FOOL'S ERRAND. This Fred Kagan piece condemning the GAO report on Iraqi benchmarks is really a masterpiece of excuse-making. Not only is Kagan excoriating Congress essentially for not grading the surge according to criteria which would ensure a good grade, he's defending a strategy of arming factions that, as Rob pointed out yesterday, is inimical to the process of state-building, and thus runs counter to the stated goal of the surge, which was to create a secure space for political reconciliation. Kagan complains:
"The GAO report reflects everything that has been wrong with the discussion about Iraq since the end of 2006. Through no fault of the GAO's, the organization was sent on a fool's errand by Congress. Its mandate was not to evaluate progress in Iraq, but to determine whether or not the Iraqi government had met the 18 benchmarks. As a result, as the report repeatedly notes, the GAO was forced to fit an extraordinarily complicated reality into a black-and-white, yes-or-no simplicity. In addition, the GAO's remit extended only to evaluating progress on the Congressionally-sanctioned 18 benchmarks, 14 of which were established between eight and 11 months ago in a very different context. As a result, the report ignores completely a number of crucial positive developments that were not foreseen when the benchmarks were established and that, in fact, offer the prospect of a way forward that is much more likely to succeed than the year-old, top-down concept the GAO was told to measure. As the situation in Iraq has been changing dynamically over the past eight months, as American strategy and operations, both military and political, have been adjusting on the ground to new realities, the debate in Washington has remained mired in the preconceptions and approaches of 2006. The GAO report epitomizes this fact.A number of commentators have already pointed out the absurdity of measuring whether or not the Iraqis had accomplished benchmarks rather than considering their progress toward doing so. Even the GAO found that task ridiculous, which is why, after criticism from the Departments of State and Defense, it invented the category of "partially met" as a third option, a category not foreseen in the legislation mandating the report."
This sounds like nothing so much as a parent arguing for a higher grade for his kid, which is pretty much what it is, as Fred Kagan is one of the fathers of the surge plan, and is completely invested in its being seen as working.To illustrate this, I've written a short play:
(INTERIOR: Elementary school classroom. Fred Kagan and the Teacher are sitting in tiny chairs around a tiny table.) Teacher: The truth is, Mr. Kagan, your child cannot read, add, subtract, color within the lines, or get to the bathroom on time, most times. He’s just not going to pass the first grade. Fred Kagan: Come on, can’t he "partially pass" or something? Shouldn't he be graded on how much progress he's made toward reading? Teacher: I don’t think-- Fred Kagan: These standards were devised months ago, in a totally different context, at the beginning of the school year! They’re outdated! They were designed to induce failure! Teacher: Be that as it may-- Fred Kagan: Admit it, you've always hated my son! Teacher: Please, I-- Fred Kagan: This was a fool’s errand! Teacher: Mr. Kagan-- Fred Kagan: Fool's! Errand! fin
--Matthew Duss
