Whats the point in setting Benchmarks when they are never enforced?

Question

Wasn't that the whole idea to set them to show whether or not the right progress was being made and supposed to be strictly adhered to. Why do they waste taxpayers money on phoney political theatre.

Why in the world does everybody keep explaining benchmarks to me. I know what they are and they are supposed to be used by congress to determine troop funding and support for the war...jeez. Do you people need me to spell it out for you. CONGRESS KEEPS LETTING THIS WAR GO ON EVEN THOUGH THE BENCHMARKS HAVEN'T BEEN MET. THATS HOW THEY ARE ENFORCED........GET IT

Answer 1

You may hate this answer because I'm going to explain my perspective on benchmarking. But I hope you'll hear me out anyway because it's my honest opinion, even backed with a bit of 'hands on' experience...

Several years ago the government, to improve quality and implement a standardized quality program, mandated that all DoD contractors implement Total Quality Management (TQM), as defined by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and to be ISO-certified in order to compete for contracts. A major milestone of TQM and ISO, to validate (success/fail) and improve processes and procedures, is 'Benchmarking'. The measurement and reporting of benchmarks, expressed numerically, is 'Metrics'.

The reason for 'beating around the quality bush' (no pun intended) first was to illustrate: (1) the framework and basis for proper benchmarking is a well-established, internationally standardized quality program, and (2) the government is well-aware of TQM and ISO certification because it's used as a basis for awarding many billions of dollars in federally-funded military contracts.

In spite of this intimate knowledge of ISO throughout industry, government and the military specifically, the benchmarks for 'The Surge' are not ISO compliant. They were not *real* benchmarks, in large part because the measurements (metrics) were not clearly defined as part of the 'benchmarks' and the benchmarks were not defined as truely measurable. Therefore, the benchmarks were never true (compliant) for measurable and enforcable success.

As an aside (another long topic)... it also appears that risk management, specifically risk assessment and mitigation plans, was not factored into the benchmarking either. Going out on a limb here regarding benchmarks, metrics and risk management... if Congress and the military were held to the same standards as a DoD contractor, they could be in really big trouble for contractual non-compliance. Very good question, BTW!!

Answer 2

If you are a liberal and anti war the benchmarks not met is all that matters.

If you are a "conservative" I guess and for the war then reaching some of the benchmarks or making progress towards their completion matters.

No matter which side you are on you can use the "benchmarks" to your issue.

Liberals say only 5 of 18 were met; conservatives say 5 were met, 11 were 70% met and 2 were only 50% met or some silly thing like that.

Answer 3

Benchmarks no longer met. Surge nonetheless hasn't started. further and further individuals death. further and further Republicans finally seeing the gentle. Bush obdurate and uncompromising except compelled to. September nicely see some ameliorations in administration coverage yet purely slightly. Many greater will die in Bush's conflict till now we are finally out of there. I nonetheless have not gotten a on the instant answer as to as quickly as all of us understand we've gained. At what factor can we are saying we gained and can turn the Iraqi government over to the Iraqis? If there's a civil conflict in Iraq, their parliament is out on trip and we are spending hundreds of thousands an afternoon you are able to ask what are we gaining from all of this. Is there a winner? How do all of us understand we've gained?

Answer 4

Benchmarks are nothing more than goals or objectives. They are not rules which can be enforced, but rather are indicators of an objectives success or failure. They are utilized to provide real feed back to the effectiveness of a strategy or policy and can be used to fine tune or completely change the methods which are being used to meet these benchmarks.
That is not to say that benchmarks are carved in stone - they may be unrealistic or over or under estimated. There should be some prior experience or history to refer to if one is to set firm benchmarks based on past performance. If not, the bench marks are usually based on a best case scenario.

Answer 5

There is no point. It is pointless political maneuvering to buy more time for a failed occupation. I do not see how such benchmarks would be enforced, Iraq is a democracy. A democracy that we created and with benchmarks are attempting to control the direction that democracy takes.

Answer 6

Benchmarks are not enforced, they are achieved. You need to understand how the achievements are being read. The democrats want all 100% Achieved when in fact many benchmarks have levels of achievements, but not all 100%. Since you do not understand what a bench mark is, you are in no position to question what is and is not being met.

Answer 7

I think you pegged it: "political theater." Tonight's speech, to me, made it obvious that Bush's plan all along has been to keep us in Iraq until the 2008 election and then if/when a Democrat wins (as seems likely), blame him or her for the mess left behind when we leave.

Even though he's the one who created that mess in the first place. He broke it. He can't fix it. So he's going to pass it on to someone else. The "benchmarks" were just another delaying tactic.

Answer 8

Just about to email you, agree with your answer regarding hilary to robs question,

i disagree kind of with you on this point on iraq, my main feeling is we're in a dissaster that could have been prevented but we're there now and it seems to me this is the first time ive heard bush say that we're fighting al kaida in iraq,

so, obviously, no one is going to disagree with him,

he even closed with that, regardless of how you feel about iraq the united states is going to have to fight terrorists whereever they are,

i dont think we can trust iraq, thats the real issue with this benchmark thing, we're relying on the iraqui government to do things and the people and its military and police to do things,

when i think they're fighting us when not doing their day job

Answer 9

Lol! None of the cons even know what the benchmarks were. They never cover hard stuff like that on Al Fauxazeera......

Answer 10

its called stalling tactic. say something that gives those giving you a hard time hope that you will change your mind......and whent the time comes fight them hard dont give an inch and give them somthing else to hope for.

THE ONLY THING THAT WILL STOP BUSH IS TO DENY HIM FUNDS UNLESS ITS TIED TO A WITHDRAWAL.

BUT SURPRISINGLY ENOUGH I DONT THINK MOST AMERICANS SUPPORT THAT. I DO ....BUT AMERICANS ARE REALLY REALLY STUPID. THEY WANT US OUT, BUT ARE NOT WILLING TO DO THE ONE THING THAT WILL GET US OUT. SO IN OTHER WORDS THEY DONT WANT TO HARM OUR SOLDIERS OR ABANDON THEM, BUT WOULD RATHER HAVE THEM SERVE 5 TOURS AND HAVE 30,000 MAIMED AND MAYBE 5000 DEAD BEFORE THIS IS ALL OVER. LOL UNBELIEVABLE