Order Code RL31701
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Iraq: U.S. Military Operations
Updated August 4, 2003
Steve Bowman
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Iraq: U.S. Military Operations
Summary
Iraq’s chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs, together with Iraqi
long-range missile development and support for terrorism, are the primary
justifications put forward for military action. On March 17, 2003 President Bush
issued an ultimatum demanding that Saddam Hussein and his sons depart from Iraq
within 48 hours. On March 19, offensive operations began with air strikes against
Iraqi leadership positions. By April 15, after 27 days of operations, coalition forces
were in relative control of all major Iraqi cities and Iraqi political and military
leadership had disintegrated. On May 1, President Bush declared an end to major
combat operations. There was no use of chemical or biological (CB)weapons, and no
CB weapons stockpiles have been found.
The major challenges to coalition forces are now quelling a persistent Iraqi
resistance movement, restoring of civil order, and providing basic services to the
urban population. U.S. troops continue to come under sporadic attacks, primarily in
central Iraq. Though initially denying that these attacks were the work of an
organized resistance movement, DOD officials have now acknowledged there is at
least regional organization, with apparently ample supplies of arms and funding.
CENTCOM commander Gen. Abizaid, has characterized the Iraqi resistance as “ a
classical guerrilla-type campaign. DOD believes the resistance to comprise primarily
former regime supporters, however others are concerned that growing resentment of
coalition forces and resurgent Iraq nationalism, independent of connections with the
earlier regime, may be contributing to the resistance. As of August 4, 250 U.S.
troops have died in Iraq operations. Of these deaths, 114 have occurred since May
1, 2003.
Approximately 148,000U.S. troops are in Iraq. DOD’s most recent statement,
on July 15, reports that there are 13,273 non-US troops in Iraq from 19 countries, and
that an additional 14 countries are committed to deploy another 12,000 troops during
the course of the year. The DOD has not, however, released an official and current
list of these nations and their contributions. A range of press reports, based upon
unattributed DOD statements, have indicated that those nations contributing over a
1,000 troops include: Poland, Spain, the Netherlands, Italy, and the Ukraine. Poland
will assume command of an international division that will be based in Karbala, and
Spain is to command an hispanic division which will include troops from Central
American and Caribbean countries. Nations that have been reported in the press to
be contributing troops include: Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark,
the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia (Gruzia) Honduras, Hungary,
Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Norway,
Portugal, Romania, and Slovakia
Congress approved a $62.37 billion FY2003 supplemental budget request for
Iraq operations (H.Rept. 108-76), and DOD currently estimates the cost of operations
to be $3.9 billion per month. Iraq operations’ costs are not included in the FY2004
DOD budget, and will be addressed through supplemental budget requests.
This report will be updated as events warrant.

---

Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Military Planning & Combat Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Options Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Combat Operations Prior to May 1, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Post-May, 2003 Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

---

Iraq: U.S. Military Operations
Background
Iraq’s chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs, together with Iraqi
long-range missile development, and support for terrorism are the primary
justifications put forward by the Bush Administration for military action. Since Iraq
originally ended cooperation with U.N. inspectors in 1998, there has been little
information on the state of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) arsenal;
however, Administration officials are convinced that Iraq has reconstituted
significant capabilities. Initially, leading Administration officials, most notably Vice-
President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and his Deputy Paul Wolfowitz,
stressed that “regime change” or the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. Later
in 2002, WMD disarmament was emphasized as the primary objective. Expanding
on this theme, President Bush, in his speech before the United Nations on September
12, 2002 specified the following conditions for Iraq to meet to forestall military
action against it:
! Immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or
destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all
related material.
! End all support for terrorism and act to suppress it.
! Cease persecution of its civilian population.
! Release or account for all Gulf War missing personnel.
! End all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program and allow
United Nations administration of its funds.1
On March 17, 2003 President Bush issued an ultimatum demanding that
Saddam Hussein and his sons depart from Iraq within 48 hours. On March 19,
offensive operations commenced with air strikes against Iraqi leadership positions.
Military Planning & Combat Operations
The Department of Defense officially released limited official information
concerning war planning or preparations against Iraq prior to the onset of offensive
operations. There were, however, frequent and significant news leaks which
provided a range of details. News reports indicated that the military options that
were under discussion varied significantly in their assumptions regarding Iraq
military capabilities, the usefulness of Iraqi opposition groups, the attitude of regional
governments, and the U.S. military resources that would be required.
1 President Bush’s Address to the U.N. General Assembly, September 12, 2002.

---

CRS-2
Options Considered
In the wake of the successful operations in Afghanistan against the Taliban,
some Administration officials advocated a similar operation, entailing use of special
operations forces in cooperation with indigenous Iraqi opposition forces, coupled
with an extensive air offensive to destroy Hussein’s most reliable Republican Guard
units, command & control centers, and WMD capabilities. This approach assumed
that the regular Iraqi army would prove unreliable, and could even join opposition
forces once it is clear that defeat is imminent. To encourage this, significant emphasis
would be placed on an intensive psychological warfare or “psyops” campaign to
undermine the morale of Iraqi soldiers and unit commanders, persuading them of the
hopelessness of resistance.2
While having the advantage of not requiring large staging areas (though some
regional air basing would be required) or months to prepare, this was generally
considered the riskiest approach. The weakness of Iraqi opposition military forces
and their competing political agendas place their effectiveness in question, and
predicting the behavior of regular Iraqi Army units under attack is problematic. This
option also did not address the possibility of stiff resistance by Republican Guard
units in the environs of Baghdad, nor the troop requirements of a post-conflict
occupation.
This “lite” option stood in contrast to the operations plan originally offered by
U.S. Central Command. This option, often called the “Franks Plan”, after Army Gen.
Tommy Franks, the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) commander who first
briefed it to the President, calls for a large-scale ground force invasion. News
reports initially indicated, however, that this “heavy” approach did not receive the
support of the DOD civilian leadership or White House advisors. Questions over the
reliability of the regional support that would be necessary for staging areas and the
length of time required for deployment were the major concerns.3 However, the
White House rejection of the “Franks Plan” came prior to the decision to take the Iraq
issue to the United Nations Security Council. When it became clear that Security
Council deliberations and the re-introduction of U.N. inspectors to Iraq could delay
the possibility of military action for several months, it was apparently decided that
this interlude would allow time both to negotiate regional cooperation and to deploy
more substantial forces to the Persian Gulf region, and military operations today
appear to adhere closer to CENTCOM’s original recommendations. As the ground
force offensive has slowed, however, there was increasing criticism of DOD’s
civilian leadership for not permitting the deployment of even more ground forces
prior to onset of operations.4
2 “Timing, Tactics on Iraq War Disputed; Top Bush Officials Criticize Generals'
Conventional Views “, Washington Post, August 1, 2002. p. 1
3 “The Iraq Build-up, II”, National Journal, October 5, 2002. p. 2866.
4 “Rumsfeld’s Role as War Strategist Under Scrutiny”, Reuters, March 30, 2003.

---

CRS-3
Combat Operations Prior to May 1, 2003
Offensive operations combined an air offensive and simultaneous ground
offensive, in contrast to the 1991 campaign which saw weeks of air attacks to soften
Iraqi resistance. U.S. Central Command’s operational plan employed a smaller
ground force than the 1991 Desert Storm operation, reflecting an assessment that
Iraqi armed forces were neither as numerous nor as capable as they were ten years
ago, and that U.S. forces are significantly more capable. This option depended upon
the continued cooperation of regional nations for substantial staging areas/airbases
and required months to deploy the necessary forces.
Though press reports differed somewhat, reportedly over 340,000 U.S. military
personnel were in the Persian Gulf region (ashore and afloat). The 3rd Mechanized
Infantry Division, the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) , the 7th Cavalry
Regiment, and the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force formed the bulk of the U.S. ground
offensive. The 4th Mechanized Infantry Division arrived late in theater. Ships bearing
its equipment remained off Turkey for weeks awaiting the outcome of negotiations
to permit establishing a northern front attacking from Turkey, and then were diverted
to the Persian Gulf when these negotiations fell through. The U.S. Navy deployed
five of its twelve naval aircraft carrier battle groups. The Air Force had
approximately 15 air wings operating in the region. Strategic bombers operated from
the British airbase at Diego Garcia, and airbases in the Middle East, Europe, and the
United States. The United Kingdom deployed over 47,000 personnel, including a
naval task force, an armored task force, a Royal Marine brigade, a parachute brigade,
a Special Air Service regiment, and a Special Boat Squadron. The majority of these
British forces were engaged in southeastern Iraq, securing the Umm Qasr and Basra
region. Australia deployed approximately 2,000 personnel, primarily special
operations personnel, and one F/A-18 attack aircraft squadron. Poland had 200
special operations troops around Basra. (For more detailed information, see CRS
Report RL31763, Iraq: A Summary of U.S. Forces and CRS Report RL31843, Iraq
Foreign Stances Toward U.S. Policy)
The invasion of Iraq was expected to begin with a 72-96 hour air offensive to
paralyze the Iraqi command structure, and demoralize Iraqi resistance across the
military-civilian spectrum. Intelligence reports indicating the possibility of striking
Saddam Hussein and his immediate circle led to an acceleration of the operations
plan, and an almost simultaneously onset of air and ground offensive operations.
CENTCOM air commanders stressed that significant efforts would be made to
minimize civilian casualties and damage to Iraqi physical infrastructure, and they
were mostly successful in this effort.
With twenty-five days of offensive operations, coalition forces had relative
control of all major Iraqi cities, including Baghdad, Basra, Mosul, Kirkuk, and Tikrit.
CENTCOM pursued a strategy of rapid advance, by-passing urban centers when
possible, pausing only when encountering Iraqi resistance. CENTCOM spokesmen
characterized Iraqi resistance as sporadic and uncohesive. Oilfields and port facilities
throughout Iraq were secured, as have all major air bases in Iraq. Though a few oil
wells were set afire, all were quelled, and there has been no widespread
environmental sabotage. Allied forces did not encounter the mass surrenders
characteristic of the 1991 campaign, however DOD reported that over 6,000 Iraqis

---

CRS-4
were taken prisoner, and believes that many more have simply deserted their
positions. Iraqi paramilitary forces, particularly the Saddam Fedayeen, engaged in
guerrilla-style attacks from urban centers in the rear areas, but did not inflict
significant damage. Nevertheless, greater attention than anticipated had to be paid
to protecting extended supply lines, and securing these urban centers, particularly
around an-Nasiriyah and Najaf, and in the British sector around Umm Qasr and
Basra.
Though CENTCOM commanders expressed confidence in the adequacy of
their force structure in theater, the Iraqi attacks in rear areas and the length of the
supply lines to forward units led some to suggest that insufficient ground forces were
in place to continue the offensive while securing rear areas and ensuring
uninterrupted logistical support. These critics faulted DOD civilian leadership for
overestimating the effectiveness of a precision air offensive and curtailing the
deployment of more ground troops, suggesting that an ideological commitment to
smaller ground forces and greater reliance on high-tech weaponry had dominated
military planning.5 With collapse of the Iraqi regime, however, this criticism muted.
Without permission to use Turkish territory, CENTCOM was unable to carry
out an early ground offensive in Northern Iraq. However, Special operations forces,
the 173rd Airborne Brigade, and air-lifted U.S. armor, operating with Kurdish
irregulars seized Mosul, Kirkuk, and Tikrit. Cooperation with Kurdish militias in the
north has been excellent. Even a mistaken airstrike against a allied Kurdish vehicle
convoy, killing or wounding senior Kurdish leaders, did not adversely affect this
cooperation. Potentially complicating the situation in the north, was a Turkish desire
to possibly augment the 8,000+ troops it has had stationed in Kurdish-held territory
in order to block possible Kurdish refugees and influence the accommodations made
to the Kurds in a post-conflict Iraq. Turkish miliary spokesmen have indicated that
no additional Turkish forces will move into Iraq at this time. The U.S. has assured
Turkey that the Kurdish forces involved in seizing Mosul and Kirkuk would be
withdrawn and replaced with U.S. troops.
Post-May, 2003 Operations
With the onset of widespread looting and the breakdown of public services
(electricity, water) in the cities, coalition forces were confronted with the challenges
of restoring public order and infrastructure even before combat operations ceased.
Though U.S. forces have come under criticism for not having done more to prevent
looting, the transition from combat to police roles is a difficult one, particularly when
an important objective is winning popular support. Harsh reactions risk alienation
of the population, yet inaction reduces confidence in the ability of coalition forces to
maintain order. Indicative of the seriousness of the civil disorder, U.S. officials in
Iraq authorized U.S. troops to shoot looters if necessary.6 In addition to looting,
5 “Questions Raised About Invasion Force”, Washington Post, March 25, 2003. p. 17
6 “U.S. Military Chief Vows More Troops to Quell Iraqi Looting”, New York Times, May
(continued...)

---

CRS-5
coalition forces also have to ensure that factional violence and does not derail
stabilization efforts. CENTCOM headquarters intends to “greatly increase” the
number of troops patrolling Iraqi cities.7 U.S. forces, however, are spread relatively
thin throughout Iraq, it is clear that additional troops in theater could improve the
pace and breadth of stabilization operations. The question of how many military
personnel will be required for stabilization operations has been a subject of
controversy since well before the onset of operations. This controversy reflects the
great difficulty in predicting how the political and military situation in post-war Iraq
will evolve, and how long a military presence would be required before an acceptable
and stable Iraqi government can be established.
The attitude of the Iraq population is the key element, and will depend upon a
variety of factors, such as the nature and extent of war damage, the demands of ethnic
and religious minorities, and the speed with which a credible government can be
established. A short-term post-war occupation was a possibility, however given that
so far the Iraqi population has not demonstrated an unqualified acceptance of
coalition forces, it is now considered likely that a continued deployment of
substantial military ground forces will be necessary for several years. For
comparison, in the relatively benign environment and considerably smaller areas of
Bosnia and Kosovo, after eight years of peacekeeping operations, NATO still
maintains a deployment of about 60,000 troops.
Coalition troops continue to come under sporadic attacks, primarily in central
Iraq. Though casualties have been relatively light, the potential for attack affects the
pace and mode of reconstruction and stabilization operations. Troops must assume
a potentially hostile environment, yet avoid incidents or actions that would erode
popular support. In addition to attacks, there have been attacks on infrastructure
targets (e.g., oil/gas pipelines, electrical power stations and lines) hindering efforts
to restore basic services to the civilian population. Attacks on oil pipelines also
threatens to further delay the use of Iraqi oil exports to fund reconstruction programs.
Though it is virtually impossible to fully protect these pipelines from sabotage, it is
hoped that ongoing efforts to recruit a civilian Iraqi militia will provide coalition
troops some assistance in this mission.
Though initially denying that these attacks were the work of an organized
resistance movement, DOD officials have now acknowledged there is at least
regional organization, with apparently ample supplies of arms and funding.
CENTCOM commander Gen. Abizaid, has characterized the Iraqi resistance as “ a
classical guerrilla-type campaign.8 DOD believes the resistance to comprise
primarily former regime supporters such Baathist party members, Republican Guard
soldiers, and paramilitary personnel. However, others are concerned that growing
resentment of coalition forces and resurgent Iraq nationalism, independent of
6 (...continued)
15. p. 21.
7 Ibid.
8 DOD New Briefing July 16, 2003.

---

CRS-6
connections with the earlier regime, may be contributing to the resistance.9 There are
also reports of bounties of from $1,000-$5,000 being offered for killing coalition
troops, taking advantage of the severe economic dislocation which has many Iraqis
with no regular income. Captured documents have given some indication that
preparations for a resistance movement were made prior to the war, including the
caching of arms and money.
In response to these attacks on coalition forces, CENTCOM has undertaken
operations to locate and detain suspected resistance members. These operations have
resulted in the detention of hundreds of individuals, the capture of some high-ranking
officials of the former regime, the seizure of very substantial caches of weapons and
money, and the deaths of Saddam Hussein’s sons.
The continued Iraqi armed resistance has reinvigorated the debate over whether
the United States has committed sufficient troops to the Iraqi operation. The rapid
success of the combat offensive quieted critics who argued that a substantially larger
ground force should have been deployed, but the question is now being raised
whether a more robust military presence in Iraq is needed to bring stability. Secretary
Rumsfeld and out-going CENTCOM commander Gen. Franks both maintained in
congressional testimony that the number of troops in Iraq is adequate for the mission,
though CENTCOM is currently reviewing troop requirements under its new
commander, Gen. Abizaid. If it is decided that additional forces are required, this
will present a challenge to the Army. Of its 33 combat brigades, 16 are already
deployed in Iraq, and but three of the remaining brigades have assigned missions
(e.g., Afghanistan, the Balkans, Korea) or are in strategic reserve. Thus, even at
current levels, troop rotation has proven problematic. This was demonstrated when
two brigades of the 3rd Infantry Division had their return to the United States
postponed for the second time until an indefinite date in the Fall. DOD has now
prepared a rotation plan for duty tours in Iraq, which calls for units to spend a one-
year tour of duty in the region. It will, however, require greater use of National
Guard and Reserve units, and may increase the participation of U.S. Marine units in
stabilization operations.
The possible need for additional troops in Iraq has rekindled the debate over
whether the U.S. Army personnel end-strength should be increased. Currently, the
congressionally mandated end-strength is 480,000. In reporting the FY2004 Defense
Authorization Act, the House Armed Services Committee noted the “inadequacy of
military manpower, especially active component end-strength, as indicated in the
need to activate 33,000 reservists annually”. The report further noted that the Army
had estimated its manpower shortfall to be between 41,000 to 123,000 personnel.
DOD’s civilian leadership intends to address shortfalls in specific functions by
moving personnel from lower priority assignments, and by increasing the use of
civilians in some functional areas to free up active duty military personnel. The
newly confirmed Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Schoomaker, has indicated that a further
review of Army personnel requirements is underway, and will provide
recommendations in the context of the FY2005 DOD budget request.
9 “Iraqis Skeptical Over U.S. Explanation for Continuing Attacks on Coalition”, London
Financial Times, August 4, 2003. p. 5.

---

CRS-7
A key element in the Defense Department’s consideration of troop requirements
in Iraq is the willingness of other nations to contribute ground forces. DOD’s most
recent statement, on July 15, reports that there are 13,273 non-US troops in Iraq from
19 countries, and that an additional 14 countries are committed to deploy another
12,000 troops during the course of the year.
DOD has not, however, released an official and current list of these nations and
their contributions. A range of press reports, based upon unattributed DOD officials,
have indicated that those nations contributing over a 1,000 troops include: Poland,
Spain, The Netherlands, Italy, and the Ukraine. Poland will assume command of an
international division that will assume responsibility for southwestern Iraq, and Spain
is to command an hispanic division which will include troops from Central American
and Caribbean countries. Nations that have been reported in the press to be
contributing troops include: Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the
Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia (Gruzia) Honduras, Hungary,
Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Norway,
Portugal, Romania, and Slovakia.
Costs
Predicting the cost of military operations is a task that DOD did not undertake
prior to the peace-keeping deployments to the Balkans, and it remains a highly
conjectural exercise. Methodologies tend to be relatively crude and based upon
historical experience, i.e., “the last war”. Though initially Secretary Rumsfeld
expressed his opinion that “it is unknowable what a war or conflict like that would
cost”, in early 2003 he estimated a cost of under $50 billion. Other DOD officials
anticipated an $80-85 billion cost, assuming a 6-month follow-on occupation.10
On March 25, 2003 The Administration submitted a $74.7 billion FY2003
supplemental appropriations request, of which $62.6 billion was for Department of
Defense expenses related to the war in Iraq through September 2003. Specifically,
this request included funds for preparatory costs incurred, costs associated with
military operations, replenishing munitions, and funds to support other nations. The
Administration stated that this supplemental request was “built on the key
assumption that U.S. military action in Iraq will be swift and decisive.”11 Both the
House and Senate approved the legislative conference report to H.R. 1559 (H.Rept.
108-76), which provided $62.37 billion. DOD now estimates that Iraq military
operations are costing $3.9 billion a month, but has declined to offer any long-term
estimates of funding requirements.
Prior to the war, a number of cost estimates were put forward. Michael
O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, pegged a 250,000-strong invasion at between
$40-$50 billion with a follow-up occupation costing $10-$20 billion a year. Former
10 “War Could Cost More Than $40 billion”, Knight-Ridder Wire Service, September 18,
2002; “Iraq War Costs Could Soar, Pentagon Says”, Los Angeles Times, February 26, 2003.
11 Office of Management and Budget, Press Release No. 2003-6, March 25, 2002.

---

CRS-8
White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay estimated the high limit on the
cost to be 1-2% of GNP, or about $100-$200 billion. Mitch Daniels, Director of the
Office of Management and Budget subsequently discounted this estimate as “very,
very high”, and stated that the costs would be between$50-$60 billion, though no
specific supporting figures were provided for the estimate.12 In its most recent cost
estimate, the Congressional Budget Office put deployment costs at about $14 billion,
with combat operations costing $10 billion for the first month and $8 billion a month
thereafter. CBO cited the cost of returning combat forces to home bases at $9 billion,
and the costs of continued occupation of Iraq to run between $1-4 billion.13
The American Academy of Arts and Sciences has published a much more wide-
ranging report which covers the possibility of an extended occupation, in addition to
potential long-term economic consequences and concludes that potential costs could
range from $99 billion to $1.2 trillion.14 For comparison, the cost to the United
States of the Persian Gulf War in 1990-91 was approximately $60 billion, and almost
all of this cost was offset by international financial contributions.15
12 Bumiller, Elisabeth. “Budget Director Lowers Estimate of Cost of War”, New York
Times, December 31, 2002. p. 1
13 Congressional Budget Office. An Analysis of the President’s Budgetary Proposals for
Fiscal Year 2004: An Interim Report. March 2003
14 War with Iraq: Costs, Consequences, and Alternatives. American Academy of Arts and
Sciences. Dec. 2002. [http://www.amacad.org/publications/monographs/Iraq_Press.pdf]
15 Persian Gulf War: U.S. Costs and Allied Financial Contributions. CRS Issue Brief
IB91019. September 1992.

---