Order Code RL31339
Iraq: Post-Saddam Governance and Security
Updated January 10, 2008
Kenneth Katzman
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

---

Iraq: Post-Saddam Governance and Security
Summary
Operation Iraqi Freedom overthrew Saddam Hussein’s regime, but much of Iraq
became violent because of Sunni Arab resentment and a related insurgency, resulting
Sunni-Shiite sectarian violence, competition among Shiite groups, and the failure of
Iraq’s government to equitably administer justice or deliver services. U.S. casualties
and financial costs — without clear movement toward national political
reconciliation among Iraq’s major communities — stimulated debate within the
United States over whether the initial goals of the intervention - a stable, democratic
Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terrorism – could be achieved, and at what
cost.
The Administration is claiming relative success in reversing the deterioration
in security in 2006, attributing the gains to the “troop surge” strategy announced by
President Bush on January 10, 2007 (“New Way Forward”). Some commanders say
that violence has now dropped to levels not seen since 2004. The centerpiece of the
strategy was the deployment of an additional 28,500 U.S. forces (“troop surge”) to
help stabilize Baghdad and to take advantage of growing tribal support for U.S.
policy in Anbar Province. However, critics say that the strategy was primarily
intended to promote Iraqi government action on a series of key reconciliation
initiatives that are viewed as “benchmarks” of political progress. According to
congressionally mandated White House reports in July and September 2007, as well
as subsequent events, overall national political reconciliation has not progressed
substantially, and U.S. officials are looking for more modest signs of political
“accommodation”rather than broad, sweeping reconciliation.
The Administration believes that the current U.S. strategy holds out the prospect
of producing what some experts sustainable stability — a central government able
to defend itself with progressively reduced U.S. help. However, some in Congress
believe that because of a lack of Iraqi political reconciliation, the United States
should begin winding down U.S. combat involvement in Iraq, whether or not a
unified central government is fully stabilized. Partly because there is a perception
that the troop surge strategy is reducing violence, there has not been the needed level
of support in Congress to mandate a troop withdrawal, a timetable for withdrawal,
or a significant change in U.S. strategy. Some see the September 2007 passage of a
Senate amendment (in the conference report on a defense authorization act, H.R.
1585) supporting a more decentralized, “federal” Iraq as outgrowth of efforts to build
a bipartisan consensus for an alternative Iraq strategy.
This report is updated regularly. See also CRS Report RS21968, Iraq:
Government Formation and Benchmarks, by Kenneth Katzman; CRS Report
RL31833, Iraq: Reconstruction Assistance, by Curt Tarnoff; CRS Report RL31701,
Iraq: U.S. Military Operations, by Steve Bowman; and CRS Report RL33793, Iraq:
Regional Perspectives and U.S. Policy, coordinated by Christopher Blanchard.

---

Contents
Policy in the 1990s Emphasized Containment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
The Clinton Administration and Major Anti-Saddam Factions . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Post-September 11, 2001: Regime Change and War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Post-Saddam Transition and Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Early Transition Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Occupation Period/Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) . . . . . . . . 10
Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Sovereignty Handover/Interim (Allawi) Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
U.N. Involvement/Coalition Military Mandate/Status of U.S.
Forces/Permanent Basing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
U.N. Involvement in Governance Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Elections in 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Maliki Government, Political Reconciliation, and “Benchmarks” . . . . . . . 16
Iraqi Pledges and Status of Accomplishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Regional and International Diplomatic Efforts to Promote Iraq
Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Human Rights and Rule of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Economic Reconstruction and U.S. Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Oil Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Lifting U.S. Sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Debt Relief/WTO Membership/IMF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Security Challenges and Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Sunni Arab-Led Insurgency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2007 Trends and Al Qaeda in Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Sectarian Violence and Shiite Militias/Civil War? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Shiite-on-Shiite Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Iranian Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Iraq’s Northern Border . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
U.S. Stabilization Strategy and “Troop Surge” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
“Clear, Hold, and Build” Strategy/Provincial Reconstruction Teams . 37
“Troop Surge”/Baghdad Security Plan/“Fardh Qanoon” . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Surge Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Building Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
ISF Weaponry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Coalition-Building and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Iraq Study Group Report, Legislative Proposals, and Other Options . . . . . . . . . 48
Iraq Study Group Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Further Options: Altering Troop Levels or Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Further Troop Increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Immediate and Complete Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Withdrawal Timetable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Troop Mission Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

---

Planning for Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Requiring More Time Between Deployments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Stepped Up International and Regional Diplomacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Political Reconciliation, Reorganization, and “Federalism” . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Reorganize the Existing Power Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Support the Dominant Factions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
“Federalism”/Decentralization/Break-Up Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
“Coup” or “Strongman” Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Economic Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
List of Figures
Figure 1. Map of Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
List of Tables
Table 1. Iraq Basic Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 2. Selected Key Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table 3. Key Security/Violence Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table 4. ISF Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 5. Ministry of Defense Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table 6. Ministry of Interior Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Table 7. Major Factions in Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Table 8. Iraq’s Government
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Table 9. U.S. Aid (ESF) to Iraq’s Saddam-Era Opposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

---

Iraq: Post-Saddam Governance
and Security
Iraq has not previously had experience with a democratic form of government,
although parliamentary elections were held during the period of British rule under a
League of Nations mandate (from 1920 until Iraq’s independence in 1932), and the
monarchy of the Sunni Muslim Hashemite dynasty (1921-1958). The territory that
is now Iraq was formed from three provinces of the Ottoman empire after British
forces defeated the Ottomans in World War I and took control of the territory in
1918. Britain had tried to take Iraq from the Ottomans earlier in World War I but
were defeated at Al Kut in 1916. Britain’s presence in Iraq, which relied on Sunni
Muslim Iraqis (as did the Ottoman administration), ran into repeated resistance,
facing a major Shiite-led revolt in 1920 and a major anti-British uprising in 1941,
during World War II. Iraq’s first Hashemite king was Faysal bin Hussein, son of
Sharif Hussein of Mecca who, advised by British officer T.E Lawrence (“Lawrence
of Arabia”), led the Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire during World War I.
Faysal ruled Iraq as King Faysal I and was succeeded by his son, Ghazi, who was
killed in a car accident in 1939. Ghazi was succeeded by his young son, Faysal II.
A major figure under the British mandate and the monarchy was Nuri As-Said,
a pro-British, pro-Hashemite Sunni Muslim who served as prime minister 14 times
during 1930-1958. Faysal II, with the help of his pro-British Prime Minister Nuri al-
Sa’id who had also served under his predecessors, ruled until the military coup of
Abd al-Karim al-Qasim on July 14, 1958. Qasim was ousted in February 1963 by a
Baath Party-military alliance. Since that same year, the Baath Party has ruled in Syria,
although there was rivalry between the Syrian and Iraqi Baath regimes during
Saddam’s rule. The Baath Party was founded in the 1940s by Lebanese Christian
philosopher Michel Aflaq as a socialist, pan-Arab movement, the aim of which was
to reduce religious and sectarian schisms among Arabs.
One of the Baath Party’s allies in the February 1963 coup was Abd al-Salam al-
Arif. In November 1963, Arif purged the Baath, including Prime Minister (and
military officer) Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr, and instituted direct military rule. Arif was
killed in a helicopter crash in 1966 and was replaced by his elder brother, Abd al-
Rahim al-Arif. Following the Baath seizure of power in 1968, Bakr returned to
government as President of Iraq and Saddam Hussein, a civilian, became the regime’s
number two — Vice Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council. In that
position, Saddam developed overlapping security services to monitor loyalty among
the population and within Iraq’s institutions, including the military. On July 17, 1979,
the aging al-Bakr resigned at Saddam’s urging, and Saddam became President of
Iraq. Under Saddam, secular Shiites held high party positions, but Sunnis mostly
from Saddam’s home town of Tikrit, dominated the highest positions. Saddam’s
regime repressed Iraq’s Shiites after the February 1979 Islamic revolution in
neighboring Iran partly because Iraq feared that Iraqi Shiite Islamist movements,
emboldened by Iran, would try to establish an Iranian-style Islamic republic of Iraq.

---

CRS-2
Table 1. Iraq Basic Facts
Population
27.5 million
Demographics
Shiite Arab - 60%; Kurd - 19% Sunni Arab - 14%; Christian
and others - 6; Sunni Turkomen - 1%. Christians are: 600,000 -
1 million total (incl. Chaldean, Assyrian, Syriac, Armenian, and
Protestant). Others are: Yazidis (600,000); Shabak (200,000);
Sabean-Mandaean (6,000).
Comparative Area
Slightly more than twice the size of Idaho
GDP
$87.9 billion (purchasing power parity)
GDP per capita
$2,000 per year
GDP Growth Rate
6.3% in 2007
2008 Government
Under debate in Iraqi parliament. $48 billion expected
Budget
expenses, including $13 billion for capital investment, and $9
billion for Iraqi Security Forces costs
Reserves of
$20 billion (most of which held in U.S. banks)
Foreign Currency
and Gold
Unemployment
17% according to Central Statistics Office of Iraq
Rate
Inflation Rate
20% 2007 (compared to 53% in 2006)
U.S. Oil Imports
About 700,000 barrels per day
(other Iraqi oil - related capabilities appear in a table later in
this paper)
Food Ration
Rations cut by 50% in December 2007 because $7.2 billion in
System
Iraqi funds requested not approved by Iraqi government.
Ration system utilized by 60% of the population.
Source: CIA World Factbook, updated June 2007; State Department International Religions
Freedom Report, September 2007.
Policy in the 1990s Emphasized Containment
Prior to the January 16, 1991, launch of Operation Desert Storm to reverse
Iraq’s August 1990 invasion of Kuwait, President George H.W. Bush called on the
Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam. That Administration decided not to try to do so
militarily because (1) the United Nations had approved only liberating Kuwait; (2)
Arab states in the coalition opposed an advance to Baghdad; and (3) the
Administration feared becoming bogged down in a high-casualty occupation.1 Within
1 Bush, George H.W., and Brent Scowcroft. A World Transformed. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
(continued...)

---

CRS-3
days of the war’s end (February 28, 1991), Shiite Muslims in southern Iraq and Kurds
in northern Iraq, emboldened by the regime’s defeat and the hope of U.S. support,
rebelled. The Shiite revolt nearly reached Baghdad, but the mostly Sunni Muslim
Republican Guard forces were pulled back into Iraq before engaging U.S. forces and
were intact to suppress the rebellion. Many Iraqi Shiites blamed the United States for
not intervening on their behalf. Iraq’s Kurds, benefitting from a U.S.-led “no fly
zone” set up in April 1991, drove Iraqi troops out of much of northern Iraq and
remained autonomous thereafter.
The thrust of subsequent U.S. policy was containment through U.N. Security
Council-authorized weapons inspections, an international economic embargo, and
U.S.-led enforcement of no fly zones over both northern and southern Iraq.2 President
George H.W. Bush reportedly supported efforts to promote a military coup as a way
of producing a favorable government without fragmenting Iraq. After a reported July
1992 coup failed, he shifted to supporting the Kurdish, Shiite, and other
oppositionists that were coalescing into a broad movement,3 but the United States did
not help them militarily.
The Clinton Administration and Major Anti-Saddam Factions
During the Clinton Administration, the United States built ties to and
progressively increased support for several Shiite and Kurdish factions, all of which
have provided major figures in post-Saddam politics while also fielding militias. The
Shiite militias have been locked in sectarian violence against Iraq’s Sunnis who
supported Saddam’s regime and who the Shiites therefore perceive as responsible for
their years of repression at the hands of Saddam. (Table 6 on Iraq’s various factions
is at the end of this paper). During 1997-1998, Iraq’s obstructions of U.N. weapons
of mass destruction (WMD) inspections led to growing congressional calls to
overthrow Saddam, starting with a FY1998 appropriation (P.L. 105-174).
The sentiment was expressed strongly in the “Iraq Liberation Act” (ILA, P.L.
105-338, October 31, 1998). Signed by President Clinton despite doubts about
opposition capabilities, it was viewed as an expression of congressional support for
the concept of promoting an Iraqi insurgency with U.S. air power. That law, which
states that it should be the policy of the United States to “support efforts” to remove
the regime headed by Saddam Hussein, is often cited as evidence of a bipartisan
consensus that Saddam should be toppled. It gave the President authority to provide
up to $97 million worth of defense articles and services, as well as $2 million in
broadcasting funds, to opposition groups designated by the Administration. In mid-
November 1998, President Clinton publicly articulated that regime change was a
1 (...continued)
1998.
2 Discussed further in CRS Report RL32379, Iraq: Former Regime Weapons Programs,
Human Rights Violations, and U.S. Policy, by Kenneth Katzman.
3 Congress more than doubled the budget for covert support to the opposition groups to
about $40 million for FY1993, from previous levels of $15 million - $20 million. Sciolino,
Elaine. “Greater U.S. Effort Backed To Oust Iraqi.” New York Times, June 2, 1992.

---

CRS-4
component of U.S. policy toward Iraq. Section 8 of the ILA stated that the act should
not be construed as authorizing the use of U.S. military force to achieve regime
change. The ILA did not specifically terminate after Saddam Hussein was removed
from power; Section 7 provided for post-Saddam “transition assistance” to Iraqi
groups with “democratic goals.”
The signing of the ILA coincided with new crises over Iraq’s obstructions of
U.N. weapons inspections. On December 15, 1998, U.N. inspectors were withdrawn,
and a three-day U.S. and British bombing campaign against suspected Iraqi WMD
facilities followed (Operation Desert Fox, December 16-19, 1998). On February 5,
1999, President Clinton designated seven groups eligible to receive U.S. military
assistance under the ILA (P.D. 99-13): INC; INA; SICI; KDP; PUK; the Islamic
Movement of Iraqi Kurdistan (IMIK);4 and the Movement for Constitutional
Monarchy (MCM). In May 1999, the Clinton Administration provided $5 million
worth of training and “non-lethal” defense articles under the ILA to about 150
oppositionists in Defense Department-run training (Hurlburt Air Base) on
administering post-Saddam Iraq. The Administration judged the opposition
insufficiently capable to merit combat training or weapons; the trainees did not
deploy in Operation Iraqi Freedom or into the Free Iraqi Forces that deployed to Iraq.
! Secular Groups: Iraqi National Congress (INC) and Iraq
National Accord (INA). In 1992, the two main Kurdish parties and
several Shiite Islamist groups coalesced into the “Iraqi National
Congress (INC)” on a platform of human rights, democracy,
pluralism, and “federalism” (Kurdish autonomy). However, many
observers doubted its commitment to democracy, because most of
its groups had authoritarian leaderships. The INC’s Executive
Committee selected Ahmad Chalabi, a secular Shiite Muslim, to run
the INC on a daily basis. (A table on U.S. appropriations for the Iraqi
opposition, including the INC, is an appendix).5
! Another secular group, the Iraq National Accord (INA), was
founded after Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, was supported
initially by Saudi Arabia but reportedly later earned the patronage of
the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).6 It is led by Dr. Iyad al-
Allawi. The INA enjoyed Clinton Administration support in 1996
after squabbling among other opposition groups reduced their
4 Because of its role in the eventual formation of the radical Ansar al-Islam group, the IMIK
did not receive U.S. funds after 2001, although it was not formally de-listed.
5 Chalabi’s father was president of the Senate in the monarchy that was overthrown in the
1958 military coup, and the family fled to Jordan. He taught math at the American
University of Beirut in 1977 and, in 1978, he founded the Petra Bank in Jordan. He later ran
afoul of Jordanian authorities on charges of embezzlement and he left Jordan, possibly with
some help from members of Jordan’s royal family, in 1989. In April 1992, he was convicted
in absentia of embezzling $70 million from the bank and sentenced to 22 years in prison.
The Jordanian government subsequently repaid depositors a total of $400 million.
6 Brinkley, Joel. “Ex-CIA Aides Say Iraq Leader Helped Agency in 90’s Attacks,” New York
Times, June 9, 2004.

---

CRS-5
viability,7 but the INA was penetrated by Iraq’s intelligence services,
which arrested or executed over 100 INA activists in June 1996. In
August 1996, Baghdad launched a military incursion into northern
Iraq, at the invitation of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, to help it
capture Irbil from the rival Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. The
incursion enabled Baghdad to rout INC and INA agents in the north.
! The Kurds,8 who are mostly Sunni Muslims but are not Arabs, are
probably the most pro-U.S. of all major groups. Historically fearful
of persecution by the Arab majority, the Kurds, to the chagrin of
Turkey, are focused on expanding the high degree of autonomy they
enjoy in their three-province “region,” which is run by a Kurdistan
Regional Government (KRG). Both major Kurdish factions — the
Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) led by Jalal Talabani, and the
Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) led by Masud Barzani — are
participating in Iraqi politics, but the PUK more so.
! Shiite Islamists: Ayatollah Sistani, ISCI, Da’wa, and Sadr
Factions. Shiite Islamist organizations have become dominant in
post-Saddam politics; Shiites constitute about 60% of the population
but were under-represented in all pre-2003 governments and
suffered significant repression under Saddam’s regime. Several
Shiite Islamist factions cooperated with the U.S. regime change
efforts of the 1990s, but others did not. The undisputed Shiite
religious leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, remained in Iraq but
adopted a low profile during Saddam’s regime, and had no known
contact with the United States. As the “marja-e-taqlid” (source of
emulation) and the most senior of the four Shiite clerics that lead the
Najaf-based “Hawza al-Ilmiyah” (a grouping of Shiite seminaries).9
About 87 years old, Sistani was born in Iran and studied in Qom,
Iran, before relocating to Najaf at the age of 21. His mentor, was
Ayatollah Abol Qasem Musavi-Khoi, was head of the Hawza until
his death in 1992. Like Khoi, Sistani is a “quietist” — generally
opposing a direct political role for clerics, but he believes in clerical
supervision of political leaders.10
! Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) and the Da’wa Party.
These two groups are constrained mainstream Shiite Islamist groups
7 An account of this shift in U.S. strategy is essayed in Hoagland, Jim. “How CIA’s Secret
War On Saddam Collapsed,” Washington Post, June 26, 1997.
8 For an extended discussion, see CRS Report RS22079, The Kurds in Post-Saddam Iraq,
by Kenneth Katzman and Alfred B. Prados.
9 The three other senior Hawza clerics are Ayatollah Mohammad Sa’id al-Hakim (uncle of
the leader of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim);
Ayatollah Mohammad Isaac Fayadh, who is of Afghan origin; and Ayatollah Bashir al-
Najafi, of Pakistani origin.
10 For information on Sistani’s views, see his website at [http://www.sistani.org].

---

CRS-6
and pro-Iranian. During the exile of the late founder of the Iranian
Islamic revolution Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s in Najaf, Iraq
(1964-1978), he was hosted by Grand Ayatollah Muhsin al-Hakim,
then head of the Hawza, and the father of the Hakim brothers
(including current leader Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim). The Hakim
brothers were members of the Da’wa (Islamic Call) Party when
they were driven into exile by Saddam’s crackdown in 1980, who
accused Shiite Islamists of trying to overthrow him, a crackdown
that coincided with the start of the war with Iran in September 1980.
Under Iranian patronage, the Hakims broke with Da’wa and founded
ISCI in 1982. Although it was a member of the INC in the early
1990s, ISCI refused to accept U.S. funds, although it had contacts
with U.S. officials. ISCI (in May 2007 it changed its name from
the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution of Iraq, SCIRI), is
considered the most well organized party within the “United Iraqi
Alliance” (UIA) of Shiite political groupings and the most pro-
Iranian. ISCI says it does not seek to establish an Iranian-style
Islamic republic, but ISCI reportedly receives substantial amounts of
financial and other aid from Iran.
! The Da’wa Party, which did not directly join the U.S.-led effort to
overthrow Saddam Hussein during the 1990s, is both an ally and
sometime rival of ISCI. The leader of its main faction in Iraq was
Ibrahim al-Jafari, a Da’wa activist since 1966 who fled to Iran in
1980 to escape Saddam’s crackdown, later going to London. He was
transitional Prime Minister during April 2005-April 2006. His
successor as Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, was named Da’wa
leader in early July 2007.
! The faction of an “insurgent” (non-mainstream) Shiite Islamist
leader, Moqtada Al Sadr, is emerging as a major factor in Iraqi
politics. This faction was underground in Iraq during Saddam’s rule,
led by Moqtada’s father, Ayatollah Mohammad Sadiq Al Sadr, who
was killed by the regime in 1999. Moqtada, who took over
leadership of the faction after his father’s death, was initially viewed
as a young firebrand who lacked religious and political weight, but
the mainstream Shiite factions now deal with him because of his
large following among poor Shiites who identify with other
“oppressed Muslims” and who oppose virtually any U.S. presence
in the Middle East. He is increasingly perceived as clever and
capable — simultaneously participating in the political process to
avoid confrontation with the United States while denouncing the
“U.S. occupation.”

---

CRS-7
Post-September 11, 2001:
Regime Change and War
Several senior Bush Administration officials had long been advocates of a
regime change policy toward Iraq, but the difficulty of that strategy led the Bush
Administration initially to continue its predecessor’s containment policy.11 Some
accounts say that the Administration was planning, even prior to September 11, to
confront Iraq militarily, but President Bush has denied this. During its first year, the
Administration tried to prevent an asserted erosion of containment of Iraq by
achieving U.N. Security Council adoption (Resolution 1409, May 14, 2002) of a
“smart sanctions” plan. The plan relaxed U.N.-imposed restrictions on exports to
Iraq of purely civilian equipment12 in exchange for renewed international
commitment to enforce the U.N. ban on exports to Iraq of militarily useful goods.
Bush Administration policy on Iraq clearly became an active regime change
effort after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In President Bush’s State of
the Union message on January 29, 2002, given as major combat in the U.S.-led war
on the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was winding down, he characterized Iraq
as part of an “axis of evil” (with Iran and North Korea). Some U.S. officials,
particularly then-deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz, asserted that the United States
needed to respond to the September 11, 2001 attacks by “ending states,” such as
Iraq, that support terrorist groups. Vice President Cheney visited the Middle East
in March 2002 reportedly to consult regional countries about the possibility of
confronting Iraq militarily, although the Arab leaders opposed war with Iraq and
urged greater U.S. attention to the Arab-Israeli dispute.
Some accounts, including the books Plan of Attack and State of Denial by Bob
Woodward (published in April 2004 and September 2006, respectively), say that
then Secretary of State Powell and others were concerned about the potential
consequences of an invasion of Iraq, particularly the difficulties of building a
democracy after major hostilities ended. Press reports in May 2007 indicate that
warnings of such difficulties were issued by the CIA before the invasion. Other
accounts include reported memoranda (the “Downing Street Memo”) by British
intelligence officials (based on conversations with U.S. officials) saying that by mid-
2002 the Administration had already decided to go to war against Iraq and that it
sought to develop information about Iraq to support that judgment. President Bush
and then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair deny this. (On December 20, 2001, the
House passed H.J.Res. 75, by a vote of 392-12, calling Iraq’s refusal to readmit U.N.
weapons inspectors a “mounting threat” to the United States.)
The primary theme in the Bush Administration’s public case for the need to
confront Iraq was that Iraq posted a “grave and gathering” threat that should be
11 One account of Bush Administration internal debates on the strategy is found in Hersh,
Seymour. “The Debate Within,” The New Yorker, March 11, 2002.
12 For more information on this program, see CRS Report RL30472, Iraq: Oil For Food
Program, Illicit Trade, and Investigations, by Christopher Blanchard and Kenneth Katzman.

---

CRS-8
blunted before the threat became urgent. The basis of that assertion in U.S.
intelligence remains under debate.
! WMD Threat Perception. Senior U.S. officials, including President
Bush, particularly in an October 2002 speech in Cincinnati, asserted
the following about Iraq’s WMD: (1) that Iraq had worked to rebuild
its WMD programs in the nearly four years since U.N. weapons
inspectors left Iraq and had failed to comply with 16 U.N. previous
resolutions that demanded complete elimination of all of Iraq’s
WMD programs; (2) that Iraq had used chemical weapons against its
own people (the Kurds) and against Iraq’s neighbors (Iran), implying
that Iraq would not necessarily be deterred from using WMD against
the United States; and (3) that Iraq could transfer its WMD to
terrorists, particularly Al Qaeda, for use in potentially catastrophic
attacks in the United States. Critics noted that, under the U.S. threat
of retaliation, Iraq did not use WMD against U.S. troops in the 1991
Gulf war. A “comprehensive” September 2004 report of the Iraq
Survey Group, known as the “Duelfer report,”13 found no WMD
stockpiles or production but said that there was evidence that the
regime retained the intention to reconstitute WMD programs in the
future. The formal U.S.-led WMD search ended December 2004,14
although U.S. forces have found some chemical weapons left from
the Iran-Iraq war.15 UNMOVIC’s work was formally terminated by
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1762 (June 29, 2007).
! Links to Al Qaeda. Iraq was designated a state sponsor of terrorism
during 1979-1982 and was again so designated after its 1990
invasion of Kuwait. Although they did not assert that Saddam
Hussein’s regime was directly involved in the September 11 attacks,
senior U.S. officials asserted that Saddam’s regime was linked to Al
Qaeda, in part because of the presence of pro-Al Qaeda militant
leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in northern Iraq. Although this issue
is still debated, the report of the 9/11 Commission found no
evidence of a “collaborative operational linkage” between Iraq and
Al Qaeda.16 For more information, see CRS Report RL32217, Iraq
and Al Qaeda, by Kenneth Katzman.
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)
As major combat in Afghanistan wound down in mid-2002, the Administration
began ordering a force to Kuwait (the only Gulf country that agreed to host the major
13 Duelfer report text is at [http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/cia93004wmdrpt.html].
14 For analysis of the former regime’s WMD and other abuses, see CRS Report RL32379,
Iraq: Former Regime Weapons Programs, Human Rights Violations, and U.S. Policy, by
Kenneth Katzman.
15 Pincus, Walter. “Munitions Found in Iraq Renew Debate.” Washington Post, July 1, 2006.
16 9/11 Commission Report, p. 66.

---

CRS-9
invasion force) that, by early 2003, gave the President an option to invade Iraq. In
concert, the Administration tried to build up and broaden the Iraqi opposition and,
according to the Washington Post (June 16, 2002), authorizing stepped up covert
activities by the CIA and special operations forces against Saddam Hussein. In
August 2002, the State and Defense Departments jointly invited six major opposition
groups to Washington, D.C., and the Administration expanded its ties to several
groups composed primarily of ex-military officers. The Administration also began
training about 5,000 oppositionists to assist U.S. forces,17 although reportedly only
about 70 completed training at Taszar air base in Hungary, eventually serving as
translators during the war. The Administration blocked a move by the major factions
to declare a provisional government before entering Iraq, believing that doing so
would prevent the emergence of secular, pro-democracy groups.
In an effort to obtain U.N. backing for confronting Iraq — support that then
Secretary of State Powell reportedly argued was needed — President Bush addressed
the United Nations General Assembly (September 12, 2002), saying that the U.N.
Security Council should enforce its 16 existing WMD-related resolutions on Iraq.
The Administration then gave Iraq a “final opportunity” to comply with all applicable
Council resolutions by supporting Security Council Resolution 1441 (November 8,
2002), which gave the U.N. inspection body UNMOVIC (U.N. Monitoring,
Verification, and Inspection Commission) new powers of inspection. Iraq reluctantly
accepted it and WMD inspections resumed November 27, 2002. In January and
February 2003, UNMOVIC Director Hans Blix and International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) Director Mohammad al-Baradei briefed the Security Council on the
inspections, saying that Iraq failed to actively cooperate to clear up outstanding
questions, but that it had not denied access to sites and that Iraq might not have
retained any WMD.
During this period, the 107th Congress debated the costs and risks of an invasion.
It adopted H.J.Res. 114, authorizing the President to use military force to “defend the
national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq” and
“to enforce all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions against Iraq.” It passed the
House October 11, 2002 (296-133), and the Senate the following day (77-23). It was
signed October 16, 2002 (P.L. 107-243).
No U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing force was adopted.
Opponents of war, including France, Russia, China, and Germany, said the pre-war
WMD inspections showed that Iraq could be disarmed peacefully or contained
indefinitely, and At a March 16, 2003, summit meeting with the leaders of Britain,
Spain, and Bulgaria at the Azores, President Bush asserted that Iraq was not
complying with Resolution 1441 because it was not pro-actively revealing
information, and that diplomatic options had failed. The following day, President
Bush gave Saddam Hussein and his sons, Uday and Qusay, an ultimatum to leave
Iraq within 48 hours to avoid war. They refused and OIF began on March 19, 2003.
17 Deyoung, Karen, and Daniel Williams, “Training of Iraqi Exiles Authorized,” Washington
Post, October 19, 2002.

---

CRS-10
In the war, Iraq’s conventional military forces were overwhelmed by the
approximately 380,000-person U.S. and British-led 30-country18 “coalition of the
willing” force assembled, a substantial proportion of which remained afloat or in
supporting roles. Of the invasion force, Britain contributed 45,000, and U.S. troops
constituted the bulk of the remaining 335,000 forces. Some Iraqi units and irregulars
(“Saddam’s Fedayeen”) put up stiff resistance and used unconventional tactics. Some
post-major combat evaluations (for example, “Cobra Two,” by Michael Gordon and
Bernard Trainor, published in 2006) suggest the U.S. military should have focused
more on combating the irregulars rather than bypassing them to take on armored
forces. No WMD was used by Iraq, although it did fire some ballistic missiles into
Kuwait; it is not clear whether those missiles were of prohibited ranges (greater than
150 km). The regime vacated Baghdad on April 9, 2003, although Saddam Hussein
appeared with supporters that day in Baghdad’s mostly Sunni Adhamiya district, near
the major Sunni Umm al-Qura mosque. (Saddam was captured in December 2003,
and on November 5, 2006, was convicted for “willful killing” of Shiite civilians in
Dujail in 1982. He was hanged on December 30, 2006.)
Post-Saddam Transition and Governance
According to statements by President Bush, U.S. goals are for an Iraq that can
sustain, govern, and defend itself and is a partner in the global war on terrorism.
Most Administration officials have, for the most part, dropped an earlier stated goal
that Iraq serve as a model of democratic reform in the Middle East.
Early Transition Process
The formal political transition has advanced since the fall of Saddam Hussein,
but has not achieved political reconciliation among the newly dominant Shiite Arabs,
Sunni Arabs that have been displaced from their former perch at the apex of Iraqi
politics, and the Kurds who have felt perennially oppressed by Iraq’s Arabs.
Occupation Period/Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). After the
fall of the regime, the United States set up an occupation structure, reportedly based
on concerns that immediate sovereignty would favor major factions and not produce
democracy. The Administration initially tasked Lt. Gen. Jay Garner (ret.) to direct
reconstruction with a staff of U.S. government personnel to administer Iraq’s
ministries; they deployed in April 2003. He headed the Office of Reconstruction and
Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA), under the Department of Defense, created by a
January 20, 2003, Executive Order. The Administration largely discarded the State
Department’s “Future of Iraq Project,” that spent the year before the war planning for
the administration of Iraq after the fall of Saddam.19 Garner and aides tried to
18 Many of the thirty countries listed in the coalition did not contribute forces to the combat.
A subsequent State Department list released on March 27, 2003 listed 49 countries in the
coalition of the willing. See Washington Post, March 27, 2003, p. A19.
19 Information on the project, including summaries of the findings of its 17 working groups,
(continued...)

---

CRS-11
establish a representative successor regime by organizing a meeting in Nassiriyah
(April 15, 2003) of about 100 Iraqis of varying views and ethnicities. A subsequent
meeting of over 250 notables, held in Baghdad April 26, 2003, ended in agreement
to hold a broader meeting one month later to name an interim administration.
In May 2003, the Administration, reportedly preferring what they perceived as
stronger leadership in Iraq, named Ambassador L. Paul Bremer to replace Garner by
heading a “Coalition Provisional Authority” (CPA). Bremer discontinued Garner’s
transition process and instead appointed (July 13, 2003) a non-sovereign Iraqi
advisory body: the 25-member “Iraq Governing Council” (IGC). In September
2003, the IGC selected a 25-member “cabinet” to run the ministries, with roughly the
same factional and ethnic balance of the IGC (a slight majority of Shiite Muslims).
Although there were some Sunni figures in the CPA-led administration, many Sunnis
resented the new power structure as overturning their prior dominance. Adding to
that resentment were some of the CPA’s controversial decisions, including to pursue
“de-Baathification” — a purge from government of about 30,000 Iraqis at four top
ranks of the Baath Party (CPA Order 1) and not to recall members of the armed
forces to service (CPA Order 2). Bremer and others maintain that recalling the
former regime armed forces would have caused mistrust among Shiites and Kurds
about the prospects for democracy in post-Saddam Iraq.
Transitional Administrative Law (TAL). The Bush Administration initially
made the end of U.S. occupation contingent on the completion of a new constitution
and the holding of national elections for a new government, tasks expected to be
completed by late 2005. However, Ayatollah Sistani and others agitated for early
Iraqi sovereignty. In November 2003, the United States announced it would return
sovereignty to Iraq by June 30, 2004, and that national elections would be held by the
end of 2005. That decision was incorporated into an interim constitution — the
Transitional Administrative Law (TAL), drafted by the major anti-Saddam factions
and signed on March 8, 2004.20 It provided a roadmap for political transition,
including (1) elections by January 31, 2005, for a 275-seat transitional National
Assembly; (2) drafting of a permanent constitution by August 15, 2005, and put to
a national referendum by October 15, 2005; and (3) national elections for a
permanent government, under the new constitution (if it passed), by December 15,
2005. Under the TAL, any three provinces could veto the constitution by a two-thirds
majority. In that case, a new draft would be written and voted on by October 15,
2006. The Kurds maintained their autonomous KRG and their peshmerga militia.
Sovereignty Handover/Interim (Allawi) Government. The TAL did not
directly address how a sovereign government would be formed. Sistani’s opposition
scuttled a U.S. plan to select a national assembly through nationwide “caucuses.”
After considering other options, the United States tapped U.N. envoy Lakhdar
19 (...continued)
can be found at [http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/archive/dutyiraq/]. The project cost
$5 million and had 15 working groups on major issues.
20 The text of the TAL can be obtained from the CPA website at [http://cpa-iraq.org/
government/TAL.html].

---

CRS-12
Brahimi to select a government.21 Dominated by senior faction leaders, it was named
and began work on June 1, 2004. The formal handover ceremony occurred on June
28, 2004. There was a president (Ghazi al-Yawar), and Iyad al-Allawi was Prime
Minister, with executive power, heading a cabinet of 26 ministers. Six ministers were
women, and the ethnicity mix was roughly the same as in the IGC. The defense and
interior ministers were Sunnis.
As of handover, the state of occupation ceased, and a U.S. Ambassador (John
Negroponte) established U.S.-Iraq diplomatic relations for the first time since January
1991. A U.S. embassy formally opened on June 30, 2004; it is staffed with about
1,100 U.S. personnel.22 The Ambassador is Ryan Crocker, who took over from
Zalmay Khalilzad (July 2005 - April 2007). The large new embassy complex, with
21 buildings on 104 acres, is under construction,23 although its completion has been
delayed due to construction difficulties. The State Department has also had difficulty
recruiting for all the official State Department posts at the Embassy. In conjunction
with the handover:
! Reconstruction management and advising of Iraq’s ministries were
taken over by a State Department component called the “Iraq
Reconstruction and Management Office” (IRMO). With the
expiration of that unit’s authority in April 2007, it was renamed the
“Iraq Transition Assistance Office,” ITAO, headed since June 2007
by Mark Tokola. ITAO is intended to promote the efficiency of
Iraq’s ministries and Iraq’s takeover of management of the projects
built with U.S. reconstruction funds, although Iraq reportedly has
been unable or unwilling to take control of a large percentage of
completed projects. The authority has also expired for a separate
DoD “Project Contracting Office (PCO),” under the Persian Gulf
division of the Army Corps of Engineers. It funded large
infrastructure projects such as roads, power plants, and school
renovations.
U.N. Involvement/Coalition Military Mandate/Status of U.S.
Forces/Permanent Basing. Even though the invasion of Iraq was not
authorized by the United Nations, the Administration asserts that it has consistently
sought and obtained U.N. and partner country involvement in Iraq efforts. U.N.
Security Council Resolution 1483 (May 22, 2003) recognized the CPA as a legal
occupation authority. In an attempt to satisfy the requirements of several nations for
U.N. backing of the coalition force presence, the United States achieved adoption of
Resolution 1511 (October 16, 2003), authorizing a “multinational force under unified
[meaning U.S.] command.”
21 Chandrasekaran, Rajiv. “Envoy Urges U.N.-Chosen Iraqi Government,” Washington Post,
April 15, 2004.
22 See CRS Report RS21867, U.S. Embassy in Iraq, by Susan B. Epstein.
23 An FY2005 supplemental appropriations, P.L. 109-13, provided $592 million (of $658
million requested) to construct a new embassy in Baghdad; an FY2006 supplemental
appropriation (P.L. 109-234) provided $1.327 billion for U.S. embassy operations and
security.

---

CRS-13
Resolution 1546 (June 8, 2004) took U.N. involvement further by endorsing the
U.S. handover of sovereignty, reaffirming the responsibilities of the interim
government, spelling out the duration and legal status of U.S.-led forces in Iraq, and
authorizing a coalition component force to protect U.N. personnel and facilities.
Resolution 1546 also:
! “Authorize[d]” the U.S.-led coalition to contribute to maintaining
security in Iraq, a provision widely interpreted as giving the coalition
responsibility for security. Iraqi forces are “a principal partner” in
the U.S.-led coalition, and the relationship between U.S. and Iraqi
forces is spelled out in an annexed exchange of letters between the
United States and Iraq. The U.S.-led coalition retained the ability to
take and hold prisoners.
! Coalition/U.S. Mandate. Resolution 1546 stipulated that the
coalition’s mandate would be reviewed “at the request of the
government of Iraq or twelve months from the date of this
resolution” (or June 8, 2005); that the mandate would expire when
a permanent government is sworn in at the end of 2005; and that the
mandate would be terminated “if the Iraqi government so requests.”
Resolution 1637 (November 11, 2005) and Resolution 1723
(November 28, 2006) each extended the coalition military mandate
for an additional year, “unless earlier “requested by the Iraqi
government.” The renewal resolutions also required review of the
mandate on June 15, 2006 and June 15, 2007, respectively. In June
2007, Iraq’s parliament passed with 144 votes (in the 275 seat
parliament) a “non-binding” motion, led by the Sadr faction, to
require the Iraqi government to seek parliamentary approval before
asking that the coalition military mandate be extended. Maliki
argued that there is no such requirement because the mandate
represents a Security Council decision, not a treaty or agreement
(which requires two-thirds parliamentary approval), and the mandate
was renewed by Resolution 1790 (December 18, 2007), with the
same provisions as previous mandate extensions.
! On November 26, 2007, President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki
signed an agreement by videoconference under which the U.N.
mandate would be renewed for only one more year (until December
31, 2008) and that, by July 2008, Iraq and the U.S. would complete
a bilateral agreement that would govern the U.S. military presence
in Iraq for the future and replace the Security Council mandate. The
“strategic framework agreement” is expected to determine the
freedom of action for U.S. (and partner) military forces in Iraq,
including rules of engagement and status of prisoners taken. The
Iraqi government says this agreement will be submitted for
parliamentary approval. (Section 1314 of P.L. 110-28, the FY2007
supplemental, says that the President shall redeploy U.S. forces if
asked to officially by Iraq’s government.)

---

CRS-14
! Status of Forces Agreement. Because of the U.N. mandate in effect,
there currently is no Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Iraq.
Such an agreement stipulates which courts and authorities deal with
infractions by employees of the sending country. A SOFA is
expected to be part of the negotiations on the strategic framework
agreement discussed above. P.L. 109-289 (FY2007 DoD
appropriations) contains a provision that the Defense Department not
agree to allow U.S. forces in Iraq to be subject to Iraqi law. A
similar provision involving prohibition on use of U.S. funds to enter
into such an agreement is in the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriation
(P.L. 110-161).
! Permanent Basing. The facilities used by U.S. forces in Iraq do not
formally constitute “permanent bases,” although these facilities
conceivably could be made permanent U.S. bases if there were a
U.S.-Iraqi agreement to do so, and the basing issue is expected to be
negotiated as part of the strategic framework agreement. Major
facilities that will likely be affected include Balad, Tallil, and Al
Asad air bases, as well as the arms depot at Taji; all are being built
up with U.S. military construction funds in various appropriations.
The Defense Appropriation for FY2007 (P.L. 109-289); the FY2007
supplemental (P.L. 110-28); the FY2008 Defense Appropriation
(P.L. 110-116); and the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriation (P.L.
110-161 contain provisions prohibiting the establishment or the use
of U.S. funds to establish permanent military installations or bases
in Iraq. These provisions comport with Recommendation 22 of the
December 2006 Iraq Study Group report, which recommends that
the President should state that the United States does not seek
permanent military bases in Iraq. The P.L. 110-28 law – as well as
P.L. 110-116 FY2008 Defense Appropriation – also says that the
United States shall not control Iraq’s oil resources, a statement
urged by Recommendation 23 of the Iraq Study Group report.
Another bill, H.R. 2929 (passed by the House on July 25, 2007), as
well as the conference report on the FY2008 defense authorization
bill (H.R. 1585) forbids the use of appropriated funds to establish
permanent bases in Iraq or control Iraq’s oil.
! Oil Revenues. The handover gave Iraq gained control over its oil
revenues (the CPA had handled the DFI during the occupation
period24) and the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI), subject to
monitoring for at least one year (until June 2005) by the U.N.-
mandated International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB).
Iraq’s oil revenues continue to be deposited in the DFI. Resolution
1790 of December 18, 2007, extends the IAMB monitoring of the
DFI until December 31, 2008, subject to review by June 15, 2008.)
Resolution 1546 gave the Iraqi government responsibility for closing
24 For information on that program, see CRS Report RL30472, Iraq: Oil-for-Food Program,
Illicit Trade, and Investigations, by Christopher Blanchard and Kenneth Katzman.

---

CRS-15
out the U.N.-run “oil-for-food program” under which all oil revenues
were handled by a U.N. escrow account; Security Council
Resolution 1483 had ended the “oil for food program” as of
November 21, 2003.
U.N. Involvement in Governance Issues.
Several U.N. resolutions
assign a role for the United Nations in post-Saddam reconstruction and governance.
Resolution 1483 (cited above) provided for a U.N. special representative to Iraq, and
“called on” governments to contribute forces for stabilization. Resolution 1500
(August 14, 2003) established U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI)25. The size
of UNAMI in Iraq, headed by Swedish diplomat Staffan de Mistura, exceeds 120 in
Iraq (80 in Baghdad, 40 in a newly opened office in Irbil, and others for a yet-to-be-
opened office in Basra), with at least an equal number “offshore” in Jordan. It is
focuses on promoting political reconciliation, election assistance, and monitoring
human rights practices and humanitarian affairs, and is extensively involved in
assisting with the constitution review process discussed further below. U.N. Security
Council Resolution, 1770, adopted August 10, 2007, renewed UNAMI’s mandate for
another year, and with an enhanced responsibility to be lead promoter of political
reconciliation in Iraq and plan a national census. This was in line with U.N. Secretary
General Ban Ki Moon’s pledges during a visit to Baghdad in March 2007 to expand
UNAMI’s presence in Iraq and to take on additional duties to promote political
reconciliation. (In Recommendations 7 and 26 and several others the Iraq Study
Group calls for increased U.N. participation in promoting reconciliation in Iraq.)
Elections in 200526
After the handover of sovereignty, the focus was on three votes held in 2005:
! On January 30, 2005, elections were held for a transitional National
Assembly, 18 provincial councils, and the Kurdish regional
assembly. The Sunni Arabs, still resentful of the U.S. invasion,
mostly boycotted, and no major “Sunni slates” were offered,
enabling the UIA to win a slim majority (140 of the 275 seats) and
to ally with the Kurds (75 seats) to dominate the national
government formed subsequently as well as the provincial councils.
! Subsequently, a constitution drafted by a committee appointed by the
elected government was approved on October 15, 2005. Sunni
opponents achieved a two-thirds “no” vote in two provinces, but not
in the three needed to defeat the constitution. The crux of Sunni
opposition was the provision for a weak central government
(“federalism”): it allows groups of provinces to band together to
25 Its mandate has been renewed each year since, most recently by Resolution 1700 (August
10, 2006).
26 For results of the elections and the formation of the government, see CRS Report
RS21968, Iraq: Government Formation and Benchmarks, by Kenneth Katzman. This report
also contains a table with the Administration and GAO assessments of the Iraqi
government’s performance on 18 stipulated “benchmarks” contained in P.L. 110-28.

---

CRS-16
form autonomous “regions” with their own regional governments,
internal security forces, and a large role in controlling revenues from
any new energy discoveries. Sunnis opposed this concept because
their region has thus far lacked significant proven oil reserves and
they depend on the central government for revenues, although some
new substantial oil and gas fields have recently been reported to lie
in Anbar Province. The constitution also contained an article (137)
that promised a (yet-to-be-completed) special constitutional
amendment process, within a set six-month post-adoption deadline,
intended to mollify Sunnis on key contentious points.
! In the December 15, 2005 election for a full four year term
government, some harder line Sunnis, seeking to strengthen their
position to amend the constitution, fielded electoral slates — the
“Consensus Front” and the National Dialogue Front. With the UIA
alone well short of the two-thirds majority needed to unilaterally
form a government, Sunnis, the Sadr faction, secular groupings, and
the Kurds demanded Jafari be replaced; they subsequently accepted
Nuri al-Maliki as Prime Minister (April 22, 2006). Maliki won
approval of a cabinet on May 20, 2006 (see table at the end of this
paper on the cabinet composition).
Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki
Born in 1950 in Karbala, has belonged to Da’wa Party since 1968. Fled Iraq in 1980 after
Saddam banned the party, initially to Iran, but then to Syria when he refused Iran’s orders
that he join Shiite militia groups fighting Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Headed Da’wa
offices in Syria and Lebanon and edited Da’wa Party newspaper. Advocated aggressive
purge of ex-Baathists as member of the Higher National De-Baathification Commission
after Saddam’s fall and continues to seek rapid execution of convicted Saddam-era
figures, earning him criticism among Sunnis for sectarian bias. Elected to National
Assembly (UIA list) in January 2005 and chaired its “security committee.” Publicly
supported Hezbollah (which shares a background with Da’wa Party) during July-August
2006 Israel-Hezbollah conflict, prompting congressional criticism during July 2006 visit
to Washington DC. Has tense relations with ISCI, whose activists accuse him of
surrounding himself with Da’wa members. Prior to 2007, repeatedly shielded Sadr’s
Mahdi Army militia from U.S. military sweeps, but has now fallen out with Sadr.
President Bush maintains regular direct contact with him by video-conference.
Maliki Government, Political Reconciliation, and
“Benchmarks”
Many observers are measuring the effectiveness of U.S. policy by whether or not
it facilitates political reconciliation27 – considered key to the U.S. ability to leave
27 On January 10, President Bush stated that the surge would give the Iraqi government “the
breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas, adding that “most of Iraq’s
(continued...)

---

CRS-17
behind a stable Iraq when it does draw down large numbers of U.S. forces from Iraq.
Amid increasing Administration and congressional criticism of Maliki’s failure to
achieve significant reconciliation, splits within the power structure, both between the
Shiite and other blocs, and even within the Shiite bloc, widened during 2007.
Several major political blocs pulled their members out of the cabinet in 2007, leaving
Maliki, at one point, with 16 out of the 37 total positions vacant held by acting
ministers, or their ministers boycotting the cabinet. Moreover, the pullout of the
UIA bloc in the COR by the Fadilah Party and the Sadr faction in April and
September 2007, respectively, left Maliki with a bare majority support in the COR
— about 142 seats in the 275 seat body.
On the other hand, Maliki’s opponents see that he has not been toppled by the
political turmoil, and now appear more willing now to work with him rather than
undermine him. Administration officials maintain that the United States continues
to fully support Maliki and his government. One positive sign of the willingness of
major factions to try to reconcile was an August 26, 2007 “Unity Accord” signed by
the figures on the presidency council (Talibani and his two Sunni and Shiite deputies,
Adel Abd al-Mahdi of ISCI and Tariq Al Hashimi of the Concord Front), the Prime
Minister, and KRG president Masoud Barzani. They pledged to try to resolve
differences on releasing (mostly Sunni) detainees, to achieve agreement on the
powers of the provincial governments, to rehire former Baathists, to share oil
revenue, and to provide additional political support for the Iraqi security forces. In
late October 2007, Maliki replaced two resigned Sadrist ministers (Health and
Agriculture), winning parliamentary confirmation for independent Shiite
replacements. The Planning Minister, Ali Baban, a Sunni, broke with his Consensus
Front bloc and returned to the cabinet. However, in late November 2007, the COR
refused to confirm two other replacement nominees, for the Ministry of Justice and
of Communications, even though the nominees were considered independent (Shiite
and Sunni, respectively). Currently, his main partner is ISCI, although ISCI views
Maliki as a Da’wa partisan and harbors ambitions of replacing Maliki with one of its
own, particularly Adel Abd al-Mahdi, who is now a deputy President.
The Kurds are fully engaged in the political structure in Baghdad; no Kurds are
boycotting either the cabinet or the parliament. However, the Kurds are increasingly
at odds with the Arab Iraqi leaders over the KRG’s decision to move forward on oil
and gas development deals with the Kurdish region, in advance of a national oil law.
Iraq’s Oil Minister has called the deals – and a separate KRG oil law – illegal. An
even greater potential concern is the constitutionally mandated (Article 140)
referendum on whether Tamim (Kirkuk) Province will affiliate formally with the
Kurdistan Regional Government, a vote that was to take place by December 31,
2007. The Kurds had insisted — to the point of threatening to pull out of the central
government entirely — that the referendum proceed but UNAMI, backed by the
United States, succeeded in December 2007 in persuading the Kurds to accept a delay
(until June 30, 2008) in the referendum.
27 (...continued)
Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace — and reducing the violence in Baghdad will
help make reconciliation possible.” Available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news
/releases/2007/01/20070110-7.html]

---

CRS-18
Iraqi factions have been able to pass legislation on issues where all the
communities agree. The COR has passed over 112 laws since it was established in
early 2006, of which 34 have been vetoed. Among the laws enacted was a measure
regulating Iraq’s oil refineries (July 2007). The cabinet approved a draft law on
October 30, 2007 ending a provision that protects private security contractors — part
of the fallout from the September 2007 incident involving Blackwater security
company’s killing of 17 Iraqi civilians at Nisoor Square in Baghdad. (This type of
high level contact is suggested by Recommendation 19 of the Iraq Study Group
report.)
In the absence of major movement on reconciliation at the national level,
Administration officials say they are looking for – and seeing some signs of progress
on – reconciliation at the local level (“bottom-up reconciliation”) and informal
“accommodation” at the national level that are accomplishing as much or more than
would the stated benchmarks.28 Administration officials credit the progress to the
U.S. “troop surge” and other efforts to engage disgruntled Sunnis and anti-extremist
Shiites, although U.S. commanders say that lack of more substantial reconciliation
could threaten the security gains produced by the surge. Press reports say that the
concrete accomplishments they want to see in early 2008 include passage of a
national budget (which has had two readings in the COR as of early December 2007)
and passage of the draft De-Baathification reform law (called the Accountability and
Justice Law).
Examples of accommodation include the visit by senior ISCI leader Ammar al-
Hakim to Anbar Province to meet with Sunni tribal leaders in October 2007 and the
Sadr and ISCI agreement (same month) to try to end internecine fighting in southern
Iraq between their factions. In September 2007, in a gesture toward attempted
reconciliation, Deputy President Tariq al-Hashimi met with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-
Sistani, the undisputed Shiite religious leader and gained his support for a reform
plan. In December 2007, U.S. diplomats were pleased that Hashimi, Barzani, and
Talabani signed a “Letter of Common Understanding” committing to political
reconciliation and a joint vision of a unified, democratic Iraq. At the local level, U.S.
officials have succeeded in organizing meetings between local Shiite and Sunni
sheiks as part of a “bottom-up” reconciliation process.

Iraqi Pledges and Status of Accomplishment. A more limited U.S.
push for reconciliation, if continued, would represent a departure from the previous
demands that the Iraqis enact a series of major laws and complete other moves
designated as “benchmarks” of progress. The FY2007 Supplemental Appropriation
Act (P.L. 110-28) conditioned the release of some funds for Iraq operations upon
achievement of 18 stated benchmarks, and required the Administration to report on
progress by July 15 and September 15, 2007. A presidential waiver to permit the flow
of funds is provided for and has been exercised. The July 15 report was released on
July 12, 2007, and assessed that Iraq’s government had made satisfactory progress
on eight benchmarks, unsatisfactory progress on another eight, and had mixed
28 July 12 report [http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/iraq/2007/FinalBenchmarkReport.pdf].
September 14 report [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20070914.pdf].
GAO report [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071230t.pdf].

---

CRS-19
success on two others.29 The September 15 report (issued September 14) said
satisfactory progress had been made on one additional political benchmark — De-
Baathification reform — and part of another benchmark — agreement on the
authorities of the provinces — as well as some additional progress on two of the
security benchmarks. A mandated (P.L. 110-28) GAO report released September 4,
2007, corroborated that there had not been substantial movement on the most
significant political reconciliation benchmarks. P.L. 110-28 also mandated a
separate assessment of the Iraqi security forces (ISF) by an outside commission
(headed by ret. Gen James Jones) discussed later.
The information below is intended to analyze Iraqi reconciliation, as compared
to what Iraqi leaders pledged in August 2006. The information below does not strictly
correspond to the 18 benchmarks of P.L. 110-28. A chart on the those 18 benchmarks
and the Administration and GAO assessments, along with developments subsequent
to these reports, is contained in CRS Report RS21968.
(1) By September 2006, formation of a committee to review the constitution
under the special amendment process (Article 137); approval of a law to implement
formation of regions; approval of an investment law; and approval of a law
establishing the Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC). The investment
law was adopted in October 2006. The regions law was adopted October 12, 2006,
although, to mollify Sunni opposition who fear formation of a large Shiite region in
as many as nine provinces of southern Iraq, major factions agreed to delay the
formation of new regions for 18 months. The IHEC law was passed on January 23,
2007, and the nine election commissioners have been appointed. Candidate lists for
IHEC representatives in twelve of the eighteen provinces have been submitted and
are being reviewed. (The July 12 and September 14 Administration reports assessed
progress on the regions law as satisfactory; the GAO report assessed it as “mixed.)
The constitution review committee (CRC), chaired by Humam al-Hammoudi,
a senior ISCI leader, delivered “semi-final” recommendations for constitutional
amendments in late May 2007, but left many sensitive issues, including the powers
of regions versus central government, the status of Kirkuk,and presidential powers,
to be decided by senior faction leaders. With deadlock remaining on these
fundamental questions, the CRC has repeatedly extended the deadline (now March
2008) for submitting its final recommendations. Sunni representatives reportedly
seek to alter the constitution so as to require or facilitate the appointment of a Sunni
Arab as president. (The July 12 and September 14 Administration reports assessed
progress on this as satisfactory, but the GAO says the benchmark had not been met.)
(2) By October 2006, approval of a provincial powers law and approval of a
new oil law. There have been two readings in the COR on a draft law that would
expand the powers of the provincial councils, but the draft law was not passed and
has been sent back to the Presidency Council (Talabani and his two deputy
presidents) for revision. Several provincial governors are pushing for passage, but
there is opposition in the COR from Sunnis and the Sadrists who do not want to
devolve substantial power outside the central government. (The Administration
29 Available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/iraq/2007/FinalBenchmarkReport.pdf]

---

CRS-20
reports give Iraq a mixed assessment on the provincial powers/election benchmarks,
reflecting movement on some aspects of the issue and continuing stalemate on other
aspects.)
On the oil laws, beginning in mid-2006, a three member Oil and Energy
Committee working under the auspices of the Iraqi cabinet prepared draft
hydrocarbon framework legislation to regulate Iraq’s oil and gas sector. Following
approval by the negotiating committee, Iraq’s cabinet approved a draft version of
the framework law in February 2007. However, the Kurds opposed a revised version
agreed by the cabinet and forwarded to the COR in July 2007, and the draft has
stalled in the COR. The issue is increasingly acrimonious as th Kurds have signed
separate energy development deals and passed their own oil law. A related draft
revenue law (not forwarded to the COR to date) would empower the federal
government to collect oil and gas revenue, and reserve 17% of oil revenues for
distribution to the Kurdish regional government. Two other implementing laws
dealing with the structure of the oil industry and how foreign firms’ investments will
be treated have not yet been approved by the cabinet. (The Administration reports
rate Iraq as unsatisfactory on the oil law benchmarks.)
(3) By November 2006, approval of a new de-Baathification law and approval
of a flag and national anthem law. The August 26, 2007 Unity Accord included an
agreement to move forward on a draft de-Baathification law that will allow ex-Baath
party members to stand as candidates in future elections and to serve in some
government posts from which they are currently excluded. On September 3, 2007
Maliki said a draft (Accountability and Justice Law) had been forwarded to the
parliament. The law has had two readings in the COR but the COR has apparently
deadlocked over Shiite and Kurdish assertions that it could allow ex-Baathists to
eventually achieve high positions in government. The Administration says there has
been progress even without the law – on April 7, 2007, Maliki ordered pensions be
given to senior officers in the Saddam-era military and permission for return to
service of lower ranking soldiers, a decree affecting 45,000 persons. Members of the
Supreme National De-Baathification Commission, led by Ahmad Chalabi, expressed
opposition to a previous draft reform law agreed to in late March 2007 by President
Talabani and Prime Minister Maliki. Chalabi and his allies cited Ayatollah Sistani
as a supporter of their view, although his position was not made clear. There has been
no further progress on the flag or national anthem issues. (The September 14
Administration report, in contrast to the July 12 report, assesses progress on De-
Baathification reform as satisfactory. The GAO report said it is unmet.)
(4) By December 2006, approval of laws to curb militias and to offer amnesty
to insurgent supporters. The July 12 and September 14, 2007 progress reports said
that the pre-requisites for these laws are not in place, given the security environment
– but there has been some movement nonetheless. On November 11, 2007, Maliki
outlined an amnesty plan that would cover persons who had cooperated with
insurgent groups but had not committed “major “crimes, but those found guilty of
murder or terrorism would not be released. On January 1, 2008, the cabinet
submitted to the COR a draft law to amnesty 5,000 “non-terrorist” detainees held by
Iraq, would not affect 25,000 detainees held by U.S. On militias, observers say that
because much of Iraq remains insecure, militias are unwilling to disarm. Others say
the Shiite-led government fears that Sunnis are plotting to return to power and that

---

CRS-21
offering amnesty to Sunni insurgent supporters would only accelerate that process.
The June 2007 Measuring Stability report said Maliki had verbally committed to a
militia demobilization program, and an executive director of the program was named
on May 12, 2007, but committee members have not yet been appointed and the
demobilization work plan has not been drafted.
(5) By January 2007, completion of the constitutional review process. As noted
above, the constitution review committee has not completed drafting proposed
amendments to date.
(6) By February 2007, the formation of independent commissions to oversee
governance. No progress has been reported to date. (This is not one of the formal
benchmarks stipulated by P.L. 110-28.)
(7) By March 2007, holding of a referendum on the constitutional amendments.
See no. 5.
(8) By April 2007, Iraqi assumption of control of its military. Six of the ten Iraqi
Army divisions are now under Iraqi control. This is not one of the P.L. 110-28
benchmarks.
(9) By June 2007, the holding of provincial elections. Related to number 2,
above. Although not necessarily contingent on the completion of a provincial powers
law, the relevant laws for provincial elections have not been drafted and no date is
set for new provincial elections. The current term of the provincial councils expire
in early 2009. The Shiites, who control most provincial councils, are not supporting
early new elections because those would presumably diminish their current
advantage.
(10) By September 2007, Iraqi security control of all 18 provinces. Iraq Security
Forces now have security control for nine provinces: Muthanna, Dhi Qar, Najaf,
Maysan, Karbala, Irbil, Sulaymaniyah, Dohuk (the latter three are Kurdish provinces
turned over May 30, 2007), and, most recently, Basra (turned over on December 16,
2007 by Britain). (Not one of the P.L. 110-28 benchmarks.)
(11) By December 2007, Iraqi security self-reliance. No firm estimates are
available on when Iraqi security forces would be able to secure Iraq by themselves.
President Talabani puts that time frame at the end of 2008, but few U.S. commanders
say the ISF would be ready to secure Iraq alone before 2009, at the earliest. (Not one
of the P.L. 110-28 benchmarks.)
Other of the eighteen benchmarks mentioned in P.L. 110-28 — such as applying
law even-handedly among all sects, reducing sectarian violence, and increasing the
number of Iraqi security forces able to operate independently — are security-related
and are discussed in the sections below.
Regional and International Diplomatic Efforts to Promote Iraq
Stability. The Iraqi government has received some diplomatic support, even
though most of its neighbors, except Iran, resent the Shiite and Kurdish domination
of the regime. There are about 50 foreign missions in Iraq, including most European

---

CRS-22
and Arab countries. Jordan has appointed an ambassador and Kuwait has pledged to
do so. Iran upgraded its representation to Ambassador in May 2006. Saudi Arabia,
which considers the Shiite dominated government in Baghdad an affront to what it
sees as rightful Sunni pre-eminence, told visiting Secretary of State Rice in August
2007 that the Kingdom will consider opening an embassy in Iraq, and it has begun
steps to implement that pledge. On the other hand, some countries, such as Portugal
in March 2007, have closed or reduced their embassies because of security concerns;
there were attacks on diplomats from Bahrain, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, and Russia
in 2005 and 2006; Poland’s ambassador was seriously wounded in an attack in
central Baghdad on October 3, 2007.
The United States has tried to build regional support for Iraq through an
ongoing “Expanded Ministerial Conference of Iraq’s Neighbors” process, consisting
of Iraq’s neighbors, the United States, all the Gulf monarchy states, Egypt, and the
permanent members of the United Nations Security Council). The first meeting was
in Baghdad on March 10, 2007. Iran and Syria attended, as did the United States. A
follow-on meeting in Egypt was held May 3 and 4, 2007, in concert with additional
pledges of aid for Iraq under an “International Compact for Iraq”, and agreement to
establish regional working groups on Iraq’s security, fuel supplies, and Iraqi refugees.
Those groups have each had several meetings. The latest ministerial meeting was
held in Istanbul on November 2, 2007, but that meeting was reportedly dominated by
the crisis between Turkey and Iraq over safe haven for the Turkish Kurdish
opposition PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party), discussed further below. The November
meeting did agree to create an institutional support mechanism for the process,
possibly run by UNAMI. The next regional meeting will be held in Kuwait.
Bilateral U.S.-Iran meetings on Iraq are discussed below.
Human Rights and Rule of Law. The State Department’s report on
human rights for 2006, released March 6, 2007, appears to blame much of the human
suffering in Iraq on the overall security environment and not on the Maliki
government. It says that “widespread violence seriously compromised the
government’s ability to protect human rights.” U.S. officials say Iraqis are freer than
at any time in the past 30 years, with a free press and the ability to organize
politically. A State Department report to Congress details how the FY2004
supplemental appropriation (P.L. 108-106) “Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund”
(IRRF) has been spent for programs on this issue (“2207 Report”). These programs
are run by the State Department Bureau of International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Affairs (State/INL), USAID, and State Department Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL):

! About $1.014 billion from the IRRF was for “Democracy Building,”
including programs to empower women and promote their
involvement in Iraqi politics, as well as programs to promote
independent media. In addition to the IRRF funds, the FY2006
regular foreign aid appropriations (conference report on P.L. 109-
102) incorporated a Senate amendment (S.Amdt. 1299) providing
$28 million each to the International Republican Institute and the
National Democratic Institute for Iraq democracy promotion. An
FY2006 supplemental appropriation (P.L. 109-234) provided
another $50 million in ESF for Iraq democracy promotion, allocated

---

CRS-23
to various organizations performing democracy work there (U.S.
Institute of Peace, National Democratic Institute, International
Republican Institute, National Endowment for Democracy, and
others). An FY2007 supplemental appropriation (P.L. 110-28)
provided $250 million in additional “democracy funding;”

! About $71 million for related “Rule of Law” programs.
! About $159 million to build and secure courts and train legal
personnel, including several projects that attempt to increase the
transparency of the justice system, computerize Iraqi legal
documents, train judges and lawyers, develop various aspects of law,
such as commercial laws, promote legal reform. There are currently
1,200 judges working, up 100 since September 2007. They report
to the Higher Juridical Council.
! About $128 million for “Investigations of Crimes Against
Humanity,” primarily former regime abuses;
! $10 million for U.S. Institute of Peace democracy/civil society/
conflict resolution activities;
! $10 million for the Iraqi Property Claims Commission (which is
evaluating Kurdish claims to property taken from Kurds, mainly in
Kirkuk, during Saddam’s regime); and
! $15 million to promote human rights and human rights education
centers.
Some additional ESF funds have been used for activities to empower local
governments, including (1) the “Community Action Program” (CAP) through which
local reconstruction projects are voted on by village and town representatives. About
1,800 community associations have been established; (2) Provincial Reconstruction
Development Committees (PRDCs) to empower local governments to decide on
reconstruction priorities; and (3) Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), local
enclaves to provide secure conditions for reconstruction, as discussed in the section
on security, below. A FY2006 supplemental appropriation (P.L. 109-234)
designated $50 million in ESF for Iraq to be used for the CAP operating. That level
continued in FY2007 (P.L. 109-383).
Economic Reconstruction and U.S. Assistance
The Administration asserts that economic reconstruction will contribute to
stability. As discussed in quarterly reports by the Special Inspector General for Iraq
Reconstruction (SIGIR), the difficult security environment has slowed
reconstruction.30 (In Recommendation 64, the Iraq Study Group says that U.S.
30 The defense authorization bill for FY2007 (P.L. 109-364) set October 1, 2007, for
(continued...)

---

CRS-24
economic assistance to Iraq should be increased to $5 billion per year rather than
be “permitted to decline.” Recommendation 67 calls on the President to appoint a
Senior Advisor for Economic Reconstruction in Iraq, a recommendation that was
largely fulfilled with the February 2007 appointment of Timothy Carney as
Coordinator for Economic Transition in Iraq.) For more detail, see CRS Report
RL31833, Iraq: Recent Developments in Reconstruction Assistance, by Curt Tarnoff.
A total of about $43 billion has been appropriated for reconstruction funding
(including security forces), of which $20.917 billion has been appropriated for the
IRRF in two supplemental appropriations: FY2003 supplemental, P.L. 108-11, which
appropriated about $2.5 billion; and the FY2004 supplemental appropriations, P.L.
108-106, which provided about $18.42 billion. Of the IRRF funds, about $20.05
billion has been obligated, and, of that, about $18.8 billion has been disbursed.
According to State Department reports, the sector allocations for the IRRF are as
follows:
! $5.03 billion for Security and Law Enforcement;
! $1.315 billion for Justice, Public Safety, Infrastructure, and Civil
Society (some funds from this category discussed above);
! $1.014 billion for Democracy (as discussed above);
! $4.22 billion for Electricity Sector;
! $1.724 billion for Oil Infrastructure;
! $2.131 billion for Water Resources and Sanitation;
! $469 million for Transportation and Communications;
! $333.7 million for Roads, Bridges, and Construction;
! $746 million for Health Care;
! $805 million for Private Sector Development (includes $352 million
for debt relief for Iraq);
! $410 million for Education, Refugees, Human Rights, Democracy,
and Governance (includes $99 million for education); and
! $213 million for USAID administrative expenses.
FY2006 Supplemental/FY2007/FY2008. In reconstruction funding beyond
the IRRF:
— The FY2006 supplemental appropriation (P.L. 109-234) provided $1.485 billion
for Iraq reconstruction.
— The regular FY2007 appropriation (P.L. 109-383, as amended) provided: $123
million in ESF for Iraq reconstruction, and $20 million for counter-narcotics. The
FY2007 supplemental, P.L. 110-28 provided: $3.842 billion for the security forces;
$1.574 billion in ESF; $50 million in a DoD “Iraq Freedom Fund”; $250 million in
a “democracy fund;” $150 million for counter-narcotics; and $456.4 million in CERP
30 (...continued)
termination of oversight by the SIGIR. However, P.L. 109-440 extends that term until 10
months after 80% of the IRRF have been expended but includes FY2006 reconstruction
funds for Iraq in the definition of the IRRF. The SIGIR’s mandate is therefore expected to
extend until some time in 2008.

---

CRS-25
funds (includes for Afghanistan as well). These are close to requested amounts. The
July 12, 2007 progress report indicated that the President would exercise waiver
authority to provide FY2007 ESF even though progress on some of the “benchmarks”
was judged unsatisfactory.
— The FY2007 Defense Appropriation (P.L. 109-289) provided another $1.7 billion
for the Iraqi security forces (discussed further below) and $500 million in additional
funds for the Commanders Emergency Response Program (CERP) under which U.S.
military can expend funds for small construction projects intended to build good will
with the Iraqi population.
— For FY2008 (regular and supplemental), the Administration, as of October 31,
2007, has requested $3 billion for the Iraqi security forces (supplemental request);
about $1.3 billion for reconstruction; and about $1 billion in CERP funds (DOD
funds). The FY2008 consolidated appropriation (H.R. 2764, P.L. 110-161) says that
no funds appropriated by that Act are for Iraq. As noted in the table at the beginning
of this paper, Iraq has a capital investment budget to contribute additional funds for
reconstruction. In September 2007, the Maliki government distributed over $120
million to Anbar Province, amid discussion that the provinces are more effective in
making use of national funds than is Baghdad.
Oil Revenues. The oil industry is the driver of Iraq’s economy, and rebuilding
this industry has received substantial U.S. and Iraqi attention, as encapsulated in the
U.S. push for the Iraqi political structure to pass the draft oil laws. Before the war,
it was widely asserted by Administration officials that Iraq’s vast oil reserves,
believed second only to those of Saudi Arabia, would fund much, if not all,
reconstruction costs. The oil industry infrastructure suffered little damage during the
U.S.-led invasion (only about nine oil wells were set on fire), but it has become a
target of insurgents and smugglers. Insurgents have focused their attacks on pipelines
in northern Iraq that feed the Iraq-Turkey oil pipeline that is loaded at Turkey’s
Mediterranean port of Ceyhan. (Iraq’s total pipeline system is over 4,300 miles long.)
The U.S. military reported in a June 2007 “Measuring Stability” report that elements
of the protection forces for the oil sector (Strategic Infrastructure Battalions and
Facilities Protection Service for the Oil Ministry) are suspected of complicity for
smuggling as much as 70% of the output of the Baiji refinery, cost Iraq as much as
$2 billion in revenue per year. The northern export route is operating, although it is
only exporting about 320,000 barrels per day, about half its pre-war capacity. On the
other hand, high world oil prices have, to some extent, compensated for the output
shortfall. The Iraqi government needs to import refined gasoline because it lacks
sufficient refining capacity. A GAO report released August 2, 2007 said that
inadequate metering, reinjection, corruption, theft, and sabotage, likely renders Iraq’s
oil production 100,000 - 300,000 barrels per day lower than the figures shown below,
taken from State Department report. (Steps to correct some of these deficiencies in
the oil sector are suggested in Recommendations 62 of the Iraq Study Group report.)
A related issue is long-term development of Iraq’s oil industry and which
foreign energy firms, if any, might receive preference for contracts to explore Iraq’s
vast reserves. Some are concerned that the draft oil law, if implemented, will favor
U.S. firms because the draft does not give preference to development contracts
signed during the Saddam era, such as those signed with Russian and Chinese firms.

---

CRS-26
A Russian development deal with Saddam’s government (the very large West Qurna
field, with an estimated 11 billion barrels of oil) was voided by the current
government in December 2007. South Korea and Iraq signed a preliminary
agreement on April 12, 2007, to invest in Iraq’s industrial reconstruction and,
potentially, its energy sector as well, although Baghdad threatened in December 2007
to cut off sales of oil to South Korea because its firms also signed an energy
development deal with the Kurdish regional government . Poland reportedly is
negotiating with Iraq for possible investments in Iraq’s energy sector. Other
investors in the Kurdish region include Norway’s DNO, Turkey’s Genel; Canada’s
Western Zagros; Turkish-American PetPrime; Turkey/U.S.’s A and T Energy; Hunt
Oil, and Dana Gas (UAE). However, the Kurds are constrained in their export
routes, dependent on the Iraqi national pipeline network and on cooperation from
Turkey, which is declining because of the heightened tensions between Turkey and
Iraq’s Kurds over the safehaven for the PKK. The produced oil from some of these
projects will, at least initially, be trucked out. (In Recommendation 63, the Iraq Study
Group says the United States should encourage investment in Iraq’s oil sector and
assist in eliminating contracting corruption in that sector.)
Table 2. Selected Key Indicators
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Exports
Oil
Oil
Revenue
Oil Production
Production
Exports
(pre-
Revenue
Revenue
(2008 to
(weekly avg.)
(pre-war)
war)
(2006)
(2007)
date)
2.42 million
$31.3
$38.6
barrels per day
2.5 mbd
1.62 mbd
2.2 mbd
billion
billion
(mbd)
Electricity
Baghdad
Pre-War Load
Current
(hrs. per
Served (MWh)
Load Served
day)
National Average (hrs. per day)
102,000
102,000
8.7
11.1 (11.0 one year ago)
Notes: Power shortages caused lack of water in several Baghdad districts in August 2007 due to
lack of pumping and purification capability.
Note: Figures in the table are provided by the State Department “Iraq Weekly Status Report” dated
January 3, 2008. Oil export revenue is net of a 5% deduction for reparations to the victims of the 1990
Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait, as provided for in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483
(May 22, 2003). That 5% deduction is paid into a U.N. escrow account controlled by the U.N.
Compensation Commission to pay judgments awarded.
Lifting U.S. Sanctions. In an effort to encourage private U.S. investment in
Iraq, the Bush Administration has lifted nearly all U.S. sanctions on Iraq, beginning
with Presidential Determinations issued under authorities provided by P.L. 108-7
(FY2003 appropriations) and P.L. 108-11 (FY2003 supplemental).

---

CRS-27
! On July 30, 2004, President Bush issued an Executive Order ending
a trade and investment ban imposed on Iraq by Executive Order
12722 (August 2, 1990) and 12724 (August 9, 1990), and reinforced
by the Iraq Sanctions Act of 1990 (Section 586 of P.L. 101-513,
November 5, 1990 (following the August 2, 1990 invasion of
Kuwait.) The order did not unblock Iraqi assets frozen at that time.
! On September 8, 2004, the President designated Iraq a beneficiary
of the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), enabling Iraqi
products to be imported to the United States duty-free.
! On September 24, 2004, Iraq was removed from the U.S. list of state
sponsors of terrorism under Section 6(j) of the Export
Administration Act (P.L. 96-72). Iraq is thus no longer barred from
receiving U.S. foreign assistance, U.S. votes in favor of international
loans, and sales of arms and related equipment and services. Exports
of dual use items (items that can have military applications) are no
longer subject to strict licensing procedures.31
! The FY2005 supplemental (P.L. 109-13) removed Iraq from a
named list of countries for which the United States is required to
withhold a proportionate share of its voluntary contributions to
international organizations for programs in those countries.
Debt Relief/WTO Membership/IMF. T he Administration is attempting to
persuade other countries to forgive Iraq’s debt, built up during Saddam’s regime,
with mixed success. The debt is estimated to total about $116 billion, not including
reparations dating to the first Persian Gulf war. In 2004, the “Paris Club” of 19
industrialized nations agreed to cancel about 80% of the $39 billion Iraq owes them.
The Persian Gulf states that supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war have resisted
writing off Iraq’s approximately $50 billion in debt to those countries (Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar). In mid-April 2007, Saudi Arabia agreed
to write off 80% of the $15 billion Iraq owes it, but no new debt relief commitments
by the UAE ($4 billion in Iraq debt) or Kuwait ($15 billion) were reported at the May
3-4, 2007, meetings on Iraq in Egypt. On December 17, 2004, the United States
signed an agreement with Iraq writing off 100% of Iraq’s $4.1 billion debt to the
United States; that debt consisted of principal and interest from about $2 billion in
defaults on Iraqi agricultural credits from the 1980s.32 On December 15, 2007, Iraq
clerared its debts to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by repaying $470 million
earlier than required and has a Stand-By Arrangement with the Fund. On December
13, 2004, the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreed to begin accession talks with
Iraq.
31 A May 7, 2003, Executive Order left in place the provisions of the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-
Proliferation Act (P.L. 102-484); that act imposes sanctions on persons or governments that
export technology that would contribute to any Iraqi advanced conventional arms capability
or weapons of mass destruction programs.
32 For more information, see CRS Report RL33376, Iraq’s Debt Relief: Procedure and
Potential Implications for International Debt Relief, by Martin A. Weiss.

---

CRS-28
Security Challenges and Responses
Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, the United States has employed a multi-
faceted approach to stabilizing Iraq, but in late 2006 the effort was determined by the
Administration to be faltering. The Iraq Study Group said in its December 6, 2006,
report that the “situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating.”33 President Bush, in his
January 10, 2007, speech on Iraq, said, “The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the
American people and it is unacceptable to me.” The deterioration was, at least partly,
the result of continuing sectarian violence superimposed on a tenacious Sunni-led
insurgency, and prompted the strategy revision announced in January 2007.
U.S. military headquarters in Baghdad (Combined Joint Task Force-7, CJTF-7)
is a multi-national headquarters “Multinational Force-Iraq, MNF-I,” headed by Gen.
David Petraeus, who previously led U.S. troops in the Mosul area and the training
and equipping program for the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF). The head of Multinational
Corps-Iraq is Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno.
Sunni Arab-Led Insurgency
The duration and intensity of a Sunni Arab-led insurgency defied many
expectations, probably because, in the view of many experts, it has been supported
by much of the Iraqi Sunni population that feels humiliated at being ruled by the
Shiites and their Kurdish partners. Some Sunni insurgents seek to return the Baath
Party to power, while others want to restore Sunni control more generally. The
insurgent groups are believed to be loosely coordinated within cities and provinces.
The most senior Baathist still at large is longtime Saddam confident Izzat Ibrahim al-
Duri.
The Sunni insurgency did not derail the political transition,34 but it has caused
rates of U.S. casualties and sectarian violence sufficient to stimulate debate in the
United States over continuing the U.S. commitment in Iraq. Sunni insurgent groups
have conducted numerous complex and coordinated attacks on police stations and
other fixed positions, suicide attacks on markets frequented by Shiites, and
occasional mass kidnappings. In 2007, insurgent groups, on about ten occasions,
exploded chlorine trucks to cause widespread civilian injury or panic. Targets of
insurgent grenades, IEDs (improvised explosive devices), mortars, and direct
weapons fire are U.S. forces and Iraqi officials and security forces, as well as Iraqi
civilians of rival sects, Iraqis working for U.S. authorities, foreign contractors and aid
workers, oil export and gasoline distribution facilities, and water, power, and other
facilities. A trend in early 2007 was attacks on bridges, particularly those connecting
regions of differing sectarian domination. Some Sunni insurgents have been able to
33 See p. xiii of the Executive Summary of the Iraq Study Group Report. December 6, 2006.
34 For further information, see Baram, Amatzia. “Who Are the Insurgents?” U.S. Institute
of Peace, Special Report 134, April 2005; and Eisenstadt, Michael and Jeffrey White.
“Assessing Iraq’s Sunni Arab Insurgency.” Washington Institute for Near East Policy,
Policy Focus No. 50, December 2005.

---

CRS-29
choke off power supplies to starve rival communities of power, for example in
northern Diyala Province. An April 12, 2007, bombing of the Iraqi parliament,
coming amid increasing mortar attacks on the heavily fortified International Zone,
demonstrate the ability of the insurgency to operate in Baghdad. Prior to 2007,
whole Sunni-dominated neighborhoods of Baghdad, including Amiriya, Adhamiya,
Fadhil, Jihad, Amal, and Dora (once a mostly Christian neighborhood) were serving
as Sunni insurgent bases. Sunni insurgents also made substantial inroads into the
mixed province of Diyala, pushing out Shiite inhabitants.
The U.N. Security Council has adopted the U.S. interpretation of the insurgency
in Resolution 1618 (August 4, 2005), condemning the “terrorist attacks that have
taken place in Iraq,” including attacks on Iraqi election workers and foreign
diplomats in Iraq. The FY2006 supplemental (P.L. 109-234) provided $1.3 million
in Treasury Department funds to disrupt insurgent financing.
2007 Trends and Al Qaeda in Iraq. U.S. officials say that a major trend
emerged in late 2006, even before the U.S. “troop surge” began in early 2007.
Some Iraqi Sunnis turned against the mostly foreign-composed Al Qaeda Iraq (AQ-I)
– which has been a key component of the insurgency – because of its commission of
some atrocities and abuses — such as killings of those who want to cooperate with
the Iraqi government, forced marriages, and attempts to impose strict Islamic law.
AQ-I was founded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed in a June 7, 2006, U.S.
airstrike. AQ-I has been a U.S. focus from very early on in the war because,
according to U.S. commanders, it is responsible for about 90% of the suicide
bombings against both combatant and civilian targets. AQ-I has always been
considered by Iraqis as an “unnatural” component of the insurgency because it is
composed of non-Iraqis with different traditions and whose goals are more
worldwide jihadist than Iraq-specific.35 The Sunni Iraqi turn against AQ-I was begun
in Anbar Province by Sunni tribes belonging to the “Awakening” (As Sahwa) or
“Salvation Council” movement who sought to limit AQ-I’s influence – and perhaps
bolster their own strength against Iraq’s dominant Shiites – by cooperating with U.S.
counter-insurgency efforts. The initiator of the movement, the Anbar Salvation
Council, survived the September 13, 2007, assassination of its key founder, Shaykh
Abd al-Sattar al-Rishawi; that movement is now headed by his brother, Ahmad, in
partnership with Anbar Governor Mamoun Rashid al-Alwani.
In the course of the troop surge to date, U.S. commanders have taken advantage
of this trend by turning over informal security responsibility to 70,000 former
militants (called “Concerned Local Citizens,” CLC) in exchange for their cooperation
and an end to their anti-U.S. operations. Of the 70,000 about 80% are Sunni and
20% are anti-extremist Shiites, according to the U.S. military. At the same time,
these CLC fighters and leaders of the Awakening movement – “Awakening
Councils” have now formed in several districts of Baghdad – are now increasingly
targeted by AQ-I and Iraqi Sunni insurgents. U.S. commanders are giving funds to
and sharing information with the CLC fighters — a strategy that is controversial
because of the potential of the Sunni Iraqis to later resume fighting U.S. forces and
35 AQ-I is discussed in detail in CRS Report RL32217, Iraq and Al Qaeda, by Kenneth
Katzman.

---

CRS-30
Iraqi Shiites. U.S. officials say no new weapons have been given to these groups,
although some reports say U.S. officers allow these fighters to keep captured
weaponry.
The CLC program has led to increased tensions between Maliki and the lead
U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and the entire UIA bloc publicly
demanded an end to this U.S. strategy on October 2, 2007, claiming the United States
is “embracing ... terrorist elements.” However, ISCI leader Hakim said in early
January 2008 that the CLC fighters have improved security in Iraq. Still, Shiite
political resistance has stalled U.S. plans to integrate all the CLC fighters into the
Iraqi Security Forces (ISF); in some cases ISF commanders have confined the Sunni
fighters to their homes or headquarters. The government, fearing empowering
Sunnis in mixed areas, has thus far only allowed about 10,000 such volunteers,
mostly from the almost exclusively Sunni province of Anbar (where they are referred
to Provincial Security Forces, or PSF) to join the ISF, causing some CLC members
to threaten to rejoin insurgent activity. The remaining 60,000 are being paid about
$300 per month by contracts funded by DoD. Another component of cooperating
Sunni fighters are the in Anbar Province and elsewhere that are now paid salaries by
the Ministry of Interior.
Despite the revolt by Sunni tribes and former insurgents, Gen. Petraeus has
declined to “declare victory” against AQ-I and say it remains highly dangerous and
capable of a come-back. There are continuing anti-AQ-I operations in Diyala,
suggesting continued AQ-I strength there. Others say that many AQ-I fighters are
now more active in northern Iraq, relocating there because of the pressure from the
Awakening movements and the troop surge in Anbar and Baghdad. A major suicide
bombing in August 2007 killed over 500 members of the Yazidi (Kurdish speaking,
pre-Islamic) sect in northern Iraq — the most lethal attack of the war to date.
Outside Support for Sunni Insurgents. Numerous accounts have said
that Sunni insurgents are receiving help from neighboring states (money and
weapons),36 although others believe that outside support for the insurgency is not
decisive. Largely because of this outside support, the first 17 recommendations of
the Iraq Study Group report call for intensified regional diplomacy, including multi-
lateral diplomacy with Syria and Iran. The December 2007 “Measuring Stability”
report says that Syria is estimated to be the entry point for 90% of all foreign
terrorists known in Iraq. The report also notes that Syria hosted the inaugural
meeting (August 2007) of the Border Security working group formed by the
Expanded Neighbors process discussed above, and a follow up in November 2007,
and that Syria has made recent efforts to stem the flow of extremists into Iraq.
Other assessments say the Sunni insurgents, both Iraqi and non-Iraqi, receive
funding from wealthy donors in neighboring countries such as Saudi Arabia,37 where
36 Blanford, Nicholas. “Sealing Syria’s Desolate Border,” Christian Science Monitor,
December 21, 2004.
37 Krane, Jim. “U.S. Officials: Iraq Insurgency Bigger.” Associated Press report published
in the Philadelphia Inquirer. July 9, 2004; Schmitt, Eric, and Thom Shanker. “Estimates By
(continued...)

---

CRS-31
a number of clerics have publicly called on Saudis to support the Iraqi insurgency.
As noted above, the Saudi leadership has been notably cool to the Maliki government
publicly — even to the point of refusing visits by him — which likely means that the
Saudi leadership is at least tolerating aid to Sunni insurgents privately.
Table 3. Key Security/Violence Indicators
Indicator
Current Level
Number of U.S. forces
About 158,000 includes most of “surge” of 28,500 U.S. forces
in Iraq
(17,500 combat soldiers, 4,000 Marines, and 7,000 support personnel)
in place. Forces were about 168,000 at surge height. Will decline to
about 138,000 (15 combat brigades) by July 2008. About 90,000 U.S.
and ISF in Baghdad.
U.S./Other Casualties
3,912 U.S. forces; 3,183 by hostile action. 3,765 since end to “major
combat operations” declared May 1, 2003. About 260 coalition
(including 170 British). 1,000+ civilian contractors. About 35 U.S.
military killed in both October and November 2007; and 23 in
December 2007, down from 100+ per month in early-mid 2007.
Partner forces in Iraq
10,961 from 26 other countries. Down from 28,000 in 2005
Number of Insurgents
25,000 U.S. estimates; Iraqi estimates run to 40,000, plus 150,000
supporters
AQ-I fighters
1,300 - 3,500 commonly estimated, precise figures not known
Number of Iranian Qods
150+. Shiite militias have killed about 200 U.S. soldiers with Qods-
Forces in Iraq
supplied Explosively Formed Projectiles (EFP’s).
Number of all
About 85/day “enemy-initiated” at end of 2007, down 60% from
Attacks/day
200/day in June 2007. Major car and other large suicide bombings
down 75% from pre-surge. Debate exists over what incidents are
counted in DoD figures; DoD does not count Shiite-Shiite violence
in its enemy-initiated figures, for example.
Iraq Civilian Deaths
About 13/day at end of 2007, down from down from 100/day in
December 2006, including 4 - 10 sectarian murders per day (down
from 33 pre-surge). Current levels lower than those of 2006, but
subject to large fluctuations, and exclude figures kept by Iraqi
authorities. Sectarian murders not limited to Baghdad; now occur
in Kirkuk, Baquba, Mosul, Kut, and other cities.
Shiite militiamen
80,000 (60,000 Mahdi, 15,000 Badr, 5,000 other)
Iraqis Leaving Iraq
2 million left, incl. 700,000 to Jordan, 1 million to Syria; another 2
or Displaced since 2003
million internally displaced or relocated. Some families returning
due to reduced violence levels and pressure from host countries, but
number of returnees, and reasons, widely debated.
Iraqis in Detention
About 25,000 by U.S.; an equal number in Iraqi custody
37 (...continued)
U.S. See More Rebels With More Funds,” New York Times, October 22, 2004.

---

CRS-32
Indicator
Current Level
Iraqi Army and Police
144 in operations; up from 104 in November 2006. 118 in the lead;
Battalions in
up from 57 in May 2006, of which as many as 12 can operate
operations/In the Lead
independently.
Total ISF
369,989 “assigned and trained.” Authorized total: 555,789
Number of Provinces
9: Muthanna, Dhi Qar, Najaf, Maysan, Irbil, Dahuk, and
Under ISF Control
Sulaymaniyah (latter three in May 2007), Karbala (October 29),
and Basra (December 16). Anbar to be turned over in March 2008.
Sources: Information provided by a variety of sources, including U.S. government reports on Iraq, Iraqi
statements, the Iraq Study Group report, DoD Measuring Stability report, Petraeus September 2007 testimony,
and press reports, including Reuters Alertnet. See Tables 5 and 6 for additional figures on total numbers of Iraqi
security forces, by force component.
Sectarian Violence and Shiite Militias/Civil War?
Contributing to the deteriorating security environment in 2006 and early 2007
was the increase in Sunni-Shiite sectarian violence. Top U.S. officials said in late
2006 that sectarian-motivated violence — manifestations of an all-out struggle for
political and economic power in Iraq — had displaced the Sunni-led insurgency as
the primary security challenge. There is also growing internecine fighting among
Shiite groups in southern Iraq as they compete for power, influence, and financial
resources. A January 2007 National Intelligence Estimate said “... the term ‘civil
war’ does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, [but] the term
‘civil war’ accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict....” In assessing
benchmark # 13, the July 12, 2007 and September 14 progress reports say that there
has been satisfactory progress reducing sectarian violence but unsatisfactory
progress towards eliminating militia control of local security, and the report
generally gave the Iraqis poor reviews for reducing sectarianism. The September 4,
2007 GAO report was pessimistic, calling benchmark #13 “unmet.” Subsequently,
however, U.S. and Iraqi officials have said there has been a dramatic drop in
sectarian violence because of the U.S. troop surge.
U.S. officials date the escalation of Sunni-Shiite sectarian violence to the
February 22, 2006, AQ-I bombing of the Askariya Shiite mosque in Samarra. The
attack set off a wave of purported Shiite militia attacks on Sunni mosques and
civilians in the first days after the mosque bombing. The Shiite militias — in some
cases supported by sympathetic Shiite members of the ISF — continued retaliating
by driving Sunnis out of mixed neighborhoods. Some observers said that the Sunnis
largely “lost” the “battle for Baghdad,” with some accounts saying that Baghdad was
about 35% Sunni Arab during Saddam’s rule but was reduced by the violence to
about 20%. Many victims of sectarian violence turn up bound and gagged, dumped
in about nine reported sites around Baghdad, including in strainer devices in the
Tigris River. The Samarra mosque was bombed again on June 13, 2007 and their
were reprisal attacks on Sunni mosques in Basra and elsewhere, although the attack
did not spark the large wave of reprisals that the original attack did, possibly because
the political elite appealed for calm after this second attack.

Iraqi Christians (mostly Chaldean Catholics and Assyrian Christians) and their
churches and church leaders have become major targets of Shiite and Sunni armed
factions, viewing them as allies of the United States. Since the fall of Saddam

---

CRS-33
Hussein, as many as 100,000 Christians might have left Iraq. Christian priests have
been kidnapped and killed. However, some Christians in Baghdad felt safe enough
to celebrate Christmas (2007) at churches in Baghdad. The attack on the Yazidis in
August 2007, noted above, also appeared to reflect the precarious situation for Iraqi
minorities. U.S. military forces do not specifically protect Christian sites.
Discussed below are the three major organized militias in Iraq: the Kurdish
Peshmerga, the Badr Brigades, and the Mahdi Army. Some believe that the Sunni
groups being allowed to operate by the United States constitute additional militias,
but they are relatively segregated by region and neighborhood and their ultimate form
and disposition are not determined; as noted, the United States is seeking to have
these Sunni groups integrated into the ISF.
! Kurdish Peshmerga. Together, the KDP and PUK may have as
many as 75,000 peshmerga (fighters), most of which are providing
security in the Kurdish-controlled provinces of Dahuk,
Sulaymaniyah, and Irbil Provinces. Some are in the Iraqi Security
Forces (ISF) and are deployed mostly in such northern cities as
Mosul and Tal Affar. Peshmerga have sometimes fought each
other; in May 1994, the KDP and the PUK clashed with each other
over territory, customs revenues, and control over the Kurdish
regional government in Irbil. Peshmerga do not appear to be
involved in the Sunni Arab-Shiite Arab sectarian violence, although
some human rights groups have alleged peshmerga abuses against
Christians and other minorities in the Nineveh Plain, close to the
KRG-controlled region. Kurdish leaders deny the allegations. The
FY2008 Consolidated Appropriation earmarks $8 million in ESF
from previous appropriations to assist the Nineveh plain Christians.
! Badr Brigades. This militia is led by Hadi al-Amiri (a member of
parliament from the Badr grouping of the UIA). The Badr Brigades
were recruited, trained, and equipped by Iran’s hardline force, the
Revolutionary Guard, during the Iran-Iraq war, in which Badr
guerrillas conducted forays from Iran into southern Iraq to attack
Saddam regime targets. Badr fighters were recruited from the ranks
of Iraqi prisoners of war held in Iran. However, many Iraqi Shiites
viewed ISCI as an Iranian puppet and Badr operations in southern
Iraq during the 1980s and 1990s did not shake Saddam’s grip on
power. The Badr “Organization” is under the UIA as a separate
political entity, in addition to its ISCI parent. Many Badr militiamen
have now folded into the ISF, particularly the National Police and
other police commando units, as discussed further below.
! Mahdi Army (Jaysh al-Mahdi, JAM). The March 2007 “Measuring
Stability” reports say this militia “has replaced Al Qaeda in Iraq as
the most dangerous accelerant of potentially self-sustaining sectarian
violence in Iraq.” It is purportedly the main perpetrator of the
killings of Sunni civilians. This U.S. assessment softened after the
JAM largely ceased active patrolling after the U.S. “troop surge”
began in February 2007.

---

CRS-34
Shiite-on-Shiite Violence. Shiite-against-Shiite violence increased in 2007,
perhaps because the Sadr faction sought influence commensurate with what it
believes is its popularity. Pro-Sadr candidates did not compete vigorously in the
January 2005 provincial elections, leaving the faction underrepresented in most
southern provinces, including Basra. As international forces, particularly those of
Britain, reduced their presence in southern Iraq, the JAM is became more assertive
against other Shiite factions in the south, as noted in the December 2007 Measuring
Stability report. Continued fighting pits the JAM against U.S., partner, and Badr-
dominated ISF personnel took place in Diwaniyah, Nassiriyah, Basra, and Amarah
as the JAM struggles to control more resources and power to compensate for its weak
position on the provincial councils. The fighting highlights the fragility of a pact
Sadr signed with ISCI in early October 2007, calling for an end to hostilities between
their two factions. The lack of implementation of the pact was again in evidence on
December 15, 2007 when several car bombs went off in Amarah in a possible effort
by ISCI to challenge Sadr’s strength there.
As an outgrowth of this infighting, within one week in late August 2007, the
governors of Qadisiyah and of Muthanna provinces — both ISCI loyalists — were
killed in roadside bombings. An even more violent incident took place on August 28,
when fighting between the JAM and the ISF (purportedly mostly Badr fighters within
the ISF) in the holy city of Karbala caused the death of more than 50 persons, mostly
ISF and JAM fighters. The fighting interrupted a Shiite celebration (the birth of the
12th Imam) and many of the Shiite celebrants were ordered out of the city. In late
September 2007, two aides to Ayatollah Sistani were assassinated on successive
days. However, it is not known whether the assassins were Shiite militiamen, or
possibly Sunni insurgents seeking to destabilize the leading Shiite centers of political
and religious power. After these incidents, Sadr said he was suspending JAM
operations for six months to “reorganize;” he has since extended the suspension into
2008. Still, U.S. commanders say that, overall, they are seeing reduced JAM activity
at least in Baghdad. Some experts, citing independent-minded JAM commanders
such as one named Abu Deraa, interpret some JAM actions as activity that is not
within Sadr’s control.
The city of Basra has complications even beyond those of other cities, and some
predict major instability there now that Britain has handed over the province to ISF
control (December 16). In Basra, with power comes the ability to divert oil exports,
smuggle them out, and pocket the proceeds. In Basra, the Fadilah (Islamic Virtue)
Party is part of the power struggle, using its strength among oil workers and the
Facilities Protection Force for the oil infrastructure. At the national level, Fadilah
and the Sadr trend are usually aligned against the “incumbent” Shiite parties because
both Sadr and Fadilah represent lower class constituents. Both have pulled out of the
UIA. In Basra, they are competitors because of the vast assets up for grabs there
(Basra is Iraq’s main oil producing region and the point of export for about 90% of
Iraq’s total oil exports). Fadilah has 12 of the 41 Basra province seats; ISCI
controls 21 seats, leaving Sadr with very little representation on that council. In April
2007, the Sadrists conducted protests in Basra to try to persuade the provincial
governor, Mohammad Waili, who is a Fadilah member, to resign, a campaign that
is continuing. Fadilah also has thus far successfully resisted Maliki’s efforts to
replace Waili. Britain says the city has been relatively stable since the redeployment

---

CRS-35
of its forces from the city to Basra airport in September 2007, and British and Iraqi
officials expressed relative optimism for the province at the December 16 handover
ceremony. There are no concentrations of U.S. troops there, leaving the security of
the city entirely in the hands of the ISF. The December 2007 Measuring Stability
report says Basra violence has increased only slightly since the British handover.
Iranian Support. U.S. officials, most specifically in a February 11, 2007,
U.S. defense briefing in Baghdad, have repeatedly accused the Qods (Jerusalem)
Force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard of aiding Shiite militias (mostly Sadr’s Mahdi
forces) with explosives and weapons, including the highly lethal “explosively forced
projectiles” (EFPs). A new development came on April 11, 2007, when U.S. military
officials said they had found evidence that Iran might also be supplying Sunni
insurgent factions, presumably in an attempt to cause U.S. casualties and promote the
view that U.S. policy in Iraq is failing. In his September 2007 testimony before
Congress, U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus asserted that Iran was using its
protege, Lebanese Hezbollah, to train and arm Iraqi Shiite militias and form them
into a Hezbollah-like Iranian proxy force in southern Iraq. Comments from some
U.S. commanders, including Gen. Odierno and Gen. Petraeus in November and
December 2007 said that Iranian shipments into Iraq had declined somewhat in line
with an August 2007 Iranian pledge to Maliki to reduce its involvement in the civil
conflict in Iraq. However, there are disagreements over whether this is a deliberate
Iranian policy decision (State Dept. view) or the result of U.S. counter-Iranian
operations.
Iran’s support for Shiite militias contributed to a U.S. decision to conduct direct
talks with Iran on the issue of stabilizing Iraq, a key recommendation of the
December 2006 Iraq Study Group (Recommendations 9, 10, and 11). The
Administration initially rejected that recommendation — the President’s January 10,
2007, Baghdad security initiative included announcement of an additional aircraft
carrier group and additional Patriot anti-missile systems to the Gulf, moves clearly
directed against Iran. From December 2006 to September 2007, U.S. forces arrested
twenty alleged Iranian Revolutionary Guard Qods Forces and other agents. It released
nine of them in November 2007, and another in December, but still holds those of
highest “value.”
In an apparent shift, the Administration supported and participated in the March
10, 2007, regional conference in Baghdad and the follow-up regional conference held
in Egypt on May 3 and 4, 2007. Subsequently, the two sides announced and then held
high profile direct talks, at the Ambassador level, on May 28, 2007. Another
meetings was held on July 24, 2007, with little agreement apparent at the meeting but
with a decision to form a U.S.-Iran working group to develop proposals for both sides
to help ease Iraq’s security difficulties. The working group met for the first time on
August 6. In his September 10 and 11, 2007 testimony, Ambassador Crocker said the
talks with Iran were worth continuing because Iran might, at some point, alter its
stance. Following U.S. assessments of reduced Iranian weapons shipments into Iraq,
the United States agreed to another meeting with Iran in Baghdad, but the planned
December 18, 2007 meeting was postponed over continuing U.S.-Iran disagreements
over the agenda for another round of talks. (For more information, see CRS Report
RS22323, Iran’s Influence in Iraq, by Kenneth Katzman.)

---

CRS-36
Iraq’s Northern Border
At the same time, security on Iraq’s northern border appears to be increasingly
fragile, and U.S. officials fear that the most stable region of Iraq could become an
arena for heightened conflict if the Turkey - Iraqi Kurdish dispute is not resolved
peacefully. Turkey’s government, complaining that Iraq’s Kurds (primarily the KDP,
whose power base abuts the Turkish border) are harboring the anti-Turkey PKK
guerrilla group in northern Iraq that has killed about 40 Turkish soldiers since
September 2007, obtained parliamentary approval in October 2007 for a move into
northern Iraq against the PKK and mobilized a reported 100,000 troops to the border
area. The Turkish military has used that authority sparingly to date, possibly because
U.S. officials are putting pressure on Kurdish leaders not to harbor the PKK, and
because U.S. officials are reportedly sharing information on the PKK with Turkey,.
Still, Turkey reportedly sent about 300 soldiers about 1.5 miles into northern Iraq on
December 18, following airstrikes on PKK positions in days prior. That same day,
KRG President Barzani cancelled a meeting with visiting Secretary of State Rice
because of the U.S.-Turkey cooperation against the PKK. The Maliki government
and the Iraqi Arabs generally favor cooperating with Turkey — and in September
2007 signed an agreement with Turkey to pledge such cooperation — but have
limited influence over the largely autonomous Kurdish region. The issue dominated
the expanded neighbors meeting in Istanbul on November 2, 2007, as well as Turkish
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s meeting with President Bush on November
5, as well as Turkish President Abdullah Gul’s meeting with President Bush on
January 7, 2008.
Tensions have threatened to erupt into major hostilities since July 2007 after
Barzani, in comments to journalists, claimed that Iraqi Kurds were capable of stirring
unrest among Turkish Kurds if Turkey interferes in northern Iraq. Previously, less
direct threats by Turkey had prompted the U.S. naming of an envoy to Turkey on this
issue in August 2006 (Gen. Joseph Ralston (ret.), former Vice Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff). On February 8, 2007, Turkish Foreign Minister warned against
proceeding with the December 31, 2007, referendum on Kirkuk, reflecting broader
concerns that the referendum could pave the way for Kurdish independence. That
referendum has been postponed at least until June 2008.
Another emerging dispute is Iran’s shelling of border towns in northern Iraq that
Iran says are the sites where the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK), an Iranian
Kurdish separatist group, is staging incursions into Iran. Iran has threatened a ground
incursion against PJAK and Iraq said on September 9, 2007, in remarks directed at
Iran and Turkey, that its neighbors should stop interfering in Iraq’s affairs.
U.S. Stabilization Strategy and “Troop Surge”
Acknowledging the difficulty of the mission, the Administration has tried to
refine its stabilization strategy.38 In prior years, a major focus of U.S. counter-
38 Previously, Congress has mandated two major periodic Administration reports on
progress in stabilizing Iraq. A Defense Department quarterly report, titled “Measuring
(continued...)

---

CRS-37
insurgent (“search and destroy”) combat was Anbar Province, which includes the
cities of Fallujah and Ramadi (provincial capital), the latter of which was the most
restive of all Iraqi cities and in which the provincial governor’s office was shelled or
attacked nearly daily until early 2007. In the run-up to the December 15, 2005,
elections, U.S. (and Iraqi) forces conducted several major operations (for example
Operations Matador, Dagger, Spear, Lightning, Sword, Hunter, Steel Curtain, and
Ram) to clear contingents of foreign fighters and other insurgents from Sunni cities
in Anbar, along the Euphrates River. None of these operations produced lasting
reductions in violence, possibly because of the relative insufficiency of U.S. and Iraqi
troops to hold cleared areas.
“Clear, Hold, and Build” Strategy/Provincial Reconstruction Teams.
Realizing the weakness of its strategy, in its November 2005 “National Strategy for
Victory in Iraq,” the Administration publicly articulated a new strategy called “clear,
hold, and build,” intended to create and expand stable enclaves by positioning Iraqi
forces and U.S. civilian reconstruction experts in areas cleared of insurgents. The
strategy stipulated that the United States should devote substantial resources to
preventing insurgent re-infiltration and promoting reconstruction in selected areas,
cultivating these areas as a model that could expand throughout Iraq. The strategy
formed the basis of Operation Together Forward (I and II) of August - October 2006.
In conjunction with the U.S. strategy, the Administration began forming
Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), a concept used extensively in Afghanistan.
Each PRT in Iraq is civilian led, to be composed of about 100 U.S. State Department
and USAID officials and contract personnel, to assist local Iraqi governing
institutions, such as the provincial councils, representatives of the Iraqi provincial
governors, and local ministry representatives. The concept ran into some U.S.
military objections to taking on expanded missions, but the debate was resolved with
an agreement by DOD to provide security to the U.S.-run PRTs. Initially, ten PRTs
were inaugurated, of which seven are run by the United States: Mosul, Kirkuk, Hilla,
Baghdad, Anbar Province, two in Salah ad-Din Province, and Baquba. Of the
partner-run PRTs, Britain has formed a PRT in Basra, Italy has formed one in Dhi
Qar province, and South Korea runs one in Irbil. In conjunction with the President’s
new strategy announced January 10, 2007, discussed below, another fifteen PRTs
have been opened (bringing the total to 25), including six more in Baghdad and three
more in Anbar. Of these, 11 are working at the provincial level and 14 are
embedded with U.S. military concentrations (Brigade Combat Teams.) There are
another seven smaller Provincial Support Teams. A total of about 400 diplomats
and contractors have been added to staff the new PRTs, although about half of these
new positions were filled with military personnel at least temporarily. Observers
who have visited Iraq say that some of the PRTs are increasingly well staffed and
38 (...continued)
Stability and Security in Iraq,” was required by an FY2005 supplemental appropriation (P.L.
109-13), and renewed by the FY2007 Defense Appropriation (P.L. 109-289). Another report
(“1227 Report”), is required by Section 1227 of the Defense Authorization Act for FY2006
(P.L. 109-163). As noted above, P.L. 110-28 mandated the July 15, 2007 and September 15,
2007 progress reports on the “troop surge,” as well as a GAO report due September 1, 2007
and an outside commission report (“Jones Commission”) on the Iraqi security forces.

---

CRS-38
effective in generating employment and establishing priorities. In December 2007,
the PRT in Kirkuk helped broker a return of Sunni Arabs to the provincial council
there; they had been boycotting because of the Kurdish push to control the city.

PRT Funding. An FY2006 supplemental appropriation, P.L. 109-234,
provided $229 million for the PRT operations. Another $675 million for
development grants to be distributed by the PRTs is funded through the ESF
appropriation for Iraq in this law. The FY2007 supplemental (P.L. 110-28) provides
about $700 million (ESF) for PRT security, operations, and PRT-funded
reconstruction projects.
“Troop Surge”/Baghdad Security Plan/“Fardh Qanoon”.
Acknowledging that the initiatives did not bring security or stability, the President’s
January 10, 2007, “New Way Forward” — Baghdad security initiative (referred to
in Iraq as Fardh Al Qanoon, or FAQ, Arabic for “Imposing Law”) was articulated as
intended to bring security to Baghdad and create conditions under which Iraq’s
communities and political leaders can reconcile. The plan, which in many ways
reflects recommendations in a January 2007 report by the American Enterprise
Institute entitled “Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq,”39 formally began
in February 2007, and included the following components:
! The deployment of an additional 28,500 U.S. forces to Iraq —
17,500 combat troops (five brigades) to Baghdad; 4,000 Marines to
Anbar Province; and the remainder are support troops and military
police. The plan envisioned that these forces, along with additional
Iraqi forces, would hold neighborhoods cleared of insurgents and
thereby cause the population to reject militias. The forces are based,
along with Iraqi soldiers, in 100 fixed locations (both smaller
Combat Outposts and the larger “Joint Security Stations”). Only
one such outpost is near Sadr City, although U.S. commanders say
more will be established there. The July 12 and September 14, 2007
progress reports said that establishment of the Joint Security
Stations has been satisfactory. The GAO report concurred.
! Cooperation from the Iraqi government, such as progress on the
reconciliation steps discussed earlier, the provision of $10 billion in
new capital spending on reconstruction (benchmark 17), and the
commitment of the Iraqi forces discussed previously 3 brigades
(about 6,000 soldiers), plus about 4,000 police commandos and
regular police (benchmark 9). Contributing to previous failures in
Baghdad were Iraq’s deployment of only two out of the six Iraqi
battalions committed. The July 12 and September 14, 2007 progress
report indicated satisfactory Iraqi performance on these measures.
The GAO report gives both benchmarks a “mixed” evaluation,
saying that some Iraqi forces are of limited effectiveness, and saying
that the $10 billion is unlikely to actually be spent.
39 The two principal authors of the report are Frederick W. Kagan and Jack Keane (General,
U.S. Army, ret.).

---

CRS-39
! Provision of at least $1.2 billion in new U.S. aid, including funds for
job creation and CERP projects, in part to revive long-dormant state-
owned factories.
! Maliki’s cooperation in not standing in the way of U.S. operations
against the JAM. Maliki’s fulfillment of this pledge has been the
primary cause of Sadr’s subsequent political split with Maliki. U.S.
commanders blamed Maliki for the failure of “Operation Together
Forward I and II” in 2006 because Maliki insisted they release
suspected JAM commanders and dismantle U.S. checkpoints in
Sadr City. Application of the surge to all factions comprised two of
the benchmarks under P.L. 110-28 (benchmarks 10 and 12). The
July 12, 2007 report indicates satisfactory progress on benchmark
12 (not allowing safehaven for any outlaw of any sect), but
unsatisfactory progress on benchmark 10 (refraining from political
interference over ISF efforts to pursue militants of all sects.)
Benchmark 11, even handed ISF enforcement of the law, another
very closely related indicator, was also rated unsatisfactory. The
GAO report says benchmark 10 is unmet, and benchmark 12 is
“mixed.” The September 14, 2007 Administration report upgraded
Iraq’s performance on benchmark 10 and 11 to “mixed,” and kept
12 as satisfactory.
Judging from legislative action, congressional reaction to the President’s
Baghdad security plan was somewhat negative. In House action, on February 16,
2007, the House passed (246-182) a non-binding resolution (H.Con.Res. 63)
expressing opposition to the sending of additional forces to Iraq. However, on
February 17, 2007, the Senate did not vote to close off debate on a version of that
resolution (S. 574). Earlier, a Senate resolution opposing the troop increase
(S.Con.Res. 2) was reported out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on
January 24 (12-9 vote). A cloture motion failed on February 1, 2007.
Surge Assessments. The first major assessment of the surge was
testimony of General Petraeus on September 10 and 11, 2007, in which he cited
numerous statistics and said “As a bottom line up front, the military objectives of the
surge are, in large measure, being met.” Subsequent comments and data
presentations by Petraeus and his subordinates have pointed to dramatic reductions
in violence, some of which are included in the security indicators table above.
On the basis of the security progress, Gen. Petraeus recommended that U.S.
forces could return to roughly pre-surge levels of about 135,000 (15 combat
brigades) by April 2008, a recommendation accepted by President Bush in a
September 13, 2007 speech.40 The surge forces are in the process of leaving, with a
Marine unit (2,200) leaving Anbar Province (Fallujah area) in October 2007 and
about 4,000 troops leaving the Diyala area in December 2007. In a press conference
on September 14, 2007, Secretary of Defense Gates said he would like to see U.S.
40 Text at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/09/print/20070913-2.html]

---

CRS-40
force levels drop further to about 100,000 by the end of 2008 if security conditions
permit, but no decision has been made on further reductions beyond those planned
by April 2008. According to U.S. military comments and the December 2007
Measuring Stability report, the surge has produced the following.
! Reduced weekly attacks, Iraqi civilian deaths, and overall violence
trends by at least 60%, to the much lower levels of 2004 or late
2003.
! Reduced violence in Baghdad (attacks down 67%) to the point
where only a few of Baghdad’s 500 districts are now considered
highly violent, and down from the 160 districts that were considered
under insurgent control before the surge. However, Gen. Odierno
said on October 2, 2007 that it would still take Iraqi forces until late
2008 to secure all of Baghdad, with the United States in a “tactical
overwatch” role.
! Attacks in Anbar are down 91% and the formerly combat intensive
cities of Fallujah and Ramadi, among others, are now seeing a return
of normal daily life and commerce.
! About 3,600 AQ-I members killed or captured in 2007, including the
loss of 233 identified as “key leaders.”
! Prime Minister Maliki said on November 10, 2007 that sectarian
violence in Baghdad had almost come to an end, and that he was
easing the Baghdad curfew imposed when the troop surge operations
began. Other restrictions, such as some of the barriers and
checkpoints around Baghdad, might be removed as well, and the ISF
is assuming greater responsibilities in the city.
! Iraqi and U.S. officials say that many families are returning to
Baghdad and that some districts formerly written off as AQ-I
strongholds, such as Amiriyah and the former Baathist stronghold of
Adhamiyah, are starting to bustle with normal activity.
! On the other hand, the top U.S. commanders say that some AQ-I and
other insurgents are still highly active in the northern areas,
including in Diyala, Salahuddin, and Nineveh provinces. These
activities necessitated another U.S. clearing operation begun in early
January 2008 in Diyala.
Still, many believe the positive indicators of the surge are temporary, and that
insurgent activity will increase as the surge troops are drawn down, because no
fundamental political reconciliation has occurred. According to the less optimistic
view, insurgents will re-infiltrate quiet neighborhoods once U.S. troops thin out, and
the newly empowered cooperating Sunni armed groups will begin battling in earnest
with Shiite-dominated ISF forces. The Administration counter-argument is that there
has been sufficient local reconciliation that average Iraqis will cooperate to prevent
insurgents from returning to thwarting reconstruction and normal life.

---

CRS-41
Building Iraqi Security Forces (ISF)41
A key to whether or not the progress will continue as U.S. forces thin out is the
quality of the Iraqi security forces (ISF). Responsible for building the ISF is the
commander of the U.S.-led ISF training mission, the Multinational Transition
Security Command-Iraq (MNSTC-I), Lt. Gen. James Dubik. The troop surge in
some ways has hindered the development of the ISF because U.S. forces are
conducting most of the heavy fighting – a former senior leader of training the ISF,
Brig. Gen. Dana Pittard, said in July 2007 that training the ISF had slowed since the
“troop surge” began.
Once the “troop surge” winds down by mid-2008, U.S. strategy will likely
return, to some extent, to that articulated by President Bush in a June 28, 2005
speech, when he said: “Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand
up, we will stand down.”42 However, the mandated “Jones Commission” report,
released September 5, 2007, clearly says the ISF will not be ready, in 12-18 months,
to take over security in Iraq, despite the expanding size of the ISF. Still, on January
10, 2008, a senior U.S. commander said Anbar would be turned over to ISF control
in March 2008, which would mark the 10th province to be turned over. The
Measuring Stability reports discuss and depict the degrees to which the Iraqi
government has assumed operational ISF control, and of ISF security control over
territory. (Recommendations 42, 43 and 44 of the Iraq Study Group report advised
an increase in training the ISF, and completion of the training by early 2008.)
The Jones Commission report had some praise for the Iraqi Army, while
recommending that the Shiite-dominated National Police commando force be
scrapped entirely and reorganized. Some observers go so far as to say that the ISF is
part of the security problem in Iraq, not the solution, because of incidents of ISF
member involvement in sectarian involvement or possible anti-U.S. activity. Lt. Gen.
Dubik said in July 2008 that it is still difficult to find ISF leaders free of sectarian
loyalties. In addition, the Jones Commission report and recent DOD “Measuring
Stability” reports reiterate previously reported criticisms of the ISF, including

! That the ISF continue to lack an effective command structure or
independent initiative, and that there continues to be a culture of
corruption throughout the ISF structure.

! As much as one-third of ISF members are absent-without-leave or
might have deserted at any given time.

! The ISF, particularly the police, are unbalanced ethnically and by
sect, penetrated by militias or even insurgents, and involved in
sectarian violence, particularly among the police forces. Most of the
ISF, particularly the police, are Shiites, with Kurdish units mainly
41 For additional information, see CRS Report RS22093, Iraq’s New Security Forces: The
Challenge of Sectarian and Ethnic Influences, by Jeremy Sharp.
42 Speech by President Bush can be found at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/
2005/06/20050628-7.html].

---

CRS-42
deployed in the north, and many Sunnis distrust the ISF as
instruments of repression and responsible for sectarian killings.
Many ISF members view themselves as loyal to their former militias
or party leaders, and not to a national force. In late 2005, U.S. forces
uncovered militia-run detention facilities (“Site 4”) and arrested
those (Badr Brigade and related Iraqi police) running them.

! According to observers, appointments to senior commands continue
to be steered toward Shiite figures, primarily Da’wa Party members,
by Maliki’s “Office of the Commander-in-Chief” run by his Da’wa
subordinate, Dr. Bassima al-Jaidri. She reportedly has also removed
several qualified commanders who are Sunni Arabs, causing Sunni
distrust of the Iraqi military.

! The 144,000 members of the “Facilities Protection Force,” (FPS),
which are security guards attached to individual ministries, are
involved in sectarian violence. The United States and Iraq began
trying to rein in the force in May 2006 by placing it under some
Ministry of Interior guidance, including issuing badges and
supervising what types of weapons it uses. (In Recommendation 54,
the Iraq Study Group says the Ministry of Interior should identify,
register, and otherwise control FPS.)
On the other hand, while reports continue to point to sectarianism in the Interior
Ministry, U.S. officials have praised Interior Minister Jawad Bolani for trying to
remove militiamen and death squad participants from the ISF. He has dismissed at
least 3,000 Ministry employees for alleged sectarian links, along with several
commanders of National Police components. In October 2006, an entire brigade of
National Police was taken out of duty status for retraining for alleged toleration of
sectarian killings in Baghdad. In September 2007, U.S. forces arrested 59 Iraqi
officers and enlisted men linked to sectarian killings and criminal activity. Still, most
observers say the Ministry remains infiltrated by Shiite militia supporters of all the
various Shiite factions.
The July 12 and September 14, 2007 progress reports assesses the ISF on: the
ability of the ISF to operate independently, which is assessed as unsatisfactory in
both reports (benchmark # 15). Enforcing the law even-handedly, which the July
report says is generally unsatisfactory (benchmark # 11), but the September 14
report says is “mixed” — satisfactory on the Iraqi military but unsatisfactory on the
police. Ensuring that the political authorities are not making false accusations
against or undermining the ISF (benchmark 18), is assessed in both reports as
unsatisfactory. Pursuing all extremists (Sunni and Shiite) and preventing political
interference in ISF operations in conjunction with the troop surge (benchmarks
10),is assessed as unsatisfactory in the July report but mixed in the September report,
which said Iraq was still unsatisfactory on preventing political interference.
Ensuring the Baghdad security plan does not allow safehaven for outlaws of any sect
(benchmark 12), is assessed as satisfactory on both reports. The GAO assessment
concurs with the July report except benchmark 12, which GAO assesses as “mixed.”

---

CRS-43
The Iraq Study Group (Recommendations 50-61) contain several suggestions
for reforming and improving the police. Among the recommendations are: assigning
the lead role in advising and training the anti-crime portions of the police forces to
the U.S. Department of Justice; and transferring those police forces that are involved
in anti-insurgency operations to the Ministry of Defense from their current
organizational structure under the Ministry of Interior.
ISF Weaponry. Most observers say the ISF are severely underequipped,
dependent primarily on donations of surplus equipment by coalition members. The
Iraqi Army is using mostly East bloc equipment, including 77 T-72 tanks donated by
Poland, but has now received about 2,500 up-armored Humvees from the United
States. Iraq is moving forward with a request (Foreign Military Sales, FMS) to buy
at least $2.3 billion worth of U.S. munitions, including upgrades to UH-1 helicopters,
and various military vehicles. Some of this equipment will be for the Iraqi police.
The potential sale was notified to Congress by the Defense Security Assistance
Agency (DSCA) on September 25, 2007. Iraq had previously ordered about $1 billion
worth of U.S. arms. In October 2007, it was reported that Iraq also is ordering $100
million in light equipment from China to equip the ISF police forces. Iraqi President
Talabani said part of the rationale for the China buy was the slow delivery of U.S.
weapons. (In Recommendation 45, the Iraq Study Group said the United States
should encourage the Iraqi government to accelerate its FMS requests and that
departing U.S. combat units should leave behind some of their equipment for use by
the ISF.)
There are fears that some of these weapons are falling into the hands of
insurgents, militias, or even terrorist groups. In August 2007, the GAO reported that
the Defense Department cannot fully account for the total of $19.2 billion worth of
equipment provided to the ISF by the United States and partner forces. A New York
Times report in August 2007 said some of the ISF weapons might have ended up in
the hands of anti-Turkish PKK guerrillas (PKK is a named terrorist group by the
United States).
Table 4. ISF Funding
FY2003 and FY2004
$5.036 billion allocated from $20+ billion “Iraq Relief and
Reconstruction Fund,” see above.
FY2005
$5.7 billion in DoD funds from FY2005 supplemental
appropriation (P.L. 109-13).
FY2006
$3 billion appropriated by FY2006 supplemental (P.L.
109-234).
FY2007
Total of $5.54 billion appropriated from: FY2007 defense
appropriation (P.L. 109-289) - $1.7 billion; and from
FY2007 supplemental (P.L. 110-28) -- $3.84 billion (the
requested amount).
FY2008
$3 billion (revised) request. FY2008 regular
appropriations (Consolidated, P.L. 110-161) provide $1.5
billion.
Total
$20.776 billion provided or appropriated

---

CRS-44
Table 5. Ministry of Defense Forces
Force
Size/Strength “Assigned and Trained”
Iraqi Army
141,991 assigned and trained. Authorized goal is 186,352. Forces in
units are in 117 battalions (about 90,000 personnel). Remainder not in
formed units. Trained for eight weeks, paid $60/month. Commanders
receive higher salaries.
Special
Technically a separate bureau not under MOD. 2,578 assigned and
Operations
trained. Authorized size is 3,967. Trained for 12 weeks, mostly in
Forces
Jordan.
Support Forces 17,208 assigned and trained. Authorized level is 17,369
Air Force
1,075. Authorized level is 2,907. Has 9 helicopters, 3 C-130s; 14
observation aircraft. Trained for six months. UAE and Jordan to
provide other aircraft and helos.
Navy
1,106. Authorized level is 1,483. Has a Patrol Boat Squadron and a
Coastal Defense Regiment. Fields about 35 patrol boats for anti-
smuggling and anti-infiltration. Controls naval base at Umm Qasra,
Basra port, and Khor al-Amaya oil terminals. Some training by
Australian Navy.
Totals
163,958 assigned and trained. 212,078 authorized.
U.S./Other
U.S. training, including embedding with Iraqi units (10 per battalion),
Trainers
involves about 4,000 U.S. forces, run by Multinational Security
Transition Command - Iraq (MNSTC-I). Training at Taji, north of
Baghdad; Kirkush, near Iranian border; and Numaniya, south of
Baghdad. All 26 NATO nations at NATO Training Mission - Iraq
(NTM-I) at Rustamiyah (300 trainers). Others trained at NATO bases
in Norway and Italy. Jordan, Germany, and Egypt also have done
training.
Recent U.S.
FY2007: $3.558 billion as follows: $780 million infrastructure; $1.51
Funding
billion for equipment and transportation; $58 million for training; and
$1.21 billion for sustainment.
FY2008 supplemental request: $1.487 billion as follows: $298 million
infrastructure; $917 million equipment and transportation; $116
million for training; $154 million sustainment

---

CRS-45
Table 6. Ministry of Interior Forces
Force/Entity
Size/Strength Assigned and Trained/Authorized
Iraqi Police Service
142,138. Authorized level is 271,850. Gets eight weeks of
(IPS)
training, paid $60 per month. Not organized as battalions;
deployed in police stations nationwide.
National Police
32,517. Authorized level is 33,861. Comprises “Police
Commandos,” Public Order Police,” and “Mechanized
Police.” Overwhelmingly Shiite. Gets four weeks of
counter-insurgency training. Iraq Study Group
(Recommendation 50) proposes transfer to MOD control
and Jones Commission recommends disbandment due to
sectarian activity.
Border Enforcement
31,376. Authorized level is 38,000. Controls over 250
Department
border positions built or under construction. Has Riverine
Police component to secure water crossings. Iraq Study
Group (Recommendation 51) proposes transfer to MOD
control.
Totals (all forces)
206,031 assigned and trained. 343,711 authorized.
Training
Training by 3,000 U.S. and coalition personnel (DOD-lead)
as embeds and partners (247 Police Transition Teams of 10-
15 personnel each). Pre-operational training mostly at
Jordan International Police Training Center; Baghdad Police
College and seven academies around Iraq; and in UAE. Iraq
Study Group (Recommendation 57) proposes U.S. training
at local police station level. Countries doing training aside
from U.S.: Canada, Britain, Australia, Sweden, Poland,
UAE, Denmark, Austria, Finland, Czech Republic, Germany
(now suspended), Hungary, Slovenia, Slovakia, Singapore,
Belgium, and Egypt.
Facilities Protection
Accounted for separately, they number about 144,000,
Service (FPS)
attached to individual ministries.
Recent U.S. Funding
FY2007 total is $1.573 billion as follows: $311 million
infrastructure; $583 million equipment and transportation;
$552 million training; $127 million sustainment.
FY2008 total requested is $1.206 billion as follows: $84.7
million infrastructure; $392 million equipment and
transportation; $623.3 million training; $106 million
sustainment.

---

CRS-46
Coalition-Building and Maintenance
Some believe that, partly because of the lack of U.N. approval for the invasion
of Iraq, the Bush Administration was unable to enlist large scale international
participation in peacekeeping and that the U.S. mission in Iraq is now being
complicated by diminishing foreign military contributions. Some remaining force
contributions are small and appear to be mostly symbolic – such as Kazakhstan’s
contribution of 29 soldiers – or intended to improve relations with the United States.
The Administration view is that partner drawdowns reflect a stabilizing security
environment in the areas those forces are serving. A list of contributing countries, but
not force levels, is in the Department of State’s “Iraq Weekly Status Report.” A
listing of force and financial contributions to Iraq is in CRS Report RL32105: Iraq:
Foreign Contributions to Stabilization and Reconstruction, by Christopher Blanchard
and Catherine Dale.
Substantial partner force drawdowns began with Spain’s May 2004 withdrawal
of its 1,300 troops. Spain made that decision following the March 11, 2004, Madrid
bombings and subsequent defeat of the former Spanish government that had
supported the war effort. Honduras, the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua
followed Spain’s withdrawal (900 total personnel), and the Philippines withdrew in
July 2004 after one of its citizens was taken hostage. On the other hand, many
nations are replacing their contingents with trainers for the ISF or financial
contributions or other assistance to Iraq, or with increased force contributions in
Afghanistan. Among other drawdowns are:
! Ukraine, which lost eight soldiers in a January 2005 insurgent attack,
withdrew most of its 1,500 forces after the December 2005 Iraqi
elections. Bulgaria pulled out its 360-member unit at that time, but
in March 2006 it sent in a 150-person force to take over guard duties
of Camp Ashraf, a base in eastern Iraq where Iranian oppositionists
are held by the coalition.
! South Korea began reducing its 3,600 troop contribution to Irbil in
northern Iraq in June 2005. By late 2007, the contingent had
diminished to about 1,200. The deployment has been extended by
the South Korean government until the end of 2008, although at a
reduced level of 600.
! Japan completed its withdrawal of its 600-person military
reconstruction contingent in Samawah on July 12, 2006, but it
continues to provide air transport (and in June 2007 its parliament
voted to continue that for another two years).
! Italy completed its withdrawal (3,200 troops at the peak) in
December 2006 after handing Dhi Qar Province to ISF control.
! Romanian leaders are debating whether to withdraw or reduce their
890 forces which operate in southern Iraq.

---

CRS-47
! In line with a February 21, 2007 announcement, Denmark withdrew
its 460 troops from the Basra area.
! In August 2007, Lithuania withdrew its 53 troops.
! Georgia has increased its Iraq force to 2,000 (from 850) to assist the
policing the Iran-Iraq border at Al Kut, a move that Georgian
officials said was linked to its efforts to obtain NATO membership.
However, Georgia said in September 2007 that it might reduce that
force to 300 by mid-2008.
! Britain, despite its redeployments discussed above, continues to
constitute the largest non-U.S. foreign force in Iraq. In line with
plans announced in early 2007, British forces have been reduced
from 7,100 to about 5,200 currently. Prime Minister Gordon Brown
announced in October 2007 that British forces are moving toward
“overwatch” in southern Iraq, and that the force would be reduced
to about 2,500 by July 2008. Press reports say Gen. Petraeus, in
September 2007 meetings in London, expressed concerns that the
British drawdown is leaving U.S. supply lines (and withdrawal
routes) less well guarded.
! Poland has led the multinational force based near Diwaniyah and
includes forces from the following foreign countries: Armenia,
Slovakia, Denmark, El Salvador, Ukraine, Romania, Lithuania,
Latvia, Mongolia, and Kazakhstan. Polish forces number 900, down
from a high of 2,600 in 2005. Following its October 2007 election,
the government of Prime Minister Donald Tusk, considered less pro-
U.S. than his predecessor, has introduced legislation to the
parliament (controlled by Tusk’s party) to withdraw by October
2008.
! In the aftermath of the November 2007 elections in Australia in
which Prime Minister John Howard was defeated, the Prime
Minister-elect Kevin Rudd said that about 550 of Australia’s 1,500
person contingent would be withdrawn by mid-2008.
! El Salvador said on December 11, 2007 that it would continue its
290 soldier contribution into 2008.
NATO/EU/Other Civilian Training. A s noted above, all NATO countries
have now agreed to train the ISF through the NTM-I, as well as to contribute funds
or equipment. Several NATO countries and others are offering to also train civilian
personnel. In addition to the security training offers discussed above, European
Union (EU) leaders have offered to help train Iraqi police, administrators, and judges
outside Iraq.

---

CRS-48
Iraq Study Group Report, Legislative Proposals, and
Other Options
In formulating the “troop surge” strategy announced on January 10, 2007,
President Bush said he weighed the December 6, 2006, report of the Iraq Study
Group, as well as input from several other reviews, including one directed by the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and another by the National Security Council. For a comparison
of various legislative proposals on Iraq, see CRS Report RL34172 Operation Iraqi
Freedom and Detainee Issues: Major Votes from the 110th Congress, by Kim
Klarman, Lisa Mages, and Pat Towell.
Iraq Study Group Report
The President’s “New Way Forward” plan appeared to deviate from many
aspects of the Iraq Study Group report, although the differences later narrowed. The
Administration has noted that the Iraq Study Group said it might support a temporary
surge along the lines proposed by the President.43 Among the most significant of the
79 recommendations, some of which were discussed previously, are the following:44
! Foremost, transition from U.S.-led combat to Iraqi security self-
reliance by early 2008 (Recommendations 40-45), with continued
U.S. combat against AQ-I and force protection, in addition to
training and equipping the ISF. The transition to ISF-led combat
was largely reversed by the “troop surge” strategy, see above.
! Heightened regional and international diplomacy, including with
Iran and Syria, and including the holding of a major international
conference in Baghdad (Recommendations 1-12). After appearing
to reject this recommendation, the Administration later backed the
regional diplomatic process on Iraq discussed above.
! As part of an international approach, renewed commitment to Arab-
Israeli peace (Recommendations 13-17). This was not a major
feature of the President’s plan, although he has authorized stepped
up U.S. diplomacy by Secretary of State Rice on this issue.
! Additional economic, political, and military support for the
stabilization of Afghanistan (Recommendation 18). This was not
43 Full text of the report is at [http://www.usip.org]. The Iraq Study Group itself was
launched in March 2006; chosen by mutual agreement among its congressional organizers
to co-chair were former Secretary of State James Baker and former Chairman of the House
International Relations Committee Lee Hamilton. The eight other members of the Group are
from both parties and have held high positions in government. The group was funded by the
conference report on P.L. 109-234, FY2006 supplemental, which provided $1 million to the
U.S. Institute of Peace for operations of the group.
44 A CRS general distribution memo, available on request, has information on the 79
recommendations and the status of implementation.

---

CRS-49
specified in the President’s January 10 plan, although, separately,
there have been increases in U.S. troops and aid for Afghanistan.
(See CRS Report RL30588: Afghanistan: Post-War Governance,
Security, and U.S. Policy.)
! Setting benchmarks for the Iraqi government to achieve political
reconciliation, security, and governance, including possibly
withholding some U.S. support if the Iraqi government refuses or
fails to do so (Recommendations 19-37). The President opposes
reducing support for the Iraqi government if it fails to uphold its
commitments, but he signed P.L. 110-28 which linked U.S.
economic aid to progress on the benchmarks.
! Giving greater control over police and police commando units to the
Iraqi Ministry of Defense, which is considered less sectarian than the
Ministry of Interior that now controls these forces, and reforming the
Ministry of Interior (Recommendations 50-58). The Administration
has sought reform of the Ministry of Interior, with mixed results, but
the police forces are still under MOI control.
! Securing and expanding Iraq’s oil sector (Recommendations 62-63).
The President’s plan expects Iraq to pass the pending oil laws, which
would, in part, encourage foreign investment in Iraq’s energy sector.
! Increasing economic aid to Iraq and enlisting more international
donations of assistance (Recommendations 64-67). The President’s
plan includes increases in aid, as discussed above.
In the 110th Congress, an amendment to H.R. 2764, the FY2008 foreign aid bill,
would revive the Iraq Study Group (providing $1 million for its operations) to help
assess future policy after the “troop surge.” The provision was not incorporated into
the Consolidated appropriation (P.L 110-161). In the Senate, some Senators from
both parties in June 2007 proposed legislation (S. 1545) to adopt the
recommendations of the Group as U.S. policy.
Further Options: Altering Troop Levels or Mission
The sections below discuss options that have been under discussion even before
the report of the Iraq Study Group or the troop surge, and some of these options
remain under active debate. Others of these options, on the other hand, appear to be
receiving less attention as the “troop surge” has produced measurable military results.
Some of the ideas discussed below may be similar to some of the recommendations
of the Study Group as well as the President’s plan.
Further Troop Increase. Some argued that the “surge” was too limited —
concentrated mainly in Baghdad and Anbar — and that the United States should
consider increasing troops levels in Iraq even further to prevent Sunni insurgents
from re-infiltrating cleared areas. However, this option appears to have faded
because of security progress resulting from the surge already in place.

---

CRS-50
Immediate and Complete Withdrawal. The Administration adamantly
opposes this option, arguing that doing so would result in full-scale civil war,
safehaven for AQ-I, emboldening of Al Qaeda more generally, and increased
involvement of regional powers in the fighting in Iraq. Supporters of the
Administration position say that Al Qaeda terrorists might “follow us home” —
conduct attacks in the United States — if there were a complete withdrawal.
Some Members argue for immediate withdrawal by arguing that the decision to
invade Iraq was a mistake and unjustified, that the large U.S. presence in Iraq is
inflaming the insurgency, and that remaining in Iraq will result in additional U.S.
casualties without securing U.S. national interests. Other Members argue that U.S.
forces are now policing a civil war rather than fighting an insurgency. Those who
support a withdrawal include most of the approximately 70 Members of the “Out of
Iraq Congressional Caucus,” formed in June 2005. In the 110th Congress, some have
introduced legislation (H.R. 508 and H.R. 413) that would repeal the original
authorization for the Iraq war. A similar measure might be considered in the Senate.
In the 109th Congress, Representative John Murtha, ranking member (now
chairman) of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, introduced a resolution
(H.J.Res. 73) calling for a U.S. withdrawal “at the earliest practicable date” and the
maintenance of an “over the horizon” U.S. presence, mostly in Kuwait (some say
U.S. troops could be based in the Kurdish north) from which U.S. forces could
continue to battle AQ-I. A related resolution, H.Res. 571 (written by Representative
Duncan Hunter, then chairman of the House Armed Services Committee), expressed
the sense “that the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq be terminated immediately;” it
failed 403-3 on November 18, 2005. Representative Murtha introduced a similar bill
in the 110th Congress (H.J.Res. 18); a Senate bill (S. 121) as well as a few other
House bills (H.R. 663, H.R. 455, and H.R. 645) contain similar provisions.
Withdrawal Timetable. The Administration has opposed legislation
mandating a withdrawal timetable on the grounds that doing so would allow
insurgents to “wait out” a U.S. withdrawal. The Iraq Study Group suggests a winding
down of the U.S. combat mission by early 2008 but does not recommend a firm
timetable. Some forms of this option continue to exhibit some support in Congress.
The House leadership inserted a binding provision of FY2007 supplemental
appropriations legislation (H.R. 1591) that would require the president, as a condition
of maintaining U.S. forces in Iraq, to certify (by July 1, 2007) that Iraq had made
progress toward several political reconciliation benchmarks, and by October 1, 2007
that the benchmarks have been met. Even if the requirements were met, the
amendment would require the start of a redeployment from Iraq by March 1, 2008,
to be completed by September 1, 2008. The whole bill passed the House on March
23, 2007. In the Senate-passed version of H.R. 1591, a provision would set a non-
binding goal for U.S. withdrawal of March 1, 2008, in line with S.J.Res. 9 cited
above. The conference report adopted elements of both bills, retaining the benchmark
certification requirement and the same dates for the start of a withdrawal but making
the completion of any withdrawal (by March 31, 2008, not September 1, 2008) a goal
rather than a firm deadline. President Bush vetoed the conference report on May 1,
2007, and the veto was sustained. The revised provision in the FY2007 supplemental
(H.R. 2206, P.L. 110-28) was discussed previously.

---

CRS-51
A House bill, (H.R. 2956), which mandates a beginning of withdrawal within
120 days and completion by April 1, 2008, was adopted on July 12, 2007 by a vote
of 223-201. A proposed amendment (S.Amdt. 2087) to H.R. 1585 contained a similar
provision. A Senate bill (S. 433), would set a deadline for withdrawing combat
troops by March 31, 2008.
On November 13, 2007, some in Congress revived the idea, in an FY2008
supplemental request for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (H.R. 4156), of
setting a target date (December 15, 2008) for a U.S. withdrawal, except for force
protection and “counter-terrorism” operations. The bill would require the withdrawal
to start within 30 days of enactment. The prospects for the proposal seemed unclear
in part because some in Congress want stronger language mandating a date for the
completion of a withdrawal, while others said that allowing forces to remain for
“counter-terrorism” could permit the Administration to keep forces close to current
levels by defining many U.S. operations as counter-terrorism.
In the 109th Congress, the timetable issue was debated extensively. In November
2005, Senator Levin, who takes the view that the United States needs to force internal
compromise in Iraq by threatening to withdraw, introduced an amendment to S. 1042
(FY2006 defense authorization bill) to compel the Administration to work on a
timetable for withdrawal during 2006. Then-Chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee John Warner subsequently submitted a related amendment that stopped
short of setting a timetable for withdrawal but required an Administration report on
a “schedule for meeting conditions” that could permit a U.S. withdrawal. That
measure, which also states in its preamble that “2006 should be a period of
significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty,” achieved bi-partisan support, passing
79-19. It was incorporated, with only slight modifications by House conferees, in the
conference report on the bill (H.Rept. 109-360, P.L. 109-163). On June 22, 2006, the
Senate debated two Iraq-related amendments to an FY2007 defense authorization bill
(S. 2766). One, offered by Senator Kerry, setting a July 1, 2007, deadline for U.S.
redeployment from Iraq, was defeated 86-13. Another amendment, sponsored by
Senator Levin, called on the Administration to begin redeployment out of Iraq by the
end of 2006, but with no deadline for full withdrawal. It was defeated 60-39.
Troop Mission Change. Insisting that the “troop surge” is producing
positive military results, President Bush opposes a major alteration of the U.S.
mission until the ISF is able to secure Iraq on its own. However, as noted above,
Secretary of Defense Gates’ apparently seeks a drawdown to about 100,000 by the
end of 2008 – a drawdowns to that level or lower would likely imply at least some
reduction of the scope of the U.S. security mission in Iraq. Still, there is U.S.
military opposition – including from Gen. Petraeus – to too rapid force reduction that
could jeopardize the gains of the troop surge. In the past, U.S. commanders
presented to President Bush options for a substantial drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq
to about 120,000. The plans faded when the security situation did not calm.
Some argue that the United States should not “police a civil war” and should
instead scale back its mission to: (1) operations against AQ-I; (2) an end to active
patrolling of Iraqi streets; (3) force protection; and (4) training the ISF. The rationale
for such an option would be to maintain a U.S. presence, possibly long term, to assist
the Iraqi government and protect core U.S. interests but without incurring large U.S.

---

CRS-52
casualties. A press report in June 2007 (Washington Post, June 10, 2007) said that,
if this were the new mission of U.S. forces, fulfilling the mission might require
retaining about 50,000 - 60,000 U.S. forces. Of these forces, about 20,000 would
be assigned to guaranteeing the security of the Iraqi government or assist the ISF if
it is having difficulty in battle. A reduced U.S. mission similar to those described are
stipulated in H.R. 2451. A change of mission — but without a deadline for
withdrawal — was proposed by several Senators for consideration of the FY2008
defense authorization (H.R. 1585) but was not in the conference report on the bill.
Planning for Withdrawal. Administration officials say they will not publicly
discuss whether or not there is planning for a withdrawal because doing so would
undermine current policy. However, Secretary Gates toured facilities in Kuwait in
August 2007 in what was reported as an effort to become familiar with the
capabilities of the U.S. military to carry out a redeployment, if ordered. Some
Members want the Administration to plan for a substantial U.S. redeployment from
Iraq and to inform Congress accordingly. A bill, introduced in July 2007 by
Representative Tanner (H.R. 3087) and reported out by the House Armed Services
Committee on July 31, 2007, would require the Administration to give Congress a
plan for redeployment from Iraq. That bill was passed by the House on October 2,
2007 by a vote of 377-46. Senator Hillary Clinton reportedly was briefed on August
2, 2007 by Defense Department officials on the status of planning for a withdrawal,
if one is decided, and she and several others introduced legislation on August 2, 2007
(S. 1950), to require contingency planning for redeployment from Iraq.
Requiring More Time Between Deployments. Some Members who favor
at least a partial pullout do so on the grounds that the Iraq effort is placing too much
strain on the U.S. military. A Senate amendment to H.R. 1585, requiring more time
between deployments to Iraq, was not agreed to on September 19, 2007 because it
only received 56 affirmative votes, not the needed 60 for passage. A similar House
bill, H.R. 3159, was passed in the House on August 2, 2007 by a vote of 229-194.
Stepped Up International and Regional Diplomacy
As noted above, many of the Iraq Study Group recommendations propose
increased regional, multi-lateral, and international diplomacy. One idea, included in
the Study Group report, is to form a “contact group” of major countries and Iraqi
neighbors to prevail on Iraq’s factions to compromise. The Administration has taken
significant steps in this direction, including a bilateral meeting with Syria at the May
3-4, 2007 meeting on Iraq in Egypt, and the bilateral meetings with Iran in Baghdad
discussed above. In the 110th Congress, a few bills (H.R. 744, H.Con.Res. 43, and
H.Con.Res. 45) support the Iraq Study Group recommendation for an international
conference on Iraq. In the 109th Congress, these ideas were included in several
resolutions, including S.J.Res. 36, S.Res. 470, S.J.Res. 33, and S. 1993, although
several of these bills also include provisions for timetables for a U.S. withdrawal.
Other ideas involve recruitment of new force donors. In July 2004, then-
Secretary of State Powell said the United States would consider a Saudi proposal for
a contingent of troops from Muslim countries to perform peacekeeping in Iraq,
reportedly under separate command. Some Iraqi leaders believed that such
peacekeepers would come from Sunni Muslim states and would inevitably favor

---

CRS-53
Sunni factions within Iraq. On the other hand, several experts believe that the lack
of progress in stabilizing Iraq is caused by internal Iraqi disputes and processes and
that new regional or international steps would yield minimal results. For more
information, see CRS Report RL33793, Iraq: Regional Perspectives and U.S. Policy,
coordinated by Christopher Blanchard.
Another idea is to identify a high-level international mediator to negotiate with
Iraq’s major factions. Some Members of Congress wrote to President Bush in
November 2006 asking that he name a special envoy to Iraq to follow up on some of
the Administration’s efforts to promote political reconciliation in Iraq.
Political Reconciliation, Reorganization, and “Federalism”
Many proposals focus on the need for a “political solution,” a requirement
acknowledged by Gen. Petraeus and almost all senior U.S. officials, and one
consistently discussed by many Members of Congress. These proposals involve
differing methods for altering Iraq’s power structure so that no major community
feels excluded or has incentive to back violence.
Reorganize the Existing Power Structure. Some experts believe that
adjusting U.S. troop levels would not address the underlying causes of violence in
Iraq. Those who want to build a unified and strong central government, including the
Bush Administration, have identified the need to assuage Sunni Arab grievances, and
several of the benchmarks required of the Iraqi government are intended to achieve
that objective. Others believe that more sweeping political reconciliation efforts are
needed, but there is little agreement on what additional or alternative package of
incentives, if any, would persuade most Sunnis leaders — and their constituents —
to support the government. Some believe that Sunnis might be satisfied by a
wholesale cabinet/governmental reshuffle that gives several leading positions, such
as that of President, to a Sunni Arab, although many Kurds might resent such a move
because a Kurd now holds that post. Some maintain these Sunni grievances can be
addressed in the Constitutional Review process under way, and discussed above.
Others oppose major governmental change because doing so might necessitate the
voiding of the 2005 elections, a move that would appear un-democratic.
Some argue that Iraq could adopt the “Lebanon model” in which major positions
are formally allotted to representatives of major factions. For example, Iraqis might
agree that henceforth, the President might be a Sunni, the Prime Minister might be
Shiite, and the COR Speaker might be Kurdish, or some combination of these
allocations. Some believe such as system has worked relatively well in Lebanon
helping it avoid all out civil war since the late 1980s, although others argue that
Lebanon is perpetually unstable and that this model is not necessarily successful.
Support the Dominant Factions. Another view expressed by some is that
the United States should place all its political, military, and economic support behind
the Shiite and Kurdish factions that have supported the U.S.-led political transition
process and now dominate Iraq’s government. According to this view, which some

---

CRS-54
refer to as the “80% solution” (Shiites and Kurds are about 80% of the population),45
the Sunni Arabs will never accept the new order in Iraq and the United States should
cease trying to pressure the Shiites and Arabs to try to satisfy them. Some who take
this perspective say the Sunni Arabs might begin supporting the new political order
if they perceive that the United States might, at some point, cease trying to make
accommodations for them. Others say that the recent U.S. outreach to Sunni
insurgent groups has angered the Shiites and Kurds, and further risks all-out civil war
if the United States were to draw down its forces.
Opponents of this strategy say that Iraq’s Sunni neighbors will not accept a
complete U.S. tilt toward the Shiites and Kurds, which would likely result in even
further repression of the Sunni Arab minority. Still others say that a further U.S. shift
in favor of the Shiites and Kurds would contradict the U.S. commitment to the
protection of Iraq’s minorities.
“Federalism”/Decentralization/Break-Up Options. In the absence of
substantial reconciliation, some maintain that Iraq cannot be stabilized as one country
and should be broken up, or “hard partitioned,” into three separate countries: one
Kurdish, one Sunni Arab, and one Shiite Arab.46 This option is widely opposed by
a broad range of Iraqi parties as likely to produce substantial violence as Iraq’s major
communities separate physically, and that the resulting three countries would be
unstable and too small to survive without domination by Iraq’s neighbors. Others
view this as a U.S. attempt not only to usurp Iraq’s sovereignty but to divide the Arab
world and thereby enhance U.S. regional domination. Still others view any version
of this idea, including the less dramatic derivations discussed below, as unworkable
because of the high percentage of mixed Sunni-Shiite Arab families in Iraq that some
say would require “dividing bedrooms.” This recommendation was rejected by the
Iraq Study Group as potentially too violent.
A derivation of the partition idea, propounded by Senator Biden and Council on
Foreign Relations expert Leslie Gelb (May 1, 2006, New York Times op-ed), as well
as others, is form — or to not prevent Iraqis from forming — three autonomous
regions, dominated by each of the major communities. A former U.S. Ambassador
and adviser to the Kurds, Peter Galbraith, as well as others,47 advocates this option,
which some refer to as a “soft partition,” but which supporters of the plan say is
implementation of the federalism already enshrined in Iraq’s constitution. According
to this view, decentralizing Iraq into autonomous zones would ensure that Iraq’s
territorial integrity is preserved while ensuring that these communities do not enter
all-out civil war with each other. Others say that decentralization is already de-facto
U.S. policy as exhibited by the increasing transfer of authority to Sunni tribes in the
Sunni areas and the relative lack of U.S. troops in the Shiite south, and that
formalizing the policy would merely confirm the existing direction of U.S. policy and
45 Krauthammer, Charles. “The 20 Percent Solution.” Washington Post op-ed, July 20, 2007.
46 The pros and cons of some of these plans and proposals is discussed in Cordesman,
Anthony. Pandora’s Box: Iraqi Federalism, Separatism, “Hard” Partitioning, and U.S.
Policy. Center for Strategic and International Studies, October 9, 2007.
47 Joseph, Edward and Michael O’Hanlon. “The Case for Soft Partition.” USA Today,
October 3, 2007.

---

CRS-55
of events on the ground in Iraq. Others say that the Sunni Arabs, who initially
opposed federalism in the constitution, now are reconsidering that view and might
even want to form their own autonomous Sunni region.
Proponents of the idea say that options such as this were successful in other
cases, particularly in the Balkans, in alleviating sectarian conflict. Proponents add
that the idea is a means of bypassing the logjam and inability to reconcile that
characterizes national politics in Iraq. Some believe that, to alleviate Iraqi concerns
about equitable distribution of oil revenues, an international organization should be
tapped to distribute Iraq’s oil revenues.
Opponents of the idea say it is being proposed for expediency — to allow the
United States to withdraw from Iraq without establishing a unified and strong central
government that can defend itself. Still others say the idea does not take sufficient
account of Iraq’s sense of Iraq national identity, which, despite all difficulties, is still
expressed to a wide range of observers and visitors. Others maintain that any soft
partition of Iraq would inevitably evolve into drives by the major communities for
outright independence. Observers in the Balkans say that the international community
had initially planned to preserve a central government of what was Yugoslavia, but
that this became untenable and Yugoslavia was broken up into several countries.48
Others say, drawing some support from recent events between Turkey and the Iraqi
Kurds, that the autonomous regions of a decentralized Iraq would inevitably fall
under the sway of Iraq’s neighbors. Still others say that, no matter how the concept
is implemented, there will be substantial bloodshed as populations move into areas
where their sect or group predominates.
The federalism, or decentralization, plan gained strength with the passage of on
September 26, 2007, of an amendment to the Senate version of H.R. 1585, an
FY2008 defense authorization bill. The amendment passed 75-23, showing
substantial bipartisan support. It is a “sense of Congress” that states that:
! The United States should actively support a political settlement,
based on the “final provisions” of the Iraqi constitution (reflecting
the possibility of major amendments, to the constitution, as
discussed above), that creates a federal Iraq and allows for federal
regions.
! A conference of Iraqis should be convened to reach a comprehensive
political settlement based on the federalism law approved by the
COR in October 2006.
! The amendment does not specify how many regions should be
formed or that regions would correspond to geographic areas
controlled by major Iraqi ethnicities or sects.
Subsequently, with the exception of the Kurds and some other Iraqi Arab
officials, many of the main blocs in Iraq, jointly and separately, came out in
48 CRS conversations in Croatia, October 2007.

---

CRS-56
opposition to the amendment on some of the grounds discussed above, although
many of the Iraqi statements appeared to refer to the amendment as a “partition” plan,
an interpretation that proponents of the amendment say is inaccurate. A U.S.
Embassy Iraq statement on the amendment also appeared to mischaracterize the
legislation, saying “As we have said in the past, attempts to partition or divide Iraq
by intimidation, force, or other means into three separate states would produce
extraordinary suffering and bloodshed. The United States has made clear our strong
opposition to such attempts.”
“Coup” or “Strongman” Option. Another option received increasing
discussion in 2007 as U.S. criticism of Maliki’s failure to achieve substantial
reconciliation increased. Some Iraqis believe the United States might try to use its
influence among Iraqis to force Maliki to resign – or to force a vote of no-confidence
against him in the COR – and replace him with a military strongman or some other
figure who would crack down on militias, or someone who is more inclined to reach
compromise with the restive Sunni Arabs. Some say former Prime Minister Allawi
might be trying to position himself as such an alternative figure. However, experts
in the United States see no concrete signs that such an option might be under
consideration by the Administration, and other accounts say that Iraqi leaders are
divided over who would replace Maliki, thus ensuring deadlock and his continuation
in office. Some accounts say that this option is adamantly opposed by Grand
Ayatollah Sistani, who seeks, above all, to preserve Shiite unity. Using U.S.
influence to force out Maliki would, in the view of many, conflict with the U.S. goal
of promoting democracy and rule of law in Iraq. Some press reports say that
President Bush is opposed to this option, but editorials in January 2008 suggested
that some Iraqi leaders continue to agitate against Maliki.49
Economic Measures
Some believe that the key to calming Iraq is to accelerate economic
reconstruction, and they see the draft oil law as drawing in the foreign investment to
Iraq’s key energy sector that is needed to drive economic development. Accelerated
reconstruction will drain support for insurgents by creating employment, improving
public services, and creating confidence in the government. This idea, propounded
by DoD reconstruction official Paul Brinkley (Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for
Business Transformation in Iraq), was incorporated into the President’s January 10
initiative, in part by attempting to revive state-owned factories that can employ
substantial numbers of Iraqis. Prior to that, the concept of using economic
reconstruction to drive political accommodation was reflected in the decision to form
PRTs, as discussed above. Others doubt that economic improvement alone will
produce major political results because the differences among Iraq’s major
communities are fundamental and resistant to economic solutions. Another idea has
been to set up an Iraqi fund, or trust, that would ensure that all Iraqis share equitably
in Iraq’s oil wealth. In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal (December 18, 2006)
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Senator John Ensign supported the idea of an
“Iraq Oil Trust” modeled on the Alaska Permanent Fund.
49 Ignatius, David. “A Surge Against Maliki.” Washington Post, op-ed. January 9, 2008.

---

CRS-57
Table 7. Major Factions in Iraq
Major Shiite and Kurdish Factions
Iraq National
The INA leads the main secular bloc (Iraqis List) in parliament. Allawi, about
Accord
61 years old (born 1946 in Baghdad), a former Baathist who helped Saddam
(INA)/Iyad al-
silence Iraqi dissidents in Europe in the mid-1970s. Subsequently fell out with
Allawi
Saddam, became a neurologist, and presided over the Iraqi Student Union in
Europe. Survived an alleged regime assassination attempt in London in 1978.
He is a secular Shiite, but many INA members are Sunni ex-Baathists and ex-
military officers. Allawi was interim Prime Minister (June 2004-April 2005).
Won 40 seats in January 2005 election but only 25 in December 2005. Spends
most of his time outside Iraq and reportedly trying to organize a non-sectarian
parliamentary governing coalition to replace Maliki. Now boycotting the
cabinet.
Iraqi National
Chalabi, who is about 67 years old, educated in the United States
Congress
(Massachusetts Institute of Technology) as a mathematician. One of the rotating
(INC)/Ahmad
presidents of the Iraq Governing Council (IGC). U.S.-backed Iraqi police
Chalabi
raided INC headquarters in Baghdad on May 20, 2004, seizing documents as
part of an investigation of various allegations, including provision of U.S.
intelligence to Iran. Case later dropped. Since 2004, has allied with and fallen
out with Shiite Islamist factions; was one of three deputy prime ministers in the
2005 transition government. No INC seats in parliament, but Chalabi remains
chair of the Higher National De-Baathification Commission and has resisted de-
Baathification reform efforts. Serves as liaison between Baghdad neighborhood
committees and the government in 2007 Baghdad security plan, giving him
entree to senior U.S. military and diplomatic officials, leading to assessments
that he is rebuilding his influence.
Kurds/KDP and
Together, the main factions run Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) with
PUK
its own executive headed by “president” Masud Barzani, Prime Minister
Nechirvan Barzani, and a 111 seat legislature (elected in January 30, 2005
national elections). PUK leader Talabani remains president, despite March
2007 health problems that required treatment in Jordan and the United States.
Barzani has tried to secure his clan’s base in the Kurdish north and has
distanced himself from national politics. Many Kurds are more supportive of
outright Kurdish independence than are these leaders. Kurds field up to
100,000 peshmerga militia. Their joint slate won 75 seats in January 2005
national election but only 53 in December 2005. Grudgingly supported
framework draft oil law sent to parliament, but strongly oppose related draft
implementing law that would place 93% of Iraq’s oil fields under control of a
revived Iraqi National Oil Company (INOC). Both factions intent on securing
control of Kirkuk.
Grand
Undisputed leading Shiite theologian in Iraq. No formal position in government
Ayatollah Ali
but has used his broad Shiite popularity to become instrumental in major
al-Sistani
political questions. Helped forge UIA and brokered compromise over the
selection of a Prime Minister nominee in April 2006. Criticized Israel’s July
2006 offensive against Lebanese Hezbollah. However, acknowledges that his
influence is waning and that calls for Shiite restraint are unheeded as Shiites
look to militias, such as Sadr’s, for defense in sectarian warfare. Does not meet
with U.S. officials but does meet with U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq
(UNAMI). Has network of agents (wakils) throughout Iraq and among Shiites
outside Iraq. Treated for heart trouble in Britain in August 2004. Aide stabbed
to death by unknown assailant in July 2007. Advocates traditional Islamic
practices such as modest dress for women, abstention from alcohol, and
curbs on Western music and entertainment.

---

CRS-58
Major Shiite and Kurdish Factions
Supreme
Best-organized and most pro-Iranian Shiite Islamist party and generally allied
Islamic Council
with Da’wa Party in UIA. It was established in 1982 by Tehran to centralize
of (ISCI)
Shiite Islamist movements in Iraq. First leader, Mohammad Baqr Al Hakim,
killed by bomb in Najaf in August 2003. Current leader is his younger brother,
Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim, a lower ranking Shiite cleric and a member of
parliament (UIA slate), but he holds no government position. Hakim currently
undergoing lung cancer treatment, instilling uncertainty in ISCI leadership. One
of his top aides, Bayan Jabr, is now Finance Minister, and another, Adel Abd
al-Mahdi, is a deputy president. Controls “Badr Brigades” militia. Son, Ammar
al-Hakim, is a key ISCI figure as well and is said to be favored to take over
ISCI should his father’s condition become fatal. As part of UIA, ISCI has 29
members in parliament. Supports formation of Shiite “region” composed of
nine southern provinces and dominates provincial councils on seven of those
provinces. Supports draft oil law to develop the oil sector.
Da’wa (Islamic
Oldest organized Shiite Islamist party (founded 1957), active against Saddam
Call) Party
Hussein in early 1980s. Its founder, Mohammad Baqr al-Sadr, uncle of
Moqtada Al Sadr, was ally of Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini and was hung by
Saddam regime in 1980. Da’wa members tend to follow senior Lebanese Shiite
cleric Mohammad Hossein Fadlallah rather than Iranian clerics, and Da’wa is
not as close to Tehran as is ISCI. Has no organized militia and a lower
proportion of clerics than does ISCI. Within UIA, its two factions (one loyal to
Maliki and one loyal to another figure, parliamentarian Abd al-Karim al-Anizi,
control 25 seats in parliament. Da’wa generally supports draft oil law. The
Kuwaiti branch of the Da’wa allegedly committed a May 1985 attempted
assassination of the Amir of Kuwait and the December 1983 attacks on the U.S.
and French embassies in Kuwait. (It was reported in February 2007 that a
UIA/Da’wa parliamentarian, Jamal al-Ibrahimi, was convicted by Kuwait for
the 1983 attacks.) Lebanese Hezbollah, founded by Lebanese Da’wa activists,
attempted to link release of the Americans they held hostage in Lebanon in the
1980s to the release of 17 Da’wa prisoners held by Kuwait for those attacks in
the 1980s.
Moqtada Al-
Young (about 32), the lone surviving son of the revered Ayatollah Mohammed
Sadr Faction
Sadiq al-Sadr (killed, along with his other two sons, by regime security forces
in 1999 after he began agitating against Saddam). Inherited father’s political
base in “Sadr City,” a large (2 million population) Shiite district of Baghdad,
but also strong and challenging ISCI for control of Diwaniyah, Nassiriyah,
Basra, Amarah, and other major Shiite cities. Still clouded by allegations of
involvement in the April 10, 2003, killing in Iraq of Abd al-Majid Khoi, the son
of the late Grand Ayatollah Khoi and head of his London-based Khoi
Foundation. Formed “Mahdi Army” militia in 2003. Won 29 seats in parliament
under UIA bloc but pulled out of the bloc in September 2007; also has two
supporters under the separate “Messengers” list. Sadr faction, prior to its April
2007 pullout from the cabinet, held ministries of health, transportation, and
agriculture and two ministry of state posts. Opposes Shiite “region” in the
south, and generally opposes draft oil law as a “sellout.”

---

CRS-59
Major Shiite and Kurdish Factions
Fadilah Party
Loyal to Ayatollah Mohammad Yacoubi, who was a leader of the Sadr
movement after the death of Moqtada’s father in 1999 but was later removed
by Moqtada and subsequently broke with the Sadr faction. Fadilah (Virtue)
won 15 seats parliament as part of the UIA but publicly left that bloc on March
6, 2007 to protest lack of a Fadilah cabinet seat. Holds seats on several
provincial councils in the Shiite provinces and dominates Basra provincial
council, whose governor is a party member. Also controls protection force for
oil installations in Basra, and is popular among oil workers and unions in Basra.
Opposes draft oil law as too favorable to foreign firms. Considers itself
opposed to Iranian influence in Iraq and wants a small (one - three provinces)
Shiite region in the south.
Hezbollah Iraq
Headed by ex-guerrilla leader Abdul Karim Muhammadawi, who was on the
IGC and now in parliament. Party’s power base is southern marsh areas around
Amara (Maysan Province), north of Basra. Has some militiamen. Supports a
less formal version of Shiite region in the south than does ISCI.
Tharallah
Led by Sayyid Yusuf al-Musawi. Small Shiite faction in southern Iraq formed
from former marsh guerrillas against Saddam. Purportedly pro-Iranian.
Islamic Amal
A relatively small faction, Islamic Amal (Action) Organization is headed by
Ayatollah Mohammed Taqi Modarassi, a moderate cleric. Power base is in
Karbala, and it conducted attacks there against Saddam regime in the 1980s.
Modarassi’s brother, Abd al-Hadi, headed the Islamic Front for the Liberation
of Bahrain, which stirred Shiite unrest against Bahrain’s regime in the 1980s
and 1990s. One member in the cabinet (Minister of Civil Society Affairs).
Ayatollah
Another Karbala-based faction, loyal to Ayatollah Mahmoud al-Hassani, who
Hassani Faction
also was a Sadrist leader later removed by Moqtada. His armed followers
clashed with local Iraqi security forces in Karbala in mid-August 2006.
Major Sunni Factions
Iraqi Consensus
Often referred to by Arabic name “Tawafuq,” Front is led by Iraqi Islamic Party
Front
(IIP), headed by Tariq al-Hashimi, now a deputy president. (Ousted) COR
(Tariq al-
Speaker Mahmoud Mashadani, a hardliner, is a senior member; in July 2006,
Hashimi and
he called the U.S. invasion “the work of butchers.” IIP withdrew from the
Adnan al-
January 2005 election but led the Sunni “Consensus Front” coalition in
Dulaymi)
December 2005 elections, winning 44 seats in COR. Front, critical but
accepting of U.S. presence, also includes Iraqi General People’s Council of the
hardline Adnan al-Dulaymi, and the National Dialogue Council (Mashhadani’s
party). Opposes draft oil law as sellout to foreign companies and distrusts Shiite
pledges to equitably share oil revenues. Pulled five cabinet ministers out of
government on August 1, but Hashimi still deputy president. Adnan Dulaymi
widely accused by Shiite Iraqi leaders of hiding weapons for Sunni insurgents,
using properties owned by himself and his son.
Iraqi Front for
Head is Saleh al-Mutlak, an ex-Baathist, was chief negotiator for Sunnis on the
National
new constitution, but was dissatisfied with the outcome and now advocates
Dialogue
major revisions. Bloc holds 11 seats, generally aligned with Consensus Front.
Opposes draft oil law on same grounds as Consensus Front.
Muslim
Hardline Sunni Islamist group led by clerics Harith al-Dhari and Abd al-Salam
Scholars
al-Qubaysi, has boycotted all post-Saddam elections. Believed to have ties
Association
to/influence over insurgent factions. Wants timetable for U.S. withdrawal from
(MSA)
Iraq. Iraqi government issued a warrant for Dhari’s arrest in November 2006
for suspected ties to the Sunni insurgency, causing Dhari to remain outside Iraq
(in Jordan). Headquarters raided at behest of pro-government Sunni
Endowment organization in November 2007. Opposes draft oil law.

---

CRS-60
Major Shiite and Kurdish Factions
Sunni Tribes/
Not an organized faction per se, but begun in Anbar by about 20 tribes, the
“Awakening
National Salvation Council formed by Shaykh Abd al-Sattar al-Rishawi
Movement”/
(assassinated on September 13) credited by U.S. commanders as a source of
Concerned
anti-Al Qaeda support that is helping calm Anbar Province. Some large tribal
Local Citizens
confederations include Dulaym (Ramadi-based), Jabburi (mixed Sunni-Shiite
tribe), Zobi (near Abu Ghraib), and Shammar (Salahuddin and Diyala regions).
Trend has spread to include former Sunni insurgents now serving as local anti-
Al Qaeda protection forces (Concerned Local Citizens) in Baghdad, parts of
Diyala province, Salahuddin province, and elsewhere.
Iraqi Insurgents
Numerous factions and no unified leadership. Some groups led by ex-Saddam
regime leaders, others by Islamic extremists. Major Iraqi factions include
Islamic Army of Iraq, New Baath Party, Muhammad’s Army, and the 1920
Revolution Brigades. Perceived as increasingly opposed to AQ-I as discussed
in text of paper.
Al Qaeda in
AQ-I was led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian national, until his death
Iraq (AQ-I) /
in U.S. airstrike June 7, 2006. Succeeded by Abu Hamza al-Muhajir (Abu
Foreign
Ayyub al-Masri), an Egyptian. Estimated 3,000 in Iraq (about 10-15% of total
Fighters
insurgents) from many nations, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but
increasingly subordinate to Iraqi Sunni insurgents under the banner of the
“Islamic State of Iraq.” See CRS Report RL32217, Iraq and Al Qaeda.

---

CRS-61
Table 8. Iraq’s Government
Position
Name
Ethnicity/Bloc/PartyStatus
President
Jalal Talabani
Kurd/PUK
Deputy President
Tariq al-Hashimi
Sunni/Consensus Front
Deputy President
Adel Abd-al-Mahdi
Shiite/UIA/ISCI
Prime Minister
Nuri Kamal al-
Shiite/UIA/Da’wa
Maliki
Deputy P.M.
Barham Salih
Kurdistan Alliance/PUK
Deputy P.M.
Salam Zubaie
Sunni/Consensus Front/boycotting
Min. Agriculture
Ali al-Bahadili
independent Shiite named in October
2007, replaced resigned Sadrist
Min.
Muhammad Tawfiq
Shiite/Allawi bloc/boycotting; Maliki
Communications
al-Allawi
failed to obtain confirmation of
replacement in late November 2007.
Min. Culture
vacant
was held by Consensus Front bloc
Min. Defense
Abdul Qadir al-
Sunni independent
Ubaydi
Min. Displacement
Abd al-Samad Sultan
Shiite Kurd/UIA
and Migration
Min. Electricity
Karim Wahid
Shiite/UIA/independent
Min. Education
Khudayiir al-Khuzai
Shiite/UIA/Da’wa (Anizi faction)
Min Environment
Mrs. Narmin Uthman
Kurdistan Alliance/PUK
Min. Finance
Bayan Jabr
Shiite/UIA/ISCI
Min. Foreign
Hoshyar Zebari
Kurdistan Alliance/KDP
Affairs
Min. Health
Saleh al-Hasnawi
Independent Shiite named October
2007; was held by UIA/Sadr bloc.
Min. Higher
Abd Dhiyab al-Ajili
Sunni/Consensus Front/IIP/boycotting
Education
Min. Human Rights
Mrs. Wijdan Mikhail
Christian/Allawi bloc/boycotting
Min. Industry and
Fawzi al-Hariri
Christian Kurd/Kurdistan
Minerals
Alliance/KDP
Min. Interior
Jawad al-Bulani
Shiite independent

---

CRS-62
Position
Name
Ethnicity/Bloc/PartyStatus
Min. Justice
Safa al-Safi
UIA/independent/acting. Was held by
Hashim al-Shibli (Consensus Front.)
Replacement not confirmed.
Min. Housing and
Mrs. Bayan Daza’i
Kurdistan Alliance/KDP
Construction
Min. Labor and
Mahmud al-Radi
Shiite/UIA/Independent
Social Affairs
Min. Oil
Husayn al-
Shiite/UIA/Independent/close to
Shahristani
Ayatollah Sistani
Min. Planning
Ali Baban
Sunni/Consensus Front/IIP/status
unclear; no longer boycotting
Min. Trade
Abd al-Falah al-
Shiite/UIA/Da’wa (Anizi faction)
Sudani
Min. Science and
Ra’id Jahid
Sunni/Allawi
Technology
bloc/Communist/boycotting
Min. Municipalities
Riyad Ghurayyib
Shiite/UIA/ISCI (Badr)
and Public Works
Min. Transportation
vacant
was held by UIA/Sadr
Min. Water
Latif Rashid
Kurdistan Alliance/PUK
Resources
Min. Youth and
Jasim al-Jafar
Shiite Turkomen/UIA
Sports
Min. State for Civil
Mrs. Wijdan Mikhail
Christian/Allawi bloc/boycotting
Society
Min. State National
Akram al-Hakim
Shiite/UIA/ISCI (Hakim family)
Dialogue Affairs
Min. State National
Shirwan al-Waili
Shiite/UIA/Da’wa
Security
Min. State Foreign
Rafi al-Issawi
Sunni/Consensus Front/boycotting
Affairs
Min. State
vacant
was held by Allawi bloc
Provincial Affairs
Min. State Tourism
vacant
was held by UIA/Sadr
and Antiquities
Min. State for
Mrs. Fatin Mahmoud
Sunni/Consensus Front/boycotting
Women’s Affairs
Min. State for COR
Safa al-Safi
Shiite/UIA/independent/acting
Affairs

---

CRS-63
Table 9. U.S. Aid (ESF) to Iraq’s Saddam-Era Opposition
(Amounts in millions of U.S. $)
Unspecified
INC
War crimes Broadcasting
opposition
Total
activities
FY1998
—
2.0
5.0 (RFE/RL
3.0
10.0
(P.L. 105-174)
for “Radio
Free Iraq”)
FY1999
3.0
3.0
—
2.0
8.0
(P.L. 105-277)
FY2000
—
2.0
—
8.0
10.0
(P.L. 106-113)
FY2001
12.0
2.0
6.0
5.0
25.0
(P.L. 106-429)
(aid in Iraq)
(INC radio)
FY2002
—
—
—
25.0
25.0
(P.L. 107-115)
FY2003
3.1
—
—
6.9
10.0
(no earmark)
Total,
18.1
9.0
11.0
49.9
88.0
FY1998-
(about 14.5
FY2003
million of this
went to INC)
FY2004
—
—
—
0
0
(request)
Notes: According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (April 2004), the INC’s Iraqi
National Congress Support Foundation (INCSF) received $32.65 million in U.S. Economic Support
Funds (ESF) in five agreements with the State Department during 2000-2003. Most of the funds —
separate from drawdowns of U.S. military equipment and training under the “Iraq Liberation Act” —
were for the INC to run its offices in Washington, London, Tehran, Damascus, Prague, and Cairo, and
to operate its Al Mutamar (the “Conference”) newspaper and its “Liberty TV,” which began in August
2001, from London. The station was funded by FY2001 ESF, with start-up costs of $1 million and an
estimated additional $2.7 million per year in operating costs. Liberty TV was sporadic due to funding
disruptions resulting from the INC’s refusal to accept some State Department decisions on how U.S.
funds were to be used. In August 2002, the State Department and Defense Department agreed that the
Defense Department would take over funding ($335,000 per month) for the INC’s “Information
Collection Program” to collect intelligence on Iraq; the State Department wanted to end its funding
of that program because of questions about the INC’s credibility and the propriety of its use of U.S.
funds. The INC continued to receive these funds even after Saddam Hussein was overthrown, but was
halted after the June 2004 return of sovereignty to Iraq. The figures above do not include covert aid
provided — the amounts are not known from open sources. Much of the “war crimes” funding was
used to translate and publicize documents retrieved from northern Iraq on Iraqi human rights; the
translations were placed on 176 CD-Rom disks. During FY2001 and FY2002, the Administration
donated $4 million to a “U.N. War Crimes Commission” fund, to be used if a war crimes tribunal is
formed. Those funds were drawn from U.S. contributions to U.N. programs. See General Accounting
Office Report GAO-04-559, State Department: Issues Affecting Funding of Iraqi National Congress
Support Foundation, April 2004.

---

CRS-64
Figure 1. Map of Iraq

---