|
| |
CNAS on Iraq
CNAS on Iraq — Introduction
 |
Iraq is the most politically charged issue facing America today. There are no easy answers, but there is an urgent need for an honest, open, and truly bipartisan dialogue on the way ahead. The Center for a New American Security is committed to shaping and elevating the debate on the most difficult strategic issues facing America – helping to forge a way forward and, ultimately, out of Iraq is a difficult but vital endeavor. On this page you will find a collection of reports, articles, media references, and online commentaries that highlight the work CNAS analysts are doing on the issue of Iraq. In a political and media environment dominated by partisanship, we hope this page will offer relevant and useful analysis to the media, the policy community, and the general public.
|
|
|
Shaping the Iraq Inheritance
By Colin Kahl, Michele A. Flournoy, Shawn Brimley
Published: June 2008
American policy in Iraq will undergo two critical transitions throughout the remainder of 2008 and into early 2009: movement to a new U.S. posture in Iraq; and a wartime transition to a new administration. It is vital that both are handled in a way that best advances U.S. interests in Iraq and the region. Yet neither is being paid sufficient attention. Shaping the Iraq Inheritance outlines America’s interests in Iraq and the region, analyzes recent security and political trends, presents a framework for understanding U.S. strategic options, and makes recommendations for how the Bush administration, the military, and Congress can best prepare for the dangerous period ahead.
The report places America’s interests in Iraq within a regional and global context, and suggests that the United States must simultaneously attempt to avoid a failed state in Iraq while not strategically over-committing to Iraq. The report examines current security and political trends, and suggests that success in Iraq requires additional steps toward political accommodation and improved governance. The report then outlines a policy of conditional engagement—a strategy that initiates a phased, negotiated redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq while conditioning residual support to the Iraqi government on continued political progress—and argues that it offers the best chance of achieving sustainable stability in Iraq while balancing U.S. commitments worldwide.
Finally, the report outlines steps that must be taken to smooth the handover of Iraq policy from this administration to the next. The Bush administration must prioritize prepara tion in three areas over the next six months: the development of an interagency transition plan; enhancing the situational awareness of both the Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates and their top national security advisers on Iraq; and hand-tooling personnel transitions for senior positions critical to Iraq policy and operations.
|
|
|
|
|
By James Miller and Shawn Brimley
Published: June 2007
The U.S. military will withdraw from Iraq; the question is when and under what conditions. This report will provide a realistic appraisal of America’s enduring interests in Iraq — no al Qaeda safe havens, no regional war, and no genocide — and to provide a Phased Transition plan that identifies specific steps the Bush administration can take to make these outcomes more likely while also preparing for the worst and begins planning for subsequent phases. At this dangerous moment, such realism is essential to increasing the prospects that the United States will get out of Iraq more responsibly than it got in.
|
|
|
| CNAS Policy Briefs on Iraq
The following policy briefs on Iraq were published by CNAS.org. All views, positions, and conclusions expressed in these briefs should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).
CNAS Policy Briefs:
|
|
|
By Colin Kahl and Shawn Brimley | March 26, 2008 | CNAS
Colin Kahl and Shawn Brimley argue that a nuanced middle position between ‘all in’ or ‘all out' offers the best chance of producing lasting progress in Iraq.
|
|
|
By Colin Kahl | August 30, 2007 | CNAS
Nobody seems to know how to talk about and evaluate “progress” in Iraq, or the lack thereof. In the context of the confusion, progress should be evaluated along several dimensions: type, location, causal direction, and possibilities for aggregation and sustainability.
|
|
|
By Michèle Flournoy and Shawn Brimley | March 20, 2007 | CNAS
Even as forces in Iraq are drawn down, the U.S. has enduring interests in that besieged country and the surrounding region, and these interests will require a significant military presence therefore the foreseeable future.These vital longterm U.S. interests in Iraq can be boiled down to Three No’s: no regional war; no al Qaeda safe havens; and no genocide.
|
CNAS Online Commentary on Iraq
The following commentaries on Iraq were published by CNAS.org. All views, positions, and conclusions expressed in these commentaries should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).
By George Packer | September 17, 2007
Additional comments by Packer:
"With full awareness that any plan is likely to fail upon sustained contact with Iraq, I do think that the C.N.A.S. plan makes the most sense: it tries to accommodate political and military realities here in the United States with those in Iraq. That plan, in conjunction with David Kilcullen’s argument—that the surge should run its course to do as much damage as possible to Al Qaeda in Iraq and the extremist Shiite militias—and Toby Dodge’s case for an international diplomatic effort, seems to me to be a feasible way forward. Combining these strategies would require the President to meet Congress halfway and to begin planning now for the American transition to an advisory role in Iraq next year. And—to answer your second question—I’m afraid that it won’t happen. We will have a deadlock in Washington until a new Administration comes in, which means that the long-term planning I sketched out in the piece is not going to be done."
 Online Commentary: Advise Who?
By Colin Kahl | July 2007 | CNAS
 Click here to read our CNAS Online Commentary feed
CNAS Congressional Testimony on Iraq
The following prepared statments and transcripts feature CNAS scholars on Iraq.
The following articles, interviews, and op-eds cite, interview, or were written by CNAS experts. These pieces are relevant to the current Iraq debate:
By James N. Miller, Jr. | December 5, 2007 | American Security Project
By Shawn Brimley and Vikram Singh | December 5, 2007 | Armed Forces Journal
By Colin Kahl | November-December 2007 | Foreign Affairs
By Shawn Brimley and Michèle Flournoy | September 11, 2007 | The Age (Melbourne)
CNAS In the News: How We Fight
By Colin Kahl | November/December 2006 | Foreign Affairs
Click here to subscribe to the CNAS In the News RSS feed
CNAS Press Briefings on Iraq
|
|
With Michèle Flournoy | March 10, 2008 | CNAS
Download: Transcript | Audio
On March 12, 2008, Michèle A. Flournoy, President and Co-Founder of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), held a press briefing to recap and analyze her recent trip to Iraq. Ms. Flournoy returned from a two week trip to Iraq on February 12, 2008, where she visited ten Iraqi provinces and ten U.S. Army and Marine Corps units. Ms. Flournoy's briefing focused on how to consolidate security gains in Iraq. She also offered recommendations for a new American political strategy toward Iraq.
|
Press Interviews
CNAS experts and analysts are available for media interviews on the topic of Iraq. To interview our experts listed below, please contact Price Floyd, CNAS Director of External Relations:
For more information, complete this form:
|
|
|
 |
