They were told Iraq would fail

[TexasTiger 13,028]

The problem with ideologues is that they are immune to reason.

1999 War Games Foresaw Problems in Iraq

- - - - - - - - - - - -

By JOHN HEILPRIN Associated Press Writer

November 04,2006 | 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."

http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?...=D8L6GDOO1.html

[AURaptor 1,126]

It was a Clinton era endeavor. 'nuff said.

Oh, and this "story" comes from Salon dot com? Even more 'nuff said.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

It was a Clinton era endeavor. 'nuff said.

You're right. They knew what they were talkiing about!!!

[AURaptor 1,126]

It was a Clinton era endeavor. 'nuff said.

You're right. They knew what they were talkiing about!!!

From one who 'loathed' the military, I'd not trust what he says as far as I could throw Monica Lewinsky.

[Tigermike 3,055]

The problem with ideologues is that they are immune to reason.

Yes you are proof of that. A little self reflective aren't you Tex?

[TexasTiger 13,028]

The problem with ideologues is that they are immune to reason.

Yes you are proof of that. A little self reflective aren't you Tex?

So what are my "ideological positions" that your referring to?

[Captain Liger 0]

The problem with ideologues is that they are immune to reason.

Yes you are proof of that. A little self reflective aren't you Tex?

So what are my "ideological positions" that your referring to?

You left yourself wide open with this one.

Somebody finish this.....please. Tigermike? Raptor? TIS?

[otterinbham 0]

Sorry guys. I actually agree with TT on this one. The Joint Chiefs went on record before the war began, saying that troop levels were nowhere close to what were needed to effectively occupy Iraq, and Rumsfeld ran roughshod over their recommendations. They had wargamed an invasion of Iraq umpteen different ways from 1992 (As a matter of fact, we wargame hostilities against every country on the planet, including Canada), and the findings were identical in terms of manpower requirement.

So basically what we're dealing with is the SoD ignoring the opinions of our leading military thinkers, instead ramrodding his pie-in-the-sky concept of war fighting. And we are now bogged down in an incipient civil war as a result, while war clouds are gathering over Korea. Are you guys such hopeless ideologues that you cannot recognize malfeasance when you see it?

[AUman43 5]

Hey, I agree..... Some are trying to draw comparisons with this war and the one in Vietnam, but I see many differences. First of all, the terrain is not the same; it was not an urban war involving house to house searches; finally, it did NOT involve different idealogies and religions that have hated each other for centuries. This hatred even exceeds their hatred of us and fans the flames of civil discord. Nobody has EVER been able to tame Iraq due to the religious factions and tribal hatred. The SoD failed to take this CRUCIAL factor into adequate consideration as did the Joint Chiefs... Now, they speak of a "New Direction" or "New strategy." The Republicans have been dead wrong and the Democrats don't have one because there ISN'T one.. It's a disturbing situation!!!

[Captain Liger 0]

Hey, I agree..... Some are trying to draw comparisons with this war and the one in Vietnam, but I see many differences. First of all, the terrain is not the same;

Ok, ok. True enough. Vietnam is largely covered with lush vegetation and has a tropical climate. Iraq is mainly desert away from the two major rivers but is covered with vegetation up north where the Kurds live in the Mosul area.

it was not an urban war involving house to house searches;

Then, apparently, you have never heard of such places such as DaNang, Hue City, Hoi An, etc, etc, etc. May I suggest then, for your reading pleasure, a book entitled "City fights: selected histories of urban combat from World War II to Vietnam" by author John Antal?

finally, it did NOT involve different idealogies and religions that have hated each other for centuries. This hatred even exceeds their hatred of us and fans the flames of civil discord.

So you're qualifying factor here is....time? Sorry, that dog don't hunt (thanks Tiger Al ). Our own civil war was pretty vicious and North and South had only hated each other for about 50 to 75 years when the crap hit the fan. Hitler really only started to hate Jews after he lay wounded from a mustard gas attack at the end of WWI and blamed Germany's loss on them. Pretty sure atrocities at the hands of the Nazis far exceed the centuries of hatred and killing between warring factions in the Middle East.

On a side note, I'm pretty sure that Communist North Vietnam and Democratic South Vietnam qualify as ideologies that didn't exactly get along.

Nobody has EVER been able to tame Iraq due to the religious factions and tribal hatred. The SoD failed to take this CRUCIAL factor into adequate consideration as did the Joint Chiefs...

The goal wasn't to tame Iraq. The goal was to topple Saddam. Nobody anticipated the insurgency fueled by the influx of terrorists compliments of Al Qaida. Kinda hard to take in a crucial factor when, unfortunately, it wasn't a factor to begin with.

Now, they speak of a "New Direction" or "New strategy." The Republicans have been dead wrong and the Democrats don't have one because there ISN'T one.. It's a disturbing situation!!!

Oh, there is one. I think the best strategy now is to really force down the throats of all Iraqis that they take responsibility of their country because we will be leaving as soon as we are finished training up their military and police force. Do they get it yet? I don't think they do especially when I see video clips of American soldiers still opening the hood and trunk of cars at checkpoints while Iraqi soldiers stand in the background smoking cigarettes. I am not for pulling out at this very moment. I am for getting Iraq's security forces up to 90% fully mission capable and then pulling back and turning over the reins. Why 90%? Because that's the percentage accpetable to the US Army in terms of personnel and equipment readiness when going to war. If it's good enough for us, it's good enough for them. When they're at 90%, see ya! And if they fall flat on their face then they'll have no one to blame but themselves because we've given them the training and tools neccessary to be successful and America will be able to wash its hands of anything that goes South after we leave.

[quietfan 233]

Nobody has EVER been able to tame Iraq due to the religious factions and tribal hatred.

Technically, I'd say Saddam Hussein had pretty well "tamed" Iraq, in that he had suppressed almost all internal violence between factions by crushing all opposition. Of course, we can't and shouldn't use his tactics.

[Tiger Al 0]

Nobody anticipated the insurgency fueled by the influx of terrorists compliments of Al Qaida. Kinda hard to take in a crucial factor when, unfortunately, it wasn't a factor to begin with.

Wouldn't that be very odd strategic non-planning considering that the administration and our "intelligence" claimed that Iraq and al Qaida were thick as thieves? If the "intelligence" were true, it would stand to reason, even to a child, that al Qaida would move in in droves. How could Rumsfeld have overlooked that?

[CCTAU 3,349]

When it truly becomes a failure, please repost.....