Benchmarks for Iraq

With political progress in Baghdad stalled, President Bush should take Congress's help.

AS PRESIDENT Bush and congressional leaders met yesterday to discuss possible compromise terms for funding the Iraq war, the Pentagon announced that the fourth of five additional U.S. brigades had been deployed in a campaign to pacify Baghdad and nearby areas. It was a reminder that nothing being talked about at the White House will affect the "surge" of troops to Iraq this spring and summer; even under the legislation that Mr. Bush vetoed on Tuesday, U.S. troop withdrawals would not begin until Oct. 1. What happens in Iraq between now and then is likely to be far more important than the terms of any settlement -- if there is to be one -- in Washington.

Mr. Bush can hope that a successful surge will turn around public opinion and congressional votes on Iraq. So far, unfortunately, there's not much sign of such success. The deployment of additional American and Iraqi forces in the capital has improved conditions in some neighborhoods and lowered the level of violence modestly, at the painful cost of higher U.S. casualties. It has not produced the main result the administration hoped for -- steps by Iraqis toward a political settlement. Despite occasional announcements about a new law on oil revenue or rehabilitation of former members of the Baath Party, there has been almost no concrete progress on these issues. There are even signs that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has allowed steps in the opposite direction, such as the purging of military commanders who were deemed too tough on Shiite militias.

The most encouraging news from Iraq is not directly related to the Baghdad strategy: It is the decision by Sunni tribes in Anbar province to split with al-Qaeda and wage war against the foreign terrorists in their midst. Whether or not the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq was killed this week, as some reports had it, the split is a potential breakthrough in pacifying some of the most violent parts of the country. It's doubtful the Sunni realignment would have occurred without the presence of U.S. forces or that it would continue without them. But the change of heart goes only so far. There's been no indication that Iraqi Sunni insurgents are ready to accept the U.S.-backed political system or the Shiites who lead it.

This mix of developments points to a reasonable compromise for Mr. Bush and Congress. Democrats have agreed to remove from the war funding bill their ill-advised timetable for troop withdrawals. But Democrats and some Republicans want to press the Iraqi government to take the missing steps toward political conciliation by writing those steps into the legislation and providing for punishment -- in the form of cuts in nonmilitary aid to the Iraqi government -- if they are not taken. The White House so far has hinted that it might accept such benchmarks, but only if they are nonbinding.

Mr. Bush ought to accept the tougher version. The sacrifices that U.S. troops are making in Baghdad will be wasted unless there is political progress in coming months. It's unrealistic to think that all the political benchmarks under discussion will be met, and it may be that Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders are incapable of reaching an accord in the near future. If so, the United States will have to stop trying to force an early settlement and shift to a longer-term strategy with a lower military commitment. But while the surge proceeds, the president should welcome, not resist, any leverage at his disposal to pressure the Iraqi government to act.