Bush now says Iraq is worse than anyone anticipated
Abuskedti
Posts: 1,917
It turns out that too was a lie:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/04/war.games.ap/index.html
War simulation in 1999 pointed out Iraq invasion problems
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A series of secret U.S. war games in 1999 showed that an invasion and post-war administration of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, nearly three times the number there now.
And even then, the games showed, the country still had a chance of dissolving into chaos.
In the simulation, called Desert Crossing, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence participants concluded 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 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 about 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from a peak in January of about 160,000.
A week after the invasion, in March 2003, the Pentagon said there were 250,000 U.S. ground force troops inside Iraq, along with 40,000 coalition force troops.
A spokeswoman for the 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.
News of the war games results comes a day before judges are expected to deliver a verdict in Saddam Hussein war crimes trial. (Watch people prepare as curfew sets across Baghdad in anticipation of the verdicts -- 3:20 )
The war games looked at "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios after a war that removed then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power. Some of the conclusions 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."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/04/war.games.ap/index.html
War simulation in 1999 pointed out Iraq invasion problems
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A series of secret U.S. war games in 1999 showed that an invasion and post-war administration of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, nearly three times the number there now.
And even then, the games showed, the country still had a chance of dissolving into chaos.
In the simulation, called Desert Crossing, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence participants concluded 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 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 about 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from a peak in January of about 160,000.
A week after the invasion, in March 2003, the Pentagon said there were 250,000 U.S. ground force troops inside Iraq, along with 40,000 coalition force troops.
A spokeswoman for the 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.
News of the war games results comes a day before judges are expected to deliver a verdict in Saddam Hussein war crimes trial. (Watch people prepare as curfew sets across Baghdad in anticipation of the verdicts -- 3:20 )
The war games looked at "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios after a war that removed then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power. Some of the conclusions 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."
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
He once told Bush "You break it, you own it"
I see a lot of breaking, but no owning...and that's because George W. Bush is a spineless coward.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
no shit
The lessons learned from Viet Nam...
Go in with overwhelming forces... with overwhelming support of the homefront... identify clear military objectives... run command from the field, not Washington... have a distinct exit strategy... plan and prepare for the worst case scenarios.
It's called the 'Powell Doctrine'.
Bush even had Powell in his cabinet... he should have listened to him.
...
I guess that's what happens when you go with the guys who never served in a war, instead of listening to the ones who saw how screwed up it gets when it is run by guys who never served in a war.
Hail, Hail!!!
however, before wednesday (midterm elections) he will show the sentence to saddam as a war trophy
www.amnesty.org.uk
why do you think powell stepped down? he knew what was happening and he saw where it was leading...i can't wait to read the book he writes in a few years about the first term...
from my window to yours
The thing about Powell... he is the consumate soldier. I don't believe he will never criticise the chain of command.
My personal opinions? I believe he got shafted by Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rice. He was the only one who warned about the 'Pottery Barn scenario' (you break it, you buy it). The rest of the team was going to war, no matter what anyone else said. I still don't know the reasons... but, oil and money are the prime suspects. Powell was left as the fall guy... and as a good soldier, he fell on his sword for the Emperor.
Powell and Swartzkopf went through Viet Nam and saw how politics has no place in modern war. Politics has a place in the negotiation phase, but once the first bullet is fired, the soldiers take command, not the politicians. The Bush administration never saw this because none of them ever saw the effects that politicians have on the battlefield.
As Americans, we should have learned this. We failed. We saw how great Powell's Doctrine works... the 1991 Gulf War proved it. But, back then, George H.W.Bush (a WWII Naval Aviator who was shot down), Powell and Swartzkopf all knew what was feasible and what was wreckless. Going into Baghdad in 1991 was not feasible and they knew it.
I believe that if Powell was appointed as Secretary Of Defense... we would not be in Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't be in the mess it is right now. Hussein would still be in power, but his sphere of influence would not be any greater than Baghdad and Anbar.
Hail, Hail!!!
from my window to yours
I just do not understand how ANYONE can still defend this man.
And i wonder... if this were President Al Gore's war... would the same supporters still be there? Because I cannot see the folks over at FOX News defending it. But, i can clearly picture them attacking it on a daily basis.
Do people support the War or the President?
Hail, Hail!!!
I don't think that he is a bad man, but he did a very bad thing. I'm sure he felt that after 9/11 it was important the the government present a united leadership, that we couldn't afford the instability of an openly insubordinate Secretary of State being fired or resigning in protest. I respect that point of view ... I don't agree with it, but I see where he was coming from. He also may have felt that however bad things were, they would be worse if he wasn't in the administration ... that these lunatics were going to do it no matter what, and perhaps he could be a moderating influence. He certainly underestimated his boss and his fellow cabinet members, if that's the case.
But it remains that the man lied to the United Nations, and he lied to the U.S. Senate, and hundreds of thousands of people are dead because of it. The very least he owes is an explanation. At least some of the public would have paid attention if he'd stood up and said "NO!" At least some of the senate would have listened and voted against the authorization to use force in Iraq. At least there would have been a discussion instead of an all-out rush to war! He allowed his good name and his reputation to be used to drag us into this mess.
I know he's a good soldier, but quite a number of good soldiers have felt the need lately to speak out against their incompetent commander-in-chief because they are human beings and Americans even before they are soldiers. It would have been nice if Colin Powell had been the first. He's one of the very few who might have been able to make a difference.
from my window to yours
As Secretary of State, he had to be loyal to the President in public. So when he was sent to the UN to present that trumped up evidence, he went, even though he was uncomfortable and resisted telling the most blatant lies. But his service in the military required him to have respect for the chain of command, as somone said earlier, so he had to be the loyal soldier.
But as a General, he also worried about the soldiers who were getting sent to this war. So he tried to put on the brakes behind the scenes. But he didn't try hard enough, particularly when he saw that these people were pissing all over the Powell Doctrine.
And at least according to my friend, Captain Josh, the boots on the ground were pretty pissed off / mystified by Powell's conduct. (Not as pissed off as they are at Rumsfeld, but . . . ) They thought he would protect them, but it didn't work out that way.
Speaking of boots on the ground, how about that editorial in the Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times, and Marine Corps Times?
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2333360.php
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
This doesn't mean that with these three things your military will definitely prevail, I believe it simply means it is IMPOSSIBLE to prevail WITHOUT these three things.