That's a crazy wp article. The whole thing reads like a CV.
Talk page has a couple criticisms specifically re. Iraq. Most recent Talk entry is from a decade ago:

Most of the sourcing in the article is from the US Institute of Peace itself, with most remaining sources being Op-Eds or governmental sources (or both, as in government officials writing Op-Eds). This gives a very rosy view of the work of the institute. Take the "Additional Work" section. The article repeats USIP's characterization of its own work, e.g. "Worked with community leaders to build peace neighborhood-by-neighborhood in Iraq." Someone from another perspective might characterize this work as "Aiding US military operations in occupied Iraq, neighborhood-by-neighborhood." Of course, we should just state what it is that USIP actually did, without including POV statements about "build[ing] peace" or "aiding occupying military forces."

The article needs more neutral sources that characterize USIP's work. Content which cannot be properly sourced should be removed. I won't take this step immediately, so that people who work on this page regularly can supply more appropriate sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Although if you look on history you see it is constantly being updated at least monthly for the past year. Allwithh the kind of laudatory content identified above.

Anyone who wants to pick a fight with the CIA? 90% of this page should be removed because no citations or only self citations.

Edit: there is a user named Sruder who introduced themselves in 2013 as a staffer who has been making edits from that time til 2023. I believe such people are barred from editing own pages. This page should be covered in those little boxes telling you not to trust it.