DOCSLIB.ORG

Decision-Making in the Counter-ISIS War

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Decision-Making in the Counter-ISIS War November 2019 Decision-Making in the Counter-ISIS War Assessing the Role of Preventive War Logic David Sterman Last edited on November 06, 2019 at 12:52 p.m. EST Acknowledgments Thanks to New America interns Sumaita Mulk and Ryan Madsen, who helped review presidential statements for those of relevance to the counter-ISIS war and helped fact-check this report. The author is deeply indebted to former New America Fellow and Professor of International Relations at West Point Scott Silverstone, Combatting Terrorism Center Instructor Audrey Alexander, and New America’s Heather Hurlburt and Peter Bergen, whose reviews of earlier versions of the paper have made it far better than it otherwise would have been. Emily Schneider provided a thorough copyedit, and Naomi Morduch Toubman designed the informative graphics herein. Thanks are also due to the several experts and former government officials who took the time to discuss these issues with me. Finally, thanks to Reid Smith, Hugo Kirk, and the Charles Koch Institute for their support of this research. newamerica.org/international-security/reports/decision-making-counter-isis-war/ 2 About the Author(s) David Sterman is a senior policy analyst at New America and holds a master's degree from Georgetown’s Center for Security Studies. About New America We are dedicated to renewing America by continuing the quest to realize our nation’s highest ideals, honestly confronting the challenges caused by rapid technological and social change, and seizing the opportunities those changes create. About International Security The International Security program aims to provide evidence-based analysis of some of the thorniest questions facing American policymakers and the public. We are focused on South Asia and the Middle East, extremist groups such as ISIS, al Qaeda and allied groups, the proliferation of drones, homeland security, and the activities of U.S. Special Forces and the CIA. newamerica.org/international-security/reports/decision-making-counter-isis-war/ 3 Contents Executive Summary 6 Introduction 10 Data and Definitions 14 The Data and its Limitations 14 Defining Preventive War Logic 15 Defining Other Rationales for War 16 What Drove the War's Snapback in Iraq and Syria? 18 Understanding the Decision Timeline 18 The Slow and Steady Rise of Preventive War Logic 21 The Role of Other War Rationales 27 Did ISIS Directly Threaten the United States? 38 Government Assessments of the ISIS Threat 38 Indicators of ISIS Threat 40 The Exceptions: Potential American Cases for Preemption 43 Evidence from Comparison: Europe in the Crosshairs 46 newamerica.org/international-security/reports/decision-making-counter-isis-war/ 4 Contents Cont'd Fueling Endless War: The Consequences of Preventive War Logic 49 The Endlessness of the Counter-ISIS War 49 Preventive War Logic’s Role in Generating Endless War 52 The False Promise of Limiting Preventive War to Counterterrorism 56 Conclusion 58 Appendix 60 newamerica.org/international-security/reports/decision-making-counter-isis-war/ 5 Executive Summary In 2011, the United States withdrew its last combat troops from Iraq. Yet fewer than three years later, the Obama administration, which viewed the withdrawal as a correction of one of the greatest foreign policy failures of the modern era, initiated a counterterrorism war against ISIS in Iraq. The administration then extended the war to Syria. In doing so, it presented a number of justifications for war, among them preventive war logic, which is the view that war now is preferable to other options as a way of preventing a future confict in which a rival would pose a greater threat due to a growth in its capabilities. The counter-ISIS war accomplished much good. It destroyed ISIS's territorial caliphate that, at one point, ruled over almost 8 million people and encompassed an area about the size of Britain. Nestled in the heart of the Middle East, it was the launchpad from which ISIS carried out attacks in Europe and elsewhere. Yet the war poses significant questions for American counterterrorism strategy. What rationales were used to justify the use of American military power? Did preventive war logic play a role in the decision? Did ISIS directly threaten the United States? Has the counter-ISIS war made the United States safer? Horror at ISIS's atrocities and terror has helped sideline these questions. This report examines the counter-ISIS war as a historical case study to resurface them. It also seeks to draw out their lessons for use in efforts to end America’s endless wars and to develop sustainable counterterrorism strategies. Its findings include: • The Obama administration publicly invoked preventive war logic as part of its justification for the counter-ISIS war, and in particular, its extension into Syria. The administration expressed fear that if left unchecked, ISIS would grow to pose a threat to the American homeland and cited that fear as the basis for airstrikes. • While preventive war logic played an important role, regional security, protection of Americans abroad, and humanitarian concerns and genocide prevention rationales drove the decision to initiate the war. These rationales were given more importance earlier in the decision-making process’s public justifications than preventive war logic. They also played a more direct role in the decision to view ISIS as posing a threat requiring action in June 2014 and in the decision to initiate limited airstrikes in August 2014. • As the United States confronted ISIS's brutal methods and its threat outside the homeland, decision makers increasingly perceived ISIS as fundamentally incompatible with American newamerica.org/international-security/reports/decision-making-counter-isis-war/ 6 values. The emergent discourse of “common threat” rooted in these other rationales and an inferred eventual threat to the United States helped push forward preventive war logic. In turn, the uncertainty that comes with projecting future threats central to preventive war logic encouraged a shift to such values-matching reasoning, creating a feedback loop. • The importance of different rationales shifted over time, often in reaction to events, warning against viewing promises to end endless war or exercise restraint as the expression of stable preferences. Even the most restraint-oriented decision makers will be tempted to escalate wars under certain conditions. • ISIS did not pose a direct threat to the United States that would support a case that the war was preemptive. The administration repeatedly stated that there was no credible evidence of specific and imminent ISIS-directed plots against the homeland. A review of jihadist terrorism-related criminal charges in the United States as well as other indicators suggests that this assessment was correct. • While ISIS has shown no capability to direct an attack inside the United States, ISIS's virtual coaching of attackers and its threat to aviation standout as deserving of deeper analysis and public debate. These threats, in particular the online “enabled” plotting, could conceivably ground an argument that U.S. action was preemptive. However, they were not at the center of the decision to initiate the war and viewing them as sufficient grounds for preemption raises its own risks. • ISIS did pose a direct threat to Europe, many Middle Eastern states, and the people of Iraq and Syria. ISIS directed major attacks in Europe, conquered Iraqi and Syrian cities, instituted a system of slavery, kidnapped and murdered Americans, and committed genocide. The group also repeatedly demonstrated its intent and ability to spread and direct violence across the Greater Middle East through support for affiliates. • The ISIS threat to Europe was preceded by substantial warnings of ISIS's capability to conduct such attacks. This stands in stark contrast to the lack of evidence of ISIS's capability to strike the United States. • The public adoption of preventive war logic fueled America’s endless wars and poses substantial risks for escalation. This effect is rooted in predictable results of the logic itself and is visible in the counter- ISIS campaign’s aftermath. ◦ newamerica.org/international-security/reports/decision-making-counter-isis-war/ 7 Justifications shifted from arguments framed by cost-benefit analysis to justifications based in matching American values. Policymakers justified war citing ISIS's incompatibility with world order and its evil nature. The extent of this shift, however, is contested. ◦ ISIS's annihilation has proven impossible. Policymakers have over- focused on the group’s capabilities while ignoring the broader political conditions underlying the confict. This is typical of preventive war strategies, and poses substantial risks of escalating and prolonging war. ◦ Preventive war logic loosens the required level of threat for military action and risks overtaxing American power while also creating conditions for future wars. • Calls for withdrawals from America’s wars are insufficient on their own to end endless war. As long as the United States maintains interests in regions facing resilient jihadist insurgencies, it will be prone to re- escalation. The Obama administration did not intend to return to waging war in Iraq. That it did so, and initially justified its return on limited aims, suggests that a politics of embracing withdrawal is insufficient. • Trump’s withdrawal from northeastern Syria is not an end to endless war and risks setting the stage for a snapback of American military power. ◦ U.S. forces will remain in the al-Tanf area of Syria with a counter- ISIS mission, but they will also be in effect aiding American competition with Iran and Russia. ◦ U.S. forces will also likely remain in eastern Syria, purportedly to protect access to oil, potentially resulting in no net decrease in troop presence. ◦ The Defense Department is seeking ways to continue airstrikes and surveillance. ◦ Trump has committed the United States to monitoring the confict so as to be able to re-intervene if ISIS gains power to prevent another situation like 2014, reinscribing the preventive war logic that began the counter-ISIS war.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Constitution and War Leyland C
    The Constitution and War Leyland C. Torres, University of Louisville SBS, 2018 The Congress shall have Power... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; - The Constitution, Article I, Section 8 Clause 11 While Article I of the U.S. Constitution states that Congress has the power to declare War, Article II, Section 2 grants the President the authority as Commander-in-Chief. This is significant because as of December 2018, the United States will mark 17 years of military operations in Afghanistan—becoming the longest period of US military intervention. Since the founding of the United States over 240 years ago, Congress and the President have enacted 11 separate formal Declarations of War against foreign nations in five different wars. The last official declaration occurred after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and was against the Axis Powers: 6 separate Declarations against the nations of Japan, Germany, and Italy in 1941 and against Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria in 1942. Some have argued that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) approved by Congress in 2001 and again in 2002 grants the President the ability to conduct the overall Global War on Terror which accounts for the size and scope of military operations in Afghanistan and around the world. But that argument seems to ignore the fact that the US has been at war for close to 17 years. When there is a formal Declaration of War, it “creates a state of war under international law and legitimates the killing of enemy combatants...” whereas an Authorization uses military “force against a named country or unnamed hostile nations” (Elsea & Wood, 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • The Pennsylvania State University Schreyer Honors College
    THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHREYER HONORS COLLEGE DEPARTMENT OF JOURNALISM STORIES FROM THE FRONT LINES: FEMALE FOREIGN CORRESPONDENTS IN WAR ZONES JENNIFER CONNOR SUMMER 2011 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a baccalaureate degree in Journalism with honors in Journalism. Reviewed and approved* by the following: Tony Barbieri Foster Professor of Writing and Editing Thesis Supervisor Martin Halstuk Associate Professor Honors Adviser * Signatures are on file in the Schreyer Honors College. ABSTRACT The purpose of this thesis is to examine the experience of women who cover war and conflict zones, with a special focus on those reporting in Iraq and Afghanistan. When western female war correspondents work in male-dominated cultures and situations of war, they encounter different challenges and advantages than male war correspondents. The level of danger associated with the assignments these women take on is evaluated in this thesis. Anecdotes from female war correspondents themselves, combined with outside analysis, reveal the types of situations unique to female war correspondents. More women choose to follow the story and witness history in the making by covering today‟s war and conflict zones. This trend parallels the greater presence of women in newsrooms, today. This thesis will shed light on what it means to be a female reporting on and working in dangerous conditions. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Part 1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………....1 Part 2. Dealing with Danger……………………………………………………………………...6
    [Show full text]
  • WIIS DC Think Tank Gender Scorecard – DATASET 2018 Index/Appendix: American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Foreign and Defense
    • Nonresident Fellow, Rafik Hariri Center for the WIIS DC Think Tank Gender Scorecard – Middle East: Mona Alami (F) DATASET 2018 Index/Appendix: • Nonresident Senior Fellow, Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center: Laura Albornoz Pollmann (F) • Nonresident Senior Fellow, Rafik Hariri Center for American Enterprise Institute (AEI) the Middle East: Ali Alfoneh (M) Foreign and Defense Policy Scholars in AEI: • Associate Director for Programs, Rafik Hariri Center • Visiting Scholar: Samuel J. Abrams (M) for the Middle East: Stefanie Hausheer Ali (F) • Wilson H. Taylor Scholar in Health Care and • Nonresident Senior Fellow, Cyber Statecraft Retirement Policy: Joseph Antos (M) Initiative: Dmitri Alperovitch (M) • Resident Scholar and Director of Russian Studies: • Nonresident Fellow, Rafik Hariri Center: Dr. Hussein Leon Aron (M) Amach (M) • Visiting Fellow: John P. Bailey (M) • Nonresident Fellow, Brent Scowcroft Center on • Resident Scholar: Claude Barfield (M) International Security: Dave Anthony (M) • Resident Fellow: Michael Barone (M) • Nonresident Senior Fellow, Global Energy Center: • Visiting Scholar: Robert J. Barro (M) Ragnheiður Elín Árnadóttir (F) • Visiting Scholar: Roger Bate (M) • Visiting Fellow, Brent Scowcroft Center on • Visiting Scholar: Eric J. Belasco (M) International Security/RUSI: Lisa Aronsson (F) • Resident Scholar: Andrew G. Biggs (M) • Executive Vice Chair, Atlantic Council Board of • Visiting Fellow: Edward Blum (M) Directors and International Advisory Board; Chair, • Director of Asian Studies and Resident Fellow: Dan Atlantic Council Business Development and New Blumenthal (M) Ventures Committee; Chairman Emerita, TotalBank • Senior Fellow: Karlyn Bowman (F) (no photo) • Resident Fellow: Alex Brill (M) • Atlantic Council Representative; Director, Atlantic • President; Beth and Ravenel Curry Scholar in Free Council IN TURKEY and Istanbul Summit: Defne Enterprise: Arthur C.
    [Show full text]
  • Rebooting U.S. Security Cooperation in Iraq
    Rebooting U.S. Security Cooperation in Iraq MICHAEL KNIGHTS POLICY FOCUS 137 Rebooting U.S. Security Cooperation in Iraq MICHAEL KNIGHTS THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY www.washingtoninstitute.org The opinions expressed in this Policy Focus are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Washington Institute, its Board of Trustees, or its Board of Advisors. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this publica- tion may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. © 2015 by The Washington Institute for Near East Policy The Washington Institute for Near East Policy 1828 L Street NW, Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20036 Design: 1000colors Photo: A Kurdish fighter keeps guard while overlooking positions of Islamic State mili- tants near Mosul, northern Iraq, August 2014. (REUTERS/Youssef Boudlal) CONTENTS Acknowledgments | v Acronyms | vi Executive Summary | viii 1 Introduction | 1 2 Federal Government Security Forces in Iraq | 6 3 Security Forces in Iraqi Kurdistan | 26 4 Optimizing U.S. Security Cooperation in Iraq | 39 5 Issues and Options for U.S. Policymakers | 48 About the Author | 74 TABLES 1 Effective Combat Manpower of Iraq Security Forces | 8 2 Assessment of ISF and Kurdish Forces as Security Cooperation Partners | 43 FIGURES 1 ISF Brigade Order of Battle, January 2015 | 10 2 Kurdish Brigade Order of Battle, January 2015 | 28 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My thanks to a range of colleagues for their encouragement and assistance in the writing of this study.
    [Show full text]
  • The Making and Unmaking of Syria Strategy Under Trump
    REPORT SYRIA The Making and Unmaking of Syria Strategy under Trump NOVEMBER 29, 2018 — ARON LUND PAGE 1 The most effective way to change the world these days seems to be to plant a message directly in the brain of its most powerful inhabitant: Donald J. Trump, president of the United States of America. Although the U.S. executive branch always had a fairly free hand in foreign policy, ideas would normally need to snake their way through a whole series of interagency deliberations before landing on the Oval Office desk for a final verdict. But as media leaks and disgruntled former members of the Trump administration have made abundantly clear, decision- making in the current White House is both more temperamental and more personalized, revolving around a president known for forming strong opinions based on ideas picked up from television, friends, and other outside sources. Advocates inside and outside the U.S. government increasingly seem to operate under the assumption that the best way to influence American policy is to sidestep the bureaucracy and speak directly to an audience of one: Donald Trump. And, last September, that’s exactly what two pro-opposition Syrian-Americans managed to do after paying a Republican lobbyist to get seats at an Indiana fundraising dinner.1 President Trump later told the story: I was at a meeting with a lot of supporters, and a woman stood up and she said, “There’s a province in Syria with 3 million people. Right now, the Iranians, the Russians, and the Syrians are surrounding their province.
    [Show full text]
  • Working Paper: Do Not Cite Or Circulate Without Permission
    THE COPENHAGEN TEMPTATION: RETHINKING PREVENTION AND PROLIFERATION IN THE AGE OF DETERRENCE DOMINANCE Francis J. Gavin Mira Rapp-Hooper What price should the United States – or any leading power – be willing to pay to prevent nuclear proliferation? For most realists, who believe nuclear weapons possess largely defensive qualities, the price should be small indeed. While additional nuclear states might not be welcomed, their appearance should not be cause for undue alarm. Such equanimity would be especially warrantedWORKING if the state in question PAPER: lacked DO other attributesNOT CITE of power. OR Nuclear acquisition should certainly notCIRCULATE trigger thoughts of WITHOUT preventive militar PERMISSIONy action, a phenomena typically associated with dramatic shifts in the balance of power. The historical record, however, tells a different story. Throughout the nuclear age and despite dramatic changes in the international system, the United States has time and again considered aggressive policies, including the use of force, to prevent the emergence of nuclear capabilities by friend and foe alike. What is even more surprising is how often this temptation has been oriented against what might be called “feeble” states, unable to project other forms of power. The evidence also reveals that the reasons driving this preventive thinking often had more to do with concerns over the systemic consequences of nuclear proliferation, and not, as we might expect, the dyadic relationship between the United States and the proliferator. Factors 1 typically associated with preventive motivations, such as a shift in the balance of power or the ideological nature of the regime in question, were largely absent in high-level deliberations.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Power, Drone Executions, and the Due Process Rights of American Citizens
    Fordham Law Review Volume 87 Issue 3 Article 13 2018 Executive Power, Drone Executions, and the Due Process Rights of American Citizens Jonathan G. D'Errico Fordham University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Military, War, and Peace Commons, and the President/ Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation Jonathan G. D'Errico, Executive Power, Drone Executions, and the Due Process Rights of American Citizens, 87 Fordham L. Rev. 1185 (2018). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol87/iss3/13 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EXECUTIVE POWER, DRONE EXECUTIONS, AND THE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS Jonathan G. D’Errico* Few conflicts have tested the mettle of procedural due process more than the War on Terror. Although fiery military responses have insulated the United States from another 9/11, the Obama administration’s 2011 drone execution of a U.S. citizen allegedly associated with al-Qaeda without formal charges or prosecution sparked public outrage. Judicial recognition that this nonbattlefield execution presented a plausible procedural due process claim ignited questions which continue to smolder today: What are the limits of executive war power? What constitutional privileges do American citizens truly retain in the War on Terror? What if the executive erred in its judgment and mistakenly executed an innocent citizen? Currently, no legal regime provides answers or guards against the infringement of procedural due process the next time the executive determines that an American citizen must be executed to protect the borders of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Extending the Concept of Preventive War and Understanding Its Implications
    Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports 2008 Strategies of prevention: Extending the concept of preventive war and understanding its implications Steven T. Walker West Virginia University Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Recommended Citation Walker, Steven T., "Strategies of prevention: Extending the concept of preventive war and understanding its implications" (2008). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 2747. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/2747 This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Strategies of Prevention: Extending the Concept of Preventive War and Understanding Its Implications Steven T. Walker Dissertation Submitted to the Eberly College of Arts and Sciences at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In Political Science Joe D. Hagan, Ph.D., Co-chair Scott Crichlow, Ph.D., Co-chair Robert Duval, Ph.D. Hong Kim, Ph.D. James Siekmeier, Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cost of an Incoherent Foreign Policy
    The Cost of an Incoherent Foreign Policy Trump’s Iran Imbroglio Undermines U.S. Priorities Everywhere Else By Brett McGurk BRETT H. McGURK served in senior national security positions under Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump. He is now the Frank E. and Arthur W. Payne Distinguished Lecturer at Stanford University’s Freeman Spogli Institute and a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. MORE BY Brett McGurk January 22, 2020 Shortly after taking office, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower gathered senior advisers in the White House solarium to discuss policy toward the Soviet Union. In attendance was his hawkish secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, who had been a vocal critic of Harry Truman’s policy of containment and instead advocated an offensive policy whereby the United States would seek to “roll back” Soviet influence across Europe and Asia. Afternoon light from the southern exposure would have contrasted with the darkening mood inside the White House. Diplomacy to end the Korean War was deadlocked. The United States was entering a nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union. Joseph Stalin was dead, but Eisenhower’s calls for dialogue with Moscow had gone unanswered. Defense spending seemed unsustainable. “The Reds today have the better position,” Dulles argued. Containment was proving “fatal” for the West. (Dulles had recently fired career diplomat George Kennan, the author of that policy.) European allies were acting like “shattered old people,” unwilling to face up to Moscow. Eisenhower should break from his predecessor’s shackles, Dulles concluded, and pursue a policy of “boldness” to more directly roll back the communist tide.
    [Show full text]
  • World War Ii in Context
    April 12, 2001 // 17.423 Causes and Prevention of War // MIT poli. sci. dept. Van Evera, Gabbitas and Lejlic ORIGINS OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR I. WORLD WAR II IN CONTEXT World War II was the greatest war in world history. Some 35-60 million people died in this enormous global conflagration. This vast war closely followed the most elaborate and hopeful effort ever made to design a peaceful world--the 1919 Versailles peace. Never before had world leaders sought so consciously to use their power to shape a peaceful world as they did in 1919. And never has the world seen such violence as it did in Versailles' aftermath. In contrast, the peace that emerged in 1945 was undesigned yet proved far more durable. What does this say of our capacity to engineer a more peaceful world?1 II. WAR & REMEMBRANCE: HOW ILLUSIONS REPLACED REALITY IN EUROPE'S MEMORY OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR (See Holger Herwig, "Clio Deceived...") Sometimes losers write history. They did here, and sold this history to the winners. The world paid dearly for the German-authored Great Social Science Experiment of 1898-1918. (The experiment destroyed the laboratory!) But then someone falsified the lab notes. III. NATIONAL POLICIES AND IDEAS A. Germany: 1. Germans practiced creative history. Weimar-era (1920's) German schools & scholars told and believed lies about: a. The origins of WWI--"The Entente powers encircled Germany and instigated the war!" b. The causes and responsibility for Germany's defeat--"the Jews and the socialists did it!", not Ludendorff and the superhawks.
    [Show full text]
  • The Looming Crisis: Displacement and Security in Iraq
    Foreign Policy at BROOKINGS POLICY PAPER Number 5, August 2008 The Looming Crisis: Displacement and Security in Iraq Elizabeth G. Ferris The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20036 brookings.edu Foreign Policy at BROOKINGS POLICY PAPER Number 5, August 2008 The Looming Crisis: Displacement and Security in Iraq Elizabeth G. Ferris -APOF)RAQ Map: ICG, “Iraq’s Civil War, the Sadrists, and the Surge.” Middle East Report No. 72, 7 February 2008. &OREIGN0OLICYAT"ROOKINGSIII ,ISTOF!CRONYMS AQI Al Qaeda in Iraq CAP Consolidated Appeals Process CPA Coalition Provisional Authority CRRPD Commission for the Resolution of Real Property Disputes EIA Energy Information Administration (U.S.) GOI Government of Iraq ICG International Crisis Group ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross IDPs Internally Displaced Persons IOM International Organization for Migration IRIN Integrated Regional Information Service ITG Iraqi Transitional Government KRG Kurdistan Regional Government MNF-I Multi-National Force Iraq MoDM/MoM Ministry of Displacement and Migration (recently renamed Ministry of Migration) NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization NCCI NGO Coordination Committee in Iraq OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs PDS Public Distribution System PKK Kurdistan Workers’ Party PLO Palestinian Liberation Organization PRTs Provincial Reconstruction Teams RSG Representative of the Secretary-General TAL Transitional Administrative Law UIA United Iraqi Alliance UNAMI United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq UNDP United Nations Development Program UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund USAID U.S. Agency for International Development USG United States Government &OREIGN0OLICYAT"ROOKINGSV !WORDONTERMINOLOGY The term “displaced” is used here to refer to both refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) which have clear meanings in international law.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee on Foreign Affairs
    1 Union Calendar No. 559 113TH CONGRESS " ! REPORT 2nd Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 113–728 LEGISLATIVE REVIEW AND OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS A REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO RULE XI OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND SECTION 136 OF THE LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1946 (2 U.S.C. 190d), AS AMENDED BY SECTION 118 OF THE LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1970 (PUBLIC LAW 91–510), AS AMENDED BY PUBLIC LAW 92–136 JANUARY 2, 2015.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 49–006 WASHINGTON : 2015 VerDate Sep 11 2014 17:06 Jan 08, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4012 Sfmt 4012 E:\HR\OC\HR728.XXX HR728 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS E:\Seals\Congress.#13 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP 113TH CONGRESS EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman (25–21) CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California JOE WILSON, South Carolina GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey TED POE, Texas GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia MATT SALMON, Arizona THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania BRIAN HIGGINS, New York JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina KAREN BASS, California ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts MO BROOKS, Alabama DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island TOM COTTON, Arkansas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida PAUL COOK, California JUAN VARGAS, California GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina BRADLEY S.
    [Show full text]