Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) in Iraq and Afghanistan: Effects and Countermeasures

Abstract

Since October 2001, Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs, or roadside bombs) have been responsible for many of the more than 2,000 combat deaths in Iraq, and 178 combat deaths in Afghanistan. IEDs are hidden behind signs and guardrails, under roadside debris, or inside animal carcasses, and encounters with these bombs are becoming more numerous and deadly in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The threat includes vehicle-borne IEDs, in which extremists drive cars laden with explosives directly into a target. Department of Defense (DoD) efforts to counter IEDs have proven only marginally effective, and U.S. forces continue to be exposed to the threat at military checkpoints, or whenever on patrol. IEDs are increasingly being used in Afghanistan, and DoD reportedly is concerned that they might eventually be more widely used by other insurgents and terrorists worldwide. This report will be updated as events warrant.

Full text

1 Albert Eisele, “Improved Explosives Becoming More Deadly in Iraq,” The Hill, Mar. 28, 2005,
[http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Iraq/explosives1.html].
2 DOD Personnel and Procurement Statistics, Defense Manpower Data Center, Casualty Reason,
October 7, 2001 through September 16, 2006, online at [http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/
CASUALTY/gwot_reason.pdf].
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Order Code RS22330
Updated September 25, 2006
Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) in Iraq
and Afghanistan:
Effects and Countermeasures
Clay Wilson
Specialist in Technology and National Security
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Summary
Since October 2001, Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs, or roadside bombs)
have been responsible for many of the more than 2,000 combat deaths in Iraq, and 178
combat deaths in Afghanistan.1 IEDs are hidden behind signs and guardrails, under
roadside debris, or inside animal carcasses, and encounters with these bombs are
becoming more numerous and deadly in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The threat includes
vehicle-borne IEDs, in which extremists drive cars laden with explosives directly into
a target. DOD efforts to counter IEDs have proven only marginally effective, and U.S.
forces continue to be exposed to the threat at military checkpoints, or whenever on
patrol. IEDs are increasingly being used in Afghanistan, and DOD reportedly is
concerned that they might eventually be more widely used by other insurgents and
terrorists worldwide. This report will be updated as events warrant.
Background
Improvised explosive devices, also known as IEDs or roadside bombs, have caused
about half of all the American combat casualties in Iraq, and about 30% of combat
casualties in Afghanistan, both killed and wounded.2 Some observers speculate that much
of the munitions for constructing IEDs in Iraq may have come from large Iraqi military
ordnance deposits looted by insurgents or stockpiles scattered in secret locations

Report Documentation Page Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it
does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
1. REPORT DATE
25 SEP 2006 2. REPORT TYPE
N/A 3. DATES COVERED
-
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) in Iraq and Afghanistan: Effects
and Countermeasures
5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress 101
Independence Ave SE Washington, DC 20540-7500
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release, distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT
15. SUBJECT TERMS
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF
ABSTRACT
SAR
18. NUMBER
OF PAGES
6
19a. NAME OF
RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT
unclassified b. ABSTRACT
unclassified c. THIS PAGE
unclassified
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18

CRS-2
3 James Glanz, Jim Dwyer, Looting Spree Gutted Ammo Dump, San Francisco Chronicle, October
28, 2004. Byron York, Remember Al Qaqaa?, National Review Online, Feb. 28, 2005,
[http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200502280821.asp].
4 Peter Bergen, The Taliban, Regrouped and Rearmed, The Washington Post, Sept. 10, 2006, B1.
Helen Cooper, NATO Chief Says More Troops Are Needed in Afghanistan, New York Times,
Sept. 22, 2006, p.10.
5 Definition from Global Security.org, at [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/ied.htm].
6 Times Wire Service, Italian Troops End Iraq Mission, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 22, 2006.
7 Peter Bergen, The Taliban, Regrouped and Rearmed, The Washington Post, Sept. 10, 2006, B4.
8 The Army has reportedly lost multiple helicopters in such medevac ambushes. Greg Grant,
Aerial IEDs Target U.S. Copters, Defense News, January 16, 2006.
throughout that country before the war.3 In Afghanistan, the munitions supply is
supported by funds from an expanding opium trade.4
IEDs can utilize commercial or military explosives, and often the bomb is
constructed in a home using materials at hand.5 Triggering methods include using a cell
phone, a garage door opener, or a child’s radio-controlled toy, or may be as simple as
running over a rubber hose to produce enough air pressure to activate a detonating switch.
The typical IED terrorist cell can consists of six to eight people, including a financier,
bomb maker, emplacer, triggerman, spotter, and often a cameraman. Videos of exploding
U.S. vehicles and dead Americans are distributed via the Internet to win new supporters.
Foreign radicals see these images as confirmation that the American and coalition forces
are vulnerable. Increasingly, however , vehicle-borne IEDs are used in Iraq and
Afghanistan to strike police stations, markets, and mosques to kill local citizens as well
as U.S. troops. Recent news reports indicate that insurgents in Iraq have now resorted to
kidnaping victims for the purpose of secretly booby-trapping their cars. The unknowing
victims are then released, and their vehicles are detonated by remote control when they
reach a certain location.6
In Afghanistan, more than 40 suicide bomb incidents have been reported in 2006.
Observers have indicated that the Taliban forces in Afghanistan appear to have learned
some IED techniques from the Iraqi insurgents. Although these attacks have not yet been
as deadly as those in Iraq, because of increasing violence and the growing number of IED
incidents, many areas of Afghanistan are reportedly becoming too dangerous for
reconstruction efforts to continue.7
Over time, the insurgents in Iraq have adapted to U.S. countermeasures, and IEDs
have grown more lethal. IEDs have been used to draw U.S. soldiers into a coordinated
ambush. For example, in Iraq when first responders arrive to give aid to initial IED
victims, or when a medevac helicopter touches down on a nearby temporary landing zone,
the insurgents sometimes then trigger other pre-placed bombs, or begin a follow-on attack
with rifles or grenades.8 Recently, insurgents in Iraq have deployed IEDs with shaped
charges that can penetrate even heavy vehicle armor. Also, in response to the use of
heavier armor on High-Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles (Humvees) and other

CRS-3
9 John Anderson, Steve Fainaru, Jonathan Finer, “Bigger, Stronger Homemade Bombs Now to
Blame for Half of U.S. Deaths,” The Washington Post, Oct. 26, 2005, p. A1.
10 Daniel Goure, The Power in a Single Picture, Oct. 14, 2004, Lexington Institute,
[http://lexingtoninstitute.org/432.shtml].
11 Daniel Goure, Better than an Abrams, May 28, 2004, Lexington Institute,
[http://lexingtoninstitute.org/38.shtml].
12 Daniel Goure, The Power in a Single Picture, Oct. 14, 2004, Lexington Institute,
[http://lexingtoninstitute.org/432.shtml].
13 Bruce Lieberman, “SDSU professor focuses laser research on finding killer explosives in Iraq”,
SignOnSanDiego.com, Dec. 27, 2005, [http://www.signonsandiego.com/
articlelink/sdsufoundation4/sdsufoundation4.html].
14 Sgt. Stephen D’Alessio, 2nd Marine Division, Marines schooled in new bomb protection, July
7, 2005, [http://www.marines.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/0/
b89628064c45144e85257056003871f1?OpenDocument].
combat vehicles, insurgents have developed IEDs that are simply more powerful.9 In o ne
incident in 2004, after a 22-ton Bradley Fighting Vehicle ran over a large IED, the
armored bottom plate of the vehicle was reportedly found some 60 yards from the site of
the explosion.10 In contrast, military units equipped with the 19-ton Stryker medium-
weight armored vehicle, have reportedly suffered a lower number of catastrophic vehicle
losses in Iraq due to enemy attack. With a maximum speed of more than 60 mph, the
Stryker can dash past ambushes and roadside IEDs that might catch the slower moving
Abrams tank and Bradley.11 Between December 2003 and October 2004, news reports
show that Strykers deployed in Iraq have successfully withstood 56 attacks by IEDs. Even
when vehicles were rendered inoperable by the attacks, there was reportedly no loss of life
among the Stryker crews.12
Countermeasures
To evaluate countermeasures, DOD has set up the Joint IED Defeat Organization
(JIEDDO), directed by retired Army Gen. Montgomery Meigs, to work with various
national laboratories, the Department of Energy, contractors, and academia.
Countermeasures are tested at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California. The
technologies being evaluated include electronic jammers, radars, X-ray equipment, robotic
explosive ordnance disposal equipment, physical security equipment, and armor for
vehicles and personnel.13
Examples of electronic jamming systems mounted on military vehicles include the
IED Countermeasures Equipment (ICE) and the Warlock, both of which use low-power
radio frequency energy to block the signals of radio controlled explosives initiators, such
as cell phones, satellite phones, and long-range cordless telephones.14 The Army has
recently ordered thousands of these radio-frequency jammer devices. However, experts
reportedly caution that the jammers may only be partially effective because they must be
set to operate within the right frequency range in order to stop an IED.
Other IED countermeasures being explored include technology that can first detect
IEDs from afar, and then generate a pulse of directed high-power electromagnetic energy
to prematurely detonate them, or burn out and destroy their circuitry. An example is the

CRS-4
15 Christopher Castelli, “General: Ability to Prematurely Detonate Enemy Bombs Badly Needed,”
Inside the Navy, Aug. 22, 2005, at [http://www.insidedefense.com/].
16 Loren B. Thompson, Iraq: Stop the Bombers, Win the War, June 10, 2005, Lexington Institute,
[http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/defense.asp?aid=616].
17 Sebastian Sprenger, “U.S., NATO Research Could Help Troops Detect IED Threats from
Afar,” Inside the Pentagon, May 26, 2005. Noah Shachtman, “Improvised Bombs Baffle Army,”
Wired News, Jan. 26, 2005, [http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,66395,00.html].
18 David Fulghum, “Jamming Jam-Up”, Aviation Week & Space Technology, Nov. 7, 2005, Vol.
163, No. 18, P.32.
19 Noah Shachtman, “Improvised Bombs Baffle Army,” Wired News, Jan. 26, 2006,
[http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,63036,00.html?tw=wn_story_related].
20 Michael Moss, “Many Missteps Tied to Delay Of Armor to Protect Soldiers,” The New York
Times, Mar. 7, 2005, online at [http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050307-armor-
missteps.htm].
Neutralizing Improvised Explosive Devices with Radio Frequency (NIRF) which
produces a very high-frequency field at very short range that can neutralize an IEDs
electronics.15 A Pentagon microwave project, code-named PING, and now deployed in
Iraq, has reportedly been successful at helping locate insurgent weapons. The machine,
which fits inside a Humvee, sends out electromagnetic waves that can penetrate the walls
of a building to detect IEDs.16 Other sensors, such as the Laser-Induced Breakdown
Spectroscopy system (LIBS), are being developed to detect traces of explosives used for
IEDs from as far away as 30 meters.17
However, much of the Radio Frequency (RF) spectrum in the Iraq combat theater is
un-managed and can sometimes cause dangerous interference with radio communications
on the ground. Sometimes IED radio jammers can lock onto other new electronic combat
systems because of a lack of coordination for spectrum usage. Other times, when a
jammer is on, a soldier cannot use his radio for communications. The soldier must shut
off the jammer to send and receive, thus opening a window of vulnerability for extremists
to use. Also, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) can sometimes lose their radio control
links due to ground-based radio interference once they are far away from their control
base. Therefore, DOD is now developing an “Electronic Warfare Coordination Cell” to
help sort out problems that can impede friendly operations, or endanger Explosive
Ordnance Teams as they disable IEDs on the ground.18
The “Talon” is a bomb-disposal Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV), or robot, that
comes equipped with a mechanical arm to inspect and relocate suspected IEDs. More
than a hundred of the remote-control robots are now being used in Iraq and Afghanistan,
with an equal amount on order. Another robot, called the “PackBot” has also been used
by the Army to clear bombs and explore suspected terrorist hideouts.19
Threat data about IEDs is tightly controlled by DOD to avoid giving feedback to the
enemy about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of different IED designs. Also,
proprietary rights must be protected for those companies who produce IED
countermeasures. However, these controls may sometimes limit access by other
companies to important information about the effectiveness of anti-IED systems as they
are tested or used in battle.20 As a result, some industry officials say they are not getting

CRS-5
21 Anne Plummer, “Deadly Threat of Explosive Devices in Iraq Prompts Secrecy Debate,” Inside
the Pentagon, Nov. 18, 2004, vol. 20, no. 47.
22 Defense Logistics: Actions Needed to Improve the Availability of Critical Items during Current
and Future Operations, GAO-05-275, Apr. 8, 2005.
23 Testimony of Claud M. Bolton, Assistant Secretary of the Army, Acquisition, Logistics and
technology, before the House Committee on Armed Forces, Nov. 2, 2005, p.2.
24 Testimony of Kenneth Krieg, Undersecretary of Defense, Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics, before the House Committee on Armed Forces, Nov. 2, 2005, p.7.
25 The TSWG uses the CTTSO Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) Information Delivery
System (BIDS) to disseminate BAA information and collect proposals. TSWG operates under
the policy oversight of the Department of State (DOS) Coordinator for Counterterrorism and
under the management and technical oversight of the Department of Defense (DOD) Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict (ASD(SO/LIC)),
[https://www.bids.tswg.gov/tswg/bids.nsf/Main?OpenFrameset&6M8J6A].
26 Glenn Maffei, “Defense Officials Worry Insurgents Will Change IEDS Tactics, Tech,” Inside
the Army, May 9, 2005.
access to all the information they need to help them create the most effective new
solutions to counter IEDs, and suggest that relaxing some of the controls might lead to
more solutions.21
Acquisition of Countermeasures
A recent GAO report indicates that acquisition delays may have increased the
vulnerability of U.S. forces to the IED threat, stating “... specific problems delayed DOD’s
acquisition of three important items we reviewed (Interceptor body armor, lithium
batteries, and up-armored High-Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles). DOD’s
acquisition decision did not maximize available capacity to produce up-armored
High-Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles and add-on armor kits nor did it give
Congress visibility over the basis for its acquisition solution. These acquisition
challenges impeded DOD’s ability to respond to rapidly increasing demands.”22
Actions taken by DOD to minimize future acquisition delays include implementing
a “Rapid Fielding Initiative” (RFI) intended to ensure that soldiers have the latest
available equipment. The RFI has reportedly reduced some acquisition cycles to weeks
or days.23 Additionally, the DOD Quick Reaction Special Projects (QRSP) program now
supports the Combating Terrorism Technology Support Office (CTTSO).24 The CTTSO
solicits proposals to identify technologies for near and long-term solutions to terrorism
threats. The Technical Support Working Group within the CTTSO seeks to prioritize and
coordinate interagency and international research and development (R&D) for combating
terrorism.25 Also, on April 30, 2005, the Army was granted “rapid acquisition authority”
by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, meaning that the traditional DOD acquisition
process could be set aside, allowing a manufacturer of a special, man-portable IEDs
jammer device to be chosen within only a 15-day time period.26

CRS-6
27 Associated Press, U.S. Spending Billions to ‘Defeat’ IEDs in Iraq, MSNBC.Com, Mar. 13,
2006.[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11813983/print/1/displaymode/1098/].
28 Keith Costa, “England Wants Counter-IED Funding in Se rvices’ Outyea r Budget Plans”, Inside
the Army, Sept. 18, 2006.
29 Jason Sherman, “Navy Planes to be Upgraded, Modified to Hunt for Roadside Bombs”, Inside
the Army, Sept. 18, 2006.
30 Jen DiMascio, “Pentagon Transfers $160 Million to Buy Protection Equipment,” Inside the
Army, Jan. 17, 2005.
31 Jen DiMascio, “Congress OKs $129.7 Million Transfer to Fund IEDS Countermeasures,”
Inside the Army, May 30, 2005.
32 Glenn, Maffei, “Order Made for Final “Warlock” Batch to Tackle IEDS Problem in Iraq,”
Inside the Army, July 25, 2005.
33 Reprogramming Action FY 06-09 IR.
34 Personal communication, Joint IED Defeat Organization, Sept. 25, 2006.
Funding for IED Countermeasures
From 2004 to 2006, approximately $6.1 billion has reportedly been spent on U.S.
efforts to defeat the threat from IEDs.27 In 2006, DOD directed the services to fund
several counter-IED initiatives, including (1) the Global Anti-Terrorism and Operational
Readiness Course, (2) Counter Radio Controlled IED Electronic Warfare, and (3) Robotic
Systems.28 DOD also reportedly has plans to upgrading Navy P-3 aircraft to assist in the
search for roadside bombs. Funding for this was included in a transfer of $217.8 million
from a funding account for defeating IEDs, into the Navy aircraft procurement budget
line.29 In addition, DOD has proposed spending $617 million to build new supply roads
in Iraq that bypass urban centers where convoys are exposed to IEDs.
Funding to purchase IED countermeasure equipment has traditionally come through
congressional plus-ups and reprogramming actions, and not through ordinary line-item
funding in the fiscal year budget.30 On May 24, 2005, Congress approved a transfer of
$129.7 million from the Iraqi Freedom Fund to purchase mobile Warlock jammers.31 On
July 13, 2005, a reprogramming action transferred $10 million from the Iraqi Freedom
Fund for two new anti-IEDs systems: $3.5 million for 50 Small, Lightweight Advanced
Modular Digital Electronic Protection Systems (SLAM-DEP), and $6.5 million to
purchase 187 low-cost, expendable robots for explosive ordnance disposal.32 On
December 5, 2005, DOD reprogrammed an additional $278,000,000 from the Iraq
Freedom Fund to be used to detect and neutralize IEDs.33 The Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2006, (P.L. 109-148), signed December 30, 2005, states that
$1,360,000,000 from the Iraq Freedom Fund is available for the Joint IED Defeat
Organization.
According to sources in the Joint IED Defeat Organization, total funding for IED
countermeasures administered through the JIEDDO for FY2005 was $1.3440 billion, and
$3.4871 billion for FY2006.34 The FY2007 Defense Appropriations bill, as approved by
the House and Senate conference committee, provides $1.9 billion in funding for the
JIEDDO.