? Who to believe? Who to believe?

First off not you. Not in this area and not in the area of energy. You take your opinions from the far left therefore your "facts", your "truth" is suspect at best.

So the GAO is "far left" -- I think I've heard it all now.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Well whether you like it or not it's the truth. At some point (and after five years we have well passed that point) the Iraqi people have to stand up and fight for their own independence. We can not keep sending them the message that they have a blank check from the U.S.

Hate to break it to you, but if you still think this our war to win, then you really don't understand geopolitics and you have certainly been duped by the Bush propaganda machine.

Hate to break it to you, but you and the rest of your liberal friends would rather see the U.S. cut and run, leaving chaos in the wake......than to roll up the sleeves, take care of our duties, and leave with a better, more stable nation behind. If you haven't noticed, the IRAQI people have been standing up for themselves. But you will not accept it, because it proves how much of a liar and a yellow belly the left is.

The United States couldn't push the Brits out and survive without the help of the French. If the French had used your strategy, we'd still be under colonial rule. It will take a team approach to finish this war off, and your side would rather give up and raise the hammer and sickle than to be accountable.

If it hadn't been for patriots who stood up to the King and said "this is not right" or "this is wrong" we would still be "under colonial rule"

[Tigermike 3,047]

Who to believe? Who to believe? Who to believe?

First off not you. Not in this area and not in the area of energy. You take your opinions from the far left therefore your "facts", your "truth" is suspect at best.

So the GAO is "far left" -- I think I've heard it all now.

Did I say that? No I didn't say that. You need to go spend some time at this site.

[RunInRed 16,454]

Who to believe? Who to believe? Who to believe?

First off not you. Not in this area and not in the area of energy. You take your opinions from the far left therefore your "facts", your "truth" is suspect at best.

So the GAO is "far left" -- I think I've heard it all now.

Did I say that? No I didn't say that. You need to go spend some time at this site.

Well the GAO came out with this report so dismiss it at your own peril.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Old Proverb - "If you want to make God laugh, tell Him your plans"·.

[Tigermike 3,047]

Who to believe? Who to believe? Who to believe?

First off not you. Not in this area and not in the area of energy. You take your opinions from the far left therefore your "facts", your "truth" is suspect at best.

So the GAO is "far left" -- I think I've heard it all now.

Did I say that? No I didn't say that. You need to go spend some time at this site.

Well the GAO came out with this report so dismiss it at your own peril.

The report is not what I have been dismissing. It's your rants.

Who to believe - the Pentagon who has been in lock-step with this administration since day one, or an independent authority who is specifically tasked with providing an unbiased opinion and holding the Governement accountable.

Obama/Pelosi/Reid/Murtha/moveon/kos/huffpo/communist party USA/Socialist party USA talking points. Why don't you get some new ones?

It is not about winning or losing - IT IS NOT OUR WAR TO WIN. It's about a failed policy to spend blood and treasure on a war that has not made us any safer. It's about shifting resources from Afghanistan and Pakistan to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. It's about not bringing Bin Laden to justice. It's about an overstretched military that could not face another threat because we are myriad in some one else's civil war. We are now less safe, more hated, and ill-positioned to face new threats and lead the world because of this administrations failed policies and that's a fact.

You couldn't be further from the truth if you actually tried.

Well whether you like it or not it's the truth. At some point (and after five years we have well passed that point) the Iraqi people have to stand up and fight for their own independence. We can not keep sending them the message that they have a blank check from the U.S.

Hate to break it to you, but if you still think this our war to win, then you really don't understand geopolitics and you have certainly been duped by the Bush propaganda machine.

Why don't you explain things to us just as you have in all the oil/drilling/no drilling threads? Without the propaganda you are so fond of.

[AURaptor 1,126]

So we can set the record straight, this IS the same 'surge' which the Left said would NE-HHEEEHHH-EVER work, but in fact did / is working ?

That surge ?

[Tigermike 3,047]

So we can set the record straight, this IS the same 'surge' which the Left said would NE-HHEEEHHH-EVER work, but in fact did / is working ?

That surge ?

Don't forget to thank the Iranians.

[RunInRed 16,454]

So we can set the record straight, this IS the same 'surge' which the Left said would NE-HHEEEHHH-EVER work, but in fact did / is working ?

That surge ?

To set the record straight, success is defined by how the so-called "benchmarks" are met and by if political reconciliation is happening.

While agreeing with the administration that violence has decreased sharply, a report released yesterday by the Government Accountability Office concluded that many other goals Bush outlined a year and a half ago in the "New Way Forward" strategy remain unmet.

The report, after a bleak GAO assessment last summer, cited little improvement in the ability of the Iraqi security forces to act independently of the U.S. military, and noted that key legislation passed by the Iraqi parliament had not been implemented while other crucial laws had not been passed. The report also judged that key Iraqi ministries spent less of their allocated budgets last year than in previous years, and said that oil and electricity production had repeatedly not met U.S. targets.

You keep wanting to measure success by violence levels. We can mediate a civil war and keep the peace for 100 years as McCain wants us to but that is not going to get us or Iraq anywhere. Comprende compadre?

[Tigermike 3,047]

You keep wanting to measure success by violence levels. We can mediate a civil war and keep the peace for 100 years as McCain wants us to but that is not going to get us anywhere.

You can lie and distort all you want to as well.

[AURaptor 1,126]

So we can set the record straight, this IS the same 'surge' which the Left said would NE-HHEEEHHH-EVER work, but in fact did / is working ?

That surge ?

To set the record straight, success is defined by how the so-called "benchmarks" are met and by if political reconciliation is happening.

While agreeing with the administration that violence has decreased sharply, a report released yesterday by the Government Accountability Office concluded that many other goals Bush outlined a year and a half ago in the "New Way Forward" strategy remain unmet.

The report, after a bleak GAO assessment last summer, cited little improvement in the ability of the Iraqi security forces to act independently of the U.S. military, and noted that key legislation passed by the Iraqi parliament had not been implemented while other crucial laws had not been passed. The report also judged that key Iraqi ministries spent less of their allocated budgets last year than in previous years, and said that oil and electricity production had repeatedly not met U.S. targets.

You keep wanting to measure success by violence levels. We can mediate a civil war and keep the peace for 100 years as McCain wants us to but that is not going to get us or Iraq anywhere. Comprende compadre?

In order for the other achievements to be met, the violence must be the first item checked off. Agree or disagree ? So, while that is actually happening, when the Left said it would NEVER happen, we're moving on to the next step, and then the next, and so on and so on......

If the Leftist Dems had their way, we'd have left Iraq in the midst of chaos, and offered them zero chance of rejoining the world stage as a functioning, peaceful participant.

And btw, there never was a civil war in Iraq. More dishonest lies from the Dem spin machines.

[CCTAU 3,338]

It's only a civil war if they are still reenacting it 100 years from now??