We have identified several key elements of an effective national strategy that should be considered by the new administration in developing national strategies for Iraq and Afghanistan to guide the way forward. First, our work shows that new strategies for both countries should reflect a comprehensive governmentwide approach and clearly delineate U.S. government roles, responsibilities, and coordination mechanisms. Not only should the strategy identify the specific U.S. federal departments, agencies, or offices involved, but also the responsibilities of the private and international sectors, and specific processes for coordination and collaboration among the entities. In particular, our work in Iraq has shown problems in these areas. For example, in July 2006, we reported that the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq (NSVI) did not clearly identify the roles and responsibilities of specific federal agencies for achieving the strategy’s objectives, or how disputes among them will be resolved. Later, in March 2008 we noted that U.S. efforts to build the capacity of the Iraqi government have been hindered by multiple U.S. agencies pursuing individual efforts without overarching direction. We further noted that no single agency was in charge of leading U.S. development efforts, and that the U.S. State Department, DOD, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) all led separate efforts with little or no coordination. As the United States considers increasing its presence in Afghanistan, it will be even more important that roles and responsibilities of the various U.S. agencies are clearly identified and their programs and activities are coordinated. For example, DOD’s Commanders’ Emergency Response Program (CERP) and other funding have been used to a great extent for building roads. At the same time, USAID has also invested funds in constructing roads. In July 2008, we reported that coordination between DOD and USAID on road projects was problematic because information was not being shared among the agencies. As DOD expands its CERP program, and other agencies expand their respective programs, it will be important that their efforts be coordinated as part of an overall development plan to identify priorities and maximize resources. Second, national strategies should include specific goals, objectives, performance measures, and time frames for achieving the goals. Regarding Iraq, one major issue that will need to be addressed is to determine to what extent a drawdown of U. S. forces will be determined based on the achievement of goals or conditions in light of the specific time frames for withdrawal included in the November 2008 SOFA between Iraq and the United States that took effect in January 2009. Adopting a withdrawal timetable marks a major change from the prior U.S. approach of withdrawing forces based on security, political, economic, and diplomatic conditions in Iraq. The SOFA sets a two- phase timetable—but no conditions—for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq by the end of 2011. The President recently called for the implementation of a responsible drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq. A new U.S. strategy and campaign plan for Iraq will need to clarify how a responsible withdrawal of U.S. forces will be carried out consistent with the SOFA timeframe. Furthermore, as the administration develops strategies for both countries and plans to adjust force levels, it will need to closely examine the availability of resources, given the heavy commitment of U.S. forces to ongoing operations over the past several years. The high pace of operations, particularly for ground forces personnel, and heavy wear and tear on equipment have taken a toll on the overall readiness of the U.S. military. These factors, coupled with the likelihood of competing demands for certain capabilities to support the drawdown of forces in one location and increase in forces in another, such as strategic airlift, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets, and support forces, will need to be considered in assessing the feasibility of various strategy options. Third, in light of future demands on the federal budget, attention will be needed to ensure that U.S. efforts are executed in a manner that maximizes the use of available resources and includes mechanisms for oversight. From this perspective, it will be important that the U.S. government make a concerted effort to avoid some of the problems that occurred in Iraq which, in some cases, created numerous opportunities for waste, fraud and mismanagement, particularly with respect to the oversight and management of contractors. Another area warranting attention is in DOD’s approach to developing requirements for equipment and other critical items to support operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. As such, it will be important for DOD to carefully screen and validate requirements and use cost-effective approaches to acquiring items. Clearly, strong oversight on the part of the Congress and senior decision makers within DOD will also be a critical element to protecting the taxpayers’ interest and resources. It is unclear how the timeline in the SOFA and growing operations in Afghanistan will affect DOD plans for redeploying U.S. forces and equipment from Iraq. As of September 2008, DOD’s redeployment plans for Iraq were based on three key assumptions that may no longer be applicable in light of the SOFA and evolving U.S. strategy. These assumptions were that any redeployment will be based on MNF-I and Department of State assessments of security and other conditions in Iraq; there will be sufficient lead time to refine redeployment plans once an order with a specific timetable and force posture in Iraq is issued; and the redeployment of forces will be deliberate and gradual, predicated on a 180-day process for units leaving Iraq and an estimated flow of no more than 2.5 brigades’ worth of equipment and materiel out of Iraq primarily through Kuwait each month. Based on discussions with DOD officials and an analysis of planning efforts, we found that the effectiveness and efficiency of DOD’s redeployment efforts from Iraq will depend on the extent to which it develops plans that address several issues such as the following: Although the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) has designated an executive agent to coordinate the retrograde of materiel and equipment from the Iraqi theater of operations, no unified structure exists to coordinate the teams and units engaged in efforts to manage and execute the return of materiel and equipment. This results in confusion and a lack of clarity on the ways those teams should be utilized. Joint doctrine states that an unambiguous chain of command and clear responsibilities and authorities are necessary for any such effort. We have recommended, therefore, that DOD take steps to clarify a unified or coordinated chain of command over logistical operations to support this effort. While DOD has taken some actions to clarify certain aspects of the command and control structure, we believe additional steps are still needed to improve the efficiency of the retrograde process. Closing or handing over U.S. installations in Iraq will be time- consuming and costly. As of November 2008, there were 286 U.S. installations in Iraq that will need to be closed or turned over to the Iraqi forces during a U.S. redeployment, depending on its scope. According to U.S. Army officials, experience has shown it takes 1 to 2 months to close the smallest platoon- or company-size installations, which contain from 16 to 200 combat soldiers or marines. However, MNF-I has never closed large, complex installations—such as Balad Air Force Base, which contains about 24,000 inhabitants and has matured over 5 years—making it difficult to accurately predict the time it will take to close them. U.S. Army officials estimate it could take longer than 18 months to close a base of that size. Maintaining accountability for and managing the disposition of U.S. government property under the control of contractors may present challenges to redeploying U.S. forces from Iraq. According to Defense Contract Management Agency officials, there is at least $3.5 billion worth of contractor-managed government-owned property in Iraq. From late 2007 through July 2008, planning for the redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq did not include a theaterwide plan for contractors. The pace at which units can be redeployed and equipment and materiel returned to the United States from Iraq will be governed by the capacity of facilities in neighboring countries as well as restrictions on the use of those facilities. According to DOD officials, Kuwait is the main point of exit for all personnel, equipment, and materiel in Iraq. At present there are three U.S. bases and five Kuwait facilities that the United States is using to support operations in Iraq, and the U.S.- Kuwait Defense Cooperation Agreement governs the use of these facilities. According to DOD officials, any redeployment must take into consideration the terms of this agreement, particularly given that in their view, the government of Kuwait desires to limit the size of the U.S. footprint in Kuwait. The availability in theater of military-owned and operated heavy equipment transports and convoy security assets, combined with limits on the primary supply route, could inhibit the flow of materiel out of Iraq. According to DOD officials, two types of heavy equipment transports support U.S. forces in the Iraqi theater of operations: commercially contracted unarmored transports and armored military transports with military crews. Any increase in the number of civilian transports without a corresponding increase in the number of military transports, they maintain, increases the risk of accidents. However, DOD officials have reported shortages of military transports in theater. Based on our work examining current and past military operations, there are several operational issues that must be considered as the United States refines its strategy and plans for using military forces in Afghanistan. We have identified several issues in the following five key areas that warrant consideration by DOD planners as they develop strategies and plans for these operations: availability of forces, training of personnel, availability of equipment, transportation of equipment and personnel, and management and oversight of contractors.