This is it, this is all that it is:
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that —
Congress should ensure that General Petraeus, and all American personnel under his command, have the resources they deem necessary to carry out their mission on behalf of the United States of America; and
The Government of Iraq must make visible, concrete progress toward meeting the political, economic, and military benchmarks enumerated above.
I'm unhappy with the clause that talks about insurgents and sectarian violence but doesn't mention TERRORISTS or foreign fighters.
I'm not sure all the "benchmarks" are benchmarks, or are necessary to "win", or even are part of the equation of what we would call "winning" -- I don't care how Iraq shares it's oil wealth in the country, OR how much money they spend for reconstruction, so long as the majority of the Iraqi people are happy with the situation and they stop killing us and each other over it.
I wish McCain could replace those 11 "benchmarks" with a simpler, 5-point list of what "victory" looks like to him.
But the operative language I think is good, and it makes it clear that we need to support the on-the-ground general with whatever he asks for.
And it certainly takes the appropriate tack, which is a positive statement of victory and support for the new plan, rather than a pre-judgment of doom and failure before the inevitable running away with our tail between our legs.
bnelson44 wrote: "That's it, period. I think I could support this. Can't we all?"
Sounded pretty reasonable to me. I didn't see anything about benchmarks in his proposal, unless I missed it.
I could certainly support what you have just typed -- short and to the point!
Whereas, Iraqi political leaders must show visible progress toward meeting specific benchmarks, including:
(1) Deploying a "significant number" of new Iraqi security forces to partner with U.S. units in securing Baghdad;
(2) Assuming responsibility for security in all provinces in a "timely manner;"
Significant number, timely manner are not concrete terms, they are wide open to interpretation. I think he is trying to make something that Dems and Republicans will both think is a good idea. But, each for different reasons.