Not Saussure

November 5, 2006

USA ignored their own plans for Iraq invasion — they knew they need 3 times as many troops, at least.

Filed under: Bloody Yanks, Iraq, usa — notsaussure @ 11:13 pm

A specious excuse for the war in Iraq all going to ratshit — ‘It’s all very well to bitch about the invasion with the benefit of hindsight, but at the time…’*(see footnote)
— has just been blown spectacularly out of the water, I think,
by this:

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.

Link to the released report

Even with 400,000 troops, an occupation was, apparently, by no means seen as plain sailing; this is what they were predicting back in 1999:

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.”
  • I see, also, that they were predicting (p 30 of the ‘After Action Report’ ) that ‘US involvement could last at least 10 years’.

    In other words, they knew, or should have known if anyone had bothered to look out the files, what they were getting themselves, and us into.

    *Like, for example, this:

    Richard Perle, who chaired a committee of Pentagon policy advisers early in the Bush administration, said had he seen at the start of the war in 2003 where it would go, he probably would not have advocated an invasion to depose Saddam Hussein. Perle was an assistant secretary of defense under President Reagan.

    “I probably would have said, ‘Let’s consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists,'” he told Vanity Fair magazine in its upcoming January issue.

    Asked about the article, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said, “We appreciate the Monday-morning quarterbacking, but the president has a plan to succeed in Iraq, and we are going forward with it.”


    Technorati tags: , , , , ,

    Advertisements

    1 Comment »

    1. […] into chaos and civil war was, if not inevitable, so very likely — as the Pentagon knew from wargaming it in 1999 — that it wasn’t worth the risk. And as to the point — Tony Blair’s killer […]

      Pingback by Helping al-Qa’eda? « Not Saussure — February 9, 2007 @ 9:20 pm


    RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

    Connecting to %s

    Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

    %d bloggers like this: