3 out of 18 goals is failing by any standard, but I do wonder what the White House Spokesman meant by this statement: "While we've all seen progress in some areas, especially on the security front, it's not surprising the GAO would make this assessment, given the difficult congressionally mandated measurement they had to follow," Johndroe said.
What's the "difficult congressionally mandated measurement" that he's talking about? Was there things in place that made the report more negative then an open and fair assessment? Of those 18 goals, how many of them are on the cusp of being complete?
While it may be true that only 3 of 18 are complete, that gives a very negative picture, but what if another 8 or 10 are just about to be completed within weeks or a few months? That would certainly paint a much different picture than the one I'm hearing from people who are actually there and seeing things first hand.
The Post reported the GAO draft says that while there have been fewer attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq under the new security plan in recent months, the number of attacks against Iraqi civilians remains unchanged.
So fewer attacks on US troops but the attacks on civilians are unchanged means that things aren't improving? Lesser levels of attacks on either group is a welcome change. Of course, I'd like to see the level of attacks go down to zero on both fronts, but even the "negative report" from the GAO is saying that violence levels are going down.
If that's the case, then the upcoming goals should be that much easier to obtain correct?
Travis
No comments:
Post a Comment