BIG IRISH
11-07-2006, 04:15 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-05-iraq-games_x.htm
By John Heilprin, Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The U.S. government conducted a series of secret war games in 1999 that anticipated an invasion of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, and even then chaos might ensue.
In its "Desert Crossing" games, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence officials assumed the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs.
The documents came to light Saturday through a Freedom of Information Act request by the George Washington University's National Security Archive, an independent research institute and library.
"The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops," said Thomas Blanton, the archive's director. "But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even with 400,000 troops on the ground."
There are currently about 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from a peak of about 160,000 in January.
A spokeswoman for U.S. Central Command, which sponsored the seminar and declassified the secret report in 2004, declined to comment Saturday because she was not familiar with the documents.
The war games looked at "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios after a war that removed then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power. Some are similar to what actually occurred after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003:
•"A change in regimes does not guarantee stability," the 1999 seminar briefings said. "A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability."
•"Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic — especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments."
•"Iran's anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq," the briefings read. "The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad."
•"The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development."
•"Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government."
•"A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm hoping that the American public can, for just once, look beyond their immediate desires to find a politician who brings home pork for the district, and says "what is my congressional representative doing for the country?" We need a Congress that wants to actually pass common-sense legislation, that will actually stand up to the president when he acts like there's only one branch of the federal government. This Republican-led Congress has failed us miserably.
The Military Times editorial pages are calling for Rumsfeld's resignation. Their papers can be found in every Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps base. This is major, considering the source.
Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.
Donald Rumsfeld must go.
The Washington Post's front page has news that Army Reserve and National Guard units will be going to Iraq in increasing numbers. While I am in favor of increasing military personnel in Iraq to get us out quicker, interesting how the administration's waited until after the election to push this option. But since the administration won't increase the active duty strength, this will impact the reserves hard.
And yet this administration can't stop rattling its sabers at Iran. What part of "military overreach" does the White House not understand?
Last, as noted last week, we have the Bush administration and their Repub cronies saying "whoops, sorry, didn't mean to post Saddam's nuclear weapons program details on the internet for the Iranians to learn how to build a better bomb..." And the only thing more pathetic is how the right wing bloggers are trying to spin this as "evidence" that the last three years in Iraq were worth it
Pathetic
By John Heilprin, Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The U.S. government conducted a series of secret war games in 1999 that anticipated an invasion of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, and even then chaos might ensue.
In its "Desert Crossing" games, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence officials assumed the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs.
The documents came to light Saturday through a Freedom of Information Act request by the George Washington University's National Security Archive, an independent research institute and library.
"The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops," said Thomas Blanton, the archive's director. "But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even with 400,000 troops on the ground."
There are currently about 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from a peak of about 160,000 in January.
A spokeswoman for U.S. Central Command, which sponsored the seminar and declassified the secret report in 2004, declined to comment Saturday because she was not familiar with the documents.
The war games looked at "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios after a war that removed then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power. Some are similar to what actually occurred after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003:
•"A change in regimes does not guarantee stability," the 1999 seminar briefings said. "A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability."
•"Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic — especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments."
•"Iran's anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq," the briefings read. "The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad."
•"The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development."
•"Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government."
•"A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm hoping that the American public can, for just once, look beyond their immediate desires to find a politician who brings home pork for the district, and says "what is my congressional representative doing for the country?" We need a Congress that wants to actually pass common-sense legislation, that will actually stand up to the president when he acts like there's only one branch of the federal government. This Republican-led Congress has failed us miserably.
The Military Times editorial pages are calling for Rumsfeld's resignation. Their papers can be found in every Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps base. This is major, considering the source.
Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.
Donald Rumsfeld must go.
The Washington Post's front page has news that Army Reserve and National Guard units will be going to Iraq in increasing numbers. While I am in favor of increasing military personnel in Iraq to get us out quicker, interesting how the administration's waited until after the election to push this option. But since the administration won't increase the active duty strength, this will impact the reserves hard.
And yet this administration can't stop rattling its sabers at Iran. What part of "military overreach" does the White House not understand?
Last, as noted last week, we have the Bush administration and their Repub cronies saying "whoops, sorry, didn't mean to post Saddam's nuclear weapons program details on the internet for the Iranians to learn how to build a better bomb..." And the only thing more pathetic is how the right wing bloggers are trying to spin this as "evidence" that the last three years in Iraq were worth it
Pathetic