Yet another very critical report on the Iraq War

The GAO (Government Accountability Office) report on Iraq came out today, and its findings are not very encouraging. Of the 18 benchmarks Congress set in May, only 3 were found to be fully met, and 11 were not. Among them, important benchmarks such as reducing sectarian violence and promoting political cohesiveness. The full text of the report is available here. And Talking Points Memo drew a very useful chart summarizing the report's findings. Definitely check it out.

The report's summary speaks for itself:

The Iraqi government met 3, partially met 4, and did not meet 11 of its 18 benchmarks. Overall, key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high, and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds. These results do not diminish the courageous efforts of coalition forces and progress that has been made in several areas, including Anbar Province. The Iraqi government met one of eight legislative benchmarks: the rights of minority political parties in Iraq's legislature are protected. The government has not enacted legislation on de-Baathification, oil revenue sharing, provincial elections, amnesty, and militia disarmament.

The GAO's report is key, because it is going to be closely studied by members of Congress as they gear up for what is sure to be weeks of intense debate on Iraq policy. Bush has begged Congress to give him a few more months to prove that the surge has been working, and he has been saying that a full evaluation will be appropriate only starting in September. He will press his case that the surge has been working starting with the General Petraeus's report due on September 15th. Petraeus is expected to report that the surge has been successful militarely, and confirm Bush's claims that civilian violence is down (Bush was in Iraq yesterday to stress this very point).

But for those who still don't get that no military solution is possible (despite daily reports of attacks, deaths, sectarian unrest, despite the fact that a congressional plane was shot at the other day and that Bush had to plan his Iraq visit in complete secrecy), the GAO will hopefully show that the White House is simply not credible anymore:

While the Baghdad security plan was intended to reduce sectarian violence, it is unclear whether violence has been reduced," according to prepared testimony by David Walker, the agency's head. "Average daily attacks against civilians have remained unchanged from February to July 2007," Walker said -- despite Bush's addition of 30,000 U.S. troops to Iraq this year.

The LA Times drives the point home, in a detailed must-read analysis of the security situation in Iraq:

And in a sign that tamping down Sunni-Shiite violence is no guarantee of stability, a feud between rival Shiite Muslim militias has killed scores of Iraqis in recent months. Last week, at least 52 people died in militia clashes in the Shiite holy city of Karbala. At best, analysts, military officers and ordinary Iraqis portray the country as in a holding pattern, dependent on U.S. troops to keep the lid on violence.

According to U.S. military figures, an average of 1,000 Iraqis have died each month since March in sectarian violence. That compares with about 1,200 a month at the start of the security plan, the military said in an e-mailed response to queries. This does not include deaths from car bombings, which the military said have numbered more than 2,600 this year.Figures from Iraqi government ministries point to far higher casualty numbers and show that this year, an average of 1,724 civilians a month have died in sectarian attacks, bombings and other war-related violence.

Republicans have hold together surprisingly well over the past few months, even as popular sentiment has turned increasingly against the war, and Democrats have been frustrated in their attempts to vote a timetable and force the Administration to start withdrawal. So will the GAO report change this? Don't bet on it. Republicans appear as united as ever, and seem to be betting now that the pendulum swings back in their favor:

But Republican leadership aides say they are relieved that the home-front backlash against GOP lawmakers is not more severe. “Everyone thought we were going to come back from recess with our tails between our legs, but we’re in the same place if not better,” an official said. While even many Republicans are expressing impatience with the war, the most prominent lawmaker to actually reverse position was a Democrat — Rep. Brian Baird of Washington — who said Bush’s surge policy should be given more time.

August has been marked by intense activist agitation over the war. Pro and anti-war groups have been running ads to influence key representatives and senators, and some - mostly moderate Republicans - are feeling the heat. Senator Reid has been very good at not letting bipartisan but very weak resolutions on the war get to a vote, which has not allowed Republicans to get cover: They have not been able to vote for what they would like to vote for, namely a resolution that would put only minimal pressure on the White House but would allow them to claim they have opposed war policy. The Politico quotes Rep. Davis of Virginia as saying that, “I never get to vote on anything that supports my views" -- what he calls his "nuanced positions."

Now that Bush's own September benchmark has arrived and there is little political and military progress in Iraq, will moderate Republicans finally cross over and vote for Democratic resolutions? We'll see in the next few weeks, but early rumblings are making it look unlikely.