posted by Damozel | I know; I know. You thought---that is, if you thought about it at all--- that somebody somewhere in Congress was keeping track on a weekly if not a daily basis of every detail of the war. After all, what do we taxpayers send those people to DC for if not to keep track of Iraq so we don't have to?
So it will probably surprise you to learn that the Government Accountability Office just suggested to Congress and the DoD that perhaps it might be useful in assessing progress in Iraq if the Congressional committees in charge of military matters had timely and accurate information on the level of violence in Iraq. Hey, good idea! An informed Congress is a competent Congress!
In a letter copied to a long list of Congressional committee and subcommittee chairs (GAO 5-6), Comptroller General David Walker wrote: "In January 2007, the President stated that the high levels of violence in Iraq had overwhelmed the political gains that the Iraqis had made and required a new U.S. strategy for stabilizing the country...Enemy-initiated attacks data are a key indicator of progress in improving Iraq’s security situation, an important condition that, according to the administration, must be met before the United States can reduce its military presence in Iraq." (GAO 1-2)
According to the GAO, the Bush Administration has been supplying Congress with "highly aggregated attacks data" on a quarterly basis. (GAO 1-2). Furthermore,...
the reports previously supplied to Congress included just the "highly aggregated" data on violence in Iraq the Bush Administration (and its arm, the Department of Defense) felt that Congress and the taxpayers really need to know in order to form "a reasonably sound depiction of general security trends" in Iraq." (GAO 1)
In fact, the Department of Defense (an arm of the Executive Branch) has been supplying Congress only four times a year with only the "highly aggregated attacks data" (GAO 1-2) the Defense Intelligence Agency determined Congress and the taxpayers really need to know. (GAO 1-2)
The quarterly reports from the Defense Intelligence Agency to Congress covered only some kinds of violence in Iraq but not others. Specifcally, they covered "car, suicide, and other bombs; ambushes; murders, executions, and assassinations; sniper fire; indirect fire (mortars or rockets); direct fire (small arms or rocket-propelled grenades); surface-to-air fire (such as man-portable air defense systems or MANPADS); and other attacks on civilians." (GAO 1-2) While that sounds pretty comprehensively horrifying, the GAO suggested that the previous reports don't actually cover the whole picture.
For example, they don't cover violence resulting from incidents we initiate "such as cordon and searches, raids, arrests, and caches cleared." (GAO 1-2) It also doesn't clearly reflect attacks resulting from "Shi’a militias fighting each other and attacks against Iraqi security forces in southern Iraq and other areas with few or no coalition forces."(GAO 1-2)
The Defense Intelligence Agency officials consulted by the GAO were pretty sure that their reports covered all Congress needed to know---in governmentese, that the previous reports "represent a reliable and consistent source of information that can be used to identify trends in enemy activity and the overall security situation." (GAO 1-2) The GAO wasn't so sure.
So the Comptroller General has suggested that perhaps it would be better if Congress had less "highly aggregated" data on enemy attacks, plus information on the types of violence the Defense Intelligence Agency isn't reporting. Is the Administration cherry picking the data? Hey, you be the Decider!
In DOD’s quarterly reports to Congress, the department has provided highly aggregated attacks data to portray security trends. For example, in its June 2007 report, DOD provides information on average weekly attacks since April 2004 for inconsistent time periods that range from 6 to 32 weeks and coincide with political events and recent military operations in Iraq....
Further, the administration’s July and September 2007 Iraq benchmarks reports discuss some types of attacks but do not provide specific information on overall changes in monthly attack levels over time. We believe that more detailed monthly attacks data would provide routine and up-to-date information that would allow Congress to regularly track changes in Iraq’s security situation. (GAO 4-5)
The GAO therefore recommended that the Department of Defense "should, on a monthly basis, make data on the enemy-initiated attacks available to Congress, the American public, and GAO in a timely manner"----which would have made sense from the start of the war, "given the importance of congressional oversight and the American public's interest in progress in stabilizing Iraq." (GAO 5)
The DoD responded to this suggestion with admirable terseness: "Concur." (GAO 9)
In case you don't know this, The Office of Governmental Accountability (GAO) is the nonpartisan arm of Congress charged with researching the tough questions and collecting the data and reporting to the Congress (and taxpayers, if you're interested) on the results. (GAO website) It has to be nonpartisan because it answers to representatives from both parties.
I guess I just feel that there are some questions that shouldn't have to be asked.
LINK:
Comments