Iraq, Congress, and the Initial Benchmark Assessment Report

Or, Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory
Or, There's Nothing so Lovely as Surrender in April.

As usual, Iraq is in the news.

According to what I read in the news, the Malachi government in Iraq got a "satisfactory" rating on only 8 of 18 "benchmarks", mixed reviews for 2 more, and for the 8 remaining, in an interim report: the Initial Benchmark Assessment Report.

The report I read had a different count:

• 9 benchmarks met: (i), (iv), (viii), (ix), (xii), (xiii), (xiv), (xvi), (xvii)
• 7 benchmarks not met: (ii),(iii), (vii), (x), (xi), (xv), (xviii)
• 2 benchmarks with a mixture of achieved and unachieved goals: (v), (vi).)

Here's the report, in pdf and html format, from the White House.

The current administration, trying to help leaders in Iraq set up a working government after over 30 years of a selfish tyrant's mismanagement, decided to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. These soldiers were going to wage war on al Qaeda in Iraq, and anyone else who wanted to overthrow or disrupt the Iraqi government.

This has been called a "troop surge." Actually, the current strategy is called "the New Way Forward."

The last deployment of the U.S. troops involved in the "surge" arrived in Iraq just a few weeks ago.

According to the White House report, this "strategy -- the New Way Forward -- recognizes that the fulfillment of commitments by both the U.S. and Iraqi Governments will be necessary to achieving our common goal: a democratic Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself, and be an ally in the War on Terror."

There's already progress. Limited progress, but progress.

The report says, "Tough fighting should be expected through the summer as Coalition and Iraqi Forces seek to seize the initiative from early gains and shape conditions for longer-term stabilization. These combined operations -- named Operation Phantom Thunder -- were launched on June 15, 2007, after the total complement of surge forces arrived in Iraq. The full surge in this respect has only just begun."

With a three-week-old major offensive showing limited progress, together with efforts at political reconciliation at the national, provincial, and local level, Iraq has a chance at getting a working government. A good chance, according to the White House.

Faced with the imminent threat of military and political success in Iraq, the United States House of Representatives acted with a decisiveness seldom seen on Capitol Hill.

A headline in the Washington Post says it well: House passes bill to withdraw troops from Iraq.

The measure, which passed a few hours ago, would have the Pentagon start withdrawing troops within four months, with all but a token force of 10,000 out of Iraq by April 1 of next year. The skeleton crew left behind would "train Iraqi soldiers, conduct counter-terrorism operations and protect U.S. diplomats."

al Qaeda and all the others who don't like U.S. efforts to help Iraq have been reassured by the House of Representatives. If they hunker down and survive until April of next year, they can enjoy a victory that will make the evacuation of Saigon, back in 1975, look like a tea party. Come to think of it, Saigon fell in late April, 1975, roughly April 27-30.

About the slow political progress in Iraq, the report says that there is "increasing concern among Iraqi political leaders that the United States may not have a long term-commitment to Iraq."

In other words, the Iraqis who are trying to put their country back together were worried that U.S. political leaders would do exactly what they did do.

The House of Representatives' notion of peacemaking goes to the Senate next. What they'll do, with 2008 elections coming up, is anyone's guess.

I sincerely hope that this nation's leaders are not putting polls and their own campaign plans above the good of the people who live in this country.

Whatever Congress decides, and whatever their motives, the odds are that they'll get to have their elections in 2008. November is only 7 months after April.

*-*-*-*-*

My academic and business experience has taught me that it's best to read original documents: not what someone says the original documents say. The only place, aside from the White House website, that I found a link to the White House report was the Fox Newsarticle.

Here's my summary of what the "Initial Benchmark Assessment Report" of July 12, 2007, says about the benchmarks.

The report itself is useful, if somewhat tedious, reading. (Available at the White House site, in pdf and html format).

• (i) Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and then completing the constitutional review.
  * satisfactory progress


• (ii) Enacting and implementing legislation on de-Ba’athification reform.
  * unsatisfactory


• (iii) Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources to the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shi’a Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner.
  * unsatisfactory, but it is too early to tell whether the Government of Iraq will enact and implement legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources to all Iraqis.


• (iv) Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions.
  * satisfactory progress


• (v) Enacting and implementing legislation establishing an Independent High Electoral Commission, provincial elections law, provincial council authorities, and a date for provincial elections.
  * Multiple components to this benchmark, each deserving its own assessment:


• Establishing the IHEC Commission:
  * satisfactory progress


• Elections Law:
  * unsatisfactory progress


• Provincial Council Authorities:
  * unsatisfactory progress


• Provincial Elections Date:
  * unsatisfactory progress


• (vi) Enacting and implementing legislation addressing amnesty.
  * hard to say -- prerequisites for a successful general amnesty are not present; however, in the current security environment, it is not clear that such action should be a near-term Iraqi goal


• (vii) Enacting and implementing legislation establishing a strong militia disarmament program to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the constitution of Iraq.
  * prerequisites ... are not present.


• (viii) Establishing supporting political, media, economic, and services committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan.
  * satisfactory progress


• (ix) Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations.
  * satisfactory progress


• (x) Providing Iraqi commanders with all authorities to execute this plan and to make tactical and operational decisions in consultation with U.S. Commanders without political intervention to include the authority to pursue all extremists including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias.
  * unsatisfactory progress


• (xi) Ensuring that Iraqi Security Forces are providing even-handed enforcement of the law.
  * unsatisfactory progress


• (xii) Ensuring that, as Prime Minister Maliki was quoted by President Bush as saying, "the Baghdad Security Plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation."
  * satisfactory progress


• (xiii) Reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminating militia control of local security.
  * satisfactory progress


• (xiv) Establishing all of the planned joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad.
  * satisfactory progress


• (xv) Increasing the number of Iraqi security forces units capable of operating independently.
  * unsatisfactory progress


• (xvi) Ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected.
  * satisfactory progress


• (xvii) Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.
  * satisfactory progress


• (xviii) Ensuring that Iraq’s political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the ISF.
  * unsatisfactory progress

The Right to Privacy and/or Anonymity

"Privacy" is important, but I've been interested in the way the term has evolved.

The American Heritage® Dictionary says that "privacy" means "The quality or condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others. b. The state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion: a person's right to privacy. 2. The state of being concealed; secrecy."

That makes sense, to me at any rate.

That "right to privacy" and "condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others" is where things get interesting.

Over the years, I've witnessed people getting upset when retailers put cameras in stores, to inhibit shoplifters. Sometimes the retailer went over the top, with cameras in women's dressing rooms. Generally, though, I'm with the store owners. I pay for what I get, and don't like paying extra to cover the costs of folks who take a five-finger discount.

Now that cameras in stores are accepted, the battle for "privacy" has gone to the streets. And the Web.

For years now, people have been expressing righteous indignation and grave concern over the terrible threat to "privacy" represented by security cameras mounted on light poles, and online merchants keeping track of what a customer buys.

After a while, I realized that these people were not crazy. Rather, their definition of "privacy" was very far removed from mine.

I think of "privacy" as applying to things like:

• Changing my underwear
• Exactly how much is (or isn't) in my bank account
• What my family and I discuss at home

"Privacy" for some people seems to mean not being recognized or remembered when, for example:

• Walking down a sidewalk
• Driving a car
• Looking at something in a store
• Buying something in a store

Those last two points took some real getting used to for me. I love it when someone in a store remembers that I bought a widget last month, and looked at three-pronged blivets last week, and points out a new widget-washing blivet. I may not buy the thing, but I appreciate being told about it.

I've had interesting discussions with acquaintances and friends who are horrified at the sort of invasion of privacy represented by cookies, which track what's done at websites. I see that sort of "spying" as being equivalent to what any half-way alert store owner would do for someone with cash or credit who entered his or her store.

If people are that concerned with "privacy," perhaps they should consider wearing paper bags over their heads when entering a convenience store.

Come to think of it, that would almost guarantee that they get prompt, personal, attention.

A shazam moment struck me some time ago. What many mean when they say "privacy" is what I mean when I say "anonymity."

I have a little more respect for "privacy advocates" now. It seems that what they ardently desire is a world where they are anonymous units in a sea of humanity, going about their solitary existences without knowing, or being known by, those around them.

There's a sort of heroic social asceticism to that desire, but I wouldn't want to live that way.

And I don't. I've lived in a town of 4,000 for the last two decades. There are some folks here who don't know me by sight, but many do. If I walk into a store downtown, the odds are that someone will recognize me. When I drive the family van down main, it would be odd if someone didn't recognize the vehicle, and notice that I was driving it.

And I don't feel that my privacy is being invaded.

Understanding that a branch of the civil liberties community are struggling to establish a citizen's Right to Anonymity has helped me to make sense of an important dialog in contemporary society.

This is a discussion that's likely to get more active, now that cities in the U.S. are talking about following the United Kingdom's lead in using security cameras to dissuade those residents who want to hurt other residents.

A quick look around the Web brought me to a few of the voices in this diverse digital debate. As usual, I don't necessarily agree with all these resources.

• An erudite look at the issue: Privacy as Contextual Integrity ("Interesting law review article by Helen Nissenbaum"). This one is also somewhat diffucult to read. The cited author doesn't seem to believe in paragraph breaks - a communication impediment shared by many in academia.
• The Neighbors Are Watching Via Surveillance Video (from the big-brother-is-next-door dept) "Yes, it's nice to have a world where people are unlikely to commit a crime since they're always being watched, but do we really want a world where no one has any real privacy?" Why are rhetorical questions so common?
• Hundreds of thousands of surveillance cameras across America track our behavior every day in the San Francisco Chronicle, October 17, 2004, "It pits the right to privacy, including anonymity in a crowd, against the potent fears of crime and, particularly these days, terrorism." Citing a Supreme Court ruling about "reasonable expectation of privacy," the article states that, as of 2003, "Even the American Civil Liberties Union doesn't object to video surveillance at national monuments and other potential al Qaeda targets." I must be on the right track, when such a respected journal as the San Francisco Chronicle links the right to privacy to anonymity.
• Back-seat fun: careful, they might film you (July 8, 2007), an Australian article, discussing the dangers of security cameras in taxis. There seems to be a lack of security "when the images are downloaded, a report by Victoria's former privacy commissioner" said. The current privacy commissioner agrees.

This is serious: Aussies making out in the back of a cab face the peril of embarrassment.

Or maybe worse. If one or both of the ultrasmoochers have a significant other, that s. o. might be miffed. Or decide to express their displeasure in a crudely physical way.