There is no action the American military can take that, by itself, can
bring about success in Iraq. But there are actions that the U.S. and
Iraqi governments, working together, can and should take to increase
the probability of avoiding disaster there, and increase the chance of
success.
The Iraqi government should accelerate the urgently needed national
reconciliation program to which it has already committed. And it
should accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi security by
increasing the number and quality of Iraqi Army brigades. As the Iraqi
Army increases in size and capability, the Iraqi government should be
able to take real responsibility for governance.
While this process is under way, and to facilitate it, the United
States should significantly increase the number of U.S. military
personnel, including combat troops, imbedded in and supporting Iraqi
Army units. As these actions proceed, we could begin to move combat
forces out of Iraq. The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should
evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army, which would take over
primary responsibility for combat operations. We should continue to
maintain support forces, rapid-reaction forces, special operations
forces, intelligence units, search-and-rescue units, and force
protection units.
While the size and composition of the Iraqi Army is ultimately a
matter for the Iraqi government to determine, we should be firm on the
urgent near-term need for significant additional trained Army
brigades, since this is the key to Iraqis taking over full
responsibility for their own security, which they want to do and which
we need them to do. It is clear that they will still need security
assistance from the United States for some time to come as they work
to achieve political and security changes.
One of the most important elements of our support would be the
imbedding of substantially more U.S. military personnel in all Iraqi
Army battalions and brigades, as well as within Iraqi companies. U.S.
personnel would provide advice, combat assistance, and staff
assistance. The training of Iraqi units by the United States has
improved and should continue for the coming year. In addition to this
training, Iraqi combat units need supervised on-the-job training as
they move to field operations. This on-the-job training could be best
done by imbedding more U.S. military personnel in Iraqi deployed
units. The number of imbedded personnel would be based on the
recommendation of our military commanders in Iraq, but it should be
large enough to accelerate the development of a real combat capability
in Iraqi Army units. Such a mission could involve 10,000 to 20,000
American troops instead of the 3,000 to 4,000 now in this role. This
increase in imbedded troops could be carried out without an aggregate
increase over time in the total number of troops in Iraq by making a
corresponding decrease in troops assigned to U.S. combat brigades.
Another mission of the U.S. military would be to assist Iraqi deployed
brigades with intelligence, transportation, air support, and logistics
support, as well as providing some key equipment.
A vital mission of the U.S. military would be to maintain
rapid-reaction teams and special operations teams. These teams would be
available to undertake strike missions against al Qaeda in Iraq when
the opportunity arises, as well as for other missions considered vital
by the U.S. commander in Iraq.
The performance of the Iraqi Army could also be significantly improved
if it had improved equipment. One source could be equipment left
behind by departing U.S. units. The quickest and most effective way
for the Iraqi Army to get the bulk of their equipment would be through
our Foreign Military Sales program, which they have already begun to
use.
While these efforts are building up, and as additional Iraqi brigades
are being deployed, U.S. combat brigades could begin to move out of
Iraq. By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments
in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not
necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq. At that time,
U.S. combat forces in Iraq could be deployed only in units embedded
with Iraqi forces, in rapid-reaction and special operations teams, and
in training, equipping, advising, force protection, and search and
rescue. Intelligence and support efforts would continue. Even after
the United States has moved all combat brigades out of Iraq, we would
maintain a considerable military presence in the region, with our
still significant force in Iraq and with our powerful air, ground, and
naval deployments in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar, as well as an
increased presence in Afghanistan. These forces would be sufficiently
robust to permit the United States, working with the Iraqi government,
to accomplish four missions:
--Provide political reassurance to the Iraqi government in order to
avoid its collapse and the disintegration of the country.
--Fight al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in Iraq using
special operations teams.
--Train, equip, and support the Iraqi security forces.
--Deter even more destructive interference in Iraq by Syria and Iran.
Because of the importance of Iraq to our regional security goals and
to our ongoing fight against al Qaeda, we considered proposals to make
a substantial increase (100,000 to 200,000) in the number of U.S.
troops in Iraq. We rejected this course because we do not believe that
the needed levels are available for a sustained deployment. Further,
adding more American troops could conceivably worsen those aspects of
the security problem that are fed by the view that the U.S. presence
is intended to be a long-term "occupation." We could, however, support
a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to
stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission,
if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be
effective.
We also rejected the immediate withdrawal of our troops, because we
believe that so much is at stake.
We believe that our recommended actions will give the Iraqi Army the
support it needs to have a reasonable chance to take responsibility
for Iraq's security. Given the ongoing deterioration in the security
situation, it is urgent to move as quickly as possible to have that
security role taken over by Iraqi security forces.
The United States should not make an open-ended commitment to keep
large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq for three compelling
reasons.
First, and most importantly, the United States faces other security
dangers in the world, and a continuing Iraqi commitment of American
ground forces at present levels will leave no reserve available to
meet other contingencies. On September 7, 2006, General James Jones,
our NATO commander, called for more troops in Afghanistan, where U.S.
and NATO forces are fighting a resurgence of al Qaeda and Taliban
forces. The United States should respond positively to that request,
and be prepared for other security contingencies, including those in
Iran and North Korea.
Second, the long-term commitment of American ground forces to Iraq at
current levels is adversely affecting Army readiness, with less than a
third of the Army units currently at high readiness levels. The Army
is unlikely to be able to meet the next rotation of troops in Iraq
without undesirable changes in its deployment practices. The Army is
now considering breaking its compact with the National Guard and
Reserves that limits the number of years that these citizen-soldiers
can be deployed. Behind this short-term strain is the longer-term risk
that the ground forces will be impaired in ways that will take years
to reverse.
And finally, an open-ended commitment of American forces would not
provide the Iraqi government the incentive it needs to take the
political actions that give Iraq the best chance of quelling sectarian
violence. In the absence of such an incentive, the Iraqi government
might continue to delay taking those difficult actions.
While it is clear that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is
moderating the violence, there is little evidence that the long-term
deployment of U.S. troops by itself has led or will lead to
fundamental improvements in the security situation. It is important to
recognize that there are no risk-free alternatives available to the
United States at this time. Reducing our combat troop commitments in
Iraq, whenever that occurs, undeniably creates risks, but leaving
those forces tied down in Iraq indefinitely creates its own set of
security risks.
RECOMMENDATION 40: The United States should not make an open-ended
commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq.
RECOMMENDATION 41: The United States must make it clear to the Iraqi
government that the United States could carry out its plans, including
planned redeployments, even if Iraq does not implement its planned
changes. America's other security needs and the future of our military
cannot be made hostage to the actions or inactions of the Iraqi
government.
RECOMMENDATION 42: We should seek to complete the training and
equipping mission by the first quarter of 2008, as stated by General
George Casey on October 24, 2006.
RECOMMENDATION 43: Military priorities in Iraq must change, with the
highest priority given to the training, equipping, advising, and
support mission and to counterterrorism operations.
RECOMMENDATION 44: The most highly qualified U.S. officers and
military personnel should be assigned to the imbedded teams, and
American teams should be present with Iraqi units down to the company
level. The U.S. military should establish suitable career-enhancing
incentives for these officers and personnel.
RECOMMENDATION 45: The United States should support more and better
equipment for the Iraqi Army by encouraging the Iraqi government to
accelerate its Foreign Military Sales requests and, as American combat
brigades move out of Iraq, by leaving behind some American equipment
for Iraqi forces.