Those opposed, Jim Webb, Bush, et al, have some valid reasons supporting them. Webb is correct beyond doubt in calling the benchmarks a "feel-good" measure that gives the illusion .that we are doing something meaningful, an illusory action that is further degraded by making the benchmarks optional (like having Dupont voluntarily adhering to clean water or air standards). He is correct in the sense that progress cannot be legitimately measured if, say, Al Sadr tells his militia to lay low till we leave, or if there is a temporary lessening for a month or two of troop or civilian casualties or IED explosions. Further, there is the possibility that, as Webb says, something might be worked out with the leaders in Iran, Syria and us, with Iraq following some sort of guidelines.
What is ignored is the political reality, our zeitgeist, that now the independents, Democrats and a chunk of the right want adherence to business guidelines before dispensing more money, and losing more lives, limbs, and social welfare programs (from Medicaid to midnight basketball), to further a seemingly lost cause. And "Benchmarks" is a business tool that EVERYONE in the public and private sector understands and uses; the Republicans made running the country like a business part of their propaganda campaign, and the Democratic Party should, in turn, not have self-destructed, politically, by caving in and shelving the benchmark concept, despite Webb's arguments, for the following reasons.
.First, the public supports a withdrawal from Iraq, if not an immediate one. What would the Democratic Party have lost if they had stuck to their guns and sent Bush the same benchmark bill twice, or thrice? Another veto would have shown Bush as opposing the process of accountability before expenditures. He would have looked merely stubborn. The Democrats would not have looked like wimps or flip-floppers. And the war funding bill, with very minor reconciliation, would inevitably have been signed, thereby saving face for all.
Second, regardless of whether benchmarks can be accurately drawn up, or, even if so, whether the situation in Iraq can be really measured to see if the benchmarks are met, the Democrats, politically, by failing to adhere to principles they now loudly, publicly supported, lost face.
Yes, it is political gamesmanship, but this is a war based on smoke and mirrors, lies and B.S., and cynical politics are part of our makeup. Remember Bush and Rice: "We will not nation-build!" Everyone does it, and the proper waging of games determine the winners. Ask Rove.
Third, the Democratic Party showed disunity at a time when the public was behind the Party's major stances. The Party leaders seemed at odds with each other at the very moment the public, sick of the lies and scandals, seemed to be reaching out for Democratic rule and action. As for unity, the Republican Party was always whipped into voting behind Bush no matter what statements they made for public consumption, prior to voting time. When the chips were down, by whatever means, a Republican was a Republican (even a Democrat sometimes was a Republican--ask Lieberman), and they were whipped into shape and stuck behind Bush. The Democratic lack of success in unification could have been ameliorated to some degree by forcing Bush's hand in this one bill, and they failed for their lack of realpolitik.
Make no bones about it, the Democratic Party made a major tactical error in not forcing Bush into some public accountability for the war. An opportunity to gain some measure of positive publicity before the inevitable compromise by both sides will now force all Democratic candidates to explain their vote, as casualties mount and increased violence explodes in Iraq.
Can it get worse? Maybe yes, maybe no. Neither you nor I know the answer, but just as we now have finally concluded that we were deluded about this miserable war's origins, we should not again blindly play follow-the-leader and lose more lives because of the uncertainty of future outcomes. And this is what the Administration's followers would have us do, and what a united Democratic Party should fight.
The OhReally? Factor