by Stephen Collinson
WASHINGTON - An independent US official auditor Tuesday branded Iraq's government "dysfunctional," fuelling a fued between the White House and Congress at a pivotal moment for future war policy.
A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report said Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's administration had failed to meet 11 out of 18 political and security benchmarks, despite President George W. Bush's troop surge strategy.
Democrats seized upon the report as ammunition for demands to start bringing more than 160,000 soldiers home from a war which has killed more than 3,700 of their comrades and tens of thousands of civilians.
But the White House questioned the findings of the GAO report, and said a more useful breakdown of the state of the war will come in long-awaited testimony to lawmakers next week from war commander General David Petraeus.
The GAO report, published a day after Bush flew into Iraq on a surprise visit to proclaim the surge's military successes, said the Iraqi government "met three, partially met four and did not meet 11 of its 18 benchmarks"
"Overall, key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high, and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend 10 billion dollars in reconstruction funds," the report said.
The benchmarks were established in law by the US Congress, based on targets for progress set earlier this year by the Iraqi government itself.
GAO chief, Comptroller General David Walker was asked at a Senate Foreign Relations committee hearing if the US-backed Iraqi government was a failure.
"I think you have to say it is dysfunctional, the government is dysfunctional," said Walker.
Democrats demanding troop withdrawals from what they term a "civil war" in Iraq, said the report proved Bush's strategy to surge around 28,500 more troops onto the battlefield had failed.
"Only three of these 18 benchmarks have actually been met," Democratic Senator John Kerry said at the committee hearing.
"No matter what spin we may hear in the coming days, this independent assessment is a failing grade for a policy that simply isn't working."
Senate Majority leader Harry Reid said the report "confirms that the president's Iraq strategy is simply not working."
"It is long past time for a new strategy."
Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, an administration critic, asked "how many more American deaths and casualties and billions and billions of dollars ... are we going to continue to invest, and for what?"
The White House however downplayed the report.
"The GAO report takes a static view of progress in Iraq," said spokesman Tony Fratto.
"The GAO was required to determine if benchmarks had or had not been met, and not assess progress," he said, urging everyone to wait for "a more thorough picture of the current status in Iraq and recommendations for the future."
Bush is legally bound to deliver a report to Congress by the end of next week on the war, framed by assessments from US security agencies, Petraeus and US ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker.
The political tumult over the war is likely to be cranked up another notch later this week when former top US commander in Europe General James Jones testifies to lawmakers on the status of the Iraqi armed forces.
The various reports will be crucial to determining the political ground as Democrats stage another attempt to wrest control of war policy from Bush, who has rejected all troop withdrawal timelines.
Republicans looked to be on the verge of a revolt before Congress's summer break, but the various favorable assessments of military progress in Iraq appear to have at least limited further defections from Bush.
Democrats argue that military progress is immaterial, as the the surge was planned to promote political progress, which seven months on, is absent.
Media reports on Tuesday said that some leading Democrats are prepared to drop a final date for troop withdrawals to be completed, in an attempt to corral Republican support for a troop withdrawal.
During his surprise trip to Iraq on the way to an Asia-Pacific summit in Australia, Bush hinted that given progress in Iraq, it could be possible to reduce troop numbers more than four years after the US invasion.
col/rlp

09/04/2007 22:12 GMT