Can benchmarks bridge the gap between the President and Congress?

Regardless of where you stand on the Iraq War, there is no denying that the War on Terror is a hot topic for most Americans. And, as the President and Congress battle over Iraq spending and troop withdraw, the tension continues to escalate. We had been offered a glimmer of hope as the President and Congress came to an agreement on the Iraq Spending Bill. Yet, when the President urged “patience to allow sufficient time for the Iraq strategy to succeed”, I found myself bracing for more political infighting.

The concept of allowing time for success sounds reasonable, except, without indicators to demonstrate success, progress is quickly forgotten as the casualties mount. Indicators for success are simply benchmarks. Benchmarks are neither hard deadlines nor all or nothing propositions. They are simply markers, or indicators, that determine if enough progress is being made in the short term to meet the long term goals. 

To date, Iraqi leaders have not been held accountable for achieving benchmarks and have not realized substantial markers to validate progress. As a result, the American people have lost patience and everyone, including Congress, wants progress yesterday. Even President Bush, who once scoffed at the idea of benchmarks, now “endorses the need for clear benchmarks that Iraqi leaders must meet in the coming months. …there are two clocks ticking -- one in Iraq, but another in Washington where members of Congress increasingly are expressing impatience with the pace of Iraqi progress.” 

This tough talk by Bush sounds encouraging; but I wonder, can a regime move from no accountability and no results, to a progressive leadership that meets expectations? And, what will the President and Congress do if the Iraqi leadership doesn’t meet the latest set of benchmarks? Where is the accountability and what are the consequences? 

What do you think, we want to hear from you?