The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq; A policy Conundrum (3)
Major Challenges and Lessons Learned
The MeK was a minor issue in the overall conflict in Iraq, but it was an important one because the issues that emerged in the course of detaining the MeK were, in many ways, a microcosm of the larger challenges posed by detainee operations in general. Thus, both the missteps and the small successes along the way provide valuable lessons for improving how the United States deals with “special populations” in future operations.
This study identified five principal problem areas that require attention:
1. OIF planners did not adequately define their military goals and objectives regarding the MeK. Although the MeK had FTO status and had been designated a hostile target, coalition forces were given no military objectives regarding the group except to secure its surrender, and that outcome was never achieved. Without a clear goal, the coalition’s activities at Camp Ashraf began—and largely remained—ad hoc.
2. Coalition forces were not prepared to deal with a special population like the MeK. The officers who served on the JIATF that was responsible for managing the MeK at Camp Ashraf had little or no lead time to prepare for their assignments and had no time between changes of command to share hard-won experience.
No information or training was provided regarding the Iranian xviii The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq: A Policy Conundrum (Persian) and Iraqi (Arab) cultures in general or the MeK in particular, and, in the early days of OIF, no interpreters were assigned specifically to the JIATF. Most importantly, JIATF military members soon discovered that they were dealing with a cult. Despite the special challenges posed by cult behavior, those in charge of detainee operations were given no training on how to manage a cult. Thus, the ability of the MeK leadership to create the appearance of cooperation and to manipulate coalition perceptions of the group’s intentions seriously hampered the overall detainment process and, in particular, repatriation efforts.
3. Coalition forces did not establish a dominant role at Camp Ashraf. Although the coalition disarmed the MeK and consolidated its members at the largest MeK facility, it took very little action to limit the MeK’s freedom of movement. There is no fence around the approximately 15-square-mile facility; further, the coalition guarded only the main gate and did not search all vehicles entering or exiting the camp on a daily basis. Lack of manpower has meant that the coalition has never conducted a thorough search of Camp Ashraf. The MeK was allowed to establish a liaison office on the coalition’s nearby forward operating base (FOB) rather than at Camp Ashraf, to hang its propaganda posters in recreation areas at the FOB, and to hold conferences to promote its agenda. Approximately 14 U.S. soldiers were killed and 60 wounded as they provided security for convoys escorting MeK members to Baghdad to purchase supplies. Thus, it was often unclear just who was in charge of Camp Ashraf.
4. The coalition did not actively encourage MeK members to leave the camp. One of the purposes of consolidating the MeK at Camp Ashraf was to reduce the number of troops needed to control the detainee population. Another way of doing this would have been to reduce the size of that population. Given the MeK’s cult-based control over its members, this would likely have been a difficult and frustrating process. However, at a minimum, the leaders should have been separated from the rank and file.
Most JIATF officers believed that the rank and file would have Summary xix requested repatriation had they simply been separated from the leadership. No effort was ever made to do this, even though the Third Geneva Convention provides that officers should be quartered separately from enlisted personnel. And although the JIATF built a facility to house individuals who left Camp Ashraf, it did not oppose the construction of physical barriers— e.g., guard posts, berms, concertina wire—that were used to keep MeK members from leaving the group.
5. The MeK has not been treated as a terrorist organization. Failure to assert control over the MeK and its facility has exposed the coalition, and particularly the United States, to criticism that the group is being treated as an ally for intelligence gathering purposes rather than as an FTO. This has exposed the United States to accusations of hypocrisy in its worldwide effort to counter violent extremism, and there have been no attempts to counter this destructive misperception through broad-based communication efforts aimed at policymakers and the public.
