Meaningful Benchmarks Imply a Meaningful Timeline
By Matt Rowe, Executive Director, WinTheGWOT.org
President Bush appears to have agreed to the development of a series of benchmarks to indicate progress on the war in Iraq. Any strategy needs a plan, and any plan needs a method to assess how well it progresses. Meaningful and manageable benchmarks allow progress to be properly evaluated. It is worth noting that since achieving benchmarks takes time that can be estimated, then a timeline can be estimated. Of course, many pundits argue that providing a timeline to the enemy is a sure recipe for defeat. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Let’s begin with just the concept of benchmarks. Beyond accepting benchmarking in concept, the White House must work to develop meaningful, manageable, and measurable objectives that lead to a desired end state. Let’s assume that part of the end state is an Iraqi government that can provide the basic law enforcement related safety and security for its citizens. Obviously, just counting how many Iraqi police we train is not enough. Though very manageable and measurable, it is not necessarily meaningful. On the other hand, increasing the number of Sunni and Shiite police officers who train, live, and work together is meaningful, measurable, and manageable. It will also take more time than simply increasing their numbers. It follows that if the Bush Administration agrees to benchmarks, then it must accept that publishing such indicators are a threat to the success of the plan.
It only makes sense that if we say we are going to create a police force as described above the insurgents will focus on specifically disrupting the progress we make. Thus, it is implied that we must protect the police while they are training and preparing for their mission. There is no doubt that the insurgents will cause delays in reaching various benchmarks, but they cannot prevent them from being reached altogether—if we have a good plan. To achieve a benchmark takes time, so consequently an estimate of how long it will take can be agreed upon. The times estimated for each benchmark can be developed and placed into the most logical order and this becomes a meaningful timeline—something that the Bush Administration has vociferously opposed.
Again, some timeline slippage will occur due to insurgent and other events, but the plan and timeline can be adjusted as appropriate. To try to hide our strategy of training the police and to attempt keep secret how long it takes is folly. Our enemies will figure it out anyway simply by watching via spies and the like. They’ll also figure out the timeline. So keeping the benchmarks and the timeline a secret from our enemies becomes a moot point. The goal is to protect the various activities required by our plan and be willing to adjust the plan and or the time line as appropriate for success.
They key point is that the rational world will know how well we are progressing and how well we are adjusting to the challenges that arise. Armed with this information we will be able to make a more informed choice about continuing the effort in Iraq, instead of hearing only about the successes of our enemies and the blunders we make while fighting them. Had the Bush Administration understood this from the start, we might have had a better plan much earlier, a significantly larger proportion of Iraqi, American, and worldwide popular support, and a more optimistic end to the war could be in sight.
President Bush appears to have agreed to the development of a series of benchmarks to indicate progress on the war in Iraq. Any strategy needs a plan, and any plan needs a method to assess how well it progresses. Meaningful and manageable benchmarks allow progress to be properly evaluated. It is worth noting that since achieving benchmarks takes time that can be estimated, then a timeline can be estimated. Of course, many pundits argue that providing a timeline to the enemy is a sure recipe for defeat. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Let’s begin with just the concept of benchmarks. Beyond accepting benchmarking in concept, the White House must work to develop meaningful, manageable, and measurable objectives that lead to a desired end state. Let’s assume that part of the end state is an Iraqi government that can provide the basic law enforcement related safety and security for its citizens. Obviously, just counting how many Iraqi police we train is not enough. Though very manageable and measurable, it is not necessarily meaningful. On the other hand, increasing the number of Sunni and Shiite police officers who train, live, and work together is meaningful, measurable, and manageable. It will also take more time than simply increasing their numbers. It follows that if the Bush Administration agrees to benchmarks, then it must accept that publishing such indicators are a threat to the success of the plan.
It only makes sense that if we say we are going to create a police force as described above the insurgents will focus on specifically disrupting the progress we make. Thus, it is implied that we must protect the police while they are training and preparing for their mission. There is no doubt that the insurgents will cause delays in reaching various benchmarks, but they cannot prevent them from being reached altogether—if we have a good plan. To achieve a benchmark takes time, so consequently an estimate of how long it will take can be agreed upon. The times estimated for each benchmark can be developed and placed into the most logical order and this becomes a meaningful timeline—something that the Bush Administration has vociferously opposed.
Again, some timeline slippage will occur due to insurgent and other events, but the plan and timeline can be adjusted as appropriate. To try to hide our strategy of training the police and to attempt keep secret how long it takes is folly. Our enemies will figure it out anyway simply by watching via spies and the like. They’ll also figure out the timeline. So keeping the benchmarks and the timeline a secret from our enemies becomes a moot point. The goal is to protect the various activities required by our plan and be willing to adjust the plan and or the time line as appropriate for success.
They key point is that the rational world will know how well we are progressing and how well we are adjusting to the challenges that arise. Armed with this information we will be able to make a more informed choice about continuing the effort in Iraq, instead of hearing only about the successes of our enemies and the blunders we make while fighting them. Had the Bush Administration understood this from the start, we might have had a better plan much earlier, a significantly larger proportion of Iraqi, American, and worldwide popular support, and a more optimistic end to the war could be in sight.
1 Comments:
This commentary was originally posted o/a 15 May '07, but due to some web site technical issues had to be re-posted on 14 June '07. It has not been edited or modified from its original version.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home