The Iraq
Study Group
Report
Printable
PDF
James A. Baker, III, and
Lee H. Hamilton, Co-Chairs
Lawrence S. Eagleburger,
Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Edwin Meese III,
Sandra Day O’Connor, Leon E. Panetta, William J. Perry, Charles
S. Robb,
Alan K. Simpson
Contents
Letter from the Co-Chairs
Executive Summary
I. Assessment
A. Assessment of the Current Situation in Iraq
1. Security
2. Politics
3. Economics
4. International Support
5. Conclusions
B. Consequences of Continued Decline in Iraq
C. Some Alternative Courses in Iraq
1. Precipitate Withdrawal
2. Staying the Course
3. More Troops for Iraq
4. Devolution to Three Regions
D. Achieving Our Goals
II. The Way Forward—A New Approach
A. The External Approach: Building an International Consensus
1. The New Diplomatic Offensive
2. The Iraq International Support Group
3. Dealing with Iran and Syria
4. The Wider Regional Context
B. The Internal Approach: Helping Iraqis Help Themselves
1. Performance on Milestones
2. National Reconciliation
3. Security and Military Forces
4. Police and Criminal Justice
5. The Oil Sector
6. U.S. Economic and Reconstruction Assistance
7. Budget Preparation, Presentation, and Review
8. U.S. Personnel
9. Intelligence
Appendices
Letter from the Sponsoring Organizations
Iraq Study Group Plenary Sessions
Iraq Study Group Consultations
Expert Working Groups and Military Senior Advisor Panel
The Iraq Study Group
Iraq Study Group Support
Letter from the Co-Chairs
There is no magic formula to solve the problems of Iraq. However, there
are actions that can be taken to improve the situation and protect American
interests.
Many Americans are dissatisfied, not just with the situation in Iraq
but with the state of
our political debate regarding Iraq. Our political leaders must build
a bipartisan approach to
bring a responsible conclusion to what is now a lengthy and costly war.
Our country deserves a
debate that prizes substance over rhetoric, and a policy that is adequately
funded and sustainable. The President and Congress must work together.
Our leaders must be candid and forthright with the American people in
order to win their support.
No one can guarantee
that any course of action in Iraq at this point will stop sectarian
warfare, growing violence, or a slide toward chaos. If current trends
continue, the potential
consequences are severe. Because of the role and responsibility of the
United States in Iraq, and the commitments our government has made,
the United States has special obligations. Our country must address
as best it can Iraq’s many problems. The United States has long-term
relationships and interests at stake in the Middle East, and needs to
stay engaged.
In this consensus
report, the ten members of the Iraq Study Group present a new approach
because we believe there is a better way forward. All options have not
been exhausted. We
believe it is still possible to pursue different policies that can give
Iraq an opportunity for a
better future, combat terrorism, stabilize a critical region of the
world, and protect America’s
credibility, interests, and values. Our report makes it clear that the
Iraqi government and the
Iraqi people also must act to achieve a stable and hopeful future.
What we recommend
in this report demands a tremendous amount of political will and
cooperation by the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government.
It demands
skillful implementation. It demands unity of effort by government agencies.
And its success
depends on the unity of the American people in a time of political polarization.
Americans can
and must enjoy the right of robust debate within a democracy. Yet U.S.
foreign policy is
doomed to failure—as is any course of action in Iraq—if
it is not supported by a broad,
sustained consensus. The aim of our report is to move our country toward
such a consensus.
We want to thank
all those we have interviewed and those who have contributed information
and assisted the Study Group, both inside and outside the U.S. government,
in Iraq, and around the world. We thank the members of the expert working
groups, and staff from the sponsoring organizations. We especially thank
our colleagues on the Study Group, who have worked with us on these
difficult issues in a spirit of generosity and bipartisanship.
In presenting
our report to the President, Congress, and the American people, we dedicate
it to the men and women—military and civilian—who have served
and are serving in Iraq, and
to their families back home. They have demonstrated extraordinary courage
and made difficult
sacrifices. Every American is indebted to them.
We also honor
the many Iraqis who have sacrificed on behalf of their country, and
the
members of the Coalition Forces who have stood with us and with the
people of Iraq.
James A. Baker, III Lee H. Hamilton
Executive Summary
The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. There is no path that
can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved.
In this report,
we make a number of recommendations for actions to be taken in Iraq,
the
United States, and the region. Our most important recommendations call
for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the
region, and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that
will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out
of Iraq responsibly. We believe that these two recommendations are equally
important and reinforce one another. If they are effectively implemented,
and if the Iraqi government moves forward with national reconciliation,
Iraqis will have an opportunity for a better future, terrorism will
be dealt a blow, stability will be enhanced in an important part of
the world, and America’s credibility, interests, and values will
be protected.
The challenges
in Iraq are complex. Violence is increasing in scope and lethality.
It is fed
by a Sunni Arab insurgency, Shiite militias and death squads, al Qaeda,
and widespread
criminality. Sectarian conflict is the principal challenge to stability.
The Iraqi people have a
democratically elected government, yet it is not adequately advancing
national reconciliation,
providing basic security, or delivering essential services. Pessimism
is pervasive.
If the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be
severe. A slide toward
chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq’s government and a humanitarian
catastrophe.
Neighboring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could spread.
Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations.
The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans
could become more polarized.
During the
past nine months we have considered a full range of approaches for moving
forward. All have flaws. Our recommended course has shortcomings, but
we firmly believe that
it includes the best strategies and tactics to positively influence
the outcome in Iraq and the
region.
External Approach
The policies and actions of Iraq’s neighbors greatly affect its
stability and prosperity. No country in the region will benefit in the
long term from a chaotic Iraq. Yet Iraq’s neighbors are not doing
enough to help Iraq achieve stability. Some are undercutting stability.
The United States should immediately launch a new diplomatic offensive
to build an
international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region. This diplomatic
effort should include
every country that has an interest in avoiding a chaotic Iraq, including
all of Iraq’s neighbors.
Iraq’s neighbors and key states in and outside the region should
form a support group to
reinforce security and national reconciliation within Iraq, neither
of which Iraq can achieve on its
own.
Given the ability
of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest
in
avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them
constructively. In seeking
to influence the behavior of both countries, the United States has disincentives
and incentives
available. Iran should stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq, respect
Iraq’s sovereignty and
territorial integrity, and use its influence over Iraqi Shia groups
to encourage national
reconciliation. The issue of Iran’s nuclear programs should continue
to be dealt with by the five
permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany.
Syria should control its border with Iraq to stem the flow of funding,
insurgents, and terrorists in and out of Iraq.
The United
States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly
with
the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability. There must be a
renewed and sustained
commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace
on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and President Bush’s June 2002
commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. This commitment
must include direct talks with, by, and between Israel, Lebanon, Palestinians
(those who accept Israel’s right to exist), and Syria.
As the United
States develops its approach toward Iraq and the Middle East, the United
States should provide additional political, economic, and military support
for Afghanistan,
including resources that might become available as combat forces are
moved out of Iraq.
Internal Approach
The most important questions about Iraq’s future are now the responsibility
of Iraqis. The
United States must adjust its role in Iraq to encourage the Iraqi people
to take control of their
own destiny.
The Iraqi government
should accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi security by
increasing the number and quality of Iraqi Army brigades. While this
process is under way, and
to facilitate it, the United States should significantly increase the
number of U.S. military
personnel, including combat troops, imbedded in and supporting Iraqi
Army units. As these
actions proceed, U.S. combat forces could begin to move out of Iraq.
The primary
mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the
Iraqi
army, which would take over primary responsibility for combat operations.
By the first quarter
of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation
on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection
could be out of Iraq. At that time, U.S. combat forces in Iraq could
be deployed only in units embedded with Iraqi forces, in rapid-reaction
and special operations teams, and in training, equipping, advising,
force protection, and search and rescue. Intelligence and support efforts
would continue. A vital mission of those rapid reaction and special
operations forces would be to undertake strikes against al Qaeda in
Iraq.
It is clear
that the Iraqi government will need assistance from the United States
for some
time to come, especially in carrying out security responsibilities.
Yet the United States must
make it clear to the Iraqi government that the United States could carry
out its plans, including
planned redeployments, even if the Iraqi government did not implement
their planned changes.
The United States must not make an open-ended commitment to keep large
numbers of
American troops deployed in Iraq.
As redeployment
proceeds, military leaders should emphasize training and education of
forces that have returned to the United States in order to restore the
force to full combat
capability. As equipment returns to the United States, Congress should
appropriate sufficient
funds to restore the equipment over the next five years.
The United
States should work closely with Iraq’s leaders to support the
achievement of
specific objectives—or milestones—on national reconciliation,
security, and governance.
Miracles cannot be expected, but the people of Iraq have the right to
expect action and progress.
The Iraqi government needs to show its own citizens—and the citizens
of the United States and other countries—that it deserves continued
support.
Prime Minister
Nouri al-Maliki, in consultation with the United States, has put forward
a
set of milestones critical for Iraq. His list is a good start, but it
must be expanded to include
milestones that can strengthen the government and benefit the Iraqi
people. President Bush and his national security team should remain
in close and frequent contact with the Iraqi leadership to convey a
clear message: there must be prompt action by the Iraqi government to
make substantial progress toward the achievement of these milestones.
If the Iraqi
government demonstrates political will and makes substantial progress
toward
the achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security,
and governance, the United
States should make clear its willingness to continue training, assistance,
and support for Iraq’s
security forces and to continue political, military, and economic support.
If the Iraqi government
does not make substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones
on national
reconciliation, security, and governance, the United States should reduce
its political, military,
or economic support for the Iraqi government.
Our report
makes recommendations in several other areas. They include improvements
to
the Iraqi criminal justice system, the Iraqi oil sector, the U.S. reconstruction
efforts in Iraq, the
U.S. budget process, the training of U.S. government personnel, and
U.S. intelligence -
capabilities.
Conclusion
It is the unanimous view of the Iraq Study Group that these recommendations
offer a new way
forward for the United States in Iraq and the region. They are comprehensive
and need to be
implemented in a coordinated fashion. They should not be separated or
carried out in isolation.
The dynamics
of the region are as important to Iraq as events within Iraq.
The challenges are daunting. There will be difficult days ahead. But
by pursuing this new
way forward, Iraq, the region, and the United States of America can
emerge stronger.
I Assessment
There is no guarantee for success in Iraq. The situation in Baghdad
and several provinces is dire. Saddam Hussein has been removed from
power and the Iraqi people have a democratically elected government
that is broadly representative of Iraq’s population, yet the government
is not adequately advancing national reconciliation, providing basic
security, or delivering essential services. The level of violence is
high and growing. There is great suffering, and the daily lives of many
Iraqis show little or no improvement. Pessimism is pervasive.
U.S. military
and civilian personnel, and our coalition partners, are making exceptional
and dedicated efforts—and sacrifices—to help Iraq. Many
Iraqis have also made extraordinary
efforts and sacrifices for a better future. However, the ability of
the United States to influence
events within Iraq is diminishing. Many Iraqis are embracing sectarian
identities. The lack of
security impedes economic development. Most countries in the region
are not playing a
constructive role in support of Iraq, and some are undercutting stability.
Iraq is vital
to regional and even global stability, and is critical to U.S. interests.
It runs
along the sectarian fault lines of Shia and Sunni Islam, and of Kurdish
and Arab populations. It
has the world’s second-largest known oil reserves. It is now a
base of operations for international terrorism, including al Qaeda.
Iraq is a centerpiece
of American foreign policy, influencing how the United States is
viewed in the region and around the world. Because of the gravity of
Iraq’s condition and the
country’s vital importance, the United States is facing one of
its most difficult and significant
international challenges in decades. Because events in Iraq have been
set in motion by American decisions and actions, the United States has
both a national and a moral interest in doing what it can to give Iraqis
an opportunity to avert anarchy.
An assessment
of the security, political, economic, and regional situation follows
(all
figures current as of publication), along with an assessment of the
consequences if Iraq continues to deteriorate, and an analysis of some
possible courses of action.
A. Assessment
of the Current Situation in Iraq
1. Security
Attacks against U.S., Coalition, and Iraqi security forces are persistent
and growing. October
2006 was the deadliest month for U.S. forces since January 2005, with
102 Americans killed.
Total attacks in October 2006 averaged 180 per day, up from 70 per day
in January 2006. Daily
attacks against Iraqi security forces in October were more than double
the level in January.
Attacks against civilians in October were four times higher than in
January. Some 3,000 Iraqi
civilians are killed every month.
Sources of Violence
Violence is increasing in scope, complexity, and lethality. There are
multiple sources of
violence in Iraq: the Sunni Arab insurgency, al Qaeda and affiliated
jihadist groups, Shiite
militias and death squads, and organized criminality. Sectarian violence—particularly
in and
around Baghdad—has become the principal challenge to stability.
Most attacks
on Americans still come from the Sunni Arab insurgency. The insurgency
comprises former elements of the Saddam Hussein regime, disaffected
Sunni Arab Iraqis, and common criminals. It has significant support
within the Sunni Arab community. The
insurgency has no single leadership but is a network of networks. It
benefits from participants’
detailed knowledge of Iraq’s infrastructure, and arms and financing
are supplied primarily from
within Iraq. The insurgents have different goals, although nearly all
oppose the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq. Most wish to restore Sunni
Arab rule in the country. Some aim at winning local power and control.
Al Qaeda is
responsible for a small portion of the violence in Iraq, but that includes
some
of the more spectacular acts: suicide attacks, large truck bombs, and
attacks on significant -
religious or political targets. Al Qaeda in Iraq is now largely Iraqi-run
and composed of Sunni
Arabs. Foreign fighters—numbering an estimated 1,300—play
a supporting role or carry out
suicide operations. Al Qaeda’s goals include instigating a wider
sectarian war between Iraq’s
Sunni and Shia, and driving the United States out of Iraq.
Sectarian violence
causes the largest number of Iraqi civilian casualties. Iraq is in the
grip
of a deadly cycle: Sunni insurgent attacks spark large-scale Shia reprisals,
and vice versa. Groups of Iraqis are often found bound and executed,
their bodies dumped in rivers or fields. The perception of unchecked
violence emboldens militias, shakes confidence in the government, and
leads Iraqis to flee to places where their sect is the majority and
where they feel they are in less danger. In some parts of Iraq—notably
in Baghdad—sectarian cleansing is taking place. The United Nations
estimates that 1.6 million are displaced within Iraq, and up to 1.8
million Iraqis have fled the country.
Shiite militias
engaging in sectarian violence pose a substantial threat to immediate
and
long-term stability. These militias are diverse. Some are affiliated
with the government, some
are highly localized, and some are wholly outside the law. They are
fragmenting, with an
increasing breakdown in command structure. The militias target Sunni
Arab civilians, and some struggle for power in clashes with one another.
Some even target government ministries. They undermine the authority
of the Iraqi government and security forces, as well as the ability
of Sunnis to join a peaceful political process. The prevalence of militias
sends a powerful message: political leaders can preserve and expand
their power only if backed by armed force.
The Mahdi Army,
led by Moqtada al-Sadr, may number as many as 60,000 fighters. It has
directly challenged U.S. and Iraqi government forces, and it is widely
believed to engage in
regular violence against Sunni Arab civilians. Mahdi fighters patrol
certain Shia enclaves,
notably northeast Baghdad’s teeming neighborhood of 2.5 million
known as “Sadr City.” As
the Mahdi Army has grown in size and influence, some elements have moved
beyond Sadr’s
control.
The Badr Brigade
is affiliated with the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in
Iraq
(SCIRI), which is led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. The Badr Brigade has long-standing
ties with
the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Many Badr members have become
integrated into the
Iraqi police, and others play policing roles in southern Iraqi cities.
While wearing the uniform of
the security services, Badr fighters have targeted Sunni Arab civilians.
Badr fighters have also
clashed with the Mahdi Army, particularly in southern Iraq.
Criminality
also makes daily life unbearable for many Iraqis. Robberies, kidnappings,
and
murder are commonplace in much of the country. Organized criminal rackets
thrive, particularly
in unstable areas like Anbar province. Some criminal gangs cooperate
with, finance, or purport to be part of the Sunni insurgency or a Shiite
militia in order to gain legitimacy. As one
knowledgeable American official put it, “If there were foreign
forces in New Jersey, Tony
Soprano would be an insurgent leader.”
Four of Iraq’s
eighteen provinces are highly insecure—Baghdad, Anbar, Diyala,
and Salah
ad Din. These provinces account for about 40 percent of Iraq’s
population of 26 million. In
Baghdad, the violence is largely between Sunni and Shia. In Anbar, the
violence is attributable
to the Sunni insurgency and to al Qaeda, and the situation is deteriorating.
In Kirkuk,
the struggle is between Kurds, Arabs, and Turkmen. In Basra and the
south,
the violence is largely an intra-Shia power struggle. The most stable
parts of the country are the three provinces of the Kurdish north and
parts of the Shia south. However, most of Iraq’s cities have a
sectarian mix and are plagued by persistent violence.
U.S.,
Coalition, and Iraqi Forces Confronting this violence are the Multi-National
Forces–Iraq under U.S. command, working in concert with Iraq’s
security forces. The Multi-National Forces–Iraq were authorized
by UN Security Council Resolution 1546 in 2004, and the mandate was
extended in November 2006 for another year.
Approximately
141,000 U.S. military personnel are serving in Iraq, together with
approximately 16,500 military personnel from twenty-seven coalition
partners, the largest
contingent being 7,200 from the United Kingdom. The U.S. Army has principal
responsibility
for Baghdad and the north. The U.S. Marine Corps takes the lead in Anbar
province. The
United Kingdom has responsibility in the southeast, chiefly in Basra.
Along with
this military presence, the United States is building its largest embassy
in
Baghdad. The current U.S. embassy in Baghdad totals about 1,000 U.S.
government
employees. There are roughly 5,000 civilian contractors in the country.
Currently,
the U.S. military rarely engages in large-scale combat operations. Instead,
counterinsurgency efforts focus on a strategy of “clear, hold,
and build”—“clearing” areas of -
insurgents and death squads, “holding” those areas with
Iraqi security forces, and “building”
areas with quick-impact reconstruction projects.
Nearly every
U.S. Army and Marine combat unit, and several National Guard and Reserve
units, have been to Iraq at least once. Many are on their second or
even third rotations; rotations are typically one year for Army units,
seven months for Marine units. Regular rotations, in and out of Iraq
or within the country, complicate brigade and battalion efforts to get
to know the local scene, earn the trust of the population, and build
a sense of cooperation.
Many military units are under significant strain. Because the harsh
conditions in Iraq are
wearing out equipment more quickly than anticipated, many units do not
have fully functional
equipment for training when they redeploy to the United States. An extraordinary
amount of
sacrifice has been asked of our men and women in uniform, and of their
families. The American military has little reserve force to call on
if it needs ground forces to respond to other crises around the world.
A primary mission
of U.S. military strategy in Iraq is the training of competent Iraqi
security forces. By the end of 2006, the Multi-National Security Transition
Command–Iraq
under American leadership is expected to have trained and equipped a
target number of
approximately 326,000 Iraqi security services. That figure includes
138,000 members of the
Iraqi Army and 188,000 Iraqi police. Iraqis have operational control
over roughly one-third of
Iraqi security forces; the U.S. has operational control over most of
the rest. No U.S. forces are
under Iraqi command.
The Iraqi Army
The Iraqi Army is making fitful progress toward becoming a reliable
and disciplined fighting force loyal to the national government. By
the end of 2006, the Iraqi Army is expected to comprise 118 battalions
formed into 36 brigades under the command of 10 divisions. Although
the Army is one of the more professional Iraqi institutions, its performance
has been uneven.
The training
numbers are impressive, but they represent only part of the story.
Significant questions remain about the ethnic composition and loyalties
of some Iraqi
units—specifically, whether they will carry out missions on behalf
of national goals instead of a
sectarian agenda. Of Iraq’s 10 planned divisions, those that are
even-numbered are made up of Iraqis who signed up to serve in a specific
area, and they have been reluctant to redeploy to other areas of the
country. As a result, elements of the Army have refused to carry out
missions.
The Iraqi Army is also confronted by several other significant challenges:
Units lack leadership. They lack the ability to work together and perform
at higher levels of organization the brigade and division level. Leadership
training and the experience of leadership are the essential elements
to improve performance.
Units lack
equipment. They cannot carry out their missions without adequate equipment.
Congress has been generous in funding requests for U.S. troops, but
it has resisted fully
funding Iraqi forces. The entire appropriation for Iraqi defense forces
for FY 2006 ($3 billion)
is less than the United States currently spends in Iraq every two weeks.
Units lack personnel. Soldiers are on leave one week a month so that
they can visit their
families and take them their pay. Soldiers are paid in cash because
there is no banking
system. Soldiers are given leave liberally and face no penalties for
absence without leave. Unit
readiness rates are low, often at 50 percent or less.
Units lack logistics and support. They lack the ability to sustain their
operations, the
capability to transport supplies and troops, and the capacity to provide
their own indirect fire
support, close-air support, technical intelligence, and medical evacuation.
They will depend
on the United States for logistics and support through at least 2007.
The Iraqi Police
The state of the Iraqi police is substantially worse than that of the
Iraqi Army. The Iraqi Police
Service currently numbers roughly 135,000 and is responsible for local
policing. It has neither
the training nor legal authority to conduct criminal investigations,
nor the firepower to take on
organized crime, insurgents, or militias. The Iraqi National Police
numbers roughly 25,000 and
its officers have been trained in counterinsurgency operations, not
police work. The Border
Enforcement Department numbers roughly 28,000.
Iraqi police cannot control crime, and they routinely engage in sectarian
violence,
including the unnecessary detention, torture, and targeted execution
of Sunni Arab civilians. The
police are organized under the Ministry of the Interior, which is confronted
by corruption and
militia infiltration and lacks control over police in the provinces.
The United States and the Iraqi government recognize the importance
of reform. The
current Minister of the Interior has called for purging militia members
and criminals from the
police. But he has little police experience or base of support. There
is no clear Iraqi or U.S.
agreement on the character and mission of the police. U.S. authorities
do not know with
precision the composition and membership of the various police forces,
nor the disposition of
their funds and equipment. There are ample reports of Iraqi police officers
participating in
training in order to obtain a weapon, uniform, and ammunition for use
in sectarian violence.
Some are on the payroll but don’t show up for work. In the words
of a senior American general,
“2006 was supposed to be ‘the year of the police’
but it hasn’t materialized that way.”
Facilities Protection Services
The Facilities Protection Service poses additional problems. Each Iraqi
ministry has an armed
unit, ostensibly to guard the ministry’s infrastructure. All together,
these units total roughly
145,000 uniformed Iraqis under arms. However, these units have questionable
loyalties and
capabilities. In the ministries of Health, Agriculture, and Transportation
controlled by Moqtada
al-Sadr the Facilities Protection Service is a source of funding and
jobs for the Mahdi Army.
One senior U.S. official described the Facilities Protection Service
as “incompetent,
dysfunctional, or subversive.” Several Iraqis simply referred
to them as militias.
The Iraqi government has begun to bring the Facilities Protection Service
under the
control of the Interior Ministry. The intention is to identify and register
Facilities Protection
personnel, standardize their treatment, and provide some training. Though
the approach is
reasonable, this effort may exceed the current capability of the Interior
Ministry.
Operation Together Forward II
In a major effort to quell the violence in Iraq, U.S. military forces
joined with Iraqi forces
to establish security in Baghdad with an operation called “Operation
Together Forward
II,” which began in August 2006. Under Operation Together Forward
II, U.S. forces are
working with members of the Iraqi Army and police to “clear, hold,
and build” in
Baghdad, moving neighborhood by neighborhood. There are roughly 15,000
U.S. troops
in Baghdad.
This operation—and the security of Baghdad—is crucial to
security in Iraq more
generally. A capital city of more than 6 million, Baghdad contains some
25 percent of the
country’s population. It is the largest Sunni and Shia city in
Iraq. It has high
concentrations of both Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias. Both Iraqi
and American
leaders told us that as Baghdad goes, so goes Iraq.
The results of Operation Together Forward II are disheartening. Violence
in
Baghdad—already at high levels—jumped more than 43 percent
between the summer and
October 2006. U.S. forces continue to suffer high casualties. Perpetrators
of violence leave
neighborhoods in advance of security sweeps, only to filter back later.
Iraqi police have
been unable or unwilling to stop such infiltration and continuing violence.
The Iraqi Army
has provided only two out of the six battalions that it promised in
August would join
American forces in Baghdad. The Iraqi government has rejected sustained
security
operations in Sadr City.
Security efforts will fail unless the Iraqis have both the capability
to hold areas that
have been cleared and the will to clear neighborhoods that are home
to Shiite militias.
U.S. forces can “clear” any neighborhood, but there are
neither enough U.S. troops present
nor enough support from Iraqi security forces to “hold”
neighborhoods so cleared. The
same holds true for the rest of Iraq. Because none of the operations
conducted by U.S. and
Iraqi military forces are fundamentally changing the conditions encouraging
the sectarian
violence, U.S. forces seem to be caught in a mission that has no foreseeable
end.
2. Politics
Iraq is a sovereign state with a democratically elected Council of Representatives.
A government
of national unity was formed in May 2006 that is broadly representative
of the Iraqi people. Iraq
has ratified a constitution, and—per agreement with Sunni Arab
leaders—has initiated a process
of review to determine if the constitution needs amendment.
The composition of the Iraqi government is basically sectarian, and
key players within the
government too often act in their sectarian interest. Iraq’s Shia,
Sunni, and Kurdish leaders
frequently fail to demonstrate the political will to act in Iraq’s
national interest, and too many
Iraqi ministries lack the capacity to govern effectively. The result
is an even weaker central
government than the constitution provides.
There is widespread Iraqi, American, and international agreement on
the key issues
confronting the Iraqi government: national reconciliation, including
the negotiation of a
“political deal” among Iraq’s sectarian groups on
Constitution review, de-Baathification, oil
revenue sharing, provincial elections, the future of Kirkuk, and amnesty;
security, particularly
curbing militias and reducing the violence in Baghdad; and governance,
including the provision
of basic services and the rollback of pervasive corruption. Because
Iraqi leaders view issues
through a sectarian prism, we will summarize the differing perspectives
of Iraq’s main sectarian
groups.
Sectarian Viewpoints
The Shia, the majority of Iraq’s population, have gained power
for the first time in more than
1,300 years. Above all, many Shia are interested in preserving that
power. However, fissures
have emerged within the broad Shia coalition, known as the United Iraqi
Alliance. Shia factions
are struggling for power—over regions, ministries, and Iraq as
a whole. The difficulties in
holding together a broad and fractious coalition have led several observers
in Baghdad to
comment that Shia leaders are held “hostage to extremes.”
Within the coalition as a whole,
there is a reluctance to reach a political accommodation with the Sunnis
or to disarm Shiite
militias.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has demonstrated an understanding of
the key issues facing
Iraq, notably the need for national reconciliation and security in Baghdad.
Yet strains have
emerged between Maliki’s government and the United States. Maliki
has publicly rejected a
U.S. timetable to achieve certain benchmarks, ordered the removal of
blockades around Sadr
City, sought more control over Iraqi security forces, and resisted U.S.
requests to move forward
on reconciliation or on disbanding Shiite militias.
Sistani, Sadr, Hakim
The U.S. deals primarily with the Iraqi government, but the most powerful
Shia figures in
Iraq do not hold national office. Of the following three vital power
brokers in the Shia
community, the United States is unable to talk directly with one (Grand
Ayatollah Ali al-
Sistani) and does not talk to another (Moqtada al-Sadr).
GRAND AYATOLLAH ALI AL-SISTANI: Sistani is the leading Shiite cleric
in Iraq.
Despite staying out of day-to-day politics, he has been the most influential
leader in the
country: all major Shia leaders have sought his approval or guidance.
Sistani has
encouraged a unified Shia bloc with moderated aims within a unified
Iraq. Sistani’s
influence may be waning, as his words have not succeeded in preventing
intra-Shia
violence or retaliation against Sunnis.
ABDUL AZIZ AL-HAKIM: Hakim is a cleric and the leader of the Supreme
Council for
the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the largest and most organized
Shia political
party. It seeks the creation of an autonomous Shia region comprising
nine provinces in the
south. Hakim has consistently protected and advanced his party’s
position. SCIRI has
close ties with Iran.
MOQTADA AL-SADR: Sadr has a large following among impoverished Shia,
particularly in Baghdad. He has joined Maliki’s governing coalition,
but his Mahdi Army
has clashed with the Badr Brigades, as well as with Iraqi, U.S., and
U.K. forces. Sadr
claims to be an Iraqi nationalist. Several observers remarked to us
that Sadr was following
the model of Hezbollah in Lebanon: building a political party that controls
basic services
within the government and an armed militia outside of the government.
Sunni Arabs feel displaced because of the loss of their traditional
position of power in Iraq. They
are torn, unsure whether to seek their aims through political participation
or through violent
insurgency. They remain angry about U.S. decisions to dissolve Iraqi
security forces and to
pursue the “de-Baathification” of Iraq’s government
and society. Sunnis are confronted by
paradoxes: they have opposed the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq but
need those forces to protect
them against Shia militias; they chafe at being governed by a majority
Shia administration but
reject a federal, decentralized Iraq and do not see a Sunni autonomous
region as feasible for
themselves.
Hashimi and Dhari
The influence of Sunni Arab politicians in the government is questionable.
The leadership
of the Sunni Arab insurgency is murky, but the following two key Sunni
Arab figures have
broad support.
tariq al-hashimi: Hashimi is one of two vice presidents of Iraq and
the head of the Iraqi
Islamic Party, the largest Sunni Muslim bloc in parliament. Hashimi
opposes the
formation of autonomous regions and has advocated the distribution of
oil revenues based
on population, a reversal of de-Baathification, and the removal of Shiite
militia fighters
from the Iraqi security forces. Shiite death squads have recently killed
three of his siblings.
sheik harith al-dhari: Dhari is the head of the Muslim Scholars Association,
the most
influential Sunni organization in Iraq. Dhari has condemned the American
occupation and
spoken out against the Iraqi government. His organization has ties both
to the Sunni Arab
insurgency and to Sunnis within the Iraqi government. A warrant was
recently issued for
his arrest for inciting violence and terrorism, an act that sparked
bitter Sunni protests
across Iraq.
Iraqi Kurds have succeeded in presenting a united front of two main
political blocs—the
Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan
(PUK). The Kurds have
secured a largely autonomous Kurdish region in the north, and have achieved
a prominent role
for Kurds within the national government. Barzani leads the Kurdish
regional government, and
Talabani is president of Iraq.
Leading Kurdish politicians told us they preferred to be within a democratic,
federal Iraqi
state because an independent Kurdistan would be surrounded by hostile
neighbors. However, a
majority of Kurds favor independence. The Kurds have their own security
forces—the
peshmerga—which number roughly 100,000. They believe they could
accommodate themselves
to either a unified or a fractured Iraq.
Barzani and Talabani
Kurdish politics has been dominated for years by two figures who have
long-standing ties
in movements for Kurdish independence and self-government.
MASSOUD BARZANI: Barzani is the leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party
and the
President of the Kurdish regional government. Barzani has cooperated
with his longtime
rival, Jalal Talabani, in securing an empowered, autonomous Kurdish
region in northern
Iraq. Barzani has ordered the lowering of Iraqi flags and raising of
Kurdish flags in
Kurdish-controlled areas.
JALAL TALABANI: Talabani is the leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan
and the
President of Iraq. Whereas Barzani has focused his efforts in Kurdistan,
Talabani has
secured power in Baghdad, and several important PUK government ministers
are loyal to
him. Talabani strongly supports autonomy for Kurdistan. He has also
sought to bring real
power to the office of the presidency.
Key Issues
NATIONAL RECONCILIATION. Prime Minister Maliki outlined a commendable
program of
national reconciliation soon after he entered office. However, the Iraqi
government has not taken
action on the key elements of national reconciliation: revising de-Baathification,
which prevents
many Sunni Arabs from participating in governance and society; providing
amnesty for those
who have fought against the government; sharing the country’s
oil revenues; demobilizing
militias; amending the constitution; and settling the future of Kirkuk.
One core issue is federalism. The Iraqi Constitution, which created
a largely autonomous
Kurdistan region, allows other such regions to be established later,
perhaps including a
“Shi’astan” comprising nine southern provinces. This
highly decentralized structure is favored
by the Kurds and many Shia (particularly supporters of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim),
but it is
anathema to Sunnis. First, Sunni Arabs are generally Iraqi nationalists,
albeit within the context
of an Iraq they believe they should govern. Second, because Iraq’s
energy resources are in the
Kurdish and Shia regions, there is no economically feasible “Sunni
region.” Particularly
contentious is a provision in the constitution that shares revenues
nationally from current oil
reserves, while allowing revenues from reserves discovered in the future
to go to the regions.
The Sunnis did not actively participate in the constitution-drafting
process, and acceded to
entering the government only on the condition that the constitution
be amended. In September,
the parliament agreed to initiate a constitutional review commission
slated to complete its work
within one year; it delayed considering the question of forming a federalized
region in southern
Iraq for eighteen months.
Another key unresolved issue is the future of Kirkuk, an oil-rich city
in northern Iraq that
is home to substantial numbers of Kurds, Arabs, and Turkmen. The Kurds
insisted that the
constitution require a popular referendum by December 2007 to determine
whether Kirkuk can
formally join the Kurdish administered region, an outcome that Arabs
and Turkmen in Kirkuk
staunchly oppose. The risks of further violence sparked by a Kirkuk
referendum are great.
Iraq’s leaders often claim that they do not want a division of
the country, but we found
that key Shia and Kurdish leaders have little commitment to national
reconciliation. One
prominent Shia leader told us pointedly that the current government
has the support of 80
percent of the population, notably excluding Sunni Arabs. Kurds have
fought for independence
for decades, and when our Study Group visited Iraq, the leader of the
Kurdish region ordered the
lowering of Iraqi flags and the raising of Kurdish flags. One senior
American general commented
that the Iraqis “still do not know what kind of country they want
to have.” Yet many of Iraq’s
most powerful and well-positioned leaders are not working toward a united
Iraq.
SECURITY. The security situation cannot improve unless leaders act in
support of national
reconciliation. Shiite leaders must make the decision to demobilize
militias. Sunni Arabs must
make the decision to seek their aims through a peaceful political process,
not through violent
revolt. The Iraqi government and Sunni Arab tribes must aggressively
pursue al Qaeda.
Militias are currently seen as legitimate vehicles of political action.
Shia political leaders
make distinctions between the Sunni insurgency (which seeks to overthrow
the government) and
Shia militias (which are used to fight Sunnis, secure neighborhoods,
and maximize power
within the government). Though Prime Minister Maliki has said he will
address the problem of
militias, he has taken little meaningful action to curb their influence.
He owes his office in large
part to Sadr and has shown little willingness to take on him or his
Mahdi Army.
Sunni Arabs have not made the strategic decision to abandon violent
insurgency in favor of
the political process. Sunni politicians within the government have
a limited level of support
and influence among their own population, and questionable influence
over the insurgency.
Insurgents wage a campaign of intimidation against Sunni leaders—assassinating
the family
members of those who do participate in the government. Too often, insurgents
tolerate and
cooperate with al Qaeda, as they share a mutual interest in attacking
U.S. and Shia forces.
However, Sunni Arab tribal leaders in Anbar province recently took the
positive step of agreeing
to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters in their midst, and have started
to take action on those
commitments.
Sunni politicians told us that the U.S. military has to take on the
militias; Shia
politicians told us that the U.S. military has to help them take out
the Sunni insurgents and al
Qaeda. Each side watches the other. Sunni insurgents will not lay down
arms unless the Shia
militias are disarmed. Shia militias will not disarm until the Sunni
insurgency is destroyed. To
put it simply: there are many armed groups within Iraq, and very little
will to lay down arms.
GOVERNANCE. The Iraqi government is not effectively providing its people
with basic services:
electricity, drinking water, sewage, health care, and education. In
many sectors,
production is below or hovers around prewar levels. In Baghdad and other
unstable areas, the
situation is much worse. There are five major reasons for this problem.
First, the government sometimes provides services on a sectarian basis.
For example, in
one Sunni neighborhood of Shia-governed Baghdad, there is less than
two hours of electricity
each day and trash piles are waist-high. One American official told
us that Baghdad is run like a
“Shia dictatorship” because Sunnis boycotted provincial
elections in 2005, and therefore are not
represented in local government.
Second, security is lacking. Insurgents target key infrastructure. For
instance, electricity
transmission towers are downed by explosives, and then sniper attacks
prevent repairs from
being made.
Third, corruption is rampant. One senior Iraqi official estimated that
official corruption
costs Iraq $5–7 billion per year. Notable steps have been taken:
Iraq has a functioning audit
board and inspectors general in the ministries, and senior leaders including
the Prime Minister
have identified rooting out corruption as a national priority. But too
many political leaders still
pursue their personal, sectarian, or party interests. There are still
no examples of senior officials
who have been brought before a court of law and convicted on corruption
charges.
Fourth, capacity is inadequate. Most of Iraq’s technocratic class
was pushed out of the
government as part of de-Baathification. Other skilled Iraqis have fled
the country as violence has
risen. Too often, Iraq’s elected representatives treat the ministries
as political spoils. Many
ministries can do little more than pay salaries, spending as little
as 10–15 percent of their capital
budget. They lack technical expertise and suffer from corruption, inefficiency,
a banking system
that does not permit the transfer of moneys, extensive red tape put
in place in part to deter
corruption, and a Ministry of Finance reluctant to disburse funds.
Fifth, the judiciary is weak. Much has been done to establish an Iraqi
judiciary, including
a supreme court, and Iraq has some dedicated judges. But criminal investigations
are conducted
by magistrates, and they are too few and inadequately trained to perform
this function.
Intimidation of the Iraqi judiciary has been ruthless. As one senior
U.S. official said to us, “We
can protect judges, but not their families, their extended families,
their friends.” Many Iraqis feel
that crime not only is unpunished, it is rewarded.
3. Economics
There has been some economic progress in Iraq, and Iraq has tremendous
potential for growth.
But economic development is hobbled by insecurity, corruption, lack
of investment, dilapidated
infrastructure, and uncertainty. As one U.S. official observed to us,
Iraq’s economy has been
badly shocked and is dysfunctional after suffering decades of problems:
Iraq had a police state
economy in the 1970s, a war economy in the 1980s, and a sanctions economy
in the 1990s.
Immediate and long-term growth depends predominantly on the oil sector.
Economic Performance
There are some encouraging signs. Currency reserves are stable and growing
at $12 billion.
Consumer imports of computers, cell phones, and other appliances have
increased dramatically.
New businesses are opening, and construction is moving forward in secure
areas. Because of
Iraq’s ample oil reserves, water resources, and fertile lands,
significant growth is possible if
violence is reduced and the capacity of government improves. For example,
wheat yields
increased more than 40 percent in Kurdistan during this past year.
The Iraqi government has also made progress in meeting benchmarks set
by the
International Monetary Fund. Most prominently, subsidies have been reduced—for
instance, the
price per liter of gas has increased from roughly 1.7 cents to 23 cents
(a figure far closer to
regional prices). However, energy and food subsidies generally remain
a burden, costing Iraq $11
billion per year.
Despite the positive signs, many leading economic indicators are negative.
Instead of
meeting a target of 10 percent, growth in Iraq is at roughly 4 percent
this year. Inflation is above
50 percent. Unemployment estimates range widely from 20 to 60 percent.
The investment
climate is bleak, with foreign direct investment under 1 percent of
GDP. Too many Iraqis do not
see tangible improvements in their daily economic situation.
Oil Sector
Oil production and sales account for nearly 70 percent of Iraq’s
GDP, and more than 95 percent
of government revenues. Iraq produces around 2.2 million barrels per
day, and exports about 1.5
million barrels per day. This is below both prewar production levels
and the Iraqi government’s
target of 2.5 million barrels per day, and far short of the vast potential
of the Iraqi oil sector.
Fortunately for the government, global energy prices have been higher
than projected, making it
possible for Iraq to meet its budget revenue targets.
Problems with oil production are caused by lack of security, lack of
investment, and lack
of technical capacity. Insurgents with a detailed knowledge of Iraq’s
infrastructure target
pipelines and oil facilities. There is no metering system for the oil.
There is poor maintenance at
pumping stations, pipelines, and port facilities, as well as inadequate
investment in modern
technology. Iraq had a cadre of experts in the oil sector, but intimidation
and an extended
migration of experts to other countries have eroded technical capacity.
Foreign companies have
been reluctant to invest, and Iraq’s Ministry of Oil has been
unable to spend more than 15
percent of its capital budget.
Corruption is also debilitating. Experts estimate that 150,000 to 200,000—and
perhaps as
many as 500,000—barrels of oil per day are being stolen. Controlled
prices for refined products
result in shortages within Iraq, which drive consumers to the thriving
black market. One senior
U.S. official told us that corruption is more responsible than insurgents
for breakdowns in the
oil sector.
The Politics of Oil
The politics of oil has the potential to further damage the country’s
already fragile efforts to
create a unified central government. The Iraqi Constitution leaves the
door open for regions to
take the lead in developing new oil resources. Article 108 states that
“oil and gas are the
ownership of all the peoples of Iraq in all the regions and governorates,”
while Article 109 tasks
the federal government with “the management of oil and gas extracted
from current fields.” This
language has led to contention over what constitutes a “new”
or an “existing” resource, a
question that has profound ramifications for the ultimate control of
future oil revenue.
Senior members of Iraq’s oil industry argue that a national oil
company could reduce
political tensions by centralizing revenues and reducing regional or
local claims to a percentage
of the revenue derived from production. However, regional leaders are
suspicious and resist this
proposal, affirming the rights of local communities to have direct access
to the inflow of oil
revenue. Kurdish leaders have been particularly aggressive in asserting
independent control of
their oil assets, signing and implementing investment deals with foreign
oil companies in
northern Iraq. Shia politicians are also reported to be negotiating
oil investment contracts with
foreign companies.
There are proposals to redistribute a portion of oil revenues directly
to the population on a
per capita basis. These proposals have the potential to give all Iraqi
citizens a stake in the
nation’s chief natural resource, but it would take time to develop
a fair distribution system. Oil
revenues have been incorporated into state budget projections for the
next several years. There is
no institution in Iraq at present that could properly implement such
a distribution system. It
would take substantial time to establish, and would have to be based
on a well-developed state census and income tax system, which Iraq currently
lacks.
U.S.-Led Reconstruction
Efforts
The United States has appropriated a total of about $34 billion to support
the reconstruction of
Iraq, of which about $21 billion has been appropriated for the “Iraq
Relief and Reconstruction
Fund.” Nearly $16 billion has been spent, and almost all the funds
have been committed. The
administration requested $1.6 billion for reconstruction in FY 2006,
and received $1.485
billion. The administration requested $750 million for FY 2007. The
trend line for economic
assistance in FY 2008 also appears downward.
Congress has little appetite for appropriating more funds for reconstruction.
There is a
substantial need for continued reconstruction in Iraq, but serious questions
remain about the
capacity of the U.S. and Iraqi governments.
The coordination of assistance programs by the Defense Department, State
Department,
United States Agency for International Development, and other agencies
has been ineffective.
There are no clear lines establishing who is in charge of reconstruction.
As resources decline, the U.S. reconstruction effort is changing its
focus, shifting from
infrastructure, education, and health to smaller-scale ventures that
are chosen and to some degree
managed by local communities. A major attempt is also being made to
improve the capacity of
government bureaucracies at the national, regional, and provincial levels
to provide services to
the population as well as to select and manage infrastructure projects.
The United States has people embedded in several Iraqi ministries, but
it confronts
problems with access and sustainability. Moqtada al-Sadr objects to
the U.S. presence in Iraq,
and therefore the ministries he controls—Health, Agriculture,
and Transportation—will not
work with Americans. It is not clear that Iraqis can or will maintain
and operate reconstruction
projects launched by the United States.
Several senior military officers commented to us that the Commander’s
Emergency
Response Program, which funds quick-impact projects such as the clearing
of sewage and the
restoration of basic services, is vital. The U.S. Agency for International
Development, in
contrast, is focused on long-term economic development and capacity
building, but funds have
not been committed to support these efforts into the future. The State
Department leads seven
Provincial Reconstruction Teams operating around the country. These
teams can have a positive
effect in secure areas, but not in areas where their work is hampered
by significant security
constraints.
Substantial reconstruction funds have also been provided to contractors,
and the Special
Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has documented numerous instances
of waste and
abuse. They have not all been put right. Contracting has gradually improved,
as more oversight
has been exercised and fewer cost-plus contracts have been granted;
in addition, the use of Iraqi
contractors has enabled the employment of more Iraqis in reconstruction
projects.
4. International Support
International support for Iraqi reconstruction has been tepid. International
donors pledged $13.5
billion to support reconstruction, but less than $4 billion has been
delivered.
An important agreement with the Paris Club relieved a significant amount
of Iraq’s
government debt and put the country on firmer financial footing. But
the Gulf States, including
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, hold large amounts of Iraqi debt that they
have not forgiven.
The United States is currently working with the United Nations and other
partners to
fashion the “International Compact” on Iraq. The goal is
to provide Iraqis with greater debt
relief and credits from the Gulf States, as well as to deliver on pledged
aid from international
donors. In return, the Iraqi government will agree to achieve certain
economic reform milestones,
such as building anticorruption measures into Iraqi institutions, adopting
a fair legal framework
for foreign investors, and reaching economic self-sufficiency by 2012.
Several U.S. and
international officials told us that the compact could be an opportunity
to seek greater
international engagement in the country.
The Region
The policies and actions of Iraq’s neighbors greatly influence
its stability and prosperity. No
country in the region wants a chaotic Iraq. Yet Iraq’s neighbors
are doing little to help it, and
some are undercutting its stability. Iraqis complain that neighbors
are meddling in their affairs.
When asked which of Iraq’s neighbors are intervening in Iraq,
one senior Iraqi official replied,
“All of them.”
The situation in Iraq is linked with events in the region. U.S. efforts
in Afghanistan have
been complicated by the overriding focus of U.S. attention and resources
on Iraq. Several Iraqi,
U.S., and international officials commented to us that Iraqi opposition
to the United States—
and support for Sadr—spiked in the aftermath of Israel’s
bombing campaign in Lebanon. The
actions of Syria and Iran in Iraq are often tied to their broader concerns
with the United States.
Many Sunni Arab states are concerned about rising Iranian influence
in Iraq and the region. Most
of the region’s countries are wary of U.S. efforts to promote
democracy in Iraq and the Middle
East.
Neighboring States
IRAN. Of all the neighbors, Iran has the most leverage in Iraq. Iran
has long-standing ties to
many Iraqi Shia politicians, many of whom were exiled to Iran during
the Saddam Hussein
regime. Iran has provided arms, financial support, and training for
Shiite militias within Iraq, as
well as political support for Shia parties. There are also reports that
Iran has supplied
improvised explosive devices to groups—including Sunni Arab insurgents—that
attack U.S.
forces. The Iranian border with Iraq is porous, and millions of Iranians
travel to Iraq each year to
visit Shia holy sites. Many Iraqis spoke of Iranian meddling, and Sunnis
took a particularly
alarmist view. One leading Sunni politician told us, “If you turn
over any stone in Iraq today,
you will find Iran underneath.”
U.S., Iraqi, and international officials also commented on the range
of tensions between the
United States and Iran, including Iran’s nuclear program, Iran’s
support for terrorism, Iran’s
influence in Lebanon and the region, and Iran’s influence in Iraq.
Iran appears content for the
U.S. military to be tied down in Iraq, a position that limits U.S. options
in addressing Iran’s
nuclear program and allows Iran leverage over stability in Iraq. Proposed
talks between Iran and
the United States about the situation in Iraq have not taken place.
One Iraqi official told us:
“Iran is negotiating with the United States in the streets of
Baghdad.”
SYRIA. Syria is also playing a counterproductive role. Iraqis are upset
about what they
perceive as Syrian support for efforts to undermine the Iraqi government.
The Syrian role is not
so much to take active measures as to countenance malign neglect: the
Syrians look the other
way as arms and foreign fighters flow across their border into Iraq,
and former Baathist leaders
find a safe haven within Syria. Like Iran, Syria is content to see the
United States tied down in
Iraq. That said, the Syrians have indicated that they want a dialogue
with the United States, and
in November 2006 agreed to restore diplomatic relations with Iraq after
a 24-year break.
SAUDI ARABIA AND THE GULF STATES. These countries for the most part
have been
passive and disengaged. They have declined to provide debt relief or
substantial economic
assistance to the Iraqi government. Several Iraqi Sunni Arab politicians
complained that Saudi
Arabia has not provided political support for their fellow Sunnis within
Iraq. One observed that
Saudi Arabia did not even send a letter when the Iraqi government was
formed, whereas Iran has
an ambassador in Iraq. Funding for the Sunni insurgency comes from private
individuals within
Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, even as those governments help facilitate
U.S. military
operations in Iraq by providing basing and overflight rights and by
cooperating on intelligence
issues.
As worries about Iraq increase, the Gulf States are becoming more active.
The United Arab
Emirates and Kuwait have hosted meetings in support of the International
Compact. Saudi
Arabia recently took the positive step of hosting a conference of Iraqi
religious leaders in Mecca.
Several Gulf States have helped foster dialogue with Iraq’s Sunni
Arab population. While the
Gulf States are not proponents of democracy in Iraq, they worry about
the direction of events: -
battle-hardened insurgents from Iraq could pose a threat to their own
internal stability, and the
growth of Iranian influence in the region is deeply troubling to them.
TURKEY. Turkish policy toward Iraq is focused on discouraging Kurdish
nationalism, which
is seen as an existential threat to Turkey’s own internal stability.
The Turks have supported the
Turkmen minority within Iraq and have used their influence to try to
block the incorporation of
Kirkuk into Iraqi Kurdistan. At the same time, Turkish companies have
invested in Kurdish
areas in northern Iraq, and Turkish and Kurdish leaders have sought
constructive engagement on
political, security, and economic issues.
The Turks are deeply concerned about the operations of the Kurdish Workers
Party
(PKK)—a terrorist group based in northern Iraq that has killed
thousands of Turks. They are
upset that the United States and Iraq have not targeted the PKK more
aggressively. The Turks
have threatened to go after the PKK themselves, and have made several
forays across the border
into Iraq.
JORDAN AND EGYPT. Both Jordan and Egypt have provided some assistance
for the Iraqi
government. Jordan has trained thousands of Iraqi police, has an ambassador
in Baghdad, and
King Abdullah recently hosted a meeting in Amman between President Bush
and Prime
Minister Maliki. Egypt has provided some limited Iraqi army training.
Both Jordan and Egypt
have facilitated U.S. military operations—Jordan by allowing overflight
and search-and-rescue
operations, Egypt by allowing overflight and Suez Canal transits; both
provide important
cooperation on intelligence. Jordan is currently home to 700,000 Iraqi
refugees (equal to 10
percent of its population) and fears a flood of many more. Both Jordan
and Egypt are concerned
about the position of Iraq’s Sunni Arabs and want constitutional
reforms in Iraq to bolster the
Sunni community. They also fear the return of insurgents to their countries.
The International Community
The international community beyond the United Kingdom and our other
coalition partners has
played a limited role in Iraq. The United Nations—acting under
Security Council Resolution
1546—has a small presence in Iraq; it has assisted in holding
elections, drafting the
constitution, organizing the government, and building institutions.
The World Bank, which has
committed a limited number of resources, has one and sometimes two staff
in Iraq. The
European Union has a representative there.
Several U.S.-based and international nongovernmental organizations have
done excellent
work within Iraq, operating under great hardship. Both Iraqi and international
nongovernmental
organizations play an important role in reaching across sectarian lines
to enhance dialogue and
understanding, and several U.S.-based organizations have employed substantial
resources to help
Iraqis develop their democracy. However, the participation of international
nongovernmental
organizations is constrained by the lack of security, and their Iraqi
counterparts face a
cumbersome and often politicized process of registration with the government.
The United Kingdom has dedicated an extraordinary amount of resources
to Iraq and has
made great sacrifices. In addition to 7,200 troops, the United Kingdom
has a substantial
diplomatic presence, particularly in Basra and the Iraqi southeast.
The United Kingdom has
been an active and key player at every stage of Iraq’s political
development. U.K. officials told
us that they remain committed to working for stability in Iraq, and
will reduce their
commitment of troops and resources in response to the situation on the
ground.
5. Conclusions
The United States has made a massive commitment to the future of Iraq
in both blood and
treasure. As of December 2006, nearly 2,900 Americans have lost their
lives serving in Iraq.
Another 21,000 Americans have been wounded, many severely.
To date, the United States has spent roughly $400 billion on the Iraq
War, and costs are
running about $8 billion per month. In addition, the United States must
expect significant “tail
costs” to come. Caring for veterans and replacing lost equipment
will run into the hundreds of
billions of dollars. Estimates run as high as $2 trillion for the final
cost of the U.S. involvement
in Iraq.
Despite a massive effort, stability in Iraq remains elusive and the
situation is deteriorating.
The Iraqi government cannot now govern, sustain, and defend itself without
the support of the
United States. Iraqis have not been convinced that they must take responsibility
for their own
future. Iraq’s neighbors and much of the international community
have not been persuaded to
play an active and constructive role in supporting Iraq. The ability
of the United States to shape
outcomes is diminishing. Time is running out.
B. Consequences of Continued Decline in Iraq
If the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, the consequences
could be severe for Iraq, the
United States, the region, and the world.
Continuing violence could lead toward greater chaos, and inflict greater
suffering upon the
Iraqi people. A collapse of Iraq’s government and economy would
further cripple a country
already unable to meet its people’s needs. Iraq’s security
forces could split along sectarian lines.
A humanitarian catastrophe could follow as more refugees are forced
to relocate across the
country and the region. Ethnic cleansing could escalate. The Iraqi people
could be subjected to
another strongman who flexes the political and military muscle required
to impose order amid
anarchy. Freedoms could be lost.
Other countries in the region fear significant violence crossing their
borders. Chaos in Iraq
could lead those countries to intervene to protect their own interests,
thereby perhaps sparking a
broader regional war. Turkey could send troops into northern Iraq to
prevent Kurdistan from
declaring independence. Iran could send in troops to restore stability
in southern Iraq and
perhaps gain control of oil fields. The regional influence of Iran could
rise at a time when that
country is on a path to producing nuclear weapons.
Ambassadors from neighboring countries told us that they fear the distinct
possibility of
Sunni-Shia clashes across the Islamic world. Many expressed a fear of
Shia insurrections—
perhaps fomented by Iran—in Sunni-ruled states. Such a broader
sectarian conflict could open a
Pandora’s box of problems—including the radicalization of
populations, mass movements of
populations, and regime changes—that might take decades to play
out. If the instability in Iraq
spreads to the other Gulf States, a drop in oil production and exports
could lead to a sharp
increase in the price of oil and thus could harm the global economy.
Terrorism could grow. As one Iraqi official told us, “Al Qaeda
is now a franchise in Iraq,
like McDonald’s.” Left unchecked, al Qaeda in Iraq could
continue to incite violence between
Sunnis and Shia. A chaotic Iraq could provide a still stronger base
of operations for terrorists
who seek to act regionally or even globally. Al Qaeda will portray any
failure by the United
States in Iraq as a significant victory that will be featured prominently
as they recruit for their
cause in the region and around the world. Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy
to Osama bin Laden, has
declared Iraq a focus for al Qaeda: they will seek to expel the Americans
and then spread “the
jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.” A senior
European official told us that
failure in Iraq could incite terrorist attacks within his country.
The global standing of the United States could suffer if Iraq descends
further into chaos.
Iraq is a major test of, and strain on, U.S. military, diplomatic, and
financial capacities.
Perceived failure there could diminish America’s credibility and
influence in a region that is the
center of the Islamic world and vital to the world’s energy supply.
This loss would reduce
America’s global influence at a time when pressing issues in North
Korea, Iran, and elsewhere
demand our full attention and strong U.S. leadership of international
alliances. And the longer
that U.S. political and military resources are tied down in Iraq, the
more the chances for
American failure in Afghanistan increase.
Continued problems in Iraq could lead to greater polarization within
the United States.
Sixty-six percent of Americans disapprove of the government’s
handling of the war, and more
than 60 percent feel that there is no clear plan for moving forward.
The November elections were
largely viewed as a referendum on the progress in Iraq. Arguments about
continuing to provide
security and assistance to Iraq will fall on deaf ears if Americans
become disillusioned with the
government that the United States invested so much to create. U.S. foreign
policy cannot be
successfully sustained without the broad support of the American people.
Continued problems in Iraq could also lead to greater Iraqi opposition
to the United
States. Recent polling indicates that only 36 percent of Iraqis feel
their country is heading in the
right direction, and 79 percent of Iraqis have a “mostly negative”
view of the influence that the
United States has in their country. Sixty-one percent of Iraqis approve
of attacks on U.S.-led
forces. If Iraqis continue to perceive Americans as representing an
occupying force, the United
States could become its own worst enemy in a land it liberated from
tyranny.
These and other predictions of dire consequences in Iraq and the region
are by no means a
certainty. Iraq has taken several positive steps since Saddam Hussein
was overthrown: Iraqis
restored full sovereignty, conducted open national elections, drafted
a permanent constitution,
ratified that constitution, and elected a new government pursuant to
that constitution. Iraqis may
become so sobered by the prospect of an unfolding civil war and intervention
by their regional
neighbors that they take the steps necessary to avert catastrophe. But
at the moment, such a
scenario seems implausible because the Iraqi people and their leaders
have been slow to
demonstrate the capacity or will to act.
C. Some Alternative Courses in Iraq
Because of the gravity of the situation in Iraq and of its consequences
for Iraq, the United States,
the region, and the world, the Iraq Study Group has carefully considered
the full range of
alternative approaches for moving forward. We recognize that there is
no perfect solution and that
all that have been suggested have flaws. The following are some of the
more notable
possibilities that we have considered.
1. Precipitate Withdrawal
Because of the importance of Iraq, the potential for catastrophe, and
the role and commitments of
the United States in initiating events that have led to the current
situation, we believe it would
be wrong for the United States to abandon the country through a precipitate
withdrawal of troops
and support. A premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly
produce greater
sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions, leading
to a number of the adverse
consequences outlined above. The near-term results would be a significant
power vacuum,
greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the
global economy. Al Qaeda
would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq
descends into chaos, the
long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to
return.
2. Staying the Course
Current U.S. policy is not working, as the level of violence in Iraq
is rising and the government
is not advancing national reconciliation. Making no changes in policy
would simply delay the
day of reckoning at a high cost. Nearly 100 Americans are dying every
month. The United
States is spending $2 billion a week. Our ability to respond to other
international crises is
constrained. A majority of the American people are soured on the war.
This level of expense is
not sustainable over an extended period, especially when progress is
not being made. The longer
the United States remains in Iraq without progress, the more resentment
will grow among Iraqis
who believe they are subjects of a repressive American occupation. As
one U.S. official said to
us, “Our leaving would make it worse. . . . The current approach
without modification will not
make it better.”
3. More Troops
for Iraq
Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental
cause of violence in
Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation. A senior American
general told us that
adding U.S. troops might temporarily help limit violence in a highly
localized area. However,
past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as
soon as U.S. forces are
moved to another area. As another American general told us, if the Iraqi
government does not
make political progress, “all the troops in the world will not
provide security.” Meanwhile,
America’s military capacity is stretched thin: we do not have
the troops or equipment to make a substantial, sustained increase in
our troop presence. Increased deployments to Iraq would also necessarily
hamper our ability to provide adequate resources for our efforts in
Afghanistan or respond to crises around the world.
4. Devolution
to Three Regions
The costs associated with devolving Iraq into three semiautonomous regions
with loose central
control would be too high. Because Iraq’s population is not neatly
separated, regional
boundaries cannot be easily drawn. All eighteen Iraqi provinces have
mixed populations, as do
Baghdad and most other major cities in Iraq. A rapid devolution could
result in mass
population movements, collapse of the Iraqi security forces, strengthening
of militias, ethnic
cleansing, destabilization of neighboring states, or attempts by neighboring
states to dominate
Iraqi regions. Iraqis, particularly Sunni Arabs, told us that such a
division would confirm wider
fears across the Arab world that the United States invaded Iraq to weaken
a strong Arab state.
While such devolution is a possible consequence of continued instability
in Iraq, we do
not believe the United States should support this course as a policy
goal or impose this
outcome on the Iraqi state. If events were to move irreversibly in this
direction, the United
States should manage the situation to ameliorate humanitarian consequences,
contain the spread
of violence, and minimize regional instability. The United States should
support as much as -
possible central control by governmental authorities in Baghdad, particularly
on the question of
oil revenues.
D. Achieving Our Goals
We agree with the goal of U.S. policy in Iraq, as stated by the President:
an Iraq that can
“govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.” In our
view, this definition entails an Iraq with a
broadly representative government that maintains its territorial integrity,
is at peace with its
neighbors, denies terrorism a sanctuary, and doesn’t brutalize
its own people. Given the current
situation in Iraq, achieving this goal will require much time and will
depend primarily on the
actions of the Iraqi people.
In our judgment, there is a new way forward for the United States to
support this
objective, and it will offer people of Iraq a reasonable opportunity
to lead a better life than they
did under Saddam Hussein. Our recommended course has shortcomings, as
does each of the
policy alternatives we have reviewed. We firmly believe, however, that
it includes the best
strategies and tactics available to us to positively influence the outcome
in Iraq and the region.
We believe that it could enable a responsible transition that will give
the Iraqi people a chance
to pursue a better future, as well as serving America’s interests
and values in the years ahead.
II
The Way Forward—
A New Approach
Progress in Iraq is still possible if new approaches are taken promptly
by Iraq, the United States,
and other countries that have a stake in the Middle East.
To attain the goals we have outlined, changes in course must be made
both outside and
inside Iraq. Our report offers a comprehensive strategy to build regional
and international support
for stability in Iraq, as it encourages the Iraqi people to assume control
of their own destiny. It
offers a responsible transition.
Externally, the United States should immediately begin to employ all
elements of
American power to construct a regional mechanism that can support, rather
than retard, progress
in Iraq. Internally, the Iraqi government must take the steps required
to achieve national
reconciliation, reduce violence, and improve the daily lives of Iraqis.
Efforts to implement these
external and internal strategies must begin now and must be undertaken
in concert with one
another.
This responsible transition can allow for a reduction in the U.S. presence
in Iraq over
time.
A. The External Approach: Building
an International Consensus
The United States must build a new international consensus for stability
in Iraq and the region.
In order to foster such consensus, the United States should embark on
a robust diplomatic
effort to establish an international support structure intended to stabilize
Iraq and ease tensions in
other countries in the region. This support structure should include
every country that has an
interest in averting a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq’s neighbors—Iran
and Syria among them.
Despite the well-known differences between many of these countries,
they all share an interest in
avoiding the horrific consequences that would flow from a chaotic Iraq,
particularly a
humanitarian catastrophe and regional destabilization.
A reinvigorated diplomatic effort is required because it is clear that
the Iraqi government
cannot succeed in governing, defending, and sustaining itself by relying
on U.S. military and
economic support alone. Nor can the Iraqi government succeed by relying
only on U.S. military
support in conjunction with Iraqi military and police capabilities.
Some states have been
withholding commitments they could make to support Iraq’s stabilization
and reconstruction.
Some states have been actively undermining stability in Iraq. To achieve
a political solution
within Iraq, a broader international support structure is needed.
1. The New Diplomatic Offensive
Iraq cannot be addressed effectively in isolation from other major regional
issues, interests, and
unresolved conflicts. To put it simply, all key issues in the Middle
East—the Arab-Israeli
conflict, Iraq, Iran, the need for political and economic reforms, and
extremism and terrorism—
are inextricably linked. In addition to supporting stability in Iraq,
a comprehensive diplomatic
offensive—the New Diplomatic Offensive—should address these
key regional issues. By doing
so, it would help marginalize extremists and terrorists, promote U.S.
values and interests, and
improve America’s global image.
Under the diplomatic offensive, we propose regional and international
initiatives and steps
to assist the Iraqi government in achieving certain security, political,
and economic milestones.
Achieving these milestones will require at least the acquiescence of
Iraq’s neighbors, and their
active and timely cooperation would be highly desirable.
The diplomatic
offensive would extend beyond the primarily economic “Compact
for Iraq”
by also emphasizing political, diplomatic, and security issues. At the
same time, it would be
coordinated with the goals of the Compact for Iraq. The diplomatic offensive
would also be
broader and more far-reaching than the “Gulf Plus Two” efforts
currently being conducted, and
those efforts should be folded into and become part of the diplomatic
offensive.
States included within the diplomatic offensive can play a major role
in reinforcing
national reconciliation efforts between Iraqi Sunnis and Shia. Such
reinforcement would
contribute substantially to legitimizing of the political process in
Iraq. Iraq’s leaders may not be
able to come together unless they receive the necessary signals and
support from abroad. This backing will not materialize of its own accord,
and must be encouraged urgently by the United States.
In order to
advance a comprehensive diplomatic solution, the Study Group recommends
as
follows:
RECOMMENDATION
1: The United States, working with the Iraqi government, should
launch the comprehensive New Diplomatic Offensive to deal with the problems
of Iraq and of the region. This new diplomatic offensive should be launched
before December 31, 2006.
RECOMMENDATION 2: The goals of the diplomatic offensive as it relates
to regional players
should be to:
i. Support
the unity and territorial integrity of Iraq.
ii. Stop destabilizing interventions and actions by Iraq’s neighbors.
iii. Secure Iraq’s borders, including the use of joint patrols
with neighboring countries.
iv. Prevent the expansion of the instability and conflict beyond Iraq’s
borders.
v. Promote economic assistance, commerce, trade, political support,
and, if possible, military
assistance for the Iraqi government from non-neighboring Muslim nations.
vi. Energize countries to support national political reconciliation
in Iraq.
vii. Validate Iraq’s legitimacy by resuming diplomatic relations,
where appropriate, and
reestablishing embassies in Baghdad.
viii. Assist Iraq in establishing active working embassies in key capitals
in the region (for -
example, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia).
ix. Help Iraq reach a mutually acceptable agreement on Kirkuk.
x. Assist the Iraqi government in achieving certain security, political,
and economic milestones,
including better performance on issues such as national reconciliation,
equitable distribution
of oil revenues, and the dismantling of militias.
RECOMMENDATION 3: As a complement to the diplomatic offensive, and in
addition to the
Support Group discussed below, the United States and the Iraqi government
should support the holding of a conference or meeting in Baghdad of
the Organization of the Islamic Conference or the Arab League both to
assist the Iraqi government in promoting national reconciliation in
Iraq and to reestablish their diplomatic presence in Iraq.
2. The Iraq
International Support Group
This new diplomatic offensive cannot be successful unless it includes
the active participation of those countries that have a critical stake
in preventing Iraq from falling into chaos. To encourage their participation,
the United States should immediately seek the creation of the Iraq International
Support Group. The Support Group should also include all countries that
border Iraq as well as other key countries in the region and the world.
The Support Group would not seek to impose obligations or undertakings
on the
government of Iraq. Instead, the Support Group would assist Iraq in
ways the government of Iraq would desire, attempting to strengthen Iraq’s
sovereignty—not diminish it.
It is clear to Iraq Study Group members that all of Iraq’s neighbors
are anxious about the
situation in Iraq. They favor a unified Iraq that is strong enough to
maintain its territorial
integrity, but not so powerful as to threaten its neighbors. None favors
the breakup of the Iraqi
state. Each country in the region views the situation in Iraq through
the filter of its particular set
of interests. For example:
• Turkey opposes an independent or even highly autonomous Kurdistan
because of its own
national security considerations.
• Iran backs Shia claims and supports various Shia militias in
Iraq, but it also supports other
groups in order to enhance its influence and hedge its bets on possible
outcomes.
• Syria, despite facilitating support for Iraqi insurgent groups,
would be threatened by the
impact that the breakup of Iraq would have on its own multiethnic and
multiconfessional -
society.
• Kuwait wants to ensure that it will not once again be the victim
of Iraqi irredentism and
aggression.
• Saudi Arabia and Jordan share Sunni concerns over Shia ascendancy
in Iraq and the region as a whole.
• The other Arab Gulf states also recognize the benefits of an
outcome in Iraq that does not
destabilize the region and exacerbate Shia-Sunni tensions.
• None of Iraq’s neighbors especially major countries such
as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and
Israel see it in their interest for the situation in Iraq to lead to
aggrandized regional influence
by Iran. Indeed, they may take active steps to limit Iran’s influence,
steps that could lead to
an intraregional conflict.
Left to their own devices, these governments will tend to reinforce
ethnic, sectarian, and
political divisions within Iraqi society. But if the Support Group takes
a systematic and active
approach toward considering the concerns of each country, we believe
that each can be
encouraged to play a positive role in Iraq and the region.
SAUDI ARABIA.
Saudi Arabia’s agreement not to intervene with assistance to Sunni
Arab
Iraqis could be an essential quid pro quo for similar forbearance on
the part of other neighbors, especially Iran. The Saudis could use their
Islamic credentials to help reconcile differences between Iraqi factions
and build broader support in the Islamic world for a stabilization agreement,
as their recent hosting of a meeting of Islamic religious leaders in
Mecca suggests. If the government in Baghdad pursues a path of national
reconciliation with the Sunnis, the Saudis could help Iraq confront
and eliminate al Qaeda in Iraq. They could also cancel the Iraqi debt
owed them. In addition, the Saudis might be helpful in persuading the
Syrians to cooperate.
TURKEY. As
a major Sunni Muslim country on Iraq’s borders, Turkey can be
a partner in
supporting the national reconciliation process in Iraq. Such efforts
can be particularly helpful
given Turkey’s interest in Kurdistan remaining an integral part
of a unified Iraq and its interest
in preventing a safe haven for Kurdish terrorists (the PKK).
EGYPT. Because of its important role in the Arab world, Egypt should
be encouraged to foster
the national reconciliation process in Iraq with a focus on getting
the Sunnis to participate. At
the same time, Egypt has the means, and indeed has offered, to train
groups of Iraqi military and security forces in Egypt on a rotational
basis.
JORDAN. Jordan,
like Egypt, can help in the national reconciliation process in Iraq
with the
Sunnis. It too has the professional capability to train and equip Iraqi
military and security forces.
RECOMMENDATION
4: As an instrument of the New Diplomatic Offensive, an Iraq
International Support Group should be organized immediately following
the launch of the New
Diplomatic Offensive.
RECOMMENDATION
5: The Support Group should consist of Iraq and all the states
bordering Iraq, including Iran and Syria; the key regional states, including
Egypt and the Gulf
States; the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council;
the European
Union; and, of course, Iraq itself. Other countries for instance, Germany,
Japan and South
Korea—that might be willing to contribute to resolving political,
diplomatic, and security
problems affecting Iraq could also become members.
RECOMMENDATION
6: The New Diplomatic Offensive and the work of the Support Group
should be carried out with urgency, and should be conducted by and organized
at the level of
foreign minister or above. The Secretary of State, if not the President,
should lead the U.S.
effort. That effort should be both bilateral and multilateral, as circumstances
require.
RECOMMENDATION 7: The Support Group should call on the participation
of the office of
the United Nations Secretary-General in its work. The United Nations
Secretary-General should
designate a Special Envoy as his representative.
RECOMMENDATION 8: The Support Group, as part of the New Diplomatic Offensive,
should
develop specific approaches to neighboring countries that take into
account the interests,
perspectives, and potential contributions as suggested above.
3. Dealing with Iran and Syria
Dealing with Iran and Syria is controversial. Nevertheless, it is our
view that in diplomacy, a
nation can and should engage its adversaries and enemies to try to resolve
conflicts and
differences consistent with its own interests. Accordingly, the Support
Group should actively
engage Iran and Syria in its diplomatic dialogue, without preconditions.
The Study Group recognizes that U.S. relationships with Iran and Syria
involve difficult
issues that must be resolved. Diplomatic talks should be extensive and
substantive, and they
will require a balancing of interests. The United States has diplomatic,
economic, and military
disincentives available in approaches to both Iran and Syria. However,
the United States should
also consider incentives to try to engage them constructively, much
as it did successfully with
Libya.
Some of the possible incentives to Iran, Syria, or both include:
i. An Iraq that does not disintegrate and destabilize its neighbors
and the region.
ii. The continuing role of the United States in preventing the Taliban
from destabilizing
Afghanistan.
iii. Accession to international organizations, including the World Trade
Organization.
iv. Prospects for enhanced diplomatic relations with the United States.
v. The prospect of a U.S. policy that emphasizes political and economic
reforms instead of (as
Iran now perceives it) advocating regime change.
vi. Prospects for a real, complete, and secure peace to be negotiated
between Israel and Syria,
with U.S. involvement as part of a broader initiative on Arab-Israeli
peace as outlined
below.
RECOMMENDATION 9: Under the aegis of the New Diplomatic Offensive and
the Support
Group, the United States should engage directly with Iran and Syria
in order to try to obtain
their commitment to constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional
issues. In engaging
Syria and Iran, the United States should consider incentives, as well
as disincentives, in seeking
constructive results.
IRAN. Engaging Iran is problematic, especially given the state of the
U.S.-Iranian relationship.
Yet the United States and Iran cooperated in Afghanistan, and both sides
should explore whether
this model can be replicated in the case of Iraq.
Although Iran sees it in its interest to have the United States bogged
down in Iraq, Iran’s
interests would not be served by a failure of U.S. policy in Iraq that
led to chaos and the
territorial disintegration of the Iraqi state. Iran’s population
is slightly more than 50 percent
Persian, but it has a large Azeri minority (24 percent of the population)
as well as Kurdish and
Arab minorities. Worst-case scenarios in Iraq could inflame sectarian
tensions within Iran, with
serious consequences for Iranian national security interests.
Our limited contacts with Iran’s government lead us to believe
that its leaders are likely to
say they will not participate in diplomatic efforts to support stability
in Iraq. They attribute this
reluctance to their belief that the United States seeks regime change
in Iran.
Nevertheless, as one of Iraq’s neighbors Iran should be asked
to assume its responsibility
to participate in the Support Group. An Iranian refusal to do so would
demonstrate to Iraq and
the rest of the world Iran’s rejectionist attitude and approach,
which could lead to its isolation.
Further, Iran’s refusal to cooperate on this matter would diminish
its prospects of engaging with
the United States in the broader dialogue it seeks.
RECOMMENDATION 10: The issue of Iran’s nuclear programs should
continue to be dealt
with by the United Nations Security Council and its five permanent members
(i.e., the United
States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China) plus Germany.
RECOMMENDATION 11: Diplomatic efforts within the Support Group should
seek to
persuade Iran that it should take specific steps to improve the situation
in Iraq.
Among steps Iran could usefully take are the following:
• Iran should stem the flow of equipment, technology, and training
to any group resorting to
violence in Iraq.
• Iran should make clear its support for the territorial integrity
of Iraq as a unified state, as well
as its respect for the sovereignty of Iraq and its government.
• Iran can use its influence, especially over Shia groups in Iraq,
to encourage national
reconciliation.
• Iran can also, in the right circumstances, help in the economic
reconstruction of Iraq.
SYRIA. Although the U.S.-Syrian relationship is at a low point, both
countries have important
interests in the region that could be enhanced if they were able to
establish some common
ground on how to move forward. This approach worked effectively in the
early 1990s. In this
context, Syria’s national interests in the Arab-Israeli dispute
are important and can be brought
into play.
Syria can make a major contribution to Iraq’s stability in several
ways. Accordingly, the
Study Group recommends the following:
RECOMMENDATION 12: The United States and the Support Group should encourage
and
persuade Syria of the merit of such contributions as the following:
• Syria can control its border with Iraq to the maximum extent
possible and work together with
Iraqis on joint patrols on the border. Doing so will help stem the flow
of funding, insurgents,
and terrorists in and out of Iraq.
• Syria can establish hotlines to exchange information with the
Iraqis.
• Syria can increase its political and economic cooperation with
Iraq.
4. The Wider Regional Context
The United States will not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle
East unless the United
States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict.
There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States
to a
comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and
President Bush’s June 2002
commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. This commitment
must include
direct talks with, by, and between Israel, Lebanon, Palestinians (those
who accept Israel’s right
to exist), and particularly Syria—which is the principal transit
point for shipments of weapons
to Hezbollah, and which supports radical Palestinian groups.
The United States does its ally Israel no favors in avoiding direct
involvement to solve the
Arab-Israeli conflict. For several reasons, we should act boldly:
• There is no military solution to this conflict.
• The vast majority of the Israeli body politic is tired of being
a nation perpetually at war.
• No American administration—Democratic or Republican—will
ever abandon Israel.
• Political engagement and dialogue are essential in the Arab-Israeli
dispute because it is an
axiom that when the political process breaks down there will be violence
on the ground.
• The only basis on which peace can be achieved is that set forth
in UN Security Council
Resolutions 242 and 338 and in the principle of “land for peace.”
• The only lasting and secure peace will be a negotiated peace
such as Israel has achieved with
Egypt and Jordan.
This effort would strongly support moderate Arab governments in the
region, especially
the democratically elected government of Lebanon, and the Palestinian
Authority under
President Mahmoud Abbas.
RECOMMENDATION 13: There must be a renewed and sustained commitment
by the United
States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon
and Syria, and President
Bush’s June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel
and Palestine.
RECOMMENDATION 14: This effort should include—as soon as possible—the
unconditional
calling and holding of meetings, under the auspices of the United States
or the Quartet (i.e., the
United States, Russia, European Union, and the United Nations), between
Israel and Lebanon
and Syria on the one hand, and Israel and Palestinians (who acknowledge
Israel’s right to exist)
on the other. The purpose of these meetings would be to negotiate peace
as was done at the
Madrid Conference in 1991, and on two separate tracks—one Syrian/Lebanese,
and the other
Palestinian.
RECOMMENDATION 15: Concerning Syria, some elements of that negotiated
peace should
be:
• Syria’s full adherence to UN Security Council Resolution
1701 of August 2006, which
provides the framework for Lebanon to regain sovereign control over
its territory.
• Syria’s full cooperation with all investigations into
political assassinations in Lebanon,
especially those of Rafik Hariri and Pierre Gemayel.
• A verifiable cessation of Syrian aid to Hezbollah and the use
of Syrian territory for
transshipment of Iranian weapons and aid to Hezbollah. (This step would
do much to solve
Israel’s problem with Hezbollah.)
• Syria’s use of its influence with Hamas and Hezbollah
for the release of the captured Israeli
Defense Force soldiers.
• A verifiable cessation of Syrian efforts to undermine the democratically
elected government of
Lebanon.
• A verifiable cessation of arms shipments from or transiting
through Syria for Hamas and other
radical Palestinian groups.
• A Syrian commitment to help obtain from Hamas an acknowledgment
of Israel’s right to
exist.
• Greater Syrian efforts to seal its border with Iraq.
RECOMMENDATION 16: In exchange for these actions and in the context
of a full and secure
peace agreement, the Israelis should return the Golan Heights, with
a U.S. security guarantee for
Israel that could include an international force on the border, including
U.S. troops if requested
by both parties.
RECOMMENDATION 17: Concerning the Palestinian issue, elements of that
negotiated peace
should include:
• Adherence to UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and
to the principle of land for
peace, which are the only bases for achieving peace.
• Strong support for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and the
Palestinian Authority to
take the lead in preparing the way for negotiations with Israel.
• A major effort to move from the current hostilities by consolidating
the cease-fire reached
between the Palestinians and the Israelis in November 2006.
• Support for a Palestinian national unity government.
• Sustainable negotiations leading to a final peace settlement
along the lines of President
Bush’s two-state solution, which would address the key final status
issues of borders, settlements,
Jerusalem, the right of return, and the end of conflict.
Afghanistan
At the same time, we must not lose sight of the importance of the situation
inside Afghanistan
and the renewed threat posed by the Taliban. Afghanistan’s borders
are porous. If the Taliban
were to control more of Afghanistan, it could provide al Qaeda the political
space to conduct
terrorist operations. This development would destabilize the region
and have national security
implications for the United States and other countries around the world.
Also, the significant
increase in poppy production in Afghanistan fuels the illegal drug trade
and narco-terrorism.
The huge focus of U.S. political, military, and economic support on
Iraq has necessarily
diverted attention from Afghanistan. As the United States develops its
approach toward Iraq and
the Middle East, it must also give priority to the situation in Afghanistan.
Doing so may
require increased political, security, and military measures.
RECOMMENDATION 18: It is critical for the United States to provide additional
political,
economic, and military support for Afghanistan, including resources
that might become available
as combat forces are moved from Iraq.
B.The Internal Approach:
Helping Iraqis Help Themselves
The New Diplomatic Offensive will provide the proper external environment
and support for the
difficult internal steps that the Iraqi government must take to promote
national reconciliation,
establish security, and make progress on governance.
The most important issues facing Iraq’s future are now the responsibility
of Iraq’s elected
leaders. Because of the security and assistance it provides, the United
States has a significant
role to play. Yet only the government and people of Iraq can make and
sustain certain decisions
critical to Iraq’s future.
1. Performance on Milestones
The United States should work closely with Iraq’s leaders to support
the achievement of specific
objectives—or milestones—on national reconciliation, security,
and governance. Miracles
cannot be expected, but the people of Iraq have the right to expect
action and progress. The Iraqi
government needs to show its own citizens—and the citizens of
the United States and other
countries—that it deserves continued support.
The U.S. government must make clear that it expects action by the Iraqi
government to
make substantial progress toward these milestones. Such a message can
be sent only at the level
of our national leaders, and only in person, during direct consultation.
As President Bush’s meeting with Prime Minister Maliki in Amman,
Jordan
demonstrates, it is important for the President to remain in close and
frequent contact with the
Iraqi leadership. There is no substitute for sustained dialogue at the
highest levels of
government.
During these high-level exchanges, the United States should lay out
an agenda for
continued support to help Iraq achieve milestones, as well as underscoring
the consequences if
Iraq does not act. It should be unambiguous that continued U.S. political,
military, and
economic support for Iraq depends on the Iraqi government’s demonstrating
political will and
making substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on
national reconciliation,
security, and governance. The transfer of command and control over Iraqi
security forces units
from the United States to Iraq should be influenced by Iraq’s
performance on milestones.
The United States should also signal that it is seeking broad international
support for Iraq
on behalf of achieving these milestones. The United States can begin
to shape a positive climate
for its diplomatic efforts, internationally and within Iraq, through
public statements by President
Bush that reject the notion that the United States seeks to control
Iraq’s oil, or seeks permanent
military bases within Iraq. However, the United States could consider
a request from Iraq for
temporary bases.
RECOMMENDATION 19: The President and the leadership of his national
security team
should remain in close and frequent contact with the Iraqi leadership.
These contacts must
convey a clear message: there must be action by the Iraqi government
to make substantial
progress toward the achievement of milestones. In public diplomacy,
the President should
convey as much detail as possible about the substance of these exchanges
in order to keep the
American people, the Iraqi people, and the countries in the region well
informed.
RECOMMENDATION 20: If the Iraqi government demonstrates political will
and makes
substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on national
reconciliation, security,
and governance, the United States should make clear its willingness
to continue training,
assistance, and support for Iraq’s security forces, and to continue
political, military, and
economic support for the Iraqi government. As Iraq becomes more capable
of governing,
defending, and sustaining itself, the U.S. military and civilian presence
in Iraq can be reduced.
RECOMMENDATION 21: If the Iraqi government does not make substantial
progress toward
the achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security,
and governance, the United
States should reduce its political, military, or economic support for
the Iraqi government.
RECOMMENDATION 22: The President should state that the United States
does not seek
permanent military bases in Iraq. If the Iraqi government were to request
a temporary base or
bases, then the U.S. government could consider that request as it would
in the case of any other
government.
RECOMMENDATION 23: The President should restate that the United States
does not seek to
control Iraq’s oil.
Milestones for Iraq
The government of Iraq understands that dramatic steps are necessary
to avert a downward spiral
and make progress. Prime Minister Maliki has worked closely in consultation
with the United
States and has put forward the following milestones in the key areas
of national reconciliation,
security and governance:
NATIONAL RECONCILIATION
By the end of 2006–early 2007:
Approval of the Provincial Election Law and setting an election date
Approval of the Petroleum Law
Approval of the De-Baathification Law
Approval of the Militia Law
By March 2007:
A referendum on constitutional amendments (if it is necessary)
By May 2007:
Completion of Militia Law implementation
Approval of amnesty agreement
Completion of reconciliation efforts
By June 2007:
Provincial elections
SECURITY (pending joint U.S.-Iraqi review)
By the end of 2006:
Iraqi increase of 2007 security spending over 2006 levels
By April 2007:
Iraqi control of the Army
By September 2007:
Iraqi control of provinces
By December 2007:
Iraqi security self-reliance (with U.S. support)
GOVERNANCE
By the end of 2006:
The Central Bank of Iraq will raise interest rates to 20 percent and
appreciate the Iraqi
dinar by 10 percent to combat accelerating inflation.
Iraq will continue increasing domestic prices for refined petroleum
products and sell
imported fuel at market prices.
RECOMMENDATION 24: The contemplated completion dates of the end of 2006
or early
2007 for some milestones may not be realistic. These should be completed
by the first quarter of
2007.
RECOMMENDATION 25: These milestones are a good start. The United States
should
consult closely with the Iraqi government and develop additional milestones
in three areas:
national reconciliation, security, and improving government services
affecting the daily lives of
Iraqis. As with the current milestones, these additional milestones
should be tied to calendar
dates to the fullest extent possible.
2. National Reconciliation
National reconciliation is essential to reduce further violence and
maintain the unity of Iraq.
U.S. forces can help provide stability for a time to enable Iraqi leaders
to negotiate
political solutions, but they cannot stop the violence—or even
contain it—if there is no
underlying political agreement among Iraqis about the future of their
country.
The Iraqi government must send a clear signal to Sunnis that there is
a place for them in
national life. The government needs to act now, to give a signal of
hope. Unless Sunnis believe
they can get a fair deal in Iraq through the political process, there
is no prospect that the
insurgency will end. To strike this fair deal, the Iraqi government
and the Iraqi people must
address several issues that are critical to the success of national
reconciliation and thus to the
future of Iraq.
Steps for Iraq to Take on Behalf of
National Reconciliation
RECOMMENDATION 26: Constitution review. Review of the constitution is
essential to
national reconciliation and should be pursued on an urgent basis. The
United Nations has
expertise in this field, and should play a role in this process.
RECOMMENDATION 27: De-Baathification. Political reconciliation requires
the reintegration
of Baathists and Arab nationalists into national life, with the leading
figures of Saddam
Hussein’s regime excluded. The United States should encourage
the return of qualified Iraqi
professionals—Sunni or Shia, nationalist or ex-Baathist, Kurd
or Turkmen or Christian or
Arab—into the government.
RECOMMENDATION 28: Oil revenue sharing. Oil revenues should accrue to
the central
government and be shared on the basis of population. No formula that
gives control over
revenues from future fields to the regions or gives control of oil fields
to the regions is
compatible with national reconciliation.
RECOMMENDATION 29: Provincial elections. Provincial elections should
be held at the
earliest possible date. Under the constitution, new provincial elections
should have been held
already. They are necessary to restore representative government.
RECOMMENDATION 30: Kirkuk. Given the very dangerous situation in Kirkuk,
international
arbitration is necessary to avert communal violence. Kirkuk’s
mix of Kurdish, Arab, and
Turkmen populations could make it a powder keg. A referendum on the
future of Kirkuk (as
required by the Iraqi Constitution before the end of 2007) would be
explosive and should be
delayed. This issue should be placed on the agenda of the International
Iraq Support Group as
part of the New Diplomatic Offensive.
RECOMMENDATION 31: Amnesty. Amnesty proposals must be far-reaching.
Any successful
effort at national reconciliation must involve those in the government
finding ways and means to
reconcile with former bitter enemies.
RECOMMENDATION 32: Minorities. The rights of women and the rights of
all minority
communities in Iraq, including Turkmen, Chaldeans, Assyrians, Yazidis,
Sabeans, and
Armenians, must be protected.
RECOMMENDATION 33: Civil society. The Iraqi government should stop using
the process
of registering nongovernmental organizations as a tool for politicizing
or stopping their
activities. Registration should be solely an administrative act, not
an occasion for government
censorship and interference.
Steps for the United States to Take on Behalf of
National Reconciliation
The United States can take several steps to assist in Iraq’s reconciliation
process.
The presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is a key topic of interest in a
national reconciliation
dialogue. The point is not for the United States to set timetables or
deadlines for withdrawal, an
approach that we oppose. The point is for the United States and Iraq
to make clear their shared
interest in the orderly departure of U.S. forces as Iraqi forces take
on the security mission. A
successful national reconciliation dialogue will advance that departure
date.
RECOMMENDATION 34: The question of the future U.S. force presence must
be on the table
for discussion as the national reconciliation dialogue takes place.
Its inclusion will increase the
likelihood of participation by insurgents and militia leaders, and thereby
increase the
possibilities for success.
Violence cannot end unless dialogue begins, and the dialogue must involve
those who wield
power, not simply those who hold political office. The United States
must try to talk directly to
Grand Ayatollah Sistani and must consider appointing a high-level American
Shia Muslim to
serve as an emissary to him. The United States must also try to talk
directly to Moqtada al-
Sadr, to militia leaders, and to insurgent leaders. The United Nations
can help facilitate
contacts.
RECOMMENDATION 35: The United States must make active efforts to engage
all parties in
Iraq, with the exception of al Qaeda. The United States must find a
way to talk to Grand
Ayatollah Sistani, Moqtada al-Sadr, and militia and insurgent leaders.
The very focus on sectarian identity that endangers Iraq also presents
opportunities to seek
broader support for a national reconciliation dialogue. Working with
Iraqi leaders, the
international community and religious leaders can play an important
role in fostering dialogue
and reconciliation across the sectarian divide. The United States should
actively encourage the
constructive participation of all who can take part in advancing national
reconciliation within
Iraq.
RECOMMENDATION 36: The United States should encourage dialogue between
sectarian
communities, as outlined in the New Diplomatic Offensive above. It should
press religious
leaders inside and outside Iraq to speak out on behalf of peace and
reconciliation.
Finally, amnesty proposals from the Iraqi government are an important
incentive in
reconciliation talks and they need to be generous. Amnesty proposals
to once-bitter enemies will
be difficult for the United States to accept, just as they will be difficult
for the Iraqis to make.
Yet amnesty is an issue to be grappled with by the Iraqis, not by Americans.
Despite being
politically unpopular—in the United States as well as in Iraq—amnesty
is essential if progress
is to take place. Iraqi leaders need to be certain that they have U.S.
support as they move
forward with this critical element of national reconciliation.
RECOMMENDATION 37: Iraqi amnesty proposals must not be undercut in Washington
by
either the executive or the legislative branch.
Militias and National Reconciliation
The use of force by the government of Iraq is appropriate and necessary
to stop militias that act
as death squads or use violence against institutions of the state. However,
solving the problem
of militias requires national reconciliation.
Dealing with Iraq’s militias will require long-term attention,
and substantial funding will
be needed to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate militia members into
civilian society. Around
the world, this process of transitioning members of irregular military
forces from civil conflict to
new lives once a peace settlement takes hold is familiar. The disarmament,
demobilization, and
reintegration of militias depends on national reconciliation and on
confidence-building measures
among the parties to that reconciliation.
Both the United Nations and expert and experienced nongovernmental organizations,
especially the International Organization for Migration, must be on
the ground with appropriate
personnel months before any program to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate
militia members
begins. Because the United States is a party to the conflict, the U.S.
military should not be
involved in implementing such a program. Yet U.S. financial and technical
support is crucial.
RECOMMENDATION 38: The United States should support the presence of
neutral
international experts as advisors to the Iraqi government on the processes
of disarmament,
demobilization, and reintegration.
RECOMMENDATION 39: The United States should provide financial and technical
support
and establish a single office in Iraq to coordinate assistance to the
Iraqi government and its
expert advisors to aid a program to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate
militia members.
3. Security and Military Forces
A Military Strategy for Iraq
There is no action the American military can take that, by itself, can
bring about success in Iraq.
But there are actions that the U.S. and Iraqi governments, working together,
can and should take
to increase the probability of avoiding disaster there, and increase
the chance of success.
The Iraqi government should accelerate the urgently needed national
reconciliation
program to which it has already committed. And it should accelerate
assuming responsibility for
Iraqi security by increasing the number and quality of Iraqi Army brigades.
As the Iraqi Army
increases in size and capability, the Iraqi government should be able
to take real responsibility
for governance.
While this process is under way, and to facilitate it, the United States
should significantly
increase the number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops,
imbedded in and
supporting Iraqi Army units. As these actions proceed, we could begin
to move combat forces
out of Iraq. The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve
to one of supporting the
Iraqi army, which would take over primary responsibility for combat
operations. We should
continue to maintain support forces, rapid-reaction forces, special
operations forces, intelligence
units, search-and-rescue units, and force protection units.
While the size and composition of the Iraqi Army is ultimately a matter
for the Iraqi
government to determine, we should be firm on the urgent near-term need
for significant
additional trained Army brigades, since this is the key to Iraqis taking
over full responsibility
for their own security, which they want to do and which we need them
to do. It is clear that they
will still need security assistance from the United States for some
time to come as they work to
achieve political and security changes.
One of the most important elements of our support would be the imbedding
of
substantially more U.S. military personnel in all Iraqi Army battalions
and brigades, as well as
within Iraqi companies. U.S. personnel would provide advice, combat
assistance, and staff
assistance. The training of Iraqi units by the United States has improved
and should continue for
the coming year. In addition to this training, Iraqi combat units need
supervised on-the-job
training as they move to field operations. This on-the-job training
could be best done by
imbedding more U.S. military personnel in Iraqi deployed units. The
number of imbedded
personnel would be based on the recommendation of our military commanders
in Iraq, but it
should be large enough to accelerate the development of a real combat
capability in Iraqi Army
units. Such a mission could involve 10,000 to 20,000 American troops
instead of the 3,000 to
4,000 now in this role. This increase in imbedded troops could be carried
out without an
aggregate increase over time in the total number of troops in Iraq by
making a corresponding
decrease in troops assigned to U.S. combat brigades.
Another mission of the U.S. military would be to assist Iraqi deployed
brigades with
intelligence, transportation, air support, and logistics support, as
well as providing some key
equipment.
A vital mission of the U.S. military would be to maintain rapid-reaction
teams and special
operations teams. These teams would be available to undertake strike
missions against al Qaeda
in Iraq when the opportunity arises, as well as for other missions considered
vital by the U.S.
commander in Iraq.
The performance of the Iraqi Army could also be significantly improved
if it had improved
equipment. One source could be equipment left behind by departing U.S.
units. The quickest
and most effective way for the Iraqi Army to get the bulk of their equipment
would be through
our Foreign Military Sales program, which they have already begun to
use.
While these efforts are building up, and as additional Iraqi brigades
are being deployed,
U.S. combat brigades could begin to move out of Iraq. By the first quarter
of 2008, subject to
unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all
combat brigades not
necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq. At that time, U.S.
combat forces in Iraq could
be deployed only in units embedded with Iraqi forces, in rapid-reaction
and special operations
teams, and in training, equipping, advising, force protection, and search
and rescue. Intelligence
and support efforts would continue. Even after the United States has
moved all combat brigades
out of Iraq, we would maintain a considerable military presence in the
region, with our still
significant force in Iraq and with our powerful air, ground, and naval
deployments in Kuwait,
Bahrain, and Qatar, as well as an increased presence in Afghanistan.
These forces would be
sufficiently robust to permit the United States, working with the Iraqi
government, to
accomplish four missions:
• Provide political reassurance to the Iraqi government in order
to avoid its collapse and the
disintegration of the country.
• Fight al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in Iraq using
special operations teams.
• Train, equip, and support the Iraqi security forces.
• Deter even more destructive interference in Iraq by Syria and
Iran.
Because of the importance of Iraq to our regional security goals and
to our ongoing fight
against al Qaeda, we considered proposals to make a substantial increase
(100,000 to 200,000)
in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. We rejected this course because
we do not believe that the
needed levels are available for a sustained deployment. Further, adding
more American troops
could conceivably worsen those aspects of the security problem that
are fed by the view that the
U.S. presence is intended to be a long-term “occupation.”
We could, however, support a shortterm
redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad,
or to speed up the
training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines
that such steps would
be effective.
We also rejected the immediate withdrawal of our troops, because we
believe that so much
is at stake.
We believe that our recommended actions will give the Iraqi Army the
support it needs to
have a reasonable chance to take responsibility for Iraq’s security.
Given the ongoing
deterioration in the security situation, it is urgent to move as quickly
as possible to have that
security role taken over by Iraqi security forces.
The United States should not make an open-ended commitment to keep large
numbers of
American troops deployed in Iraq for three compelling reasons.
First, and most importantly, the United States faces other security
dangers in the world,
and a continuing Iraqi commitment of American ground forces at present
levels will leave no
reserve available to meet other contingencies. On September 7, 2006,
General James Jones, our
NATO commander, called for more troops in Afghanistan, where U.S. and
NATO forces are
fighting a resurgence of al Qaeda and Taliban forces. The United States
should respond
positively to that request, and be prepared for other security contingencies,
including those in
Iran and North Korea.
Second, the long-term commitment of American ground forces to Iraq at
current levels is
adversely affecting Army readiness, with less than a third of the Army
units currently at high
readiness levels. The Army is unlikely to be able to meet the next rotation
of troops in Iraq
without undesirable changes in its deployment practices. The Army is
now considering breaking
its compact with the National Guard and Reserves that limits the number
of years that these
citizen-soldiers can be deployed. Behind this short-term strain is the
longer-term risk that the
ground forces will be impaired in ways that will take years to reverse.
And finally, an open-ended commitment of American forces would not provide
the Iraqi
government the incentive it needs to take the political actions that
give Iraq the best chance of
quelling sectarian violence. In the absence of such an incentive, the
Iraqi government might
continue to delay taking those difficult actions.
While it is clear that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is moderating
the violence, there
is little evidence that the long-term deployment of U.S. troops by itself
has led or will lead to
fundamental improvements in the security situation. It is important
to recognize that there are no
risk-free alternatives available to the United States at this time.
Reducing our combat troop
commitments in Iraq, whenever that occurs, undeniably creates risks,
but leaving those forces
tied down in Iraq indefinitely creates its own set of security risks.
RECOMMENDATION 40: The United States should not make an open-ended commitment
to
keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq.
RECOMMENDATION 41: The United States must make it clear to the Iraqi
government that
the United States could carry out its plans, including planned redeployments,
even if Iraq does
not implement its planned changes. America’s other security needs
and the future of our military
cannot be made hostage to the actions or inactions of the Iraqi government.
RECOMMENDATION 42: We should seek to complete the training and equipping
mission by
the first quarter of 2008, as stated by General George Casey on October
24, 2006.
RECOMMENDATION 43: Military priorities in Iraq must change, with the
highest priority
given to the training, equipping, advising, and support mission and
to counterterrorism
operations.
RECOMMENDATION 44: The most highly qualified U.S. officers and military
personnel
should be assigned to the imbedded teams, and American teams should
be present with Iraqi
units down to the company level. The U.S. military should establish
suitable career-enhancing
incentives for these officers and personnel.
RECOMMENDATION 45: The United States should support more and better
equipment for
the Iraqi Army by encouraging the Iraqi government to accelerate its
Foreign Military Sales
requests and, as American combat brigades move out of Iraq, by leaving
behind some American
equipment for Iraqi forces.
Restoring the U.S. Military
We recognize that there are other results of the war in Iraq that have
great consequence for our
nation. One consequence has been the stress and uncertainty imposed
on our military—the most
professional and proficient military in history. The United States will
need its military to
protect U.S. security regardless of what happens in Iraq. We therefore
considered how to limit
the adverse consequences of the strain imposed on our military by the
Iraq war.
U.S. military forces, especially our ground forces, have been stretched
nearly to the
breaking point by the repeated deployments in Iraq, with attendant casualties
(almost 3,000 dead
and more than 21,000 wounded), greater difficulty in recruiting, and
accelerated wear on
equipment.
Additionally, the defense budget as a whole is in danger of disarray,
as supplemental
funding winds down and reset costs become clear. It will be a major
challenge to meet ongoing
requirements for other current and future security threats that need
to be accommodated together
with spending for operations and maintenance, reset, personnel, and
benefits for active duty and
retired personnel. Restoring the capability of our military forces should
be a high priority for the
United States at this time.
The U.S. military has a long tradition of strong partnership between
the civilian leadership
of the Department of Defense and the uniformed services. Both have long
benefited from a
relationship in which the civilian leadership exercises control with
the advantage of fully candid
professional advice, and the military serves loyally with the understanding
that its advice has
been heard and valued. That tradition has frayed, and civil-military
relations need to be repaired.
RECOMMENDATION 46: The new Secretary of Defense should make every effort
to build
healthy civil-military relations, by creating an environment in which
the senior military feel free
to offer independent advice not only to the civilian leadership in the
Pentagon but also to the
President and the National Security Council, as envisioned in the Goldwater-Nichols
legislation.
RECOMMENDATION 47: As redeployment proceeds, the Pentagon leadership
should
emphasize training and education programs for the forces that have returned
to the continental
United States in order to “reset” the force and restore
the U.S. military to a high level of
readiness for global contingencies.
RECOMMENDATION 48: As equipment returns to the United States, Congress
should
appropriate sufficient funds to restore the equipment to full functionality
over the next five years.
RECOMMENDATION 49: The administration, in full consultation with the
relevant
committees of Congress, should assess the full future budgetary impact
of the war in Iraq and its
potential impact on the future readiness of the force, the ability to
recruit and retain high-quality
personnel, needed investments in procurement and in research and development,
and the budgets
of other U.S. government agencies involved in the stability and reconstruction
effort.
4. Police and Criminal Justice
The problems in the Iraqi police and criminal justice system are profound.
The ethos and training of Iraqi police forces must support the mission
to “protect and
serve” all Iraqis. Today, far too many Iraqi police do not embrace
that mission, in part because
of problems in how reforms were organized and implemented by the Iraqi
and U.S.
governments.
Recommended Iraqi Actions
Within Iraq, the failure of the police to restore order and prevent
militia infiltration is due, in
part, to the poor organization of Iraq’s component police forces:
the Iraqi National Police, the
Iraqi Border Police, and the Iraqi Police Service.
The Iraqi National Police pursue a mission that is more military than
domestic in
nature—involving commando-style operations—and is thus ill-suited
to the Ministry of the
Interior. The more natural home for the National Police is within the
Ministry of Defense, which
should be the authority for counterinsurgency operations and heavily
armed forces. Though
depriving the Ministry of the Interior of operational forces, this move
will place the Iraqi
National Police under better and more rigorous Iraqi and U.S. supervision
and will enable these
units to better perform their counterinsurgency mission.
RECOMMENDATION 50: The entire Iraqi National Police should be transferred
to the
Ministry of Defense, where the police commando units will become part
of the new Iraqi Army.
Similarly, the Iraqi Border Police are charged with a role that bears
little resemblance to
ordinary policing, especially in light of the current flow of foreign
fighters, insurgents, and
weaponry across Iraq’s borders and the need for joint patrols
of the border with foreign
militaries. Thus the natural home for the Border Police is within the
Ministry of Defense, which
should be the authority for controlling Iraq’s borders.
RECOMMENDATION 51: The entire Iraqi Border Police should be transferred
to the Ministry
of Defense, which would have total responsibility for border control
and external security.
The Iraqi Police Service, which operates in the provinces and provides
local policing, needs to
become a true police force. It needs legal authority, training, and
equipment to control crime and
protect Iraqi citizens. Accomplishing those goals will not be easy,
and the presence of American
advisors will be required to help the Iraqis determine a new role for
the police.
RECOMMENDATION 52: The Iraqi Police Service should be given greater
responsibility to
conduct criminal investigations and should expand its cooperation with
other elements in the
Iraqi judicial system in order to better control crime and protect Iraqi
civilians.
In order to more effectively administer the Iraqi Police Service, the
Ministry of the Interior needs
to undertake substantial reforms to purge bad elements and highlight
best practices. Once the
ministry begins to function effectively, it can exert a positive influence
over the provinces and
take back some of the authority that was lost to local governments through
decentralization. To
reduce corruption and militia infiltration, the Ministry of the Interior
should take authority from
the local governments for the handling of policing funds. Doing so will
improve accountability
and organizational discipline, limit the authority of provincial police
officials, and identify police
officers with the central government.
RECOMMENDATION 53: The Iraqi Ministry of the Interior should undergo
a process of
organizational transformation, including efforts to expand the capability
and reach of the current
major crime unit (or Criminal Investigation Division) and to exert more
authority over local
police forces. The sole authority to pay police salaries and disburse
financial support to local
police should be transferred to the Ministry of the Interior.
Finally, there is no alternative to bringing the Facilities Protection
Service under the control of
the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior. Simply disbanding these units is
not an option, as the
members will take their weapons and become full-time militiamen or insurgents.
All should be
brought under the authority of a reformed Ministry of the Interior.
They will need to be vetted,
retrained, and closely supervised. Those who are no longer part of the
Facilities Protection
Service need to participate in a disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration
program
(outlined above).
RECOMMENDATION 54: The Iraqi Ministry of the Interior should proceed
with current efforts
to identify, register, and control the Facilities Protection Service.
U.S. Actions
The Iraqi criminal justice system is weak, and the U.S. training mission
has been hindered by a
lack of clarity and capacity. It has not always been clear who is in
charge of the police training
mission, and the U.S. military lacks expertise in certain areas pertaining
to police and the rule of
law. The United States has been more successful in training the Iraqi
Army than it has the
police. The U.S. Department of Justice has the expertise and capacity
to carry out the police
training mission. The U.S. Department of Defense is already bearing
too much of the burden in
Iraq. Meanwhile, the pool of expertise in the United States on policing
and the rule of law has
been underutilized.
The United States should adjust its training mission in Iraq to match
the recommended
changes in the Iraqi government—the movement of the National and
Border Police to the
Ministry of Defense and the new emphasis on the Iraqi Police Service
within the Ministry of the
Interior. To reflect the reorganization, the Department of Defense would
continue to train the
Iraqi National and Border Police, and the Department of Justice would
become responsible for
training the Iraqi Police Service.
RECOMMENDATION 55: The U.S. Department of Defense should continue its
mission to
train the Iraqi National Police and the Iraqi Border Police, which should
be placed within the
Iraqi Ministry of Defense.
RECOMMENDATION 56: The U.S. Department of Justice should direct the
training mission
of the police forces remaining under the Ministry of the Interior.
RECOMMENDATION 57: Just as U.S. military training teams are imbedded
within Iraqi
Army units, the current practice of imbedding U.S. police trainers should
be expanded and the
numbers of civilian training officers increased so that teams can cover
all levels of the Iraqi
Police Service, including local police stations. These trainers should
be obtained from among
experienced civilian police executives and supervisors from around the
world. These officers
would replace the military police personnel currently assigned to training
teams.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has provided personnel to train
the Criminal Investigation
Division in the Ministry of the Interior, which handles major crimes.
The FBI has also fielded a
large team within Iraq for counterterrorism activities.
Building on this experience, the training programs should be expanded
and should include
the development of forensic investigation training and facilities that
could apply scientific and
technical investigative methods to counterterrorism as well as to ordinary
criminal activity.
RECOMMENDATION 58: The FBI should expand its investigative and forensic
training and
facilities within Iraq, to include coverage of terrorism as well as
criminal activity.
One of the major deficiencies of the Iraqi Police Service is its lack
of equipment, particularly in
the area of communications and motor transport.
RECOMMENDATION 59: The Iraqi government should provide funds to expand
and upgrade
communications equipment and motor vehicles for the Iraqi Police Service.
The Department of Justice is also better suited than the Department
of Defense to carry out the
mission of reforming Iraq’s Ministry of the Interior and Iraq’s
judicial system. Iraq needs more
than training for cops on the beat: it needs courts, trained prosecutors
and investigators, and the
ability to protect Iraqi judicial officials.
RECOMMENDATION 60: The U.S. Department of Justice should lead the work
of
organizational transformation in the Ministry of the Interior. This
approach must involve Iraqi
officials, starting at senior levels and moving down, to create a strategic
plan and work out
standard administrative procedures, codes of conduct, and operational
measures that Iraqis will
accept and use. These plans must be drawn up in partnership.
RECOMMENDATION 61: Programs led by the U.S. Department of Justice to
establish courts;
to train judges, prosecutors, and investigators; and to create institutions
and practices to fight
corruption must be strongly supported and funded. New and refurbished
courthouses with
improved physical security, secure housing for judges and judicial staff,
witness protection
facilities, and a new Iraqi Marshals Service are essential parts of
a secure and functioning system
of justice.
5. The Oil Sector
Since the success of the oil sector is critical to the success of the
Iraqi economy, the United
States must do what it can to help Iraq maximize its capability.
Iraq, a country with promising oil potential, could restore oil production
from existing
fields to 3.0 to 3.5 million barrels a day over a three- to five-year
period, depending on evolving
conditions in key reservoirs. Even if Iraq were at peace tomorrow, oil
production would decline
unless current problems in the oil sector were addressed.
Short Term
RECOMMENDATION 62:
• As soon as possible, the U.S. government should provide technical
assistance to the Iraqi
government to prepare a draft oil law that defines the rights of regional
and local governments
and creates a fiscal and legal framework for investment. Legal clarity
is essential to attract -
investment.
• The U.S. government should encourage the Iraqi government to
accelerate contracting for the
comprehensive well work-overs in the southern fields needed to increase
production, but the
United States should no longer fund such infrastructure projects.
• The U.S. military should work with the Iraqi military and with
private security forces to
protect oil infrastructure and contractors. Protective measures could
include a program to
improve pipeline security by paying local tribes solely on the basis
of throughput (rather than
fixed amounts).
• Metering should be implemented at both ends of the supply line.
This step would
immediately improve accountability in the oil sector.
• In conjunction with the International Monetary Fund, the U.S.
government should press Iraq
to continue reducing subsidies in the energy sector, instead of providing
grant assistance.
Until Iraqis pay market prices for oil products, drastic fuel shortages
will remain.
Long Term
Expanding oil production in Iraq over the long term will require creating
corporate structures,
establishing management systems, and installing competent managers to
plan and oversee an
ambitious list of major oil-field investment projects.
To improve oil-sector performance, the Study Group puts forward the
following
recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION 63:
• The United States should encourage investment in Iraq’s
oil sector by the international
community and by international energy companies.
• The United States should assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize
the national oil industry as a
commercial enterprise, in order to enhance efficiency, transparency,
and accountability.
• To combat corruption, the U.S. government should urge the Iraqi
government to post all oil
contracts, volumes, and prices on the Web so that Iraqis and outside
observers can track
exports and export revenues.
• The United States should support the World Bank’s efforts
to ensure that best practices are
used in contracting. This support involves providing Iraqi officials
with contracting templates
and training them in contracting, auditing, and reviewing audits.
• The United States should provide technical assistance to the
Ministry of Oil for enhancing
maintenance, improving the payments process, managing cash flows, contracting
and
auditing, and updating professional training programs for management
and technical
personnel.
6. U.S. Economic and Reconstruction
Assistance
Building the capacity of the Iraqi government should be at the heart
of U.S. reconstruction
efforts, and capacity building demands additional U.S. resources.
Progress in providing essential government services is necessary to
sustain any progress
on the political or security front. The period of large U.S.-funded
reconstruction projects is over,
yet the Iraqi government is still in great need of technical assistance
and advice to build the
capacity of its institutions. The Iraqi government needs help with all
aspects of its operations,
including improved procedures, greater delegation of authority, and
better internal controls. The
strong emphasis on building capable central ministries must be accompanied
by efforts to
develop functioning, effective provincial government institutions with
local citizen participation.
Job creation is also essential. There is no substitute for private-sector
job generation, but
the Commander’s Emergency Response Program is a necessary transitional
mechanism until
security and the economic climate improve. It provides immediate economic
assistance for trash
pickup, water, sewers, and electricity in conjunction with clear, hold,
and build operations, and
it should be funded generously. A total of $753 million was appropriated
for this program in FY
2006.
RECOMMENDATION 64: U.S. economic assistance should be increased to a
level of $5
billion per year rather than being permitted to decline. The President
needs to ask for the
necessary resources and must work hard to win the support of Congress.
Capacity building and
job creation, including reliance on the Commander’s Emergency
Response Program, should be
U.S. priorities. Economic assistance should be provided on a nonsectarian
basis.
The New Diplomatic Offensive can help draw in more international partners
to assist with the
reconstruction mission. The United Nations, the World Bank, the European
Union, the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and some Arab
League members
need to become hands-on participants in Iraq’s reconstruction.
RECOMMENDATION 65: An essential part of reconstruction efforts in Iraq
should be greater
involvement by and with international partners, who should do more than
just contribute
money. They should also actively participate in the design and construction
of projects.
The number of refugees and internally displaced persons within Iraq
is increasing dramatically. If
this situation is not addressed, Iraq and the region could be further
destabilized, and the
humanitarian suffering could be severe. Funding for international relief
efforts is insufficient, and
should be increased.
RECOMMENDATION 66: The United States should take the lead in funding
assistance
requests from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and
other humanitarian
agencies.
Coordination of Economic and
Reconstruction Assistance
A lack of coordination by senior management in Washington still hampers
U.S. contributions
to Iraq’s reconstruction.
Focus, priority setting, and skillful implementation are in short supply.
No single official
is assigned responsibility or held accountable for the overall reconstruction
effort.
Representatives of key foreign partners involved in reconstruction have
also spoken to us directly
and specifically about the need for a point of contact that can coordinate
their efforts with the
U.S. government.
A failure to improve coordination will result in agencies continuing
to follow conflicting
strategies, wasting taxpayer dollars on duplicative and uncoordinated
efforts. This waste will
further undermine public confidence in U.S. policy in Iraq.
A Senior Advisor for Economic Reconstruction in Iraq is required. He
or she should report
to the President, be given a staff and funding, and chair a National
Security Council interagency
group consisting of senior principals at the undersecretary level from
all relevant U.S.
government departments and agencies. The Senior Advisor’s responsibility
must be to bring
unity of effort to the policy, budget, and implementation of economic
reconstruction programs in
Iraq. The Senior Advisor must act as the principal point of contact
with U.S. partners in the
overall reconstruction effort.
He or she must have close and constant interaction with senior U.S.
officials and military
commanders in Iraq, especially the Director of the Iraq Reconstruction
and Management Office,
so that the realities on the ground are brought directly and fully into
the policy-making process.
In order to maximize the effectiveness of assistance, all involved must
be on the same page at all
times.
RECOMMENDATION 67: The President should create a Senior Advisor for
Economic
Reconstruction in Iraq.
Improving the Effectiveness of
Assistance Programs
Congress should work with the administration to improve its ability
to implement assistance
programs in Iraq quickly, flexibly, and effectively.
As opportunities arise, the Chief of Mission in Iraq should have the
authority to fund
quick-disbursing projects to promote national reconciliation, as well
as to rescind funding from
programs and projects in which the government of Iraq is not demonstrating
effective
partnership. These are important tools to improve performance and accountability—as
is the
work of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.
RECOMMENDATION 68: The Chief of Mission in Iraq should have the authority
to spend
significant funds through a program structured along the lines of the
Commander’s Emergency
Response Program, and should have the authority to rescind funding from
programs and projects
in which the government of Iraq is not demonstrating effective partnership.
RECOMMENDATION 69: The authority of the Special Inspector General for
Iraq
Reconstruction should be renewed for the duration of assistance programs
in Iraq.
U.S. security assistance programs in Iraq are slowed considerably by
the differing requirements
of State and Defense Department programs and of their respective congressional
oversight
committees. Since Iraqi forces must be trained and equipped, streamlining
the provision of
training and equipment to Iraq is critical. Security assistance should
be delivered promptly,
within weeks of a decision to provide it.
RECOMMENDATION 70: A more flexible security assistance program for Iraq,
breaking down
the barriers to effective interagency cooperation, should be authorized
and implemented.
The United States also needs to break down barriers that discourage
U.S. partnerships with
international donors and Iraqi participants to promote reconstruction.
The ability of the United
States to form such partnerships will encourage greater international
participation in Iraq.
RECOMMENDATION 71: Authority to merge U.S. funds with those from international
donors
and Iraqi participants on behalf of assistance projects should be provided.
7. Budget Preparation, Presentation,
and Review
The public interest is not well served by the government’s preparation,
presentation, and review
of the budget for the war in Iraq.
First, most of the costs of the war show up not in the normal budget
request but in
requests for emergency supplemental appropriations. This means that
funding requests are drawn
up outside the normal budget process, are not offset by budgetary reductions
elsewhere, and
move quickly to the White House with minimal scrutiny. Bypassing the
normal review erodes
budget discipline and accountability.
Second, the executive branch presents budget requests in a confusing
manner, making it
difficult for both the general public and members of Congress to understand
the request or to
differentiate it from counterterrorism operations around the world or
operations in Afghanistan.
Detailed analyses by budget experts are needed to answer what should
be a simple question:
“How much money is the President requesting for the war in Iraq?”
Finally, circumvention of the budget process by the executive branch
erodes oversight and
review by Congress. The authorizing committees (including the House
and Senate Armed
Services committees) spend the better part of a year reviewing the President’s
annual budget
request. When the President submits an emergency supplemental request,
the authorizing
committees are bypassed. The request goes directly to the appropriations
committees, and they
are pressured by the need to act quickly so that troops in the field
do not run out of funds. The
result is a spending bill that passes Congress with perfunctory review.
Even worse, the mustpass
appropriations bill becomes loaded with special spending projects that
would not survive
the normal review process.
RECOMMENDATION 72: Costs for the war in Iraq should be included in the
President’s
annual budget request, starting in FY 2008: the war is in its fourth
year, and the normal budget
process should not be circumvented. Funding requests for the war in
Iraq should be presented
clearly to Congress and the American people. Congress must carry out
its constitutional
responsibility to review budget requests for the war in Iraq carefully
and to conduct oversight.
8. U.S. Personnel
The United States can take several steps to ensure that it has personnel
with the right skills
serving in Iraq.
All of our efforts in Iraq, military and civilian, are handicapped by
Americans’ lack of
language and cultural understanding. Our embassy of 1,000 has 33 Arabic
speakers, just six of
whom are at the level of fluency. In a conflict that demands effective
and efficient communication
with Iraqis, we are often at a disadvantage. There are still far too
few Arab language– proficient
military and civilian officers in Iraq, to the detriment of the U.S.
mission.
Civilian agencies also have little experience with complex overseas
interventions to restore
and maintain order—stability operations—outside of the normal
embassy setting. The nature of
the mission in Iraq is unfamiliar and dangerous, and the United States
has had great difficulty
filling civilian assignments in Iraq with sufficient numbers of properly
trained personnel at the
appropriate rank.
RECOMMENDATION 73: The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense,
and the Director of
National Intelligence should accord the highest possible priority to
professional language
proficiency and cultural training, in general and specifically for U.S.
officers and personnel about
to be assigned to Iraq.
RECOMMENDATION 74: In the short term, if not enough civilians volunteer
to fill key
positions in Iraq, civilian agencies must fill those positions with
directed assignments. Steps
should be taken to mitigate familial or financial hardships posed by
directed assignments,
including tax exclusions similar to those authorized for U.S. military
personnel serving in Iraq.
RECOMMENDATION 75: For the longer term, the United States government
needs to
improve how its constituent agencies—Defense, State, Agency for
International Development,
Treasury, Justice, the intelligence community, and others—respond
to a complex stability
operation like that represented by this decade’s Iraq and Afghanistan
wars and the previous
decade’s operations in the Balkans. They need to train for, and
conduct, joint operations across
agency boundaries, following the Goldwater-Nichols model that has proved
so successful in the
U.S. armed services.
RECOMMENDATION 76: The State Department should train personnel to carry
out civilian
tasks associated with a complex stability operation outside of the traditional
embassy setting. It
should establish a Foreign Service Reserve Corps with personnel and
expertise to provide surge
capacity for such an operation. Other key civilian agencies, including
Treasury, Justice, and
Agriculture, need to create similar technical assistance capabilities.
9. Intelligence
While the United States has been able to acquire good and sometimes
superb tactical
intelligence on al Qaeda in Iraq, our government still does not understand
very well either the
insurgency in Iraq or the role of the militias.
A senior commander told us that human intelligence in Iraq has improved
from 10 percent
to 30 percent. Clearly, U.S. intelligence agencies can and must do better.
As mentioned above, an essential part of better intelligence must be
improved language and cultural skills. As an intelligence analyst told
us, “We rely too much on others to bring information to us, and
too often don’t understand what is reported back because we do
not understand the context of what we are told.”
The Defense
Department and the intelligence community have not invested sufficient
-
people and resources to understand the political and military threat
to American men and women in the armed forces. Congress has appropriated
almost $2 billion this year for countermeasures to protect our troops
in Iraq against improvised explosive devices, but the administration
has not put forward a request to invest comparable resources in trying
to understand the people who fabricate, plant, and explode those devices.
We were told
that there are fewer than 10 analysts on the job at the Defense Intelligence
Agency who have more than two years’ experience in analyzing the
insurgency. Capable
analysts are rotated to new assignments, and on-the-job training begins
anew. Agencies must
have a better personnel system to keep analytic expertise focused on
the insurgency. They are
not doing enough to map the insurgency, dissect it, and understand it
on a national and
provincial level. The analytic community’s knowledge of the organization,
leadership,
financing, and operations of militias, as well as their relationship
to government security forces,
also falls far short of what policy makers need to know.
In addition,
there is significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq. The standard
for
recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and
databases. A murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack.
If we cannot determine the source of a sectarian attack, that assault
does not make it into the database. A roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar
attack that doesn’t hurt U.S. personnel doesn’t count. For
example, on one day in July 2006 there were 93 attacks or significant
acts of violence reported. Yet a careful review of the reports for that
single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence. Good policy is difficult
to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes
its discrepancy with policy goals.
RECOMMENDATION
77: The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense
should devote significantly greater analytic resources to the task of
understanding the threats and sources of violence in Iraq.
RECOMMENDATION 78: The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary
of Defense
should also institute immediate changes in the collection of data about
violence and the sources of violence in Iraq to provide a more accurate
picture of events on the ground.
Recommended Iraqi Actions The Iraqi government must improve its intelligence
capability, initially to work with the United States, and ultimately
to take full responsibility for this intelligence function.
To facilitate
enhanced Iraqi intelligence capabilities, the CIA should increase its
personnel
in Iraq to train Iraqi intelligence personnel. The CIA should also develop,
with Iraqi officials, a
counterterrorism intelligence center for the all-source fusion of information
on the various sources of terrorism within Iraq. This center would analyze
data concerning the individuals,
organizations, networks, and support groups involved in terrorism within
Iraq. It would also
facilitate intelligence-led police and military actions against them.
RECOMMENDATION
79: The CIA should provide additional personnel in Iraq to develop
and train an effective intelligence service and to build a counterterrorism
intelligence center that will facilitate intelligence-led counterterrorism
efforts.
Appendices
Letter from the Sponsoring Organizations
The initiative for a bipartisan, independent, forward-looking “fresh-eyes”
assessment of Iraq
emerged from conversations U.S. House Appropriations Committee Member
Frank Wolf had
with us. In late 2005, Congressman Wolf asked the United States Institute
of Peace, a bipartisan federal entity, to facilitate the assessment,
in collaboration with the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy
at Rice University, the Center for the Study of the Presidency, and
the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Interested members of Congress, in consultation with the sponsoring
organizations and the
administration, agreed that former Republican U.S. Secretary of State
James A. Baker, III and
former Democratic Congressman Lee H. Hamilton had the breadth of knowledge
of foreign affairs required to co-chair this bipartisan effort. The
co-chairs subsequently selected the other members of the bipartisan
Iraq Study Group, all senior individuals with distinguished records
of public service. Democrats included former Secretary of Defense William
J. Perry, former Governor and U.S. Senator Charles S. Robb, former Congressman
and White House chief of staff Leon E. Panetta, and Vernon E. Jordan,
Jr., advisor to President Bill Clinton. Republicans included former
Associate Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court Sandra Day O’Connor,
former U.S. Senator Alan K. Simpson, former Attorney General Edwin Meese
III, and former Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger. Former CIA
Director Robert Gates was an active member for a period of months until
his nomination as Secretary of Defense.
The Iraq Study Group was launched on March 15, 2006, in a Capitol Hill
meeting hosted
by U.S. Senator John Warner and attended by congressional leaders from
both sides of the aisle.
To support
the Study Group, the sponsoring organizations created four expert working
groups consisting of 44 leading foreign policy analysts and specialists
on Iraq. The working
groups, led by staff of the United States Institute of Peace, focused
on the Strategic Environment, Military and Security Issues, Political
Development, and the Economy and Reconstruction.
Every effort
was made to ensure the participation of experts across a wide span of
the political
spectrum. Additionally, a panel of retired military officers was consulted.
We are grateful to all those who have assisted the Study Group, especially
the supporting
experts and staff. Our thanks go to Daniel P. Serwer of the Institute
of Peace, who served as
executive director; Christopher Kojm, advisor to the Study Group; John
Williams, Policy
Assistant to Mr. Baker; and Ben Rhodes, Special Assistant to Mr. Hamilton.
Richard H. Solomon, President
United States Institute of Peace
Edward P. Djerejian, Founding Director
James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy,
Rice University
David M. Abshire, President
Center for the Study of the Presidency
John J. Hamre, President
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Iraq Study Group Plenary Sessions
March 15, 2006
April 11–12, 2006
May 18–19, 2005
June 13–14, 2006
August 2–3, 2006
August 30–September 4, 2006 (Trip to Baghdad)
September 18–19, 2006
November 13–14, 2006
November 27–29, 2006
Iraq Study Group Consultations
(* denotes a meeting that took place in Iraq)
Iraqi Officials and Representatives
* Jalal Talabani—President
* Tariq al-Hashimi—Vice President
* Adil Abd al-Mahdi—Vice President
* Nouri Kamal al-Maliki—Prime Minister
* Salaam al-Zawbai—Deputy Prime Minister
* Barham Salih—Deputy Prime Minister
* Mahmoud al-Mashhadani—Speaker of the Parliament
* Mowaffak al-Rubaie—National Security Advisor
* Jawad Kadem al-Bolani—Minister of Interior
* Abdul Qader Al-Obeidi—Minister of Defense
* Hoshyar Zebari—Minister of Foreign Affairs
* Bayan Jabr—Minister of Finance
* Hussein al-Shahristani—Minster of Oil
* Karim Waheed—Minister of Electricity
* Akram al-Hakim—Minister of State for National Reconciliation
Affairs
* Mithal al-Alusi—Member, High Commission on National Reconciliation
* Ayad Jamal al-Din—Member, High Commission on National Reconciliation
* Ali Khalifa al-Duleimi—Member, High Commission on National Reconciliation
* Sami al-Ma’ajoon—Member, High Commission on National Reconciliation
* Muhammad Ahmed Mahmoud—Member, Commission on National Reconciliation
* Wijdan Mikhael—Member, High Commission on National Reconciliation
Lt. General Nasir Abadi—Deputy Chief of Staff of the Iraqi Joint
Forces
* Adnan al-Dulaimi—Head of the Tawafuq list
Ali Allawi—Former Minister of Finance
* Sheik Najeh al-Fetlawi—representative of Moqtada al-Sadr
* Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim—Shia Coalition Leader
* Sheik Maher al-Hamraa—Ayat Allah Said Sussein Al
Sadar
* Hajim al-Hassani—Member of the Parliament on the Iraqiya list
* Hunain Mahmood Ahmed Al-Kaddo—President of the Iraqi Minorities
Council
* Abid al-Gufhoor Abid al-Razaq al-Kaisi—Dean of the Islamic University
of the Imam Al-
Atham
* Ali Neema Mohammed Aifan al-Mahawili—Rafiday Al-Iraq Al-Jaded
Foundation
* Saleh al-Mutlaq—Leader of the Iraqi Front for National Dialogue
* Ayyad al-Sammara’l—Member of the Parliament
* Yonadim Kenna—Member of the Parliament and Secretary General
of Assyrian Movement
* Shahla Wali Mohammed—Iraqi Counterpart International
* Hamid Majid Musa—Secretary of the Iraqi Communist Party
* Raid Khyutab Muhemeed—Humanitarian, Cultural, and Social Foundation
Sinan Shabibi—Governor of the Central Bank of Iraq
Samir Shakir M. Sumaidaie—Ambassador of Iraq to the United States
Current U.S. Administration Officials
Senior Administration Officials
George W. Bush—President
Richard B. Cheney—Vice President
Condoleezza Rice—Secretary of State
Donald H. Rumsfeld—Secretary of Defense
Stephen J. Hadley—National Security Advisor
Joshua B. Bolten—White House Chief of Staff
Department of Defense/Military
CIVILIAN:
Gordon England—Deputy Secretary of Defense
Stephen Cambone—Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
Eric Edelman—Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
MILITARY:
General Peter Pace—Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Admiral Edmund Giambastiani—Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff
General John Abizaid—Commander, United States Central Command
* General George W. Casey, Jr.—Commanding General,
Multi-National Forces–Iraq
Lt. General James T. Conway—Director of Operations, J-3, on the
Joint Staff
* Lt. General Peter Chiarelli—Commander, Multi-National Forces–Iraq
Lt. General David H. Petraeus—Commanding General, U.S. Army Combined
Arms Center and
Fort Leavenworth
* Lt. General Martin Dempsey—Commander Multi-National Security
Transition Command–
Iraq
* Maj. General Joseph Peterson—Coalition Police Assistance Training
Team
* Maj. General Richard Zilmer—Commander, 1st Marine Expeditionary
Force
Colonel Derek Harvey—Senior Intelligence Officer for Iraq, Defense
Intelligence Agency
Lt. Colonel Richard Bowyer—National War College (recently served
in Iraq)
Lt. Colonel Justin Gubler—National War College (recently served
in Iraq)
Lt. Colonel David Haight—National War College (recently served
in Iraq)
Lt. Colonel Russell Smith—National War College (recently served
in Iraq)
Department of State/Civilian Embassy Personnel
R. Nicholas Burns—Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs
Philip Zelikow—Counselor to the Department of State
C. David Welch—Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs
James Jeffrey—Senior Advisor to Secretary Rice and Coordinator
for Iraq Policy
David Satterfield—Senior Advisor to Secretary Rice and Coordinator
for Iraq Policy
Zalmay Khalilzad—U.S. Ambassador to Iraq
* Dan Speckhard—Charge D’Affaires, U.S. Embassy in Iraq
* Joseph Saloom—Director, Iraq Reconstruction and Management Office
* Hilda Arellano—U.S. Agency for International Development Director
in Iraq
* Terrance Kelly—Director, Office of Strategic Plans and Assessments
* Randall Bennett—Regional Security Officer of the U.S. Embassy,
Baghdad, Iraq
Intelligence Community
John D. Negroponte—Director of National Intelligence
General Michael V. Hayden—Director, Central Intelligence Agency
Thomas Fingar—Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis
and Chairman of the
National Intelligence Council
John Sherman—Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Military
Issues
Steve Ward—Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Middle
East
Jeff Wickham—Iraq Analyst, Central Intelligence Agency
Other Senior Officials
David Walker—Comptroller General of the United States
* Stuart Bowen—Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction
Members of Congress
United States Senate
Senator William Frist (R-TN)—Majority Leader
Senators Harry Reid (D-NV)—Minority Leader
Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY)—Majority Whip
Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL)—Minority Whip
Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)—Chair, Foreign Relations Committee
Senators John Warner (R-VA)—Chair, Armed Services Committee
Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE)—Ranking Member, Foreign Relations
Committee
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI)—Ranking Member, Armed Services Committee
Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)—Ranking Member, Energy and Resources
Committee
Senator Kit Bond (R-MO)—Member, Intelligence
Committee
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)—Member, Armed Services Committee
Senator John Kerry (D-MA)—Member, Foreign Relations Committee
Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT)—Member, Armed
Services Committee
Senator John McCain (R-AZ)—Member, Armed Services Committee
Senator Jack Reed (D-RI)—Member, Armed Services Committee
United States House of Representatives
Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)—Minority Leader
Representative Tom Davis (R-VA)—Chair, Government Reform Committee
Representative Jane Harman (D-CA)—Ranking Member, Intelligence
Committee
Representative Ike Skelton (D-MO)—Ranking Member, Armed Services
Committee
Representative John Murtha (D-PA)—Ranking Member, Appropriations
Subcommittee on
Defense
Representative Jim Cooper (D-TN)—Member, Armed Services Committee
Representative Michael McCaul (R-TX)—Member, International Relations
Committee
Representative Alan Mollohan (D-WV)—Member, Appropriations Committee
Representative Christopher Shays (R-CT)—Member, Government Reform
Committee
Representative Frank Wolf (R-VA)—Member, Appropriations Committee
Foreign Officials
Sheikh Salem al-Abdullah al-Sabah—Ambassador of Kuwait to the
United States
Michael Ambuhl—Secretary of State of Switzerland
Kofi Annan—Secretary-General of the United Nations
* Dominic Asquith—British Ambassador to Iraq
Tony Blair—Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Prince Turki al-Faisal—Ambassador of Saudi Arabia to the United
States
Nabil Fahmy—Ambassador of Egypt to the United States
Karim Kawar—Ambassador of Jordan to the United States
Nasser bin Hamad al-Khalifa—Ambassador of Qatar to the United
States
* Mukhtar Lamani—Arab League envoy to Iraq
Sir David Manning—British Ambassador to the United
States
Imad Moustapha—Ambassador of Syria to the United States
Walid Muallem—Foreign Minister of Syria
Romano Prodi—Prime Minister of Italy
* Ashraf Qazi—Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General
for Iraq
Anders Fogh Rasmussen—Prime Minister of Denmark
Nabi Sensoy—Ambassador of Turkey to the United States
Ephraim Sneh—Deputy Minister of Defense of the State of Israel
Javad Zarif—Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations
Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayad—Minister of Foreign Affairs of the United
Arab Emirates
Former Officials and Experts
William J. Clinton—former President of the United States
Walter Mondale—former Vice President of the United States
Madeleine K. Albright—former United States Secretary of State
Warren Christopher—former United States Secretary of State
Henry Kissinger—former United States Secretary of State
Colin Powell—former United States Secretary of State
George P. Schultz—former United States Secretary of State
Samuel R. Berger—former United States National Security Advisor
Zbigniew Brzezinski—former United States National Security Advisor
Anthony Lake—former United States National Security Advisor
General Brent Scowcroft—former United States National Security
Advisor
General Eric Shinseki—former Chief of Staff of the United States
Army
General Anthony Zinni—former Commander, United States Central
Command
General John Keane—former Vice Chief of Staff of the United States
Army
Admiral Jim Ellis—former Commander of United States Strategic
Command
General Joe Ralston—former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO
Lt. General Roger C. Schultz—former Director of the United States
Army National Guard
Douglas Feith—former United States Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy
Mark Danner—The New York Review of Books
Larry Diamond—Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford
University
Thomas Friedman—New York Times
Leslie Gelb—President Emeritus, Council on Foreign Relations
Richard Hill—Director, Office of Strategic Initiatives and Analysis,
CHF International
Richard C. Holbrooke—former Ambassador of the United States to
the United Nations
Martin S. Indyk—Director, Saban Center for Middle East Policy,
The Brookings Institution
Ronald Johnson—Executive Vice President for International Development,
RTI International
Frederick Kagan—The American Enterprise Institute
Arthur Keys, Jr.—President and CEO, International Relief and Development
William Kristol—The Weekly Standard
* Guy Laboa—Kellogg, Brown & Root
Nancy Lindborg—President, Mercy Corps
Michael O’Hanlon—Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies,
The Brookings Institution
George Packer—The New Yorker
Carlos Pascual—Vice President and Director, Foreign Policy Studies,
The Brookings
Institution
Robert Perito—Senior Program Officer, United States Institute
of Peace
* Col. Jack Petri, USA (Ret.)—advisor to the Iraqi Ministry of
Interior
Kenneth Pollack—Director of Research, Saban Center for Middle
East Policy, The Brookings
Institution
Thomas Ricks—The Washington Post
Zainab Salbi—Founder and CEO, Women for Women International
Matt Sherman—former Deputy Senior Advisor and Director of Policy,
Iraqi Ministry of Interior
Strobe Talbott—President, The Brookings Institution
Rabih Torbay—Vice President for International Operations, International
Medical Corps
George Will—The Washington Post
Expert Working Groups and
Military Senior Advisor Panel
Economy and Reconstruction
Gary Matthews, USIP Secretariat
Director, Task Force on the United Nations and Special Projects, United
States Institute of
Peace
Raad Alkadiri
Director, Country Strategies Group, PFC Energy
Frederick D. Barton
Senior Adviser and Co-Director, International Security Program, Center
for Strategic &
International Studies
Jay Collins
Chief Executive Officer, Public Sector Group, Citigroup, Inc.
Jock P. Covey
Senior Vice President, External Affairs, Corporate Security and Sustainability
Services, Bechtel
Corporation
Keith Crane
Senior Economist, RAND Corporation
Amy Myers Jaffe
Associate Director for Energy Studies, James A. Baker III Institute
for Public Policy, Rice
University
K. Riva Levinson
Managing Director, BKSH & Associates
David A. Lipton
Managing Director and Head of Global Country Risk Management, Citigroup,
Inc
Michael E. O’Hanlon
Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies, The Brookings Institution
James A. Placke
Senior Associate, Cambridge Energy Research Associates
James A. Schear
Director of Research, Institute for National Strategic Studies, National
Defense University
Military and Security
Paul Hughes, USIP Secretariat
Senior Program Officer, Center for Post-Conflict Peace and Stability
Operations, United States
Institute of Peace
Hans A. Binnendijk
Director & Theodore Roosevelt Chair, Center for Technology &
National Security Policy,
National Defense University
James Carafano
Senior Research Fellow, Defense and Homeland Security, Douglas and Sarah
Allison Center for
Foreign Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation
Michael Eisenstadt
Director, Military & Security Program, The Washington Institute
for Near East Policy
Michèle A. Flournoy
Senior Advisor, International Security Program, Center for Strategic
& International Studies
Bruce Hoffman
Professor, Security Studies Program, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign
Service, Georgetown
University
Clifford May
President, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies
Robert M. Perito
Senior Program Officer, Center for Post-Conflict Peace and Stability
Operations, United States
Institute of Peace
Kalev I. Sepp
Assistant Professor, Department of Defense Analysis, Center on Terrorism
and Irregular Warfare,
Naval Postgraduate School
John F. Sigler
Adjunct Distinguished Professor, Near East South Asia Center for Strategic
Studies, National
Defense University
W. Andrew Terrill
Research Professor, National Security Affairs, Strategic Studies Institute
Jeffrey A. White
Berrie Defense Fellow, Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Political Development
Daniel P. Serwer, USIP Secretariat
Vice President, Center for Post-Conflict Peace and Stability Operations,
United States Institute
of Peace
Raymond H. Close
Freelance Analyst and Commentator on Middle East Politics
Larry Diamond
Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and Co-Editor,
Journal of
Democracy
Andrew P. N. Erdmann
Former Director for Iran, Iraq and Strategic Planning, National Security
Council
Reuel Marc Gerecht
Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
David L. Mack
Vice President, The Middle East Institute
Phebe A. Marr
Senior Fellow, United States Institute of Peace
Hassan Mneimneh
Director, Documentation Program, The Iraq Memory Foundation
Augustus Richard Norton
Professor of International Relations and Anthropology, Department of
International Relations,
Boston University
Marina S. Ottaway
Senior Associate, Democracy and Rule of Law Project, Carnegie Endowment
for International
Peace
Judy Van Rest
Executive Vice President, International Republican Institute
Judith S. Yaphe
Distinguished Research Fellow for the Middle East,
Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense
University
Strategic Environment
Paul Stares, USIP Secretariat
Vice President, Center for Conflict Analysis and Prevention, United
States Institute of Peace
Jon B. Alterman
Director, Middle East Program, Center for Strategic & International
Studies
Steven A. Cook
Douglas Dillon Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations
James F. Dobbins
Director, International Security and Defense Policy Center, RAND Corporation
Hillel Fradkin
Director, Center for Islam, Democracy and the Future of the Muslim World,
Hudson Institute
Chas W. Freeman
Chairman, Projects International and President, Middle East Policy Council
Geoffrey Kemp
Director, Regional Strategic Programs, The Nixon Center
Daniel C. Kurtzer
S. Daniel Abraham Visiting Professor, Middle East Policy Studies, Woodrow
Wilson School,
Princeton University
Ellen Laipson
President and CEO, The Henry L. Stimson Center
William B. Quandt
Edward R. Stettinius, Jr. Professor of Government and Foreign Affairs,
University of Virginia,
and Nonresident Senior Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy,
The Brookings -
Institution
Shibley Telhami
Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development, Department of Government
& Politics,
University of Maryland, and Nonresident Senior Fellow, Saban Center
for Middle East Policy,
The Brookings Institution
Wayne White
Adjunct Scholar, Public Policy Center, Middle East Institute
Military Senior Advisor Panel
Admiral James O. Ellis, Jr.
United States Navy, Retired
General John M. Keane
United States Army, Retired
General Edward C. Meyer
United States Army, Retired
General Joseph W. Ralston
United States Air Force, Retired
Lieutenant General Roger C. Schultz, Sr.
United States Army, Retired
The Iraq Study Group
James A. Baker, III—Co-Chair
James A. Baker, III, has served in senior government positions under
three United States
presidents. He served as the nation’s 61st Secretary of State
from January 1989 through August
1992 under President George H. W. Bush. During his tenure at the State
Department, Mr.
Baker traveled to 90 foreign countries as the United States confronted
the unprecedented
challenges and opportunities of the post–Cold War era. Mr. Baker’s
reflections on those years of
revolution, war, and peace—The Politics of Diplomacy—was
published in 1995.
Mr. Baker served as the 67th Secretary of the Treasury from 1985 to
1988 under President
Ronald Reagan. As Treasury Secretary, he was also Chairman of the President’s
Economic
Policy Council. From 1981 to 1985, he served as White House Chief of
Staff to President
Reagan. Mr. Baker’s record of public service began in 1975 as
Under Secretary of Commerce to
President Gerald Ford. It concluded with his service as White House
Chief of Staff and Senior
Counselor to President Bush from August 1992 to January 1993.
Long active in American presidential politics, Mr. Baker led presidential
campaigns for
Presidents Ford, Reagan, and Bush over the course of five consecutive
presidential elections
from 1976 to 1992.
A native Houstonian, Mr. Baker graduated from Princeton University in
1952. After two
years of active duty as a lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps,
he entered the University
of Texas School of Law at Austin. He received his J.D. with honors in
1957 and practiced law
with the Houston firm of Andrews and Kurth from 1957 to 1975.
Mr. Baker’s memoir—Work Hard, Study . . . and Keep Out of
Politics! Adventures and
Lessons from an Unexpected Public Life—was published in October
2006.
Mr. Baker received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1991 and has
been the recipient
of many other awards for distinguished public service, including Princeton
University’s
Woodrow Wilson Award, the American Institute for Public Service’s
Jefferson Award, Harvard
University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government Award, the Hans
J. Morgenthau Award,
the George F. Kennan Award, the Department of the Treasury’s Alexander
Hamilton Award, the
Department of State’s Distinguished Service Award, and numerous
honorary academic degrees.
Mr. Baker is presently a senior partner in the law firm of Baker Botts.
He is Honorary
Chairman of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice
University and serves on
the board of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. From 1997 to 2004,
Mr. Baker served as the
Personal Envoy of United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan to seek
a political solution to
the conflict over Western Sahara. In 2003, Mr. Baker was appointed Special
Presidential Envoy
for President George W. Bush on the issue of Iraqi debt. In 2005, he
was co-chair, with former
President Jimmy Carter, of the Commission on Federal Election Reform.
Since March 2006,
Mr. Baker and former U.S. Congressman Lee H. Hamilton have served as
the co-chairs of the
Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan blue-ribbon panel on Iraq.
Mr. Baker was born in Houston, Texas, in 1930. He and his wife, the
former Susan
Garrett, currently reside in Houston, and have eight children and seventeen
grandchildren.
Lee H. Hamilton—Co-Chair
Lee H. Hamilton became Director of the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars in
January 1999. Previously, Mr. Hamilton served for thirty-four years
as a United States
Congressman from Indiana. During his tenure, he served as Chairman and
Ranking Member of
the House Committee on Foreign Affairs (now the Committee on International
Relations) and
chaired the Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East from the early
1970s until 1993. He
was Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the
Select Committee to
Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran.
Also a leading figure on economic policy and congressional organization,
he served as
Chair of the Joint Economic Committee as well as the Joint Committee
on the Organization of
Congress, and was a member of the House Standards of Official Conduct
Committee. In his
home state of Indiana, Mr. Hamilton worked hard to improve education,
job training, and
infrastructure. Currently, Mr. Hamilton serves as Director of the Center
on Congress at Indiana
University, which seeks to educate citizens on the importance of Congress
and on how Congress
operates within our government.
Mr. Hamilton remains an important and active voice on matters of international
relations
and American national security. He served as a Commissioner on the United
States
Commission on National Security in the 21st Century (better known as
the Hart-Rudman
Commission), was Co-Chair with former Senator Howard Baker of the Baker-Hamilton
Commission to Investigate Certain Security Issues at Los Alamos, and
was Vice-Chairman of
the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
(the 9/11 Commission),
which issued its report in July 2004. He is currently a member of the
President’s Foreign
Intelligence Advisory Board and the President’s Homeland Security
Advisory Council, as well
as the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Advisory
Board.
Born in Daytona Beach, Florida, Mr. Hamilton relocated with his family
to Tennessee and
then to Evansville, Indiana. Mr. Hamilton is a graduate of DePauw University
and the Indiana
University School of Law, and studied for a year at Goethe University
in Germany. Before his
election to Congress, he practiced law in Chicago and in Columbus, Indiana.
A former high
school and college basketball star, he has been inducted into the Indiana
Basketball Hall of
Fame.
Mr. Hamilton’s distinguished service in government has been honored
through numerous
awards in public service and human rights as well as honorary degrees.
He is the author of A
Creative Tension—The Foreign Policy Roles of the President and
Congress (2002) and How
Congress Works and Why You Should Care (2004), and the coauthor of Without
Precedent:
The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission (2006).
Lee and his wife, the former Nancy Ann Nelson, have three children—Tracy
Lynn Souza,
Deborah Hamilton Kremer, and Douglas Nelson Hamilton—and five
grandchildren: Christina,
Maria, McLouis and Patricia Souza and Lina Ying Kremer.
Lawrence S. Eagleburger—Member
Lawrence S. Eagleburger was sworn in as the 62nd U.S. Secretary of State
by President George
H. W. Bush on December 8, 1992, and as Deputy Secretary of State on
March 20, 1989.
After his entry into the Foreign Service in 1957, Mr. Eagleburger served
in the U.S.
Embassy in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, in the State Department Bureau of
Intelligence and
Research, in the U.S. Embassy in Belgrade, and the U.S. Mission to NATO
in Belgium. In
1963, after a severe earthquake in Macedonia, he led the U.S. government
effort to provide
medical and other assistance. He was then assigned to Washington, D.C.,
where he served on
the Secretariat staff and as special assistant to Dean Acheson, advisor
to the President on Franco-
NATO issues. In August 1966, he became acting director of the Secretariat
staff.
In October 1966, Mr. Eagleburger joined the National Security Council
staff. In October
1967, he was assigned as special assistant to Under Secretary of State
Nicholas Katzenbach. In
November 1968, he was appointed Dr. Henry Kissinger’s assistant,
and in January 1969, he
became executive assistant to Dr. Kissinger at the White House. In September
1969, he was
assigned as political advisor and chief of the political section of
the U.S. Mission to NATO in
Brussels.
Mr. Eagleburger became Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense in August
1971. Two years
later, he became Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International
Security Affairs. The
same year he returned to the White House as Deputy Assistant to the
President for National
Security Operations. He subsequently followed Dr. Kissinger to the State
Department, becoming
Executive Assistant to the Secretary of State. In 1975, he was made
Deputy Under Secretary of
State for Management.
In June 1977, Mr. Eagleburger was appointed Ambassador to Yugoslavia,
and in 1981 he
was nominated as Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs.
In February 1982, he was
appointed Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.
Mr. Eagleburger has received numerous awards, including an honorary
knighthood from
Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II (1994); the Distinguished Service Award
(1992), the Wilbur J.
Carr Award (1984), and the Distinguished Honor Award (1984) from the
Department of State;
the Distinguished Civilian Service Medal from the Department of Defense
(1978); and the
President’s Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service (1976).
After retiring from the Department of State in May 1984, Mr. Eagleburger
was named
president of Kissinger Associates, Inc. Following his resignation as
Secretary of State on
January 19, 1993, he joined the law firm of Baker, Donelson, Bearman
and Caldwell as Senior
Foreign Policy Advisor. He joined the boards of Halliburton Company,
Phillips Petroleum
Company, and Universal Corporation. Mr. Eagleburger currently serves
as Chairman of the
International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims.
He received his B.S. degree in 1952 and his M.S. degree in 1957, both
from the
University of Wisconsin, and served as first lieutenant in the U.S.
Army from 1952 to 1954.
Mr. Eagleburger is married to the former Marlene Ann Heinemann. He is
the father of three sons,
Lawrence Scott, Lawrence Andrew, and Lawrence Jason.
Vernon E. Jordan, Jr.—Member
Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., is a Senior Managing Director of Lazard Frères
& Co, LLC in New York.
He works with a diverse group of clients across a broad range of industries.
Prior to joining Lazard, Mr. Jordan was a Senior Executive Partner with
the law firm of
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, where he remains Senior Counsel.
While there Mr.
Jordan practiced general, corporate, legislative, and international
law in Washington, D.C.
Before Akin Gump, Mr. Jordan held the following positions: President
and Chief
Executive Officer of the National Urban League, Inc.; Executive Director
of the United Negro
College Fund, Inc.; Director of the Voter Education Project of the Southern
Regional Council;
Attorney-Consultant, U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity; Assistant
to the Executive Director
of the Southern Regional Council; Georgia Field Director of the National
Association for the
Advancement of Colored People; and an attorney in private practice in
Arkansas and Georgia.
Mr. Jordan’s presidential appointments include the President’s
Advisory Committee for
the Points of Light Initiative Foundation, the Secretary of State’s
Advisory Committee on
South Africa, the Advisory Council on Social Security, the Presidential
Clemency Board, the
American Revolution Bicentennial Commission, the National Advisory Committee
on
Selective Service, and the Council of the White House Conference “To
Fulfill These Rights.”
In 1992, Mr. Jordan served as the Chairman of the Clinton Presidential
Transition Team.
Mr. Jordan’s corporate and other directorships include American
Express Company;
Asbury Automotive Group, Inc.; Howard University (Trustee); J. C. Penney
Company, Inc.;
Lazard Ltd.; Xerox Corporation; and the International Advisory Board
of Barrick Gold.
Mr. Jordan is a graduate of DePauw University and the Howard University
Law School.
He holds honorary degrees from more than 60 colleges and universities
in America. He is a
member of the bars of Arkansas, the District of Columbia, Georgia, and
the U.S. Supreme
Court. He is a member of the American Bar Association, the National
Bar Association, the
Council on Foreign Relations, and the Bilderberg Meetings and he is
President of the Economic
Club of Washington, D.C. Mr. Jordan is the author of Vernon Can Read!
A Memoir (Public
Affairs, 2001).
Edwin Meese III—Member
Edwin Meese III holds the Ronald Reagan Chair in Public Policy at the
Heritage Foundation, a
Washington, D.C.–based public policy research and education institution.
He is also the
Chairman of Heritage’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and
a distinguished visiting fellow
at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. In addition, Meese lectures,
writes, and consults
throughout the United States on a variety of subjects.
Meese is the author of With Reagan: The Inside Story, which was published
by Regnery
Gateway in June 1992; co-editor of Making America Safer, published in
1997 by the Heritage
Foundation; and coauthor of Leadership, Ethics and Policing, published
by Prentice Hall in
2004.
Meese served as the 75th Attorney General of the United States from
February 1985 to
August 1988. As the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, he
directed the Department of Justice
and led international efforts to combat terrorism, drug trafficking,
and organized crime. In 1985
he received Government Executive magazine’s annual award for excellence
in management.
From January 1981 to February 1985, Meese held the position of Counsellor
to the
President, the senior position on the White House staff, where he functioned
as the President’s
chief policy advisor. As Attorney General and as Counsellor, Meese was
a member of the
President’s cabinet and the National Security Council. He served
as Chairman of the Domestic
Policy Council and of the National Drug Policy Board. Meese headed the
President-elect’s
transition effort following the November 1980 election. During the presidential
campaign, he
served as chief of staff and senior issues advisor for the Reagan-Bush
Committee.
Formerly, Meese served as Governor Reagan’s executive assistant
and chief of staff in
California from 1969 through 1974 and as legal affairs secretary from
1967 through 1968. Before
joining Governor Reagan’s staff in 1967, Meese served as deputy
district attorney in Alameda
County, California. From 1977 to 1981, Meese was a professor of law
at the University of San
Diego, where he also was Director of the Center for Criminal Justice
Policy and Management.
In addition to his background as a lawyer, educator, and public official,
Meese has been a
business executive in the aerospace and transportation industry, serving
as vice president for
administration of Rohr Industries, Inc., in Chula Vista, California.
He left Rohr to return to the
practice of law, engaging in corporate and general legal work in San
Diego County.
Meese is a graduate of Yale University, Class of 1953, and holds a law
degree from the
University of California at Berkeley. He is a retired colonel in the
United States Army Reserve.
He is active in numerous civic and educational organizations. Meese
is married, has two grown
children, and resides in McLean, Virginia.
Sandra Day O’Connor—Member
Sandra Day O’Connor was nominated by President Reagan as Associate
Justice of the United
States Supreme Court on July 7, 1981, and took the oath of office on
September 25. O’Connor
previously served on the Arizona Court of Appeals (1979–81) and
as judge of the Maricopa
County Superior Court in Phoenix, Arizona (1975–79). She was appointed
as Arizona state
senator in 1969 and was subsequently elected to two two-year terms from
1969 to 1975. During
her tenure, she was Arizona Senate Majority Leader and Chairman of the
State, County, and
Municipal Affairs Committee, and she served on the Legislative Council,
on the Probate Code
Commission, and on the Arizona Advisory Council on Intergovernmental
Relations.
From 1965 to 1969, O’Connor was assistant attorney general in
Arizona. She practiced
law at a private firm in Maryvale, Arizona, from 1958 to 1960 and prior
to that was civilian
attorney for Quartermaster Market Center in Frankfurt, Germany (1954–57),
and deputy county
attorney in San Mateo County, California (1952–53)
She was previously Chairman of the Arizona Supreme Court Committee to
Reorganize
Lower Courts (1974–75), Vice Chairman of the Arizona Select Law
Enforcement Review
Commission (1979–80), and, in Maricopa County, Chairman of the
Bar Association Lawyer
Referral Service (1960–62), the Juvenile Detention Home Visiting
Board (1963–64), and the
Superior Court Judges’ Training and Education Committee (1977–79)
and a member of the
Board of Adjustments and Appeals (1963–64).
O’Connor currently serves as Chancellor of the College of William
and Mary and on the
Board of Trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation, the Executive Board
of the Central European
and Eurasian Law Initiative, the Advisory Board of the Smithsonian National
Museum of
Natural History, and the Advisory Committee of the American Society
of International Law,
Judicial. She is an honorary member of the Advisory Committee for the
Judiciary Leadership
Development Council, an honorary chair of America’s 400th Anniversary:
Jamestown 2007, a
co-chair of the National Advisory Council of the Campaign for the Civic
Mission of Schools, a
member of the Selection Committee of the Oklahoma City National Memorial
& Museum, and
a member of the Advisory Board of the Stanford Center on Ethics. She
also serves on several
bodies of the American Bar Association, including the Museum of Law
Executive Committee,
the Commission on Civic Education and Separation of Powers, and the
Advisory Commission
of the Standing Committee on the Law Library of Congress.
O’Connor previously served as a member of the Anglo-American Exchange
(1980); the
State Bar of Arizona Committees on Legal Aid, Public Relations, Lower
Court Reorganization,
and Continuing Legal Education; the National Defense Advisory Committee
on Women in the
Services (1974–76); the Arizona State Personnel Commission (1968–69);
the Arizona Criminal
Code Commission (1974–76); and the Cathedral Chapter of the Washington
National Cathedral
(1991–99).
O’Connor is a member of the American Bar Association, the State
Bar of Arizona, the
State Bar of California, the Maricopa County Bar Association, the Arizona
Judges’ Association,
the National Association of Women Judges, and the Arizona Women Lawyers’
Association.
She holds a B.A. (with Great Distinction) and an LL.B. (Order of the
Coif) from Stanford
University, where she was also a member of the board of editors of the
Stanford Law Review.
Leon E. Panetta—Member
Leon E. Panetta currently co-directs the Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute
for Public Policy, a
nonpartisan study center for the advancement of public policy based
at California State
University, Monterey Bay. He serves as distinguished scholar to the
chancellor of the California
State University system, teaches a Master’s in Public Policy course
at the Panetta Institute, is a
presidential professor at Santa Clara University, and created the Leon
Panetta Lecture Series.
Panetta first went to Washington in 1966, when he served as a legislative
assistant to U.S.
Senator Thomas H. Kuchel of California. In 1969, he became Special Assistant
to the Secretary
of Health, Education and Welfare and then Director of the U.S. Office
for Civil Rights. His book
Bring Us Together (published in 1971) is an account of that experience.
In 1970, he went to
New York City, where he served as Executive Assistant to Mayor John
Lindsay. Then, in 1971,
Panetta returned to California, where he practiced law in the Monterey
firm of Panetta,
Thompson & Panetta until he was elected to Congress in 1976.
Panetta was a U.S. Representative from California’s 16th (now
17th) district from 1977 to
1993. He authored the Hunger Prevention Act of 1988, the Fair Employment
Practices
Resolution, legislation that established Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement
for hospice care
for the terminally ill, and other legislation on a variety of education,
health, agriculture, and
defense issues.
From 1989 to 1993, Panetta was Chairman of the House Committee on the
Budget. He
also served on that committee from 1979 to 1985. He chaired the House
Agriculture
Committee’s Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing, Consumer Relations
and Nutrition; the
House Administration Committee’s Subcommittee on Personnel and
Police; and the Select
Committee on Hunger’s Task Force on Domestic Hunger. He also served
as Vice Chairman of
the Caucus of Vietnam Era Veterans in Congress and as a member of the
President’s
Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies.
Panetta left Congress in 1993 to become Director of the Office of Management
and Budget
for the incoming Clinton administration. Panetta was appointed Chief
of Staff to the President of
the United States on July 17, 1994, and served in that position until
January 20, 1997.
In addition, Panetta served a six-year term on the Board of Directors
of the New York
Stock Exchange beginning in 1997. He currently serves on many public
policy and
organizational boards, including as Chair of the Pew Oceans Commission
and Co-Chair of the
California Council on Base Support and Retention.
Panetta has received many awards and honors, including the Smithsonian
Paul Peck
Award for Service to the Presidency, the John H. Chafee Coastal Stewardship
Award, the Julius
A. Stratton Award for Coastal Leadership, and the Distinguished Public
Service Medal from the
Center for the Study of the Presidency.
He earned a B.A. magna cum laude from Santa Clara University in 1960,
and in 1963
received his J.D. from Santa Clara University Law School, where he was
an editor of the Santa
Clara Law Review. He served as a first lieutenant in the Army from 1964
to 1966 and received
the Army Commendation Medal. Panetta is married to the former Sylvia
Marie Varni. They
have three grown sons and five grandchildren.
William J. Perry—Member
William Perry is the Michael and Barbara Berberian Professor at Stanford
University, with a
joint appointment at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International
Studies and the School of
Engineering. He is a senior fellow at FSI and serves as co-director
of the Preventive Defense
Project, a research collaboration of Stanford and Harvard universities.
Perry was the 19th Secretary of Defense of the United States, serving
from February 1994
to January 1997. He previously served as Deputy Secretary of Defense
(1993–94) and as Under
Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (1977–81). He
is on the board of directors of
several emerging high-tech companies and is Chairman of Global Technology
Partners.
His previous business experience includes serving as a laboratory director
for General
Telephone and Electronics (1954–64) and as founder and president
of ESL Inc. (1964–77),
executive vice president of Hambrecht & Quist Inc. (1981–85),
and founder and chairman of
Technology Strategies & Alliances (1985–93). He is a member
of the National Academy of
Engineering and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
From 1946 to 1947, Perry was an enlisted man in the Army Corps of Engineers,
and
served in the Army of Occupation in Japan. He joined the Reserve Officer
Training Corps in
1948 and was a second lieutenant in the Army Reserves from 1950 to 1955.
He has received a
number of awards, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom (1997),
the Department of
Defense Distinguished Service Medal (1980 and 1981), and Outstanding
Civilian Service
Medals from the Army (1962 and 1997), the Air Force (1997), the Navy
(1997), the Defense
Intelligence Agency (1977 and 1997), NASA (1981), and the Coast Guard
(1997). He received
the American Electronic Association’s Medal of Achievement (1980),
the Eisenhower Award
(1996), the Marshall Award (1997), the Forrestal Medal (1994), and the
Henry Stimson Medal
(1994). The National Academy of Engineering selected him for the Arthur
Bueche Medal in
1996. He has received awards from the enlisted personnel of the Army,
Navy, and the Air Force.
He has received decorations from the governments of Albania, Bahrain,
France, Germany,
Hungary, Japan, Korea, Poland, Slovenia, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom.
He received a
B.S. and M.S. from Stanford University and a Ph.D. from Penn State,
all in mathematics.
Charles S. Robb—Member
Charles S. Robb joined the faculty of George Mason University as a Distinguished
Professor of
Law and Public Policy in 2001. Previously he served as Lieutenant Governor
of Virginia, from
1978 to 1982; as Virginia’s 64th Governor, from 1982 to 1986;
and as a United States Senator,
from 1989 to 2001.
While in the Senate he became the only member ever to serve simultaneously
on all three
national security committees (Intelligence, Armed Services, and Foreign
Relations). He also
served on the Finance, Commerce, and Budget committees.
Before becoming a member of Congress he chaired the Southern Governors’
Association,
the Democratic Governors’ Association, the Education Commission
of the States, the
Democratic Leadership Council, Jobs for America’s Graduates, the
National Conference of
Lieutenant Governors, and the Virginia Forum on Education, and was President
of the Council
of State Governments.
During the 1960s he served on active duty with the United States Marine
Corps, retiring
from the Marine Corps Reserve in 1991. He began as the Class Honor Graduate
from Marine
Officers Basic School in 1961 and ended up as head of the principal
recruiting program for
Marine officers in 1970. In between, he served in both the 1st and 2nd
Marine Divisions and his
assignments included duty as a Military Social Aide at the White House
and command of an
infantry company in combat in Vietnam.
He received his law degree from the University of Virginia in 1973,
clerked for Judge John
D. Butzner, Jr., on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit,
and practiced law with
Williams and Connolly prior to his election to state office. Between
his state and federal service he was a partner at Hunton and Williams.
Since leaving
the Senate in 2001 he has served as Chairman of the Board of Visitors
at the
United States Naval Academy, Co-Chairman (with Senior Judge Laurence
Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit) of the
President’s Commission on Intelligence
Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction,
and Co-Chairman
(with former Governor Linwood Holton) of a major landowner’s alliance
that created a special
tax district to finance the extension of Metrorail to Tyson’s
Corner, Reston, and Dulles Airport.
He has also been a Fellow at the Institute of Politics at Harvard and
at the Marshall Wythe
School of Law at William and Mary.
He is currently
on the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the Secretary
of
State’s International Security Advisory Board (Chairman of the
WMD-Terrorism Task Force),
the FBI Director’s Advisory Board, the National Intelligence Council’s
Strategic Analysis
Advisory Board, the Iraq Study Group, and the MITRE Corp. Board of Trustees
(Vice
Chairman). He also serves on the boards of the Space Foundation, the
Thomas Jefferson
Program in Public Policy, the Concord Coalition, the National Museum
of Americans at War,
Strategic Partnerships LLC, and the Center for the Study of the Presidency—and
he works on
occasional projects with the Center for Strategic and International
Studies. He is married to
Lynda Johnson Robb and they have three grown daughters and one granddaughter.
Alan K. Simpson—Member
Alan K. Simpson served from 1979 to 1997 as a United States Senator
from Wyoming.
Following his first term in the Senate, Al was elected by his peers
to the position of the
Assistant Majority Leader in 1984—and served in that capacity
until 1994. He completed his
final term on January 3, 1997.
Simpson is
currently a partner in the Cody firm of Simpson, Kepler and Edwards,
the
Cody division of the Denver firm of Burg Simpson Eldredge, Hersh and
Jardine, and also a
consultant in the Washington, D.C., government relations firm The Tongour,
Simpson,
Holsclaw Group. He continues to serve on numerous corporate and nonprofit
boards and travels the country giving speeches. His book published by
William Morrow Company, Right in the Old Gazoo: A Lifetime of Scrapping
with the Press (1997), chronicles his personal experiences and views
of the Fourth Estate.
From January
of 1997 until June of 2000, Simpson was a Visiting Lecturer and for
two
years the Director of the Institute of Politics at Harvard University’s
John F. Kennedy School of
Government. During the fall of 2000 he returned to his alma mater, the
University of Wyoming,
as a Visiting Lecturer in the Political Science Department and he continues
to team teach a class part-time with his brother, Peter, titled “Wyoming’s
Political Identity: Its History and Its
Politics,” which is proving to be one of the most popular classes
offered at UW.
A member of a political family—his father served both as Governor
of Wyoming from
1954 to 1958 and as United States Senator from Wyoming from 1962 to
1966—Al chose to
follow in his father’s footsteps and began his own political career
in 1964 when he was elected
to the Wyoming State Legislature as a state representative of his native
Park County. He served for the next thirteen years in the Wyoming House
of Representatives, holding the offices of Majority Whip, Majority Floor
Leader, and Speaker Pro-Tem. His only brother, Peter, also served as
a member of the Wyoming State Legislature.
Prior to entering
politics, Simpson was admitted to the Wyoming bar and the United
States District Court in 1958 and served for a short time as a Wyoming
assistant attorney
general. Simpson then joined his father, Milward L. Simpson, and later
Charles G. Kepler in
the law firm of Simpson, Kepler and Simpson in his hometown of Cody.
He would practice law
there for the next eighteen years. During that time, Simpson was very
active in all civic,
community, and state activities. He also served ten years as City Attorney.
Simpson earned
a B.S. in law from the University of Wyoming in 1954. Upon graduation
from college, he joined the Army, serving overseas in the 5th Infantry
Division and in the 2nd
Armored Division in the final months of the Army of Occupation in Germany.
Following his
honorable discharge in 1956, Simpson returned to the University of Wyoming
to complete his
study of law, earning his J.D. degree in 1958. He and his wife Ann have
three children and six
grandchildren, who all reside in Cody, Wyoming.
Iraq Study Group Support
Edward P. Djerejian
Senior Advisor to the Study Group
Christopher A. Kojm
Senior Advisor to the Study Group
John B. Williams Benjamin J. Rhodes
Special Assistant to the Study Group Special Assistant to the Study
Group
United States Institute of Peace Support
Daniel P. Serwer
ISG Executive Director and Political Development Secretariat
Paul Hughes
Military and Security Secretariat
Gary Matthews
Economy and Reconstruction Secretariat
Paul Stares
Strategic Environment Secretariat
Courtney Rusin
Assistant to the Study Group
Anne Hingeley
Congressional Relations
Ian Larsen
Outreach and Communications
Center for the Study of the Presidency Support
Jay M. Parker
Advisor
Ysbrant A. Marcelis
Advisor
Center for Strategic & International Studies Support
Kay King
Advisor