GAO Report: The Status of the Dispute

by emptywheel

Okay, here's the Karen DeYoung report I was so impatient for yesterday. She lays out mostly the changes that I found here, ThinkProgress found here, and NSN found here.

A bleak portrait of the political and security situation in Iraq released yesterday by the Government Accountability Office sparked sharp protests from the top U.S. military command in Baghdad, whose officials described it as flawed and "factually incorrect."

The controversy followed last-minute changes made in the final draft of the report after the Defense Department maintained that its conclusions were too harsh and insisted that some of the information it contained -- such as the extent of a fall in the number of Iraqi army units capable of operating without U.S. assistance -- should not appear in the final, unclassified version.

The GAO rejected several changes proposed by the Pentagon and concluded that Iraq had failed to meet all but two of nine security goals Congress had set as part of a list of 18 benchmarks of progress. But grades for two of the seven unmet security benchmarks -- the elimination of havens for militia forces and the deployment of three Iraqi army brigades to assist the U.S. security plan in Baghdad -- were recast to reflect partial progress. Two other benchmarks, one political and one economic, were also described as "partially met." [my emphasis]

If I'm reading the bolded paragraph correctly, it says the military succeeded in burying the details about how few Iraqi army units can operate on their own; it was evident that the GAO had changed this benchmark from failing to mostly failing partial success, but I guess the actual numbers are even more damning than the Gentleman's C grade on it is.

It appears that David Walker, the head of GAO, attributes this change to new information--though if it is, why can't we see the data?

Walker, the GAO chief, denied that substantive changes in the report had been made under pressure. "The only thing we really did was we went to a 'partially met' on a couple, on one of which I'd made the judgment . . . independently of [military] comments; the other of which they provided us additional information that we did not have previously," he said in congressional testimony.

All of which leaves the one area where there will (or should, but perhaps I'm overly optimistic) be the big discussion in the next week: Petraeus' funny numbers.

The military officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because Petraeus will give the official military position in testimony Monday, took particular exception to the GAO statement that a drop in sectarian attacks could not be confirmed. The final version of the report softened the draft's initial conclusion that "U.S. agencies differ on whether such violence has been reduced," saying instead that "measuring such violence may be difficult since the perpetrator's intent is not clearly known."

One military official called even the revised version "factually incorrect," saying that "we absolutely disagree with their characterization of sectarian violence." Such attacks have fallen significantly this year, he said.

But Walker said the GAO received different assessments of the levels of violence. The report, he noted, recommended that the administration reflect such divergence in its own reports. It was unclear whether sectarian attacks had dropped, he said, "since it is difficult to measure intentions and there are various measures of sectarian violence from different sources. . . . Some show increases, some show decreases, and some show inconsistent patterns."

Petraeus--with the military--wants to use the new massaged numbers, which does not count any deaths from suicide bombs The logic on this is particularly specious; they say that suicide bombs are definitely Al Qaeda in Iraq, and therefore it doesn't count as sectarian. But last I checked, there was a sectarian component to Al Qaeda in Iraq, too.

And Walker, in perhaps his most gentle response, suggests maybe the government might acknowledge that there are at least three sets of numbers and their numbers don't match anyone else's.

Comments

[dude]

Tony Cortesman and another military analyst for NPR (a retired Marine general) were on yesterday pitching the "we gotta stay in Iraq" theme. The Marine general said he knew "some" of the Iraqi police and military units were inadequate. but that he had "talked to US commanders on the ground" who felt fully confident in the Iraqi forces they were paired with. He did not describe what they did or how many. They were also relegated the quantity description of "some". He and Cortesman both admitted "we (the US) made a mess, but Iraq was 'vital to our strategic interests in the region', so we needed to stay on. Period. Neil Conan(t) "left it there"---and went on to talk in the next segment with experts on bi-polar disorder and then with Michael Palin of Monty Python.

It segued beautifully.

When is the last time you heard anybody discuss in detail the complete meaning Iraw in the context of "our vital strategic interests"?

[Knobbles]

"the extent of a fall in the number of Iraqi army units capable of operating without U.S. assistance -- should not appear in the final, unclassified version." Does this indicate that the Defense Department removed the information by classifying it? If so, are the members of Congress entitled to examine the classified numbers?

One other question. Are we being led into a cul-de-sac with this focus on the military's numbers? The military has been wrong about everything in Iraq to date. Either they didn't have the correct information, or they were lying. We know that in many cases they were lying, but we also know that in many cases they are fighting blind.

Is there any reason to believe that the military has reliable information or that it would share it or interpret it correctly?

[William Ockham]

So we are reduced to arguing whether or not the perpetrators of the violence in Iraq are motivated by sectarianism or mere sociopoliticoeconomic reasons. I doubt it matters much to the victims. Of course, we still don't know what motivates our violence there.

[eyesonthestreet]

So, the Government Accountablity Office is an oxymoron? Like Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Education Department?

[emptywheel]

Knobbles

I think it depends how quickly we can mobilize attention on that issue. The Republican plan, it appears, is to say those who dispute Petraeus just have outdated numbers. But the military won't give us the basis for the numbers. But if we can undermine those numbers before Monday (a big deal, I know), then we might be able to make Petraeus think twice.

[Jodi]

emptywheel,

have patience.

General Petraeus will be reporting soon.

[Darclay]

Seems to me the Admin is marching us directly into war with Iran. Keep us in Iraq and then stage it so it looks like Iran is attacking us there giving the ADMIN. the "see there we told you this would happen" If we do not impeach the Presnit and vice presnit we will certainly be bombing Iran by NOV if not before.
The Adminstration is hell bent on the total destruction of the US, mbott but its how I see it.

[Darclay]

Seems to me the Admin is marching us directly into war with Iran. Keep us in Iraq and then stage it so it looks like Iran is attacking us there giving the ADMIN. the "see there we told you this would happen" If we do not impeach the Presnit and vice presnit we will certainly be bombing Iran by NOV if not before.
The Adminstration is hell bent on the total destruction of the US, mbott but its how I see it.

[sailmaker]

We trained the South Vietnamese army/police force for what - 12 or 13 years? That didn't work out so well. I hope they have better training technics this time around, but the administration record on anything to do with the occupation has been regrettable to say the least.

[&y]

"U.S. agencies differ on whether such violence has been reduced . . . measuring such violence may be difficult since the perpetrator's intent is not clearly known."

Why make something that's difficult to measure a "benchmark?" Oh wait--I know why. And it really always is the same answer: because they don't care.

[emptywheel]

&y

It didn't used to be difficult to measure. All the violence was counted as such. But all of a sudden, it is difficult, when you take out the suicide bombing.

[Henry FTP]

In the annals of inside-the-Beltway chutzpah, this may just take the cake. Iraqis are being killed and maimed by suicide bombers in appalling numbers, but we're all just supposed to ignore that as the work of "foreigners" (or better yet, view that activity as bringing Iraqis together in national reconciliation to oppose the "common foe").

And to think this crowd made fun of "Baghdad Bob" . . .

[bmaz]

Sailmaker - "I hope they have better training technics this time". Well, keep in mind they did have Rudy Giuliani's main man Bernie Kerik training them up for a while. What with the integrity and knowledge that he and Rudy have, it ought to be all good, right?

[MarkH]

If we were ever capable of or going to "win" this "war" we would've already done it. We're long past the point where "it's only a matter of time before we leave" and the death toll & costs are just mounting.

[John B.]

Hey Henry FTP, actually, we are foreigners in Iraq.
We might bare some responsibility...

[janinsanfran]

Who cares what the cause of the violence in Iraq is? As the occupying power that overthrew an internationally recognized government (how ever awful), the United States took responsibility for security. After 4 and half years, it has failed to provide it. For shame! Or are we hiding behind our puppet government?