Senator Kerry on
meaningless benchmarks (May 1 speech):
<...>
But without real consequences, those benchmarks proved meaningless. Take a look at the benchmarks that the Iraqis agreed to have met by now, that President Bush promised to hold them to:
October 2006 - over six months ago - that was the deadline for Iraqis to approve a new oil law and a provincial election law. As of today, the oil law has yet to even be introduced in Parliament. And that's an improvement over the provincial election law, which has not even been drafted yet.
November 2006. That was the deadline for a new de-Baathification law to help bring Sunnis into the government. A draft proposal was recently denounced by Ayatollah Sistani and the national Commission created to oversee the process - it is nowhere near completion. . In fact, five months after the deadline, the Shi'ite leader of SCIRI recently described the Ba'athists as "the first enemy of the Iraqi people."
December 2006: the deadline for Iraqis to approve legislation to address the militias. To date, absolutely no progress has been made on this crucial legislation and the militias continue to wreak havoc.
January 2007 was the deadline for Iraqis to complete a constitutional review process. There was supposed to be a referendum on constitutional amendments by March. But the Constitutional committee hasn't even drafted the proposed amendments, and the Iraqis remain far apart on key issues such as federalism and the fate of the divided city of Kirkuk.
What's holding up the oil law (which the Iraqis want)? The Maliki government is trying to push through a law drafted by U.S. consulting firms, one with ties to Jeb Bush.
23 May 2007
Iraq's national oil law has been touted as a major step toward the political reconciliation of the country's major sects. The U.S. military surge in Baghdad is, in part, designed to provide the sectarian-defined political groups breathing room to pass this and other measures that would give every group a greater stake in the political and economic future of a unified Iraq. Yet, as negotiations over the oil law drag on, and grow increasingly bitter, such reconciliation seems less and less likely.
It now appears impossible for Iraq's parliament to pass the national oil law by the government-imposed deadline of May 31, 2007. The immediate cost of this failure will be economic -- while many of the Western majors would not invest in Iraq due to the remaining security risks, Eastern and smaller oil firms appear willing if the political risks were first removed through legislation.
However, the long-term damage done by the failure to reach a consensus on the oil law will be a hardening of the sectarian fractures in Iraq's political landscape. The debates surrounding the oil law do not center on what is best for the country as a whole, but only on what is best for each sectarian group. By defining the debate as yet another zero sum competition, Iraq's politicians have made it impossible to emerge from the negotiations without at least one group feeling like the losers. The U.S. Embassy in Iraq has only encouraged this situation by insisting on a greater role for foreign firms in future investments.
As such, reconciliation will never emerge from the passage of an oil law in Iraq. This darkens the prospects of success from the U.S. military surge.
<...>
The Kurdish PositionKurdish opposition to the current draft is based on fear that the central government will have too much control over the oil fields in the relatively peaceful north...
Sunni ObjectionsOpposition to the draft oil law is only part of a larger agenda for Sunni politicians. The Sunni-majority region is oil-poor, and Sunni politicians fear that the oil law could cut off their regions from Iraq's main source of income.
<...>
Competing Shi'a Visions for the FutureThe Shi'a leadership is united in its desire for a stronger role to be played by the central government in Iraq's oil sector, if only to prevent the Kurdish region from growing in power. The Iraqi oil minister, Hussein al-Shahristani, has inserted language into the draft bill that would further strengthen the government's role...
Benchmarks and Investments Drive Washington's Policy
<...>
U.S.-funded consultants had a significant role in shaping the existing draft oil law in Iraq. Firms such as BearingPoint were brought in to advise the Iraqi government and advocated allowing for private competition in the oil sector...
ConclusionIraq's national oil law has become an important factor in gauging the country's progress on political reconciliation. Judging by the debate surrounding the oil law, such a reconciliation will not be in the offing any time soon. Each sectarian and political group brings to the debate its own agenda, and these are incompatible with each other. Rather than looking for areas where compromise might be found, each group has dug in and looks to demand further concessions before voting for the oil law.
This puts Washington and al-Maliki in the precarious position of pushing for any law to be passed, even if it may be against their interests in the long term. Washington has hinged its military surge on progress from al-Maliki's government to pass measures demonstrating the political reconciliation of Iraq's sectarian groups. In turn, al-Maliki must push for the passage of such measures out of fear of losing support from Washington.
This is a situation that the Kurdish, Sunni, and al-Sadr-led groups would like to use to their advantage. Because the debate has been framed in these zero-sum terms, there will invariably be a loser. This, by definition, makes the possibility of Iraq's oil law leading to national reconciliation zero. It is likely that the law will be passed in some form in the next few weeks, but its passage will only hasten rather than slow Iraq's drift toward factionalism.
Report Drafted By:
Adam Wolfe
linkAbout BearingPoint:
The Bush administration hired the consulting firm BearingPoint to help write the law in 2004.<3><4> The bill was approved by the Iraqi cabinet in February 2007.<5> The Bush administration considers the passage of the law a benchmark for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.
linkIn March 2003, the state of Florida retracted an $80 million IT outsourcing deal awarded to BearingPoint after complaints by the losing bidders. Critics pointed to the company's close ties to Governor Jeb Bush. On March 23, BearingPoint announced it had been awarded a three-year, $39.9 million contract from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to help Afghanistan implement policy and institutional reform measures that will lead to an improved environment for economic development. The agreement includes an option for another two years, for a total award of $64.1 million.
linkIs Jeb Bush directing
procurement for the Bush admin?
In any case, it's up to Congress to hold the Bush admin accountable. The problem is Congress keeps letting Bush off the hook by allowing him to pursue meaningless benchmarks. As Senator Kerry mentioned in his
prepared remarks on the funding bill, benchmarks have to have consequences:
There are benchmarks for progress by the Iraqi government in meeting the key political benchmarks – including laws governing de-Baathification, distribution of hydrocarbons, federalism, disarming the militias and provincial elections. But while it says our reconstruction aid will be conditioned on progress in meeting these benchmarks, there is a presidential waiver and no actual consequences if they do not.
We know that benchmarks without consequences are no more than a wish list. These benchmarks have been around for 9 months and the Iraqis have missed every deadline. The President said in January that he would hold the Iraqis accountable for meeting the benchmarks, but they haven’t met any of them and nobody has been held accountable. And now, he insists on a waiver so he can let the Iraqis off the hook again.
In remarks delivered on the Senate floor, Kerry laid out the reality of Congressional reluctance to offer a bill that holds Bush and the Iraqis accountable (Video:
Part 1 and
Part 2):
I think in the last week or two, I've been to 3 funerals, Mr. President. One funeral, the son of a man who has opposed the war, a military man, a West Pointer himself, a man who gave us his career. But he's opposed to this war. And he dared to use the word to me in a conversation on the very day his son was being buried about how it was important for us to redouble our efforts here in the Senate, to bring this to a close. How it was important for us not to allow these young men and women to have their lives wasted; a word that if any politician used, we'd be pilloried for. The father of a man who was being buried used that word on the very day his son was being buried.
Another funeral I attended where the father was overcome with emotion speaking from the pulpit, left the pulpit, came down, stood beside his son's coffin and said, "I have to talk beside my son." Put his hand on the coffin and talked to us about his son's pride and his son's patriotism and his son's love of his fellow soldiers, his son and his commitment to what he was doing personally. … (W) e have a responsibility with respect to those young men and women, with respect to those families. And I believe that responsibility is not met when you give the president the very same power to continue on a daily basis what he has been doing for these last years.
<…>
There is not in this supplemental, one benchmark that can be enforced, not one. … How do you say to an American family that their son or daughter ought to give up their life so Iraqi politicians can spin around and play a game between each other at our expense. It's unconscionable. It's bad strategy. It's bad policy. It defies common sense. That's what this vote is about.
<…>
And I have no fear about casting this vote against this, Mr. President. Because this is the wrong policy for Iraq. This continues the open-ended lack of accountability. This allows the president to certify whatever the president wants, to waive whatever the president wants. And I promise to my colleagues, we will be back here in September having the same debate with the same benchmark questions and they will not have moved in their accountability.
<…>
It's time for us to get the policy right. That's how you support the troops.
moreThe vote on funding bill was May 24. Six soldiers died that day and another nine since. Bush continues
lying and making
bogus promises, and his enablers continue
spinning. Setting a deadline is the best strategy. Feingold's bill that scares some Democrats into spewing
RW talking points includes a deadline and adds funding accountability:
To safely redeploy United States troops from Iraq. (Introduced in Senate)
S 1077 IS
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1077
To safely redeploy United States troops from Iraq.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
April 10, 2007
Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. REID, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. DODD, Mr. KERRY, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. HARKIN, and Mr. SANDERS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations
Rule
A BILL
To safely redeploy United States troops from Iraq.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
(a) Transition of Mission- The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).
(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment From Iraq- The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds- No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.
(d) Exception for Limited Purposes- The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:
(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.
(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.
(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.
Basically, our troops are dying because no one is holding Bush accountable. On top of that, some Democrats are derailing a real debate by spewing
rhetoric.
It's time to really
support the troops.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
