The New York Times, Sunday, wrote that the Bush Administration has decided that the benchmarks that were set by the US earlier last year to mark definable progress in Iraq are too hard to meet and has eliminated them.

U.S. Scales Back Political Goals for Iraqi Unity

By STEVEN LEE MYERS and ALISSA J. RUBIN

Published: November 25, 2007

WASHINGTON, Nov. 24 — With American military successes outpacing political gains in Iraq, the Bush administration has lowered its expectation of quickly achieving major steps toward unifying the country, including passage of a long-stymied plan to share oil revenues and holding regional elections.

Instead, administration officials say they are focusing their immediate efforts on several more limited but achievable goals in the hope of convincing Iraqis, foreign governments and Americans that progress is being made toward the political breakthroughs that the military campaign of the past 10 months was supposed to promote.

The short-term American targets include passage of a $48 billion Iraqi budget, something the Iraqis say they are on their way to doing anyway; renewing the United Nations mandate that authorizes an American presence in the country, which the Iraqis have done repeatedly before; and passing legislation to allow thousands of Baath Party members from Saddam Hussein’s era to rejoin the government. A senior Bush administration official described that goal as largely symbolic since rehirings have been quietly taking place already.

Bush administration officials have not abandoned their larger goals and emphasize the importance of reaching them eventually. They say that even modest steps, taken soon, could set the stage for more progress, in the same manner that this year’s troop “surge” opened the way, unexpectedly, for drawing Sunni tribesmen to the American side.

Sen. Kerry has been pushing to the Bush Administration to set deadlines in Iraq. These are some of the remarks that John Kerry has made on the floor of the Senate just since January of this year, asking for accountability for the US policy in Iraq:

The Administration says these men and women are giving their lives because the purpose of this escalation is to allow the Iraqis “space” to make the political deals that we all agree are the only hope for ending the civil war. But if the violence is going down in Baghdad, where is the political progress? We keep hearing that the Iraqis are getting closer to a deal on sharing oil revenues — but every time, hopes for a final deal turn out to be an illusion.

— Sen. John Kerry, April 12, 2007

It’s been over a year since the Maliki government took power: What have we asked of them? What have they agreed to do? What have they accomplished? Virtually nothing. And to make matters worse, this isn’t the first time that the Iraqis have failed to meet the very political benchmarks that they’re failing to meet today.

* Nine months ago was the deadline for Iraqis to approve a new oil law and a provincial election law. Neither one has been approved.

* Eight months ago was the deadline for a new de-Ba’athification law to help bring Sunnis into the government. Guess what? It hasn’t happened.

* Seven months ago was the deadline for Iraqis to approve legislation to disarm the militias. Absolutely no progress has been made on this crucial legislation and the militias continue to wreak havoc.

* Six months ago was the deadline for Iraqis to complete a constitutional review process. The Constitutional committee hasn’t even drafted the proposed amendments, and the Iraqis remain far apart on basic issues such as federalism and the fate of the divided city of Kirkuk.

So we find ourselves no closer to a political solution today than we were when the Maliki government took power over one year ago — but over 1,100 American troops have given their lives since then.

— Sen. John Kerry, July 12, 2007

The open-ended, seemingly endless commitment of massive numbers of American troops in Iraq has done nothing to create political progress. George Bush told us that “reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible” — it has not done it. He promised to hold the Iraqis accountable for meeting the benchmarks that they themselves agreed to — he did not.

The result? While Americans fight and die to give Iraqis “breathing room,” Iraqi politicians refuse to resolve the political issues that matter the most. No progress on the linchpin issue of sharing oil revenues. No de-Ba’athification law, no provincial elections, and no amnesty.

By any measure, that’s a failing grade for a purported new strategy that is really more of the same that has failed in forging the political reconciliation that is the last, best hope for ending a bloody civil war over age-old sectarian differences.

Those who support the status quo in Iraq claim we have changed the strategy. They’re wrong. We have changed tactics — resulting in some hard-won and welcome gains by our troops. But these tactical changes have not addressed the core Sunni-Shiite conflict that is driving the civil war. They will not bring peace and long-term stability to Iraq. Only Iraqis can do that. No, what we have today is a strategy for staying — not a strategy for winning. Rather than “no surrender,” the policy today is “no way out.”

— Sen. John Kerry, Sept 20, 2007

So, what does progress in Iraq mean? Is the Bush Administration equating the recent and welcome reduction in violence as the only benchmark that has to be met in Iraq? I thought the purpose of the escalation was to buy time for the Iraqi politicians to negotiate on the political problems that are keeping the country’s factions apart. That was what the escalation was about, getting the political problems solved so that the Iraqis could take over and US troops could begin to withdraw.

Now, we have no real benchmarks. The Bush Administration has decided that this accountability stuff is just too hard to do. So, they have ‘disappeared’ the benchmarks. According to the Bush Administration, we are making progress in Iraq solely because the violence is down. That was not the point of the escalation, it was not what the Administration said nearly a year ago when it put the policy forward and this is not what various Administration officials and US military officials have told the US Congress. We are there because, ahm, we are there. No way out indeed.