GAO report: simple facts on Iraq

WASHINGTON — The White House may have killed attempts to revive the much-heralded Iraq Study Group, but the Bush administration still will face a tough, independent evaluation of progress in Iraq — from one of its agencies.

In a little-noticed addition to legislation requiring the July and September assessments on Iraq from the White House, Congress mandated a third report from the agency that quietly has done the most work to track the missteps, miscalculations, misspent funds and shortfalls of both the United States and Iraq since the 2003 invasion: the Government Accountability Office.

The GAO's international-affairs team has had far more experience in Iraq than the study group led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., or any of the other independent panels that have weighed in on Iraq. Over the past four years, the GAO has issued 91 reports on Iraq, on topics including the mismanagement of Iraq's oil industry and problems in its new army.

The GAO team is back in Iraq doing research to make its assessment of the 18 benchmarks covered by the administration's reports.

The 15-person team includes an array of specialists, lawyers, economists, foreign-policy experts and statisticians. Most have been working on Iraq since June 2003, when the first GAO reports were mandated.

The GAO report is due Sept. 1 — two weeks before the administration's document. So it may set a standard that makes it difficult for the administration to attach caveats to answers, as outside analysts say it did in the July report.

The administration's assessments are more nuanced, with grading based on whether Iraq is making "satisfactory progress" or "unsatisfactory progress" on the 18 political, military and economic benchmarks. The GAO is mandated to give a more straightforward "yes" or "no," said Joseph Christoff, director of the GAO's International Affairs and Trade Team, which will write the report.

Christoff anticipates blunt critiques in the GAO report, based on benchmarks his team long has been monitoring as part of its oversight of Iraq.

On Iraq's military, for example, the administration's July report said Iraq is making "satisfactory progress" on providing three brigades for the new U.S.-led Baghdad security plan.

But Christoff said the GAO is probing deeper. The Iraqi military has serious shortcomings, including, according to a Pentagon report, a no-show rate of one-third to one-half on any given day, he said. "Celebrating 360,000 trained and equipped forces says nothing about their loyalty or effectiveness."

On Iraqi politics, a pending law to distribute Iraq's oil income equitably has come to symbolize attempts to address the needs of all ethnic and sectarian communities. The administration's July report acknowledges that the Iraqi government has made "unsatisfactory progress" in passing legislation but says it is too early to tell what will be enacted and rejects any revision of U.S. plans or strategy.

Christoff questions whether that conclusion isn't giving the Iraqis the benefit of the doubt. Only one of four bills required on Iraq's oil sector is before the parliament, and it addresses only who will be responsible for distributing oil, not how revenue will be shared, he said. A second bill on revenue-sharing is being debated in the cabinet. But two other basic laws — on creating a national oil company and restructuring the oil ministry — have not been drafted, he said.

On Iraq's economy, the administration's July report said Baghdad is progressing satisfactorily in allocating $10 billion for development to its ministries and provinces. But Christoff again is skeptical. "If the past is any indication, it will also be very difficult to meet this benchmark," he said.

"When you look at what is needed and what the goals are, there's a huge gap," Christoff said. And the gap between the administration's and the GAO's assessments on these central issues is likely to be reflected in other benchmarks, he said.