The Iraq Study Group Report
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
CommentOnThis.com Note: We only include here the opening letter and then
jump to section "II: The Way Forward". The history and background content
is avaiable in the original document.
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
This responsible transition can allow for a reduction in the U.S. presence in Iraq over
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
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
In order to advance a comprehensive diplomatic solution, the Study Group recommends as
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
- 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 -
- Kuwait wants to ensure that it will not once again be the victim of Iraqi irredentism and
- Saudi Arabia and Jordan share Sunni concerns over Shia ascendancy in Iraq and the region as
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
- 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
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
- Syria can increase its political and economic cooperation with
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
- 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 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
: Concerning Syria, some elements of that negotiated peace should
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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, settle-
ments, Jerusalem, the right of return, and the end of conflict.
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
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
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
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:
By the end of 2006early 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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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 short-
term 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
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
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
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
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.
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
RECOMMENDATION 54: The Iraqi Ministry of the Interior should proceed with current efforts
to identify, register, and control the Facilities Protection Service.
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
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
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.
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 -
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
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.
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
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
6. U.S. Economic and Reconstruction
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
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
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
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
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,
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 must-
pass 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
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.
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
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.
Back to source document.