Iraq

This publication is now archived. What are the most important dates for Iraq this year? January 30: Elections held for a transitional assembly. On January 30, Iraqis in Iraq and 14 foreign countries defied death threats and violence to vote for 275 members of a new transitional assembly. They also cast ballots for 18 provincial governorate councils with 41 members each, except for the Baghdad governorate council, which will have 51 members. And residents of northern Iraq voted for 111 members of the Kurdish regional assembly, a semi-autonomous governing body. After the votes are counted and the results certified-a process that election officials say will take several days-the new transitional assembly will take office. The assembly will choose a president and two deputy presidents from among its members. The assembly will then write a permanent constitution to take the place of the interim constitution currently in effect. That constitution, also known as the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL), was approved March 8, 2004, by the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC), a 25-member body appointed by the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority. The IGC disbanded after sovereignty was handed over to Iraqis on June 30, 2004. August 15: Draft of a permanent constitution written. The transitional assembly will draft a new, permanent constitution. If it cannot complete a draft by August 15, assembly members can petition-by August 1-for a six-month extension to complete their work. The transitional assembly could name Sunnis-who may win few or no seats in the assembly because of low turnout in Sunni areas-to the committee created to write the constitution, says Marina Ottaway, a senior associate and democracy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "That way there’s some wiggle room" to keep Sunnis involved in the government, she says. October 15, 2005: Public referendum on draft constitution. Once the constitution is written, the transitional assembly is required to present it to the people for a vote. If a majority approves it the draft, elections for a permanent government can go forward. If voters in three or more provinces reject the draft constitution by a two-thirds majority, the constitution fails and the transitional assembly is dissolved. December 15, 2005: Elections for a permanent government held. If the draft constitution is approved, the December 15 elections are for a permanent government. If the constitution is rejected, elections held December 15 would be for a new transitional assembly, which would write another constitution and submit it to the people again within one year. December 31, 2005. Permanent government takes office.

This publication is now archived. What are the organizational challenges of the January 30 Iraqi elections?The main one is the threat of violence from the ongoing insurgency. Against that background, Iraqi elections workers, aided by a small contingent of international election specialists, are preparing for the first contested vote in Iraq in more than 40 years. Their primary tasks: organize lists of voters and establish polling stations across the nation so voters can choose 275 members of a transitional assembly, 18 provincial councils, and, in the northern provinces, a Kurdish regional government. There are more than 7,000 candidates running on 111 electoral slates for seats in the transitional assembly. Which agency is in charge of the elections?The Iraqi Independent Election Commission. It is made up of seven Iraqi commissioners and one nonvoting member, U.N. elections official Carlos Valenzuela. The commission was created in 2004 to lay the groundwork for elections at the recommendation of the United Nations, particularly Carina Perelli, head of a U.N. assessment mission to Iraq. How many people are eligible to vote?Roughly 14 million Iraqis in the country and some 1.5 million Iraqis living abroad. About 5,600 polling stations will be set up in Iraq for Election Day; expatriates can vote in 14 other countries. Who is eligible to vote?In Iraq, anyone who was born on or before December 31, 1986. Outside of Iraq, eligible voters must be 18 or older and an Iraqi citizen or the child of a male Iraqi citizen. What special measures have been taken for Election Day?January 30 has been declared a national holiday. On the days leading up to and after the election, Iraq’s borders will be sealed and private vehicles will be banned from the roads in an attempt to deter suicide bombings. The national state of emergency imposed by interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi in November 2004 has been extended, which means curfews from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. in most cities. How much will the elections cost?Iraq has set aside $250 million to pay for the elections, with another $92 million to cover the costs of the expatriate vote. Who will staff the polling stations?Some 200,000 Iraqi election workers and a handful of international advisers. Attacks on election workers have made election work dangerous, even life-threatening, and hundreds of staffers have resigned. Officials won’t reveal the location of polling stations in many of the country’s most restive areas until immediately before the election. Who will protect polling stations?Some 150,000 U.S. soldiers and more than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers. Some experts say U.S. troops have begun to limit their aggressive patrols in the country’s north and south and withdraw to their bases, leaving the bulk of security duties in those areas to Iraqi forces on Election Day. "The U.S. military will have a small footprint there. People don’t want to see American soldiers," says Michael Rubin, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Still, U.S. forces "will be within easy reach of each polling station in case the Iraqi forces are overrun," says Kenneth Katzman, senior Middle East analyst at the Congressional Research Service. What are the lists of voters based on?The distribution lists for the Oil-for-Food Program, a nationwide system of food rations established after the United Nations imposed economic sanctions in the wake of Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait. These lists have provided a nearly complete accounting of Iraq’s population, experts say. The lists were further verified by asking family heads to confirm the data on their households contained in the lists. This updated information became the voter roll. The verification process in Iraq ended December 15. For overseas Iraqis, the Geneva-based International Organization for Migration (IOM) set up 74 registration centers in 36 cities in North America, Europe, the Middle East, and Australia where voters could sign up January 20-23. What are the voting procedures?Each polling station will be staffed with workers who will welcome voters, check them against the voter rolls, and supervise the voting process. Once voters have marked ballots and placed them in ballot boxes, their hands will be stained with indelible ink to prevent repeat voting. Iraqis overseas were given a receipt when they registered; to vote, they will be required to produce the receipt, which will then be marked by an election worker to prevent re-use. How will the votes be counted?Farid Ayar, the election commission’s spokesman, will oversee an informal tally of the national votes immediately after polls close at 5 p.m. on January 30. Then, all the ballots will transported to the so-called Green Zone, the heavily guarded area of central Baghdad around Saddam Hussein’s former presidential compound that is the headquarters of the interim Iraqi government. There the votes will be formally counted, a process experts say will take two to three weeks. Who will determine if the election is free and fair?The Iraqi election commission. Iraqi nongovernmental organizations are also assembling about 10,000 Iraqis to act as election observers, The Associated Press reported December 23. Will international observers be on hand?Some 35 U.N. staffers have been sent to monitor the Iraqi elections; U.N. officials attribute the relatively small group to security concerns. Another group, the International Mission for Iraqi Elections, will monitor the election from neighboring Jordan because of the ongoing insurgency. The international mission has members from Albania, Britain, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, and Yemen. The Washington Post reported January 22 that this group may send only one monitor into Iraq to evaluate the elections as they happen. Other organizations that have monitored elections, including the U.S. Congress, the European Union, and the Atlanta-based Carter Center, declined to send observers to Iraq because of fears for their safety. What are the top security concerns?Attacks on candidates, voters, and voting places. On January 23, insurgent leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi declared "fierce wa" on the elections and vowed to disrupt them. Many officials have questioned whether the lack of security has made the country too unstable to hold a vote. "On a logical basis, there are signs that it will be a tough call to hold the election," Iraqi president Sheikh Ghazi al-Yawar told Reuters January 5. He said the United Nations should make that call. On January 6, Lieutenant General Thomas Metz, commander of U.S. ground forces in Iraq, confirmed that major parts of four provinces--home to some 45 percent of Iraq’s population--were not safe enough for balloting. He said his troops would step up some counterinsurgency activities in the Sunni areas to try to secure them before the vote, and left open the possibility that voting would not be held in those areas if they are still too dangerous. In the other 14 provinces where voting is certain to take place, the main worries are:Safety of candidates. Three candidates have already been killed, two from Allawi’s slate, the Iraqi List, and one from the pro-monarchy party. While assassination is a constant risk for Iraqi public figures--dozens of politicians have been killed in the last year--the pace of the attacks has increased as the election approaches, experts say. Nearly all the slates are refusing to publish their candidates’ names until immediately before the election, the Los Angeles Times reported January 19.Safety of election workers. At least 10 election workers have been killed, and the rest are under constant threat. Seven hundred workers for the Mosul election commission resigned after their lives were threatened, the AP reported December 30.Safety of voters. Many experts fear voters will be targeted, either at polling stations or after voting, when the indelible ink on their hands could mark them for attack. "The insurgents are definitely going to come up with something," Katzman says. "The question is what."Compromised ballots. Preventing sabotage of the ballots en route to Baghdad is a major concern, some experts say. Road travel is hazardous; the U.S.-led coalition has not yet been able to secure the route linking central Baghdad to the Baghdad airport or many other highways where insurgents plant roadside bombs. "If all the votes from, say, Ninevah province, are lost, what happens?" Rubin says.Outbreaks of violence. Katzman says that, with the country’s security forces massed around polling stations, insurgents will likely hit elsewhere: banks, oil pipelines, electricity infrastructure, and police stations. Their targets may also include foreign embassies or hotels where foreigners are staying. "I think they’re going to attack where you don’t expect it," Katzman says. "When the cops are guarding the parade, the robbers rob the bank." Where is the violence expected to be concentrated?Most likely in the same areas that have consistently been dangerous for U.S. and Iraqi troops: the Sunni triangle north and west of Baghdad, and, more recently, the city of Mosul. The northern city has become a hotbed of violence since insurgents fled there after being routed from their stronghold in Falluja in November. A December 23 suicide attack on a U.S. base in Mosul killed 22 people and injured more than 60. It’s also possible, experts say, that insurgents will target southern cities while attention is focused elsewhere. These could include Basra--where an explosion at a British base January 20 injured nine Britons and several Iraqi civilians--Kut, Najaf, or Diwaniya.

This publication is now archived. The Iraqi elections are scheduled to take place on January 30, 2005:Date campaigning began: December 15, 2004Last day of campaigning: January 23, 2005Percentage of Iraqi Sunnis "very likely" to vote, according to a December 2004 internal U.S. State Department poll: 32 percentPercentage of Iraqi Shiites "very likely" to vote, same poll: 87 percentApproximate percentage of Iraqi population that is Arab Sunni: 20 percentApproximate percentage of Iraqi population that is Arab Shiite: 60 percentGovernmental bodies being elected: 20The transitional National Assembly, which will select the president and prime minister and draft a constitution;the Iraqi Kurdistan National Assembly, the law-making body in Iraq’s semi-autonomous northern region; and18 provincial councils, one in each province.Seats in the National Assembly: 275Political "entities"--parties, individuals, or coalitions--running for the National Assembly: 111Total candidates on the national ballot: 7,785Political parties in the Kurdish National Assembly elections: 14Seats in the Kurdistan National Assembly: 111Seats on most provincial councils: 41Seats on Baghdad’s provincial council: 51Total candidates running for provincial councils: 9,000Eligible voters inside Iraq: 14.27 millionEligible voters (Iraqi citizens) outside Iraq: 1.2 million to 2 millionNations in which expatriate Iraqis can vote: 14--Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Iran, Jordan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Syria, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates, and the United StatesEstimated eligible Iraqi voters in the United States: 230,000U.S. soldiers in Iraq on Election Day: Approximately 150,000Fully and partially trained Iraqi security forces by Election Day: about 125,000Troops from other nations in Iraq on Election Day: About 25,000Countries with troops stationed in Iraq: 29Total number of polling stations in Iraq: nearly 6,000Number of poll workers required: 194,000International advisers in Iraq assisting with the vote, as of December 2004: 29Organizations they represent:the United Nations (16 advisers);the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (8);the European Commission (3); andthe United Kingdom’s Department for International Development(2)Sources: International Foundation for Electoral Systems, the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq, U.S. State Department, news reports.

This publication is now archived. What are Iran’s goals in the new Iraq?Iran, a Shiite Islamic theocracy to Iraq’s east, would clearly like to exercise considerable influence over the new government of Iraq. But experts disagree about how much Iran, a member of President Bush’s "axis of evil," is willing to provoke the United States to gain that influence. They also disagree about how committed Iran is to the creation of an Islamic government in Iraq. What do the experts say?Some say Iran will be content with a friendly government in Iraq that does not threaten its security and that gives a strong voice to Iraq’s long-repressed Shiites, who form 60 percent of Iraq’s population (and 89 percent of the population in Iran). But others caution that the Iranians have the capacity to destabilize Iraq if they are not satisfied with how events develop there. How likely is it that Iraq will become an Islamic theocracy?It’s unclear. Iraqi Shiites, some experts say, are a diverse group, many of whom are secularists. Even among religious Iraqi Shiites, there are many divisions. There is also a moderate streak in Iraqi Shiism that encourages clerical leaders to stay aloof from politics. In addition, Iraq’s diversity--18 percent of the population is Sunni Kurd, and 15 percent is Sunni Arab--reduces the likelihood that an Iranian-style theocracy, a government controlled by religious authorities, could take hold in a unified Iraq, many experts say. Another mitigating factor: the strong ethnic and cultural differences between Iranian Shiites, who are Persians, and Iraqi Shiites, who are Arabs. What influence does Iran have over Shiites?It has been the main voice of Shiite Islam since the late 1970s, when Saddam Hussein took power and turned Iraq from a center for Shiite practice into a nation that severely persecuted its adherents. Iran’s government, headed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, has provided a haven to opponents of Saddam’s regime, financially supported Iraqi opposition groups, and is the birthplace of some of Iraq’s most important clerics. Experts say Iran will use its power and influence in Iraq to remind the United States that it is an important player in the Persian Gulf region. Some say that was the reasoning behind Iranian President Mohammad Khatami’s mid-May visit to Lebanon, where he was received by enthusiastic crowds. How is Iranian influence being felt in Iraq?U.S. officials have warned Iran to keep its agents out of Iraq, but classified U.S. intelligence, cited in the American press, indicates that Iran may be trying to exert direct influence in Iraq by moving Iranian intelligence agents and military forces across its border. Some commentators go so far as to blame some of the instability now in Iraq--especially in the Shiite population--on Iranian provocateurs. Iran denies that it is sending agents into Iraq. What other signs of Iranian influence are there?Thousands of Iraqis are returning from exile in Iran. Many of them are students or clerics who fled to Iran during Saddam’s repressive rule and were supported by the Iranian government. Some Iranian clerics, such as Kadhem al-Husseini al-Haeri, have issued religious edicts calling on Iraqi Shiites to resist American influence. In addition, Arabic-language Iranian television and radio, long blocked by Saddam Hussein, is being broadcast into Iraq. Much of the content on these channels is said to be anti-American, in keeping with the stance of the hard-line religious clerics who dominate the Iranian government. Are there links between Iran and the Iraqi opposition?Yes. The brutal Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988 after eight years and some 1.5 million deaths, but a formal peace treaty was never signed between the two countries. In the years following the war, the two nations continued to support groups that attempted to destabilize each other’s governments. Iraq, for example, gave haven to the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK), a U.S. State Department-classified terrorist group that attacked Iran from Iraqi territory. For its part, Iran has maintained relations with a range of Iraqi opposition groups. With what Iraqi opposition forces does Iran have ties?The strongest ties are believed to be with the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) led by Ayatollah Mohammed Bakr Hakim. Hakim, 63, lost 19 family members to Saddam’s assassins and has been based in Iran since 1980. His group has a military wing called the Badr Brigade, whose estimated 10,000 members have reportedly been trained by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. Hakim has recently returned to Iraq, as have many of his supporters. How much influence does Iran wield through the opposition groups?Observers disagree. Some American observers, particularly those who take a hard-line view of Iran and advocate regime change there, refer to SCIRI as Iran’s proxy force in Iraq. Others, however, say that while SCIRI certainly owes Iran some allegiance, it also is indebted to its American patrons and will balance these competing loyalties as it pursues its independent goals. Iranian influence on other opposition figures appears to be less of a concern to U.S. policymakers. Does SCIRI want to turn Iraq into a Shiite Islamic theocracy?It is not clear. In his public statements since his return to Iraq, Hakim says he favors a kind of Islamic-based democracy, not a cleric-led theocracy that severely curtails the rights of non-Muslims to worship and imposes harsh Islamic law. "We don’t want an extremist brand of Islam," he told thousands of supporters in an open-air stadium in the southern Iraq city of Basra May 10. "We want an Islam that is compatible with independence, justice, and freedom." Does Iran have a relationship with other Iraqi opposition groups?Yes. Iran has some weaker ties with other well-known Iraqi opposition figures. The Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella opposition group led by Ahmad Chalabi, has long had offices in Tehran. Experts say Iran also has connections with the main Kurdish opposition groups, in particular, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), which, under the cover of the northern "no-fly" zone established by the United States and its allies after the 1991 Gulf War, has held de facto control of the part of northern Iraq’s Kurdish region that borders Iran. Is Iran hoping that Iraq splits into different parts, one of which would be a Shiite state?Again, this is a hotly debated point, but many experts say no. They say that Iran would prefer a stable, friendly state as its neighbor rather than one torn into different ethnic or religious states. However, some experts also caution that this could change if Iran is threatened by a new Iraqi government. In particular, Iran’s anti-American leaders are concerned about long-term U.S. influence in Iran, which now finds itself sandwiched between Iraq and Afghanistan, two countries that host U.S. soldiers and are deeply influenced by the United States. How is the United States dealing with Iranian influence in Iraq?There appear to be two sides to U.S. policy. On the one hand, the administration has taken a tough approach, publicly warning Iran to keep its agents out of Iraq. On the other hand, it appears to be pursuing a policy of cautious engagement with Ayatollah Hakim and his SCIRI organization despite its Iranian ties. Though who will lead an Iraqi interim government is still in flux, U.S. officials in Iraq have said SCIRI, along with other Iraqi opposition leaders, will be part of a "nucleus" of leadership. Experts say this move may temper Iranian opposition to U.S./British-led authority in Iraq. Have the United States and Iran discussed the Iraq issue directly?Yes. Though there are no formal ties between the United States and Iran, meetings to discuss Afghanistan and Iraq have been held in Geneva between Zalmay Khalilzad, President Bush’s special envoy to the Iraqi opposition, and Iranian officials. Another indication of a moderate approach: President Bush has decided to disarm the anti-Iranian MEK. How has the Iraq issue affected U.S.-Iranian ties?It is unclear, in part because Washington remains deeply divided on the best way to deal with Iran, a country with which it has had no formal relationship since 1980. Moderates argue for a policy of greater engagement with Iran, now that the U.S. occupation of Iraq has boosted Washington’s regional influence. There also appears to be increasing interest on the part of the Iranian regime in meeting with the United States— though both sides have stopped short of saying they are ready for a resumption of formal ties. Neoconservatives in Washington, however, oppose engagement, which they believe will shore up the current Iranian regime and hurt the prospects of Iranian regime change. What are the main points of tension in U.S.-Iran relations? Iran’s drive to build nuclear weapons. The United States believes that Iran has a secret program that is close to producing a nuclear bomb. Of great concern to U.S. officials is the Russian-assisted construction of a nuclear power station at Bushehr. In addition, U.S. intelligence officials believe that Iran has two secret nuclear facilities at Arak and Natanz that are attempting to produce nuclear fuel. Some intelligence estimates say that at the current rate, Iran could have a nuclear weapon in two years. Iran denies it has a nuclear weapons program. Iranian support for anti-Israeli and other Islamist terrorism. According to the U.S. State Department, Iran is the leading state sponsor of terror, and gives support to Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other Islamist terror groups. Human rights issues in Iran. Though there is a reformist element in the Iranian government, headed by President Khatami and some members of Iran’s elected Parliament, the Majlis, experts say real power in Iran still rests with Islamic clerics and hard-line elements in Iran’s military and security services. Ayatollah Khamenei has direct control over the armed forces, the internal security forces, and the judiciary. According to the U.S. State Department, political opponents and journalists considered to be anti-government can face intimidation, torture, or death.

This publication is now archived. How much oil does Iraq have?Iraq has 112.5 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, or about 10 percent of the world’s known remaining oil--making it a distant second to Saudi Arabia, which possesses some 300 billion barrels, or one-quarter of the world’s known reserves. How much oil did Iraq produce before the 2003 conflict?Its output varied, but in 2002 Iraq averaged about 1.5 million barrels per day--far less than the 3.5 million barrels a day it was producing before its August 1990 invasion of Kuwait. What held Iraq back from producing more oil?Economic sanctions imposed on Iraq in 1990 by the U.N. Security Council to pressure it to, first, withdraw from Kuwait and, later, give up its suspected arsenal of unconventional weapons. The sanctions banned oil exports, purchases of oil equipment purchases, and other trade or investment in the state-run industry. Production plummeted as a result. In 1996, Iraq revved up production when it agreed to participate in the U.N.-sanctioned "oil for food" program, which let Iraq sell limited quantities of oil and buy humanitarian goods with the proceeds through deals subject to approval by the United Nations. Later U.N. resolutions lifted restrictions on how much oil Iraq could export through oil-for-food and permitted the purchase of spare parts to repair production facilities. Even so, Iraq’s oil system is in disrepair, and some energy experts estimate that raising production to its estimated capacity of 2.8 million barrels a day will take at least two years and cost $50 billion. Where in Iraq is the oil located?Iraq has two main oil fields: Kirkuk, in the Kurdish-dominated north, and Rumaila, in the Shiite Arab south. Prospecting for new oil has not been possible since the 1991 Gulf War, but oil experts say these two areas probably have other deposits that remain undiscovered. Where did Iraq sell its oil before the 2003 war?Domestic consumption amounted to about 300,000 barrels per day. About 1.1 million barrels per day were sold through the oil-for-food program. The rest--about 400,000 barrels, according to industry estimates--was smuggled out through Jordan, Syria, Iran, and Turkey in violation of U.N. sanctions. Until September 2002, the Iraqi government tacked an illegal surcharge onto the smuggled oil. Did the United States buy Iraqi oil?Yes. The United States was Iraq’s biggest customer, through the oil-for-food program. Could Iraq have hurt the United States by withholding oil sales?Not unless other countries had gone along. In April 2002, for instance, Saddam Hussein announced that Iraq would cut off its oil-for-food exports for 30 days to protest Israel’s incursion into the West Bank. But the effect on oil prices was negligible, because Russia and other exporters with excess production capacity sold America the oil it would otherwise have bought from Iraq. What role did oil play in the Iraq showdown?Though not a central motivating factor for the U.S.-led assault- the threat of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction took priority in the Bush administration’s case for war— experts say oil played a significant role in the decision to confront Iraq. The United States has a long-standing interest in the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf, which has been threatened repeatedly by Saddam, most dramatically in his 1990-91 occupation of oil-rich Kuwait. The United States is the world’s largest consumer of oil, and past disruptions of the global oil supply have hurt the American economy. Much of the world’s oil lies beneath Iraq and its Gulf neighbors, such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Some experts argue that, if Iraq had built a nuclear weapon, it would have been much harder to deter Saddam from trying to control the Gulf region and, with it, the world oil market.

This publication is now archived. Why did the United Nations send weapons inspectors to Iraq?Because Iraq had a history of using chemical weapons, and giving up its weapons of mass destruction was a requirement of the U.N. Security Council resolutions that marked the end of the 1991 Gulf War. Iraq initially promised to cooperate with the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM), and the United Nations expected that disarmament would proceed smoothly and wrap up quickly. Instead, Iraq watchers say, Iraq undermined and circumvented inspections from the beginning and continued to develop weapons of mass destruction. The inspectors were withdrawn in 1998. The U.N. Security Council replaced UNSCOM with the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) the following year, and inspectors from that agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) returned to Iraq in November 2002. When did the U.N. inspections begin?In 1991, when the United Nations set about trying to disarm Iraq. The Security Council passed Resolution 687, which mandated the "destruction, removal, or rendering harmless" of all Iraqi biological, chemical, and nuclear weaponry; the machinery and facilities used to develop them; and ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers (about 100 miles). This resolution invoked Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, which authorizes the use of force to enforce it. What were the ground rules for the 1990s inspections?UNSCOM was to handle the hunt for biological and chemical weapons; it partnered with the IAEA to tackle the Iraqi nuclear program. Iraq and the United Nations agreed that U.N. inspectors would have unrestricted authority to inspect any Iraqi site, copy documents, take photographs, install monitoring equipment, and travel from, to, and within Iraq--all without having to seek prior notice or approval. Iraq said it would disclose all its unconventional weapons programs and guarantee the safety of international inspectors. Did the inspectors find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?Yes--and they destroyed more of them than the U.S.-led coalition did during the Gulf War. Among other things, U.N. inspectors located hundreds of tons of chemical weapons agents and thousands more tons of the chemicals used to make them; a major biological weapons production facility; machines for separating out radioactive isotopes that could be used to fuel a nuclear bomb; and dozens of missiles, launching pads, and missile warheads for both conventional and chemical munitions. Inspectors were stunned by the volume of information and material they found, and surprised that Iraq’s weapons programs were much more advanced than they had expected. How did the inspectors know where to look?They started with declarations made by Iraq about its weapons and missiles. But these disclosures were far from complete. For example, Iraq claimed it had no nuclear weapons capacities, but various national intelligence agencies gave the IAEA inspectors evidence that led them to uncover a nuclear weapons program. In addition to outside intelligence, UNSCOM relied on disclosures by Iraqi defectors such as Hussein Kemal, who oversaw Iraq’s weapons programs until he fled to Jordan in 1995. Kemal, a son-in-law of Saddam Hussein, was murdered when he returned to Iraq in February 1996. Did Iraq continue to develop unconventional weapons while the inspectors were working?Yes. UNSCOM inspectors discovered that Iraq was secretly importing missile components and other materials for making weapons of mass destruction while the inspection regime was underway. To thwart the inspectors, Iraq built clandestine laboratories that were mobile, underground, or contained in civilian factories. Did Iraq cooperate with the weapons inspections?No. Iraq claimed its arsenal of banned weapons was smaller than its actual size--for example, Iraqi officials insisted until 1995 that a biological weapons research was for defensive purposes only--and tried regularly to outfox the inspectors. Iraqi tactics included having troops fire warning shots at the unarmed inspectors, confiscating documents from UNSCOM and refusing to hand over other documents, spying on U.N. personnel, stonewalling while materials were removed from sites in advance of the inspectors’ arrival, sabotaging monitoring equipment, and preventing UNSCOM from using its own helicopters and surveillance aircraft. Iraq increased its resistance at suspect sites it had not declared as weapons facilities, and tons of material used to produce unconventional weapons went unaccounted for. When did the UNSCOM inspections stop?In 1998. As the years passed, Iraq found new ways of evading its U.N. obligations; at the same time, international resolve to back up the inspections with the threat of force eroded. Iraq accused UNSCOM of spying for the United States, barred American employees of UNSCOM from the country, and declared off-limits a growing number of "presidential sites"--a category not recognized in the U.N.-Iraq inspections accords. After negotiating with the Iraqis, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan exempted the sprawling presidential sites from inspections. Nevertheless, in October 1998, Iraq said it would no longer cooperate with UNSCOM. That refusal triggered several days of U.S. and British air strikes, known as Operation Desert Fox, in December 1998. UNSCOM withdrew its inspectors before the air strikes began, and they never returned to Iraq. What replaced UNSCOM?In December 1999, the Security Council created UNMOVIC, a weaker body that at first lacked UNSCOM’s free-ranging mandate and couldn’t share classified information with intelligence agencies or enter Iraq’s self-declared "presidential sites." However, UNMOVIC was granted new powers in November 2002 under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, which insisted Iraq give inspectors "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted" admission to any site, as well as unfettered, private access to people they wished to interview. Inspectors worked in Iraq from late November 2002 until mid-March 2003, days before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq began.

This publication is now archived. Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?Yes. Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein provided bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to Palestinian terror groups. The Bush administration said it believed Saddam could pass weapons of mass destruction to Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network or other terrorists. In the first few weeks after Saddam’s fall from power, though, convincing proof of an Iraq-al-Qaeda link remained lacking. Was Iraq the world’s most active state sponsor of terrorism?No, according to the State Department, which gives that title to neighboring Iran. The State Department has listed Iraq as one of seven states that sponsor terrorism, but experts say Iran, Syria, and, at least in the past, Pakistan, all surpassed Iraq in support for terrorists. What types of terrorist groups did Iraq support?Primarily groups that could hurt Saddam’s regional foes. Iraq has helped the Iranian dissident group Mujahadeen-e-Khalq, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, a separatist organization fighting the Turkish government, and several far-left Palestinian splinter groups that oppose peace with Israel. Iraq also hosted the mercenary Abu Nidal Organization, whose leader was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002. Saddam was a secular dictator, and his regime generally tended to support secular terrorist groups rather than Islamists such as al-Qaeda, experts say. But Iraq also supported some Islamist Palestinian groups opposed to Israel, and before the 2003 war, the CIA cited Iraq’s increased support for such organizations as reason to believe that Baghdad’s links to terror could continue to increase. What kind of support has Iraq given terrorists?Safe haven, training, and financial support. In violation of international law, Iraq has also sheltered specific terrorists wanted by other countries, reportedly including: Abu Nidal, who, until he was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002, led an organization responsible for attacks that killed some 300 people. Palestine Liberation Front leader Abu Abbas, who was responsible for the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Laurocruise ship in the Mediterranean. Abbas was captured by U.S. forces April 15. Two Saudis who hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad in 2000. Abdul Rahman Yasin, who is on the FBI’s "most wanted terrorists" list for his alleged role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Iraq has also provided financial support for Palestinian terror groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Palestine Liberation Front, and the Arab Liberation Front, and it channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. In April 2002, Iraq increased the amount of such payments from $10,000 to $25,000. Experts say that by promoting Israeli-Palestinian violence, Saddam may have hoped to make it harder for the United States to win Arab support for a campaign against Iraq. Was Iraq involved in the 9/11 attacks?There is no concrete evidence linking Iraq to the attacks, and although Iraq never expressed sympathy for the United States after the attacks, it denied any involvement. In late 2001, Czech intelligence officials reported that the 9/11 ringleader, Muhammad Atta, had met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague in April 2001, but many American and Czech officials have since disavowed the report and say they have no evidence that such a meeting occurred. Did Iraq cooperate with al-Qaeda?This is a subject of heated debate. U.S. intelligence officials say they have reports of links, and President Bush has cited Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda as a reason for confronting Iraq. Still, many of the alleged connections remain tenuous, and because U.S. intelligence agencies must protect their sources and methods of intelligence gathering, few specifics have been offered publicly. Most intelligence on Iraq and al-Qaeda draws on sources of unknown reliability, including al-Qaeda detainees. What ties have been alleged between Iraq and al-Qaeda?In October 2002, CIA Director George Tenet announced that the CIA had received uncorroborated reports that: Senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda stretch back a decade. Iraq and al-Qaeda have discussed the provision of safe havens and reciprocal nonaggression. Iraq has provided training to al-Qaeda members in chemical weapons and conventional explosives. Al-Qaeda leaders have tried to cultivate contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction. Some al-Qaeda members who fled Afghanistan took refuge in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq. In October 2002, President Bush said that among those who found refuge in Iraq was a "very senior al-Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks"--apparently a reference to a Jordanian operational commander named Abu Musab Zarqawi, who subsequently left Iraq. A second alleged al-Qaeda operative, the Iraqi national Ahmad Hikmat Shakir, was also thought to have returned to Baghdad after fleeing Afghanistan. Other charges center on possible ties between al-Qaeda operatives and Ansar al-Islam, a Kurdish extremist group that Saddam used as a proxy to combat his Kurdish foes. Some al-Qaeda members who fled Afghanistan were reportedly helping--and receiving shelter--from the group, which operated in a remote corner of northern Iraq’s no-fly zone before being routed by U.S. forces. It remains unclear whether mutual ties to Ansar indicate any sort of active cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Why would Iraq help al-Qaeda?It’s hard to say. Al-Qaeda and Saddam would seem to have incompatible goals. Al-Qaeda is committed to overthrowing secular Muslim rulers like Saddam; for his part, Saddam historically regarded Islamists as a threat to his leftist Baath Party regime and was wary of groups he couldn’t easily control. Still, Saddam demonstrated signs of selectively cooperating with Islamists— or at least co-opting them. In the 1970s and 1980s, he backed the fundamentalist Syrian Muslim Brotherhood; he also on various occasions adopted Islamist rhetoric; and he supported Palestinian Islamist terror groups. And whatever their differences, Saddam and bin Laden shared a deep hatred of the United States. Has Iraq used terrorism against the United States in the past?It has tried. During the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq trained several hundred operatives for planned terrorist attacks on U.S. targets, including bombings of American facilities in Southeast Asia. But these efforts weren’t particularly successful: although Iraqi operatives pulled off small-scale shootings and grenade attacks in the Middle East, they bungled efforts to use explosives. Outside intelligence and law enforcement agencies thwarted more significant plots, including a 1993 attempt to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush during a visit to Kuwait. Would Iraq have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorists?Experts disagree. The Bush administration played up this possibility, but some experts doubt that Saddam would have been so reckless, as his goal was to avoid a U.S. invasion. In October 2002, CIA Director Tenet said that the CIA thought Saddam was unlikely to conduct terrorist attacks against the United States— unless a U.S.-led attack appeared imminent. In that case, Saddam might "decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a [weapons of mass destruction] attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him." Such an attack failed to materialize.

This publication is now archived. What were the main Iraqi opposition groups on the eve of the 2003 war?There were six main organizations that represented a mix of ethnic, religious, and political sentiments. All of them were designated by the U.S. government as official opposition parties, which meant they were eligible for U.S. financial assistance under the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. There were dozens of other, smaller groups opposed to Saddam Hussein.Iraqi National Congress (INC): An umbrella group led by Ahmad Chalabi. Founded in 1992, the INC was expelled from Iraq in 1996 and was based in London until its leadership returned to Baghdad in April. Though thought to have little or no political support inside Iraq, the INC reportedly won backing from some in the Bush administration who see it as the best vehicle to promote Iraqi democracy.Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI): The major Iraqi Shiite opposition faction, SCIRI was made up mostly of Shiite exiles living in Iran. (Iraq’s population is majority Shiite.) Led by Ayatollah Mohamed Baqir al-Hakim, the group has thousands of men under arms. Parts of this militia, trained by the Iranian government and known as the Badr Brigade, reportedly crossed into Iraq after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, despite U.S. warnings to stay out.Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP): One of two main Kurdopposition parties, the KDP is led by Massoud Barzani and is based in the northwestern part of Iraq’s Kurdish autonomous region bordering Turkey. The KDP is reported to have as many as 25,000 fighters. (Iraq’s prewar armed forces totaled about 380,000.) Before the 2003 war, the KDP was estimated to collect $500,000 a day in custom duties on goods smuggled across the Turkish border.Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK): The other main Kurdish party, the PUK has long clashed with the KDP over political leadership and the division of smuggling revenue. This year, the two made peace. Led by Jalal Talabani, the PUK is based in the southeastern part of the Kurdish autonomous region, which borders Iran. It has about 15,000 armed fighters.Iraqi National Accord (INA): The INA is made up primarily of former military and security officials drawn from Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party. The group, based for years in Amman, Jordan, has ties to the Central Intelligence Agency and is led by Ayad Alawi.Constitutional Monarchy Movement: Based in London, the Iraqi royalist movement is led by Sharif Ali bin al-Hussein, a descendent of the British-backed Hashemite monarchs who ruled Iraq until a 1958 revolution. Do the groups share the same goals?They all wanted to oust Saddam Hussein. But they have a long history of disagreement over a range of issues, including the ethnic composition of a post-Saddam government and whether the country should be a secular or an Islamist state. With the fall of Saddam, the infighting is continuing.The opposition groups, at the urging of the Bush administration, have attempted to get along. In August 2002, the "Group of Six" convened in Washington and pledged to work together to establish a democratic government in Iraq. That agreement led to a December 2002 meeting in London, where more than 300 anti-Saddam activists approved a call for a democratic, federal, parliamentary government. At the end of the four-day conference, they formed a 65-member committee that included representatives of all the major groups and some of the smaller organizations.A similar meeting was convened in the Kurdish-controlled northern Iraqi town of Salahuddin in 1992, when some 200 delegates from about 30 parties pledged to oust Saddam and establish a democratic, unified state based on a federal structure. How much influence these agreements will have in the new Iraq is not yet known. Which groups does Washington support?No individual group can claim to be Washington’s unquestioned favorite, and experts say different government agencies favor different groups. The Pentagon has traditionally supported the INC, which hoped to create an Iraqi government in exile. Some White House staffers also backed the INC. The Department of State hasn’t backed one opposition party over the others and instead appears to have broadly advocated creation of a new government based on grassroots democracy and elections in a post-Saddam Iraq. The CIA has backed the Iraqi National Accord; its failed 1996 coup attempt was reportedly funded by the agency. Are all the groups pro-U.S.?Though all of the groups have agreed to work with the United States, it’s difficult to gauge the depth of their allegiance. The New York Times reported on December 13 that key opposition figures, including Barzani of the KDP and Chalabi of the INC, were forging ties to Iran, Iraq’s neighbor and a longtime foe of the United States. SCIRI is known to have close ties with Iran’s ruling elite. Iran’s population, like Iraq’s, is majority Shiite.

This publication is now archived. Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction?That seems certain. Although Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein claims to have destroyed his entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons--and the capability to rebuild his arsenal--in accordance with U.N. Security Council resolutions imposed after the 1991 Gulf War, virtually no experts believe him. Moreover, intelligence officials say that Saddam continues to try to acquire nuclear weapons. In a September 12, 2002, speech to the U.N. General Assembly, President Bush called Saddam’s regime a "grave and gathering danger" that is building up its stores of deadly chemical and biological agents and trying to get the bomb. What is the nature of Iraq’s weapons capability?It’s not clear. No U.N. weapons inspectors were in Iraq between December 1998 and November 2002. Current U.S. estimates of Saddam’s arsenal are drawn from discoveries made by current inspections and from testimony by Iraqi defectors, satellite surveillance, other intelligence sources, and Iraqi purchases of specialized equipment and materials that could help produce illicit weapons. In 1991-1998, when inspectors were in Iraq, they did not uncover the full extent of Iraq’s weapons capabilities because Saddam’s regime had become so skillful at hiding its arms programs. Many suspect that deception continues. Does Iraq have nuclear weapons?Probably not, experts say. But Iraq has been trying to get the bomb since the early 1970s. The Iraqi nuclear program suffered a major setback in 1981, when the Israeli air force destroyed Iraq’s Osiraq nuclear reactor, outside Baghdad. The loss of Osiraq drove much of Saddam’s nuclear program into hiding. Experts say that at the time of the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq was just months away from having refined enough highly enriched uranium to build a single crude nuclear weapon--far closer to getting the bomb than coalition leaders had realized. But by the time the U.N. inspectors left in 1998, they had destroyed much of the Iraqi nuclear program. How soon could Iraq get nuclear weapons?Experts disagree. Iraq could probably pull together the funding, scientific expertise, technical equipment, and infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon, but it almost certainly lacks one key ingredient: enough fissile material, such as highly enriched uranium, necessary to spark a nuclear explosion. Could Iraq enrich enough uranium on its own to make aWe don’t know. The Bush administration warns that Iraq has been trying to purchase a large quantity of sophisticated aluminum tubes that could be used in centrifuges to produce highly enriched uranium. If Iraq got the tubes, experts say it could still take years to build the centrifuges and then enrich enough uranium for a single bomb. A recent report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) argues that Iraq would need several years and extensive foreign assistance to build the facilities to produce its own highly enriched uranium; British intelligence offers similar estimates, arguing that it would take Iraq at least five years to create enough fissile material for a bomb. Could Iraq get fissile material some other way?Perhaps. Experts say Saddam could acquire a bomb far sooner by stealing or buying highly enriched uranium on the black market. A September 2002 dossier from Britain’s intelligence services reports that Iraq has been trying to acquire fissile material from unspecified countries in Africa. Experts say that the former Soviet republics might also be a likely source. The Bush administration says that if Saddam acquired fissile material, he could have a nuclear bomb within months--an estimate that largely agrees with the independent IISS report. British intelligence estimates are somewhat more conservative, arguing that it might still take Iraq a year or two. Could Iraq launch a nuclear attack?Not easily, experts say. Even if Iraq succeeded in making a crude warhead, the device would be very large and hard to transport abroad or pass to terrorists without detection. Iraqi missiles probably couldn’t carry such a hefty warhead, and an Iraqi plane carrying such a device would risk being shot down by neighboring states. Does Iraq have biological weapons?Probably, most experts say, but we don’t know exactly which ones. Iraq secretly launched an offensive biowarfare program in 1985. After the Gulf War, Saddam claimed to have destroyed all of his germ warfare agents and munitions but admitted to having previously produced 25 missile warheads and 166 aerial bombs variously filled with such agents as anthrax, botulinum toxin, and aflatoxin. Iraq also claimed to have produced about 20,000 liters of botulinum toxin solution, 8,500 liters of anthrax solution, and 2,200 liters of aflatoxin-but U.N. inspectors believe the Iraqis probably made thousands more liters of the deadly agents. Some experts also say we can’t rule out the possibility that Iraq might also have the smallpox virus tucked away; there was an outbreak of the disease in Iraq in the 1970s, and Iraqi scientists have experimented with the closely related camelpox virus. Could Iraq make more biological agents?Yes. In May 2000, the British government estimated that even if Iraq had halted its biological weapons program, it could rebuild it within months, and the Bush administration has accused Saddam’s regime of constructing mobile bioweapons labs. Has Iraq ever used biological weapons?No. Does Iraq have chemical weapons?Almost certainly, experts say. Iraq has admitted that it produced 3,859 tons of chemical weapons in the 1980s, including mustard gas and lethal nerve agents such as sarin, tabun, and VX. U.N. weapons inspectors uncovered and destroyed much of Iraq’s chemical weapons stockpiles, munitions, and production facilities. But when inspectors were withdrawn in 1998, Iraq allegedly retained 6,000 chemical bombs, as well as 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas and some amount of VX. Iraq is also thought to have the precursor chemicals necessary to brew hundreds of tons more of mustard gas and nerve agents. How might Iraq deliver biological or chemical weapons?Several ways. While Iraq is prohibited by U.N. resolutions from building missiles with a range of more than 150 kilometers (about 100 miles), British intelligence indicates that it retains a stockpile of up to 20 al-Hussein missiles with a range of 400 miles--enough to hit Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or U.S. bases in Kuwait and Qatar. These modified Scud-B missiles could be fitted with germ or chemical warheads and launched within 45 minutes of a command, according to British estimates. But other experts maintain that Iraq hasn’t yet perfected the missile technology to deliver chemical or biological weapons; the explosion of a missile warhead could destroy much of its chemical or biological payload.More feasibly, experts say, Iraq could spread deadly germs or gases with shorter-range rockets, artillery shells, unmanned low-flying drones, or sprayers mounted on fighter jets, helicopters, or ships. The Bush administration has also warned that Iraq could pass weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, although some experts argue that Saddam is unlikely to share his prized doomsday weapons.

This publication is now archived. What does international law say about prisoners of war?The most important rule, enshrined in Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, is that prisoners of war (POWs) must be treated humanely. What are the most serious violations?Violence, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture.Violations of personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.Sentencing and executing prisoners without a judgment handed down by a regularly constituted court that offers all standard judicial guarantees.Hostage-taking.Withholding treatment from the wounded and sick. What are the Geneva Conventions?Part of the body of international humanitarian law that deals with how war is conducted. The law is laid out in a number of documents, the most important of which are four 1949 Geneva Conventions, two 1977 additions to them called protocols, and other treaties, such as the Hague Convention of 1907. Is Iraq following the rules regarding prisoners of war?Apparently not, but the extent of its violations is not yet known. U.S. officials worry that some American prisoners have been tortured or executed. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said March 20 that two British POWs had been killed after capture. If true, these would be grave war crimes.Showing a prisoner of war on television--as Iraq did--could also be an infraction of the rules, though a less serious one. Administration officials have said parading POWs violates Article 13 of the third Geneva Convention, which states that "prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." Has Iraq violated the POW rules in the past?There are many allegations that it has. American POWs held by Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War have alleged that they were tortured. Last April, retired Air Force Col. David Eberly and other former Gulf War POWs filed a $900 million lawsuit against Iraq for the "barbarous" treatment of American prisoners. The lawsuit, filed in a Washington, D.C., federal court, alleged that the Iraqi agents tortured, beat, starved, shocked, and burned prisoners. Has the United States violated POW rules?There have been no such reports in this war. However, in the war in Afghanistan, the Bush administration came under serious criticism from human rights groups and lawyers when it refused to extend POW status to captured Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters. The Bush administration later agreed to extend POW status to Taliban prisoners, but not al Qaeda. Some international humanitarian lawyers say that the United States’ selective use of POW rules then has weakened its case for a strict interpretation of the Geneva Conventions now. Is everyone captured considered a prisoner of war?No. There is a large legal gray area about who is officially considered a POW, and thus over who is entitled to the detailed protections in the conventions. The law states that members of the armed forces of a nation, when captured, are prisoners of war. So are members of organized militias or volunteer corps that are part of the armed forces.In general, legal combatants meet the following conditions:They are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates.They wear uniforms or can otherwise be identified as fighters.They carry arms openly.They conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.Questions arise when fighters operate illegally and outside of the rules of war. For example, the United States has denied that al-Qaeda members qualify for POW status because, among other reasons, they do not constitute a national armed force. Do illegal combatants have any protection under the law?Yes. They are still guaranteed humane treatment. They are also guaranteed the right to appeal their status through a due process hearing. Can prisoners of war be questioned?Yes. According to Article 17 of the Geneva Conventions, every prisoner of war must give his name, rank, date of birth, and serial number when captured. International lawyers say POWs can also be questioned, but under strict guidelines. "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever," the law states. And POWs who refuse to answer "may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." What other rules govern war?The U.N. Charter regulates when one country can go to war with another. According to the charter, the use of force is generally banned, except under two conditions: in the pursuit of a nation’s "inherent right of self defense" (Article 51), or when authorized by the U.N. Security Council (Chapter VII). Debate over the application of these provisions in practice is intense. Are all countries agreed on the rules?No. While both the United States and Iraq have ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions, for example, neither has agreed to the 1977 agreements, which deal with guerrilla fighting and other issues of modern war. Generally, rules of war are determined not only by what is in treaties, but also by international consensus and practice. This is called customary international law. In illegal wars, do humanitarian laws still apply?Yes. No matter what one thinks about the legality of a war--some critics have said the U.S.-led assault on Iraq is unlawful--humanitarian laws must be followed. A strict interpretation of the Geneva Conventions would make illegal all tactics that unnecessarily endanger and target the civilian population. Is pretending to surrender and then attacking an enemy a violation of the rules of war?Yes. It is considered an act of treachery or perfidy--and is a serious violation. Broadly defined, perfidy, or abuse of trust, takes place when a combatant tricks the enemy into thinking that he deserves protection under the laws of war. According to Article 37 of the 1977 addition to the Geneva Conventions, perfidy includes feigning:an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of surrender.an incapacitation by wounds or sickness.civilian or non-combatant status.protected status by using the signs of neutral parties, such as a Red Cross or U.N. sign.Pentagon officials have recently accused the Iraqi forces of perfidy. However, because the United States has not ratified the 1977 protocol defining perfidy, that could complicate its legal case, lawyers say. Is it legal for fighters to dress in civilian clothes?This can fall into a gray area, but generally the answer is no. Legal commentators say a combatant can use camouflage, but he cannot pretend to be a civilian and hide in a crowd. These distinctions can get tricky. If captured, such forces may not be entitled to POW status. How often are these rules banning perfidy followed?Often, they are not. In fact, many of the illegal actions banned by this law are staples of guerrilla warfare tactics. Such tactics were famously used by the Viet Cong in Vietnam and the irregular fighters in Somalia. That doesn’t make them any less illegal. But in the heat of battle, the legality of actions may not be a major consideration. Is any form of trickery permitted in war?Yes. The law permits what it calls ruses, which are actions intended to mislead the enemy, or induce him to act recklessly, but not those that trick them into thinking a combatant is entitled to humanitarian protections. Military handbooks list many of these: staging surprise attacks and ambushes, using decoys, transmitting misleading messages in the press, removing the signs indicating rank from uniforms, and many kinds of psychological warfare.

This publication is now archived. What are the key facts about Iraq?Iraq is a large, oil-rich, Arab state bordering on the Persian Gulf. It shares borders with Kuwait, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, and its population of 24 million is 60 percent Shiite, 18 percent Sunni Kurd, and 15 percent Sunni Arab. In recent decades, a Sunni Arab clique led by President Saddam Hussein imposed a totalitarian police state in Iraq. Saddam held on to power through an eight-year battle with Iran in the 1980s, the U.S.-led Gulf War in 1991 and subsequent international sanctions. He was toppled in a U.S.-led invasion in April 2003. Was Iraq once a major center of world civilization?Yes. What’s now Iraq was the site of ancient Mesopotamia, the fertile region between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers that thousands of years ago gave rise to the cities of Ur and Babylon. Baghdad, the present-day capital of Iraq, was the seat of the Abbasid caliphate, which ruled a vast Muslim empire from the eighth to the thirteenth centuries. The city developed into a center of learning and architecture. How did Saddam Hussein take power?As a young man in the 1960s, Saddam was an active member of Iraq’s Baath Party, a far-left, revolutionary group that sought to establish Arab socialist states across the region. When the Baath overthrew Iraq’s military regime in 1968, Saddam’s cousin, Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr, became president of Iraq and chairman of the new ruling Revolutionary Command Council. But experts say that even then Saddam wielded the real power in Iraq; as one of Bakr’s deputies, he built a massive security network of spies and informers. Saddam formally took over in 1979. With the help of Sunni backers from his hometown of Tikrit, Saddam soon assumed unchallenged authority and turned on several of his former supporters, many of whom were executed. What kind of leader was Saddam?He demanded unwavering loyalty from his subjects, and to ensure it he tortured and killed potential foes, purged the army, and terrorized even his closest deputies, according to experts and Iraqi dissidents. For protection, Saddam moved quickly and anonymously among his more than 20 palaces with only a small entourage; it is said that his whereabouts were often unknown, even to his children. Saddam saw himself as one of history’s greatest leaders, a visionary destined to restore Iraq to its former glory. Experts say that although he claimed to trace his lineage back to the Prophet Muhammad and invoked Islamic themes more frequently after his Gulf War defeat, Saddam is not particularly religious and generally ruled as a secular, far-left tyrant. His core objectives, Iraq watchers say, were to maintain his rule and to resist alleged U.S. attempts to dominate the Arab world. Experts say Iraqis overwhelmingly feared and hated him, although many Iraqis also resented outside attacks and sanctions. What was Iraq’s human rights record like?Dreadful, human rights groups say, even compared to the troubling practices of other Middle East regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran. Though extreme measures such as torture are prohibited by Iraq’s constitution, experts say that in practice, Saddam’s brutal whims went unchecked, and security forces and the dreaded Mukhabarat secret police were never held accountable for excesses. Dissenters were often executed publicly to terrify the larger population, with families of victims forced to watch and even cover the costs of the executions. In the 1970s and early 1980s, tens of thousands of majority Shiites were deported to Iran, and the Saddam regime subsequently murdered scores of Shiite leaders and their families. It was widely reported that in the 1988 Anfal campaign against Iraqi Kurds, Iraqi troops dropped deadly chemical agents including mustard gas, sarin, and possibly VX on the northern town of Halabja, killing thousands of civilians. How were Iraq’s relations with its neighbors in recent years?Strained, especially after Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, which startled Arab leaders who hadn’t expected a large Arab state to invade a smaller Arab neighbor. Still, Iraq’s frayed ties with Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia--all of which joined the Desert Storm coalition to drive Iraq from Kuwait--improved somewhat in the late 1990s. On the eve of the 2003 war, Iraq’s relations with Jordan, a generally pro-Western monarchy that declined to join the U.S.-led Gulf War coalition in 1991, remained reasonably cordial, experts said. Jordan, Syria, and Turkey were still receiving shipments of oil from Iraq in defiance of U.N. sanctions--an illicit trade that reportedly netted $2 billion for Saddam in 2000.But Iraq’s relationship with Iran, its great Persian Gulf rival, remained deeply hostile. Kuwait is still awaiting the return of 600 prisoners of war seized during the 1990 invasion. And Israel, attacked with Iraqi Scud missiles during the 1991 Gulf War and angered by Iraq’s payments to the families of Palestinian suicide terrorists, continued to regard Saddam as one of its most dangerous foes. What was Iraq’s military capability on the eve of the 2003 conflict?A shadow of its formidable former self, experts say. During its 1980s war with Iran, Iraq became the leading Arab military power, with an arsenal supplied by the Soviet Union, and had the world’s fourth-largest army. But Saddam’s showdown with the U.S. military during the 1991 Gulf War severely depleted his 1.2-million-troop force, leaving an estimated 380,000 soldiers at his command. Military and economic sanctions prevented him from rebuilding his army, and U.S. technology outpaced weaponry from Iraq’s erstwhile Soviet patron. What is the state of Iraq’s economy?Dire, despite the country’s massive oil reserves. The war against Iran left Iraq with more than $40 billion in debt, and Desert Storm severely damaged the transportation and power network and other elements of Iraq’s national infrastructure. Between 1991 and 2003, U.N. sanctions hobbled the already weak economy. The sanctions were imposed to pressure Saddam to surrender his suspected arsenal of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons.The Baathist government ran Iraq’s inefficient major industries--oil, chemicals, textiles, and cement. Still, experts say, the country has considerable economic advantages that will help get it back on its feet, including impressive infrastructure, natural resources, and an educated workforce.

This publication is now archived. How many U.S. troops were stationed in and around Iraq when Baghdad fell?The Pentagon said April 8 that some 340,000 U.S. servicemen and women were under the authority of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which covers a region stretching from the Horn of Africa through the Persian Gulf and into Central Asia. GlobalSecurity.org, a defense information website, estimated that about 235,000 of these troops were engaged in the Iraq war. Where were most of the troops located?Pentagon officials said more than 125,000 troops were in Iraq. Others remained in Kuwait, the main staging area for the ground force. In more limited numbers, U.S. forces were also in Jordan, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Oman, Israel, Djibouti, and Diego Garcia, a 17-square-mile island in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Tens of thousands of additional troops were at sea in aircraft carrier battle groups or on Marine amphibious assault ships. What kinds of forces were present?Every branch of the U.S. armed services— including the Coast Guard— was involved. Troops consisted of a mix of special operations forces, combat units, and security and support personnel. Did other countries sent troops?Yes. There were approximately 45,000 British troops, roughly 2,000 Australian soldiers, and a small number of Polish combat troops. A number of other countries, such as the Czech Republic and Slovakia, sent non-combat troops. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE also sent 8,000 soldiers to Kuwait in a largely symbolic effort to help defend that country. Kuwait was invaded by Iraq in 1990. Do we know how many U.S. reserves and National Guard troops were called?Yes. As of April 2, 218,931 reserve and National Guard troops had been placed on active duty. Most of these— 148,450— belonged to the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. What were the main ground forces involved in the invasion?They included:The First Marine Expeditionary Force, with approximately 50,000 Marines.The Army’s Third Infantry Division, a mechanized unit with 16,500 soldiers, dozens of Apache attack and Kiowa Warrior scout helicopters, and hundreds of M1A1 Abrams tanks and M2A2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles.The Army’s 101st Airborne Division, with a total of 19,000 personnel and about 280 helicopters. This unit was deployed via aircraft in both northern and southern Iraq.The 82nd Airborne Division’s 2nd Brigade and the 173rd Airborne Brigade. These units fought in central and northern Iraq.The Army’s V Corps, based in Heidelberg, Germany. V Corps commander Lt. Gen. William Wallace was placed in charge of all Army units taking part in the invasion. V Corps personnel numbered some 35,000 and included engineering, military police, air defense, and helicopter attack units. Did Turkey’s resistance to providing bases for U.S. ground forces affect the deployment?Yes. The U.S. sought permission to send 62,000 ground troops over land through Turkey into northern Iraq, but those plans were scrapped when Turkish lawmakers refused to grant permission. More than 35 ships transporting the Fourth Infantry Division’s tanks, guided missile launchers, artillery, and other equipment waited for weeks off the Turkish coast. The unit’s 20,000 soldiers began to arrive in Iraq in mid-April, as the heaviest fighting tapered off. What other ground forces were slated to deploy?They included thousands of soldiers from the First Cavalry Regiment, the First Armored Division, the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment, and the Second Armored Cavalry Regiment. By mid-April, the First Cavalry had been put on hold and the First Armored had started to roll into southern Iraq. These heavy units, with tanks and armored fighting vehicles, reinforced supply lines in southern Iraq and provided back-up for ground forces in Baghdad.The Pentagon said these delayed deployments were part of its "rolling start" strategy; critics said more of these divisions should have been in Kuwait before the ground invasion began. How much sea power was deployed?At the war’s height, there were six aircraft carrier battle groups in the Mediterranean Sea and Persian Gulf: USS Theodore Roosevelt, USS Harry S. Truman, USS Constellation, USS Abraham Lincoln, USS Kitty Hawk and the USS Nimitz. There were also 23 amphibious task group ships in the region carrying more than 10,000 Marines. How much of U.S. firepower was based on aircraft carriers?A great deal. The six carrier battle groups comprised more than 40 ships, which in total could fire more than 1,200 Tomahawk cruise missiles and host about 300 attack aircraft. In all, about 70 aircraft, including F-14 and F-18 fighter jets, electronic warfare aircraft, refueling aircraft, and helicopters were associated with each carrier. Total personnel in each carrier group ranged from 5,800 to more than 8,000. What kinds of U.S. aircraft were involved in the war?The Pentagon said April 7 that some 1,200 aircraft were in the CENTCOM region.AWACS airborne command aircraft acted as communication and surveillance hubs high over the battlefield, detecting, identifying, and tracking aircraft.EC-130 electronic combat aircraft jammed enemy communications, broadcast a range of television and radio signals, and gathered intelligence.F-15, F-16, and A-10 fighter jets hit targets with precision-guided and other weapons.B-2 long-distance stealth bombers and single-seat F-117 stealth attack fighters evaded enemy radars and delivered a range of heavy weaponry and precision-guided munitions. The B-2’s flew from bases in Diego Garcia, Britain, or their home base in Missouri; the F-117s flew from bases in Qatar.B-1B and B-52 bombers. These heavy bombers dropped a wide range of weaponry, including precision-guided high-explosive bombs, cluster bombs, and cruise missiles. Where are the U.S. headquarters in the Gulf?The main CENTCOM headquarters is in Doha, Qatar. Each U.S. military service has a separate regional command center. The Army Forces Central Command is located at Camp Doha, Kuwait. The Navy headquarters is located at Bahrain’s Manama Naval Base. The air campaign is led out of the Combined Air Operations Center at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, which oversees aircraft flying out of 30 bases. Who was in charge of the war for the United States?The commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces is President George W. Bush. Next in the chain of command is Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who directs military commanders through General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The regional commander of the war is Army General Tommy R. Franks, the CENTCOM commander. How did this deployment compare with the allied forces assembled for the 1991 Gulf War?There were fewer soldiers but arguably more firepower. In all, there were nearly 750,000 U.S. and allied troops in the region for Operation Desert Storm in 1991. U.S. commanders said that technological advances, lessons learned in 1991, and the weakened state of Iraq’s army permitted them to focus their attack more accurately and lethally.Sources: U.S. Defense Department, news reports, GlobalSecurity.org, the Center for Defense Information, Council on Foreign Relations experts.

This publication is now archived. What is the Fedayeen Saddam?Experts say the Fedayeen Saddam, or Saddam’s Men of Sacrifice, is a 30,000 to 40,000-member Iraqi paramilitary group that appears to be leading guerrilla-style attacks on coalition forces in southern Iraq. Why didn’t we hear about the Fedayeen before the war started?Experts on Iraq’s military were aware of the Fedayeen, and included the group in reports about Iraqi defenses. However, U.S. war planners apparently underestimated how potent a force they and other paramilitary fighters would be. Top officials in the Bush administration never mentioned the issue to the public in the weeks before the war. The commander of the ground forces in Iraq, Army Lieut. General William Wallace, also appears to have been caught by surprise: "The enemy we’re fighting is different from the one we wargamed against," he told The New York Times last week. What did top policymakers know?The CIA says it distributed a classified report in early February to policymakers warning that the Fedayeen could be expected to employ guerrilla tactics against U.S. rear units. According to a recent article in Time magazine, these Washington analysts now complain that their views were softened as the report moved up the chain of command. Why this happened is far from clear, but some insiders argue that it’s because the Bush administration officials were not interested in evidence that contradicted their theories about the welcome Iraqis would give U.S. troops. "I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators," Vice President Dick Cheney said March 16 on NBC’s Meet the Press. How do we know that the paramilitaries attacking U.S. soldiers are Fedayeen and not other groups?We don’t. The little we know about the identity of the resisting fighters comes from press accounts about surrendering Iraqi soldiers and articles apparently based on U.S. intelligence. The fighters could be Fedayeen, other armed popular forces, tribal militia, foreign Islamist groups in Iraq, or some of the more than 100,000 people thought to be employed in Iraq’s security services. Or they could be other groups entirely. The Pentagon itself seems unsure; spokesmen have called the guerrilla fighters different things at different times, often settling on general terms like "thugs" or "terrorists." Who are the Fedayeen fighters?Mostly young men aged 16 and up. They are armed with machine guns, rocket-powered grenade launchers, and truck-mounted artillery. Fedayeen reportedly dress in civilian clothes in order to confuse coalition forces. Pentagon officials said March 24 that the Fedayeen, who are considered very loyal to the regime, also act as enforcers in regular army units, threatening to kill soldiers who try to surrender. Is the Fedayeen separate from the Iraqi army?Yes. The militia is thought to answer directly to Saddam’s eldest son, Uday, bypassing the military chain of command. The leader of the force is believed to be General Iyad Futiyeh Rawi, a staunch Saddam loyalist who was awarded 27 medals during the 1980-88 war with Iran. Uday, 38, is one of the top targets of the U.S.-led invasion. When was the Fedayeen founded?In 1995, by Uday. Though much remains unknown about the group, military experts believe it started out as a rag-tag force of some 10,000 to 15,000 drawn from regions most loyal to the Baath regime. Uday has used the force for personal ends, placing it in charge of smuggling and using it to attack, torture, and murder opponents. He lost control of the militia in 1996, apparently after transferring sophisticated weapons to it from the Republican Guard without Saddam’s permission, according to reports from Iraqi defectors. In recent years, the force appears to have been placed back under his control. What does it do?In addition to organizing smuggling and other illegal efforts along Iraq’s borders, the group is thought to be directly responsible for some of the regime’s most brutal acts. It is widely reported to operate a death squad that conducts extra-judicial executions. The U.S. State Department, for example, accuses the Fedayeen of beheading more than 200 women as part of an alleged anti-prostitution campaign. Some of the families of the victims were forced to display the heads outside their homes. "Many of the victims were not engaged in prostitution, but were targeted for political reasons," according to a March 20 State Department report. What are the other popular militia groups in Iraq?Popular militias--forces drawn directly from the population that are not part of the formal security apparatus--are common in Iraq. The Iraqi regime claims millions of Iraq’s 24 million citizens are involved in them. Experts say popular forces include:Al Quds (Jerusalem) Brigades. Experts say this is intended to be a mass volunteer force, with female as well as male units. The Iraqi regime showcases the brigades at public marches and other propaganda events and claims it has up to 7 million members. U.S. experts say its strength is greatly exaggerated by the Iraqis. But they also believe that at least some al Quds members--who hail largely from Sunni areas in the middle of the country--have been given rifles, mortars, and light automatic weapons.The Youth Civil Defense Force. There are reports that a so-called youth army, made up of 12 to 17 year-olds, was formed in 1999 to defend the cities. It is unclear that such a force exists, but some Iraqi media coverage does show youths and adults being trained and possibly armed for such a role.Ashbal Saddam, or Saddam’s Cubs. This is a military organization for children aged 10 to 16 that holds annual war training camps. However, like other popular forces, the extent to which it is involved in the war is unknown. Could the regime’s special security forces also be behind the guerrilla fighting?Yes. Fighters could be from the Special Security Organization (SSO), or al-Amn al-Khas, an ultra-loyal force of 2,000 to 5,000 men that is thought to play a major role in surveillance of all of the other security services. Controlled by Saddam’s younger son, Qusay, the SSO has its own military brigade that serves as a rapid-response unit independent of the military establishment.At least a dozen other security forces are thought to exist in Iraq, and could be playing a role in fighting or compelling regular army personnel or civilians to fight. Two overlapping security services, the Military Intelligence Service and the Military Security Service, monitor the army for loyalty. Each of these units is believed to have between 3,000 and 6,000 men.On the local level, agents from the General Security Service (GSS), or al-Amn al-Amm, work as the regime’s eyes and ears. The GSS monitors daily life in every town and village, has more than 8,000 estimated agents, countless local informants, and its own paramilitary wing, according to military analyst Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank.

This publication is now archived. Did the war with Iraq begin as expected?No. Pentagon officials had said before the war started on March 19 that it would begin with an intense "shock and awe" assault on Iraq by U.S. and coalition forces under cover of darkness. The campaign, they said, would be launched nearly simultaneously from the air, land, and sea, and would seek to stun Iraqi forces into quick submission. How did the U.S.-led assault start?Operation Iraqi Freedom began the night of March 19 (around dawn Baghdad time on March 20) when U.S. and coalition forces, using cruise missiles and F-117 stealth fighters, struck a target in Baghdad where, intelligence reports indicated, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and his top deputies had gathered in underground bunkers. Was Saddam harmed in the attack?We don’t know. News organizations, quoting officials from the Central Intelligence Agency, initially reported that Saddam was wounded and several top Iraqi leaders were killed. Shortly after the attack, Iraqi television broadcast a speech by someone claiming to be Saddam. Some U.S. officials speculated that the speaker may have been a body double (Saddam was reported to have several); U.S. intelligence officials later said they thought it was indeed Saddam, but could not be sure whether the message was taped before the strike. When did the "shock and awe" assault begin?Shortly after 8 PM Baghdad time on March 21, cruise missiles and bombers attacked Baghdad and the northern cities of Kirkuk and Mosul. By that point, allied ground troops, which had entered Iraq from Kuwait, were well into their roughly 300-mile journey north toward the capital. In the south, they took control of oil fields west of Basra and the Faw Peninsula, including the port city of Umm Qasr. Why was the decision made to launch the "shock and awe" campaign?Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said in a March 21 news conference that officials launched the massive assault after the failure of initial efforts to persuade the Iraqi military leadership to concede defeat. What were the targets?The air attacks that began March 21 were expected to focus on hundreds of Iraqi military targets, such as command and control centers, including Saddam’s palaces, and communications networks throughout the country. Coalition troops also sought to neutralize Iraq’s suspected stores of chemical and biological weapons and their means of delivery. To minimize post-war reconstruction, the air campaign tried to avoid damage to Iraq’s infrastructure, such as bridges and electrical grids. Coalition forces were also expected to spare regular Iraqi army troop formations that signaled a willingness to surrender; that also appears to have occurred. What were the initial objectives of the war?The opening strike of the conflict appeared to have been aimed at destroying Iraq’s top leadership ahead of a full-scale attack. Another early objective, press reports said, was to neutralize Iraq’s air defenses and cripple Baghdad’s ability to launch retaliatory strikes. Going into the war, planners were reportedly most concerned that Saddam would unleash chemical or biological weapons from his suspected arsenal on U.S. troops or neighboring states. They were also concerned that he would launch Scud missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia, as he did in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and set Iraq’s oil fields on fire. By March 21, Iraqi forces had set as many as seven oil fields aflame, but the overall damage caused by such fires was small compared to the devastation caused in Kuwait in 1991.Another objective, experts said, was to spur widespread surrenders by delivering a series of devastating blows to convince Iraqi defenders that defeat was inevitable. Pentagon officials expected Iraq’s roughly 350,000 regular soldiers to mount minimal resistance, but had braced for intense clashes around Baghdad with the 60,000-70,000 members of the Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard. While there was heavy fighting at times, intense clashes never fully materialized.This fact sheet draws on March 2003 interviews with experts at the Council on Foreign Relations. Sources also include Evan Thomas and John Barry, "Saddam’s War," Newsweek, Mar. 17, 2003; Mark Thompson, "Opening with a Bang," Time, Mar. 9, 2003; and "How the War Might Be Waged," Time.com, Mar. 17, 2003.

This publication is now archived. What are the prospects for democratic transformationMany experts say Iraq will have some form of elected government within 18 months. That relatively quick timetable, some say, could result in a government that lacks widespread legitimacy and the capacity to govern effectively. And experts caution that ongoing violence in Iraq and potential disputes over a new constitution and election laws could delay or derail progress. "It’s going to be a very tricky process," says Daniel Brumberg, a democracy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. What determines the schedule?Two main factors. First, there is mounting international pressure to accelerate the transfer of authority to the Iraqi people from the U.S.-dominated occupation authority. Second, there is widespread speculation that the Bush administration wants elections in Iraq to occur before the U.S. presidential election in November 2004. What’s the timetable for elections?Secretary of State Colin Powell announced September 26 that a new constitution should be completed within six months. After that, Iraqis will conduct a census, determine who is eligible to vote, and draw election districts. Finally, a vote will take place and sovereignty will shift to the new government. What kind of government will Iraq have?It has not been decided. If all goes as planned in the coming months, an Iraqi constitutional committee will resolve such key issues as:Whether Iraq will have a parliamentary or presidential system.How many states Iraq will have, the borders of those states, and the amount of power the states will have relative to the central government.The role of Islam in the Iraqi government.Many experts expect consideration of these issues to be difficult and divisive. Does Iraq have any experience with democracy?A limited amount. Military dictators ruled Iraq for decades. But between 1932 and 1958, Iraq was a constitutional monarchy. It had an elected legislature, political parties, and a functioning court system. Civil liberties--such as freedom of the press--were somewhat respected. Yet real power remained in the hands of the monarch and elections were not free and fair, says Phebe Marr, author of "Modern History of Iraq" and a former senior fellow at the National Defense University. "Iraq has a tradition of political violence, and trouble with tolerance and compromise," Marr says. "In governance and building institutions, Iraq has a bad record." Can democracy be imposed on a country?Most experts say no. Foreign powers can arrange a vote, but that’s different from ensuring that the various groups in a country vying for power will abide by democratic practices and willingly cede control to the winner of an election. Most experts say it can take a generation or more to develop these so-called habits of democracy. From a practical perspective, that means that an elected government in Iraq will likely need the support of U.S. and coalition forces for years, says Noah Feldman, a New York University law professor who, between April and July, was senior adviser in constitutional law to the occupation government in Baghdad. Would awarding more power to Iraqi leaders now hastenIt’s unclear. The Iraqi Governing Council (IGC), a 25-member body appointed by the U.S.-led occupation government, has little real power. In recent days, its leaders have reportedly pushed for more control. Zaab Sethna, an adviser to Ahmad Chalabi, the current president of the council, says boosting the IGC’s authority would assure Iraqis that coalition forces are liberators, as the U.S. government claims--and not an occupying army, as U.S. critics charge.U.S. officials have made it clear they are not ready to cede control. A incomplete shift of authority--for example, seeming to grant powers to the IGC while leaving coalition forces in actual control of the country--could ultimately hamper the transition to democracy, some experts say. Underlying this dispute is the larger issue of who will exercise power in the new Iraq, Marr says. The IGC is dominated by Iraqi exiles like Chalabi, who beginning in the 1990s led a London-based opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress. "Turning over more power to the governing council now will help increase the power of the outsiders," Marr says. What’s the status of a new Iraqi constitution?The IGC has appointed a 25-member constitutional preparatory committee. That committee has about one month to come up with a procedure by which to select delegates to a constitutional convention, Feldman says. The convention--which will likely have between 100 and 150 members--will debate and approve the constitution. Many decisions, however, will probably be made in a central "drafting committee" where the most powerful political leaders will bargain over how to organize the government, Feldman says. Who will be invited to the constitutional convention?Some of the delegates will likely be chosen in a "bottom-up" process from throughout the country, perhaps nominated through existing town councils. Others will likely be appointed in a "top-down" process by members of the IGC, Feldman says. Why is timing an issue?Many experts caution that the process risks being seen as widely illegitimate if it is rushed. "It’s all going to be Mickey Mouse--there’s not enough time to do it right. The issues that need to be decided are huge," says Marina S. Ottaway, an expert on nation-building at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a critic of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy. Other experts say that while the deadline is tight, the example of Eastern Europe and other new democracies shows that constitutions can be written on accelerated timetables. "It will be a difficult deadline to meet," Powell acknowledged in an interview with The New York Times, "but we’ve got to get them going."A complicating factor: a religious edict, or fatwa, issued by the most powerful Shiite religious cleric in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sestani, called for the constitutional delegates to be popularly elected. Some members of the IGC and many experts oppose these elections, fearing they will hold up the process and "empower extremists" such as Baathists and well-organized radical Islamists, Feldman says. One compromise might be to subject the entire slate of convention delegates to a general up-or-down referendum, or make the final document subject to a popular vote. But if the population votes no on either question, it would delay the timetable further. What role is Islam expected to play in the new state?Islam will likely be the official state religion in Iraq, as it is in countries throughout the Arab world, Feldman says. But he adds that he expects the constitution will grant freedom of religion and equal rights to all citizens, and so form the basis of a tolerant, liberal democracy. Other experts warn that this issue will likely remain divisive in years to come, no matter what the new constitution says. "There’s always been an uneasy coexistence between religion and politics in Iraq," says Yitzhak Nakash, author of "The Shi’is of Iraq" and a professor at Brandeis University. "When there has been separation of church and state in Iraq in the past, it has always been accompanied by violence." What other issues need to be resolved?Security. A free and fair election can’t occur amid violence and intimidation. This problem may be compounded if armed militias tied to political figures and parties are used to maintain security in Iraq before the vote, experts say.Ethnic balance vs. effective government. Seats on the IGC were awarded in light of considerations of ethnicity, religion, and tribe. But a nation cannot govern effectively through a system of ethnic quotas and Iraq’s record of developing effective governance coalitions is poor, Marr says.Sunni alienation. Arab Sunnis, who dominated Saddam Hussein’s government, have fiercely resisted coalition rule. Yet their participation in the writing of a constitution and determining Iraq’s political future is essential to ensure the country’s stability. What are the major post-election challenges?The major challenge is what some scholars refer to as democratic "consolidation"--strengthening institutions to ensure that peaceful elections become the standard way of transferring power. Most scholars predict this will be difficult in Iraq. "Given Iraq’s repressive history and profound ethnic and religious cleavages, democratization will be lengthy, messy, and full of twists and turns," wrote democracy expert Thomas Carothersof the Carnegie Endowment in a July op-ed. Another key issue: whether the new government will be able to make compromises and govern. "The message has to come across to Iraqi leaders that politics is not a zero-sum game. For many of them, it’s still a zero-sum game," Marr says. What’s a reasonable definition for Iraqi success?While Bush administration officials say they would like Iraq to one day serve as an example of democracy for countries in the Middle East currently under authoritarian rule, their short-term objectives are more modest. "By success [in Iraq], I mean a constitution, elections, orderly transfer of sovereignty," Bush said in a September 22 interview with Fox News. "At the same time, reconstruction, as well as making Iraq more secure. That’s essential to the long-term security of the United States," he said. Experts agree that a liberal, Jeffersonian-style democracy in Iraq is a long way off. A reasonable short-term hope for Iraq, Nakash says, is "a decent government that primarily serves the Iraqi people."