Would you pump $50 billion into an enterprise that is only meeting three of its 18 performance goals?

That's the question facing Congress, which will soon receive from George W. Bush a request for $50 billion in extra funding for the Iraq war. And this request comes just as the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan, investigative arm of Congress, is releasing a report concluding that the Iraq government has failed to meet 15 of the 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks on military and political fronts.

The GAO--no surprise here--reached a far more pessimistic finding than an earlier White House assessment that found the Iraqi government to be scoring well on most of the benchmarks. Which report is to be believed? To ask the question is to answer it. Also, the draft GAO report not-too-subtly accuses the White House--again, no surprise--of rigging its report, noting it "would be more useful" if the administration produces future assessments backed up with "data on broader measures of violence from all relevant U.S. agencies." The GAO assessment, unlike the White House report, points out that Bush's so-called "surge" has not led to a decrease in the number of attacks against Iraqi civilians and that while the "surge" has been ongoing "the capabilities of Iraqi security forces have not improved." The White House report claimed the Iraqi military is now able to provide trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support military operations in Baghdad. The GAO says it cannot.

So Congress faces the dilemma of whether to pour money into an endeavor that is showing not much progress and whether to hand that $50 billion to a management team (Bush and Co.) that is not able to assess and report accurately (or perhaps honestly) the situation it faces.

Republicans are chortling these days that the $50 billion will be a breeze, especially when a few voices (including a handful of Democrats) are claiming the "surge" might be producing some positive results. But the GAO report ought to strengthen the spine of the Democratic leaders of Congress and help them shape the debate.

Meanwhile, Republicans should be careful what they wish for. General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are expected to report to Congress soon that progress is under way in Iraq. The GAO report, of course, undermines their position. But if congressional Republicans tie themselves to the Petraeus and Crocker good-news reports and continue to stick unquestioningly with Bush on the war, they will be placing themselves in a precarious political position should the GAO be closer to the mark.

Congressional Republicans--who nowadays appear to come from the party of call-girls and stall-sex--do not have much time before next year's elections to distance themselves from Bush's war. And if there is not significant progress in Iraq, voters could once again seek retribution from the party that backs the war. Each cycle of debate in Washington in which the Republicans do not separate themselves from Bush places them closer to a possible Judgment Day. Breaking with the president on the war next spring could be too late for many GOPers. By standing with Bush this time around--and choosing the White House's happy-face evaluation over the GAO's somber assessment--the Republicans are possibly digging a deeper hole for themselves. By buying Bush's view, they could win the current battle, but lose the war.

Posted by David Corn at August 30, 2007 11:28 AM