Strategic

Reflections

Strategic Reflections

Operation Iraqi Freedom

July 2004–February 2007

By George W. Casey, Jr.

General, U.S. Army

Retired

National Defense University Press

Washington, D.C.

October 2012
Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are 

solely those of the contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of the 

Defense Department or any other agency of the Federal Government. Cleared for 

public release; distribution unlimited.

Portions of this book may be quoted or reprinted without permission, provided 

that a standard source credit line is included. NDU Press would appreciate a courtesy 

copy of reprints or reviews.

Cover image: U.S. Army Sergeant Nathaniel Patterson, of the 320th

Battalion, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, Mahmudiyah, Iraq 

(U.S. Army/Richard Del Vecchio).

 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Casey, George W.

 Strategic reflections : Operation Iraqi Freedom, July 2004–February

2007 / by George W. Casey.

 p. cm.

 Includes bibliographical references.

1. Casey, George W. 2. Iraq War, 2003–2011—Campaigns. 3. Iraq War,

2003–2011—Decision making. 4. Iraq War, 2003–2011—Personal

narratives. 5. Iraq—Politics and government—2003– 6. Generals—United

States—Biography 7. Combined operations (Military science) 8.

Civil-military relations—United States—History—21st century. 9.

Civil-military relations—Iraq—History—21st century. 10.

Iraq—Strategic aspects. I.

Title.

 DS79.769.C38 2012

 956.7044’34092—dc23

 [B]

 2012030244

First printing, October 2012

NDU Press publications are sold by the U.S. Government Printing Office. For ordering information, call (202) 512-1800 or write to the Superintendent of Documents, 

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. For GPO publications 

online, access its Web site at: http://bookstore.gpo.gov.

For current publications of NDU Press, consult the NDU Press Web site at: www.

ndu.edu/press/index.html.
To the men and women from 38 countries, represented by the 

Soldier on the cover, and the families that supported them, who 

gave 27 million Iraqis the opportunity 

for a better life.

vii

Contents

List of Illustrations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapters

1 Preparing for the Mission 

(May–June 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Framing the Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Building a Key Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Consultations and Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Direct Insights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Confirmation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

2 Establishing the Mission and Preparing 

for the First Elections

(July 2004–January 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Organizing for Success. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Military Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Election Planning and Preparation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Looking Beyond the Elections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

The First Elections: January 30, 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

3 Completing the UN Timeline and Setting 

Conditions for a New Iraq 

(January–December 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Adapting in Transition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Completing the UN Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66
viii 

contents

4 Government Transition and the Rise of 

Sectarian Violence 

(January–June 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Government Transition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

The Samarra Bombing and Its Aftermath. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Building New Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98

Camp David and June D.C. Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104

5 The Toughest Days

(July 2006–February 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Adjusting the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110

Civil-Military Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120

Military Operations in Baghdad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126

Washington Policy Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135

6 Insights for Leaders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Developing Vision and Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154

Creating Unity of Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156

Continuous Assessment and Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159

Influencing Organizational Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .162

Civil-Military Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165

Political-Military Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .170

Momentum and Transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172

Sustaining Yourself . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175
ix

contents

Appendices

1. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179

2. The Coalition, July 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183

3. Leadership in Iraq, 2004–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184

4. Iraqi Security Forces Progression, 2004–2007 . . . . . . . . . . .188

5. Operation Iraqi Freedom Chronology, 2004–2007 . . . . . .192

Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

About the Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
x 

Illustrations

Figures

2-1. Multi-National Force–Iraq, July 2004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2-2. View of the Threat, Summer 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

2-3. Initial Campaign Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

2-4. MNF-I Staff Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

2-5. Counterinsurgency Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

3-1. Army Partnership Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

3-2. Commanding General’s FARs, February 2005. . . . . . . . . 63

4-1. Post-Samarra Security Environment, March 2006. . . . . . 93

 4-2. Strategy for Post-Samarra Security Environment. . . . . . . 95

 4-3. Campaign Framework, 

April 2006–December 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

5-1. Framework for Integrating 

Political-Military Efforts, Fall 2006. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Graphs

A4-1. Iraqi Security Forces Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .189

A4-2. Army Transition Readiness Assessment Growth. . . . . 190

A4-3. Special Police Transition Readiness 

Assessment Growth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
xi

Acknowledgments

This book would not have been possible without the efforts 

of Sandy Cochran and Kelly Howard, who have been involved in 

this effort since Iraq and who assisted me in researching, writing, 

and fact-checking. I am also appreciative of the comments from 

many who read the paper, and of the support of the National 

Defense University Press, particulary Frank G. Hoffman, Jeffrey D. 

Smotherman, and Tara J. Parekh. Finally, my wife, Sheila, was my 

strongest supporter throughout my career and particularly during 

my time in Iraq. She is also a tireless advocate for the families of the 

men and women of our Armed Forces.

1

Introduction

Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom were the 

first major wars of the 21st century. They will not be the last. They 

have significantly impacted how our government and military think 

about prosecuting wars. They will have a generational impact on the 

U.S. military, as its future leaders, particularly those in the ground 

forces, will for decades be men and women who served in Iraq and 

Afghanistan.* I believe it is imperative that leaders at all levels, both 

military and civilian, share their experiences to ensure that we, as a 

military and as a country, gain appropriate insights for the future.

As the Army chief of staff, I encouraged leaders at the war colleges, staff colleges, and advanced courses to write about what they 

did in Iraq and Afghanistan so that others could be better prepared 

when they faced similar challenges. This book is my effort to follow 

my own advice. I believe that we have not seen the last of the challenges and demands that I faced during my 32 months of combined 

command in Iraq, and I offer these insights so that future leaders can 

be better prepared.

During my command tenure, the Multi-National Force–Iraq 

(MNF-I) mission transitioned from one of occupation to one of partnership with three Iraqi governments. We used this period to lay the 

foundation for and begin the transition to a self-reliant Iraqi government, our mandate from the United Nations (UN). This book 

primarily addresses the events, decisions, and actions of MNF-I as I 

perceived them at the time. I have occasionally offered retrospective 

*

 The last U.S. Army general with Vietnam experience retired in 2011.
2 

Strategic RefLEctions

insights that come from experience and hindsight, but I felt it is more 

important to focus on what I thought and what I did then to provide 

the best insight into the challenges I faced and how I dealt with them. 

It reflects my insights as a commander in one theater of a broader war.

In preparing this book, I relied on the historical records that I 

kept from Iraq—personal notes, briefings, plans, assessments, meeting notes—that, while decidedly incomplete, greatly sharpened my 

personal recollections and offered insights into how we viewed the 

situation over time and what we conveyed to our political leaders. 

They are available for research at the National Defense University.

As in any major endeavor, personalities mattered. Throughout 

my entire command tenure, I interacted with an extremely professional group of civilian and military leaders. My Commander in Chief 

was President George W. Bush, who was served by two Secretaries 

of State, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, and two National Security Advisors, Dr. Rice and Stephen Hadley, whom I interacted 

with regularly. Strategic oversight came from two Secretaries of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld for 30 months, and Robert Gates for my 

final 2 months. I worked closely with two Chairmen of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, USAF, for 17 months and 

General Peter Pace, USMC, for 15 months. My immediate military 

commander for my entire tenure was Commander of U.S. Central 

Command General John Abizaid, USA. I was privileged to work 

side-by-side with two U.S. Ambassadors, John Negroponte and 

Zalmay Khalilzad, for 8 months and 22 months, respectively, and 

one interim Ambassador, Jim Jeffrey, who later returned as our Ambassador to Iraq. I worked with the leaders of three different Iraqi 

governments, led by Prime Ministers Ayad Allawi, Ibrahim al-Jafari, 
3

Introduction

and Nuri al-Maliki. I had the benefit of working with very talented 

military subordinates: four Multi-National Corps–Iraq (MNC-I) 

commanders—then–Lieutenant Generals Thomas Metz, John Vines, 

Peter Chiarelli, and Raymond Odierno—and two Multi-National 

Security Transition Command–Iraq (MNSTC-I) commanders, 

then–Lieutenant Generals David Petraeus and Martin Dempsey. I 

also worked closely with Lieutenant General Stan McChrystal, who 

led our efforts against al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Over 65 years ago in his initial dispatch following Operation 

Torch, General Dwight Eisenhower wrote that “the accomplishments of this campaign are sufficiently evident to make comment 

unnecessary. Our mistakes, some of which were serious, may be less 

apparent at this moment, and, in the interest of future operations, 

they should be subject to dispassionate analysis.”

Although the accomplishments of this campaign may not currently be seen with sufficient clarity to make comment unnecessary, 

I submit this book in the same spirit. The challenges that I faced 

during my command hold valuable lessons for future military and 

civilian leaders as we enter our second decade of war. It is my hope 

that this book will provide insights that allow future leaders to better 

prepare themselves for the challenges they will surely face in this era 

of persistent conflict.

I purposely focused this book on my actions and the actions of 

my headquarters and, as a result, have only touched briefly on the 

significant stories of the advances that were made during this time in 

training indigenous security forces, targeting high-value individuals, 

detainee operations, reconstruction, and dealing with improvised explosive devices. The men and women of the MNF-I, the Intelligence 
4 

Strategic RefLEctions

Community, and the Department of State who served in Iraq during 

this time rewrote the books in these and other areas and postured us 

for success in Iraq and in future conflicts.

Operation Iraqi Freedom is part of a larger story—that of the 

United States as a nation adapting to the security challenges thrust 

on us by the al Qaeda attacks of September 11, 2001, and that of a 

military transforming in the midst of war. As this book illustrates, 

the forces involved, both military and civilian, adapted under fire 

and in the face of the uncertainty and complexity of Iraq to accomplish our national objectives and provide 27 million Iraqis the 

opportunity for a better life. It is a historic accomplishment, and one 

of which all Americans can be justifiably proud.

—George W. Casey, Jr.

General, U.S. Army, Retired

May 2012
5

1. Preparing for the Mission 

(May–June 2004)

I did not go to work on May 17, 2004, thinking I would be the 

commander of Multi-National Force–Iraq in 45 days. I knew that 

the Secretary of Defense was looking to increase the new MNF-I 

headquarters from a three-star to a four-star command to handle 

the wide range of strategic issues that a corps’s headquarters is not 

equipped to deal with. But as the Army vice chief of staff, I was 

decisively involved in the multiyear reorganization of the Army. I 

had been asked by my boss, Army Chief of Staff Pete Schoomaker, 

to see that through.

Three days later, Pete told me that I had been selected by President 

George W. Bush to lead coalition forces in Iraq. With Pete’s support, 

I immediately shifted gears and laid out a plan to take command. My 

President George W. Bush addresses U.S. Army 

War College on Iraq, May 24, 2004

White House (Eric Draper)
6 

Strategic RefLEctions

plan involved reading to update my thinking on counterinsurgency 

operations and the region; meeting with key figures in the executive 

branch to understand what was expected of me; meeting with leaders 

from other government agencies to understand how they planned to 

contribute; visiting the intelligence agencies to develop a better understanding of the intelligence picture (at least as it was viewed from 

Washington); meeting with knowledgeable experts outside of government to better understand the context for the current situation; 

meeting with financial and contracting experts to understand the 

mechanisms required to get the reconstruction effort moving; and 

meeting with numerous Members of Congress to get their views and 

to prepare for my confirmation hearing. This process proved essential 

in framing my understanding of the mission and greatly facilitated the 

rapid production of our campaign plan once I assumed command.

Framing the Mission

Years of experience at the strategic level had taught me that the 

higher up you go, the less guidance you receive. This mission proved 

no exception. I found there were three key documents that were 

most useful in framing the mission for Iraq: the National Security 

Presidential Directive (NSPD) of May 11, 2004, the President’s May 

24 speech at the Army War College, and United Nations Security 

Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1546, with attached letters from newly appointed Prime Minister of Iraq Ayad Allawi and Secretary of 

State Colin Powell.

The NSPD established the organization for U.S. Government 

operations in Iraq after the termination of the Coalition Provisional 

Authority, which was to occur no later than June 30, 2004, and the 
7

preparing for the mission

reestablishment of “normal” diplomatic relations with a sovereign 

Iraq. It made the Ambassador responsible for the “direction, coordination and supervision of all United States Government employees, 

polices and activities in country” except for the “U.S. efforts with 

respect to security and military operations in Iraq,” which were the 

responsibility of the commander of U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM), the combatant commander to whom I would report. It 

directed the “closest cooperation and mutual support” between them.1

The NSPD also designated the Secretary of State as responsible 

for the “continuous supervision and general direction of all assistance 

in Iraq” and directed the USCENTCOM commander to lead the efforts to organize, train, and equip the Iraqi security forces (ISF) “with 

the policy guidance of the Chief of Mission.” It established two new 

organizations: one under the Secretary of State (the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office) to guide the development effort, and one 

under the Secretary of Defense (the Project and Contracting Office) 

to provide contracting and project management support to the reconstruction and assistance missions. Finally, the NSPD recognized that 

assisting Iraq through the transition to democracy would take “the 

full commitment of all agencies” of the United States, and enjoined the 

heads of all agencies to support the mission.2

Clear division of labor and lines of command are critical to the 

effective prosecution of any mission, and this NSPD endeavored 

to provide that. In retrospect, while the division of labor was clear, 

the NSPD did not create the unity of command necessary for the 

effective integration of civil-military efforts in successful counterinsurgency operations. The Ambassador and I would have to create 

the unity of effort required for success. This would prove a constant 
8 

Strategic RefLEctions

struggle as the two supporting bureaucracies—State and Defense—

often had differing views. Things would get more complex as we 

increasingly brought the new Iraqi government into the effort. The 

political and economic effects, so necessary to sustaining our military success, would be outside of my direct control.

Shortly after the NSPD was issued, President Bush outlined our 

mission in a speech at the U.S. Army War College. He stated that our 

goal was “to see the Iraqi people in charge of Iraq for the first time 

in generations,” and that our job in Iraq was not only to defeat the 

enemy, but also “to give strength to a friend—a free, representative 

government that serves its people and fights on their behalf.” He laid 

out five steps to accomplish our goal:

◆ hand over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government

◆ help establish stability and security

◆ continue rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure

◆ encourage more international support

◆ hold free, national elections [that will bring forward new 

leaders empowered by the Iraqi people].3

President Bush noted that national elections were the most 

important of the five steps and that, because of recent violence in 

Fallujah and the South, we would maintain our troop level at 138,000 

“as long as necessary.” He stated that the United States would do “all 

that is necessary—by measured force or overwhelming force—to 

achieve a stable Iraq.” These were comforting words to a prospective commander. Finally, he talked about accelerating our program 

for training Iraqi security forces with an eventual goal of an Iraqi 
9

preparing for the mission

army of 27 battalions and an overall ISF number (to include police 

and border guards) of 260,000,4 making it clear that this would be a 

major part of my mission. In all, this seemed like clear direction, and 

I used the speech as the basis for my planning.

Perhaps the most important document in framing the mission was 

UNSCR 1546. It provided the chapter VII mandate from the United 

Nations: “. . . the Multinational Force shall have the authority to take 

all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security 

and stability in Iraq.”5 The accompanying letters relayed the public 

consent of the new Iraqi government to accept MNF-I and the political transition laid out in the UNSCR. This public acceptance would be 

essential to me when it came to working with the Iraqi government. It 

also established a timeline for the political transition:

◆ forming the sovereign Interim Iraqi Government (IIG) 

that would assume governing responsibility and authority 

by June 30, 2004

◆ convening a national conference reflecting the diversity of 

Iraqi society

◆ holding direct democratic elections by December 31, 2004, 

if possible and in no case later than January 31, 2005, for a 

Transitional National Assembly, which would have responsibility for forming an Iraqi Transitional Government (ITG) 

and drafting a permanent constitution for Iraq leading to a 

constitutionally elected government by December 31, 2005.6

This gave the Iraqis and coalition forces a political timeline for the 

next 18 months, which we saw as a good, if not necessary, driver to 
10 

Strategic RefLEctions

force consensus on what we knew would be tough issues. What we 

did not anticipate was the debilitating effect that three governmental transitions would have on our efforts to increase the capacity of 

Iraqi institutions.

Finally, the UNSCR and its supporting letters clearly stated 

my responsibility to establish a “security partnership” with the 

soon-to-be sovereign government of Iraq and to assist in building 

the capability of the Iraqi security forces and institutions that, the 

UNSCR envisioned, would “progressively play a greater role and 

ultimately assume full responsibility for the maintenance of security 

and stability in Iraq.”7 The UNSCR gave me a direct role with the 

sovereign government of Iraq to coordinate this security partnership, a role normally reserved for the Ambassador. I did not realize 

at the time how difficult and all-consuming this particular task 

would become.

Building a Key Relationship

I recognized from the outset that a close, cooperative relationship between John Negroponte, the newly appointed Ambassador 

to Iraq, and me would be absolutely essential—an instinct that he 

shared. We worked hard from the beginning to ensure that we entered Iraq with a common view of the situation and how we needed 

to address it. One of the most important agreements we made took 

place at our first meeting. There we discussed the fact that any 

counterinsurgency effort required political and military integration 

for success, and we agreed upon a concept to create unity of effort 

between the Embassy and MNF-I—One Team/One Mission. We 

agreed that we would develop a common statement of our mission 
11

preparing for the mission

and then guide the Embassy and MNF-I teams to work together to 

accomplish it. This understanding would prove vital to our success.

One of the toughest challenges for strategic leaders is to clearly articulate to their subordinates what it is they want them to accomplish. 

Before we left, the Ambassador and I worked to develop a clear view of 

what we wanted to accomplish in Iraq—understanding that we would 

take a period of time after we arrived to calibrate our views with realities on the ground. We also discussed the NSPD, the President’s speech, 

and the UNSCR and how they would help us frame what we needed to 

do. We recognized that the return of sovereignty to the Iraqis presented 

both challenges and opportunities, and we wrestled with how to use 

the transition to create momentum for the mission. To do this, we felt 

we needed to work on enhancing the legitimacy of the IIG to move 

Iraqis away from the perception of the coalition as an occupying force. 

We also realized that the transition from the Coalition Provisional Authority to the Embassy and the One Team/One Mission concept would 

require some significant organizational changes to enable our success, 

and we began planning how to accomplish them.

In the end, we went into Iraq thinking that our mission was to 

facilitate the establishment of a representative Iraqi government that 

respected the human rights of all Iraqis, and that had sufficient security forces to maintain domestic order and deny Iraq as a safe haven 

for terrorists. To achieve that objective, we knew that we would have 

to build the national and international team to accomplish our mission, develop an integrated effort to defeat the insurgency, and work 

to build the legitimacy of the IIG and ISF. 

These discussions with the Ambassador were extremely helpful 

in establishing a common view of the mission and the challenges we 
12 

Strategic RefLEctions

would face together. It was, we both realized, just the beginning of a 

long journey, but we were at least starting in the same place.

Consultations and Direction

As part of my preparations, I solicited views on Iraq from various experts from inside and outside the government: the Department 

of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of State, National 

Security Council, and Intelligence Community. The Institute for 

National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University and 

my alma mater, Georgetown University, both hosted special sessions 

for me that were very helpful.

My consultations with these organizations surfaced a wide 

range of concerns and questions. Some experts questioned how to 

obtain and sustain unity of effort between the Embassy and military, while others wondered about the challenges and implications 

of sovereignty. There were concerns about the newly constituted 

ISF (mission, force levels, equipment requirements, and timelines 

for development), and the impacts of disbanding the Iraqi army, 

stringent de-Ba’athification policies, and Abu Ghraib. There was 

also real uncertainty about the nature of the threat. While most 

agreed that we were dealing with an insurgency, there was much 

debate about the composition of the insurgency. Lastly, from these 

consultations I gained a sense that people thought that Iraq would 

be an 18-month mission: we would complete the UNSCR political timeline while growing the ISF and turn the country over to 

the Iraqis when that was done. In all, I found that having access to 

a wide variety of views and insights better helped me sharpen my 

thinking about the mission.
13

preparing for the mission

During that month, I had several office calls with Secretary 

Rumsfeld and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dick 

Myers to get direction. I had reviewed the Secretary’s April 27, 2004, 

guidance to USCENTCOM that planners should maximize the use 

of ISF, international forces, and contractors before resorting to U.S. 

forces.8 He also sent me a copy of the memorandum he prepared for 

the President in early June, entitled “Some Thoughts on Iraq and 

How to Think about It,” that sought perspective from history with 

respect to what he termed “a rough period of months.” He emphasized that “there is no way this struggle can be lost on the ground 

in Iraq. It can only be lost if people come to the conclusion that it 

cannot be done.”9 Those were prescient words.

During these office calls, the Secretary emphasized two concerns. The first was about the “can-do” attitude of the American 

soldier. The Secretary was worried that, in our zeal to accomplish 

the mission, we would try to do everything ourselves and not allow 

the Iraqis to gain the experience they would need to ultimately take 

charge. He felt that this would only extend our time there, and he encouraged me to take this attitude into consideration in my planning. 

I understood what he meant, having seen this attitude in our soldiers 

in Bosnia, and even getting captured by it myself during my time 

there. We were going to have to find the right balance between the 

drive needed to accomplish things in a tough environment and doing 

everything ourselves if we wanted the Iraqis to take charge anytime 

soon. This would be easier said than done. Secretary Rumsfeld and 

General Myers were also concerned about the status of the ISF, and 

they asked me to develop an immediate assessment and long-term 

plan for ISF development as a matter of priority. We agreed that I 
14 

Strategic RefLEctions

would report back with an assessment of the situation and recommendations within my first 30 days on the ground.

Direct Insights

In mid-June I was granted permission from the Senate Armed 

Services Committee to accompany Deputy Secretary of Defense 

Paul Wolfowitz on a 5-day trip to Iraq.* The purpose of the trip was 

to gain a better understanding of the issues surrounding the transition of sovereignty to the IIG,†

 which was scheduled to take place 

by the end of the month. The trip would enable me to meet with the 

Iraqi and coalition military leaders whom I would be working with 

to gain important on-the-ground insights. I focused on gaining an 

understanding of how the new Iraqi leaders viewed the threat, their 

current security challenges, their security forces, and the consultative mechanisms called for in the UNSCR to ensure coordination 

between the coalition and the Iraqi government. Not surprisingly, 

the insights I gained from this visit played a prominent role in preparing me to take command of the mission. Here are a few of my key 

takeaways from the trip:

Threat and Security Challenges. Prime Minister Allawi viewed 

radical Islamists and ex-regime loyalists, who were increasingly siding 

with the radicals, as Iraq’s primary threat. He thought both groups 

were getting support from regional powers, primarily Syria and Iran, 

and taking advantage of Iraq’s porous borders to undermine the 

*

 Permission was necessary to avoid “presumption of confirmation.” We can 

do better preparing senior leaders for key wartime jobs. For example, I would have 

welcomed the chance to study Arabic for several months, something I could not do 

without “presuming confirmation.” †

 The Iraqi Interim Government was appointed by the Coalition Provisional 

Authority just prior to sovereignty being passed.
15

preparing for the mission

political process under way. He stated that things would get worse 

before they got better and that establishing a functional democracy 

in Iraq would take a long time. He also said that his priority was to 

establish security across Iraq. It was clear that the April uprisings by 

Sadrist militia and the failed efforts to establish a government security 

force in Fallujah weighed heavily on him and the new government. 

Muqtada al-Sadr had established a safe haven in Najaf, and terrorists 

and insurgents had established a safe haven in Fallujah. Coalition and 

Iraqi forces loyal to the central government could not go into either 

area. The Iraqis saw them as separate problems with Fallujah being the 

more serious of the two. They also saw them as longer term problems 

and did not expect them to be resolved before sovereignty was established. I would inherit them.

Vision for Iraqi Security Forces. The prime minister and his 

security ministers believed there were insufficient ISF to deal with 

the threat, and those that did exist were underequipped. They saw 

this situation as unacceptable, and rightly so. On the army side, 

they looked down on the recently formed Iraq Civil Defense Corps 

(coalition-armed local security forces), and the prime minister and 

his ministers felt that they needed armored forces—at least five divisions—that could rapidly deploy around the country. They also 

wanted an aerial capability to assist in the counterinsurgency fight. 

On the police side, they recognized that, given the threat, the police 

would need the support of the army for some time, and that current 

training needed to be enhanced to allow the police to survive in a 

counterinsurgency environment. They wanted to create strong border and counterterror forces. They also wanted our help to unify the 

security effort (coalition, army, police), to develop an appropriate 
16 

Strategic RefLEctions

chain of command for the army and police, to build a “rapid deployment force,” so the central government could respond anywhere in 

the country, and to develop a strict vetting process for key leaders. 

Finally, they wanted Iraqi forces, not “photocopies of the U.S. or 

UK forces.”

Consultative Mechanisms. The letters from Prime Minister 

Allawi and Secretary of State Powell attached to UNSCR 1546 

called for the establishment of consultative mechanisms to facilitate coordination between the coalition and the sovereign 

government of Iraq. We agreed that the Ministerial Committee for National Security would be the core forum for working 

strategic security issues and that the Strategic Action Committee 

would be the forum to prepare issues for its consideration. We 

began discussions on developing a policy for “sensitive offensive 

operations”—operations that could cause political problems for 

the government—and establishing formal and informal coordination mechanisms at the national, provincial, and local levels. We 

also agreed to establish a joint command center as quickly as possible. Establishing these agreements in advance would be critical 

to progress in the months ahead. 

Confirmation

The conclusion of these busy weeks came with my confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on June 

24 shortly after my return from Iraq. During the several days prior 

to the hearings, I visited key members of the committee to get their 

views and insights on the mission, and submitted my “advance questions” to the committee for the hearing.
17

preparing for the mission

I felt that my preparations to take command had set me up well 

for the hearing as the Senators echoed many of the concerns I had 

been hearing in the past few weeks. Members of the committee asked 

me how I planned to ensure unity of effort with the Embassy and to 

establish a good relationship with the Ambassador, how I planned 

to establish an effective relationship between MNF-I and the government of Iraq, about the status of the ISF and how I planned to 

develop them, and how I viewed my relationship with General Abizaid. I was also pressed by a number of Senators on whether I felt 

I had enough troops to accomplish the mission. I pledged several 

times to ask for more troops if I felt they were necessary, but I reiterated, as I did with many of the questions, that I had only been on the 

ground in Iraq for 3 days, and I would make a thorough assessment 

once I took command. I also agreed to consult with them frequently.

In response to a question posed by the committee concerning 

the major challenges I would face as the MNF-I commander, I listed 

the following:

◆ implementing an effective transition from occupation to 

partnership with the IIG

◆ defeating anti-Iraqi and anticoalition forces alongside the 

IIG and ISF

◆ assisting the IIG in efficiently rebuilding the ISF

◆ with the ISF, providing a secure environment to permit 

elections in December 2004 or January 2005.10

This represented an accurate view of what I thought my main 

challenges would be as I prepared to depart for Iraq.
18 

Strategic RefLEctions

My preparation time for command had been brief but intense. I 

left for Iraq with a good idea of what was expected of me and what 

needed to be done. From the United Nations, I had received an 

18-month political timeline to execute. President Bush provided the 

goal of seeing “the Iraqi people in charge of Iraq for the first time in 

generations” along with a five-step framework to accomplish this.11

Secretary Rumsfeld and General Myers had asked me to report back 

with an assessment and way ahead for not only the ISF but also for 

the mission in Iraq as a whole. 

Going in, I believed that the U.S. objective was to facilitate the 

establishment of a representative Iraqi government that respected 

the human rights of all Iraqis and had sufficient security forces to 

maintain domestic order and deny Iraq as a safe haven for terrorists. 

I knew that I needed to quickly make an on-the-ground assessment, 

develop a strategy and a campaign plan to achieve our objective, and 

then work with Ambassador Negroponte to build our team and organize the mission for success—all while working to build a strong 

partnership with the newly sovereign Iraqi government. We would 

have plenty to do. While I knew the mission in Iraq would not be 

easy, I was just starting to understand its complexity.
19

2. Establishing the Mission 

and Preparing for the First 

Elections (July 2004–January 2005)

On June 28, as I was about to board a plane to the Middle East 

having been confirmed by the Senate 2 days prior, Ambassador Negroponte called to tell me that sovereignty had been passed to the 

Iraqis earlier that day. While he intended to head into Iraq later that 

day, I had planned stops at USCENTCOM forward headquarters in 

Qatar and at my supporting Army headquarters in Kuwait, Third 

Army, en route to Iraq. Despite the early transfer of sovereignty, I 

decided to stick with my travel plan as insights from my higher and 

supporting headquarters in theater would be important in framing 

my understanding of the mission. My change of command remained 

scheduled for July 1.

General John P. Abizaid, Commander, U.S. Central 

Command, General Casey after he assumed command 

of Multi-National Force–Iraq, July 1, 2004, and 

outgoing commander Lieutenant General Ricardo 

Sanchez, seated behind General Abizaid 
20 

Strategic RefLEctions

I arrived in Iraq the night of June 29 and immediately began 

meeting with the key people in the mission: outgoing commander 

Lieutenant General (LTG) Ricardo Sanchez, Ambassador Negroponte, my United Kingdom (UK) deputy Lieutenant General 

John McColl, and new Multi-National Security Transition Command–Iraq Commander LTG David Petraeus. The following day, I 

conducted my first secure video teleconference with President Bush 

and his national security team in Washington. I told the President 

that I would give him my assessment of the overall situation and 

recommendations for the way ahead in 30 days and that my immediate priorities were to develop an integrated counterinsurgency 

strategy to defeat the insurgency, develop a plan for the formation 

of ISF, build the consultative and coordinating mechanisms with the 

IIG, and complete the transition of military support from the Coalition Provisional Authority to the Embassy. I assumed command of 

MNF-I the following day, July 1.

Following the change of command, I met with my immediate 

boss, General Abizaid, to receive his oral and written guidance for 

the mission. He had been in USCENTCOM for 18 months and was 

commander for the last year. I would be one of his two theater commanders (LTG Dave Barno was the commander in Afghanistan). 

John was a seasoned regional hand and a close friend whose insights 

I valued. His direction reflected his experience. He told me to focus 

on setting the conditions for the January elections while building 

loyal Iraqi security forces and institutions and respecting Iraqi sovereignty. He told me to let him know the adequacy of the rules of 

engagement and support from his headquarters, and informed me 

that I was authorized to communicate directly with the Chairman 
21

ESTABLISHING THE MISSION

and Secretary of Defense on “matters relating to the operational and 

tactical direction of the force.” He asked only to be kept informed 

in these instances. This would substantially increase our agility to 

prosecute tactical actions, and I resolved not to abuse this trust. Our 

session began an invaluable relationship that continued throughout 

my entire tenure.1

At that time, MNF-I consisted of around 162,000 coalition forces 

from 33 countries that had been organized into five Multi-National 

Division (MND) areas of operation and one Multi-National Brigade (MNB) area of operation in northwest Iraq (see figure 2-1). 

MND–South East was commanded by a UK two-star general, and 

MND–Center South was commanded by a Polish two-star general. 

These two divisions contained the preponderance of non-U.S. coalition forces. MND-Baghdad, MND–North Central, and MNF-West, 

the USMC sector, were commanded by U.S. two-star generals, and 

MNB–North West was commanded by a U.S. one-star general. While 

the U.S. units contained some multinational forces, they were predominantly U.S. organizations. These units reported directly to the 

Multi-National Corps–Iraq commander, a U.S. three-star general 

who was responsible for orchestrating the operational aspects of our 

mission. I visited each of these units and a good number of their subordinate brigades and battalions in the first 30 days after my arrival. 

Not surprisingly, the insights provided by subordinate commanders 

were invaluable in developing my assessment of the situation.

While the Ambassador and I crisscrossed the country meeting 

with Iraqi and coalition leaders to build our own assessment of the 

situation and refine our vision and strategy, we undertook two separate and parallel staff actions to help us frame our mission and plans. 
22 

Strategic RefLEctions

First, I made a decision to continue with the campaign planning that 

had been initiated by my predecessor, LTG Sanchez, when the MNF-I 

headquarters was formed that May. The headquarters was established 

to provide a separate four-star theater headquarters to handle the strategic aspects of the mission and to deal with Washington, the Embassy, 

and the Iraqi government. This was a very necessary step, and over the 

course of the mission, it greatly facilitated the accomplishment of our 

national objectives. The MNF-I headquarters was established on May 

15, 2004, with personnel authorizations for individual officers and 

noncommissioned officers from across the U.S. Services and coalition 

countries. These personnel were slow to arrive, and the headquarters 

was still forming when I arrived at the end of June.

To complement that nascent planning effort, the Ambassador 

and I felt we needed a way to bring our key subordinates and staffs 

together with a shared view of the threat, the nature of the conflict 

we were involved in, and our mission, so we decided to form a Red 

Team—a group of experienced senior people empowered to operate outside of normal staff processes to provide their insights and 

recommendations directly to the Ambassador and me. Our hope 

was that the Red Team would both provide us with alternative 

views that we could use to vet the MNF-I campaign plan and, just 

as importantly, form a basis for a joint mission statement, which the 

Ambassador and I would issue. This document would enable us to 

bring our respective organizations together around common objectives and operationalize the One Team/One Mission concept we had 

agreed to in Washington.

The Red Team was led by a senior Foreign Service officer with 

an Army two-star general as his deputy. Their task was to take an 
23

ESTABLISHING THE MISSION

Baghdad

Mosul

Erbil

Fallujah

Ramadi

Karbala Hillah

Amarah

Hit

Samarra

Balad

Najaf

Samawah

Baqubah

Tikrit

Baiji

Kirkuk

Nasiriyah

Tal Afar

Sulaymaniyah SYRIA

JORDAN

Basra

IRAN

SAUDI ARABIA

Multi-National Brigade

North West (MNB-NW)

Multi-National Division

North Central (MND-NC)

Multi-National Division

Baghdad (MND-B)

Multi-National Division

South East (MND-SE)

Multi-National Division

Center South (MND-CS)

Multi-National Force

West (MNF-W)

KUWAIT

Figure 2-1. Multi-National Force–Iraq, July 2004
24 

Strategic RefLEctions

independent look at both the nature of the threat and the nature of the 

war, and to give us recommendations on how we should proceed. The 

team consisted of handpicked senior members of the Embassy and 

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the British embassy and Special 

Intelligence Service, and MNF-I. The Ambassador and I gave them 30 

days to do their work, with the intent of bringing it together with the 

ongoing MNF-I campaign planning effort. We planned to issue the 

joint mission statement and campaign plan by early August. I felt very 

strongly that it was my responsibility to ensure that every member of 

the coalition clearly understood what it was that we were trying to 

accomplish in Iraq so each one could contribute to our success. These 

two documents would go far in helping me do that.

In late July, after several productive sessions with them, the Red 

Team reported back to the Ambassador and me. They concluded 

that we were fighting an insurgency and that it was “stronger than 

it was nine months ago and could deny the IIG legitimacy over the 

next nine months.” In their view, the insurgency was primarily led 

by well-funded Sunni Arab “rejectionists” who had lost power with 

the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and rejected the new order. The 

rejectionists centered around former regime elements, members of 

the former Ba’ath Party, and former Iraqi security and intelligence 

forces who had the wherewithal to challenge the formation of a 

democratic government in Iraq. The Red Team felt that there was 

“not a monolithic Ba’ath Party” controlling the insurgency, but a 

“loose system of leadership with no single leader,” and that many 

of the key leaders and facilitators were based outside of Iraq, primarily in Syria. The insurgents shared a range of motivations from 

“the explicitly religious to Arab nationalists to Saddam loyalists.” 
25

ESTABLISHING THE MISSION

They felt that foreign Islamic extremists (al Qaeda) were a “small if 

lethal problem in Iraq” (numbering fewer than 1,000) and that “Iran 

is hoping to win influence over Iraq’s political and electoral process 

without having to provoke a Shia-based insurgency (for which it is 

preparing, nonetheless).”2 Despite their different objectives, all insurgents shared a common goal—the failure of the coalition mission. 

We accepted this view of the threat and graphically portrayed it in 

our campaign plan as shown in figure 2-2. The staff dubbed this representation “The Wonder Bread Chart.”

The Red Team also concluded that “although the IIG enjoys early 

popular support, it has a weak hold on the instruments of governance 

and has to manage a war-battered economy, a fragile and damaged 

infrastructure and the meddling of some neighboring states, especially 

Syria and Iran.” They noted that we, and the members of the international community, needed to work to strengthen the legitimacy of the 

IIG in the eyes of the Iraqis in order to strengthen the government’s 

hand in dealing with these challenges and defeating the insurgency. 

They felt that our political, economic, and security efforts were 

“hampered by the lack of a unifying strategy, inadequate intelligence, 

ineffective strategic communications and the embryonic nature of IIG 

counterparts.”3

 We clearly had our work cut out for us.

Looking back, the Red Team was an effective vehicle to bring 

together senior political, military, and intelligence leadership to address the key issues affecting the mission and how to deal with them. 

We agreed on broad issues, such as the nature of the enemy (Sunni 

Arab rejectionists), the nature of the war (counterinsurgency), the 

nature of our relationship with the Iraqi government (partnership), 

and our mission in Iraq (to help the Iraqi people build a new Iraq). 
26 

Strategic RefLEctions

While everyone did not agree on everything, we at least all knew 

where we stood, and we were close enough on the major issues to get 

moving. Our effort did not, to this point, include the Iraqis—a gap 

that we would close over time. I was so pleased with the results of 

the Red Team effort that I used it frequently throughout my tenure 

to shed light on difficult issues.

Working directly from the Red Team assessment, the Ambassador and I crafted a joint mission statement for our respective 

organizations and signed it on August 18. In this first critical document, we formally defined our objective: “To help the Iraqi people 

build a new Iraq, at peace with its neighbors, with a constitutional, 

representative government that respects human rights and possesses 

security forces sufficient to maintain domestic order, and deny Iraq 

as a safe haven for terrorists.” We stated that the IIG shared this 

objective, but was “in the early stages of consolidating the aspects 

of national power,” so we aimed “to bolster the IIG’s legitimacy in 

perception and fact,” acknowledging this would be a major challenge. We also conveyed our common view of the threat, noting that 

the gravest immediate threat to IIG legitimacy was an insurgency 

principally led by well-funded Sunni Arab rejectionists drawn from 

former regime elements. To deal with that threat, we laid out a series of tasks in three interrelated categories: political, security, and 

economic, and asserted that these tasks would be the “focal point of 

integrated efforts mounted by everyone operating in Iraq under our 

authority [emphasis added].”4

The joint mission statement was a good start, but it was not sufficient to guide coalition military efforts in a multiyear campaign, 

especially one in which national contingents rotated once or twice a 
27

ESTABLISHING THE MISSION

Figure 2-2. View of the Threat, Summer 2004

Iraqi Islamic

Extremists

Criminals

Sunni Arab Rejectionists

Former Regime Elements

Facilitators

Outside Iraq

Sadr/Shia

Extremists

Foreign Islamic 

Extremists 

(Abu Musab al-Zarqawi)
28 

Strategic RefLEctions

year. For that we needed a campaign plan. I intended to craft a written plan to clearly define our mission and how I saw the threat and 

risks and to articulate a strategy and organizational framework to 

accomplish the mission. This campaign plan would also provide operational direction to my subordinate commanders for the conduct 

of the military effort and would put in place an assessment mechanism to continuously evaluate our progress in accomplishing our 

objectives. This would allow us, again continuously, to reevaluate 

the conscious, and unconscious, assumptions that drove the plan, 

and to adapt it as necessary.

As I traveled throughout the country, my staff continued work 

on the campaign plan in parallel with the Red Team effort.* I met with 

the campaign planners several times a week to cross-level insights and 

discuss important issues. One of the key discussions we had was on 

the “center of gravity,” an important element of any successful campaign. While we generally agreed that the strategic center of gravity 

was coalition public support, we differed on the center of gravity for 

the Iraq theater of operations. In counterinsurgency operations, the 

center of gravity is usually the people of the country in which the 

insurgency is being contested. Our discussion revolved around the issue of who could best “deliver” the Iraqi people—the coalition or the 

Iraqi government. I felt that, as our goal was a government seen as 

representative by the Iraqi people, the more we did to build the legitimacy of those governments in the eyes of the Iraqi people, the sooner 

we would achieve our goal. Others argued that we should focus more 

*

 Although the joint mission statement was signed shortly after the MNF-I 

military campaign plan was released, good cross-staff coordination, and my personal 

oversight, ensured that its tenets were fully incorporated into the plan.
29

ESTABLISHING THE MISSION

directly on the Iraqi people. In the end, we made the legitimacy of the 

Iraqi government the theater center of gravity. We spent a great deal 

of time debating this and several other key issues as we built the campaign plan, but it was time well spent. I found that the issues we were 

dealing with were so complex that I benefited from hearing different 

views when making critical judgments.

The campaign plan, issued August 5, 2004, laid out direction 

for the next 18 months. The plan put the Iraq mission in the context of our efforts up to that time (the Liberation and Occupation 

Phases of Operation Iraqi Freedom), and focused primarily on the 

next 18 months (the Partnership Phase), which entailed the completion of the UNSCR timeline and the formation of a constitutionally 

elected Iraqi government by 2006. The plan looked beyond January 

2006, but only broadly, to the Iraqi Self-reliance Phase, where Iraqis 

would assume security responsibility. As we were still early in the 

mission, we purposely did not assign a timeline for this phase.

The mission statement from the campaign plan reflected the key 

elements of partnership with the IIG, counterinsurgency operations, 

training and equipping ISF, and completing the UNSCR 1546 by the 

end of 2005: “In partnership with the Iraqi Government, MNF-I 

conducts full spectrum counterinsurgency operations to isolate and 

neutralize former regime extremists and foreign terrorists and organizes, trains and equips Iraqi security forces in order to create a 

security environment that permits the completion of the UNSCR 

1546 process on schedule.”5

To accomplish this mission, we laid out a counterinsurgency 

strategy that sought to use the full spectrum of military and civilian tools to separate insurgents and extremists from the Iraqi people 
30 

Strategic RefLEctions

and defeat the insurgency while we restored Iraqi capacity to govern 

and secure the country. We knew executing this strategy would be 

very difficult in what amounted to a postwar failed state—although 

it would be awhile before we realized how difficult—so we laid out a 

framework in the campaign plan designed to integrate and synchronize all of the elements of Iraqi and coalition power to accomplish 

our objectives over time. We used four lines of operation representing the four major elements of power that we would bring to bear: 

security, governance, economic development, and communicating. 

Each of these lines was aligned with specific organizations designated to accomplish the specific effects shown in figure 2-3. We made 

a conscious effort to minimize what the U.S. Government sought 

to achieve as we developed these objectives, and believed that accomplishing these effects in an integrated fashion would lead us to 

the endstate.

Coordinating the integration of efforts would have been tough 

for any one organization, but our efforts were complicated by the 

fact that we had two organizations—the Embassy and MNF-I—that 

shared responsibility for success. MNF-I was responsible for security and the Embassy for governance and economic development. We 

shared responsibility for communicating. We also shared responsibility with the Iraqi government. Execution and coordination within 

and across the lines of operation were continuous challenges, underscoring why the One Team/One Mission concept was so important. 

Everyone had to deliver in a coordinated fashion if we were going 

to succeed.

On the security side, I told the MNC-I commander to conduct 

a counterinsurgency campaign to:
31

ESTABLISHING THE MISSION

Figure 2-3. Initial Campaign Framework

SecurityGovernanceEconomic DevelopmentCommunicating

Effects Endstate

Insurgents and terrorists neutralized

Capable ISF

A legitimate Iraqi government

Basic needs met

A wedge driven between the insurgents and population of Iraq

Changed images of coalition

Iraq at peace 

with its neighbors and an 

ally in the war on terror,

with a representative

government that respects 

the human rights of all Iraqis, 

and security forces sufcient 

to maintain domestic 

order and to deny safe 

haven to terrorists

Lines of Operation
32 

Strategic RefLEctions

◆ neutralize the insurgency in the Sunni Triangle

◆ secure Baghdad

◆ block the borders of Iraq to disrupt the flow of support to 

the insurgency

◆ assist in building the ISF

◆ sustain support for coalition force efforts in Shia and 

Kurdish areas.

With an eye toward getting an “Iraqi face” on elections in January 2005, I directed the MNC-I and MNSTC-I commanders to focus 

on getting the ISF to the point where they could plan and conduct 

security operations at the platoon/police station level with limited 

coalition support by January. I told them to prioritize these efforts in 

15 key cities, in which almost half of the population of Iraq resided. I 

also gave them some broader ISF objectives for 2005, but our initial 

focus was successful elections in January.

The campaign plan also established the Commander’s Assessment and Synchronization Board (CASB) to assess and manage the 

accomplishment of the plan. We recognized upfront that the campaign plan was a “living” document that would have to be adjusted 

as conditions changed and assumptions failed to materialize. The 

CASB was initially designed to be a monthly process, but we soon 

went to a bimonthly timeline to minimize redundancy and reduce 

staff time spent on preparations. I found that getting the assessment 

process to yield meaningful results—ones the Ambassador and I 

could act on—took a great deal of my personal effort. The tendency 

of a staff is to track the things that are most easily measured, not necessarily what is most critical. I finally found that if I forced the staff 
33

ESTABLISHING THE MISSION

to answer the following three questions about each effect, I came 

closer to getting what I needed: What are we trying to accomplish? 

What will tell us if we are accomplishing it? How do we measure 

that? It took a year of trial and error before I was satisfied with the 

assessment process.

With the campaign plan complete, I briefed my staff and subordinate units and gave them 2 weeks to review and develop their 

supporting plans. I spent the latter part of August listening to backbriefs presented by my subordinates to ensure that they understood 

the plan and my intent. I was generally pleased with their work. I 

also shared the plan with the Ambassador and Embassy staff, and the 

Ambassador and I briefed President Bush and the National Security 

Council in mid-August. As part of this briefing, I highlighted to our 

leadership some “potential good and bad” things that could happen 

in the next 6 months that could affect the plan. I wanted to remind 

them that we were at war and that things would change. While I had 

been on the ground for only a month and had developed and issued a 

campaign plan, I knew we still had a very long way to go.

Organizing for Success

As the Ambassador and I looked at what we had to do, it was clear 

to us that the One Team/One Mission concept required some changes 

to both of our organizations to facilitate the integration of our efforts. 

For starters, we put our offices next to one another and met frequently over the course of the week. I looked at the configuration of the 

MNF-I headquarters—which was the standard J1–J9 organization that 

worked so well in conventional operations—and realized that it would 

not be suitable for executing the key functions of a counterinsurgency 
34 

Strategic RefLEctions

campaign plan where political, economic, and information effects needed to be generated and synchronized with the security effort, and vice 

versa. It was also clear that the MNF-I staff would have to work closely 

with the Embassy staff, and that this could not happen effectively if they 

operated from separate locations. I also had an internal MNF-I issue 

in that I needed to refocus my headquarters at the theater level and get 

them out of the corps’s operational and tactical business, which they had 

been overseeing until the standup of the MNF-I headquarters in May.

After discussions with my staff and the Ambassador, and some 

help from U.S. Joint Forces Command, we designed a headquarters 

that could more easily carry out the nonstandard functions of the 

campaign and that would better facilitate the integration of the civilmilitary effort. To do this, we split the MNF-I headquarters between 

the Embassy in the Green Zone and Camp Victory in West Baghdad. 

To the Ambassador’s credit, he accepted about 300 military personnel working permanently in his Embassy alongside his staff. These 

staff officers worked to integrate our security plans with the Embassy 

in the key areas of operations, planning, assessment, strategic communications, and reconstruction and economic development. We 

created three staff sections at the Embassy: Strategic Plans and Assessments, Political-Military-Economic Effects, and Strategic Operations, 

all under the oversight of my UK deputy and working directly with 

Embassy principals. At Camp Victory, we retained the key support 

functions (personnel, logistics, signal, intelligence) and detainee operations. I maintained offices in both locations, starting my day at Camp 

Victory, but spending the majority of my time working from the Embassy office or visiting units across the country. The wiring diagram in 

figure 2-4 lays out the organization that we established that summer. 
35

ESTABLISHING THE MISSION

Figure 2-4. MNF-I Staff Organization*

CSM CIG

DCG DCG Detainee Ops MNSTC-I GRD

ISG JCC TF 6-26

DCS

STRAT, PLANS

& ASSESSMENT

DCS

POL/MIL/

ECON

DCS

STRAT

OPNS

DCS

STRATCOM

DCS

INTEL

DCS

RESOURCES

& SUSTAIN

DCS

CIS

PLANS OPNS ASSESS CPIC POLICY

DEV/INT

MIN

COORD

ECON

EFF

DEP

IRMO

DEP

STRAT

PLANS

COORD/

SYNCH/

BRIEF

SOC CMO

STRATEGY CONT PLANS CAMP PLANS Secretariat ASSESS

DOS SPT PAO IG SCJS SJA COALITION

JVB PROTOCOL

COMMNF-IZ

RM LOG CHAPLAIN PERS SURGEON

MNC-I

TF 134 COS

Camp Victory International ZoneMajor Subordinate CommandsTactical Control

*See appendix 1 for abbreviations.
36 

Strategic RefLEctions

No organization is perfect, but this organization served us well, with 

minor adjustments, during my tenure.

My key subordinate headquarters, their responsibilities, and 

locations were as follows: MNC-I, the corps’s headquarters, responsible for the operational aspects of the mission; Task Force 134, 

responsible for detainee operations; and the Iraq Survey Group, 

responsible for searching for weapons of mass destruction until it 

disbanded in late 2004, all resided at Camp Victory near the Baghdad 

airport. MNSTC-I, responsible for training and equipping the ISF; 

the Gulf Regional Division of the Army Corps of Engineers, responsible for reconstruction project management; and Joint Contracting 

Command, responsible for our contracting support, all resided in 

the Green Zone. Task Force 6-26,* our special operations task force, 

resided at Balad Airbase.

We felt that we had a good plan for joining MNF-I and Embassy 

efforts, but it quickly became clear to the Ambassador and me that 

we needed to be integrated with the sovereign Iraqi government. Although developing coordination and consultation mechanisms with 

the new government had been specified in UNSCR 1546, bringing 

the Iraqi government—particularly the security leadership—into the 

development of a long-term, country-wide counterinsurgency effort 

would prove to be a daunting undertaking.

The Ambassador and I met with Prime Minister Allawi early 

in an informal, getting-to-know-you session. He was clear on his 

desire to make sovereignty as meaningful as possible considering the 162,000 foreign troops he had in his country. This would 

*

 Due to security precautions, the name of the special operations task force 

frequently changed.
37

ESTABLISHING THE MISSION

be something we would all wrestle with throughout my tenure: 

Iraqis rightfully wanted control, but they lacked the capacity to execute it—especially when they were trying to fight an insurgency 

and build their country simultaneously. I also visited the Ministry 

of Defense (MOD) and Ministry of Interior (MOI), and we began 

our first consultative sessions that week. There were two principal 

security forums. The Strategic Action Committee, cochaired by the 

National Security Advisor and me, was basically a weekly deputies 

committee to frame security issues for ministers. The Ministerial 

Committee for National Security, chaired by the prime minister and 

attended by key security ministers (with the Ambassador and me as 

invited participants), met weekly and was the decisionmaking body. 

We also began separate weekly dinners with the prime minister and 

his security ministers as confidence-building sessions to create the 

trust that would be essential to move forward in a common direction. It was clear to us that, even though this government was only 

scheduled to be in power for 6 to 7 months, it was imperative that 

we invest in these relationships. Looking back, I cannot overstate 

the importance of taking the time to build personal relationships. 

They proved essential in conducting the battles in Najaf and Fallujah and in preparing for the elections. Our weekly meetings and 

informal dinners grew in productivity over time and allowed us to 

stay connected with the Iraqi leadership. Our goal of One Team/

One Mission was progressing and expanding to include the Iraqis.

During this first month, I began to report back to Secretary 

Rumsfeld on the ISF assessment that he had requested. During 

our many video teleconferences on the ISF, he asked some great 

questions: How many ISF are there really? How many did the 
38 

Strategic RefLEctions

Iraqis really need? Did we have an effective methodology for 

tracking their development? How was the ISF development effort 

integrated into the overall strategy? Did we have agreement from 

the IIG on the plan? These questions guided the conduct of our 

assessment, which was a comprehensive effort that involved all of 

our major subordinate commands, and was led by LTG Petraeus. 

The result was a significant adjustment to the existing plan for 

the Iraqi security forces. The initial plan, developed in the early 

days of the mission, had not been based on ISF participation in 

counterinsurgency operations; rather, the army’s three divisions 

would primarily provide external defense without threatening 

Iraq’s neighbors. The police and border forces would primarily 

conduct community policing and peacetime operations. The 

situation on the ground had changed substantially since that plan 

was developed.

Our review incorporated an analytical look at security forces 

in other insurgencies and in other regional countries, and included 

input from our major subordinate commands on the security needs 

in their particular areas. The review called for finishing the existing effort and increasing the local police and border police by over 

60,000 to achieve a ratio of 1 policeman to every 197 people—an acceptable planning ratio for security forces in moderate- to high-risk 

counterinsurgency scenarios. It also called for a significant increase 

in the Iraqi National Guard (a regionally recruited and trained military force that took the place of the Iraq Civil Defense Corps) by 20 

battalions and adding brigade and division headquarters for more 

effective command and control.6

 The total cost for the expansion 

was almost $3 billion, but it was an essential step for our long-term 
39

ESTABLISHING THE MISSION

success. With strong support from Ambassador Negroponte, the 

plan was approved by Prime Minister Allawi and the U.S. Government in mid-August.

As a result of the review, we had a new start point for the ISF 

that we were comfortable with, but we knew that we had a long 

way to go to get the Iraqis to the point where they could secure 

their own elections in January and ultimately take over the counterinsurgency campaign. That July, only about 30,000 of the police 

on duty were trained—and the new plan called for 135,000 police; 

only about 3,600 of the 18,000 border guards had weapons—and 

the new plan called for 32,000 border guards; and only 2 of the 

Iraqi battalions had reached an initial operating capability while 

the new plan called for 65.7 We set out to build the ISF at a pace 

that would not only meet our operational timelines, but also ensure 

that the forces held together when challenged. This meant that the 

coalition would have to carry the security load in the near term to 

give the ISF time to grow and mature—we would have to fight our 

way to the first election.

Using the operational framework of our campaign plan, we 

prioritized the development of the ISF in the 15 key cities of Iraq 

to get them to the point where they could conduct platoon- (or 

police station) level operations by the first elections in January. 

We, and the Iraqis, felt that it was important to the legitimacy and 

sovereignty of the government that the Iraqis be seen as playing 

the predominant role in providing election security. Our longer 

term goal was for them to be able to secure their own country. 

We gradually came to appreciate the fact that building infantry 

battalions was the easy part, whereas creating institutional 
40 

Strategic RefLEctions

capacity* and building the entire police system were much harder. 

The more experience we got working with the Iraqis, the more 

we realized that the institutional development would take years.

Military Operations

All of this work was essential to setting the conditions for our 

long-term success, but the enemy did not take a break while we settled in. In early August, while the planning and assessing were going 

on, Sadrist forces that had been controlling and terrorizing the city 

of Najaf for several months attacked one of our coalition patrols. The 

violence escalated rapidly as Muqtada al-Sadr mobilized his forces 

in Baghdad and the southern part of the country. This provided a 

key opportunity for the prime minister and the new government to 

demonstrate their strength by restoring Iraqi government control to 

Najaf. As the elimination of the Sadrist stranglehold on the population of Najaf would need to be seen as a largely Iraqi operation and 

there were very few capable ISF available, success required careful 

integration of the political and military efforts. With some masterful tactical actions by coalition forces and Iraqi commandos that 

involved brutal hand-to-hand fighting, some careful management of 

ISF coming directly out of training into the operation, and excellent 

political-military interaction at all levels, we managed to evict the 

Sadrists first from their base in the cemetery and finally from the 

city itself. Al-Sadr was left no option but to negotiate his personal 

release. The IIG had its first victory.

*

 For example, building the training, education, intelligence, financial, 

administrative, logistical, and procurement institutions.
41

ESTABLISHING THE MISSION

We followed up the military operations with quick-impact construction projects to demonstrate to the Iraqi people that there was 

a benefit to supporting their government. While this part of the operation took months and did not have the immediate impact we had 

hoped, it did help consolidate our gains. Thus the “Najaf Model” 

was born: hard-hitting coalition-Iraqi military operations, with 

political support mustered by the Iraqi government, followed by focused reconstruction efforts. This model later formed the basis for 

the “clear-hold-build” concept.

My relationship with Prime Minister Allawi was critical during 

this battle as we melded coalition military power with the legitimacy 

of his government. He emerged from the battle for Najaf more confident and focused upon building momentum toward resolving the 

security situation across all of Iraq. As we looked to learn from what 

happened in Najaf, we gained many insights, to include legitimizing 

coalition military operations with the help of the Iraqi government, 

incorporating even small numbers of ISF in military operations to 

put an Iraqi face on these operations, and integrating reconstruction 

projects immediately following military operations. Most importantly, Prime Minister Allawi had emerged as a leader, and he was 

gaining the confidence of the Iraqi people.

Building upon this operational success, I urged Prime Minister 

Allawi to adopt a country-wide strategy to eliminate the terrorist 

safe havens across Iraq before the elections. I suggested that we 

conduct joint operations to neutralize safe havens in Baghdad (Sadr 

City), Samarra, and Fallujah. I gained the prime minister’s concurrence on this approach in September, setting the operational agenda 

for the next several months as we turned our focus to the January 
42 

Strategic RefLEctions

2005 elections. We were constrained in this effort by the limited 

number of ISF and the pace at which we could build them if we 

expected them to hold together. Over the next several months, we 

worked with the Allawi government to reduce Sadr City and Samarra as terrorist safe havens. Last up was Fallujah.

As we executed this strategy, whether we really needed to eliminate 

the terrorist safe haven in Fallujah became a difficult policy question 

for the prime minister. Prime Minister Allawi, the Ambassador, and 

I wrestled with this until we became convinced that having a terrorist 

safe haven within 30 miles of the capital presented an unacceptable risk 

to the conduct of the upcoming election. The specter of the April “failure” in Fallujah hung over the discussions, and the fact that we would 

be attacking a largely Sunni area at a time when we were trying to bring 

the Sunni population into the political process weighed heavily on us. 

The Ambassador strongly supported the operation, and we told the 

prime minister that if we undertook the operation, we would be successful, but that there was a high risk of coalition and Iraqi casualties 

and collateral damage. We also told him that if we started it, we had to 

stay at it until we finished. “Start together, stay together, finish together” became our motto. To his credit, Prime Minister Allawi not only 

accepted this, but he also built and sustained the Iraqi political support 

that allowed us to complete the operation. Fallujah was the toughest 

tactical battle of my time there, but more than any other operation, it 

opened the door for the successful elections in January.

Election Planning and Preparation

Concurrent with this operational focus, we began the complex planning for the first free elections in Iraq since 1954. The 
43

ESTABLISHING THE MISSION

Independent Iraqi Election Commission had the lead with advisory support from the United Nations. The Iraqis wanted to 

provide the security, or at least be seen as providing the security, 

but would still need our logistical and security support. This tension in the planning effort between what the Iraqis wanted to do 

and what they were capable of doing was constant throughout 

my tenure, but most pronounced during this period because of 

the strategic importance of the elections. We constantly struggled 

with finding a balance between putting an Iraqi face on important 

events and not allowing them to fail. Finding this balance was 

more of an art than a science.

From a military perspective, we set up a series of offensive operations in the aftermath of Fallujah to maintain the momentum and 

to keep the pressure on the insurgents. To do this, I requested 10,000 

additional troops to get us through the elections. I also personally 

visited every province to check on election preparations. It became 

clear to me that, as chaotic as things might look from Baghdad, coalition commanders and Iraqi provincial leaders had a good handle on 

things at their levels. It began to appear that we were positioned to 

execute successful elections, which we defined as fairly conducted 

elections in which every Iraqi who desired had the opportunity to 

vote. We knew that there would be violence as the insurgents worked 

to unhinge the elections, but I felt we had a good plan—further 

enhanced by some last minute curfews and movement restrictions—

and that we would be successful.

On the political side, a looming election issue was Sunni participation—would they boycott the election and, if so, what would 

be the post-election implications? The Ambassador and his staff 
44 

Strategic RefLEctions

worked this very hard, and our commanders in the field reinforced 

their efforts with the Sunni populations in their areas of operation. 

Ultimately, a good number of the Sunni population did boycott the 

election*—an occurrence that would have long-term implications 

for our mission—but the elections were still largely successful from 

a security perspective.

Looking Beyond the Elections

After the Fallujah operation in November, when the progress of 

military operations and the growth of the ISF made it increasingly 

likely that the January elections could be held on time and with an 

Iraqi face to enhance the legitimacy of the IIG, we began looking 

ahead to 2005. We drew on the experience that we had gained in 5 

months on the ground and on several key studies and assessments to 

formulate our plans.

In the early fall of 2004, I directed my planners to review 

counterinsurgency best practices to see what we could learn from 

history. “COIN” was something that we, in the U.S. military, had 

not been involved with for some time. My perception, from observing and talking to subordinates, was that we understood the 

doctrine well enough, but that we all had a lot to learn about how 

to apply that doctrine, particularly in Iraq. The staff did their 

usual good work and examined a series of 20th-century counterinsurgency campaigns for successful and unsuccessful practices 

(see figure 2-5). They developed a comprehensive report that included the list below that I shared with the Secretary of Defense, 

*

 Turnout of Sunni voters was as low as 2 percent in Anbar Province.
45

ESTABLISHING THE MISSION

Figure 2-5. Counterinsurgency Practices

SUCCESSFUL

(average 9 years)

UNSUCCESSFUL

(average 13 years)

Emphasis on intelligence Inferior intelligence operations

Focus on population, their 

needs & security

Primacy of military direction of 

counterinsurgency

Secure areas 

established, expanded

Priority on “kill-capture” 

of enemy, not on 

engaging population

Insurgents isolated from 

population (population 

control)

Ineffective, minimal 

psychological operations 

campaigns

Unity of Effort on multiple 

lines of operations, local 

to national

Battalion-size operations as 

the norm

Resources 

(money, manpower, time)

Military units concentrated on 

large bases for protection

Effective, pervasive 

psychological 

operations campaigns

Special Forces focused 

on raiding

Amnesty & rehabilitation 

for insurgents Advisor effort a low priority

Police in lead, military supports

Building, training indigenous 

army in image of own (foreign) 

force

Police force 

expanded, diversified

Peacetime government 

processes

Conventional military 

forces reoriented for 

counterinsurgency

Open borders, airspace, 

coastlines

Special Forces, advisers present 

with indigenous forces

Insurgent sanctuaries denied
46 

Strategic RefLEctions

the Chairman, Service chiefs, and my subordinate commanders in 

Iraq. The two key insights that I drew from the report were the 

average successful COIN campaign in the 20th century lasted 9 

years (unsuccessful ones lasted longer), and no outside power had 

been successful in prosecuting an insurgency without a capable 

indigenous partner.8

Additionally, in early December, the Ambassador and I directed another U.S. Embassy/MNF-I Red Team to make an 

independent assessment of possible election outcomes. The team 

projected three election result possibilities: a two-thirds Shia 

majority (which meant that the Shia parties would control the 

parliament), a 50 percent Shia majority (which meant that the Shia 

parties would have to negotiate with other parties to form a government), or total disruption of elections. While the team did not 

believe that the last outcome was likely, it did warn that major 

political and security challenges would await coalition forces in 

both cases of a Shia majority. Furthermore, the team concluded 

that there were no near-term prospects that insurgency and terrorist violence would lessen; rather, the Sunni-based insurgency 

might grow more intense when confronted with a strong Shiagoverning majority. The aftermath of the election later revealed 

how prescient these predictions were.

Also in December, the MNF-I staff conducted its first Campaign Progress Review (CPR). By this time, we had settled on 

bimonthly assessments to monitor progress and drive campaign 

adjustments. While useful, I felt that the 2-month horizon was 

too short for longer term planning and that we periodically needed a broader assessment of the campaign. We decided to measure 
47

ESTABLISHING THE MISSION

our progress at 6-month intervals based on the six strategic effects from the campaign plan: a legitimate Iraqi government, 

neutralization of the insurgents and terrorists, a capable ISF, basic Iraqi needs met, a wedge driven between the insurgents and 

the people, and changing Iraqi perceptions of the coalition. The 

December CPR marked the first formal semiannual assessment. 

I made it a point not to overly involve myself in the production of the document, and found it a good way to find out what 

“The Colonels” were really thinking. This candor was further 

enhanced because the drafter, as a result of coalition-agreed staffing, was always a British colonel, who soon gained the moniker 

“the Gloomy Brit.”

The staff concluded in the December 2004 CPR that our 

strategy was “sound, but must be implemented more effectively 

to succeed—particularly along the non-kinetic lines of operation” 

and that the “Iraqis must play an increasingly larger role.”9

 They 

objectively looked at what we had accomplished and gave their 

assessment of where we needed to focus our efforts in the year 

ahead. They felt that some things had gone well:

◆ elimination of terrorist safe havens and the suppression of 

the Shia insurgency

◆ improvement in IIG capacity

◆ election planning was broadly on track

◆ the pace of reconstruction was accelerating

◆ generation of ISF was exceeding MNSTC-I projections 

(more than 20 percent growth since August)

◆ the coalition was still largely intact.
48 

Strategic RefLEctions

On the other hand, the review noted that we still had a number 

of challenges:

◆ an intensifying insurgency of former regime elements (who 

would not be defeated by military means alone)

◆ police and border guard capacity was still particularly 

weak and needed to be improved

◆ the engagement program with Sunni Arabs was limited and 

needed to expand

◆ ISF operational performance was mixed, but generally 

more positive in the presence of coalition assistance teams

◆ economic development and communication lines of operation were not performing at full potential

◆ building unity of effort between MNF-I, the Embassy, and 

the Iraqi government needed work.

Overall, I was pleased with where we had gotten in 5 months, 

but it was becoming increasingly clear to the Ambassador and me 

that building the capacity of the Iraqi government to a minimally 

acceptable level, particularly the ISF, was going to take a lot longer than the 18 months covered by UNSCR 1546 and our campaign 

plan, especially if there were going to be two changes of the Iraqi 

government in that period.

Armed with these insights, I returned to Washington in midDecember for consultations on the situation in Iraq and to provide 

my thoughts on the way ahead after the January elections. I met 

with the President, Secretary Rumsfeld, and the Joint Chiefs and 

shared the findings of our Campaign Progress Review, COIN, 
49

ESTABLISHING THE MISSION

and Red Team studies, and reported on our preparations for 

the upcoming elections. I also began to discuss the concept of 

placing coalition advisor teams alongside Iraqi military, police, 

and border forces to hasten the development of our “capable 

indigenous partner.” I told the national security team that 

we would be ready to conduct the January elections, but that 

there would be violence as insurgents and terrorists attempted 

to disrupt the elections. I also warned them to expect a loss of 

momentum during the government formation process after the 

elections, and—to emphasize our thinking on how long this 

might take—I stated that even if the UNSCR 1546 process was 

completed on schedule, the Iraqis would still face an insurgency, 

long-term development challenges, and meddling neighbors. I 

also pointed out that a year from then, the ISF would still not be 

capable of independent COIN operations.10 My message was that 

the mission in Iraq was going to extend beyond the 18 months of 

the UN timeline, but we would be ready for the first democratic 

elections in over five decades.

The First Elections: January 30, 2005

Upon my return to Iraq, I focused on the execution of the elections. With the additional troops that I had requested for election 

security, we had kept pressure on the insurgents throughout December and January. Keeping the insurgents off balance allowed us to 

focus on securing the election process and ensuring that the ISF would 

be seen as the face of election security. Although we had been working 

hard, and had been largely successful in achieving local control (ISF 

capable of platoon- or police station–level operations) in the 15 key 
50 

Strategic RefLEctions

cities of Iraq, the ISF still were not ready for a mission of this scope—

delivering and recovering election material to and from 5,200 polling 

stations across Iraq and securing them. Together we developed an “inner ring/outer ring” plan to secure the polling stations to prevent a 

determined effort by insurgents and terrorists to stop or significantly 

disrupt the elections. The ISF would secure the inner ring (the area 

immediately surrounding the polling stations), and coalition forces 

would secure the outer ring (the approaches to the cities and polling 

stations). I personally visited all provinces in the weeks prior to the 

election to ensure this concept was understood, and also supervised 

a “ROC drill”—an election-day rehearsal—with key Iraqi, Embassy, 

and coalition leaders. We were as ready as we could be.

On January 30, our detailed preparations paid off as over 8 million Iraqis—58 percent of the eligible population—turned out to vote. 

There were almost 300 attacks on election day, but our operations and 

ISF security of the 5,200 polling stations ensured that insurgents did 

not significantly disrupt the voting. The Iraqi people had freely elected 

their parliament over the course of what was a very emotional day in 

Iraq. President Bush spoke to Prime Minister Allawi and congratulated 

him, and also addressed the American public that evening in a televised 

speech. MNF-I had begun 2005 by achieving what 6 months before 

President Bush had announced as his “most important” task. It was a 

good feeling. 

But as things went in Iraq, we had to take the bad with the 

good. As pleased as we were with the election turnout and security efforts, the lack of Sunni participation meant that they would 

have limited influence in the development of the constitution, and 

this did not bode well for our efforts to defeat the insurgency.
51

3. Completing the UN Timeline and 

Setting Conditions for a New 

Iraq (January–December 2005)

Perhaps the best insight into what I was thinking as we 

entered 2005 can be gained from the first several paragraphs of 

an assessment I wrote to my boss, General Abizaid, on January 

5, laying out my plans for 2005. I began that with the famous 

passage from T.E. Lawrence that provided advice on dealing 

with Arabs: “Do not try to do too much with your own hands. 

Better the Arabs do it tolerably than you do it perfectly. It is 

their war, and you are to help them, not to win it for them.”1

It was a mindset that I had concluded we would need to instill 

in coalition forces if we were to be successful in Iraq. I told 

General Abizaid:

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq John Negroponte (left) greets 

Interim Iraqi Government Prime Minister Ayad Allawi
52 

Strategic RefLEctions

I shared our 5 month assessment with you in DC. We 

used it to get a comprehensive view of where we stand in 

executing the Campaign Plan, and to frame our thinking for 

an approach for 2005. We believe that we are broadly on 

track. We have rolled back insurgent gains and eliminated 

insurgent and terrorist safe havens in Iraq, suppressed the 

Shia insurgency, quintupled reconstruction activity, kept 

ISF development roughly on track, made progress in local 

control in 14 of 18 provinces, and saw the growth of Iraqi 

governmental capacity. Election preparations are proceeding 

in all but Ninewa and Al Anbar provinces.

We have also seen a [former regime element] insurgency 

that has gotten better organized, that is conducting a 

campaign of intimidation in the Sunni areas that threatens to 

unhinge political, economic and security force development, 

and that is creating a real sense of uneasiness about the 

security situation for the upcoming elections. Further, while 

ISF development has progressed, they still lack the capacity 

for independent action, absenteeism threatens the viability of 

our training and equipping programs, and Iraqi intelligence 

organizations have not developed as hoped.

That said, our objective of an Iraq “at peace with its 

neighbors and an ally in the War on Terror, with a representative 

government that respects the human rights of all Iraqis, and 

security forces sufficient to maintain domestic order and to deny 

Iraq as a safe haven for terrorists” is still attainable. However, 

security force development won’t be completed in ’05, and 

sustaining our investment will take even longer.2
53

Completing the UN timeline

I strived hard to achieve balance in my reporting. Things in Iraq 

were never all good or all bad, so I tried to highlight both the positive and negative aspects of the situation. In a mission as complex 

as Iraq, you must make slow, steady progress even as you deal with 

setbacks—and setbacks are a reality of war. We were positioned for 

successful elections, but we had a long road ahead of us.

A number of things had also become clearer to us after 6 months 

on the ground. First of all, it was going to take much longer than the 

18 months of the UNSCR 1546 timeline to complete our mission. 

Ambassador Negroponte, in a December 2004 cable to the Secretary 

of State, suggested we should be thinking in terms of at least a 5-year 

time horizon. Our counterinsurgency study had found that successful insurgencies had historically lasted around 9 years. There was no 

reason to think Iraq would be different. During my December meetings in Washington, I had emphasized that resolving the situation in 

Iraq would take longer than the 18 months of the UNSCR timeline. 

We clearly needed to expand our horizons beyond the end of 2005. 

Second, the Shia political parties and politicians, who were going 

to lead the Iraqi Transitional Government, had little experience in governing. Their election represented a reversal of the governing situation 

that had prevailed in Iraq for the last three and a half decades. We were 

concerned about this from two perspectives: inexperienced ministerial 

leadership would inhibit ministerial capacity-building, and the reversal 

of the governing situation would feed the feelings of disenfranchisement in the Sunni population that former regime elements had been 

leveraging to sustain the insurgency. We were further concerned about 

the limited Sunni turnout in the elections, which meant that this population would be underrepresented in the drafting of the constitution.
54 

Strategic RefLEctions

Third, while the training and equipping of the ISF were generally on track, it was going to take much longer to get them to the 

point where they could credibly and independently assume the lead 

of a nationwide counterinsurgency campaign. If we wanted this to 

go faster, we would have to commit more resources and look at new 

approaches to their training.

Fourth, in spite of our best efforts to improve the Iraqi view of 

the coalition, much of the population still viewed it as an occupation 

force, and while there was a clear understanding at the governmental 

level that we intended to leave, there was apprehension at the local 

level that we were in Iraq to stay—an apprehension that was manipulated by the insurgents. This tension of having a large foreign 

Western force in a sovereign Middle Eastern country was a constant 

friction. We needed to demonstrate that we had a plan to leave.

Fifth, we expected that there would be a loss of momentum in 

the period following the election as the transitional government was 

selected, formed, and transitioned into the job. We looked for ways 

to sustain the momentum of the elections through this period but 

were largely unsuccessful outside the security sector.

Finally, 2005 was to be a year of key transitions: there would be 

two transitions in the Iraqi government (the last one spilling over into 

2006) bringing with them changes in ministers and other key personnel; MNC-I and its subordinate units would change in February; and 

the key leaders in the Embassy and MNF-I, who had done such great 

work to get us to this point, would change out in the summer, taking 

with them the wealth of experience gained.*

 The turbulence generated 

*

 At that time, we did not know about Ambassador Negroponte’s March 

departure to become the first Director of National Intelligence.
55

Completing the UN timeline

as new people and units came and went was a significant complicating 

factor, particularly on the Iraqi side. We would have to work hard to 

mitigate the impacts of the frequent transitions.

Adapting in Transition

The transitions at the political level significantly impacted our 

strategic momentum. While we were able to mitigate the loss of 

operational momentum caused by the MNC-I transition, political 

momentum proved tougher to deal with. In retrospect, we underestimated the impact of three government transitions in 2 years on our 

ability to build capacity in the Iraqi ministries and to provide consistent leadership to the Iraqi people. The governments were just starting 

to get a feel for governing when they were replaced. Prime Minister 

Allawi held office for 11 months (4 months of which were a “lame 

duck” period following the January 2005 elections). Ibrahim al-Jafari 

was prime minister for 13 months (6 months of which were lame 

duck). We had an initial view that we could continue to build ministerial capacity through the transitions. This did not turn out to be the 

case. In fact, we lost ground in many ministries during the al-Jafari 

government. The small pool from which to draw qualified ministers 

and the lack of an established government bureaucracy meant that we 

had to almost start from scratch with each new government and minister. What would continue to become clearer was that, in these types 

of operations, everything takes longer than you think—particularly 

those things over which you do not exercise direct control.

Armed with these insights, we began 2005 certainly wiser than 

we had been when we arrived 6 months before, but with a full plate 

of very difficult issues. The Ambassador and I set out to adjust our 
56 

Strategic RefLEctions

strategy and plans for 2005 based on these insights. We did this during the transition period of the new government to posture ourselves 

to move forward once the ITG was seated.

Building a Transition Concept. Our review of our plans began 

with the Campaign Progress Review in December, which helped 

shape the insights mentioned above and focused us on what we 

needed to accomplish in 2005.

As we looked ahead, we wrestled with the realization that we could 

well complete the UN timeline on schedule by the end of the year, but 

that Iraqi government and security forces capacity would not be at a 

point where Iraqis could credibly take responsibility for their own security and governance as UNSCR 1546 had envisioned. At that time, we 

had not been through the actual transition of governments, so we made 

this judgment with the projection that ministerial capacity would continue to grow as governments transitioned—an assumption that did not 

pan out. We knew that our mission was ultimately to hand over security 

responsibility to the Iraqi government, but we had not yet developed a 

concept to do this. We thought that if we could demonstrate a plan to 

build credible Iraqi security capacity as rapidly as possible and follow 

that with a conditions-based plan to transition the security mission to 

the sovereign Iraqi government, we would come closer to meeting the 

expectations of Washington, the Iraqi government, and the Iraqi people. 

We were very cognizant of the fact that we would need to continue our 

efforts to defeat terrorists and insurgents while executing this concept.

The Ambassador and I worked together to shape this thinking into a second joint mission statement that we issued to our 

subordinates on February 7, shortly after the elections. In it we 

stated, “In 2005, we will work closely with the Iraqi Transitional 
57

Completing the UN timeline

Government . . . to diminish the insurgency and prepare the Iraqi Security Forces and the ITG to begin to accept the counterinsurgency lead. 

We also will support the ITG’s efforts to complete the timetable laid out 

in UNSCR 1546.”3 These two sentences captured our major missions 

for 2005, but it was the last two sentences of the overview that captured 

a change in mindset that would be essential in accomplishing this strategy: “We must always remember that we have transferred sovereignty 

to the Iraqis; they have elected a Transitional Government; and they will 

begin to take the counterinsurgency lead. There is a consistent message 

here: Iraq’s destiny belongs to Iraqis; they want to control it; and the 

more they do for themselves, the more they will value the results.”4

Inculcating this mindset into the coalition forces and Embassy staff 

would prove difficult, as we were pressing against the “can-do” culture 

of two high-performing organizations. Things were hard enough to get 

done in Iraq, but they were easier if we did them ourselves. Helping the 

Iraqis help themselves would be more difficult and take longer, but it 

would get us to our objectives faster. We had to discipline ourselves to 

build for the future while we dealt with the very difficult present.

The work underpinning this adaptation to our plans had been 

ongoing since November. Following the Fallujah operation, we 

noted that the performance of Iraqi units with embedded coalition 

advisors was far superior to those without them. We also found that 

we had much better accountability of the weapons and equipment 

that we gave the Iraqis with advisors present. We had substantially 

increased the size of the ISF—forming more than 80 army and special police battalions by February 2005—and some of these forces 

were at a point in their development where they could benefit from 

more coalition experience and expertise.
58 

Strategic RefLEctions

Given my personal experience in the Balkans, I was concerned 

that the longer we waited to begin giving Iraqis responsibility for 

their own security, the more dependent they would become on us—

and the longer we would remain in Iraq. We came to believe that by 

embedding coalition advisors with Iraqi military, police, and border 

police units, and by aligning Iraqi units in supportive relationships 

with coalition units (called “partnership”), we could not only accelerate their development, but also get them more actively involved in 

the counterinsurgency fight sooner—increasing the forces we could 

field against the insurgents. I directed my staff to begin working the 

details of how this might work and alerted the incoming corps to be 

prepared to implement this new approach on arrival.

As this approach would require some 2,500 additional U.S. forces and the approval of the Iraqi government, I began discussing it 

with coalition and Iraqi leaders. Washington was concerned about 

the safety of the teams living and working with Iraqi units, the impact that pulling 2,500 officers and senior noncommissioned officers 

out of units would have on the Services, and the naming of the teams 

(transition teams was chosen over advisor or assistance teams to highlight that these teams were part of a process to “transition” security 

responsibility to the Iraqis). The Iraqi leaders saw value in 

accelerating the development of the ISF, but wanted the program 

implemented in a way that did not impact on their sovereignty. (Prime 

Minister Allawi would not agree to police transition teams working in 

local police stations for this reason.) Washington approved the additional forces in March, and we signed memorandums of understanding 

with the outgoing ministers of interior and defense in April to implement the transition team and partnership programs. We expected that 
59

Completing the UN timeline

Figure 3-1. Army Partnership Alignment

SYRIA

JORDAN

IRAN

SAUDI ARABIA

Mosul

Erbil

Samarra

Balad

Baqubah

Tikrit

Baiji

Kirkuk

Tal Afar

Sulaymaniyah

Baghdad

Fallujah

Ramadi

Hit

Karbala Hillah

Amarah

Najaf

Samawah Nasiriyah

Basra

XX

2

XX

7

XX

1

XX

8

XX

10

XX

6

XX

9

XX

5

XX

4

XX

3

MNB-NW

XX

Coalition partner unit

Iraqi division

MND-NC

MND-B

MNF-W

MNF-W

MND-CS

MND-SE
60 

Strategic RefLEctions

we would have to revisit the agreements with the incoming government 

and ministers, but felt that it was important for continuity to get the 

existing government on board—in writing. Our plan was to establish 

partnerships and embed the teams by June, so Iraqi government commitment and direction to accept the program was essential. As seen in 

figure 3-1, we planned to align our divisions with every Iraqi division 

(and special police brigade) and establish partnerships down to battalion 

level to facilitate the interaction between Iraqi and coalition units.

Getting the transition team and partnership programs in place 

to accelerate ISF development was the first step in the process of 

transitioning security responsibility to a capable Iraqi military. 

We envisioned that as the ISF became capable of conducting 

counterinsurgency operations, first with transition teams and coalitionenabling forces (for example, close air, artillery, and logistic support), 

and ultimately independently, coalition forces would transition to a 

supporting role and gradually reduce their presence. All transitions of 

security responsibility were to be based on the readiness of the ISF to 

conduct counterinsurgency operations, so we devised and implemented 

a readiness reporting system with the Iraqis based on that criterion to 

track the development of their forces. We envisioned a four-phase plan 

for the transition of security responsibility:

◆ Phase I: Implement the transition team concept

◆ Phase II: Transition to provincial Iraqi security control 

(Iraqis in charge of security at the provincial level, with 

coalition support)

◆ Phase III: Transition to national Iraqi control (Iraqis in charge 

of security at the national level, with coalition support)
61

Completing the UN timeline

◆ Phase IV: Iraqi security self-reliance (Iraqis in charge of 

their own security).

It would be summer before the new Iraqi government was ready to seriously discuss this process. This original plan was adjusted as a part of 

those discussions. We did not set specific timelines for any phase but 

Phase I (June 15) as we expected all transitions to be conditions-based.

Changing Our Mindset. We were very conscious that this adjustment to the campaign plan entailed a major shift for our conventional 

Army and Marine forces. For the first time since Vietnam, we would 

be asking conventional forces to actively participate in the training of 

indigenous forces during combat operations. To make this work, we 

recognized that we would not only have to “train the trainers”—that 

is, to teach conventional forces the art of training and working with indigenous forces—but we would also have to change the mindset of our 

forces away from doing things themselves to helping the Iraqis do them.

To train the trainers, we established an in-country training center, Phoenix Academy, and used our Special Forces to educate our 

conventional forces. To ensure the concept was understood across 

MNF-I, the staff produced a campaign action plan for 2005 that 

captured the adaptation to our plan and adjusted our mission accordingly. Our endstate remained the same. We wanted to progressively 

shift the coalition main effort from fighting the counterinsurgency 

ourselves to transitioning the responsibility for fighting the counterinsurgency to the Iraqi government and security forces. We 

would accomplish this by increasing our capacity to improve ISF 

capabilities—transition teams and partnerships—and by conducting 

aggressive counterinsurgency operations to bring the insurgency to 
62 

Strategic RefLEctions

levels that could be contained by increasingly capable ISF. The revised mission statement reflected this strategy:

In partnership with the Iraqi Transitional Government, 

MNF-I progressively transitions the counterinsurgency 

campaign to the ITG and Iraqi Security Forces, while 

aggressively executing counterinsurgency operations, to 

create a security environment that permits the completion 

of the UNSCR 1546 process and the sustainment of political 

and economic development.5

As I went around the country to receive unit backbriefs on the 

action plan, I reinforced the fact that we would progressively implement this mission because all transitions would be based on ISF 

capabilities and those would vary widely across the country. I encouraged leaders to be candid in their assessments of the ISF because 

I would make some difficult decisions based on those assessments. I 

also met with the commanders of each incoming unit within 30 days 

of their arrival to personally brief them on the concept and to answer 

their questions directly.

Finally, to communicate directly with the coalition servicemembers, I issued a set of “flat-assed rules” (FARs, see figure 3-2) to every 

incoming coalition service man and woman. The FARs were intended 

to convey my priorities for success in Iraq and to instill the mindset that 

we were there to help the Iraqis restore control to their country, not to 

do it for them. By the late spring, the time when the transitional government was finally appointed, we were well on our way to implementing 

the new approach, but the change in the mindset would take a lot longer.
63

Completing the UN timeline

Implementing the new mission was not an easy task for the 

MNC-I commander, LTG John Vines. The U.S. military was still 

adapting to counterinsurgency operations and now he had a new mission to develop indigenous forces while keeping the pressure on the 

terrorists and insurgents. That he had to do this in a political vacuum 

as the new government was forming made his task even more difficult. 

While MNC-I was transitioning to the new mission, it was conducting counterinsurgency operations across the country to keep pressure 

Figure 3-2. Commanding General’s FARs, 

February 2005

◆ Make security and safety your first priorities.

◆ Help the Iraqis win, don’t win it for them.

◆ Treat the Iraqi people with dignity and respect. Learn and 

respect Iraqi customs and culture.

◆ Maintain strict standards and iron discipline every day. 

Risk assess every mission—no complacency!

◆ Information saves lives—share it and protect it.

◆ Maintain your situational awareness at all times—this can 

be an unforgiving environment.

◆ Take care of your equipment—it will take care of you.

◆ Innovate and adapt—situations here don’t lend themselves 

to cookie-cutter solutions.

◆ Focus on the enemy and be opportunistic.

◆ Be patient. Don’t rush to failure.

◆ Take care of yourself and take care of each other.
64 

Strategic RefLEctions

on the terrorists and insurgents and executing the operational tasks 

from the campaign plan: neutralizing the insurgency in the Sunni Triangle, securing Baghdad and the borders, sustaining support in Shia 

and Kurdish areas, and providing security for the October constitutional referendum and the December elections. I received a backbrief 

from LTG Vines early in his tenure on how he intended to accomplish 

these tasks. Following that, with few exceptions, I left the day-to-day 

management of these operations to him. The exceptions involved operations that I felt were critical to the theater mission. In 2005, this 

meant MNF-directed operations to restore Iraqi control to their western border, operations that I discuss later.

Keeping Washington Up to Date. Shortly after Prime Minister 

al-Jafari was appointed and the new government was formed in 

early May, we conducted our second semiannual Campaign Progress 

Review.6

 While this was intended to be a 6-month assessment, it 

became an assessment of the campaign over the last year.

Armed with this assessment and a year’s experience on the ground, 

General Abizaid and I visited Washington in June. Theater commanders have a role in helping the administration communicate about their 

mission to the American people and Congress. Given that I had been 

on the ground a year and that we had made some substantial adjustments to the mission, it made sense to go back and update Congress 

and national security leadership on the mission and to conduct engagements with the U.S. media. I returned to Washington three times 

in 2005 and a total of seven times in my 32-month tenure.

I reported to the President, Secretary of Defense, and Joint Chiefs 

that the campaign was broadly on track and that the transition team 

and partnership programs were already paying dividends with the Iraqi 
65

Completing the UN timeline

security forces—but that they remained 18 to 24 months from conducting independent counterinsurgency operations. I noted that the 

insurgency remained active and would contest the completion of the 

UN timeline and that Iraq would still face an insurgency, meddling 

from unsupportive neighbors, immature security forces, and long-term 

political and economic development challenges after that timeline was 

completed at the end of 2005. This would, I reported, require a sizable coalition presence in 2006 in Iraq. I also suggested that with the 

improvements we were already seeing in the ISF as a result of our increased focus, and the potential for that to continue, we should begin 

planning to reduce coalition presence in Iraq over the next 2 years as 

the ISF became more capable. I felt that it was important for both the 

coalition and Iraqi government to be seen as honoring our pledge to 

pass security responsibility to the Iraqis as they were capable of accepting it. I did caution that we should not establish timetables for coalition 

withdrawal because the situation was still too fluid and the insurgents 

and terrorists would use those timelines against us. I had concluded by 

that time that we would not ultimately be successful in Iraq until we had 

brought the insurgency to levels that could be contained by increasingly 

capable ISF, passed security responsibility to them, and departed Iraq.

In my discussions with Congress, I tried to emphasize that, while 

our work in Iraq was hard and the environment was challenging, we 

made progress every day. I emphasized what we and the Iraqis had 

accomplished in the past year: the establishment of the interim government and peaceful passage of power to the transitional government, 

elimination of terrorist safe havens across Iraq, neutralization of the 

Shia insurgency, qualitative and quantitative increases in Iraqi security 

forces, and increased pace of economic development. To refute the 
66 

Strategic RefLEctions

notion that terrorists and insurgents had the upper hand, I also emphasized what the insurgents and terrorists had not accomplished: they 

were unable to reconstitute their safe haven in Fallujah, they had not 

expanded their base of support (the insurgency remained largely confined to 4 out of 18 provinces), they had not prevented the growth of 

Iraqi security forces (then around 170,000), they had not yet sparked 

sectarian violence, and they had not stopped political and economic 

development. I told Congress that after a year on the ground, I felt 

that the mission was “both realistic and achievable,” but that it would 

require patience and will for us to succeed.7

While I was back, I was asked by the President to continue to 

serve as the MNF-I commander for another year. When I left for 

Iraq the previous June, I was told to plan to be in Iraq for 12 months, 

but it quickly became apparent that staying through the completion 

of the UN timeline in 2005 made more sense. He was asking me to 

stay beyond that until June 2006, and I agreed. I took a week of leave 

with my family to recharge my batteries for an even longer haul.

Completing the UN Timeline

By June, we had made good headway implementing the transition 

team and partnership program, and we had begun to build our relationships with the new prime minister and his security ministers. Again, 

I felt it very important to invest in these relationships even though 

we expected the new team to be in place for less than a year. Our 

focus for the rest of 2005 was to continue building the Iraqi security 

forces, governance, and economic development while we established 

a security situation that would allow the completion of the UNSCR 

1546 timeline—a constitution by August, a national referendum on 
67

Completing the UN timeline

the constitution by October, and elections for a government based on 

that constitution by the end of the year. It also involved planning for 

the post-election period. We would accomplish this while bringing on 

board a new U.S. Ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, who arrived in late 

June from Afghanistan, and a new Iraqi government.

I viewed my relationship with the Ambassador as my most important relationship, and we spent quite a bit of time together discussing 

how he saw the mission and the way ahead. He agreed immediately 

on the One Team/One Mission concept, and was even willing to look 

at ways to take the integration of our efforts further. We also formed 

another Red Team to look at the nature of the enemy and the war and 

to give us their thoughts on how we were executing the mission. The 

Red Team was again under U.S. Embassy leadership with MNF, CIA, 

and UK participation. The team looked at how to achieve decisive results by prioritizing and synchronizing our finite resources to “break 

the back” of the insurgency in 1 year and to defeat the insurgency in 

3 years, and it also made some useful suggestions on how to better 

integrate our counterinsurgency efforts.

This independent assessment, along with our recently completed 

June Campaign Progress Review, helped us shape a common vision 

for the way ahead. We began to plan in earnest for the mission to continue beyond the end of the year—the conclusion of the UN mandate.

As we looked beyond the December 2005 elections, we were again 

concerned with the potential loss of momentum because of the political and operational transitions in early 2006 (we would also face a 

transition of MNC-I during the government transition and formation 

period), so we redoubled our efforts to leverage the benefits of completing the UN timeline and seating an Iraqi government based on an Iraqi 
68 

Strategic RefLEctions

constitution. Given the uncertainty of the December election outcome 

and what lay beyond the end of the year, we developed interim guidance 

to leverage the momentum of successful elections while we worked on a 

broader campaign plan for the post-election period.

This interim guidance became known as the “Bridging Strategy” 

because it bridged the gap between the fall of 2005 and the seating 

of the constitutionally elected government that would come sometime after the first of the year. The strategy was focused on setting the 

conditions for the December elections and shaping the aftermath in 

ways that would have a decisive, positive impact on our mission. To 

be decisive, we felt that we had to defeat al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) while 

bringing and keeping the Sunni population in the political process in 

a manner that began to neutralize the insurgency. We had to do both 

of these tasks while continuing to grow and develop ISF capabilities 

and, as these capabilities grew, by placing the Iraqis increasingly in the 

lead of security operations. “Al Qaeda out, Sunni in, ISF in the lead” 

became the shorthand version of the strategy, and it drove our efforts 

in the second half of 2005 and into the spring of 2006.8

 Concurrently, 

the Ambassador and I directed the development of a new joint campaign plan, which would be the first plan to be jointly prepared with 

full Embassy integration in the planning process. It would cover the 

4-year tenure of the new Iraqi government.

With the new Ambassador also came a renewed interest in Sunni 

engagement and Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs). Sunni engagement was something that General Abizaid and I had been pushing for 

some time. We had pressed hard for an engagement strategy with the Sunni population as a means of driving a wedge between the general Sunni 

population and the terrorists and insurgents. Early in the mission there 
69

Completing the UN timeline

was reluctance to do this for fear of alienating the Shia population that 

had been disenfranchised for so long. In my view, we would not make 

progress with the Sunni population, and, as a result, the insurgency, unless 

we facilitated a dialogue to bring them into the political process. While 

our subordinate leaders were engaging tribal leaders locally, there was no 

cohesive mission effort to do this. With the arrival of Ambassador Khalilzad, we began a concerted effort to bring the Sunni population into the 

political process. This effort set the conditions for increased Sunni participation in the constitutional referendum and December elections, and for 

continued post-election dialogue, particularly in Anbar Province.

We had begun a pilot effort in the summer of 2005 to establish 

seven Provincial Support Teams based on the PRT model that was 

developed in Afghanistan during Ambassador Khalilzad’s time there. 

(We actually sent a team to Afghanistan that March to see how their 

PRTs functioned.) We allocated $70 million from the Commander’s 

Emergency Response Program to fund development and reconstruction in these provinces. Our intent was to bring coalition support to 

the provincial level to facilitate development from the bottom up. It 

had become clear that the top-down approach from Baghdad was not 

working. With the Ambassador’s arrival, we enhanced this effort in 

the fall by appreciably increasing the size of three PRTs in the key 

provinces of Mosul, Kirkuk, and Babil. After considerable interagency discussion with Washington, we received approval to go forward 

with enhancing the remaining PRTs in 2006. Although they began to 

have a positive effect almost immediately, their impact was inconsistent—in my view, too tied to the personal initiative and competence 

of the PRT leader. It would take a while to even out the performance, 

but, over time, they accomplished their intended effect.
70 

Strategic RefLEctions

Military Operations. With the seating of the al-Jafari government 

in May, we began to see an increase in suicide attacks focused primarily on the Shia civilian population. These attacks had the potential to 

unhinge the progress we were making on the political side by exploiting existing Sunni/Shia tensions. Our intelligence analysts began to see 

a shift away from the Sunni insurgency as the most dangerous threat 

to the accomplishment of our mission to the Islamic extremists who 

were conducting the attacks. We became concerned that if we did not 

reduce the ability of the extremists to conduct suicide attacks across 

Iraq, the coming constitutional referendum and December elections 

could be in jeopardy. Our analysts believed that the vast majority of 

suicide bombers were not Iraqi and entered into the country by crossing the Syrian border. They were moved to their targets by facilitation 

networks along the western Euphrates valley and Tal Afar–Mosul 

corridor. Accordingly, I directed the MNC-I to conduct operations 

to defeat those networks and restore Iraqi control to the borders before the December elections. This would become the major MNC-I 

operational focus in the runup to the elections as it also continued 

to focus on securing Baghdad, steady-state counterinsurgency operations across Iraq, and developing the Iraqi security forces.

The operations in the west required careful integration of the actions 

of our special operations task force, which was targeting the al Qaeda 

leaders of the facilitation networks, with conventional forces, which were 

attacking network sanctuaries and freedom of movement and reestablishing the ISF presence along the border. The task force had established 

its own country-wide intelligence collection and operational network to 

go after al Qaeda in Iraq. Its efforts were focused on AQI leadership, and 

it conducted several operations a night across Iraq in pursuit of al Qaeda 
71

Completing the UN timeline

targets. It coordinated its efforts with local commanders in whose areas it 

operated. This coordination improved over time as the conventional and 

special operations forces became more comfortable working together. 

The targeting process developed by the task force proved very effective 

for hunting down individual terrorists, so, with its assistance, we began 

to develop “fusion centers” in each of the U.S. divisions in 2005. These 

fusion centers enabled the coalition divisions to access intelligence from 

all available national sources and, because they were directly connected 

to forces that could rapidly act on the intelligence, to attack high value 

targets in their areas of operations independently. These centers greatly 

increased our ability to attack al Qaeda and insurgent leadership and 

were instrumental in our long-term success.

By the end of the year, we had significantly disrupted the flow of 

foreign fighters and suicide bombers into Iraq and seen the number of 

suicide attacks cut in half between June and November to the point that 

the constitutional referendum and December elections were held with 

limited interference. (There were 90 and 80 attacks, respectively, on referendum and election days compared with 299 on the day of the January 

2005 elections.) The operations also loosened the al Qaeda stranglehold 

on the Sunni populations of those regions, allowing them to participate 

more fully in the referendum and election processes—something that 

would help us later.

We continued to monitor the implementation of our transition 

team and partnership programs and continued to evaluate ourselves on 

how we were applying counterinsurgency doctrine. When we implemented the transition team concept in the spring, I directed a special 

assessment of the concept for September. By September, we had embedded 174 transition teams into Iraqi military and police units, and seen 
72 

Strategic RefLEctions

increased performance in those units as a result. We had also developed 

and instituted a transition readiness assessment (TRA) to measure and 

quantify the readiness of Iraqi units to assume security responsibility.*

 The assessment found that the transition teams, augmented by the 

partnership program between Iraqi and coalition forces, had “made a 

significant difference in our efforts to rebuild and professionalize the 

Iraqi Army.” It also found that the Iraqi security ministries (MOI and 

MOD) showed “limited progress toward self-reliance” and that the 

Iraqi Police Service “lags in development.” We had a long way to go, but 

I felt fairly comfortable that we had a credible system to measure progress and the presence in the Iraqi units to verify it. The assessment also 

found that our presence was positively received by Iraqi units and that 

it served as a deterrent to detainee abuse and violence against civilians.9

We used this assessment to press the Ambassador to move the responsibility for developing the ministries of interior and defense from 

the Embassy to MNF-I. I believe that this move made a significant 

difference in our ability to increase the capacity of the ministries. We 

quickly began a serious effort to develop key ministerial functions 

in both ministries—planning, programming, budgeting, manning, 

equipping, and sustaining—and to establish internal accountability. 

We also used it to increase our focus on the development of the police. 

We calculated that the police were about a year behind the army in 

terms of development. We believed that we could not credibly handoff 

security until the local police were capable of maintaining domestic 

order and denying terrorist activity, so we began to develop a plan to 

*

 By this measure, 1 Iraqi division headquarters, 5 brigades, and 7 battalions 

had achieved the second highest transition readiness assessment—able to conduct 

counterinsurgency operations with limited coalition support—by that June.
73

Completing the UN timeline

accelerate police development in 2006. Police development is much 

more difficult than army development, especially for soldiers. This is 

an area that needs continuous work across government to craft the 

means to more rapidly build police capacity. With the development 

of the other rule-of-law institutions (for example, judicial and prison 

systems), it was the long pole in our development tent.

At the same time, we completed a survey of how we were applying counterinsurgency doctrine across the force. As I observed the new 

forces coming into Iraq, it seemed that our execution was uneven at best, 

as we and the Services wrestled with ingraining a new form of warfare 

into our conventional forces. I sent a team across MNF-I for 15 days 

that summer to take a look. The team concluded that there was a general 

understanding of counterinsurgency doctrine, but that its application 

was in fact uneven and very dependent on the individual commander’s 

grasp of the doctrine and how to apply it in Iraq. It also concluded that 

we were still being forced to apply peacetime practices in a wartime 

environment. As a result, things got even more complicated the further down the chain of command we went as each level added its own 

restrictions. It was a good and thorough report that I forwarded to the 

Service chiefs for their use in training deploying forces and to my staff 

and subordinate commanders to begin implementing the recommendations. One of the principal recommendations was to establish a COIN 

Academy to teach the nuances of applying counterinsurgency doctrine 

in Iraq to incoming commanders in order to ensure more commanders 

started at the same level. We established the academy and conducted 

the first course that November. I addressed every class, and felt that 

this academy not only substantially improved our execution in Iraq, but 

also formed a basis on which the Army and Marine COIN doctrines 
74 

Strategic RefLEctions

could be updated. It was a significant factor in changing the conventional mindset of U.S. Servicemembers.

In the meantime, the Iraqis, with coalition support, conducted the 

second of the UNSCR-prescribed national polls, a referendum on the 

Iraqi-drafted constitution. Over 15 million citizens, nearly 64 percent of 

those eligible, registered to vote, and 10 million of these citizens voted, 

an increase of 1.5 million from the January election. On referendum 

day, over 6,000 voting sites were open, more than a 20 percent increase 

from the previous election, with major increases in the Sunni areas. Violence levels were a third of the previous January, with only one-quarter 

the casualties. In a radio address to the American public, President Bush 

stated, “By casting their ballots, the Iraqi people [dealt] a severe blow to 

the terrorists and [sent] a clear message to the world: Iraqis will decide 

the future of their country through peaceful elections, not violent insurgency. And by their courageous example, they are charting a new course 

for the entire Middle East.”10 As I reported to both President Bush and 

Secretary Rumsfeld, the referendum’s success was the result of a wellexecuted civil-military plan with extensive preparatory operations.

Though 78.6 percent of Iraqi voters cast ballots in favor of the 

constitution, Sunni voters largely voted against it. The Sunni representatives had been marginalized during the drafting process, and the 

constitution did not emerge as the national compact that we had hoped 

for. In fact, it was only the last-minute efforts of the Ambassador to 

elicit promises to address Sunni concerns and amend the constitution 

after the vote that made Sunni participation even possible. What could 

have been a major step forward was not. So while we were pleased 

with voter participation and ISF performance, we were apprehensive 

about the long-term impacts of the new constitution.
75

Completing the UN timeline

Planning for the Future. We were also generally pleased with 

the implementation of the transition team concept and the positive 

impact it was having on the growth of the Iraqi security forces. We 

had greatly expanded our insights into their capabilities from the 

ministry to the battalion levels. What remained was to translate the 

increase in Iraqi capability into their assumption of security responsibility across Iraq as envisioned by UNSCR 1546, and then to link 

that to the gradual reduction of coalition presence. 

The transition concept gained explicit Iraqi acknowledgment 

in July, when Prime Minister al-Jafari, after a visit to Washington, 

announced the formation of a Joint Committee to Transfer Security Responsibility to establish the conditions for gradual transition 

of security responsibility to the Iraqi government. The committee 

consisted of seven U.S., UK, and Iraqi senior-level principals (the 

United States was represented by Ambassador Khalilzad and me), 

who oversaw the efforts of a joint working group that developed the 

specific conditions under which security authority would transfer. 

It was also intended that the committee would monitor the implementation of the process and make recommendations to the prime 

minister regarding transfers over time. The committee was chaired 

by the prime minister, and after several months of work it produced 

a document that laid out the conditions for the assumption of security responsibility by the Iraqis in a manner that would maintain 

security against the terrorists during and after the transitions.

As part of this process, we established criteria that assessed the ability of the security forces—army and police—to work together with the 

provincial leadership to maintain order and defeat terrorist and insurgent 

threats in and around the province. The evaluation process involved an 
76 

Strategic RefLEctions

assessment of the threat; an assessment of police capability in the province (all had to be rated at least “TRA 2,”*

 that is, able to conduct COIN 

operations with limited coalition support); an assessment of the military 

capability in the province (all had to be TRA 2 and able to coordinate 

operations with the police); and an assessment of the provincial leadership’s ability to coordinate security efforts. We worked hard to find the 

right conditions that would serve as a forcing function for the Iraqis to 

increase their capabilities and yet still be attainable. We intended for all 

transfers to be conditions-based and therefore did not set a timeline for 

the transitions. There were no provinces ready for transfer in 2005, and 

we did not get our first chance to implement the process until the summer of 2006 when Muthanna Province in southern Iraq became the first 

Iraqi province to assume responsibility for its security. 

In September, Secretary Rumsfeld requested that I provide Stephen Hadley, the National Security Advisor, with an update of our 

campaign. There was apparently some uncertainty with what we were 

doing to accomplish our national objectives in Iraq. Although puzzled 

by this, as we were providing weekly updates by video teleconference to the National Security Council and the President, I provided 

Mr. Hadley with an overview of our campaign plan from July 2004 

through September 2005. I emphasized how the campaign had evolved 

over the past year as we adapted to changes in the threat and the environment, how our plan had changed with the implementation of 

the transition teams, and how the military operations we were conducting had kept the pressure on the insurgents and terrorists while 

* TRA is a monthly report prepared by both the Iraqi commanders and 

transition team leaders that documented and rated ISF unit ability to conduct 

independent COIN operations. TRA 2 was the second-highest rating for a unit.
77

Completing the UN timeline

we worked to complete the implementation of the UN timeline and 

grow the ISF.11 I did not receive any new direction as a result of the 

discussions, and at the end of November, the National Security Council (NSC) issued the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq (NSVI). Its 

endstate was almost the same as the one that Ambassador Negroponte 

and I had crafted 18 months prior: “A new Iraq with a constitutional, 

representative government that respects civil rights and has security 

forces sufficient to maintain domestic order and keep Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists.” The description of “victory” in 

the strategy paralleled our own lines of operation with political, security, and economic tracks. On the political track, the NSVI prescribed 

forging a broadly supported national compact by isolating Iraqi elements that could not be won over to the political process, engaging 

those outside the political process, and building effective national 

institutions to protect all Iraqis. The economic track prescribed setting the foundation for a self-sustaining economy by restoring Iraq’s 

infrastructure, reforming Iraq’s economy, and building the capacity of 

Iraqi institutions to maintain infrastructure. The security track stated 

that our strategy was to “clear” areas of enemy control by remaining on the offensive, “hold” areas freed from enemy influence, and 

“build” ISF and the capacity of local institutions to deliver services.12 

The strategy had codified our approach.

Shortly after receiving the NSVI, the Ambassador and I issued 

a new joint mission statement, “Building Success—Completing the 

Transition.” This statement was the output of a joint planning effort 

that had been ongoing since the summer to devise a strategy and plan 

to guide coalition and Embassy operations following the election 

and seating of the new Iraqi government. Significantly, we took a 
78 

Strategic RefLEctions

longer view than the first campaign plan and tied our guidance to the 

4-year term of the soon-to-be-elected government. 

We set our objectives for the mission during this period as:

◆ defeating the terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency

◆ transitioning Iraq to security self-reliance

◆ helping Iraqis forge a national compact for democratic 

government

◆ helping Iraqis build government capacity and provide 

essential services

◆ helping Iraqis strengthen their economy

◆ helping Iraqis strengthen the rule of law and promote 

civil rights

◆ increasing international support for Iraq

◆ strengthening public understanding of coalition efforts and 

public isolation of the insurgents.

We further directed annual goals to guide our progress. Our planners took this directive and began to turn it into a campaign plan to 

guide our efforts for the next 4 years.13

In December, we held our semi-annual Campaign Progress Review,14 which, for the first time, included the full participation of the 

Embassy staff. The review concluded that there were “clear grounds 

for optimism” as we had successfully completed the 18-month 

UN timeline, thwarting terrorist and insurgent efforts to derail 

the political process, and had developed the ISF to the point that 

they principally provided security for their elections. This was a 

significant accomplishment, and one that I was not sure we would 
79

Completing the UN timeline

accomplish 18 months before. We had also made great progress in 

growing the ISF, particularly on the army side. By the end of 2005, 

80 percent of Iraqi battalions were fighting the insurgency with us. 

Moreover, 1 of the 10 divisions, 4 of the 36 brigades, and 33 of the 

112 battalions were able to operate with limited coalition support—a 

significant increase in just a year. But we were a long way from being 

done. The police lagged the development of the army significantly 

and the institutional capabilities of both the interior and defense 

ministries were still in their nascent stages. It was clear that we needed a major effort in both these areas to accelerate their development. 

Perhaps the most troubling trend at the end of 2005 was the increase we were seeing in sectarian violence. On 14 September, Abu 

Musab al-Zarqawi issued a public declaration of war against “Shia infidels” while continuing his campaign of suicide attacks against the Shia 

population. Although our operations in the west had greatly reduced 

the number of suicide attacks, there were still enough attacks to drive 

sectarian tensions. We were also seeing small-scale actions by Shia militia against the Sunni population. The trend was troubling enough 

that we established an intelligence working group that September to 

monitor it. These tensions were compounded when, in November, 

coalition forces discovered an MOI detention facility in which the detainees, primarily Sunni, were mistreated and in some cases tortured. 

Sunni leaders clamored for action against the interior minister, but the 

leadership of the transitional government took none. It was becoming 

clearer to us that just completing the UN political process was not 

going to be enough to bring the country together. We came to believe 

that a program of national reconciliation would be essential if Iraq was 

to move forward. 
80 

Strategic RefLEctions

The year ended with the elections of December 15 where 11.8 

million Iraqis (76 percent of registered voters) elected a government 

based on the constitution that they had approved in October. While 

the government had yet to be formed, we had completed the mission 

that we had set out to accomplish 18 months before.

It had been a tough 18 months. I was pleased with what we had 

accomplished, yet I recognized how far we still had to go to defeat the 

insurgency and credibly hand over the security mission to the Iraqis. It 

remained to be seen whether our key assumption would hold true—

that the completion of the UN political timeline would yield an Iraqi 

government that was perceived as legitimate and representative of all 

Iraqis. The constitution had not been the national compact we had 

hoped for because the Sunni representatives were largely excluded from 

the drafting process. And while there was talk of forming a “government of national unity,” it remained to be seen if the major parties could 

set aside their sectarian fears and prejudices for this to happen. 

We closed out 2005 feeling that we had accomplished a great 

deal, but that we still had much more to do—and we would do it 

with a new, as yet undetermined, Iraqi government, a new set of coalition forces, and without a political timeline to drive Iraqi action. 

I worked to dampen Washington’s “optimism” over our substantial 

accomplishments as we worked to bridge what we knew would be a 

difficult period of governmental transition. 
81

government transition

4. Government Transition and 

the Rise of Sectarian Violence 

(January–June 2006)

We entered 2006 knowing that it was going to be a year of political transition as the Iraqis formed and seated a permanent government 

and this new government began to govern. We remained hopeful that 

we could continue to make progress during this period; however, 

based on our previous experience with Iraqi government transitions, 

we knew it was going to be hard work. That was the message that I carried to Washington shortly after the first of the year. I spent Christmas 

in Iraq visiting and congratulating soldiers on their accomplishments 

in 2005, and then departed for consultations in Washington.

I reported that, in general, we were pleased with the accomplishments of the last 18 months, but the elections had not yet 

Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafari addresses city leadership 

of Fallujah January 2006 as Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad 

and General Casey look on
82 

Strategic RefLEctions

produced the representative government that was key to long-term 

success. Ambassador Khalilzad felt that the elections had a polarizing effect in the country. The Sunni population felt disenfranchised 

as a result of the constitutional referendum and the election outcome, and their perception of increased Iranian influence on what 

was, almost certainly, to be a government formed by largely Shia 

political parties compounded these feelings—and fed the insurgency. I cautioned not to expect any immediate positive impacts 

on the security situation and warned that political wrangling over 

amending the constitution and the provincial elections could even 

push things in a more negative direction.

I saw our main challenge in 2006 as getting the new government, 

particularly the security ministries, onboard and governing as rapidly as possible. This would allow us to take advantage of its 4-year 

tenure and build the ministerial capacity that Iraq would need for the 

long haul. On the security side, I was concerned with the increase in 

sectarian violence that we had been tracking and its potential negative impact on government and security force development, and 

with the lagging development of the police—which we knew was 

the key to our long-term success. On the positive side, we had good 

success in disrupting al Qaeda in Iraq over the past year and were 

beginning to see a rift between them and the Sunni population that 

we hoped to exploit. We also continued to make good progress with 

the Iraqi army. 

I concluded my discussions in Washington with a slide entitled 

“Bad Things That Could Happen”1

 to remind everyone that, as 

much as we had accomplished in the past 18 months, we were in a 

time of political drift in a violent, divided society and bad things 
83

government transition

could happen that could affect the direction of the mission. I 

thought it best to temper expectations because there was just too 

much uncertainty in this government formation period. Looking 

back, several of the things on the list did happen, and did affect the 

direction of the mission. 

The other major element of discussion in Washington was the 

implementation of the first “off-ramp” plans that we had announced 

following the completion of the elections in December.* I had recommended, and the Secretary of Defense had approved, not replacing 

2 of the 17 U.S. Brigade Combat Teams that were programmed to 

redeploy from Iraq that summer, effectively reducing the number of 

U.S. combat brigades from 17 to 15. This was a difficult decision, as 

we were very cognizant of the uncertainty and potential turbulence 

of the post-election period, but we felt that the improvement, and 

projected improvement, of the ISF would more than mitigate the 

tactical risk.† We also believed that the potential strategic benefits 

far outweighed the tactical risks. The image of U.S. forces departing Iraq would demonstrate to the ISF and the Iraqi people that the 

United States was indeed serious about following the UN mandate 

to return security responsibility to the Iraqis as they became more 

capable, and about ultimately departing Iraq. We decided to keep 

one of the brigades in Kuwait as an in-theater reserve just in case we 

had miscalculated. The discussions that January revolved around developing a recurring process to periodically review the situation and 

make recommendations on the continuing reduction of U.S. forces. 

* Off-ramp was the term used to describe the removal of troops from theater 

without replacements, essentially reducing U.S. forces. †

 At the time of the decision, there were some 216,000 trained and equipped ISF.
84 

Strategic RefLEctions

I recommended a quarterly, conditions-based process, and the first 

assessment was set for March. 

Government Transition

While I was back in the United States, I was asked to extend for 

another year until the spring of 2007. I had wanted to see the establishment of the new government through, so I agreed, with the caveat that 

this would be the last extension. I returned to Iraq intent on maintaining positive momentum during the government transition period in 

any way that I could. In October, we had established our Bridging 

Strategy—al Qaeda out, Sunni in, and ISF in the lead—to guide our 

actions during the transition period. It was also intended to provide 

focus for the new MNC-I during the early months of 2006.

Al Qaeda Out. Our operations in the western Euphrates valley 

and Tal Afar–Mosul corridor had significantly disrupted al Qaeda 

facilitation networks in those areas, and our special operations task 

force had kept strong pressure on al Qaeda leadership. Interestingly, 

al Qaeda’s brutality and desire to impose sharia law in areas they 

controlled began to wear on the Iraqi population, particularly in 

Anbar Province. That winter we began efforts to consolidate our 

gains in Anbar. On January 15, the Ambassador and I took Prime 

Minister al-Jafari to Ramadi and Fallujah. The leaders there told us 

that they were not happy with the constitution and wanted an end 

to the occupation, but that they were against terror. They wanted 

an army division recruited strictly from Anbar Province, money for 

reconstruction, and the release of all Anbari prisoners from confinement. The prime minister agreed to $75 million for reconstruction 

and promised to send the ministers of defense and interior to discuss 
85

government transition

the security force proposals. The agreement was finalized between 

the al-Jafari government and the governor of Anbar Province over 

the next 2 months and was implemented over the course of 2006.

The ISF plan built on a small success that we had with the Albu 

Mahal tribe just prior to the December elections in forming the 

“Desert Protectors” to assist in securing the border region of Anbar. 

While the leaders of Anbar did not get their Anbar division—we 

were concerned with creating a strictly Sunni formation—they were 

allowed to bring almost 16,000 police and army recruits into the ISF. 

Each was vetted and vouched for by his tribal sheik. They generally performed well in Anbar, particularly against al Qaeda. It took 

constant pressure on the government to distribute the promised reconstruction dollars, but they finally did, and small prisoner releases 

were conducted over the course of the year. This effort marked a 

major turning point not only against al Qaeda, but with the population of Anbar Province.

Sunni In. As a result of Ambassador Khalilzad’s hard work on 

the constitution, we had a major breakthrough with Sunni political 

leaders just prior to the elections that we hoped to exploit in the new 

year. The Sunni political leaders came to the Ambassador a few days 

before the election and stated that they wanted to tell their people 

to vote on December 15, but they were afraid the people would get 

caught up in ongoing operations. They wanted me to announce the 

suspension of operations for the elections in exchange for their support in turning out the Sunni vote. I confirmed with my divisional 

commanders that their major operations were completed, and they 

were. We had planned all along for our pre-election operations to 

end a few days before the election. I told the Sunni leaders that we 
86 

Strategic RefLEctions

would not conduct any major operations in the last days before the 

elections but that we would continue routine force protection and 

high-value target operations. That was good enough for them, and, 

true to their word, they went on Iraqi television and told Sunni voters to vote.

The Sunni leaders told us that January they had concluded that 

their common enemies were al Qaeda and Iran—not the United 

States. They felt that we were leaving, and they needed our help to 

get Iraq back from al Qaeda and Iran. The election collaboration 

was a small step and the beginning of a series of confidence-building 

measures between the MNF-I and Sunni political leadership that led 

to serious, but ultimately unproductive, discussions about ceasefires 

and reconciliation over the course of 2006.

To continue this dialogue, we established a cell, under a U.S. 

two-star general, to better coordinate engagement activities with 

political and insurgent leaders among the different agencies of the 

mission. At this time, the U.S. Embassy, UK embassy, CIA station, and MNF-I were all getting feelers from different leaders 

and groups claiming to have influence over the insurgency. Each 

needed to be vetted, evaluated, and acted on in a coordinated way. 

While there were some hopeful signals, several promising leads 

failed because of the inability of the interlocutors to deliver on 

their promises. It soon became clear to us that this was an early but 

essential part of the ultimate reconciliation process that the Iraqis 

would have to go through to conclude the insurgency. In the end, 

it was the beginning of an important dialogue that we continued. It 

marked a significant shift in how the Sunni population, particularly 

in Anbar Province, saw the MNF-I and U.S. presence.
87

government transition

ISF in the Lead. The growth of ISF was just about on schedule at this point (mid-January 2006) with over 225,000 trained and 

equipped army and police forces of the 325,000 that we were building with the Iraqis. We believed at that time that it would take us 

another year to complete the training and equipping of the ISF and 

that the police would take a concerted effort just to make that. More 

significant was the increase in the number of these forces that were 

actively participating in counterinsurgency operations either independently or with coalition support—100 Iraqi army battalions 

were actively in the fight, a number that had increased by one-third 

in just 6 months as the transition teams and partnership programs 

continued to demonstrate their worth.

The police and security ministries continued to lag the army in 

development. We began a focused effort to improve police capacity and planned for the transition in ministry leadership that would 

come with the establishment of the new government. The deficiencies in the police were well known. Our trainers were reporting a 

lack of trained police, significant deficiencies in low-level leadership, and sectarian bias at the highest levels of the Ministry of the 

Interior. Our effort to improve police capacity became known as 

the “Year of the Police.” We introduced specific programs not only 

to increase the numbers of Iraqi police, but also, more importantly, 

to improve their professionalism and quality of their training. Our 

2004 COIN study had driven home the key role to be played by the 

police, so we needed to refocus our efforts to organize, equip, train, 

and field a professional police force that embodied national unity. 

The ambitious goals we set for ourselves—an MOI capable of leading border security efforts by June 2006 and assuming the lead in 
88 

Strategic RefLEctions

the counterinsurgency effort by the end of 2006—were indicative of 

the importance we placed on the role of the police in our long-term 

plans. The most difficult challenge proved to be eliminating sectarian 

bias from the ministry. This was essential because of the debilitating 

impact it had on the even-handed enforcement of Iraqi law and the 

confidence of the Iraqi people in their police forces. It would significantly delay our efforts with the police.

The other key aspect of sustaining our momentum was the 

smooth transition of MNC-I in January. Our preparatory training 

was very good, but it was simply not possible to replace a year’s experience on the ground overnight, particularly when we were asking our 

conventional forces to do things that they had not done for decades. 

While I saw continuous improvement in the preparation of new forces 

over time, and our COIN Academy helped strengthen the transition 

process, transitions were always periods of friction and turbulence.

The new MNC-I commander, LTG Pete Chiarelli, was returning to Iraq after only a year away, having commanded the 1st Cavalry 

Division in Baghdad from April 2004 to March 2005. In our initial 

meeting, I emphasized the importance of maintaining momentum 

during the government transition process and asked him to give me 

his preliminary assessment of the situation in 30 days. In that assessment, he commented on the significant progress of the Iraqi army, 

particularly at the tactical level, and the encouraging improvement in 

Anbar Province. He expressed concerns about the lack of development of the police and in the capacity of the governmental ministries 

and with militias challenging the authority of the ISF.

He also commented on the substantial improvements that had 

been made in the counter-IED (improvised explosive device) effort 
89

government transition

after he left. With the establishment of a counter-IED task force in 

2005, MNC-I focused on attacking IED networks as a system by 

bringing technology to bear for tracking IED emplacers, exploitation of sites, and jamming detonators. This approach and an influx of 

hardened vehicles allowed the corps to increase the number of IEDs 

found and cleared by almost 15 percent and to reduce significantly 

the effectiveness of IED attacks.* IEDs would continue to produce 

the largest number of casualties among coalition forces and would 

require continuous adjustment and adaptation by coalition leaders 

and soldiers. 

As we headed into the third month of government formation in 

mid-February, we continued to press ahead with our Bridging Strategy, settling in the new corps, and dealing with increasing signs of 

sectarian violence, while the Iraqis moved frustratingly slowly toward forming a government. 

The Samarra Bombing and Its Aftermath

On February 22, the al-Askari Mosque, a sacred Shia holy site in 

Samarra, a Sunni city north of Baghdad, was destroyed by a bomb, 

unleashing a spate of sectarian violence against the Sunni population 

in Baghdad and the surrounding areas. Shia militia attacked Sunni 

neighborhoods and mosques, causing widespread panic in the capital. Coalition forces reacted quickly to staunch the violence while the 

Ambassador and I attempted to mobilize the Transitional Government to act. Prime Minister al-Jafari was slow to impose an evening 

*

 As a result of these efforts, the average casualties per improvised explosive 

device detonation went from 0.95 casualties per detonation in the June–December 

2003 timeframe to 0.35 casualties per detonation in the January–February 2006 

timeframe, a significant improvement.
90 

Strategic RefLEctions

curfew that would have facilitated our operations. While the government sought publicly to portray the attack as an attack against the 

Iraqi people by the enemies of Iraq, it seemed clear that the attack 

was viewed by the Iraqi leadership as a direct attack on Iraq’s Shia 

population, and this seemed to slow their initial reactions—which 

was not lost on Sunni leaders. While the government eventually 

imposed the necessary curfews, it continued to resist a ban on the 

carrying of weapons by other than ISF and would not implement 

policies to prohibit nongovernmental militias.

We saw the sectarian violence unleashed by the attack as having the 

potential to threaten our ability to make progress in 2006 by exacerbating the fraying tensions between sectarian groups and making the 

formation of a government of national unity more difficult—further exacerbating tensions and extending the government formation process. I 

was very concerned about this escalating into a major sectarian conflict 

and causing a fracture of the ISF along sectarian lines—two things that 

could fundamentally change the course of our mission in Iraq. I issued 

orders to isolate and stabilize the situation in Baghdad, focusing on ethnically mixed areas, and to work on preventing attacks that could further 

inflame sectarian tensions.2

 Meanwhile, the Ambassador and I worked 

with the Transitional Government to get the needed political support to 

frame a security operation to secure Baghdad. The next few days were 

difficult as we guided the now lame-duck government through a major 

crisis while our forces worked to restore calm to the capital.

After a few days, we persuaded the prime minister to begin a 

concerted effort to restore order to the capital and surrounding areas 

where the vast majority of the sectarian violence was taking place. The 

intent of the operation, called Scales of Justice, was to stop the sectarian 
91

government transition

attacks and provide sufficient security in the capital region so that the 

new permanent Iraqi government could be formed and seated. At that 

time, we still held out hope that the formation process would produce a 

government of national unity that would be perceived as representative 

of all Iraqis, or at least as more representative than the Transitional Government. We pushed eight more Iraqi and coalition battalions into the 

key districts of Baghdad, massing more than 50,000 coalition and Iraqi 

security forces into Baghdad and the surrounding areas. The operation 

stabilized the situation and bought us the time to complete the government formation process. However, after initial military success, Scales of 

Justice slowed, but did not halt sectarian violence in Baghdad, leaving a 

difficult situation for the new government.

The operation was hampered by the reluctance of the Transitional Government to impose weapons and militia bans and to stem 

sectarian influence within MOI forces. This reluctance had a very 

negative impact on the confidence of the Iraqi people, particularly 

the Sunni population, in the ability of the police to evenhandedly enforce the law. We suspected that some police formations and political 

militias were actively conducting sectarian killings with at least the 

tacit approval of political leaders. In all, coalition forces, and a good 

number of their Iraqi counterparts, did a remarkable job of stabilizing a very difficult situation, but their increased exposure resulted in 

an increase in coalition and ISF casualties.

Assessing the Impact. Once we got the military response moving, I turned my attention to determining the impact of the Samarra 

bombing and its aftermath on our long-term plans. It seemed clear 

that the sectarian tensions we had seen emerging since the summer 

of 2005 with the seating of the Transitional Government and the 
92 

Strategic RefLEctions

September declaration of jihad against the Shia population by alZarqawi were more than just tensions and needed to be addressed 

more broadly.

From my personal interaction with Iraqi leaders, I saw a 

great fear of “Ba’athist return” among Shia leaders: a fear that the 

Ba’athists would overthrow the duly elected Shia government and 

return to power, subjugating the Shia population as they had been 

for more than 30 years under Saddam Hussein. I also saw a great 

fear among Sunni leaders that Iranian influence would ensure the 

continued subjugation of the Sunni population. While we might 

have seen these views as caricatures, they defined the views of 

Iraq’s leaders, who would ultimately have to resolve these sectarian tensions. These views were not new. What was new, however, 

was how the scope of the sectarian violence made them more real 

to the Iraqis and made trust between Iraq’s leaders more difficult 

to attain.

We began a review of our plans and strategy, asking ourselves the 

fundamental question: “Does the advent of significant sectarian violence in this transition period require a change in our strategy for Iraq, 

and, if so, what should we do differently?” Looking at the situation, we 

came to the conclusion that the post-Samarra violence may have been 

an indication of a significant change in the nature of the Iraqi conflict. 

Taken in the context of the conclusion of the UN political timeline, the 

initial departure of coalition forces, and the ongoing efforts to form a 

4-year Iraqi government, the sectarian violence seemed to indicate that 

the main conflict in Iraq was moving away from an insurgency against 

the coalition to a struggle for the division of political and economic 

power among Iraqis. This would be a significant change.
93

government transition

As I thought my way through this, I saw four major groups 

influencing the security situation to affect the outcome of the conflict: Sunni extremists, Shia extremists, the Sunni resistance (the 

insurgency), and Iran. I saw the main antagonists as the Sunni and 

Shia extremists, each heavily influenced by fear of the other and each 

motivated by fear of exclusion and retribution. The Sunni resistance, 

which was still active against the coalition in parts of the country, 

was losing relevance and influence. Finally, the Iranians were actively 

supporting Shia extremist groups and using political and economic 

influence to shape an outcome that would ensure that the new Iraq 

would be a benign neighbor. I graphically portrayed this as shown 

in figure 4-1. It was a far more complex environment than we had 

previously dealt with.

Figure 4-1. Post-Samarra Security Environment, 

March 2006

Iran

Shia

Extremists

Resistance

Division of Political

and Economic

Power by Iraqis

Sunni

Extremists
94 

Strategic RefLEctions

I discussed this view with my commanders and the Ambassador. 

They generally agreed that the nature of the conflict had changed. 

The commanders noted that they were dealing with different parts 

of the conflict in their different parts of the country, and that the 

main struggle was going on in Baghdad and the surrounding provinces. I developed the graphic below (figure 4-2) to communicate 

to my commanders the actions we needed to take. We needed to 

block the ability of the Sunni and Shia extremists and Iran to influence the division of political and economic power, while working to 

bring the Sunni resistance into the political process. To do this, on 

the military side we would have to work with the Iraqis to provide 

an environment secure enough for political and economic development to continue and in which the population felt protected and civil 

war was averted. 

We also did some work to explore various courses of action 

that we could take if the sectarian tensions spilled over into fullscale civil war. There was a lot of discussion with Washington 

in March of 2006 about whether we were in a civil war, how we 

would know it if we were, what civil war would look like, and 

most importantly, what we would do if we were. I felt strongly 

that the sectarian violence spawned by the Samarra bombing had 

not reached the level of civil war primarily because the violence 

was confined to such a small portion of the country, the ISF remained a national force, and there was still support for a political 

process. That said, it was clear that the extremists were attempting to push the country toward civil war as a means of achieving 

their political objectives, and it was in our interest to prevent that 

from happening. In response to a request from Washington for 
95

government transition

my thoughts on what to do if the violence did degenerate into 

civil war, I stated that we could leave, return to our bases and 

wait it out, intervene, or pick a side, but that doing anything but 

reinforcing and stopping the violence—intervening—would acknowledge strategic defeat. 

We also got a number of questions during that time from Washington about how U.S. forces were operating and how we might shift 

our weight away from activities that caused casualties. We responded with a study that looked at whether having increased coalition 

presence in the streets actually improved security or if our higher 

visibility posture simply invited attacks and reduced the pressure on 

the Iraqis to step forward. 

Figure 4-2. Strategy for Post-Samarra 

Security Environment

Division of Political 

and Economic

Power by Iraqis Prevent Civil War Protect Population

Secure Environment Iran

Shia

Extremists

Resistance

Sunni

Extremists
96 

Strategic RefLEctions

Our study showed what we intuitively knew: that increasing the 

number of operations, which we had done in response to the sectarian violence, did not necessarily translate into higher casualties. 

Rather, maintaining an offensive posture kept the enemy off balance 

and disrupted his ability to respond to our actions. It also allowed 

us to maintain necessary contact with the population and to conduct 

the necessary patrolling for force protection and intelligence operations that were essential to successful COIN operations. We also 

found that coalition casualties decreased when security responsibilities were transferred to the Iraqi army. The majority of coalition and 

ISF casualties were confined to just 3 of the 18 provinces, namely 

Baghdad, Anbar, and Ninewah. Civilian casualties were mainly limited to just two provinces: Baghdad and Diyala. 

Charting a Way Forward. While we dealt with the Samarra adjustments, we moved ahead with the development of our overall campaign 

plan made necessary by the completion of the UNSCR political timeline. 

The outcome was a comprehensive effort with the Embassy designed to 

guide the mission over the next 3-plus years—the tenure of the new, stillto-be seated government.

We defined these next years as “the decisive phase to bring 

security and stability to Iraq” and laid out three phases: Phase one—

stabilization (2006 to early 2007); Phase two—restoration of civil 

authority (early 2007 to early 2008); and Phase three—support to selfreliance (early 2008 to 2009). Using this strategic framework (see figure 

4-3), we laid out specific objectives and tasks in each phase that were 

aligned along the five integrated lines of operation, much as we had 

outlined in our earlier campaign plan—security, governance, economic 

development, communications, and transition (added in the new plan). 
97

government transition

LIBERATION OCCUPATION PARTNERSHIP SELF-RELIANCE

June 28,

2004

April

2006

~ December

2009

Provincial

Elections

(T)

Constitution

Amendment

Referendum

(T)

Stabilization

Restoration of Civil Authority

Support to Self-reliance

April

2003

(T) Tentative: At that time, we believed that it would be possible to hold provincial elections and the promised referendum to adjust the constitution in late 2006/early 2007.

Figure 4-3. Campaign Framework, April 2006–December 2009
98 

Strategic RefLEctions

We also looked at “wild cards” that might impact the projections we 

made for each phase, established specific effects and metrics for each 

phase, and identified the coalition or U.S. Embassy agency responsible 

to the Ambassador and me for accomplishing them.3

Most importantly, we included the strategic concept developed 

in the aftermath of the Samarra bombing into the campaign plan. In 

it we adjusted our mission statement to reflect the new situation:

The U.S. Mission and Coalition Forces will, in partnership with 

the Government of Iraq, contribute to an environment where 

Iraqis can develop representative and effective institutions 

capable of meeting the needs of the Iraqi people, creating the 

conditions for the Rule of Law, defeating the terrorists and 

irreconcilable insurgents, bringing other insurgents into the 

political process, reducing sectarian tensions and denying Iraq 

as a safe haven for terror.4

The mission and the campaign plan reflected our central belief 

that the conflict was about the division of political and economic 

power among Iraqis. We believed that enduring strategic success 

could only be achieved by Iraqi political and military leaders working together to resolve Iraq’s substantial problems. It was our job to 

work with them to help them do that.

Building New Partnerships

There was a break in the political stalemate in late April when 

a relatively unknown Shia politician, Nuri al-Maliki, was appointed 

prime minister. While it would take another month before he and 
99

government transition

his cabinet were sworn in, and 2 weeks after that before agreement 

would be reached on his key security ministers, it was a start.

During the month between the appointment of Prime Minister–

designate al-Maliki and his formal inauguration, the Ambassador 

and I met with him frequently to update him on pressing issues and 

to get his views on the way ahead. We recognized from the outset 

that we had to build our relationships with him, just as we had with 

his predecessors, if we were going to sustain a partnership to deal 

with the very difficult issues facing the country. What I did not foresee, however, was how much of my personal time and energy would 

be consumed in building and sustaining my relationship with the 

new prime minister in the coming months.

In our first session, I addressed the security situation and development of the ISF. I told him that the primary threat to Iraq was 

terrorists and militia fomenting civil war and that Baghdad and Anbar provinces were the greatest security challenges. I recommended 

developing and implementing a plan to secure Baghdad as the first 

priority. I told him that the ISF were making good progress in building security capacity, but that we needed a major effort to restore 

public confidence in the police, particularly among the Sunni population, because of their perceived, and sometimes demonstrated, 

sectarian bias. I also told him that we were 18 to 24 months away 

from having the ISF to the point where they could operate without 

substantial coalition support. I encouraged him to build a strong, 

representative security team and to address the militia issue as 

matters of priority. He stated that he thought the 18 to 24 month 

timeline for the security forces seemed like a long time, and shared 

his view that the ISF were poorly trained and equipped, and in some 
100 

Strategic RefLEctions

cases infiltrated. I knew I would have to bolster the prime minister’s 

confidence in his ISF.

During another of our initial meetings, the Ambassador and I 

drew on our experiences with the previous transition and offered 

some thoughts for the first 100 days of the new government. We 

suggested a program based upon three tenets—Unity, Security, and 

Prosperity—and provided him with some recommendations to 

generate political momentum in these areas during his first days in 

office. We believed that the new government had to be perceived as 

representative of all Iraqis and seen as taking positive steps to reconcile the concerns of the ethnic and sectarian groups (Unity) as a 

complement to security efforts to halt the violence (Security). Once 

security was established, economic development could continue 

(Prosperity). We had numerous other sessions with Prime Minister 

al-Maliki in this interim period to ensure this wartime transition of 

power went as smoothly as possible.

Prime Minister al-Maliki and the majority of his cabinet were 

sworn in on May 20. The key security ministers could not be agreed 

upon in time for the parliamentary session, so the selection process 

for the security ministers continued into June. In our first meeting 

with the newly inaugurated prime minister, he agreed to the UnitySecurity-Prosperity construct that the Ambassador and I had laid 

out earlier. He stated that he wanted our help to formulate a shortterm plan to improve current conditions, and a longer term plan to 

resolve the more intractable issues facing Iraq. He asked to meet in a 

few days to discuss a plan that would lead to a “dramatic” improvement in the security situation in Baghdad. He also expressed concern 

about the situation in Basra where competition for wealth among the 
101

government transition

Shia population and increasing Iranian influence were making for a 

difficult security situation.

With so many pressing issues, the Ambassador and I worked 

to get only the most important issues in front of the prime minister 

to avoid overwhelming him in his first days. On the security side, I 

needed to help him assume his role of commander in chief of Iraqi 

forces, work with him to develop and take ownership of plans to 

secure Baghdad, familiarize him with the capabilities of his security 

forces, and, further down the road, familiarize him and his government with the plans to transition security responsibility to capable 

ISF. There were also two time-sensitive issues—the need to strike 

a Sadrist headquarters near Sadr City involved in kidnapping and 

murder, and a coming meeting in Baghdad with the Iranian foreign 

minister—that we needed him to focus on.

Earlier that month, one of our unmanned aerial vehicles had 

filmed a kidnapping and murder in Baghdad from start to finish. 

A man walking across a bridge was forced into a car and taken to 

a large walled complex that we knew to be a Sadrist headquarters. 

After his captors went inside for a period, they came out and drove 

the man to the outskirts of Baghdad where they shot him. The Ambassador and I took the videotape to the prime minister shortly after 

he was sworn in, showed it to him, and told him that we intended to 

conduct an operation to search the facility. He recognized the volatility of the tape, and asked me to hold off until he had some time to 

confer with his advisors and the presidency council. I agreed. After 

a few days, he told the Ambassador and me that he had decided that 

the public release of the tape at this time would have such a negative 

impact on the security situation that he was not going to release it. 
102 

Strategic RefLEctions

He also asked me not to conduct any operations against the facility. 

I reluctantly agreed (largely because we had seen carloads of material being removed from the facility in the intervening days). It was a 

troubling indicator so early in his tenure.

The other pressing issue was the visit of the Iranian foreign minister to Baghdad. By that time, we had strong evidence of the support 

that Iran was providing to the Shia militia. I thought it was important for the prime minister to have access to that evidence before the 

meeting. The Ambassador and I had Major General Rick Zahner, my 

deputy chief of staff for intelligence, lay out the evidence, which he 

did in such a compelling way that the prime minister commented at 

the end of the briefing that what the Iranians were doing was conducting terrorism in Iraq. We asked him to press the Iranian foreign 

minister to halt the support.

We had the first meeting with the newly inaugurated prime 

minister and the outgoing security team a few days after the inauguration. Because I wanted to have something ready to go for the new 

government, I had MNF-I review the lessons of Operation Scales of 

Justice and prepare a plan to secure Baghdad. As we presented the 

plan, it became immediately clear that the prime minister was not 

comfortable with accepting a plan that he and his advisors were not 

familiar with, especially without his own security team on board. 

It was critically important that the new government make the plan 

their own so that they felt responsible for its execution. We agreed 

to have a combined Iraqi-coalition team study and wargame the plan 

and report back to the prime minister. It would be a few more weeks 

before Prime Minister al-Maliki got his security team on board and 

approved the plan. 
103

government transition

It was a difficult time for the new prime minister, and the Ambassador and I worked to help him deal with the challenges he was 

confronted with while continuing to press for the actions that we 

knew were needed. It was a delicate balancing act. Civil-military 

interaction is difficult in any country, even in peacetime. Cross-cultural civil-military interaction in the middle of a war is even harder 

and requires patience and trust on all sides.

About 2 weeks into the prime minister’s tenure, he was able 

to gain consensus on his security team—the same day, as it turned 

out, that our special operations task force tracked down and killed 

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the longtime leader of al Qaeda in Iraq. 

The task force had been tracking him for some time and finally 

got a break. It located him in a house a few kilometers northwest 

of Baquba, about 30 kilometers north of Baghdad, and attacked 

the house with joint direct attack munitions, destroying the house 

and killing al-Zarqawi and nine members of his inner circle. We 

were able to get a Special Forces team to the house just as Iraqi 

police, who had responded to the explosion, were loading a body 

that turned out to be al-Zarqawi into an ambulance. The team took 

the body and brought it to Balad Airbase for identification. DNA 

samples and fingerprints were taken and sent to the United States 

for positive identification.

We made a decision to keep the operation very quiet until we 

were certain of the identification. We also wanted to ensure the new 

prime minister had the opportunity to announce the death. Shortly 

after the arrival of the remains in Balad, I got a call from LTG Stan 

McChrystal, who had seen the remains and confirmed that it was in 

fact al-Zarqawi. Based on that information, I called the Secretary of 
104 

Strategic RefLEctions

Defense and the Ambassador (I had already told General Abizaid), 

and we began planning for a morning announcement, pending positive 

identification. While we knew that this would be only a short-term 

setback for al Qaeda in Iraq, it was a significant success for our forces 

and for the new Iraqi prime minister. The next morning, Prime Minister al-Maliki announced al-Zarqawi’s death to the Iraqi people at an 

emotional press conference. Coupled with the announcement of the 

new security ministers, it was a rare good day in Iraq.

Camp David and June D.C. Consultations

As we worked to get the new government on board, we were 

also preparing for a major U.S. conference on Iraq policy at Camp 

David that would be followed by a surprise visit to Baghdad by 

President Bush to reinforce and energize the new government. The 

Ambassador and I were asked to give our strategic assessment of the 

situation and to lay out our campaign plan for the way ahead via 

secure video teleconference. We described the security situation as 

“complex as it’s been” because of the diversity of the violent groups 

that were now impacting security: Sunni extremists, Shia extremists 

(some directly supported by Iran), and the Sunni resistance. This 

made the term the Insurgency (which to date had been used to refer 

to the Sunni Arab rejectionist insurgency) less useful. We stated that, 

in the aftermath of the Samarra bombing, the fundamental nature of 

the conflict had changed from an insurgency against the coalition to 

a struggle among Iraq’s ethnic and sectarian groups for political and 

economic power in Iraq. To us this meant that enduring strategic 

success would only be achieved by Iraqis as they sought to enhance unity, improve security, and build prosperity. We laid out our 
105

government transition

campaign plan to grow the capabilities of the Iraqi government so 

that by the end of the 4-year tenure of the new government, it would 

be able to govern without our assistance. Because of the shift in the 

nature of the conflict and the added complexity that came with it, 

and the ground that was lost in the 6 months of government formation, we estimated that the new government would be hard-pressed 

to demonstrate substantial progress in the next 6 months, and that it 

would take us until early to mid 2007 to stabilize the security situation to the point that political and economic development could take 

place without significant disruption. We also estimated that it would 

take us until the end of 2009 to achieve our campaign endstate.5

We highlighted the continuing growth of the ISF in numbers 

and capabilities (while acknowledging the lagging development and 

sectarian issues with the police forces), the success we had been 

having against al Qaeda leadership and facilitation networks, and 

the inroads we were beginning to make with the Sunni resistance 

leaders. There was no doubt that we faced a tough 6 months, but 

there was some potential for advancement if the government of 

national unity could begin to bring the country together. To help 

move them in this direction, the Ambassador and I suggested the 

development of political “benchmarks” to replace the UNSCR 

timeline as a forcing function to drive the political progress essential 

to move the country forward. The benchmarks would include 

such important milestones as the amendment of the constitution, 

provincial elections, modification of de-Ba’athification policies, and 

militia disarmament. We had seen over time that, as difficult as the 

political issues were, if there was nothing to drive Iraqi leaders to 

make decisions on key issues, decisions would not get made and the 
106 

Strategic RefLEctions

country would not come together politically. If, as we had postulated, 

the struggle in Iraq was over the division of political and economic 

power, we needed a political alternative to violence as a means to 

resolve political issues. Unfortunately, we were not able to overcome 

the objections of the sovereign government of Iraq. It would be a 

significant void in our efforts throughout 2006 and beyond.

At the conclusion of the Camp David meeting, President Bush 

clandestinely departed the United States and flew to Iraq. He had private meetings with the Iraqi leaders, most importantly Prime Minister 

al-Maliki, and then met with the new cabinet as a group. His message 

was one of empowerment and support, and it had the intended energizing effect on the new prime minister and his government. While 

there, the President also met with and thanked the members of the 

Embassy and MNF-I, which was a great morale boost for the team.

About 2 weeks later, I returned to Washington to serve as the 

president of an Army promotion board for two-star generals, to get 

face-to-face feedback from the Camp David session on our planned 

way ahead, and to take some leave as I entered my third year in Iraq.

In my Pentagon discussions, I reemphasized the points that I had 

made at Camp David—namely that the sectarian violence had significantly complicated the security environment, but violence, though high, 

was not widespread (14 of the 18 provinces had less than nine reported 

incidents of violence/day); that it would take about 6 months to see if 

the new government could make a difference; and that army development remained on track, but that we needed a major effort to restore 

confidence in the police. I projected that we would be finished with 

the planned training and equipping of the ISF by the end of 2007, that 

we would have all of the Iraqi divisions leading operations by the next 
107

government transition

spring, and that we would have the Iraqi provinces responsible for their 

own security by the end of 2007. I believed that with the government 

of national unity in place, steadily improving ISF, and a still-substantial 

coalition presence, we could move Iraq forward in the next few years 

if—and it was a big if—the new government could begin to reconcile 

the divergent interests of Iraq’s ethnic and sectarian groups. 

My discussions with the Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs 

also focused on whether or not the time was right to continue 

the drawdown of U.S. forces. We had done a quarterly review in 

March and concluded that there had been insufficient time to assess the impact of the first off-ramp decision and that there was 

just too much uncertainty in the outcome of the government formation process to continue to draw our forces down at that time. 

Having recently completed our June assessment,6

 and discussions 

with corps and division commanders, we had concluded that we 

could reduce our forces by another three brigades (about 10,000 

people) over the course of the year and still maintain an appropriate level of security because of the continued development of 

the ISF. (In June, for the first time, we had almost as many Iraqi 

brigades and battalions leading operations as we had coalition 

brigades and battalions, 87 and 91, respectively.) We would retain the reserve in Kuwait and a force that could deploy from its 

home station on short notice to hedge against the uncertainty of 

the coming months. As Prime Minister al-Maliki and I had not 

completed our discussions on the proposal, a decision was put off 

until after my return to Iraq.

The question that we all wrestled with was why draw down 

coalition forces in the face of increasing sectarian violence. My 
108 

Strategic RefLEctions

thinking was that since the fundamental problem in Iraq was 

over the division of political and economic power, and that this 

conflict was the root cause of the sectarian violence, the ultimate 

solution would be political and not military. Furthermore, my 

experience had been that the longer we remained there in force, 

the more the Iraqis relied on us to solve their problems, and the 

less they moved forward on their own. I found this to be true at 

both the political and military levels. Finding the right force levels that would provide the right capacity for security, reduce Iraqi 

dependency on us, and foster resolution of the political issues at 

the heart of the violence was definitely more art than science.

I calculated that the specter of continued coalition reductions 

would reinforce the notion that the coalition was eventually leaving 

and create a sense of urgency in the new Iraqi government and its 

security forces that could spur the reconciliation that was so desperately needed for Iraq to go forward. We would still have a coalition 

force of over 120,000 and two of the three brigades on a short string 

to deploy to Iraq if we had miscalculated. I felt that I was taking a 

calculated risk that would take advantage of the seating of the constitutionally elected unity government to produce the substantial 

payoff of early reconciliation. 

Unfortunately, as I was having these discussions in Washington, 

al Qaeda in Iraq launched retaliatory suicide attacks following alZarqawi’s death, setting off a chain of events that made continuing 

the drawdown of our forces impractical in 2006, and I canceled the 

projected drawdown shortly after I returned to Iraq to begin my 

third year in command. With spiking sectarian violence and an unproven new government, I knew we were in for a tough 6 months. 
109

5. The Toughest Days

(July 2006–February 2007)

As I returned to Iraq at the end of June, I weighed our challenges and opportunities. After two governments in 2 years and a 

protracted government formation period for the third, we finally 

had an Iraqi constitution and a permanent and democratically 

elected Iraqi government based on that constitution. It was, at least 

nominally, a government of national unity, and it would need some 

time to establish itself, particularly with the sectarian tensions that 

it faced in the aftermath of the Samarra attacks. We continued to 

make progress with the ISF. The Iraqi army had held together fairly 

well through the sectarian violence, although we were starting to see 

the impact of political influence—political leaders threatening military leaders who took action against members of their factions—on 

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and General Casey sign documents returning 

operational control of Iraqi forces to government of Iraq, September 2006

AP Photo (Khalid Mohammed)
110 

Strategic RefLEctions

the willingness of the army to take operational risks. The national 

police’s effectiveness had been limited by absenteeism, lack of leadership, and, in some cases, direct involvement in sectarian violence. 

They would have to be completely reorganized to be effective. The 

local police were a mixed bag and still lagged the army in development. The initial operation that we mounted in Baghdad with 

the new government, Operation Together Forward, had, from its 

mid-June start, reduced violence in general and in the five areas of 

Baghdad where the sectarian violence was the worst. Unfortunately, 

al Qaeda had lashed out in late June with a series of suicide attacks 

that would continue into July, driving retaliatory attacks by Shia 

death squads that further inflamed the situation. The combination 

of the two—suicide attacks and death squad executions—had led to 

a spike in violence against civilians that we would have to contain. 

The situation was further complicated by continuing evidence of 

Iranian training and equipment support to Shia militias.

Adjusting the Plan

The first session that I had with my staff on my return was my 

monthly intelligence update. It was a sobering brief on the security 

situation, particularly around the capital. My intelligence officer 

highlighted the recent attacks by al Qaeda and the Shia death squad 

backlash and assessed that the tit-for-tat violence had become self-sustaining. He stated that he was beginning to see an almost predictable 

cycle of al Qaeda suicide attacks, followed in a few days by Shia death 

squad attacks against Sunni areas in Baghdad. The sectarian violence 

was focused in Baghdad and southwest Diyala Province and, in those 

areas, focused more on civilians than on Iraqi and coalition security 
111

the toughest days

forces.* The violence across the rest of the country remained relatively 

low, with the exception of Anbar Province where the violence was primarily directed against the coalition and not sectarian. In fact, around 

80 percent of the violence in Iraq continued to remain centered in 4 of 

its 18 provinces: Baghdad, Anbar, Diyala, and Ninewah. This finding 

was reinforced in the unit visits that I undertook in the first week following my return. The other disturbing finding was that my analysts 

were beginning to see a geographical component to the violence—that 

the Shia death squads may have been trying to drive Sunni families out 

of mixed neighborhoods to improve their control of Baghdad. If this 

were true, it would mark another worrisome shift in the conflict. It 

would bear careful watching. As I left this briefing, I began to rethink 

the plans to reduce our forces that I had discussed in Washington. 

The other major focus in early July was to refine the Baghdad 

security effort that we had begun in mid-June. Because of the need to 

get the new government to act quickly in the face of rising sectarian 

violence and the late appointment of the security ministers, the new 

Iraqi leadership had not participated in planning the initial operation 

to the degree that they desired. As they gained more experience, they 

wanted more of a role. I saw this as a positive step in that they were 

willing to begin to take ownership over the plan to secure their capital. 

So, while continuing with Operation Together Forward, we began 

working with the Iraqis to enhance our collective efforts in Baghdad to 

bring security to the capital by the end of the year. I told the MNC-I 

commander that Baghdad was our main effort and that he needed to 

*

 From May to mid-July 2006, 40 percent of the violent incidents in the 

Baghdad area were against civilians, 32 percent against the ISF, and 28 percent 

against the coalition.
112 

Strategic RefLEctions

develop a plan to secure Baghdad that was sufficiently weighted to ensure our long-term success. He began working with Iraqi military and 

police planners and crafted a plan based on an operational concept where 

joint (Iraqi and coalition forces) would clear areas of Baghdad of enemy 

control and then protect these areas while we improved the capacity of 

the ISF, and worked with the Iraqis to improve services (electricity, water, sewage) in the areas. MNC-I would simultaneously limit al Qaeda 

and death squad movement by creating a barrier around Baghdad linked 

to the canal system and channeling all traffic into Baghdad through 

checkpoints. In addition, the Iraqis would manage a system of fixed and 

mobile checkpoints around the city to further limit extremist mobility. 

MNC-I would also conduct targeted offensive operations against death 

squad and al Qaeda targets in Baghdad and in the surrounding support 

zones. This plan was worked painstakingly with Iraqi leaders to ensure 

that we had their buy in and strong commitment to its success. We had 

originally proposed beginning with clearing operations in Sadr City, but 

the prime minister did not support this action, and we began with a focus 

west of the Army Canal that divides Baghdad. The next phase of Operation Together Forward was approved for implementation by the prime 

minister and me in early August, and it began shortly thereafter.

As we worked through these adjustments, several conflicts that 

would hamper our efforts became clearer. I began to see that the 

prime minister and I had fundamentally different views of the threat. 

I felt that the Shia militias were the greatest threat to our ability to 

bring security to Baghdad and to long-term security in Iraq. I showed 

Prime Minister al-Maliki data that the casualties from death squads 

(largely Shia) far eclipsed the casualties from the more spectacular 

suicide attacks (largely al Qaeda). The prime minister believed that 
113

the toughest days

the “Ba’athists” (Sunni extremists) were the greater threat, and he 

expressed concern that we were putting all of our efforts against the 

militia and not enough against the Sunni extremists. I tried to counter 

this notion by having our special operations task force commander 

show him the scope of our significant effort against al Qaeda. He 

also believed that the Shia militia could be dealt with politically, but 

that the “Ba’athists” could only be dealt with by force. This was the 

reason he turned down our request for a major operation into Sadr 

City, where we thought the main militia threat was coming from. 

The prime minister also did not see the “geographical component” 

of the Shia violence, further impacting his reluctance to deal expeditiously with the militias. We would work on reconciling these views 

over time, but, as they were strongly held by both of us, they would 

cause increased friction between us as we wrestled with bringing security to Baghdad and Iraq. I note these conflicts to demonstrate the 

complexities of conducting military operations inside a sovereign 

country and the importance of political and military leaders having 

a common view of the threat to drive effective military operations.

Canceling the “Off-ramp.” By mid-July, we had concluded 

that our long-held assumption that the government of national 

unity would be seen as representative by most Iraqis and have 

a positive impact on the security environment was not going to 

hold true. The new government was seen as not representing the 

interests of a good portion of the population. The differences in 

threat view that I saw were also visible to Sunni leaders and only 

compounded their negative views of the government. It had also 

become clear that the Iraqis would not be able to secure their capital without more support from us.
114 

Strategic RefLEctions

In the weeks since my return from Washington, DC, given 

what had transpired in Iraq between mid-June and mid-July and 

the negative way the government was being perceived by the Sunni 

population, I realized that there would be no strategic payoff from 

drawing down coalition forces at this point, and that we needed to 

focus everything we had on securing Baghdad. This meant that we 

would have to forego the planned off-ramp of coalition forces that I 

had discussed in Washington in June.

As I was reversing myself from my June position, I wrote a 

personal, classified message to General Abizaid (whom I had kept 

abreast of my changing thinking), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff General Pace, and Secretary Rumsfeld. I described how the 

situation had changed since mid-June—the significant spike in violence against civilians that we saw in late June and early July, the 

reluctance of government leaders to limit the actions of militias and 

death squads, and the increasingly geographical nature of Shia death 

squad actions. I also related my discussions with the prime minister 

on the reductions—he was reluctant to see us take reductions now 

with the levels of violence so high.

I told them that I needed to keep more coalition troops in Iraq 

than I had expected to help the new Iraqi government contain the increasingly difficult situation, and that I needed a “full-court press” 

on the political side to jumpstart the reconciliation process as a complement to our security efforts. I asked to keep a brigade that I had 

intended to send home without replacement in order to reconstitute 

the reserve in Kuwait (we were bringing the current brigade forward 

to augment the Baghdad plan) and to establish a force ready to deploy 

on 30-days notice at home station in case of larger problems. I stated I 
115

the toughest days

would need these additional forces through the end of the year. I concluded by restating my belief that, while the extra forces would help 

the security situation in the short term, they would not have a decisive 

impact until Iraqi religious and political leaders committed to stop the 

sectarian killing.1 I was concerned that without a commitment by the 

Iraqis to a reconciliation process, our continuing resolution of the security problems would allow them to postpone the reconciliation that 

was essential to our collective long-term success. 

The request was approved expeditiously. This effectively canceled 

any further plans to reduce our forces through the end of the year,* although we did continue with our plans to pass security responsibility to 

Iraqi provinces as their security capabilities and local security situations 

warranted. The first Iraqi province to assume responsibility for its own 

security, the southern province of Muthanna, did so on July 13, 2006.

After we canceled our plans to reduce our forces, and as we continued our planning to secure Baghdad, the MNC-I commander 

approached me with an option to request a 90- to 120-day extension 

for a redeploying Stryker brigade to give us a mobile strike capability 

in Baghdad. After initial reluctance because of the turbulence caused by 

extensions, I agreed that the potential operational benefit in Baghdad at 

this critical time would be significant and requested the extension.

In retrospect, I waited too long to make the decision to cancel the 

drawdown and to extend the Stryker brigade, and this caused substantial turbulence at the tactical level. We had a deliberate process in 

place that we went through in June with our commanders in which 

the recommendation to off-ramp three brigades in 2006 was made. 

*

 In September, I revised this through the spring of 2007.
116 

Strategic RefLEctions

What we did not have in place was a deliberate process to revisit the 

decision as the situation changed visibly. In the end, it was a combination of unit visits, interactions with Iraqi leaders, and conversations 

with my subordinate commanders and staff that led me to change my 

mind. Reversing yourself is hard to do, especially when you have publicly committed yourself to a course of action, but it is something that 

every leader in war will have to do. The sooner you do it, the better. 

Looking Ahead. Over the course of my command, I tried to 

create an environment where we asked ourselves hard questions and 

challenged our assumptions. It was the only way to stay ahead of the 

complex and constantly changing situation.

So before I left for Washington in June, I had formed two Red 

Teams, one to examine ways to counter Iranian influence in Iraq and 

the other to see if we needed to rethink our strategic priorities in the 

face of rising sectarian violence. We had done reviews of the situation and our priorities in April with our commanders that led to our 

presentation at Camp David. These two Red Teams were designed to 

move our thinking beyond that level.

The team on Iranian influence concluded that the best way to 

counter Iranian influence was to counter the operations of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps–Quds Force, the action arm of 

Iranian interference in Iraq. We had good intelligence that they were 

providing training and modern equipment to Shia death squads, most 

notably the explosively formed penetrator, a particularly lethal IED 

that we had begun to see in large numbers in the Baghdad area in late 

2005. What we did not have was targetable intelligence to go after their 

operatives. To rectify that, we established an Iran fusion cell, a multidisciplinary intelligence collection and analysis center exclusively 
117

the toughest days

dedicated to countering malign Iranian influence in Iraq. As with all 

new intelligence operations, it took some time before it was producing actionable targets. At that point, I aligned the cell with our special 

operations task force to action the targets. The effort paid off handsomely in December when we caught several Quds Force operatives 

and confirmed a lot of what we suspected about Iranian activity.

The second Red Team reviewed our 2006 action plan in light of 

the recent violence and noted that while our priority in Baghdad was 

the correct strategic priority, it was “inadequately resourced across 

all lines of operation” and that the new government did not have 

the capacity to secure Baghdad without significant coalition support 

over the next 6 months, conclusions which played in my decision to 

cancel our planned troop reductions.

I reviewed the second Red Team assessment with the staff in late 

July. They generally agreed with the findings of the team, and I directed them to look across all of the lines of operation and determine 

what additional resources should be moved to Baghdad. Our original plan called for us to prioritize Baghdad and nine key cities.*

 We 

would keep moving forward outside Baghdad, but we would accept 

delays in other places in order to focus key resources on Baghdad.

In mid-August, the Ambassador and I convened our key staff 

and commanders to review the situation and to ensure that the new 

staff from the summer rotation understood the direction that we 

planned to head over the next 8 to 10 months. We laid out our priorities. Our first priority was to mass all of our efforts—military, 

political, economic, and informational—to secure Baghdad. Second, 

*

 We had refined our list of 15 key cities to 9 after the first election.
118 

Strategic RefLEctions

we had to sustain country-wide pressure on al Qaeda and the death 

squads to keep them out of Baghdad. Third, we needed to sustain 

progress “away from the ball”*—continuing to develop the ISF, 

especially the police; continuing to transfer security to Iraqi provinces that were ready to assume security responsibility; continuing 

our work with the PRTs to build capacity at the provincial level; 

and continuing with economic development around the country. In 

short, we needed to continue to execute our campaign plan where 

security conditions permitted, while we worked with the Iraqis to 

secure Baghdad.

The plan to enhance security in Baghdad was christened Operation Together Forward II, and it began in earnest in early August with 

the planned addition of 12,000 Iraqi (unfortunately, the Iraqi troops 

failed to arrive) and coalition troops to the Baghdad mission. The 

additional troops included five military police companies that would 

work as transition teams with the Iraqi police to shore up their staying power and evenhandedness—the two major issues we had with 

the local police. The plan also began a retraining program for the 

national police where a brigade at a time was pulled offline, refitted 

with equipment and retrained, and its leadership purged of sectarian 

influence. The program produced positive results over time.

With Operation Together Forward II, we sought to make a demonstrable improvement in the Baghdad security situation by the 

beginning of Ramadan (September 23–October 22). We expected to 

*

 I used a basketball analogy—“play away from the ball”—to make the point 

that securing Baghdad was a long-term proposition, and, as important as that was, 

it was not the whole country. We had to keep making progress in the rest of the 

country—“away from the ball”—while we worked to improve security in and 

around Baghdad.
119

the toughest days

see increased violence during Ramadan as we had every year.* This 

year the expected increase in violence was helped by a September 7 

call by the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, to kill an 

American in the next 15 days.

Clearing operations in the focus areas, the areas of highest sectarian violence, proceeded well, and violence decreased from July levels 

through the end of August. We intended to maintain momentum by 

expanding efforts to additional focus areas, completing the Baghdad 

barrier to limit extremist freedom of movement, consolidating our 

gains in the focus areas by improving security and basic services there, 

and maintaining pressure on al Qaeda and death squad leadership. As 

we cleared the focus areas, the terrorists and death squads shifted their 

efforts outside of the cleared areas and continued their attacks. By 

Ramadan, the operation had kept attacks against civilians and civilian 

casualties below July levels, but had not stopped the sectarian killings.

We continued to make gradual reductions in the sectarian violence and to keep the pressure on the al Qaeda and death squad leaders 

through Ramadan, but coalition forces bore the brunt of the violence. 

Most of the casualties were the result of IEDs, and almost 85 percent were in Baghdad or Anbar provinces. September was a difficult 

month, particularly because we were beginning to see indications that 

the Iraqi security forces were not performing to standard. Moreover, 

in some cases, particularly in the national and local police, we found 

active collaboration with the militia. Additionally, we were seeing 

very slow responses by the Iraqi government to bring services into the 

Sunni areas that had been cleared and in moving Iraqi brigades into 

*

 Historically, we had seen violent incidents increase by 15 to 20 percent during 

Ramadan.
120 

Strategic RefLEctions

Baghdad in support of the plan. There was also little movement on the 

Iraqi political front in support of the security efforts.

Civil-Military Relations

The lack of Iraqi political support to security efforts continued 

to be disappointing. In the types of operations we were conducting in Iraq, political and military actions are irrevocably linked. I 

strongly believed that until the Iraqis began to resolve the political issues that were dividing them, the rationale for violence would 

not be eliminated, and Iraq would continue to struggle, requiring 

the continued presence of coalition forces. I believed that they were 

capable of resolving these issues because I had seen them work together in the tough days before the January 2005 elections.

Throughout the late summer and early fall, there was a concerted 

U.S. effort to get the Iraqi government to agree to a series of “benchmarks” designed to establish a timeline for the resolution of the difficult 

political issues dividing the country. Issues such as reviewing the deBa’athification process, establishing a timeline for provincial elections, 

reviewing the constitution as promised before the December elections, 

and completing the hydrocarbon law needed to be resolved in order 

to better align political and economic power in the country—the issue 

at the heart of the violence. We believed that equitable movement on 

these issues would cause the government to be seen as more representative of the entire Iraqi population and ultimately lead to a lessening of 

the violence. Unfortunately, we lacked sources of leverage to move the 

Iraqis to action. They were a sovereign country with a duly elected government, and their leaders intended to exercise that sovereignty. They 

tended to act on their timelines and assessments, and the leaders that I 
121

the toughest days

dealt with, while conscious of their security responsibilities, did not see 

the situation as being as serious as it was believed to be in the United 

States and coalition countries. These differing views created friction and 

tensions in our relationships that required continuous attention. They 

also caused some on my staff to wonder whether the current government of Iraq and the U.S. Government had a common vision for the 

future of Iraq—a troubling question. 

I continuously worked to maintain a professional working 

relationship with all Iraqi political leaders. Building the relationship 

with Prime Minister al-Maliki was not easy for either of us, and it 

had its ups and downs because of our different cultural backgrounds, 

the inherent difficulty of civil-military interactions during war, and 

the fact that we were working on different timelines and responding 

to different constituencies. Going back to my earliest days in Iraq, I 

firmly believed that the Iraqi government had a better chance of being 

viewed as legitimate by Iraqis than the coalition, so we worked hard 

to make every prime minister successful. I felt that this was especially 

important with the new government, as they would be the ones who 

would ultimately guide their security forces to secure their country.

Prime Minister al-Maliki and I got off to a rough start when, in 

retrospect, I pushed too hard to get started on improvements to the 

Baghdad security plan in the early days of the new government. The 

prime minister came in with strong views on the ISF and the utility of 

force (he thought 3 years of coalition use of force had hurt more than 

it helped) that would take some time to reconcile, and events seemed 

to inject friction into our relationship almost daily. For example, at 

a meeting in August, he objected to reports in the U.S. media suggesting that he ordered attacks on Sunni but not Shia targets. He was 
122 

Strategic RefLEctions

concerned because it was not true and that it had reached President 

Bush. He wanted to know if it had come from me. It had not. I told 

him that I suspected that it had come from people below me who were 

upset with constraints on our operations in Sadr City.

At another meeting in September, where the deputy chief of the 

U.S. mission and I laid out the options for the next phase of operations to secure Baghdad, the prime minister told me that he thought 

I was second-guessing his decisions on military operations. I told 

him that I did not think that I was. He emphasized strongly that he 

made decisions based on his convictions about what was best for the 

country and not along sectarian lines. These were difficult sessions, 

but I was glad that he thought enough about the importance of the 

relationship to speak openly about what was on his mind. I came to 

realize that until we resolved our differing views of the threat—his 

seeing Ba’athists as the most dangerous threat, and my seeing the 

militia as the most dangerous—we would continue to be at odds. I 

continued to work to address those differences. 

Toward the end of October, one of our soldiers was kidnapped 

in downtown Baghdad. The division commander reacted quickly and established checkpoints throughout the city to recover the 

soldier. We kept the checkpoints in place while we ran down every 

lead. We had kept these checkpoints in place for a week when we 

heard that the Sadrists were pressuring the prime minister to remove 

the checkpoints. I called the division commander and asked if the 

checkpoints were still necessary. He stated that they were no longer 

necessary for finding the lost soldier, but that they had seen a general 

drop in violence during the week that the checkpoints were in place. 

The prime minister called the next day and asked for a meeting.
123

the toughest days

The Ambassador and I went to his office, and he was clearly agitated. He felt that we were inconveniencing a city of 8 million people 

to find one soldier. I told him that one soldier was important to us. He 

stated he wanted us to remove the checkpoints. I told him that if we 

did that, he could be seen as not caring for coalition forces, caving in to 

the Sadrists, and caring more about Shia than Sunni Iraqis, who were 

benefiting from the increased security of the checkpoints. If he was willing to accept those consequences, I told him that I would remove the 

checkpoints during the day, but keep them in place at night. He said 

that he accepted the consequences, and I instructed the division commander to open the checkpoints during the day. All of the consequences 

I predicted happened, but I felt that it was important for the new prime 

minister to understand that there were second- and third-order effects 

of his decisions.

I highlight these tensions for future senior leaders. Interaction 

between military and civilian leaders is always difficult in war. It is 

even more difficult with leaders from other cultures and countries. 

Trust is the important commodity in these relationships, and frank 

and open dialogue is the only way to maintain it. While the frictions 

in our relationship would continue, the prime minister and I worked 

hard to maintain an open dialogue.

During this time, I also had significant civil-military interaction 

with my own government. In early October, I returned to Washington 

to discuss plans for the next year. My key concern was how we were 

going to stop the sectarian violence and move the country forward. I 

told different administration audiences that the violence was hardening 

sectarian divisions within the country and that we needed a political 

track along the lines of the benchmarks that were being worked to 
124 

Strategic RefLEctions

complement the security effort. There were “chicken-egg” discussions about whether the security situation had to improve before the 

political track could begin. I strongly argued that both tracks needed to 

move forward simultaneously to be effective, and that it was important 

to get the Iraqis to commit to a political timeline—the benchmarks.

I also laid out our projections for 2007 that were conditioned on 

getting movement on the political side. We projected having all 10 of 

the current Iraqi divisions in the lead and under the operational control 

of the Iraqi Ground Forces Command by the spring. We projected having all Iraqi provinces responsible for their security by the fall. We also 

projected completing the planned development of the ISF by the end of 

2007, less the national police retraining and the completion of the prime 

minister’s initiative to expand the armed forces and police. Prime Minister al-Maliki’s initiative, which he directed shortly after taking office, 

added 50,000 soldiers to the army (an additional 2 division headquarters, 3 brigade headquarters, 12 battalions, and a 10 percent manning 

overage for existing units to offset absentee issues). It also included the 

reform of the national police mentioned previously and development of 

a national counterterrorism force. This would be a substantial enhancement to their capabilities. It would take until the late summer of 2007 

to complete police reform and until the end of the year to complete the 

prime minister’s initiative. As I had informed the Service chiefs that I 

would need the forces I had through at least the spring of 2007, there 

were no discussions of additional troop reductions. I cautioned that we 

were in a difficult period and that the risks remained substantial.

On my return to Iraq, as we continued to address the security issues in Baghdad and contain the Ramadan surge in violence, I visited 

the coalition divisions and some of their brigades to get a first-hand 
125

the toughest days

view of how things were going on the ground. With the exception of 

the units in the Baghdad area, most were reporting continued progress. I was particularly pleased with a visit to Ramadi, the capital of 

Anbar Province, where the new unit had made significant progress 

since August, pushing al Qaeda out of the city and implementing the 

security force plan for the province that the previous prime minister 

had approved. The combination of our military actions against al 

Qaeda and the hiring of security forces from Anbar, vetted by their 

tribal leaders, was galvanizing the tribes in Anbar against al Qaeda.

At the end of October, President Bush and Prime Minister alMaliki agreed to establish a working group to accelerate the pace and 

training of the ISF, the Iraqi assumption of command and control over 

the ISF, and the transfer of security responsibility to the Iraqi government. As we worked with the Iraqi security leadership and our 

subordinate units to operationalize this agreement in November, we 

were adamant that it had to be accompanied by an Iraqi-led reconciliation effort to be successful. I thought that might be our leverage—if 

the Iraqis wanted to advance the time when they would control their 

security forces, they would have to take the steps toward reconciliation that were essential for our collective, long-term success.

The Ambassador and I suggested an integrated political-military 

framework to demonstrate how political actions and security actions 

could be mutually reinforcing and lead to our long-term success (see 

figure 5-1). The framework began with the Council of Representatives (COR) debating and passing a series of laws that would codify 

the division of political and economic power—hopefully in a manner that represented the interests of all ethnic and sectarian groups. 

This would be followed by reconciliation and militia disbandment 
126 

Strategic RefLEctions

efforts that would culminate in an amnesty agreement that would 

be implemented over a period of time. This agreement would be 

followed by provincial elections and a referendum on amendments 

to the constitution to make it a truly national compact. The entire 

political process would be supported by security and stabilization 

operations that would establish security in Baghdad and nine other 

key cities and the ultimate assumption of security responsibility by 

the ISF. What we tried to replicate was the type of political timeline 

that we had through the end of 2005 that drove Iraqi actions. We 

were unsuccessful in gaining acceptance of it by the Iraqis.

On November 8, the President accepted Secretary Rumsfeld’s 

resignation from his position as Secretary of Defense in the aftermath 

of the midterm election where Republicans lost control of both the 

Senate and House. While he agreed to stay on until his replacement 

was confirmed, this reinforced to all of us the deep dissatisfaction with 

how the war in Iraq was going. The administration’s Iraq Strategy Review that I had heard about in October kicked into high gear, leading 

to the most complex period of my command. In the last 2 months of 

2006, we were simultaneously revising and intensifying our efforts in 

Baghdad, planning for 2007, working with the prime minister and his 

security team to eliminate malign political influences on the security 

forces and to build Iraqi political support for the Baghdad mission, 

dealing with Washington’s concerns about the direction of the mission, and managing the transition of a new corps.

Military Operations in Baghdad

In November, we began adapting the Baghdad security plan to 

deal with the evolving threat. With the exception of the Ramadan 
127

the toughest days

Flag, Emblem

& National Anthem

Law Approved

Provincial Powers

Law Approved

Provincial Election 

Law Approved

Set Conditions 

for Reconciliation

Stabilization and 

Reconciliation

Seal National Compact Complete Transition 

to Self-reliance

Investment Law 

Approved

Hydrocarbon

Law Approved

Militia Law

Approved

De-Ba’athification

Law Approved

Insurgent Reconciliation

Amnesty Agreement Approved

Provincial Elections

Constitutional Referendum

Security Stabilization

Transition Security to Iraqi Control

Militia Disbandment

Amnesty Agreement Implemented

Figure 5-1. Framework for Integrating Political-Military Efforts, Fall 2006
128 

Strategic RefLEctions

increase in violence, we had kept violence against civilians and casualties below July levels, and we were holding steady in the cleared 

areas, but the level of violence was still unacceptably high.

In one of our early November security meetings, the prime minister and security ministers had just returned from a closed session 

with the Council of Representatives on the security situation. It was a 

seminal meeting in that all of the Iraqi security team spoke their views 

forcefully and openly. Interestingly, the prime minister reported that 

the prevailing COR view was that the problem in Iraq was not security, but political. He stated that the COR agreed that the ISF were 

free to operate anywhere in Iraq and would issue a statement to that 

effect—good news if it held up. He claimed that there was increasing 

evidence that the Ba’athists were the greatest danger and expressed 

concern that they could influence the Iraqi army. I countered that 

there were two sides killing civilians in this fight and what was required was a balanced security effort against all the armed groups. 

The prime minister agreed that all threats should be attacked, but said 

that some could be better dealt with politically and others with force. 

Our different view of the threat was still there.

At the end of the meeting, the prime minister laid out a list of 

things he wanted his ministers to do, and clearly empowered them 

to conduct operations against all militant groups—the militia, 

Ba’athists, and terrorists—something that was sorely needed. He 

also authorized us to conduct operations into Sadr City against the 

indirect fire teams that were targeting the Green Zone and sections 

of Baghdad. It was good to see this sense of urgency.

The Iraqi leadership continued to frame their thinking over the 

intervening days, and when I met the prime minister 2 weeks later, he 
129

the toughest days

was clearer in his intent. He wanted to make a national statement that 

no one was above the law and that anyone acting against the government would be subject to swift action from the Iraqi security forces. 

He planned to obtain political support from all of the major parties for 

this in advance. He then wanted to follow this up with major Iraqi-led 

operations against both Sunni terrorists and Shia militia to demonstrate the strength of the ISF and the commitment of the government 

to end the violence. I was impressed with his energy and commitment.

Unfortunately, the next day six car bombs hit Sadr City killing 

or injuring more than 400 people, sending us into the crisis action 

mode. The security team responded quickly as they sought to limit 

retaliation and prevent another incident. As the crisis passed, work 

on the broader security plan for Baghdad continued.

As we were also in the throes of another MNC-I transition, I 

wanted to use the fresh eyes of the new leaders and the experience 

of the departing leaders to improve our efforts in Baghdad. Securing 

a city of 8 million people that was about the size of “inside-theBeltway” Washington, DC, was no easy task, and we continually 

looked for ways to improve our security efforts. The Baghdad division changed out on November 15. I immediately sat down with the 

new division commander and his corps’s commander. We told the division commander to take a blank sheet of paper and craft a plan, in 

conjunction with the Iraqis, to secure Baghdad. We gave him 30 days 

to report back with a plan and what he would need to execute it.

I had also directed the outgoing MNC-I commander to put 

together a 120-day assessment of corps’s efforts in Baghdad. He 

gave us the assessment before he departed on December 14. While 

he pointed to the successful tactical efforts to clear areas of Baghdad 
130 

Strategic RefLEctions

and to target death squad and al Qaeda leadership that had mitigated 

but not substantially reduced the levels of sectarian violence in the 

city, he was clearly frustrated at our inability to sustain our tactical 

successes. He reported that, in general, the clearing operations were 

successful, but the Iraqis lacked the staying power and sometimes 

the will to hold the cleared areas after coalition forces left. The Iraqis 

were also very inconsistent in delivering services to the cleared areas. 

He pointed specifically to:

◆ inability of Iraqis to deliver promised units to Baghdad

◆ Iraqi political constraints on military action, most notably 

in Sadr City where the bulk of the death squad activity 

came from

◆ militia infiltration of security forces, primarily police

◆ lack of policies limiting militia and the carrying of weapons

◆ ineffectiveness of the Baghdad barrier system because of 

unprofessional and corrupt conduct at the checkpoints by 

the ISF

◆ political interference with ISF leaders.

I had gotten the same sense of frustration from the Baghdad division commander and the Diyala brigade commander before they 

left. They did not see the Iraqi political support necessary for our security efforts to take hold. They felt as if we wanted Baghdad secure 

more than the Iraqi leaders. This was troubling as it threatened our 

partnership with the Iraqis, which was at the core of our efforts to 

secure Iraq. I resolved to address this with the prime minister before 

we launched the next iteration of our Baghdad efforts. 
131

the toughest days

The report was not all negative. Curfews, driving bans, and 

Army Canal checkpoints proved effective. The Iraqi army was 

proving adept at holding areas, and the Iraqis were getting better 

at coordinating army, national police, and local police operations 

through a joint command center that they had established. All of 

these were necessary to move forward.

We blended our lessons with the proposals made by Prime Minister al-Maliki and the Iraqi security ministers. There was general 

agreement that there were too many stationary checkpoints tying 

up Iraqi forces and that these needed to be reduced to free up forces 

for offensive operations. There was general agreement that the ISF 

needed to be on a more offensive footing like the coalition, patrolling and conducting targeted operations against terrorists and death 

squads. The Iraqis also perceived a need for more joint operations—

coalition, army, police—as a means of building trust between the 

Iraqi army and police forces and suppressing the likelihood that any 

Iraqi forces would succumb to sectarian influences. They suggested 

joint security stations across Baghdad, located in selected local police stations, where coalition, Iraqi army, and police forces would 

be based and operate out of to bring security to the surrounding 

areas. Finally, we worked with the Iraqi leaders to establish an Iraqi 

command structure for Baghdad. While I had originally envisioned a 

joint coalition/Iraqi command for Baghdad, the Iraqis convinced me 

that they were capable of taking command, still with our support. 

They were taking ownership of the mission to secure their capital, 

which was essential for our success. 

The operational structure established for Baghdad was composed of two commands, one east and one west of the Tigris River 
132 

Strategic RefLEctions

that almost bisected Baghdad, under a Baghdad operational command, headed by an Iraqi three-star who would report directly to 

the prime minister. Each of the commands would be joint army/

police commands, one (east of the river) commanded by an army 

division commander with a police deputy and the other (west of 

the river) commanded by a police two-star with an army deputy. 

Each of the nine Iraqi districts in Baghdad would come under the 

command of an Iraqi army or police brigade augmented by the 

local police assigned to the district and a coalition battalion. This 

structure made sense from a military perspective, and it allowed 

the prime minister to better fix responsibility on his Iraqi military 

and police leaders. It also lessened the likelihood of the Iraqi forces becoming involved in sectarian violence as everyone—army, 

police, and coalition forces—would be watching each other.

The plan called for five additional brigades to be moved to Baghdad (three Iraqi and two coalition) and the execution of a phased 

effort to establish long-term security. In the first phase, 35 joint 

security stations would be established and occupied by Iraqi and 

coalition forces. This was a significant logistical and construction 

effort that we estimated would take around 6 weeks to complete. Inplace Iraqi and coalition forces would continue their security efforts 

to sustain pressure on the extremists during this phase. Then areas 

would be cleared, expanded, and held by the joint forces, and, over 

time as violence lessened, the ISF would assume full responsibility 

for the security of their capital. The fact that forces would flow into 

Baghdad over time actually helped us in that the new forces ensured 

that we could continue to hold and expand cleared areas—something that had eluded us in the previous efforts. 
133

the toughest days

On December 23, the minister of defense briefed the plan to Prime 

Minister al-Maliki. He laid out the operational concept mentioned 

above, and recommended to the prime minister that the military operations be accompanied by robust media, political, and economic 

reconstruction campaigns to ensure sustained political support for the 

operations. He recommended closing Iraq’s borders for a period of 

time to limit the entry of external threats into the country during this 

critical period. He also recommended that the prime minister address a 

commanders’ conference to provide his intent directly to the army and 

police commanders who would be executing the plan. On the question of timing, always difficult in civil-military discussions, the MOD 

estimated that it would take about a month from the prime minister’s 

approval before the nine-district command structure would be up and 

functioning (which I thought was optimistic by a few weeks). He said 

that operations in two of the districts would begin right after the first 

of the year and that sustaining operations would also continue across 

Baghdad while the command structure and bases were established. We 

had jointly pressed to kick off offensive operations with the New Year. 

Unfortunately, the movement of forces and construction of the joint 

security stations would take longer than we had hoped. We agreed that 

we should not announce the start of a big operation early on, but rather 

to begin the operations, construct the joint security stations, flow in additional forces, and let the people see the accomplishments of the forces.

The prime minister approved the plan right before Christmas, and I 

clarified with him that he was also approving the deployment of two additional coalition brigades in support of the plan. He acknowledged that 

he was, but was clear that he wanted to downplay the significance of 

the deployment of additional coalition forces. This left two remaining 
134 

Strategic RefLEctions

issues—the appointment of the commander and the prime minister’s 

speech in which he would publicly empower the security forces to take 

action against “all who broke the law.” Both of these would be resolved 

after the first of the year.

For the commander, Prime Minister al-Maliki chose a relative unknown, at least to the coalition, Lieutenant General Qanbar 

Abud, who had worked directly for the prime minister, and was 

clearly someone whom he trusted. I was initially uncomfortable 

having someone so unknown to us responsible for our main effort, 

and I had several sessions with the prime minister where I expressed 

my concerns. In the end, he appointed him, telling me that if Abud 

proved that he was not up to the job, I should let him know and he 

would replace him. In the end, the general proved a capable choice.

In his Army Day speech on January 6, the prime minister laid 

out the key points we had been looking for from him to empower 

his security forces. He stated that the government would:

◆ “Not permit any political authority to weaken our armed 

forces . . . because weakening the army will lead to delaying the process of receiving the security responsibility 

from the MNF”

◆ “Not allow any militias, regardless of their belongings, to 

be a replacement for the state”

◆ “Enforce the law against all those who infringed the sacred 

rights of the Iraqi people.”

With respect to the Baghdad security plan, he reemphasized that 

the government would not tolerate political interference, that the 
135

the toughest days

security forces would pursue all “outlaws, regardless of the sectarian 

or political affiliation,” and that military commanders would be given 

“all authorities to execute the plan.” He closed by calling on the people 

of Baghdad to support and assist their armed forces. We, and our Iraqi 

military and police colleagues, finally felt that we had the political 

backing that had been lacking to pursue both the Sunni and Shia 

extremists who were fomenting sectarian violence. It was a good start.

Washington Policy Review

As we were wrestling with the tactical and operational challenges brought on by sectarian violence and the change in the 

nature of the mission, Washington was grappling with its strategic 

implications. I was informed about a review of the Iraq strategy 

in October by General Pace, but, from my perspective, it did not 

begin in earnest until after Secretary Rumsfeld’s resignation in 

early November.

As part of this process, I met with the Iraq Study Group, 

a congressionally appointed, bipartisan commission, by video 

teleconference in early November. I had spoken to the group in Iraq 

in August, and they asked to speak to the Ambassador and me again 

before they finalized their report. I made five points with them:

◆ Conflict in Iraq is about the division of political and economic power among Iraqis.

◆ Sectarian violence is the greatest threat to the accomplishment of our strategic objectives. Reconciliation among 

Iraqis is essential for our success.
136 

Strategic RefLEctions

◆ Enduring strategic success will only be achieved by Iraqis—

and it will take longer than we want even to get to “Iraqi OK.”*

◆ We are two-thirds of the way through a three-step process 

to bring the Iraqis to the point where they can credibly assume security responsibility by the end of 2007.

◆ We have adapted and adjusted our strategy, plans, and 

troop levels to meet the changing dynamics of the situation 

on the ground.

Their questions were good ones: Why wasn’t the Baghdad security 

plan having greater effect? Is the prime minister the right guy, and 

is he willing to go after the militias? Should we transition without 

reconciliation? I answered these questions and told them that we 

were in no danger of losing militarily, and that more coalition troops 

would have a temporary and local effect on the security situation. I 

also commented that more coalition forces at this point would give 

Iraqi leaders more time to avoid hard decisions on reconciliation and 

ultimately prolong our time there.

The report was released on December 6 and offered 79 recommendations advocating internal and external approaches to reverse 

what they called a “grave and deteriorating” situation. I was heartened to see the co-chairs note in their opening letter that there were 

no “magic formulas” to solve Iraq’s problems and that no one could 

“guarantee” that any course of action would work to stop the sectarian violence. Externally, they recommended a diplomatic offensive 

*

 I used the term Iraqi OK to make the point that we were trying to get Iraq to 

a level that was acceptable to Iraqis, and not imposing U.S. or European standards 

on them.
137

the toughest days

to build international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region. 

Internally, they recommended that the United States “adjust its role 

to encourage the Iraqi people to take control of their own destiny.” 

On the military side, they recommended accelerating the assumption 

of security responsibility by Iraqis and changing the primary mission 

of U.S. forces to one of “supporting the Iraqi army.” They also recommended that the United States work closely with Iraqi leaders “to 

support the achievement of specific objectives—or milestones—on 

national reconciliation, security and governance”—something that we 

had been trying to establish for months with the benchmarks.2

I also had visits from the National Security Advisor and his deputy at the end of October and early November, respectively. As I did 

with most visitors, I did not accompany them as I felt that through 

our frequent video teleconferences, they knew what I thought. I 

wanted them to hear from my subordinate leaders without any impression of influence. I did review their itineraries to ensure where 

they went enabled them to meet their trip objectives and I met with 

them to answer their questions.

In mid-November, shortly after my video teleconference with 

the Iraq Study Group, I was informed that the Deputy National 

Security Advisor was working to get the strategy review to the President before the end of November. A week later I sat through a video 

teleconference with the Joint Chiefs to discuss their independent 

strategy review to help General Pace shape his military advice for 

a meeting with the President later that week. Their proposal was to 

accelerate passing the security lead to the Iraqis. It was based on two 

big ifs—achieving unity of effort with the Iraqi government and the 

government making progress on reconciliation. It proposed shifting 
138 

Strategic RefLEctions

our main effort to training and partnering with the ISF, which was 

the approach that we were working.

While it did not seem to me to be connected to the proposed 

strategy, we also discussed sending five additional brigades to Iraq 

by mid-April for 3 to 9 months to help get the security situation 

under control. I told the Joint Chiefs that we could certainly put 

the additional forces to use and that they would have a temporary, 

local effect where we put them, but questioned the impact that the 

additional forces would have on the Iraqis’ incentives to resolve their 

differences. I felt that the longer we remained responsible for their 

security (the impact of the additional forces), the less incentive they 

would have to resolve their own differences, which was essential to 

our long-term success. I also cautioned that, if we did send them in, 

we should not accept any limits on their employment from the Iraqi 

government, and require progress on reconciliation as prerequisites 

for bringing in additional forces. We needed to get something substantial from the Iraqis for such a significant additional expenditure 

of U.S. forces. In his feedback from the session with the President, 

General Pace told me that there had been no decisions, but to expect 

a decision on the new way ahead by the third week in December.

On November 30, President Bush and Prime Minister al-Maliki 

met for the third time, this time in Amman, Jordan. In a video teleconference a few days before, Mr. Hadley discussed the objectives for 

the meeting with the prime minister, noting that it was an opportunity 

for al-Maliki to explain his intended direction for the unity government to the President so that he could support him in his efforts. Mr. 

Hadley proposed three topics for the delegation meeting: an update 

from the prime minister on the situation in Iraq, a U.S. update on the 
139

the toughest days

Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, and a report on the joint committee 

for accelerating the transfer of security responsibilities that the prime 

minister and President Bush had agreed to the month before. The prime 

minister agreed to the proposed agenda and during the intervening days 

also had his staff draft a proposal for securing Baghdad that contained 

many of the proposals that we had been discussing with the ministers. 

The important element was that it was his plan. Although it was not 

what we would think of as a military plan, it was a good overview of the 

policies and principles that he saw as important to succeed in Baghdad, 

which we could incorporate into the ongoing, collective coalition and 

Iraqi military planning efforts.

I took advantage of a few minutes with the President before 

the meeting to update him on the three topics and encouraged him 

to reiterate that the prime minister must have militia reintegration 

and reconciliation strategies for us to proceed with the accelerated 

transition programs, and to support the prime minister’s proposed 

security plan for Baghdad. During the meeting, the two leaders exchanged views on the situation, and al-Maliki discussed his Baghdad 

plan and asked for the President’s support to help it succeed. The 

President agreed. They also discussed the work of the joint committee and agreed that any accelerated transition was dependent on 

the security situation, reconciliation, and militia reintegration. The 

meeting concluded with a joint press conference in which the President reiterated what he and the prime minister had talked about. 

President Bush went on to call the meeting with the prime minister 

“a key part of the assessment process”—the review of Iraq strategy.

The first week in December, the pace of the review picked up 

substantially. It began with a video teleconference with the NSC on 
140 

Strategic RefLEctions

December 1, in which I gave an update on the current situation. To 

demonstrate that the country was not “aflame,” I began with a slide 

that showed that only four of Iraq’s provinces (Anbar, Baghdad, 

Saladin, and Diyala) had averaged more than 10 reported attacks per 

day in the 6-month period from May through November, the height 

of the sectarian violence. I showed another slide showing that only 

two of Iraq’s provinces (Baghdad and Diyala) had averaged more 

than three sectarian casualties per day during that same period. The 

rest averaged less than one per day.

Our problem was Baghdad, and it was significant. Most striking 

was the fact that we were averaging more than 40 civilian casualties per 

day in Baghdad over that period and between 150 and 250 deaths per 

week as a result of sectarian violence. This was clearly unacceptable. I 

also showed that the vast majority of civilian fatalities were caused by 

the largely Shia death squads as opposed to the suicide attacks of the 

Sunni extremists. I closed with a slide that showed how we had substantially increased our operations against both Sunni extremists and 

the death squads since the summer to demonstrate the level of offensive 

action we were taking. In November alone, we had killed or captured 

over 800 extremists and death squad members in targeted operations.

In early December, General Pace called to say that my session 

to provide input to the President on the strategy review would be on 

December 12. It would be preceded by a session with outside experts 

on the 11th and followed on the 13th by a meeting with the President 

and Joint Chiefs. He expected a decision and the announcement of the 

results before Christmas. This was not my only session during the review. In the week of December 8–15, we had five video teleconferences 

with the NSC. The issues covered ranged from how to ensure the sup-
141

the toughest days

port of the Iraqis, to the potential size and composition of a “civilian 

surge” to accompany a surge in military forces, to how to deal with a 

confrontation with the Sadr militia, to how to enhance operations in 

Anbar Province. It was the policy process at work—a meeting with the 

NSC, questions, scrambling for answers, staff meetings to prepare for 

the next meeting of the NSC, another NSC meeting, and a repetition 

of the cycle. It was all focused on framing the issues and providing the 

best information possible to permit the President to make the most informed decision. In the end, there was general agreement that success in 

Iraq was essential to our national security and that, while reconciliation 

was essential, there would have to be a reduction in sectarian violence 

to allow reconciliation to take place, which would, in turn, provide for 

a more stable longer term outcome.

My session on December 12 included General Abizaid. I used 

the opportunity to lay out my proposed way ahead. I proposed an 

integrated political-military effort to stabilize the country and pass 

security responsibility to the Iraqis in 2007 as had been agreed in 

Amman. I was clear that the Iraqis would still require coalition 

support beyond 2007 and that the level of that presence should 

be negotiated with the Iraqis over the course of 2007. I stated that 

accomplishing what I proposed would require coalition forces to:

◆ assist the ISF in quelling sectarian violence and neutralizing the extremists

◆ support Iraqi efforts on reconciliation and dismantling militias

◆ complete the training and equipping of the ISF by the end 

of 2007
142 

Strategic RefLEctions

◆ continue our efforts against al Qaeda, death squads, and 

Iranian surrogates.

We would also continue to work with the Embassy to build Iraqi 

institutional capacity at the national and provincial levels and to continue economic development.

I also highlighted the risks involved, which were not insignificant, and more on the political than the military side. I worried 

primarily about the ability of the Iraqi leadership to take the necessary political steps to support our security operations—reconciling 

the interests of the different ethnic and sectarian groups, dealing with 

militia and illegal armed groups, giving our forces free rein to attack 

hostile targets, and eliminating political interference with the ISF.

I knew there was a push to move five U.S. brigades into Iraq 

to deal with the security situation. I had asked for two to meet the 

needs of the Baghdad security plan and two battalions of Marines 

to maintain our momentum in Anbar Province, so I offered my 

thoughts on bringing more forces than that into Iraq. I stated that 

additional forces:

◆ would have a temporary, local effect in reducing sectarian 

violence where they were committed

◆ could provide breathing space for a committed government 

to address militia and reconciliation challenges

◆ would place the new forces in a complex environment 

where consent for their presence was diminishing

◆ could extend the time it takes to pass security responsibility
143

the toughest days

◆ would result in additional coalition casualties

◆ would not have a decisive effect without government commitment to reconcile and deal with the militias.

After watching the impact on our Baghdad division of having 

to operate in such a complex, politically constrained environment, I 

was very concerned about bringing fresh U.S. troops into the middle 

of a sectarian conflict in an Arab country where there was not clear 

political support for their actions. I felt very strongly that I would 

not ask for one more American Servicemember than needed to accomplish our mission, especially in this environment.

This was an intense period as it was clear that Washington was 

looking for something different from what I was recommending to 

them. I worked hard to provide my military advice dispassionately, 

as I felt that I was providing the President only one of the many options he was reviewing. I believe that a President is best served by 

having a variety of options to choose from. I had said all along that 

success in Iraq would take patience and will and believed that what 

I was recommending—to accelerate the transition of security to capable Iraqis in exchange for their action to solve the core problem 

in Iraq, that is, reconciling the interests of the different ethnic and 

sectarian groups—offered the most effective way to accomplish 

our strategic objectives in Iraq. I believed that I had asked for the 

troops that I needed to accomplish our operational objectives, and 

that, if the prime minister delivered on his pledges to the President 

to allow our forces and the ISF to operate freely without political 

interference, we would bring security to Baghdad by the summer. 

I felt that additional troops beyond that would risk introducing 
144 

Strategic RefLEctions

them into a very confusing and difficult operational environment 

without a plan for how their introduction would contribute to the 

accomplishment of our strategic objectives. I remained adamantly 

opposed to that.*

In retrospect, I believe that I should have directly offered the 

President a broader range of options for achieving our objectives in 

Iraq. I had discussed different options for improving the security 

situation with the Secretary of Defense and Chairman: accelerated 

transition of security responsibility; local (with in-country forces), 

small, and large coalition reinforcement; coalition withdrawal on a 

fixed timeline; and maintaining the status quo. Only the accelerated 

transition and reinforcement were actively considered. In the end, I 

only presented the President the course of action we selected—accelerated transition—and I believe that I should have offered him a 

wider range of options to meet his policy needs.

The pace kept up in the weeks before Christmas. MNC-I 

swapped out on December 14, bringing a new team into the complex environment. Secretary Rumsfeld departed on the next day 

after coming to Iraq earlier that month for a farewell visit. Secretary Robert Gates took over 3 days later and made his first visit to 

Iraq as the Secretary of Defense on December 20 with General Pace. 

General Abizaid and I met with them and laid out our views on the 

situation. Secretary Gates was familiar with the issues as he had been 

sitting in on the video teleconferences during the strategy review. 

We also continued to work with Iraqi leaders to finalize the plan to 

*

 While we did our own course of action analysis in December and studied 

the logistical implications of bringing in the additional forces, we had ideas, but no 

operational plans, for the additional three brigades. These would be developed by 

MNC-I in February and March before the forces flowed into Iraq.
145

the toughest days

secure Baghdad until we received the prime minister’s final approval 

on December 23.

In the middle of all this, our efforts to target Iranian operatives 

paid off with the capture of six Iranians who appeared to be engaged 

with Iraqi militia in planning for the expansion of Shia-controlled areas in Baghdad. It was the first time that we had clear evidence of this. 

Four of the six had ties to the Iranian embassy and were released in a 

few days. We believed that the other two were Quds Force operatives 

who had entered Iraq under false names and had no right to diplomatic status, so they were held as we continued to evaluate the material 

that was discovered with them—maps, weapons receipts, and money. 

The most disturbing element was that they appeared to be working 

very closely with Badr Corps operatives. The Badr Corps was a militia 

with close ties to one of the main Shia political parties.

I continued my Christmas tradition of visiting the troops and 

thanking them for their work before heading back to Washington for 

some face-to-face discussions. During my session with General Pace 

at the end of December, he informed me of major pending decisions 

on the Iraq strategy by the President and his national security team. 

Specifically, he told me that our “2 + 2” proposal (two brigades for 

Baghdad and two battalions for Anbar) had been judged as “too modest,” and that, while there was not yet a final decision, he expected one 

by the end of the month that would add a total of five brigades and 

supporting forces. We took some time so he could be clear on the difference between my request and the likely Presidential decision.

I was asking for the two brigades that we needed to implement the Baghdad plan and two Marine battalions to maintain 

our momentum in Anbar Province, about 9,000 troops. We 
146 

Strategic RefLEctions

expected the first brigade to flow in by mid-January, the second 

by mid-February. The additional three brigades, if approved, 

would flow at the rate of one per month, if they were required. 

(I knew that I would be leaving shortly and wanted to give my 

successor as much flexibility as possible by having the option to 

turn off deployments if he decided he did not require the additional brigades.*

) A few days later, the Chairman informed me 

that the President had decided on the five-brigade surge and that 

the President intended to nominate LTG Dave Petraeus to replace 

me. I had provided the President my military advice on what I felt 

was the best approach to accomplish our strategic objectives in 

Iraq as rapidly as possible. He chose a different course of action. 

His decision was disappointing to me, to say the least, but I immediately set out to make it successful.

As Washington prepared for the rollout of the “surge” strategy, 

we were working hard to set the conditions for its success and to 

finalize the plans for securing Baghdad. This included a video teleconference between President Bush and Prime Minister al-Maliki on 

January 4 to ensure that they shared a common understanding of the 

new Baghdad security plan and that the prime minister was prepared 

to provide the political support for the coalition and Iraqi forces that 

was essential for the success of the plan.

During the video teleconference, the President informed the 

prime minister of his inclination to increase coalition troop levels 

provided that they reach “a common understanding.” The President 

*

 Army Chief of Staff General Pete Schoomaker told me that I was being 

considered to replace him in the spring, and Secretary Gates confirmed this during 

his visit to Baghdad. Secretary Gates offered me the Army chief’s job, which I 

accepted before I returned to Iraq in early January.
147

the toughest days

was frank, stating that the additional coalition forces were meant to 

help the Iraqis break the back of terrorism to help accelerate the 

transfer of responsibility to the Iraqi government. He noted that 

the United States was willing to commit to help secure Baghdad, 

but that Iraqi commitment was also very important. He told Prime 

Minister al-Maliki that he needed him to publicly state his government’s commitment prior to the President’s planned address to the 

American public on January 10. The prime minister was cautious 

and judicious in his responses, noting that it was important they 

work together. He stated that his cabinet would start planning and 

would get back to him in several days. On January 6, Iraqi Army 

Day, Prime Minister al-Maliki gave his promised speech outlining 

the elements of his Baghdad security plan in which he strongly 

made the points that President Bush had requested.

On January 10, the President outlined his decision in a prime-time 

speech that announced a plan “to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign 

to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of 

Baghdad.” He announced the commitment of 20,000 more troops to 

Iraq and that the majority of them—five brigades—would be deployed 

to Baghdad. The remainder would go to Anbar Province to “work 

with Iraqi and tribal forces to keep up the pressure on the terrorists.” 

He couched the mission in Iraq in broader terms, calling our struggle 

against extremism in the Middle East “the decisive ideological struggle 

of our time,” and stating that the new plan would “change America’s 

course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.”3

 It was a 

moving speech and a powerful statement of U.S. commitment to Iraq.

In a press conference that the Ambassador and I held in Iraq a 

few days later, I noted that the plan to secure Baghdad had several 
148 

Strategic RefLEctions

key advantages, most important of which was the strong commitment of the Iraqi government, including the will to act against all 

who broke the law and not to impose restraints on the ISF and coalition forces. I discussed how the plan allowed us to sustain the 

agreement in Amman between Prime Minister al-Maliki and President Bush to accelerate development of the ISF and the passage of 

security responsibility. The introduction of the additional forces 

allowed us to sustain momentum, reinforce success, and evaluate 

progress as we went. I emphasized the flexibility inherent in the plan 

and how it was a strong statement to the Iraqi people of our commitment to securing Baghdad and accomplishing our mission in Iraq.

My final task in Iraq was to ensure the conditions were set for 

the new Baghdad plan to succeed. We worked to establish joint security stations that would house Iraqi army, police, and coalition 

forces that would bring security to Baghdad’s neighborhoods. We 

worked with the Embassy to establish the funding and mechanisms 

for follow-on economic projects in both Baghdad and Anbar. We 

worked with the Iraqis to finalize command and control arrangements, finalize the selection of the Iraqi commander for the Baghdad 

operation, and establish the Baghdad operations center to give the 

new commander a headquarters. We also developed the logistical 

support plans to receive, equip, support, and base the incoming coalition forces. I met frequently with the Iraqi ministers to review 

their preparations and personally reviewed the final plan to ensure 

that it adequately incorporated the projected influx of forces.

In a January 20 video teleconference with President Bush and Secretary Gates, I updated them on the ongoing preparations. The first 

brigade to flow from the United States was closing in Baghdad and 
149

the toughest days

was beginning operations. Offensive shaping actions that we had begun in Baghdad after the first of the year—some 14 battalion or larger 

operations in 20 days—continued to put strong pressure on al Qaeda 

and the death squads through daily intelligence-based raids. The Iraqi 

command and control headquarters—Baghdad and the two sectors—

were expected to be operational in about 2 weeks. About one-third of 

the joint security stations were operating, with almost 20 more projected to come on line by mid-February. Iraqi army brigades were being 

alerted and moved on the agreed timelines, but were arriving at between 

55 and 65 percent strength, and the Iraqis were moving to address the 

shortfalls. In all I was pleased with the progress that we were making and 

the sense of energy that I was seeing in the Iraqis. I was also pleased that 

we had seen a 5-week decline in sectarian violence and civilian casualties 

in Baghdad and that we continued to make good progress in Anbar.

In the middle of all this, I returned to Washington on February 

1 for my confirmation hearing to be the Army chief of staff. I flew 

straight into a Pentagon “murder board” and 2 days of office calls 

with the members of the committee. The hearing was a tough one as 

the Senators asked hard questions about my 32 months in Iraq. I was 

confirmed on February 8, 2007.

General Petraeus had been confirmed on January 27, and we 

set the date for our change of command for February 10. When I 

returned to Iraq after the hearing, I focused on our continuing 

preparations in Baghdad and on setting the conditions for a smooth 

turnover with General Petraeus.

At my final meeting with Prime Minister al-Maliki, I offered my 

thoughts to him on civil-military interaction with his military and 

police uniformed leadership. I had told him once, early on, that he and 
150 

Strategic RefLEctions

I were like two old men in a rowboat. If I pulled on the military oar 

and he did not pull on the political oar, we went around in circles (and 

vice versa)—but if we both pulled together, we moved forward together. 

I felt very strongly that effective political-military integration was the 

key to long-term success in Iraq, so I offered him eight tips for civilian 

leaders in providing guidance to military leaders that I had translated 

into Arabic:

◆ Be clear with them what you want them to accomplish. 

This will become the mission.

◆ Make them tell you how they see the enemy situation. You 

should have a common view of what you think you are 

up against.

◆ Ask them for their assessment of planning and preparations. Key questions are: How long until you are ready? 

Do you have what you need to do the job? How long will 

it take?

◆ Make a collective judgment of the appropriateness of the 

plan relative to the mission and threat.

◆ Ask about the plan for reaction forces if things do not go 

according to plan.

◆ Ask about the risks of mission accomplishment, collateral 

damage, friendly casualties, and adversely affecting 

broader objectives.

◆ Ask them to explain the command and control relationships. Be sure they are clear.

◆ Ask what help they need on the political and economic side.
151

the toughest days

Before we parted, the prime minister gave me a copy of the Iraqi 

constitution signed by him and his security ministers, and I gave him 

the pistol that I had carried throughout my 32 months in Iraq.

Two days later, on February 10, 2007, I relinquished command to 

General Petraeus. In my remarks, I commented on how far Iraq had 

come since it achieved its sovereignty over 21⁄2 years ago and expressed 

my deepest gratitude to the Servicemembers and their families who 

had given up so much to build a new Iraq and bring liberty and democracy to 27 million Iraqis. I closed with the Arabic words, Iltizam 

Mushtarak (United Commitment), which had been the motto of Iraqi 

and coalition forces during my time in Iraq. I was very conscious of 

the difficult challenges still facing the mission, but I felt that I had done 

everything possible to set the conditions for our ultimate success.

It had been a long 32 months, but I believe that the efforts of the 

men and women who served in Iraq during that period drove a significant transformation in the U.S. military and established the conditions 

for the ultimate success of our mission in Iraq. The completion of the 

UN political timeline that led to an Iraqi constitution and the seating 

of an Iraqi government based on that constitution in just 24 months 

established Iraq as a democratic state after over 31⁄2 decades of totalitarian rule—a significant historical accomplishment. The growth of the 

Iraqi security forces from a relative handful of army battalions and police forces to a force of over 325,000 that was actively participating in 

securing their country and had held together during difficult sectarian 

violence is a tribute to the men and women from over 30 countries who 

trained, mentored, and fought beside them. This growth established the 
152 

Strategic RefLEctions

necessary Iraqi security capabilities to begin the process of transferring 

the ISF and provinces to Iraqi control, our ultimate mandate from the 

United Nations. By the end of January 2007, the Iraqi ground force 

headquarters, 3 of 10 Iraqi divisions, and three provinces (Muthanna, 

Dhi Qar, and Najaf) had been returned to Iraqi control. The One Team/

One Mission concept and the integration of the Embassy and MNFI staffs enabled us to build a structure to integrate, synchronize, and 

assess the progress of the U.S. mission. Its success is a tribute to the 

professionalism, competence, and dedication of our Foreign Service officers, intelligence service professionals, and Armed Forces who worked 

hard to break down institutional biases to get the mission accomplished.

Men and women of our Armed Forces and our allies liberated 

Iraqis from decades of oppression. They succeeded and found themselves enmeshed in a conflict and an environment for which they 

were not prepared. They improvised, learned, adapted, shared their 

lessons, and, over time, improved our capability to operate effectively. From countering the IED threat to fundamentally reshaping 

detention and interrogation operations to revamping contingency 

contracting procedures to training the Iraqi army and police, they 

led a transformation of the way in which the U.S. military prepares 

for and conducts 21st-century conflict. Our success is a tribute to 

their courage, their perseverance in the face of adversity, and their 

professionalism.
153

6. Insights for Leaders

I have thought a great deal about my experiences in Iraq. I believe that some of the insights that I developed during that time can 

benefit future military leaders as they are thrust into senior leadership positions in new and different missions in this era of persistent 

conflict. As always, some lessons are new; others are old ones relearned. I began to share these insights with the Army general officer 

corps and joint flag officers attending CAPSTONE shortly after I 

assumed the position of Army chief of staff. 

Perhaps the greatest lesson I took from my time in Iraq was 

that senior leaders are most effective when they stay at the right 

level and focus their time and intellectual energy in the areas that 

will yield the highest payoff for their organizations. That sounds 

easy, but it is not because the things with the highest payoff are 

General Casey at Senate confirmation hearing 

for Army chief of staff, February 2007 

AP Photo (Susan Walsh)
154 

Strategic RefLEctions

the hardest to do—for example, getting the strategy right in very 

uncertain environments; instilling the strategy in the organization; 

driving organizational change; influencing organizational culture; 

sustaining momentum; and influencing key partners not under 

your direct control. By their nature, these things are complex and 

difficult and do not lend themselves to simple solutions. They require the time, energy, and experience of the senior leaders in the 

organization to be done effectively. What follows are some insights 

in those areas for future leaders.

Developing Vision and Strategy

The question that I asked most in Iraq, and, interestingly, the one 

I asked most as Army chief of staff, is, “What are we really trying to 

accomplish?” I found that this question was hard to answer clearly and 

succinctly in the complex and uncertain environment of Iraq. Yet it 

was imperative that I clearly articulated to my subordinates what it was 

I wanted them to do if we were going to be successful. A fuzzy idea 

coming out of the four-star headquarters did not get clearer as it was 

transmitted through the chain of command. Accordingly, we spent a lot 

of time and intellectual effort sharpening our views of what we wanted 

to accomplish in Iraq and for major operations, for example, Fallujah, 

elections, the western Euphrates campaign, and Baghdad.

The Army’s primary doctrinal manual, Field Manual 3-0, 

Operations, offers a construct to assist commanders in framing 

solutions to difficult problems—understand, visualize, describe, 

direct—and, although we did not think of what we did in those 

terms at the time, that is what Ambassador Negroponte and I did 

initially as we grappled with the mission. We both felt that we 
155

insights for leaders

needed to establish a clear vision for what we were to accomplish 

in Iraq, so we began discussing it before we left Washington. The 

consultations that we conducted in Washington, the Red Team assessment, and the on-the-ground consultations in Iraq in the early 

days after our arrival were all part of building our understanding of 

the mission. As our understanding grew, we began to sharpen our 

thinking on what we wanted to accomplish and how we wanted 

to accomplish it—we began visualizing the endstate and design 

for the mission. In interactive discussions with Washington, the 

Red Team, the Iraqis, and our staffs, we began describing how we 

saw the mission unfolding and received their insights. In dealing 

with the complexity and uncertainty of Iraq, I found that building 

a level of understanding sufficient to visualize the problem and to 

describe the solution effectively was an iterative process—that my 

thinking got sharper over time. I found that the sharper the disagreements, the greater the clarity we achieved. 

We gave ourselves 30 days to produce a joint mission statement 

and campaign plan, the means by which we would direct the tasks 

required to accomplish the mission. We felt strongly that we owed 

our subordinates as much clarity as possible to shape a common path 

to success. I found it particularly important to be clear on the nature 

of the war we were fighting—counterinsurgency—and the nature of 

the enemy—primarily Sunni Arab rejectionists—and to clearly spell 

out the mission and the risks. I felt that the 30-day timeframe was 

important because I had seen too many draft campaign plans that 

were continuously being polished and never published. In complex 

situations, commanders must force themselves to get clarity in their 

own minds and transmit that clarity to their subordinates in writing. 
156 

Strategic RefLEctions

I found that writing things out caused me to think more clearly about 

issues, so I personally wrote several of the key segments of the first 

campaign plan (for example, mission, intent, risks).

We built a deliberate assessment process into the campaign plan 

because we knew the plan would require continuous adjustment. As 

part of this process, we forced ourselves to challenge our assumptions and ask ourselves hard questions about the efficacy of the plan. 

The assessments proved useful in adapting our efforts to changing 

realities. I also found there was constant tension between retaining 

focus on the broader campaign and adapting to short-term changes 

in the environment. One of the ways that we used to mitigate this 

tension was to publish annual campaign action plans that allowed us 

to retain the focus on our broad counterinsurgency campaign while 

dealing with shorter term issues. The annual action plans also proved 

helpful in maintaining continuity through the transition of subordinate units and staffs.

I am convinced that one of the hardest things for leaders to do in 

complex and uncertain environments is to get clarity in their minds 

on what it is they want their subordinates to accomplish to achieve 

success. Because it is so hard, it takes the full involvement and commitment of the senior leader to accomplish it successfully.

Creating Unity of Effort

Another difficult challenge for senior leaders is to create unity of 

effort among organizations whose cooperation is necessary for their 

success, but that are not under their direct control. The National Security Presidential Directive issued in May of 2004 established the division 

of labor between the Departments of State and Defense for the mission 
157

insights for leaders

and directed “the closest cooperation and mutual support” between 

the Ambassador and the USCENTCOM commander. United Nations 

Security Council Resolution 1546 described my relationship with the 

soon-to-be sovereign government of Iraq as a “security partnership.” If 

we were to successfully prosecute a counterinsurgency campaign inside 

a sovereign country, I was going to have to rely heavily on the Embassy 

and Iraqi government to deliver the political, economic, communications, and, in the case of the Iraqis, security effects to support coalition 

efforts. The keys to my success were outside of my direct control, so I 

was forced to create the required unity of effort with successive Ambassadors, Iraqi prime ministers, and cabinet ministers. 

Ambassador Negroponte and I recognized this early on and 

agreed before we left Washington on the One Team/One Mission 

concept—the Embassy and MNF-I would work as one team to 

accomplish the U.S. mission. Because of different organizational 

cultures and different reporting and budget chains, implementing 

the concept took the direct intervention of the Ambassador and me. 

Conscious of the need to bring the missions together intellectually, 

we established a Red Team composed of key leaders from both organizations to tell us what they thought about the mission and the 

threat. Putting a key advisor to the Ambassador as the leader of the 

effort and giving him a strong military deputy allowed us to get a 

balanced output from the group. The Red Team report led to the 

joint mission statement by the Ambassador and me that was a key 

step in establishing One Mission. The essence of the statement was 

dutifully incorporated into the campaign plan so that it penetrated 

MNF-I. The Ambassadors and I issued joint mission statements 

three times during my time in Iraq as the mission evolved.
158 

Strategic RefLEctions

Building the “One Team” was equally challenging. The old 

adage that “Defense is from Mars and State is from Venus” just 

scratches the surface of the cultural differences between two professional communities. Given human nature, major institutional and 

cultural differences do not disappear in a war zone, and working 

through them requires the continuous involvement of senior leaders. The Ambassadors and I went to great lengths to bring the two 

organizations together and keep them moving in the same direction 

to accomplish our national goals in Iraq. We used the Red Team 

concept frequently to keep us intellectually aligned. We collocated 

our offices, traveled together, and consulted regularly and visibly to 

ensure our subordinates saw us linked together. We integrated our 

headquarters with the Embassy to provide the physical proximity 

necessary for effective coordination. Sustaining the One Team/One 

Mission concept between the Embassy and MNF-I took a lot of the 

personal time and effort of the Ambassadors and me, particularly 

with the annual rotation of staffs and two changes of Ambassador.

Over our initial weeks on the ground, the Ambassador and I 

wrestled with the implications of Iraqi sovereignty on our efforts. 

The United States had returned sovereignty to the Interim Iraqi 

Government on June 28 and the Coalition Provisional Authority had appointed Ayad Allawi as the interim prime minister. We 

recognized that unless we shared our vision and plans with the 

Iraqi leadership, we would not only generate unproductive friction 

between us, but also be unable to leverage the influence of the government in support of our efforts. While the Iraqi government had 

publicly accepted MNF-I presence, the modalities of coordinating 

our operations had to be worked out. We set out to establish them 
159

insights for leaders

in a way that respected Iraqi sovereignty but that retained our freedom of action. Sovereignty meant that the Iraqis had a vote and that 

things would not necessarily get done the way we wanted when we 

wanted. The Ambassador and I would have to balance Washington’s 

directives and timelines with the needs and desires of the sovereign 

Iraqi government. It was a delicate balancing act, and one that required our almost constant attention. I cannot overstate the benefit 

we got from spending the time to establish strong personal relations 

with Iraqi leaders. Strong personal relationships can help bridge the 

frictions that will always be encountered.

My staff and I found that we spent a lot of time integrating the 

efforts of the Embassy, three Iraqi governments, and MNF-I. There 

were frustrating days when I asked myself whether this was the best 

use of our time. In the end, I saw it as my headquarters’ responsibility to work with the Embassy and the Iraqi government to deliver the 

political, economic, and communications effects that would make 

MNC-I security operations successful and sustainable. Just generating these effects in a postconflict state, let alone integrating them 

at the required time, was very hard work. In the end, I believe that 

creating unity of effort among diverse entities beyond your control 

is, and will continue to be, one of the key tasks that will require the 

attention of senior leaders in 21st-century warfare.

Continuous Assessment and Adaptation

In long missions such as Operation Iraqi Freedom where leaders 

are intensely immersed in difficult issues daily, it is easy to lose your 

perspective on the larger mission. I found that we had to create opportunities to get leadership to take a step back and look broadly at 
160 

Strategic RefLEctions

the mission. We built an assessment process into the campaign plan 

to do this, but it took some time to get it to the point where it was 

producing meaningful insights.

We began with a monthly assessment called the Commander’s 

Assessment and Synchronization Board. It was designed to help us 

see how the staff was accomplishing the objectives assigned to them 

in the campaign plan so that we could make short-term adjustments. 

It was highly detailed. It quickly became clear to us that what we 

were measuring did not change that much in a month and that the 

staff was expending a great deal of energy developing the product, so 

we went to campaign assessments every 2 months.

The greatest challenge we found was determining what to measure. Staffs will tend to measure what they can, not necessarily what 

you need. It was not until I forced the staff to answer three questions 

about each of the effects we were tracking that we began getting 

good value out of our assessment sessions. The three questions were: 

What are we trying to accomplish? What will tell us if we are accomplishing it? How do we measure that?

Initially, the assessments were produced by the MNF-I staff 

and attended by the Embassy and MNF-I leadership. Over time, 

the Embassy staff got more and more involved until the assessment 

became a joint, and better, product. We would periodically invite 

representatives from the Joint Staff to attend to facilitate transparency in sharing information.

We also instituted semiannual assessments called Campaign Progress Reviews to give us a broader perspective. These reviews looked 

back over the past 6 to 12 months and offered recommendations 

for the next 12 months. They were essential to driving long-range 
161

insights for leaders

planning. As it is a constant struggle for senior leaders to get their subordinates to share their doubts with them, I left the development of 

this assessment to the staff and the writing to the gifted colonels in our 

plans and assessment shop. I found the anonymity of the staff process 

produced greater candor. I found this process and product most helpful in seeing broad changes required in the mission and in developing 

our annual action plans. We used these assessments to adapt the mission over time. For example, the need to get better visibility on and 

performance from Iraqi security forces that led to the development of 

the transition team and partnership programs came from the December 2004 assessment. A shift in the nature of the most significant threat 

from former regime elements to Islamic extremists that took place in 

the spring and summer of 2005 and led to the western Euphrates and 

Tal Afar operations later that year was identified in the June 2005 assessment. The significant shift in the nature of the conflict that took 

place after the Samarra bombing in 2006 and that led to an increased 

focus on Baghdad and operations to lessen sectarian tensions later that 

year came from the June 2006 assessment.

There were three other forums that also enhanced our ability to 

adapt. The first was the monthly intelligence update where our intelligence officer reviewed intelligence trends with the staff and me. I 

found this forum most useful for putting the insights and thoughts 

that I had accumulated over the month into perspective. It allowed 

me to better assess the impact of individual incidents in a broader context. The second was the monthly commanders’ conference 

where I sought to balance the MNF-I view of the mission with the 

views of the division and corps commanders. While I generally visited each of the divisions once or twice a month, having them share 
162 

Strategic RefLEctions

their views in a common forum proved invaluable. The third was the 

use of an almost continuous Red Team process to focus the attention 

of experienced individuals on hard topics outside of the normal staff 

process. I often asked the intelligence agencies to take the lead and 

usually included individuals from the UK embassy and intelligence 

services on the Red Teams. I found this process especially helpful in 

looking ahead (for example, I asked teams to tell me the likely outcome of elections and the implications for the mission). I found Red 

Teaming an excellent way to get fresh ideas and to avoid the “group 

think” that can often come from the staff process.

Leaders at every level must see themselves and see their enemy, and recognize that the action-reaction-counteraction cycle 

of war requires constant assessment and adaptation. At the theater level, I tried to focus on adjustments that would have a high 

payoff at my level.

Influencing Organizational Culture

At the strategic level, leaders need to be attuned not only to the 

culture of the country they are operating in, but also to the impacts 

that the cultures of their own organizations can have on their ability to accomplish their missions. I entered Iraq with views about 

aspects of Army and Marine Corps organizational cultures that I 

felt could hamper our ability to accomplish the mission if we did not 

address them. First, both Services are very well trained in conducting conventional war, as they demonstrated during the ground war. 

I knew that they would be very good at applying force against their 

enemies. Unfortunately, success in counterinsurgency operations 

requires much more than the effective application of force. I knew 
163

insights for leaders

that it would be tough to change this mindset, but in an environment where distinguishing the enemy was very difficult and civilian 

casualties bred additional enemies, we would have to do it. Second, 

I worried that our “can-do” attitude would make it harder for us to 

get the Iraqis trained and responsible for their own security—the 

precondition of our ultimate success. I saw the impact of this attitude myself in Bosnia and Kosovo. In complex environments, it is 

very difficult to get even simple things done, so the natural tendency 

is to do them yourself. I had to find a way to get our troops to focus 

on Iraqi solutions without damaging the can-do spirit that sets U.S. 

Servicemembers apart, and that we would need to succeed.

To do this, I realized that I was attempting to change deeply embedded Service culture and that I would have to change the mindset 

of the force. I greatly underestimated how long this would take. We 

began by clearly stating in our campaign plan mission statement that 

we were conducting counterinsurgency operations to send the message to the force that we were doing something different than they 

had been trained for. I reinforced this in my discussions with leaders 

during their campaign plan backbriefs.

But that was hardly enough, and shortly thereafter we took 

measures to improve our understanding and application of counterinsurgency doctrine. We had MNF-I staff take a historical look 

at successful and unsuccessful counterinsurgency practices in the 

20th century, and disseminated their work to the force and to Service 

trainers who were preparing the next rotation.

Our efforts continued with the implementation of the transition team and partnership concepts in early 2005. For the first time 

since Vietnam, we were asking conventional forces to be involved 
164 

Strategic RefLEctions

in the training of indigenous forces during a war—another significant cultural change. The establishment of Phoenix Academy 

to train all of the incoming transition team members, use of Special Forces to train conventional forces in the art of working with 

indigenous forces, and development of the “flat-assed rules” to 

communicate the new mindset to every member of the command 

played key roles in driving cultural change in our forces. This was 

a start, but we slowly began to realize that changing the organizational culture embedded in the Services for decades was not going 

to happen overnight.

In the summer of 2005, I chartered a survey of how we were 

applying counterinsurgency doctrine across the force. The study 

found that, while we generally knew the doctrine, it was being applied unevenly across the command, and the application was very 

dependent on the local commander’s knowledge and initiative. It 

recommended that we establish a COIN Academy to augment the 

training that they were getting at home station to ensure that entering commanders started with a common view of how to conduct 

counterinsurgency operations in Iraq. We conducted the first class 

in November of 2005 and began to see an appreciable change in 

the conduct of our operations throughout 2006 as all company, 

battalion, and brigade commanders began to rotate through the 

weeklong course before they began their tours in Iraq. Continuing 

change was facilitated with the publishing of the joint Army–

Marine Corps counterinsurgency manual in December 2006, an 

essential element of driving cultural change within the Services.

In the end, I found that as our lessons learned were continuously incorporated into Service training programs and more soldiers 
165

insights for leaders

came back for second and third tours, I saw continuous improvement in the preparedness of the forces to conduct counterinsurgency 

operations and work with the Iraqi forces. Recognizing the impacts 

of organizational culture comes from the experience of growing up 

in the culture. Recognizing the potential impacts in new situations 

requires a broader perspective and is intuitive work. It is the work 

of senior leaders.

Civil-Military Interaction

Civil-military interaction around matters of policy and strategy is 

inherently challenging. The issues are complex, the stakes are high, and 

the backgrounds of the people involved can vary widely. The interaction only gets more difficult in war, and is particularly difficult with 

leaders from other cultures. Developing plans and strategies, reporting, managing expectations, and developing and providing military 

advice to civilian leaders all require the senior leader’s full attention.

My previous experience at the policy level in Washington 

taught me not to expect written direction from civilian leaders, and 

that proved the case in Iraq. We developed the initial campaign plan 

based upon my verbal discussions with the President, Secretary of 

Defense, and Chairman, the direction provided in the President’s 

Army War College speech, UNSCR 1546 and its attached letters, 

written guidance from the USCENTCOM commander, and my 

interactions on the ground in Iraq with Iraqi and coalition leaders. 

The Ambassador and I developed our strategy and campaign plan 

to accomplish the endstate that we created from this guidance and 

presented it for approval by the Secretary of Defense and President 

in August of 2004.
166 

Strategic RefLEctions

Throughout the mission, I had interaction with Washington several times a week usually in the form of secure conference calls and 

video teleconferences, most with the Secretary of Defense, Chairman, and USCENTCOM commander, and weekly in a National 

Security Council meeting chaired by the President. These sessions 

were designed to keep Washington up to date on the situation in 

Iraq. In them, I would usually present a short update and highlight 

upcoming events to avoid surprises. I would then answer questions. 

Periodically, about every 4 to 6 months, I would return to Washington for face-to-face discussions. This was essential because it is 

difficult to have substantive discussions on a video teleconference 

that includes a dozen Cabinet-level leaders with staff often operating 

from multiple sites. It is also much easier to get a sense of how your 

presentation is being received in person. The Secretary of Defense 

and Chairman would also visit several times a year, presenting the 

best opportunity for discussion and interaction. I had almost daily 

interaction with General Abizaid by secure telephone and face-toface contact several times a month during his visits to Iraq or my 

visits to his headquarters in Qatar. His broader perspective was invaluable in seeing the Iraq mission in the context of the larger war 

and region.

It is difficult for subordinates to communicate to their superiors 

the depth of the complexity that they are dealing with. It is no different at the strategic level. I worked hard to provide a balanced view of 

what was occurring in Iraq—the bad with the good. I realized early 

on that, as I had the direct interactions with civilian leaders, I had 

the best understanding of what they needed, so I found that I spent 

a lot of my time and intellectual energy preparing properly balanced 
167

insights for leaders

presentations for Washington. I felt that it was very important to 

convey the right balance in the presentations to avoid creating false 

expectations. I was not uniformly successful. I found it difficult to 

keep the discussions at a level that would provide civilian leaders 

with the insights they required to develop the strategies and policies 

essential for success. Even at the strategic level, leaders can get captivated by tactical actions.

Setting common expectations is another difficult but essential 

task. In any military campaign plan, it is important to set objectives and make judgments on when they will be accomplished. As 

senior military leaders, we owe our civilian leaders our best views 

on how long things will take. When we offer our views, we need 

to be clear that in war things will change and assumptions will 

prove invalid. I would often conclude a briefing in which I made 

key projections with a slide entitled “Bad Things That Could 

Happen” to make this point. When I was conveying timelines, I 

was very conscious that precious little in Iraq got accomplished 

right on time, so I would often convey projections to Washington 

“seasonally”—for example, we would complete a certain task by 

“the summer of 2006”—to give them a perspective on time without getting unnecessarily specific.

A key expectation to resolve is how to measure progress at the 

strategic level. Going into Iraq, we made a conscious decision not to 

use enemy casualties—body count—to measure strategic progress. I 

believe that was the right decision, but the unintended consequence 

was that our casualties were reported and the enemy’s were not. It 

appeared to some domestic audiences that the enemy had the upper hand—which was not at all true. Over time, I began selectively 
168 

Strategic RefLEctions

reporting enemy losses to give a more balanced picture of the situation to our home audiences.

We looked at a variety of ways to measure progress at the strategic level, primarily focusing on significant events and milestones 

that, linked together, would demonstrate steady progress toward 

our ultimate endstate (for example, elimination of terrorist safe 

havens, success in major military operations, successful elections, 

completion of the UN timeline, seating of governments, meeting 

developmental gates for the ISF, transferring security responsibility 

to Iraqis). As these major events took months and even years to accomplish, I found that they did not compete with the daily reports 

of casualties and violence as a means of expressing our progress. 

While I disagreed with using daily casualty and violence levels as 

the measures of our strategic progress (they were measures of the 

enemy’s tactical capacity and a measure of our overall progress), in 

retrospect, I believe that, over time, casualties and violence became 

the de facto measure of strategic progress in Iraq, and I should have 

forced a more in-depth discussion with my civilian leadership about 

their strategic expectations.

I had civil-military interaction with three Iraqi prime ministers and three different sets of cabinet ministers. I treated the 

Iraqi leaders with the respect due civilian political leaders, and 

worked to provide them with the key elements of military advice necessary for their decisionmaking. The list I provided Prime 

Minister al-Maliki when I departed was a compilation of the 

key areas I had come to believe that civilian and military leaders should discuss in preparing for military operations. As with 

any difficult issue, I found that productive civil-military interac-
169

insights for leaders

tion is an iterative process that requires a continuous dialogue 

among civil-military principals until a common understanding is 

reached. I found that this common understanding is heightened 

by clearly sharpening differences of opinion rather than papering 

over them to gain consensus.

In the latter months of 2006 and early 2007, I was consumed 

with civil-military interaction with civilian leaders in both Baghdad 

and Washington. As we finalized our plan to secure Baghdad, we 

worked with Iraqi leadership to cement Iraqi political support for 

the mission and gain their commitment to the plan’s success. The 

Ambassador and I had long daily sessions with the prime minister 

and his security ministers, pounding out the details of the plan and 

ensuring our forces would have freedom of action once they were 

committed. Once the plan was approved just before Christmas, we 

turned our attention to the execution of the plan, a phase that required fairly constant interaction with Iraqi leaders that continued 

through my departure in February. 

Simultaneously, we were participating in the Washington review of Iraq policy and strategy that also concluded just before 

Christmas 2006. The review involved numerous long sessions by 

video teleconference and had an implementation phase for the 

announcement and execution of the new policy that continued 

through January. The transition between Secretary Rumsfeld and 

Secretary Gates in November and December further complicated 

the civil-military situation. 

Someone told me once that the decisionmaking process at the 

national level is “idiosyncratic at best.” That is an important lesson 

for future leaders when providing military advice. Do not look for 
170 

Strategic RefLEctions

the Military Decision Making Process at the national level. When 

it comes to providing military advice, yours is only one part of the 

President’s decision calculus. Provide your military advice with your 

rationale and the courage of your convictions and, as with any military decision, stand by to execute the decision.

Political-Military Integration

Political and military actions must be mutually reinforcing, 

particularly when operating inside other sovereign countries. With 

Prime Minister al-Maliki, I used the analogy of the two of us rowing a boat. If I pulled on the “military” oar and he did not pull on 

the “political” oar, the boat went around in circles. If he pulled on 

the “political” oar and I did not pull on the “military” oar, the boat 

went around in circles. If we both pulled together, the boat went 

forward. I had mixed success with three Iraqi prime ministers in 

“rowing the boat.”

We had our best success integrating political and military 

actions with the Coalition Provisional Authority–appointed Interim Iraqi Government. We learned early on that Iraqi political 

support was essential to having the time to bring our military 

operations to successful conclusion. In the Najaf operations in 

2004, careful melding of the political and military efforts yielded the IIG its first success. In the Fallujah operations later that 

year, actions by the prime minister to disband the Fallujah police 

force (the terrorists had put on police uniforms) and declare a 

24-hour curfew greatly facilitated our tactical operations, and the 

government’s public support of the operation gave us the time 

we needed to complete the mission. In both of those operations, 
171

insights for leaders

Embassy leadership was kept abreast of the planning, to include 

participation, with ISF leadership in a rehearsal of the operational 

concept. In providing security for the January 2005 elections, the 

imposition of last-minute curfews and driving bans by the interior minister at our request helped disrupt the insurgents’ ability 

to affect the elections. I found that it was not necessary to share 

tactical details, but giving political and diplomatic leaders a broad 

idea of what to expect greatly facilitated their ability to support 

the operation.

Political-military interaction was less productive with both of 

the elected Iraqi governments that followed. I can only surmise that 

the greater demand for sovereignty by both subsequent governments affected their ability and willingness to take political risk to 

support Iraqi and coalition military operations. We had some success with the Iraqi Transitional Government in winning support for 

the Tal Afar operation in September 2005 and with the agreement the 

ITG made with Anbar provincial leaders in early 2006 to bring Anbaris into the security forces, to provide money for reconstruction 

in Anbar, and to release some Anbari prisoners. We were not able 

to gain their support for weapons and militia bans that would have 

facilitated our operations to secure Baghdad.

I go into some detail about the political-military integration with 

the constitutionally elected government of prime minister al-Maliki. 

The desire of the government for greater say in security actions and 

a differing view of the threat created frictions that took some months 

to get through. That said, the Prime Minister’s Army Day speech in 

January of 2007 is a good example of political leaders building public 

support for military action.
172 

Strategic RefLEctions

I believe our efforts in 2006 suffered, at least in part, because of the 

disagreement between the prime minister and the coalition on the nature of the threat and the lack of a political timeline to drive Iraqi actions 

to resolve their differences over the division of political and economic 

power—the issues at the heart of the sectarian violence. Whether it was 

possible to reach agreement on either of these issues at that time is, I 

believe, an open question. They were decisions for the sovereign government of Iraq, and our government could only attempt to influence 

them. We could not impose U.S. solutions. The integration of politicalmilitary efforts is always difficult, but it is even more so when operating 

with another sovereign government. It will remain essential to attaining 

our national objectives in 21st-century conflict.

Momentum and Transitions

In extended campaigns, transitions and their accompanying loss 

of momentum are inevitable. This was the case in Iraq as we confronted numerous transitions at every level within MNF-I, the U.S. 

Embassy, and the Iraqi government. Sustaining momentum is not 

easy, but it is essential to long-term success.

I found that determining whether we had momentum was more 

art than science. In long operations, things unfold so slowly that it 

is often hard to tell whether you are moving at all. Our maxim was, 

“If you’re not moving forward, you’re moving backward.” Leaders 

need to develop a way to “feel” momentum. A structured assessment 

process helps, but I found that I got my best sense from my faceto-face meetings with subordinate commanders and Iraqi leaders on 

their own turf. I learned to judge whether they were comfortable or 

uncomfortable answering my questions about progress.
173

insights for leaders

Momentum at the theater level generally comes from big events 

such as successful elections, the passage of major legislation, decisive 

military victories, and major agreements. The initial UN timeline 

offered the opportunity in 2005 to sustain momentum through four 

major events—the initial elections in January 2005, development of 

the constitution in August, constitutional referendum in October, 

and elections for the constitutional government in December. To get 

there, in the absence of political events, we generated momentum 

through the military successes in Najaf, Samarra, and Fallujah in 

2004 and by energizing the development of the Iraqi security forces. 

Unfortunately, the protracted government formation processes, limited government experience of most of the appointed ministers, and 

turbulence of three government transitions in 2 years severely limited our ability to sustain political momentum to complement our 

military efforts.

On the military side, the terrorists and insurgents learned 

not to mass against us after our successes in Najaf, Fallujah, Tal 

Afar, and the western Euphrates. So while we maintained momentum and pressure on the terrorists at the tactical level, we did 

so through daily small unit actions, and it took time for those successes to gain strategic significance. The exception was the killing 

of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in June of 2006, a tactical action that 

had strategic impact.

In an attempt to generate political momentum in 2006, the 

Ambassador and I developed a series of benchmarks—Iraqi political and security actions that, when taken, would begin to resolve 

the fundamental tensions over the sharing of political and economic power. By assigning these events a completion date, we hoped to 
174 

Strategic RefLEctions

string together a series of political successes that would continue 

moving the country in a positive direction. By linking these with 

military operations, we hoped to break the sectarian stalemate that 

was strangling the county. Unfortunately, the idea never gained the 

committed support of the newly elected Iraqi leaders.

On the military side, the semiannual and annual transitions of 

units and staffs affected our momentum, but, largely because of 

the significant effort made by the Services to prepare their forces, 

the substantial interaction that took place between units before 

the new units arrived, and our in-theater training and integration 

efforts, we were able to somewhat mitigate the impact. I began 

visiting all newly arrived brigades in early 2005 within 30 days of 

their arrival to give them a theater overview and to ensure that the 

leadership clearly understood their mission. With the development 

of the Phoenix Academy in early 2005 and the COIN Academy 

in November 2005, I spoke to every class, providing an overview 

similar to what I provided the brigades. In order to maintain momentum, I felt that it was important incoming leaders heard my 

expectations directly from me.

I was generally pleased with the unit transition process, but 

usually I found during my post-transition visits that there was 

something major that got dropped. For example, the troops that 

came into an area after a major battle usually did not have the 

same intensity and commitment to the reconstruction effort as 

those that had won the victory, and new troops generally seemed 

to believe that the war began with their arrival. It was human nature at work. The post-transition visits helped with maintaining 

continuity and momentum.
175

insights for leaders

Maintaining momentum through political and military transitions is another area that is more art than science, and an area of 

important effort for senior leaders.

Sustaining Yourself

One of the toughest challenges for senior leaders in deployed 

environments is to sustain their physical, mental, and emotional fitness at levels that allow them to deal with the complex challenges 

confronting them. I watched four corps’s worth of senior leaders 

come through Iraq. I encouraged each of them to establish a regimen 

where they got sufficient rest, exercise, and intellectual stimulation 

so that they could provide their subordinates the direction they 

needed for success in Iraq. I told them that to sustain themselves for 

the duration of the mission, they needed to find quality time every 

day to REST: read-exercise-sleep-think. I had found this a useful 

formula for myself during my time in Bosnia and began to share it 

with my subordinate leaders as they entered Kosovo in 2000. I practiced it myself in Iraq.

Read. Sometimes the hardest thing to come by after you have 

been deployed for a while is a fresh idea. Staffs, especially when 

there are frequent rotations, tend to fall into repeating “facts” based 

on shared conventional wisdom. I strongly encouraged leaders to 

find quiet time daily to read something besides their email, their 

inbox, or intelligence as a way to stimulate new insights. I read 

every night before I went to sleep and found that it had the added 

benefit of slowing a mind that was spinning with the events of the 

day down to the point I could get to sleep. I read a wide variety 

of books, from T.E. Lawrence’s Seven Pillars of Wisdom to David 
176 

Strategic RefLEctions

McCullough’s 1776 to Stanley Karnow’s Vietnam: A History. All 

stimulated useful insights.

Exercise. I strongly encouraged my senior leaders to get on 

an exercise regimen as soon as they could after their transition 

process was complete. I made the time to exercise four or five 

times a week and found it a great way not only to avoid fatigue 

but also to burn off stress and frustration, of which there was 

plenty. It was also quiet time alone to think.

Sleep. My experience with U.S. officers and noncommissioned 

officers is that they tend to push themselves too hard and think that 

they can get by on less sleep than they really need. In long operations, leaders have to force themselves to get the rest that they need 

to be most effective. The issues they will be confronted with require 

them to be at their best.

Think. I found that I needed private time to think, daily and 

periodically, to keep things straight in my own mind and to be able 

to shape clear guidance for the staff. I organized my day so that 

every morning I had 30 minutes to review the intelligence and 30 

minutes to think about the previous day and organize my thoughts 

for the days ahead. Once the day began, there was precious little 

time for reflection. After a few months on the ground, I began taking a day off every month. I would stay at my quarters, exercise, 

read, and think about the longer term. Because I found that forcing myself to write things out caused me to sharpen my personal 

thinking on issues, I would often write something at the end of 

the day to capture my thinking. After a year, I found that 1 day 

a month was not enough, and I began taking a half-day off every 

week. I encouraged my subordinate leaders to do the same.
177

insights for leaders

Over time, I learned to watch myself to know when I was not at 

my best. If I got to the point where I did not feel like I was capable 

of providing creative inputs to the challenges we were dealing with, I 

looked for the opportunity to get a short break. I also made it a point 

to take at least a week off outside of Iraq every year and to ensure 

that all of my subordinates took advantage of R&R leave. Preserving 

your physical, mental, and emotional strength is critical to the ability 

to lead at the strategic level.

Operation Iraqi Freedom is part of the larger story of the United States of America adapting to the security challenges thrust on us 

by the al Qaeda attacks of September 11, 2001. The world we live 

in is in a period of continuous and fundamental change as technology’s continuous march ties us closer and closer together and puts 

the instruments of catastrophic destruction in the hands of nonstate 

actors. As a result, war in the 21st century will not be like the conventional war that I spent 30 years of a 40-year career training to fight. 

It will also not be just like Iraq or Afghanistan. At the tactical level, 

it will be as uncertain and as difficult and as brutal as war has always 

been. I believe, however, that the complexities of the international 

security environment will only increase at the operational and strategic levels, bringing greater challenges for senior leaders. We will 

require agile, adaptive senior leaders to handle the challenges of war 

in the second decade of the 21st century. It is my hope that this book 

will contribute to the development of those leaders.

179

Appendix 1: Abbreviations

A ASSESS: assessments

AQI: al Qaeda in Iraq

B BG: brigadier general (U.S. Army one-star)

C CAMP PLANS: campaign planning 

CASB: Commander’s Assessment and 

Synchronization Board

CIA: Central Intelligence Agency

CIG: Commander’s Initiative Group

CMO: civil-military operations 

COIN: counterinsurgency

COALITION: coalition operations 

COMMNF-IZ: Commander of Multi-National Force–Iraq 

CONT PLANS: contingency planning 

COR: Council of Representatives

CORD/SYNC/BRIEF: coordination/synchronization

briefing 

COS: chief of staff 

CPIC: Combined Press Information Center 

CPR: Campaign Progress Review

CSM: command sergeant major

D DCG: Deputy Commanding General

DCG Detainee Ops: Deputy Commanding General for

Detainee Operations

DCS CIS: Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications and

Information Systems Operations

DCS INTEL: Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence

Operations
180 

Strategic RefLEctions

DCS POL/MIL/ECON: Deputy Chief of Staff for

Political-Military-Economic Effects

DCS STRAT OPNS: Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic

Operations

DCS STRAT, PLANS & ASSESSMENT: Deputy Chief of

Staff for Strategy, Plans, and Assessment

DCS STRATCOM: Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic

Communication

DCS RESOURCES & SUSTAIN: Deputy Chief of Staff

for Resources and Sustainment

DEP IRMO: Deputy for Iraq Reconstruction Management

Office

DEP STRAT PLANS: Deputy for Strategic Plans

DOS SPT: Department of State support

E ECON EFF: economic effects

F FAR: flat-assed rules

G GEN: general (U.S. Army four-star)

GRD: Gulf Region Division

I IG: Inspector General 

IIG: Iraqi Interim Government

ISF: Iraqi security forces

ISG: Iraq Survey Group

ITG: Iraqi Transitional Government

J JCC: Joint Contracting Command

JVB: Joint Visitor’s Bureau

L LTG: lieutenant general (U.S. Army three-star)

LOG: logistics

M MG: major general (U.S. Army two-star)
181

Appendix 1

MIN COORD: [Iraq] Minister Coordination

MNB: Multi-National Brigade

MNC-I: Multi-National Corps–Iraq

MND: Multi-National Division

MNF-I: Multi-National Force–Iraq

 MNSTC-I: Multi-National Security Transition 

Command–Iraq

MOD: Ministry of Defense

MOI: Ministry of Interior

N NSC: National Security Council

NSPD: National Security Presidential Directive

NSVI: National Strategy for Victory in Iraq

O OIF: Operation Iraqi Freedom

OPNS: operations

OTF: Operation Together Forward

P PAO: public affairs officer

PERS: personnel

PLANS: planning

POLICY DEV/INT: Policy Development and Integration

R RM: Resource Management

S SCJS: Secretary of the Combined and Joint Staff

SJA: Staff Judge Advocate

SOC: Special Operations Command

STRATEGY: strategy planning
182 

Strategic RefLEctions

T TACON: tactical control 

TF 134: Task Force 134 (Detainee Operations)

TF 6-26: Task Force 6-26 (Special Operations Task Force)

TRA: transition readiness assessment

U UK: United Kingdom

UN: United Nations

UNSCR: United Nations Security Council Resolution

USCENTCOM: U.S. Central Command
183

Appendix 2: The Coalition, July 2004 

Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) was not just a seminal experience 

for the U.S. military. Forces from more than 38 countries contributed 

effectively to the operation. As with the U.S. forces, the OIF experience 

had transformative effects on all the militaries that participated. The list 

above shows the 33 countries that were providing 23,000 forces to OIF 

when I assumed command in July of 2004. Armenia and Bosnia-Herzegovinia were added in 2005. 

Coalition participation held fairly constant throughout my 

command tenure until completion of the United Nations timeline in December 2005 when it began to decrease. By the end of 2006 we had about 

two-thirds of the coalition forces that we had when I arrived in 2004. 

Albania Macedonia

Australia Moldova

Azerbaijan Mongolia

Bulgaria Netherlands

Czech Republic New Zealand

Denmark Norway

El Salvador Republic of the Philippines

Estonia Poland

Georgia Portugal

Hungary Romania

Italy Singapore

Japan Slovakia

Jordan Thailand

Kazakhstan United Arab Emirates 

Republic of Korea Ukraine

Latvia United Kingdom

Lithuania
184 

Appendix 3: Leadership in Iraq, 

2004–2007

Iraqi Leaders

June 28, 2004–May 3, 2005: Iraqi Interim Government

Prime Minister: Ayad Allawi

Minister of Defense: Hazem Shaalan

Minister of Interior: Falah Hassan al-Naqib

National Security Advisor: Dr. Mowaffak al-Rubaie*

May 3, 2005–May 20, 2006: Iraqi Transitional Government

Prime Minister: Ibrahim al-Jafari

Minister of Defense: Saadoun al-Dulaimi

Minister of Interior: Bayan Baqir Solagh

National Security Advisor: Dr. Mowaffak al-Rubaie

May 20, 2006–June 14, 2010: Government of Iraq

Prime Minister: Nuri al-Maliki

Minister of Defense: Qadir Obeidi 

Minister of Interior: Jawad al-Bulani

National Security Advisor: Dr. Mowaffak al-Rubaie

U.S. Ambassadors

June 2004–March 2005: John D. Negroponte

March 2005–July 2005: James F. Jeffrey (U.S. Deputy Chief

of Mission and U.S. Chargé d’affaires)

July 2005–March 2007: Zalmay Khalilzad

*

 Dr. Rubaie was appointed to a 5-year term in 2004.
185

Appendix 3

MNF-I Leaders

Commander

GEN George Casey, USA, July 2004–February 2007

Command Sergeant Major

CSM Jeff Mellinger, USA, August 2004–May 2007

Deputy Commanding General

Lt Gen John McColl (UK), May 2004–October 2004

Lt Gen John Kiszley (UK), October 2004–April 2005

Lt Gen Robin Brims (UK), April 2005–October 2005

 Lt Gen Nick Houghton (UK), October 2005–February 2006

Lt Gen Rob Fry (UK), March 2006–September 2006

 Lt Gen Graham Lamb (UK), September 2006–March 2007 

Chief of Staff

MajGen Joe Weber, USMC, March 2004–April 2005

MajGen Tim Donovan, USMC, May 2005–May 2006

MajGen Thomas “Tango” Moore, USMC, 

May 2006–May 2007

MNC-I Commander

LTG Tom Metz, USA, January 2004–January 2005 (III Corps) 

LTG John Vines, USA, January 2005–January 2006 (XVIII

Airborne Corps) 

LTG Peter Chiarelli, USA, January 2006–December 2006

(V Corps) 

LTG Ray Odierno, USA, December 2006–December 2007

(III Corps) 

MNSTC-I Commander

LTG Dave Petraeus, USA, June 2004–September 2005

LTG Marty Dempsey, USA, September 2005–March 2007
186 

Strategic RefLEctions

Special Operations Task Force

LTG Stan McChrystal, USA, September 2003–August 2008 

Deputy Commanding General for Detainee Operations

MG Geoff Miller, USA, April 2004–October 2004

 MG Bill Brandenburg, USA, November 2004–November 2005

MG Jack Gardner, USA, November 2005–December 2006

 MajGen Doug Stone, USMC, December 2006–September 2007

Gulf Region Division–Corps of Engineers

MG Tom Bostick, USA, June 2004–June 2005

MG Bill McCoy, USA, June 2005–October 2006

BG Mike Walsh, USA, October 2006–October 2007

Joint Contracting Command

MG John Urias, USA, January 2005–January 2006

 Maj Gen Darryl Scott, USAF, February 2006–October 2007

Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Effects

MG Hank Stratman, USA, June 2004–July 2005

MG Rick Lynch, USA, June 2005–July 2006

MG Bill Caldwell, USA, June 2006–May 2007

Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategy, Plans, and Assessment

Maj Gen Steve Sargent, USAF, December 2003–May 2005

Maj Gen Rusty Findley, USAF, May 2005–May 2006

Maj Gen Kurt Cichowski, USAF, May 2006–May 2007

Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Operations

MG Tom Miller, USA, July 2003–August 2004

MG Jim Molan (AUS), September 2004–April 2005

MG Eldon Bargewell, USA, April 2005–June 2006

MG Dave Fastabend, USA, June 2006–June 2007
187

Appendix 3

Joint Interagency Task Force–High Value Individuals

BG Frank Kearney, USA, August 2004–July 2005

BG Craig Broadwater, USA, August 2005–January 2006

Brig Gen Mike Longoria, USAF, January 2006–July 2006

Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence

MG Barbara Fast, USA, July 2003–August 2004

MG John Defreitas, USA, August 2004–July 2005

MG Rick Zahner, USA, July 2005–October 2006

 BG Dave Lacquement, USA, October 2006–September 2007

Deputy Chief of Staff for Coalition Operations

BG De Pascale (HUN), May 2004–November 2004

BG Alessio Cecchetti (IT), October 2005–April 2006

BG Pier Paolo Lunelli (IT), May 2006–November 2006

BG Dan Neagoe (ROM), November 2006–February 2007

Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications and 

Information Systems

RADM Nancy Brown, USN, August 2004–March 2005

 Brig Gen Rick Dinkins, USAF, March 2005–December 2005

Brig Gen Gary Connor, USAF, 

December 2005–December 2006

Brig Gen Ronnie Hawkins, USAF, December 2006–

December 2007

Deputy Chief of Staff for Resources and Sustainment

BG Scott West, USA, July 2003–June 2004

BG Gerry Minetti, USA, July 2004–July 2005

MG Kathy Gainey, USA, July 2005–September 2006

BG Steve Anderson, USA, September 2006–August 2007
188 

Appendix 4: Iraqi Security Forces

Progression, 2004–2007

The training and equipping of the Iraqi security forces was a significant accomplishment, especially because the ISF were organized, 

trained, equipped, and then put directly into combat operations with 

our forces. The transition team and partnership programs enabled us 

not only to complete the training and equipping of the ISF in an active combat environment, but also to instill in them the qualities of a 

professional military operating under civilian leadership. 

The quantitative growth of the ISF is shown below, from approximately 90,000 trained and equipped military, police, and border 

forces in July 2004 to over 325,000 by the end of January 2007, a 

growth of over 3.5 times. 

The qualitative growth of the Iraqi army was equally dramatic. 

In June 2005, we began monthly reporting on army and national 

police units to track their progress. There was a four-fold increase 

in army battalions conducting operations independently or with 

coalition force support (TRA 1 and 2) between June 2005 and January 2007 (24 in June 2005, 96 in January 2007)—a period of only 

19 months. 

The improvement in national police battalions was not as dramatic, due largely to their infiltration by sectarian influences in the 

summer and fall of 2005, which required the retraining of all national 

police units. Each brigade was pulled offline, its leadership purged of 

sectarian influence, and then retrained. 
189

Appendix 4

350,000300,000250,000200,000150,000100,000

0

September 2004 November 2004 January 2005 March 2005 July 2005 September 2005 November 2005 January 2006 March 2006 May 2006 July 2006 September 2006 November 2006 January 2007 May 2005

325K

50,000

Ministry of Defense Forces Border Enforcement Iraqi Regular Police Service Other Police

July 2004

90K

Graph A4-1. Iraqi Security Forces Growth
190 

Strategic RefLEctions

Graph A4-2. Army Transition Readiness Assessment Growth

June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007

140120100

80604020

0 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 0 2 5 5 5 7 8 8 9 13 12 12

23 31 31 35 37 39 44 52 59 60 60 66

76 76 78

85

81

85 85 84 55

50

55

52 54

60

55 49

51

44

47 40

33 32 28

21 23 19 21 23

9

15 15 15

13

18 10 10

7

6

8 9 7 5 6 9 10

14 13 12

Level 1: Independent Level 2: In the lead w/CF support Level 3: Side by side Level 4: Unit being formed
191

Appendix 4

Graph A4-3. Special Police Transition Readiness Assessment Growth

June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007

3025201510

5

0

2 1

4

1 2 2

2 4 4

2

8 10 8 10 10

3

1

5 5 5 5

13

26 26

27

24

20 20 18 18

26 25 24

22 23 23 22 22 22

1

24

18

Level 1: Independent Level 2: In the lead w/CF support Level 3: Side by side Level 4: Unit being formed

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
192 

Appendix 5: Operation Iraqi

Freedom Chronology, 

2004–2007

March 19, 2003

Operation Iraqi Freedom begins.

April 19, 2004

 John Negroponte nominated as Ambassador to Iraq.

May 6, 2004

Ambassador Negroponte confirmed by Senate.

May 11, 2004

National Security Presidential Directive 36, “United States

Government Operations in Iraq,” issued.

May 15, 2004

Multi-National Force–Iraq (MNF-I) established and commanded

by LTG Rick Sanchez.

May 24, 2004

President George W. Bush delivers speech on Iraq at Army War

College.

May 26, 2004

GEN George W. Casey, Jr., nominated to command MNF-I.

June 8, 2004

United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1546

unanimously approved by Security Council.

June 14–20, 2004

GEN Casey visits Iraq with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul

Wolfowitz.

June 26, 2004

GEN Casey confirmed by Senate to command MNF-I.
193

Appendix 5

June 28, 2004

U.S. Government transfers sovereignty to Iraq.

July 1, 2004

GEN Casey takes command of MNF-I.

July 7, 2004

First meeting of Strategic Action Committee, a deputies-level

 meeting to frame security issues for Iraqi and U.S. 

leaders.

July 8, 2004

First meeting of Ministerial Committee for National Security, the

 primary forum for Iraqi and U.S. leaders to jointly 

address security issues.

July 15, 2004

Red Team assessment, “Building Legitimacy and Confronting

 Insurgency in Iraq,” published. Assessment completed 

at joint request of Ambassador Negroponte and GEN 

Casey.

August 5, 2004

MNF-I 2005 campaign plan, “Operation Iraqi Freedom— 

 Partnership: From Occupation to Constitutional 

Elections,” published.

August 5–27, 2004

Battle of Najaf.

August 18, 2004

U.S. Embassy/MNF-I joint mission statement published.

September 2004

MNF-I counterinsurgency study conducted as historical review of

best practices.

November 2, 2004

President Bush is reelected.
194 

Strategic RefLEctions

November 8–18, 2004

Battle of Fallujah.

December 5, 2004

First Campaign Progress Review published.

December 14–20, 2004

GEN Casey returns to Washington for consultations. Also visits

 Fort Bragg to direct incoming XVIII Corps to begin 

preparing to implement partnership and transition 

teams on arrival with internal assets.

January 30, 2005

Iraqis vote to elect a Transitional National Assembly in first

 democratic elections in Iraq since 1954. Eight million 

Iraqis—58 percent of electorate—turn out to vote.

February–May 2005

Iraqi government transitions from Iraqi Interim Government (IIG)

to Iraqi Transitional Government (ITG).

February 7, 2005

Second U.S. Embassy/MNF-I joint mission statement, “A Plan for

the Year Ahead: Transition to Self-Reliance,” published.

February 10, 2005

Multi-National Corps–Iraq (MNC-I) transition of authority

 from III Corps, commanded by LTG Tom Metz, to 

XVIII Airborne Corps, commanded by LTG John Vines.

March 2005

Ambassador Negroponte departs Iraq.

April 2005

Phoenix Academy, a training center for incoming transition teams,

established.
195

Appendix 5

April 22, 2005

MNF-I campaign action plan, “Transition to Self-Reliance,”

 published, emphasizing development of Iraqi security 

forces (ISF) capacity and establishing transition team 

and partnership programs and initial framework for 

transition of security responsibility to Iraqis.

May 2005

Transition readiness assessment developed to measure ISF

capabilities. First report delivered in June.

May 2005

ITG seated. Transitional National Assembly begins drafting

constitution.

June 15, 2005

Seven Provincial Support Teams, the predecessor to Provincial

Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), established.

June 22, 2005

Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad arrives.

June 22–28, 2005

GEN Casey visits Washington for consultations.

June 27, 2005

Second Campaign Progress Review (December 2004–June 2005)

published.

July–August 2005

MNF-I conducts survey to determine how well coalition forces are

applying counterinsurgency doctrine. 

July–December 2005

MNF-I military operations focus on restoring Iraqi control to

 Iraq’s western border. Third Armored Cavalry Regiment 

reinforces Tal Afar–Mosul corridor. Western Euphrates 

River Valley campaign conducted in Anbar Province.
196 

Strategic RefLEctions

August 16, 2005

U.S.-Iraqi Joint Committee to Transfer Security Responsibility

 established to set conditions for gradual transition of 

security to appropriate Iraqi authorities.

September 2005

Intelligence task force established to track sectarian violence in Iraq.

September 2005

COIN Academy established; first class conducted in November 2005. 

September 5, 2005

Command of Multi-National Security Transition Command–Iraq

 changes from LTG David Petraeus to LTG Martin 

Dempsey. 

September 10, 2005

Assessment on transition teams published.

September 27–October 3, 2005

GEN Casey visits Washington for consultations.

October 2005

Responsibility for developing Ministry of the Interior (MOI)

moved from U.S. Embassy to MNF-I.

October 15, 2005

Iraqis approve constitution drafted by Transitional National

 Assembly. Ten million Iraqis vote; 78.6 favor 

constitution.

October 30, 2005

“Strategic Planning Directive (November 2005–April 2006)— 

 Making the Elections Decisive” published to bridge 

uncertainty of new government formation period. 

Tenets include “Al Qaeda out,” “Sunni in,” and “ISF in 

the lead.”
197

Appendix 5

November 2005

PRTs approved for Mosul, Kirkuk, and Babil provinces.

November 30, 2005

Illegal MOI detention facility discovered in Baghdad.

November 30, 2005

National Strategy for Victory in Iraq issued by White House.

December 6, 2005

Third U.S. Embassy/MNF-I joint mission statement published.

December 15, 2005

11.8 million Iraqis (76 percent of registered voters) elect members

 of Iraqi assembly under new constitution; government 

formation period begins.

December 20, 2005

Third Campaign Progress Review published.

December 24, 2005

First off-ramp of two coalition brigades announced following

successful completion of UNSCR 1546 political timeline.

January 19, 2006

MNC-I transition of authority from XVIII Airborne Corps to V

Corps, commanded by LTG Peter Chiarelli.

February 22, 2006

Al-Askari Mosque in Samarra bombed, inflaming sectarian tensions.

February 24, 2006

MNF-I publishes “Strategic Directive: Golden Mosque Bombing”

 to direct actions in aftermath of al-Askari Mosque 

bombing.
198 

Strategic RefLEctions

March 14–June 14, 2006

Operation Scales of Justice stabilizes situation in Baghdad

 sufficiently to allow establishment of constitutionally 

elected government of Iraq.

April 21, 2006

Nuri al-Maliki chosen to replace Prime Minister Ibrahim 

 al-Jafari, becoming the first democratically elected 

prime minister of Iraq under new constitution.

April 28, 2006

New joint campaign plan, “Operation Iraqi Freedom Transition to

 Iraqi Self-Reliance,” published, projecting December 2009 

as time when Iraqis would be self-reliant for security.

May 20, 2006

Prime Minister al-Maliki’s government confirmed by Iraqi

 parliament. Security ministers not confirmed for 2 more 

weeks.

June 7, 2006

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, killed during

U.S. air raid.

June 7, 2006

New security ministers confirmed.

June 9, 2006

Joint campaign action plan, “Unity, Security, Prosperity,”

published.

June 12, 2006

Camp David discussions. Ambassador Khalilzad and GEN

Casey participate by secure video teleconference.

June 14, 2006

Fourth Campaign Progress Review published.
199

Appendix 5

June 15–August 6, 2006

Operation Together Forward I (Baghdad security), the new

 government’s first attempt to halt sectarian violence in 

capital, meets with initial success but flounders as ISF 

do not consistently hold cleared areas.

June 19–23, 2006

GEN Casey visits Washington for consultations. 

July 13, 2006

Muthanna becomes first Iraqi province to assume security responsibility.

July 18, 2006

Anticipated off-ramp of U.S. forces canceled.

July 19, 2006

Joint Committee to Achieve Iraqi Security Self-Reliance established 

 to refine framework for Iraqi assumption of security 

responsibility, continuing work of Joint Committee to 

Transfer Security Responsibility.

July 28, 2006

172nd Stryker Brigade extended 4 months in Iraq to address sharp 

increase in sectarian violence.

August 7–October 22, 2006

Operation Together Forward II (Baghdad security) initiated to 

reduce sectarian violence before Ramadan.

September 21, 2006

Dhi Qar becomes second Iraqi province to assume security 

responsibility.

October–December 2006

U.S. Government review of Iraq policy. 

October 7–11, 2006

GEN Casey visits Washington for consultations.
200 

Strategic RefLEctions

November 7, 2006

U.S. midterm elections.

November 8, 2006

Donald Rumsfeld resigns as Secretary of Defense and President

Bush nominates Robert Gates.

November 30, 2006

Meeting in Amman, Jordan, with President Bush and Prime 

Minister al-Maliki.

December 6, 2006

Iraq Study Group report released.

December 14, 2006

MNC-I transition of authority from V Corps to III Corps,

commanded by LTG Ray Odierno.

December 20, 2006

Najaf becomes third Iraqi province to assume security responsibility.

December 23, 2006

Fifth Campaign Progress Review published, noting that because

 of sectarian violence, objectives were not being 

achieved within planned timeframes. Review stated that 

improvements in bringing all elements of national power 

to bear were necessary.

December 23, 2006

Prime Minister al-Maliki approves new Baghdad security plan and

additional deployment of U.S. forces.

December 30, 2006

Saddam Hussein executed by hanging.
201

Appendix 5

January 6, 2007

In Iraqi Army Day speech, Prime Minister al-Maliki announces 

 government support for ISF and new Baghdad security 

plan and agrees to take action against “all who break the 

law.”

January 10, 2007

President Bush delivers speech to Nation, announcing deployment 

of five brigades to Iraq.

February 8, 2007

GEN Casey confirmed as Army chief of staff.

February 10, 2007

GEN Casey passes command of MNF-I to GEN Petraeus.

203

Notes

Chapter 1

1

 National Security Presidential Directive 36, “United States 

Government Operations in Iraq,” May 11, 2004.

2

 Ibid.

3

 George W. Bush, speech at the U.S. Army War College, 

Carlisle, PA, May 24, 2004.

4

 Ibid.

5

 United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546, June 8, 

2004.

6

 Ibid.

7

 Ibid.

8

 Donald Rumsfeld, memo to General John Abizaid, “Support 

for Other Government Activities in Iraq,” April 27, 2004.

9

 Donald Rumsfeld, memo, “Some Thoughts on Iraq and How 

to Think about It,” June 7, 2004.

10 Senate Armed Services Committee, “Advance Questions 

for General George W. Casey, Jr., U.S. Army, Nominee for 

Commander, Multinational Force–Iraq,” June 24, 2004.

11 Bush, speech.

Chapter 2

1 John P. Abizaid, memo to General Casey, “Initial Guidance,” 

July 1, 2004.

2 Red Team, “Building Legitimacy and Confronting Insurgency 

in Iraq,” July 15, 2004.

3 Ibid.

4 Multi-National Force–Iraq (MNF-I) and U.S. Mission–

Iraq, “MNF-I–Embassy Joint Mission Statement,” August 18, 

2004.

5 MNF-I campaign plan, “Operation Iraqi Freedom–

Partnership: From Occupation to Constitutional Elections,” 

August 5, 2004.
204 

Strategic RefLEctions

6 Multi-National Security Transition Command–Iraq, 

presentation to the Secretary of Defense, “IPR [In-Progress 

Review] with Secretary of Defense,” August 4, 2004.

7 Multi-National Security Transition Command–Iraq, 

presentation to the Secretary of Defense, “IPR with Secretary of 

Defense,” July 14, 2004.

8 Bill Hix and Kalev Sepp, “Successful and Unsuccessful 

Counterinsurgency Practices,” January 22, 2005.

9 MNF-I, “MNF-I 5-Month Campaign Progress Review,” 

December 5, 2004.

10 George W. Casey, Jr., “Iraq Update,” December 16, 2004.

Chapter 3

1 George W. Casey, Jr., memo to General Abizaid, “The Way 

Ahead for 2005,” January 5, 2005.

2 Ibid.

3 MNF-I, “Joint Mission Statement,” February 7, 2005. 

Emphasis added.

4 Ibid.

5 MNF-I, “Joint Campaign Action Plan,” April 22, 2005.

6 MNF-I, “Campaign Progress Review (December 2004–June 

2005),” June 27, 2005.

7 George W. Casey, Jr., congressional testimonies before the 

Senate and House Armed Services Committees, June 23, 2005.

8 MNF-I, “Strategic Planning Directive (November 2005–April 

2006)—Making the Elections Decisive,” October 30, 2005.

9 MNF-I, “The September Assessment [of Transition Teams],” 

September 10, 2005.

10 George W. Bush, radio address, October 15, 2005.

11 George W. Casey, Jr., presentation to Stephen Hadley, “Iraq 

Campaign Plan,” September 17, 2005.

12 NSC, “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq,” November 2005.

13 MNF-I and U.S. Mission–Iraq, “Joint Mission Statement,” 

December 6, 2005.

14 MNF-I, “Campaign Progress Review,” December 20, 2005.
205

Notes

Chapter 4

1 George W. Casey, Jr., presentation to National Security 

Council, “MNF-I Update,” January 5, 2006.

2 MNF-I, “Strategic Directive: Golden Mosque Bombing,” 

February 24, 2006.

3 MNF-I and U.S. Mission–Iraq, “Joint Campaign Plan,” April 

28, 2006.

4 Ibid.

5 George W. Casey, Jr., presentation to NSC at Camp David, 

“Joint Campaign Plan,” June 12, 2006.

6 MNF-I and U.S. Mission–Iraq, “Joint Campaign Progress 

Review,” June 14, 2006.

Chapter 5

1 George W. Casey, Jr., email to Generals Abizaid and Peter 

Pace, July 18, 2006.

2 James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton, “The Iraq Study 

Group Report,” December 2006.

3 George W. Bush, speech to Nation, January 10, 2007.

207

About the author

GEORGE WILLIAM CASEY, JR.

Chief of Staff

United States Army

April 2007–April 2011

Commander, Multi-National Force–Iraq

July 2004–February 2007

General George W. Casey, Jr., was born in Sendai, Japan, on July 22, 

1948, into a military family. He was commissioned a Second Lieutenant 

of Infantry from the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service 

in 1970. His father, Major General George William Casey, was killed 

in Vietnam that same year while commanding the 1st Cavalry Division.

Throughout his career, General Casey served in operational assignments in Germany, Italy, Egypt, Southwest Asia, and the United 

Len Rubenstein Photography
208 

Strategic RefLEctions

States. He commanded at every level from platoon to division, including a mechanized infantry battalion at Fort Carson, Colorado, 

and a mechanized infantry brigade at Fort Hood, Texas. He also 

served as Assistant Division Commander for Maneuver and Support 

in the 1st Armored Division in Germany and Bosnia (as part of Operation Joint Endeavor) and commanded the 1st Armored Division 

in Bad Kreuznach, Germany.

His principal staff assignments included Chief of Staff, 1st Cavalry 

Division, Fort Hood, Texas; Operations Officer and Chief of Staff, V 

(US/GE) Corps, Heidelberg, Germany; Deputy Director for PoliticoMilitary Affairs, Joint Staff; Commander, Joint Warfighting Center/J7, 

U.S. Joint Forces Command; Director Strategic Plans and Policy, Joint 

Staff; Director of the Joint Staff; and 30th Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Army.

From July 2004 until February 2007, General Casey was the 

Commander of Multi-National Force–Iraq, a coalition of more than 

30 countries, in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He led coalition forces 

through three transitions of sovereign Iraqi governments while increasing the size and capacity of Iraqi security forces and setting the 

conditions for long-term success. 

From April 10, 2007, until April 11, 2011, General Casey served 

as the 36th Chief of Staff, U.S. Army. Taking over at a time when the 

Army was stretched from 6 years of continuous combat, General 

Casey stabilized and transformed the Army into an agile fighting 

force prepared for the challenges of the 21st century while meeting 

the demands of two wars. 

General Casey holds a Master of Arts Degree in International 

Relations from Denver University and served as a Senior Fellow at 

the Atlantic Council of the United States.
209

Abizaid, John, GEN USA, 2, 17, 19, 51, 

64, 68, 114, 141, 144, 166

Abud Qanbar, Lt Gen ISF, 134

adaptation, importance of, 159–162

advisors, 57–58

al-Askari Mosque bombing, 89–96. See 

also Samarra bombing

al-Jafari, Ibrahim, Prime Minister of

Iraq, 2, 55, 64, 75, 84, 89

al-Maliki, Nuri, Prime Minister of Iraq,

 3, 104, 106, 107, 112, 121, 124, 

125, 131, 133, 134, 149, 168, 170

building relationships, 98–102

guidance to military leaders, 150–151

meetings with President Bush, 106,

138–139, 146–148

al-Masri, Abu Ayyub, 119

al Qaeda

after al-Zarqawi’s death, 108

disruption of activities, 84–85

exhortation to violence, 119

operations to defeat, 71

success against, in Anbar, 125

suicide attacks, 110

al-Sadr, Muqtada, 40

al-Zarqawi, Abu Musab, 79, 103–104

Albu Mahal tribe, 85

Allawi, Ayad, Prime Minister of Iraq, 2, 

6, 16, 39, 42, 50, 55, 58, 158

confidence boost after Najaf, 41

early meetings, 36–37

on security challenges, 14–15

Ambassador, United States to Iraq, 

 7. See also Negroponte, John; 

Jeffrey, James F.; Khalilzad, Zalmay

amnesty agreements, 126

Anbar Province

cooperation in, 171

as focus of insurgency, 96, 111, 119, 140

operations to defeat al Qaeda in, 84–85

success in, 125

Army Canal, 112

assessment

in campaign plans, 156

importance of, 159–162

tools for, 32–33, 160

Ba’athists

concerns over return, 92

as greatest danger, 128

relative importance, 112–113

Badr Corps, 145

Baghdad

as center of conflict, 94

civilian casualties, 140

as focus of insurgency, 96, 110–111,

119, 140

Iraqi control of, 131–135

military operations in, 126–135

Red Team recommendations, 117

security assessment by MNC-I, 129

security concerns, 102

security efforts redefined, 111

surge troops deployed, 148–149

violence against civilians, 110

Balad Airbase, 36

Bridging Strategy, 68, 84–89

Bush, George W., President, 2, 5, 8, 18, 

33, 50, 74, 104, 122, 125

meetings with Prime Minister 

al-Maliki, 106, 138–139, 146–148

speech at U.S. Army War College, 8

Camp David consultations, 104–106

Camp Victory, 34

campaign action plans

2005, 61–62

rationale for, 156

campaign planning

after Samarra bombing, 96, 98

INDEX
210 

initial plan 2004, 28–31

intent, 156

joint plan 2006, 96–98

presented to President Bush, 33, 

104–105

Campaign Progress Reviews

2004 December, 46–48

2005 June, 64–66

2005 December, 78–79

2006 June, 107

2006 December, 200

described, 160–161

“can-do” attitude, impact on mission, 

13, 57, 163

checkpoints, 112, 122–123

Chiarelli, Peter, LTG USA, 3, 88

civil authority

integrating military efforts, 127

interactions with military, 165–170

civil war, 94–95

civilians

attacks on, Baghdad and Diyala, 96, 

110–111, 140

casualties in Baghdad, 140

as targets of attack, 70

clarity of thought, 154–156

clear-hold-build concept, 41

COIN. See counterinsurgency

COIN Academy, 73, 88, 164, 174

command, lines of, 7–8

Commander’s Assessment and 

 Synchronization Board, 32–33, 

160

commanders’ conferences, 161

Commander’s Emergency Response 

Program, 69

communication with civil authorities, 

166

communication mission, 31

confirmation hearings

for chief of staff of the Army, 149

for commander, MNF–I, 16–17

congressional engagement, 6, 64–66, 135

construction projects, 41

Council of Representatives, 128

counterinsurgency

academy, 73, 88, 164, 174

best practices summary, 45, 163

doctrine application, review, 73, 164

duration of, 45, 53

increased presence leads to reduced 

casualties, 96

manual for, 164

“Najaf model,” 41–42

need for popular support, 28

criminals, 27

culture

importance of understanding Iraqi, 63

institutional change in, 162–163

interagency differences in, 158

organizational, 162–165

curfews, 90

death squads

attacks by, 110–111

casualties from, 140

Iranian training of, 116

relative importance of, 112–113

decisionmaking process, 169–170

Dempsey, Martin E., LTG USA, 3

Desert Protectors, 85

Diyala Province, 96, 110–111, 140

drawdowns

2006 cancellation, 113–115

2006 plans, 83, 107

economic development mission, 30–31

Eisenhower, Dwight D., 3

elections

2005 January, 49–50

2005 December, 80

2005 outcome possibilities, 46

deadlines for, 9

planning and preparation, 42–44

INDEX
211

polarizing effect, 82

security efforts, 43

security planning, 39

suicide attacks as threat, 70–71

Sunni participation, 85–86

exercise, importance for leaders, 176

expectations, setting, 82–83, 166–167

Fallujah

as haven for insurgents, 15

importance of reclaiming, 42

success in, 170

fighter networks, 70

“flat-assed rules,” 62, 63

fusion centers, 71

Gates, Robert M., U.S. Secretary of 

Defense, 2, 144, 146, 148, 169

governance mission, 30–31

Green Zone, 36

group think, avoiding, 162

Hadley, Stephen J., National Security 

Advisor, 2, 76, 138

headquarters organization, 33–34, 35

IEDs (improvised explosive devices)

cause of casualties, 119

counter-efforts, 88–89

Iranian supply of, 116

Independent Iraqi Election 

Commission, 43

“Insurgency,” as term less useful, 104

insurgency, Red Team view of, 24–25, 27

intelligence updates, 161

Interim Iraqi Government (IIG)

early assessment, 25

formation, 9

Iran

concerns over influence, 92, 93, 95

countering influence of, 116

operatives captured, 145

Iraq Civil Defense Corps. See also Iraqi 

National Guard

inadequacy of, 15

Iraq Study Group, 135–137

Iraq Survey Group, 36

Iraqi army. See Iraqi security forces (ISF)

Iraqi government (interim). See Interim 

Iraqi Government (IIG)

Iraqi government (sovereign)

coordination of efforts with, 158–159

differing view of threats, 112–113, 

122–123

early establishment of, 19

legitimacy of, 28–29

Iraqi government (transitional). See

 Iraqi Transitional Government 

(ITG)

Iraqi National Guard, 38

Iraqi people

independent action, encouragement 

of, 13

view of coalition forces, 54

Iraqi police. See also Iraqi security 

forces (ISF)

2005 updated plans for, 38

collaboration with militia, 119

deficiencies in, 15, 87–88, 110

delayed development, 72

sectarian influence, 91

transfer of responsibility for, 72

“Year of Police,” 87–88

Iraqi security forces (ISF)

2005 development priorities, 32

“face of” 2005 elections, 49–50

growth in capability, 105

growth in numbers, 189–191

“ISF in the lead” concept, 87

improving readiness, 54

initial review of, 38

Iraqi vision for, 15–16

transition concept, 60–61

troop goals, 9

Index
212 

troop levels (mid January 2006), 87

Iraqi Transitional Government (ITG)

cooperation with, 171

formation, 9

transition of, 55–56

Islamic extremists, 27. See also Shia 

extremists; Sunni extremists

Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps–

Quds Force, 116

Jeffrey, James F., U.S. Ambassador to 

Iraq, 2

Joint Chiefs of Staff, 12, 48, 64, 107, 124, 

137–138, 140

Joint Committee to Transfer Security 

Responsibility, 75

Joint Contracting Command, 36

joint mission statements

August 2004, 26

February 2005, 56–57

December 2005, 77–78

intent, 155

Khalilzad, Zalmay M., U.S. Ambassador

to Iraq, 2, 69, 75, 82, 85

relationship with, 67

kidnapping

and murder of Iraqi, 101–102

of coalition soldier in Baghdad, 

122–123

Lawrence, T.E. (Thomas Edward), 51

leader sustainment, personal, 175–177

McChrystal, Stanley A., LTG USA, 3, 103

Metz, Thomas F., LTG USA, 3

Ministerial Committee for National 

Security, 16, 37

mission

changes in after Samarra bombing, 92

consultations about initial direction, 

12–13

duration discussions, 48–49, 53

initial concept development with 

Negroponte, 11

mission statements, 29, 62, 98, 163

momentum, during transitions, 54, 

67–68, 172–174

Multi-National Brigade (MNB) area of 

operation, 21, 23

Multi-National Corps–Iraq (MNC-I), 

 30, 32, 54, 63, 67, 70, 84, 111, 112, 

129, 144, 159

responsibilities, 36

transitions, 88

Multi-National Division (MND) areas 

of operation, 21, 23

Multi-National Force–Iraq (MNF-I)

composition in 2004, 21

establishment, 22

headquarters organization, 33–34, 35

Multi-National Security Transition 

 Command–Iraq (MNSTC-I), 32, 

36, 47

Muthanna Province, 76, 115

Myers, Richard B., GEN USAF, 16th

 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff, 2, 13, 18

Najaf

as haven for insurgents, 15

reclaiming of, 40

success in, 170

National Strategy for Victory in Iraq 

(NSVI), 77

National Security Advisor, 2. See also

 Hadley, Stephen; Rice, 

Condoleezza

National Security Presidential Directive,

 6–9

Negroponte, John, U.S. Ambassador to

 Iraq, 18, 19, 20, 39, 53, 54, 77, 

154, 157

relationship with Casey, 10

INDEX
213

Ninewah Province, 96, 111

Odierno, Raymond, T., LTG USA, 3

“off-ramp” plans. See drawdowns

One Team/One Mission concept, 22, 30,

33, 37, 67, 152

building and sustaining, 158

formation, 10–11

unity of effort, 157

Operation Iraqi Freedom chronology, 

192–201

Operation Scales of Justice, 90–91

Operation Together Forward, 110

Operation Together Forward II, 118–119

Pace, Peter, GEN USMC, 17th Chairman 

 of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2, 114, 

135, 137, 138, 140, 144, 145

Partnership concept, 29, 58–59

Petraeus, David H., LTG USA, 3, 20, 146

change of command, 149, 151

ISF assessment leadership, 38

Phoenix Academy, 61, 164

policy review, Washington 2006, 135–138

political-military integration, 127, 170–172

Powell, Colin, U.S. Secretary of State, 

2, 6, 16

presumption of confirmation, 14

prisons, Iraqi, 79

progress, measuring, 32–33, 46–47, 72, 

160, 167–168

Provincial Reconstruction Teams 

(PRTs), 68–69

public services, 112, 119

public support, as center of gravity, 28

Ramadan, violence during, 118–119

Ramadi, 125

reading, importance for leaders, 175

reconciliation, importance of, 79, 86, 108,

114–115, 125–127, 135–142

reconstruction funding to PRTs, 69

Red Teams

2006 actions, 116

avoiding group think, 162

election outcomes, 46

initial, 22–28

subsequent formations of, 67

unity of effort, 157–158

reporting, balance in, 53

reversing decisions, 115–116

Rice, Condoleezza, U.S. Secretary of 

 State, National Security Advisor, 2

ROC drill, election, 50

rowboat analogy, 150

Rumsfeld, Donald H., U.S. Secretary of 

Defense, 2, 144, 169

consultations with, 48, 74, 76, 114

initial guidance, 13, 18

resignation, 126, 135

teleconferences with, 37–38

Sadr City

car bombs in, 129

clearance efforts, 112–113

safe haven elimination

Fallujah, 42

Najaf, 40

Saladin Province, 140

Samarra bombing, 89–96

Sanchez, Ricardo, LTG USA, 20, 22

Schoomaker, Peter J., GEN USA, 5, 146

Secretary of Defense, U.S., 2. See also

 Gates, Robert M.; Rumsfeld, 

Donald H.

Secretary of State, U.S., 7. See also

Powell, Colin; Rice, Condoleezza

sectarian violence

2005 increase in, 79

after Samarra bombing, 89–91

civilian focus, 110–111

geographic focus, 140

security challenges, Iraqi view of initial, 

14–15

Index
214 

security mission, 30, 32

Self-Reliance Phase (of Operation Iraqi 

Freedom), 29

sensitive offensive operations, 16

services, 112, 119

Shia extremists

attacks by, 110–111

death squads, 140

defeat in Najaf, 40

kidnapping by, 101–102

security concerns, 93, 95

threat assessment in 2004, 27

Shia Iraqis

civilians as targets of attack, 70

inexperience in governing, 53

sleep, importance for leaders, 176

Special Forces, training conventional 

forces, 61, 164

special operations task force, 36, 70, 84, 

103, 113, 117

status updates. See Campaign Progress 

Reviews

Strategic Action Committee, 16, 37

Stryker brigade extension, 115

suicide attacks

after al-Zarqawi’s death, 108

contribution to cycle of violence, 110

operations to interdict, 71

relative importance, 112–113

threat to elections, 70–71

Sunni extremists, 93, 95, 104, 113, 140

Sunni Iraqis

December 2005 election participation, 

85–86

disenfranchised sentiment among, 82

engagement with, 68, 85–86

initial threat assessment in 2004, 27

January 2005 election nonparticipation, 

43–44

rejectionists, 24, 27

voting against new constitution, 74

surge

approval of, 145–146

rollout, 146–147

views on additional forces, 142–144

Tal Afar–Mosul corridor operations, 70

Task Force 134, 36

Task Force 6-26, 36

threat assessment, initial, 13–14, 25, 27, 

37–38, 46–47

training

of indigenous forces, 164

train the trainers, 61

transition concept, 56–61

condition-based, 76

transition readiness assessment (TRA), 72

transition teams

concept, 58, 60

early results, 57–58

effectiveness, 71–72

transitions

adaptation during, 55–56

disruption from, 55

maintaining momentum, 172–174

momentum loss, 54, 67–68

troop levels

2004 mid-year, U.S. and coalition, 8, 21

2006 drawdown cancellation, 113–115

2006 drawdown plans, 83, 107

additional for 2004 election, 43

for embedded advisors, 58

surge in, 142–143, 145–147

trust, establishing with civil leaders, 123

understand, visualize, decide, direct 

process, 154–155

United Nations Security Council 

 Resolution 1546, 6, 9–10, 29, 36, 

48, 49, 53, 56–57, 62, 66, 75, 165, 

192, 197

consultative mechanisms, 16

mission description, 157

timetable, 9–10

INDEX
215

United States Central Command 

 (USCENTCOM) commander, 

7, 19–20, 157, 165–166. See also

Abizaid, John, GEN USA

Unity, Security, and Prosperity plan, 100

unity of effort

importance of, 156–159

One Team/One Mission concept, 

10–11

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gulf 

Regional Division, 36

U.S. Army partnership alignment with 

Iraqi army, 59

U.S. Army War College, 8

Vines, John R., LTG USA, 3, 63, 64

visualizing, process of, 155

voter participation, 43–44, 74, 85–86

Washington consultations

December 2004, 48–49, 53

January 2005, 64–66

December 2005, 81–83

June 2006, 104–108

October 2006, 123–124

December 2006, 145–146

Western Euphrates River Valley 

campaign, 70–71

“Wonder Bread” chart, 25, 27

Index