[5] A Portable Document Format version of the Iraq Study Group's final official report was made available on the website of the U. S. Institute of Peace.

[6] The U.S. government formed the Research Group under the auspices of bipartisanship due to growing concern from officials about hostilities in Iraq and possible civil war.

[7] Stability First would call for maintaining a presence in Baghdad and encouraging insurgents to enter the political arena, while asking Iran and Syria, Iraq's neighbors, for help ending the fighting.

It warns that its policy recommendations are not failsafe, but that the deteriorating situation in Iraq could lead to political and humanitarian consequences if not dealt with immediately.

It observes that the Iraqi Army "is also confronted by several other challenges": the "units" of the Iraqi Army lack adequate "leadership," "equipment," "personnel," "logistics and support," including "the ability to sustain their operations," "the capability to transport supplies and troops and the capacity to provide their own indirect fire support, technical intelligence, and medical evacuation."

America's other security needs and the future of our military cannot be made hostage to the actions or inactions of the Iraqi government.The report focuses heavily on the oil industry in Iraq.

help draft an oil law that creates a fiscal and legal framework for investment.In conjunction with the International Monetary Fund, the U.S. government should press Iraq to continue reducing subsidies in the energy sector, instead of providing grant assistance.

The report outlines three alternative courses that have been suggested and explains possible flaws in these courses: Precipitate Withdrawal Because of the importance of Iraq, the potential for catastrophe, and the role and commitments of the United States in initiating events that have led to the current situation, we believe it would be wrong for the United States to abandon the country through a precipitate withdrawal of troops and support.

A premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions, leading to a number of the adverse consequences outlined above.

The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy.

The longer the United States remains in Iraq without progress, the more resentment will grow among Iraqis who believe they are subjects of a repressive American occupation.

In general, critics of the Bush administration's handling of the war, including liberal media outlets and think tanks, applauded the report's recommendations, particularly those related to troop withdrawal and increased diplomacy with Syria and Iran.

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) echoed this sentiment, saying "Today's report offers the kind of changes we need to improve the current situation in Iraq.

Snowe said that "It gives impetus to both the Congress and hopefully the president" and that "The time has come to change our course and to support a plan ... that ultimately leads to a withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

[18] International media outlets, long critical of the Iraq War and the Bush administration in general, also gave the report positive reviews.

"[19][20] Claude Salhani, editor at UPI, wrote that the "ISG's report comes as a lifeline thrown to a sinking policy after more than three years of war and with no end in sight.

"[25] On January 5, 2007, the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute released a rival "hawkish" report written by Frederick Kagan and entitled Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq,[26] which is also the title of the 14 December 2006 AEI event.

Many leading Kurdish politicians were highly critical of the report, particularly its recommendation that the Iraqi central government should maintain tight control over the nation's oil revenues.

Sheik Mohammed Bashar al-Fayadh, a spokesman for the Association of Muslim Scholars, a Sunni Arab group said that the report "guarantees for an exit (from Iraq) but without paying heed to preventing a civil war from breaking out?"

"[30] Similarly, activist Tom Hayden noted that the Iraq Study Group represents the interests of the US oil industry.

[31] The draft was presented on December 14 by Frederick Kagan, AEI, General Jack Keane, and Kenneth Pollack, (Brookings Institution).

[33] The event description stated the following: The study calls for a large and sustained surge of U.S. forces to secure and protect critical areas of Baghdad.

Andrew Ross of the San Francisco Chronicle[34][35] also connects Bush's strategy to this American Enterprise Institute report, saying "In addition to the changing of the military guard and moving ahead with the 'surge' option, President Bush's Iraq strategy involves more money for reconstruction, job creation, and for 'moderate Iraqi political parties as a means of building a centrist political coalition to support Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki,' according to the Wall Street Journal.