Key goals in Iraq elusive

The Bush administration's interim report finds the government in Baghdad has made the least progress on the most important objectives.
By Julian E. Barnes
Times Staff Writer

July 13, 2007

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration's status report Thursday on the Iraq war gives the Iraqi government an even mix of "satisfactory" and "unsatisfactory" grades, but a closer look provides a more sobering impression: The least progress is being made on the most important goals.

Among the areas in which the administration reports unsatisfactory progress are legislation on sharing oil revenue, provincial elections and the easing of restrictions on government employment for members of the former ruling Baath Party. Adequate progress is reported on less important matters such as forming committees to examine the Baghdad security plan and review the constitution.

Moreover, some of the initial progress cited in the report may be difficult to build on. Initiatives pushed by the U.S. have run aground because of the Iraqi government's limited clout and the sectarian divisions that have riven the country. For instance, there has been little progress in months on the oil law, which earlier this year appeared promising.

Overall, the interim progress report, required by Congress, is an unsparing assessment of advances on the benchmarks over the last six months. It reflects the difficulty of attaining goals set months ago and underscores the uncertainty of the future.

"The security situation in Iraq," the report says, "remains complex and extremely challenging."

But in many respects, the report also downplays the importance of the goals it set out to assess.

Some of the political goals may not be achieved until there is stability and political compromise at the local level, it says.

Iraqi leaders appealed to U.S. officials not to impose deadlines on them and expressed frustration that the list of goals had become a political football in Washington.

U.S. military officials said that the benchmarks laid out by Congress did not adequately measure progress by American forces, including weakening Sunni Arab militant groups and cutting deals with Sunni tribes to help reduce the violence in Al Anbar province.

"Because it is a very narrow set of benchmarks, we think that there are other indicators that we are tracking that are a more fulsome representation of how things are going on the ground," said a senior Defense official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the contents of the report.

By focusing on the achievements of the Iraqi government, the benchmarks overlook advances by U.S. forces, a senior U.S. military officer in Baghdad said. "These aren't the benchmarks we would have chosen," the officer said.

Many of the goals on which the government earned "satisfactory" marks were at best procedural. But where real political compromise was demanded, results were more disappointing.

On the security front, the report gives the Iraqi government generally satisfactory marks for setting up joint U.S.-Iraqi security stations and for moving more combat troops into Baghdad. But on the harder benchmarks of pushing Iraqi security forces to operate independently and free from sectarian influence, the report says progress has been unsatisfactory.

It has long been a U.S. goal to increase the number of Iraqi security forces that can operate independently. But since January, the number of Iraqi soldiers with that capability has declined, partly because of troops killed in combat and a shortage of officers.

When the new security plan was announced in January, officials said that it was crucial that the Iraqi government give military commanders authority to pursue extremists without political interference. But the report gives the government a unsatisfactory mark for that goal, concluding that "there remains a negative political influence at a variety of levels with evidence of sectarian behavior."

The report also says political authorities continue to "undermine and make false accusations" against police and army officers, suggesting that trumped-up charges are used to drive Sunni officials from the Iraqi security forces. And the government has been unable to ensure that its security forces do not act along sectarian lines.

"Left on their own, many ISF units tend to gravitate to old habits of sectarianism when applying the law," the report says.

The assessment also reflects shifting U.S. priorities. Two benchmarks once regarded as important, amnesty for ex-insurgents and the disarming of militias, were described as inconsequential or impossible to achieve.

"There is no momentum in the government of Iraq toward developing and implementing a comprehensive disarmament program for militia members," the report says. It argues that rather than focusing on disarming militias, the government should make jobs and other economic development programs its priority.

On the political side, the interim assessment reports progress on a number of areas. But on the steps considered most important, progress was slow or nonexistent.

There has been wide agreement that the three most important political steps are passage of the oil law, de-Baathification reforms and provincial elections.

The report acknowledges that de-Baathification reforms, aimed at bringing low-ranking members of former President Saddam Hussein's Baath Party back into the government, have stalled. Progress on setting a date for provincial elections is unsatisfactory, it says, noting also that there is insufficient progress on establishing an independent electoral commission and defining the structure and authority of local governments.

The report says there is not enough progress on the oil law, but hedges this finding, saying that it is "too early to tell" whether the government ultimately will pass legislation fairly dividing oil revenue among the three key Iraqi ethnic and sectarian groups.

Echoing President Bush, the report argues that the substantial political developments demanded by Congress will not be quick in coming and says it is unfair to expect political reconciliation unless security improves.

--

julian.barnes@latimes.com

Times staff writers Paul Richter and Doyle McManus in Washington and Ned Parker in Baghdad contributed to this report.

--

(INFOBOX BELOW)

Progress report

Congress required President Bush to submit an initial report by Sunday assessing whether the Iraqi government had made satisfactory progress toward achieving the benchmarks set by his administration. A breakdown:

Unsatisfactory

• Enacting and implementing legislation on de-Baathification.

• Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the

equitable distribution of oil

resources among Iraqis without regard to sect or ethnicity, and to ensure that such resources benefit all groups equitably.

• Giving Iraqi military commanders the authority to execute the Baghdad security plan and to make tactical and operational decisions, in consultation with U.S. commanders, without political intervention, including the pursuit of all extremists, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias.

• Ensuring that the Iraqi security forces enforce the law evenhandedly.

• Increasing the number of Iraqi security force units capable of operating independently.

• Ensuring that Iraq's political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the Iraqi security forces.

--

Unsatisfactory, but with some aspects of progress

• Reducing the level of sectarian violence and eliminating militia control of local security.

• Enacting and implementing legislation establishing an independent electoral commission, provincial election law, provincial council authorities and a date for provincial elections.

--

Satisfactory

• Forming a constitutional review committee and completing the constitutional review.

• Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semiautonomous regions.

• Establishing political, media, economic and services committees in support of the Baghdad security plan.

• Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations.

• Ensuring that the Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for outlaws, regardless of sectarian or political affiliation.

• Establishing all of the planned joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad.

• Ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected.

• Allocating and spending equitably $10 billion in Iraqi revenue for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services.

--

Too early to assess or of questionable value

• Enacting and implementing legislation addressing amnesty for former insurgents.

• Enacting and implementing legislation establishing a strong militia disarmament program to ensure that security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the Constitution of Iraq.

Source: Associated Press

Iraqis chafe at U.S. deadline pressure

Conflicting comments on the benchmarks illustrate the division among political leaders.
By Ned Parker and Saif Hameed
Times Staff Writers

July 13, 2007

BAGHDAD — Leading Shiite Muslim politicians Thursday pleaded with Washington to stop imposing deadlines for reforms meant to stabilize Iraq and expressed frustration that their country's future was becoming a hostage of U.S. politics.

At the same time, comments by Shiite and Sunni officials reflected the deep sectarian rifts hindering reconciliation. A senior Shiite official close to Prime Minister Nouri Maliki accused Sunni Arabs of sabotaging efforts to meet Washington's goals, including the passage of a national oil law.

In turn, the head of Iraq's main Sunni political bloc called for aggressive action to implement the proposals as a way to combat Shiite militias.

The dueling comments, made as the White House released its assessment of the Iraqi government's progress toward 18 important benchmarks, gave a picture of the immense difficulties Iraq faces in becoming an effective democracy.

"As Iraqis we need more time. Maybe the American agenda has no more time. Initially the benchmarks were an Iraqi initiative. They were not an American initiative," Vice President Adel Abdul Mehdi, a Shiite, told The Times. The Iraqi government composed the original draft of the benchmarks last year, he said.

"At the end we have an Iraqi process." Abdul Mehdi said, defending Maliki's government, which the Bush report says has made mixed progress.

Washington held up the benchmarks, including enactment of an oil law, and a program to rehabilitate former Baath Party members, as the price for raising its troop levels to 160,000 this spring. But five months after the U.S. buildup began, the Iraqi government has failed to make any broad progress, leaving it concerned that Washington may start cutting crucial military and financial support.

"This is a young democracy in Iraq. People have been oppressed for a long time. They never experienced democracy," said Abdul Mehdi, a favorite of Washington and a candidate for prime minister if Maliki falls.

The vice president listed several accomplishments of the often-criticized government.

"On the security issue, I think there are achievements," he said, listing the wooing of Sunni tribal leaders away from militants in Al Anbar province, a drop in violence in Baghdad, and the willingness of Iraqi security forces to confront militias across the country.

"On the Iraqi side you always need more time. You have those two clocks in Washington and Baghdad, you have to synchronize," he said.

Iraqi officials chafed at the conflict between Congress and President Bush over the benchmarks and at the negative characterizations of them by U.S. lawmakers.

"They want to rush the benchmarks for reasons related to U.S. internal affairs…. It is not like they want us to have an oil law and we don't want to," said Shiite parliament member Sami Askari, who is an advisor to Maliki.

"The Iraqi government is not required to adhere to the timeframe the Americans set."

Iraq's planning minister, Ali Baban, a Sunni who took part in drafting the oil legislation, complained that U.S. diplomats were pressing Iraqis to make decisions quickly, which suited Washington's interests and not those of Baghdad.

He blamed Iraq's current impasse over the oil law on American pressure.

"They urged all participants to finish their jobs in short time, maybe for some political reasons related to Mr. Bush or the American government," he said, adding that the pressure was brought to bear by former U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, who left Baghdad in March.

Maliki's government feared that if it didn't meet Washington's deadlines, it would lose crucial support, Baban said.

He compared the rush to finish and enact the oil law to the campaign by the U.S. Embassy to get Iraqis to approve a Constitution in 2005.

"Later on we discovered this Constitution was full of mistakes and weak points," Baban said. The Iraqi parliament is still working on revising the Constitution, which in its current form authorizes strong regional powers and a weak national government.

Baban said the latest draft of the oil legislation would allow provinces to control their reserves independent of the national government.

Shiite officials disputed his account.

Another advisor to Maliki, lawmaker Haidar Abadi, accused Sunni Arab parties of deliberately sabotaging the government. The main 44-member Sunni parliamentary bloc has boycotted proceedings since late June to protest an arrest warrant issued for the culture minister, a Sunni, and the decision to remove the parliament speaker, also a Sunni.

Abadi said Sunnis were trying to undermine the Shiite-led government in hopes of creating a crisis that would force the international community to step in, change the political process and give Sunnis greater power.

"The government cannot do anything regarding a group of politicians who decide to quit the government or decide to stall the political process or decide not to attend the parliament so quorum isn't achieved," Abadi said.

Sunni insurgent groups are aware that a second progress report is due in September, Abadi said, and are threatening to attack Sunni lawmakers if they do not stall the political process. The groups hope continued failure will push the U.S. to withdraw troops, he said.

In turn, the head of the Sunni bloc, Adnan Dulaimi, who is accused by Shiites of having ties with insurgents, called on the Americans to help make sure that the 18 goals are met. He urged U.S. forces to stay until Iraq's Sunni-Shiite violence stops.

"I think the U.S. has the right to ask anything from the Iraqi government. The Security Council gave the U.S. that right as an occupying country. Also, the Geneva Conventions gave the U.S. the right to ask the Iraqi government anything regarding administration and security."

--

ned.parker@latimes.com

Times staff writer Raheem Salman contributed to this report.

Deadlocked Sunni, Shiite Factions Block Political Progress, Iraqis Say

By Joshua Partlow and Sudarsan Raghavan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, July 13, 2007; A05

BAGHDAD, July 12 -- Iraqi politicians on Thursday struck a more pessimistic tone about Iraq than did the White House assessment, and said the deadlock between warring Sunni and Shiite factions makes major political progress unlikely in coming months.

Some Iraqi leaders, including members of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's ruling Shiite alliance, added that U.S. officials have set unrealistic goals that the Iraqi government cannot achieve at a time of such instability and violence.

Setting timelines and benchmarks according to Washington's political calendar would be counterproductive to Iraq's success, allowing the government's adversaries to work harder to shatter Iraq's efforts to bring security, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said.

"I was the first to argue: These are not your benchmarks, these are our goals. Why do you make it yours?" Zebari, an ethnic Kurd, said in an interview earlier this week. "I think some of the difficulties we've been through in the past is because we have been held hostage to these timelines. Now, I think the stakes are so high, really, the situation needs to be managed with a bit more care."

The 25-page White House document, an assessment mandated by Congress, outlined what it described as some progress on eight of 18 initiatives, including amending the constitution, forming semiautonomous governing regions and Iraqi support for military operations inside Baghdad. But on some of the most significant benchmarks, such as passing legislation to manage Iraq's oil resources and bringing former Baath Party members back into the political fold, the Iraqi government showed unsatisfactory progress, according to the report.

"The problem is, we are required to push things through because Congress has it on paper," said Haider al-Ebaidi, a Shiite politician from Maliki's Dawa party. "While here, in reality, it is not necessarily right that some of these things should be passed."

Ebaidi said many Shiites view reconciling with former Baathists as "rewarding those people who have been responsible for torturing and killing." Sunnis, on the other hand, say the steps being discussed do not go far enough to bring back civil servants who had little or nothing to do with the repressive policies of ousted president Saddam Hussein.

"The moment they push these things through," he said, "they will divide the government more."

Iraq's oil law, considered by U.S. officials to be a top priority, has yet to be discussed in parliament, despite a May 31 Iraqi deadline. A boycott by Sunni ministers from cabinet meetings has hindered the progress on the law, as have reservations about how Iraq's predominantly Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish regions can share revenue equitably or broker their own contracts with oil companies.

"We have not made enough political progress, whether by presenting the oil law or amending the constitution or the de-Baathification law," said Hachim al-Hassani, a former speaker of parliament and a secular Sunni lawmaker. He said the groups whose political fortunes ascended with the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, particularly Shiites and Kurds, "don't want to give up those gains, they don't want to share the power."

"That's where the problem is," he said. "We can't make any political progress unless we reach some kind of equalization of power between different groups, at least in the transitional period that we're going through."

Hassani said such benchmarks are needed to prod the Iraqi government into action.

"The international players, which are led by the United States, really need to put pressure on the Iraqi political groups so they can reach the agreements that we are talking about," he said. "Otherwise the political groups that have the power right now, there is no reason for them to give up that power unless they feel pressure from international players."

Some Iraqi officials sounded more optimistic about military and security improvements in recent months, including the maturation of the Iraqi army. Ebaidi said that last year Iraq appeared on the brink of civil war, but that he thinks the threat has subsided.

"Now you have more viable Iraqi security forces," he said. "Last year it wasn't imaginable that the Iraqi security forces would fight the Mahdi Army" in southern Iraq, he said, referring to recent clashes between government forces and the Shiite militia loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr.

But Saleem Abdullah, a lawmaker from the leading Sunni faction in parliament, said that the White House report overstated the security improvements.

"We don't count security as how many victims of violence, or how many car bombs, or how many people are killed," he said. "We also have displaced families: How many of them have returned?"

"That's the most important thing, how people are living their daily lives," he said. "That's what would give us a good indicator of progress."

Special correspondent Dalya Hassan contributed to this report.

You Call That Progress?

The outrageous White House report on Iraq.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, July 12, 2007, at 5:47 PM ET

The White House report released today, on how far Iraq has progressed toward 18 political and military benchmarks, is a sham.

According to the report, which was required by Congress, progress has been "satisfactory" on eight of the benchmarks, "unsatisfactory" on another eight, and mixed on two. At his press conference this morning, President Bush, seeing the glass half full, pronounced the report "a cause for optimism"—and for staying on course.

Yet a close look at the 25-page report reveals a far more dismal picture and a deliberately distorted assessment. The eight instances of "satisfactory" progress are not at all satisfactory by any reasonable measure—or, in some cases, they indicate a purely procedural advance. The eight "unsatisfactory" categories concern the central issues of Iraqi politics—the disputes that must be resolved if Iraq is to be a viable state and if the U.S. mission is to have the slightest chance of success.

Here are the benchmarks at which, even the White House acknowledges, the Iraqi government has not made satisfactory progress:

• Legislation on de-Baathification reform
• Legislation to ensure equitable distribution of oil revenue without regard to sect or ethnicity
• Setting up provincial elections
• Establishing a strong militia-disarmament program
• Allowing Iraqi commanders to pursue militias without political interference
• Ensuring that the Iraqi army and police enforce the law evenhandedly
• Increasing the number of Iraqi security forces capable of operating independently (here, the number has actually gone down)
• Ensuring that Iraq's political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of Iraqi security forces

The status of former Baathists, distribution of oil revenue, local elections, disarming militias, sectarianism within the police, the legitimacy of the national army—these are the main issues grinding the parliament to a standstill, aggravating ethnic conflict, and forcing millions of Iraqis to flee the country. These are the issues that the Iraqi political leaders are supposed to be resolving while American troops fight and die to make Baghdad secure.

Yet the White House is admitting that the Iraqis have made no real progress on any of these fronts.

In its legislation requiring this report, Congress stated, "The United States strategy in Iraq, hereafter, shall be conditioned on the Iraqi government meeting [these 18] benchmarks." Yet even on the eight benchmarks that it admits are not met, the White House report explicitly denies the need to change strategy.

The report's account of the eight supposedly successful benchmarks is, on inspection, no less dismaying.

Take Benchmark No. 1: "Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and then completing the constitutional review." The report admits that Iraq's "political blocs still need to reach an accommodation on these difficult political issues." (The report neglects to point out that many of the Sunni blocs are boycotting the parliament.) And yet it declares that the Iraqi government has made "satisfactory progress" because the constitutional review is "now underway."

Or Benchmark No. 9: "Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations." The report admits, "Manning levels for deploying units continues to be of concern." The report doesn't explain what this means—namely, that Iraq's brigades have only 50 percent to 75 percent of their soldiers. And yet it concludes that the Iraqi government has made "satisfactory progress" because it "has provided" the brigades.

Then there's Benchmark No. 12: "Ensuring that … the Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of sectarian or political affiliation." The report admits this task "remains a significant challenge" in "some parts of Baghdad." However, it claims "satisfactory progress" because U.S. commanders report "overall satisfaction with their ability to target any and all extremist groups" and because U.S. diplomats, in their talks with Iraqi officials, "continue to stress the importance" of the topic.

The good mark for Benchmark No. 17 is particularly dubious: "Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis." The report admits that the Iraqi government has spent only 22 percent of its capital budget, that "it remains unclear" whether the oil ministry has "made any real effort" to spend its share of the funds, that it's hard to track the budget, and that the effects of new spending are felt "unevenly." Still, it claims "satisfactory progress" because some of the revenue is dribbling into the economy.

The other four "satisfactory" grades concern purely procedural matters. They assess legislation on "procedures to form semi-autonomous regions" (not on whether the regions have been formed); "establishing … political, media, economic, and service committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan" (not whether their support has been effective); "establishing … joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad" (not whether they're effective, either); and "ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected" (not in Iraqi society).

The report card was rigged from the outset by how the White House defined "satisfactory."

The legislation required the president to submit a report "declaring, in his judgment, whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is, or is not, being achieved."

The White House report states, "In order to make this judgment … we … asked the following question: As measured from a January 2007 baseline, do we assess that present trend data demonstrates a positive trajectory, which is tracking toward satisfactory accomplishment in the near term? If the answer is yes, we have provided a 'Satisfactory' assessment; if the answer is no, the assessment is 'Unsatisfactory.' " (All italics added.)

Subtle but pernicious wordplay is going on here. "Satisfactory progress" toward a benchmark is very different from "a positive trajectory … toward satisfactory accomplishment." The congressional language requires a satisfactory degree of progress. The White House interpretation allows high marks for the slightest bit of progress—the "positive trajectory" could be an angstrom, as long as it's "tracking toward" the goal; the degree of progress doesn't need to be addressed.

Yet even by this extraordinarily lenient standard, the White House authors could not bring themselves to give a passing grade to the Iraqi government on half of the benchmarks—and the most important benchmarks, at that.

This is no academic matter. As President Bush and Gen. David Petraeus have said many times, the point of the surge and its strategy is to make Baghdad secure, so that Iraq's political leaders have the "breathing room" to resolve their disputes. Yet if they are incapable of resolving their disputes—if they have made no measurable progress on the major issues and if the Iraqi military hasn't advanced much either—then the surge may be a hopeless cause. Certainly, members of Congress are right to question the strategy, and Bush is deceptive in dismissing their challenges out of hand.

Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate. He can be reached at war_stories@hotmail.com.

President Unbowed as Benchmarks Are Unmet

House Votes to Begin Iraq Pullout This Year

By Michael Abramowitz and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 13, 2007; A01

President Bush, delivering a mixed report to Congress on political and military progress in Iraq, insisted yesterday he would not be rushed into an early withdrawal, even as lawmakers voted to begin pulling troops from Iraq in the coming months.

Just hours after the administration's much-awaited report reached Capitol Hill, the House responded by approving legislation requiring U.S. combat forces to start leaving Iraq within 120 days. The resolution passed on a largely party-line vote, with only four Republican defections -- a reflection of White House efforts to keep House Republicans from joining restive GOP senators in challenging the president.

With most Democrats solidly opposing Bush on Iraq, the White House yesterday appeared intent on easing Republicans' concerns over their politically costly support of the president. In both the report and a subsequent news conference, Bush made the case that progress is underway, albeit fitfully, and that Congress should wait until September before demanding any dramatic shifts in strategy.

The president cast his ultimate goal as identical to that of his critics. "We're working to defeat al-Qaeda and other extremists and aid the rise of an Iraqi government that can protect its people," Bush said at the beginning of his news conference. "By doing this, we'll create the conditions that would allow our troops to begin coming home while securing our long-term national interest in Iraq and in the region."

Answering questions for more than an hour, Bush acknowledged public anxiety over the conflict in Iraq but remained defiant about his prerogative to conduct the war as he sees fit. He said he might be willing to consider a new approach, but not until September, when Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker are scheduled to make a more comprehensive assessment of conditions in Iraq.

"There's war fatigue," Bush said. "It's affecting our psychology."

The president later lashed out at lawmakers for trying to end the war from Capitol Hill. "I'll listen to Congress," Bush said. "But the idea of telling our military how to conduct operations, for example, or how to deal with troop strength, I don't think it makes sense . . . nor do I think it's a good precedent for the future."

The White House report highlighted "encouraging signs" of progress and pointed down the road to a "more normalized and sustainable level of U.S. engagement in Iraq, with a decreasing number of U.S. combat forces." But it was also candid about some of the failures of the Iraq government in meeting a series of congressionally mandated benchmarks.

It was far from clear yesterday whether Bush's latest communications offensive had bought him much more time on Capitol Hill. Even key Republicans questioned the Iraqi government's ability to meet benchmarks on security and national reconciliation.

"I am disappointed that, after great sacrifice by U.S. and Iraqi troops since the announcement of the surge in January, the Iraqi government has not met critical political benchmarks in that period," said Sen. John W. Warner (Va.), the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee and a bellwether of GOP opinion. "That government is simply not providing leadership worthy of the considerable sacrifice of our forces, and this has to change immediately."

Democrats were more scathing, accusing Bush of whitewashing the findings and failing to face reality. "The president stubbornly refuses to develop a redeployment plan or devise a redeployment schedule, preferring to hope, despite the abundance of evidence to the contrary, that his failed policies will somehow make tomorrow better than today," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

A lengthy introduction to the administration's 25-page report described it as an interim "snapshot" of only limited use in judging the success of Bush's new strategy. Some of the benchmarks, it said, were useful in "giving some sense of future trends," while others were "lagging indicators" that could be assessed only after the strategy "is fully underway." It suggested that some other measures providing a more favorable picture -- a recent decrease in the number of suicide bombings and sectarian violence, and local cooperation with U.S. forces in Anbar province -- might serve as a better yardstick.

The report judged that progress was "satisfactory" in eight of 18 benchmarks, including a review of the Iraqi constitution; legislation to divide Iraq into semi-autonomous regions; the protection of minority rights; and government, military and civil support for the new strategy. But it noted mixed progress on new electoral laws, militia disarmament and the reduction in militia control of local areas.

Areas receiving unsatisfactory grades included reform of Iraq's de-Baathification laws; enactment of a new law governing oil revenue; the ability of Iraqi security forces to operate independently from U.S. forces; and a range of benchmarks measuring sectarian bias in the government.

Last night's House vote showed that Democratic leaders have solidified their party's unity, winning over conservative Democrats while pulling aboard a few straggling liberals who had sought an even firmer response. But Republicans by and large remained united behind Bush, a sign of the growing polarization in that chamber over the war.

Under the bill, which mirrors a bipartisan amendment now under debate in the Senate, combat troops would have to start coming home within 120 days of passage, with most of them out by April 1, 2008. An unstated number of troops -- perhaps tens of thousands, according to Senate GOP supporters -- would probably remain to combat terrorism, protect U.S. diplomatic facilities and train Iraqi security forces, although Bush would be required to justify their continued deployment.

The president has said he would veto such legislation, and there are no signs that Democrats could muster enough votes to override him.

The 223 to 201 House vote included four Republicans supporting the bill and 10 Democrats opposed. The four Republicans included two who have voted for withdrawal before -- Reps. Wayne T. Gilchrest (Md.) And Walter B. Jones (N.C.) -- and two who haven't -- Jo Ann Emerson (Mo.) and John J. "Jimmy" Duncan Jr. (Tenn.).

In a statement, Emerson said she was seeking an alternative between unilateral withdrawal and remaining indefinitely. "The middle ground requires that we make plans now to redeploy our forces from Iraq in the visible future, not tomorrow, but eventually and in stages," she said.

Moderate Republicans -- who have been breaking against Bush in the Senate -- stuck with him in the House. Rep. Michael N. Castle (Del.), a leading moderate, stressed that he would like to see the administration change course, but not the way Democrats are prescribing.

"I've never thought that setting an arbitrary deadline for complete withdrawal makes any sense," Castle said. "I just think that would leave the possibility of Iraq being in total disarray forever."

Meanwhile, in the Senate, Warner and Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), unveiled an amendment yesterday to a defense policy bill, urging Bush to begin laying the groundwork for all conceivable outcomes that could emerge from the September report by Petraeus and Crocker.

The White House has been clearly working Republicans hard, anxious to maintain adequate support to sustain any Bush veto of Iraq legislation -- the key to his leverage on Capitol Hill. Bush yesterday described the Republicans who have voiced concern about his policies, including Lugar and Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), as "good, honorable people" who share his concern that "a precipitous withdrawal would embolden al-Qaeda."

Looking to shore up support with such lawmakers, Bush reiterated his interest in the Iraq Study Group recommendations, which appeal to the moderate GOP lawmakers. He also announced that he is dispatching Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to the Middle East in August -- answering lawmakers' desire for increased regional diplomacy. Rice will go to Israel and the Palestinian territories as part of a broader regional swing later this month before she joins Gates in early August to try to win greater support from Iraq's neighbors, U.S. officials said.

But Bush gave little indication that he is ready to jettison his basic approach to Iraq. "I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now," he said. "To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale."

Staff writers Karen DeYoung and Robin Wright contributed to this report.

As the War Debate Heats Up, Stagnant Air Is in the Forecast

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 13, 2007; A01

He lamented, in his own way, that he is unloved these days and reflected on the "war fatigue" that has gripped his country. He looked forward to the day, not so long from now, when he will retire to his Texas ranch and tell himself that he did the right thing.

Yet no matter how battered he seems, no matter how unpopular he may be in the polls, President Bush still holds the commanding position in his showdown with Congress over Iraq. Even with Republican defections, as votes in both houses made clear this week, opponents do not have anywhere near the veto-proof majorities needed to wrest leadership of the war.

The almost-certain result, according to strategists in both parties, will be at least two more months of anger and posturing but no change in direction. A weakened president is desperately playing for time while a Democratic opposition mounts its case against him and Republican lawmakers agonize over how long to stick with him. Bush will keep pressing his strategy in Iraq in hopes that it produces more than the meager results his White House reported yesterday while his foes keep scoring political points and not much else.

"The town is gridlocked," said Kenneth M. Duberstein, who served as chief of staff in the Reagan White House. "There is no give at the White House or on the Hill. The Senate doesn't have 60 votes to do anything. So, at least for the foreseeable future, which may be September, the only result is stalemate. That may benefit the president, and if you listen to the Democrats, they think it benefits them."

Both sides have stuck to their familiar positions. Bush has long seen a virtue in refusing to relent to pressure and operating as he sees fit regardless of Congress, while the Democrats, until January, had spent the Bush presidency essentially in the minority, lobbing criticism but with no responsibility for governing. Neither side shows even passing interest in forging a bipartisan consensus, preferring instead to bend the other to its will.

"In many ways, everybody's trapped," said Clinton White House chief of staff Leon E. Panetta, who served on the Iraq Study Group as it produced a bipartisan plan largely discarded at first by both sides. "The president in many ways is trapped in the realities of what's taking place. The Congress is trapped because, while they want to change strategy, they don't have the votes. And both sides are trapped by the fear of the consequences of what happens if they do make a change."

The defections of core Republican senators such as Richard G. Lugar (Ind.) and Pete V. Domenici (N.M.) in the past couple of weeks alarmed the White House and prompted a series of hastily called meetings and strategy sessions to shore up its eroding base. But as the days passed, Bush advisers calmed down and recognized that they can preserve their policy for now. "As long as we can sustain a veto, we have got some leverage on this process," one White House aide said.

That became evident in votes this week. Seven Republican senators abandoned Bush on Wednesday to vote for a measure requiring more rest time for troops between combat deployments, but the bill still fell four votes short of the 60 needed to break a filibuster and 11 short of the 67 needed to override a veto. Just four House Republicans voted yesterday for a timetable for withdrawal, leaving pullout proponents nearly 70 votes from a veto-proof majority.

Still, the clock is ticking for Bush, and it seems to be speeding up. Just two weeks ago, White House aides bemoaned the political missteps that made September a deadline of sorts for demonstrating the success of the president's troop increase. Too soon, they complained. Now September looks like the holy grail as Bush and his team find themselves practically begging fellow Republicans to hang on until then.

The strategy pursued by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is to keep scheduling votes to pressure Republicans, who, in turn, would pressure the White House to change its war policy. "The president hasn't seen the last of these votes," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley. "We'll look forward to additional votes in September."

Patrick Griffin, who was President Bill Clinton's chief lobbyist on Capitol Hill, said the current stalemate is just a step in a process that inexorably will force Bush to change his policy. "This isn't going to go away," he said. "Eventually, something's going to stick, or something's going to change. Either he's going to lean into this, or more people are going to shift positions."

Yet Democrats appear uninterested in reaching out to Republicans, preferring to keep party differences on the war clear heading into the 2008 elections and fearing that any proposal moderate enough to attract GOP support could anger the antiwar wing of their party. "I'm not supportive of where the president is, but they haven't engaged any of us here," said an angry Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.). "They're just trying to score political points."

At the center of this remains Bush, pummeled yet defiant, rejected yet still in charge. From the lectern in the newly reopened White House briefing room yesterday, he alternated between being grim and relaxed, unpopular commander of an unpopular war one moment and light-hearted pol the next.

"Do we ever use 'kinder and gentler'?" he asked after cutting off a reporter. "No," he said, rejecting his father's mantra with a smile.

At another point, he stopped to answer a shouted question after starting to leave the room, something he rarely does. "This is amazing," he declared. "The new me!"

But it did not really seem like a new Bush. Most of his arguments sounded familiar -- the need to persevere in Iraq against the radicals who would spread chaos, the search for signs of progress on the ground in the face of unremitting violence, the faith that success is still in reach. He tried to show he was willing to take on all comers, even calling upon nemesis Helen Thomas for the first question.

Yet, there were moments of reflection for a typically unreflective president. It was hard not to wonder whether he was talking about himself as he mused about the "ugly war" and how the American people have wearied of it. "You know, they're tired of the war," he said. "There is a war fatigue in America. It's affecting our psychology."

And then there was the concession that while he still commands policy, he no longer commands the affection of his nation. "I guess I'm like any other political figure -- everybody wants to be loved," he said. "Just sometimes the decisions you make and the consequences don't enable you to be loved."

Leaning on the lectern, Bush anticipated the day when the responsibility would no longer be his and expressed his hope for vindication. "When it's all said and done . . . if you ever come down and visit the old, tired me down there in Crawford, I will be able to say, 'I looked in the mirror and made decisions based upon principle, not based upon politics,' " he said. "And that's important to me."

Staff writers Michael Abramowitz and Jonathan Weisman contributed to this report.

Some Soldiers Believe Deadlines a Good Thing

It seems some in the U.S. military are getting ahead of the Bush Administration. Today's L.A. Times has an article on members of the U.S. military who think that deadlines for meeting security benchmarks that would allow withdrawal of American troops are a good thing at this point.

Hadley in Iraq

American National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley is in Iraq, apparently to discuss how to improve the security situation in Iraq, most importantly in Baghdad. Bringing more Iraqi troops to Baghdad seems to be on the table, as well as a possible increase in numbers of American troops in the Iraqi capital.

But the New York Times, somewhat oddly, takes this opportunity to lay out all the options Americans are proposing for the long-term stability of the Iraqi government, from strongman rule to regional division. Or maybe that's just odd to me, because it doesn't seem like any of those things will be discussed by President Bush's national security adviser on a trip to Baghdad to visit Nouri Al Maliki

Rumsfeld vs. The Press

Sometimes you wonder if the press doesn't like Donald Rumsfeld. After Thursday's "contentious" DOD press briefing, wonder no more.

The press clearly see Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as lacking a fundamental understanding of the press's function in a democracy:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters today to "just back off" and "relax" instead of looking for differences between U.S. and Iraqi officials on benchmarks for progress in Iraq toward political and security goals, and he rejected the idea of penalizing any failure to hit the targets.

Of course, it didn't help that Rumsfeld mocked reporters, said that the press was creating "mischief" and shouted down Jim Miklaszewski when he asked a question not precise enough to be worthy of a Rumsfeld answer. Telling the press to stop doing what they do is ridiculous.

Senator John Kerry's staff clearly saw that Rumsfeld's arrogance and defensiveness weren't working in his favor and took the opportunity to pounce, saying that "Today a secretary of defense, who should have been fired a long time ago, lost even greater touch with reality." Rumsfeld's beleaguered, and I'm sure the press will have its chance to mock him when he's gone.

My biggest problem is that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld revealed that the benchmarks supposedly being set for security in Iraq -- rejected by Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki, but no matter -- won't be real benchmarks, because those would affect American and Iraqi public opinion and help us determine whether the war is succeeding on the Administration's own terms.

And this Administration does not want to let anyone, let alone the public, determine whether the Iraq war is going well based on any set of criteria that can be reviewed and reported on by the press, even if those criteria are ones of its own choosing. Be prepared to be disgusted when those benchmarks come out.