"400,000 Troops and still a mess"

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

Washington D.C., November 4, 2006 - In late April 1999, the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), led by Marine General Anthony Zinni (ret.), conducted a series of war games known as Desert Crossing in order to assess potential outcomes of an invasion of Iraq aimed at unseating Saddam Hussein. The documents posted here today covered the initial pre-war game planning phase from April-May 1999 through the detailed after-action reporting of June and July 1999.

The Desert Crossing war games, which amounted to a feasibility study for part of the main war plan for Iraq -- OPLAN 1003-98 -- tested "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios of a post-war, post-Saddam, Iraq. The After Action Report presented its recommendations for further planning regarding regime change in Iraq and was an interagency production assisted by the departments of defense and state, as well as the National Security Council, and the Central Intelligence Agency, among others.

The results of Desert Crossing, however, drew pessimistic conclusions regarding the immediate possible outcomes of such action. Some of these conclusions are interestingly similar to the events which actually occurred after Saddam was overthrown. (Note 1) The report forewarned that regime change may cause regional instability by opening the doors to "rival forces bidding for power" which, in turn, could cause societal "fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines" and antagonize "aggressive neighbors." Further, the report illuminated worries that secure borders and a restoration of civil order may not be enough to stabilize Iraq if the replacement government were perceived as weak, subservient to outside powers, or out of touch with other regional governments. An exit strategy, the report said, would also be complicated by differing visions for a post-Saddam Iraq among those involved in the conflict.

The Desert Crossing report was similarly pessimistic when discussing the nature of a new Iraqi government. If the U.S. were to establish a transitional government, it would likely encounter difficulty, some groups discussed, from a "period of widespread bloodshed in which various factions seek to eliminate their enemies." The report stressed that the creation of a democratic government in Iraq was not feasible, but a new pluralistic Iraqi government which included nationalist leaders might be possible, suggesting that nationalist leaders were a stabilizing force. Moreover, the report suggested that the U.S. role be one in which it would assist Middle Eastern governments in creating the transitional government for Iraq.

General Zinni, who retired in 2000 shortly after the completion of Desert Crossing, brought the report to the attention of the public after the war. Even before the invasion, he had made his opposition to an imminent war widely known. In a major address at the Middle East Institute in October 2002, he disputed the view that war was either inevitable or desirable. On the question of establishing a new government to replace Saddam Hussein, he said, "God help us if we think this transition will occur easily."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB207/index.htm

[BattyDem]

1. In other words ...

BushCo knew EXACTLY what would happen if we invaded Iraq and got rid of Saddam ... and they didn't care! :grr:

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

3. Welllll...

Let's be fair: It took place during Clinton's watch, so like Monica's dress, it had Clinton's pecker tracks all over it. :sarcasm:

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

4. The Neocons knew. I don't know if anyone

in Bushco can even read.

One of the reasons I believe they targeted Clinton for impeachment was his flat refusal to go along with the Neocon wet dream, Iraq. Clinton was smart enough to know that half-a-million US troops for up to 10 years was a no-go.

I guess they thought they could pitch to Al Gore at the time.

[BattyDem]

6. Zinni was Bush's personal emissary to the Middle East

How could BushCo not know? :shrug:

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

7. But still an outsider, Zinni is not a money

guy, and will never be taken as seriously as one of their own.

KnowwhatImean, Vern?

[BattyDem]

8. That was my original point

They didn't listen to him. Like you said, he's not a "money guy" and will "never be taken as seriously as one of their own." His knowledge fell on deaf ears because he wasn't "important" enough and he wasn't telling them what they wanted to hear. :-(

It's the same old story: BushCo only "retains" the knowledge that supports their agenda. Everything else falls into a black hole.

[AndyTiedye]

10. Gore Woulda Said NO, But Lieberman Would Say HELL YES! So…

I guess they thought they could pitch to Al Gore at the time.

Gore would have been assassinated by "terrorists".
That would have made Lieberman President.
He would have been happy to invade Iraq or any other country that ever dissed Israel.

[LynnTheDem]

2. And Zinni wasn't the only US military brass saying this would be total disaster...

"Do we really want to occupy Iraq for the next 30 years? …In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets…. Nations such as China can only view the prospect of an American military consumed for the next generation by the turmoil of the Middle East as a glorious windfall."
-James Webb, former Sec. of Navy under Ronald Reagan, Decorated Marine Veteran
http://www.sftt.org/article09302002a.html

"Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving Bin Laden's ends…. I've never seen it so bad between the office of the secretary of defense and the military. There's a significant majority believing this is a disaster.

The two parties whose interests have been advanced have been the Iranians and al-Qaeda. Bin Laden could argue with some cogency that our going into Iraq was the equivalent of the Germans in Stalingrad. They defeated themselves by pouring more in there. Tragic."
-Gen. William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091704Y.shtml

"The idea that this is going to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no good options."
-General Joseph Hoare, the former marine commandant and head of US Central Command
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091704Y.shtml

"The general who commanded U.S. forces in the 1991 Gulf War says he hasn't seen enough evidence to convince him that his old comrades Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz are correct in moving toward a new war now. He thinks U.N. inspections are still the proper course to follow. He's worried about the cockiness of the U.S. war plan, and even more by the potential human and financial costs of occupying Iraq….(And don't get him started on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld)"
-Norman Schwarzkopf - Four Star General
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52450-2003Jan27?language=printer

"Should the president decide to stay the war course, hopefully at least a few of our serving top-uniformed leaders - those who are now covertly leaking that war with Iraq will be an unparalleled disaster - will do what many Vietnam-era generals wish they would have done: stand tall and publicly tell the America people the truth about another bad war that could well lead to another died-in-vain black wall. Or even worse."
-Col. David Hackworth
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29786

Col. Mike Turner (ret), Schwarzkopf's personal briefing officer during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm:

“The uniformed Joint Staff in the Pentagon strongly opposed this plan early on...The uniformed Joint Staff was overridden, yet in so many horrifying ways this operation resembles Somalia, not Desert Storm...Perhaps we can pull this off, but here's a far worse scenario that's at least as likely...Photos of American soldiers amid landscapes of Iraqi civilian bodies blanket the world press which aligns unanimously against the US. The US is condemned by NATO and the UN...The war ends within a few weeks, but the crisis deepens...”
http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/transcripts/2003/mar/030311.turner.html

Even these terraist-succouring libruls knew;

Dick Cheney in April 1991, then Defense Secretary:

If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein,you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists?

How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2072479

President GHW Bush, 1998;

"Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush

Brent Scowcroft, one of the Republican Party’s most respected foreign policy advisors, and national security adviser under President Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush:

Don't Attack Saddam It would undermine our antiterror efforts. "Our pre-eminent security priority--underscored repeatedly by the president--is the war on terrorism. An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133

[The Traveler]

5. He was called "The Godfather"

and there was a reason for it. They should have listened to him. He knew more than they did.

[Strelnikov_]

9. " Army General Thomas "Tommy" Franks . . .

adjusted the concept when he assumed command of CENTCOM upon Zinni's retirement. Yet even his initial version of OPLAN 1003-98 envisioned a need for 385,000 troops, according to the book, COBRA II, (Note 8) -- before Rumsfeld insisted that the number be sharply reduced."

But I thought the General's got all the troops they asked for?

Could a RepubliCON government have lied to us?

[PATRICK]

11. Another "accepted point" should be questioned

Like if the original German plan for WWI had been "implemented properly". No plan really conquers reality. The immediate fallacy is that intelligent plans ever unfold like their paper form. The secondary fallacy is that the great plan must work if implemented.

Like the surrender to the paper trail fix for terrible voting machines, the anti-war debate lays aside questioning the Big Force effectiveness. In order to score points while seeming military supportive, etc,
very many Americans are led or lead to assume that a big force would have done it, yup, if only it had been done. Clark and Kerry represent the fix it, can do relation to the plan which now fortunately is too moribund for a sane man to do anything except believe in the "what ifs".

First, the war was an immoral horror doomed to be bloodily botched by the character and beliefs of the persons in charge. The Afghan campaign had succeeded- temporally- in the push button, recipe method and side-stage, eventually fell prey to the dooming factors. There should never have been giant armies bullying and saving people anyway. As a last resort, if just, it involves more nations, not more soldiers from a sole invading stranger. It was always ass backward and never a question of ever doing anything except degrading. There are NO "if onlys" with Bush. He makes is easy in all fields of endeavor, never giving an inch to the rational practicalities of achieving evil or compromised ends.

It always depended on the Iraqis no matter how many troops swamped the occupation. Immediately empowering the Iraqis was the point, not a bigger intrusive police force, and if that were an impossibility nothing should ever have been done other than a) internal overthrow of Saddam b) containing him and destroying his particular threat in particular ways c) maintaining international pressure. Even that was tricky because of oil, the real key to the entire mess, not tactics or problems in any other field.

Ever our minds are taken away from anything except the drama the mess created by the key points and individuals. In short order, screw moving hundreds of thousands of warriors along bloody paths and vast political and ideological questions. Recognize the disaster that are bad leaders, Bush, Hussein and the money that propels, empowers and motivates them to hijacking history. Take down the garbage, which if you concentrate on it is a doable legal matter, and take down renegade poisonous business threats to mankind part of which is a simple inevitable change in energy resources.

Trying to show what great chess pieces we can be, or could have been, while mechanically breaking down in the anarchy of our tyrants' dark fantasies is simply a contradiction. Vying to be the better, more reasonable, sucker.