Afghanistan: Politics, Elections, and Government Performance

Kenneth Katzman
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs

The performance and legitimacy of the Afghan government as a partner to the United States has been a growing factor in debate over the effectiveness of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. In a December 1, 2009, policy statement on Afghanistan, which followed the second of two major Afghanistan strategy reviews in 2009, President Obama stated that “The days of providing a blank check [to the Afghan government] are over.” During the first half of 2010, the Administration publicly pressed President Hamid Karzai to move more decisively to address corruption within his government, but Karzai’s backlash against the criticism caused the Administration to try to work quietly with Karzai to build the capacity of several emerging anticorruption institutions. However, these same institutions have sometimes targeted Karzai allies and undermined the U.S.-Karzai partnership, compelling Karzai to strengthen his bond to ethnic and political faction leaders who are often involved in illicit economic activity and who undermine rule of law. While prodding Karzai on corruption—including some moves in Congress to link further U.S. aid to clear progress on this issue—another clear trend over the past two years has been to reduce sole reliance on the Afghan central government by strengthening local governing bodies. This is being implemented, in part, by expanding the presence of U.S. government civilians as advisors outside Kabul.

The disputes with Karzai over corruption compound continuing international concerns about Afghan democracy and Karzai’s legitimacy. In the August 20, 2009, presidential election, there were widespread charges of fraud, many substantiated by an Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC). The ECC’s invalidation of nearly one-third of President Karzai’s votes left him just short of the 50%+ total needed to avoid a runoff. Karzai’s main challenger dropped out of the runoff and Karzai was declared the winner, but he subsequently faced opposition to many of his cabinet nominees by the elected lower house of parliament. Seven ministerial posts remain unfilled. Concerns remain about whether Karzai is committed to ensuring that the upcoming parliamentary elections, to be held September 18, 2010, will correct previous flaws and prove free and fair. Confidence was undermined, to an extent, in February 2010 when Karzai issued an election decree to govern the National Assembly elections on September 18, 2010. The decree eliminated the three U.N.-appointed positions for international officials on the ECC, although a subsequent compromise restored two non-Afghan ECC seats.

Politically, there are some indications of ethnic and political fragmentation over the terms on which a settlement to the conflict in Afghanistan might be achieved. On June 6, 2010, Karzai fired two of the most pro-U.S. top security officials. One of them—a member of the Tajik minority—is now openly promoting the view that Karzai has concluded he must negotiate with Pakistan on a settlement of the Afghan conflict because the U.S.-led coalition will not succeed in pacifying Afghanistan. Other leaders of minority communities boycotted a June 2-4, 2010, “consultative peace jirga (assembly)” in Kabul that endorsed Karzai’s plan to reintegrate into society insurgents willing to end their fight against the government. Women, who have made substantial gains (including appointment to cabinet posts and governorships and election to parliament) fear their rights may be eroded under any “deal” that might end conflict with insurgent factions. For more information, see CRS Report RL30588, Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy, by Kenneth Katzman, and CRS Report R40747, United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan: Background and Policy Issues, by Rhoda Margesson.


Date of Report: August 26, 2010
Number of Pages: 48
Order Number: RS21922
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press  or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

CRS Issue Statement on Iraq

Christopher M. Blanchard, Coordinator
Analyst in Middle Eastern Affairs

As Iraq's leaders continue to negotiate over the formation of a new government months after March 2010 national elections, Congress is considering Administration requests for FY2011 funding to support military operations and foreign assistance programs in Iraq. The outcome of coalition negotiations among the winning parties in the election will shape the positions that Iraq's government takes as the United States implements its policy of military withdrawal and transition to what the Administration hopes will be a long-term bilateral partnership with Iraq. 

While post-2007 security gains and steps toward reconciliation halted Iraq's descent into civil war and chaos, in the immediate term, Iraqi and U.S. policy makers continue to focus on efforts to consolidate those gains and improvements. In spite of periodic high-profile attacks, U.S. and Iraqi officials continue to express confidence that insurgent and terrorist groups in Iraq have been degraded and no longer pose a strategic threat to the Iraqi government. The success of security operations during Iraq's national elections and in the months that have followed have further boosted the confidence of Iraqi and U.S. officials. 

In line with the U.S.-Iraqi Security Agreement and Obama Administration policy, U.S. troops have shifted from a combat mission to a support and training role, and the withdrawal of U.S. troops has resumed. The approximately 50,000 troops remaining in Iraq as of late August 2010 are scheduled to withdraw completely by December 31, 2011. Through that date, remaining U.S. military forces are tasked with advising and assisting Iraqi forces and providing protection to some U.S. personnel and facilities. U.S. military participation in Iraqi-led counterterrorism missions is set to continue, subject to the terms of the bilateral security agreement. Iraqi and U.S. policy makers remain focused on resolving tensions between Sunni Arabs and Kurds in northern Iraq, amid concerns that conflict could result. 

The withdrawal of U.S. forces is being accompanied by a transition in the organization of U.S. military and civilian agencies in Iraq. As military forces withdraw, an expanding civilian presence is expected to take on new roles. In conjunction with that transition, Congress is considering appropriations requests for and is preparing for oversight of more robust civilian-led programs. Civilian agencies such as the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development plan to assume increased operating costs and exercise new and expanded leadership, diplomatic presence, security, and development responsibilities. 

Congressional debate on Iraq during the second session of the 111th Congress may continue to focus on U.S. efforts to encourage Iraqis to find political accommodations and to help Iraq consolidate hard-won security improvements. Debate also may focus on policies to adequately fund and prepare U.S. military forces and civilian agencies to execute continuing security missions, to implement new training programs, and to manage needs created by the transition to civilian leadership and planned force withdrawals.


Date of Report: August 23, 2010
Number of Pages: 3
Order Number: IS40339
Price: $0.00 FREE go to http://www.pennyhill.net/documents/iraq.pdf

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses

Kenneth Katzman
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs

The Obama Administration has adopted the long-standing assessment of Iran as a "profound threat to U.S. national security interests." This threat perception is generated not only by Iran's nuclear program but also by its military assistance to armed groups in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the Palestinian group Hamas, and to Lebanese Hezbollah. In its first year, the Obama Administration altered the previous U.S. approach by expanding direct diplomatic engagement with Iran's government and by offering Iran's leaders an alternative vision of closer integration with and acceptance by the West. To try to convince Iranian leaders of peaceful U.S. intent, the Obama Administration downplayed discussion of potential U.S. military action against Iranian nuclear facilities and repeatedly insisted that it did not seek to change Iran's regime. It held to this position even at the height of the protests by the domestic opposition "Green movement" that emerged following Iran's June 12, 2009, presidential election. 

Iran's refusal to accept the details of an October 1, 2009, tentative agreement to lessen concerns about its nuclear intentions—coupled with its crackdown on the Green movement—caused the Administration, in 2010, to shift toward building multilateral support for strict economic sanctions against Iran. The Administration efforts bore fruit on June 9, 2009 when a U.N. Security Council was adopted (Resolution 1929) that required countries to take a number of significant steps against Iran, including banning major arms sales to Iran, and authorized a number of additional significant steps. The European Union, in July 2010, subsequently announced multilateral sanctions against Iran that use much of the authorities of Resolution 1929, and which also supports elements of U.S. legislations passed in June 2010 (the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, P.L. 11-195). The new sanctions represent a rejection of a May 17, 2010, agreement brokered by Brazil and Turkey to implement major features of the October 1, 2009, agreement. 

Many observers assess that the U.S., U.N., and EU sanctions enacted in June and July 2010 are pressing Iran economically. However, because the sanctions have not caused Iran to fundamentally alter its commitment to its nuclear program and might not ever achieve that objective, the Administration reportedly has revived deliberations of possible military action to try to set Iran's nuclear program back. Other options include methods to contain Iran if it does become a nuclear armed power. Some believe that only domestic opposition in Iran, which in late 2009 appeared to pose a potentially serious challenge to the regime's grip on power, may provide a clear opportunity to reduce the potential threat of a nuclear Iran. Obama Administration officials appear to believe that the opposition's prospects are enhanced by a low U.S. public profile on the unrest. Congressional resolutions and legislation since mid-2009 show growing congressional support for steps to enhance the opposition's prospects. Others maintain that the prospects for the domestic opposition, which has been largely absent from the streets in 2010, are poor, and that other options are fraught with risks, and that the Administration should return to a focus on reaching a nuclear agreement with Iran. For further information, see CRS Report RS20871, Iran Sanctions; CRS Report R40849, Iran: Regional Perspectives and U.S. Policy; and CRS Report RL34544, Iran's Nuclear Program: Status.


Date of Report: August 20, 2010
Number of Pages: 69
Order Number: RL32048
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

Kenneth Katzman
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs

Following two high-level policy reviews on Afghanistan in 2009, the Obama Administration asserts that it is pursuing a fully resourced and integrated military-civilian strategy that should pave the way for a gradual transition to Afghan security leadership beginning in July 2011. The policy is predicated on the view that stabilizing Afghanistan will ensure that it cannot again become a base for terrorist attacks against the United States, and that accomplishing this objective requires reversing a deterioration of security in large parts of Afghanistan since 2006. Each of the two reviews resulted in a decision to add combat troops, with the intent of creating the conditions to expand Afghan governance and economic development. A total of 51,000 additional U.S. forces were authorized by the two reviews, which will bring U.S. troop levels to approximately 104,000 by September 2010, with partner forces holding at about 40,000. At the same time, the Administration is attempting to counter the perception in the region, particularly among Pakistan, India, the Afghan insurgency, and within the Afghan political establishment that U.S. involvement will be sharply reduced after July 2011. That perception may, among other consequences, be inflaming the traditional rivalry between Pakistan and India, in this case to deny each other influence in Afghanistan. 

As the effort approaches a formal DOD-led review of the Afghanistan situation in December 2010, there is not a consensus that U.S. strategy has shown clear success, to date. Senior U.S. officials say that only now is the full effect of the U.S. and partner "surge" being achieved, and that some progress is being achieved. These comments have been intended to address a growing sense that the U.S. effort may be faltering and, possibly, to halt the growth of opinion that the effort should be abandoned or scaled back. This body of opinion has been fed by the failure to fully stabilize Marjah; Afghan reluctance to allow combat to better secure Qandahar Province; President Hamid Karzai's limited success in curbing governmental corruption, and the expression by several partner countries that the "transition" to Afghan responsibility be accelerated. The overall mission was also disrupted by the sudden ousting on June 23 of the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, for disparaging public comments by him and his staff about U.S. civilian leaders of Afghanistan policy. He has been replaced by CENTCOM Commander David Petraeus, whose leading reputation quickly calmed Afghan and partner country fears of turmoil surrounding the McChrystal dismissal. 

Gen. Petraeus is expressing support for accelerating local security solutions and experiments similar to those he pursued earlier in Iraq, and for efforts to induce low level insurgents to reintegrate into society. Karzai received backing for the reintegration initiative at an international conference in London on January 28, 2010, during his May 2010 meetings in Washington, DC, at "consultative peace jirga" in Kabul during June 2-4, 2010, and at a July 20, 2010, international meeting in Kabul. However, there are major concerns among Afghanistan's minorities and among its women that reintegration—and more controversially Karzai's willingness to reconcile with senior insurgent leaders—could lead to compromises that erode the freedoms Afghans have enjoyed since 2001. Gen. Petraeus, taking account of criticisms of the Afghan government in Congress, also is reportedly reinforcing the U.S. insistence that Karzai move more decisively against governmental corruption. 

Through the end of FY2009, the United States has provided over $40 billion in assistance to Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban, of which about $21 billion has been to equip and train Afghan forces. (See CRS Report RS21922, Afghanistan: Politics, Elections, and Government Performance, by Kenneth Katzman.)


Date of Report: August 17, 2010
Number of Pages: 105
Order Number: RL30588
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Iraq: Politics, Elections, and Benchmarks

Kenneth Katzman
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs

Iraq's political system, the result of a U.S.-supported election process, has been increasingly characterized by peaceful competition, as well as by attempts to form cross-sectarian alliances. However, ethnic and factional infighting continues, sometimes involving the questionable use of key levers of power and legal institutions. This infighting—and the belief that holding political may mean the difference between life and death for the various political communities—has prevented agreement to date on a new government that was to be selected following the March 7, 2010, national elections for the Council of Representatives (COR, parliament). No new government is expected until the end of the Ramadan period in mid-September, if then. 

Contributing to the deadlock is the close election results and distribution of seats in the COR. With the results certified, the cross-sectarian but Sunni-supported "Iraqiyya" slate of former Prime Minister Iyad al-Allawi unexpectedly gained a plurality of 91 of the 325 COR seats up for election. Sitting Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki's State of Law slate won 89, and a rival Shiite coalition was third with 70, of which about 40 seats are held by those supporting Shiite cleric Moqtada Al Sadr. The main Kurdish parties, again allied, won 43 seats. Allawi's slate had been expected to receive the first opportunity to put together a majority coalition to form a government. Maliki and the other main Shiite coalition, opposing what they claim is the mostly Sunni Arab base of the Allawi slate, forged a tenuous alliance to form the next government. However, opposition to Maliki's continuation as Prime Minister caused this deal to unravel, leaving a number of candidates still competing to be the next Prime Minister. Jalal Talabani appears likely to retain the post of president, although this, too, is not certain. 

Allawi, who is viewed as even-handed and not amenable to Iranian influence, was considered to be favored by the Obama Administration and by Sunni-dominated regional neighbors such as Saudi Arabia. However, many expect that neither the United States nor these neighbors can or will intervene decisively to shape a new government led by Allawi. Iran, which exercises major influence over the Shiite factions in Iraq, is likely to continue to work to ensure that pro-Iranian Shiites lead the next government, but Iran is not necessarily insisting that Maliki continue. U.S. officials are anticipating that a new government could overcome the roadblocks that have thus far prevented passage of key outstanding legislation considered crucial to political comity going forward, such as national hydrocarbon laws. U.S. officials and Iraqi citizens also hope that the new government can resolve the increasingly contentious shortages of electricity that have plagued Iraqi cities during 2010 and complicated citizen efforts to cope with the summer heat. 

The current political vacuum, coupled with the drawdown of U.S. forces to 50,000 in late August, 2010, has contributed to major high profile attacks that have caused some experts to question whether stability will continue after all U.S. forces are to depart at the end of 2011. Still, President Obama has announced that the U.S. combat mission will end on schedule as of September 1, 2010, and U.S. officials say the U.S. mission is in the process of transition from military to civilian lead. See CRS Report RL31339, Iraq: Post-Saddam Governance and Security, by Kenneth Katzman.


Date of Report: August 24, 2010
Number of Pages: 26
Order Number: RS21968
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.