WASHINGTON, Nov. 4, 2006
War Games In '99 Predicted Iraq Problems
Said Invasion Would Require 400,000 Troops — And Chaos Might Still Ensue
-
An Iraqi man injured in a car bomb explosion near an electricity office grimaces at a hospital in Baghdad, Iraq, Thursday, Sept. 21, 2006. The explosion killed two people and injured nine, police said. (AP Photo/Hadi Mizban)
-
Interactive Battle For Iraq The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
-
Interactive Religion In Iraq An interactive guide to Iraq's religious, ethnic and ideological mix.
-
Who's Who Iraq Insurgency More on the militant groups behind the insurgency in Iraq and their motivations.
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:
©MMVI, The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment See all 36 Comments
- Heck of a Job Rummy, Stay the Course!
- Reply to this comment
- Maybe our government should make the following announcement to Iraq:
Is there any group here that wishes to harm our troops? If so, we are pulling EVERYONE out! If you can control ALL your people, we will stay and help rebuild your infrastructure and get your country livable again.
I know this will not happen, but wouldn't it be wonderful if our president cared that much about the troops for which he is CIC? - Reply to this comment
- Well, I'm glad we didn't send 400,000 troops and the Iraqis should be glad we got rid of the evil dictator, Saddam Hussein. It's up to the Iraqis to fight for their country's future. We can't give it to them on a silver platter. Imagine all the rebuilding they're missing out on by continuing this sectarian violence. It's a shame.
- Reply to this comment
- Maybe if the 1999 wargames report had more pictures and an Elmo voice-over our fearless leader would have been able to read and understand it.
- Reply to this comment
- Oreaga, Ortacg, Gonzoles, Whatever,, I don't speak spaninh.
- Reply to this comment
- Speaking of dictators,,, see who we let back in power in Nicarauga??? -- Dictator Oreaga
- Reply to this comment
- radiobob,,, ritht again,,, Now let's see some accountability.
- Reply to this comment
- Hey Bob_Burd, who are you calling a Saddam lover!
Did you forget that Rumsfeld in the Reagan/Bush era was a Saddam lover? Saddam was one of our favortie brutal dictators. How quickly you forget. We sold him massive quantities of weapons (making big $$$ for US corporations). We helped him wage war against Iran.
Better to have left Saddam where he was. Even Richard Perle, a PNAC darth vader, agrees to that now. So maybe the US government never should have stopped loving Saddam! - Reply to this comment
- According to "State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III" by Bob Woodward, numerous experts before the war and in its early stages were arguing that 400,000 to 500,000 troops would be required to carry out a successful democratization of Iraq. But that would have required calling up large numbers of reserves, certain to draw ire from both parties. An emergency draft could have filled the bill, but that would have been a death sentence for republicans in 2004. So the adminsitration took their chances, and Bremer did the rest.
- Reply to this comment
- The one good thing about the war in Iraq. Future generations will now say, "Not Another Iraq" when referring to a failed military action. My generation is off the hook for it's politicians not providing a clear victory in a military action.
The lessons learned from both actions are leave War to the Military and not politicians.
Michael Edwards
Texas
mwe3wm@hotmail.com - Reply to this comment
- TICK TOCK TICKTOCKTICKTOCK less than 48 hours until reconstruction!!!
- Reply to this comment
- Thank you radiob, rightwinglie and bluestardad and many more. It's nice to see there are people out there that are not "an-eye-for-an-eye". It's time to be a "love your neighbor as yourself" country. We can do that if we are "intelligent enough to listen" etc as grumpas has stated. No leader is ever going to be perfect. But, for gdubya to purposefully set out to finish off what his daddy didn't do in Iraq, he's provided the fuel and lit the fire for all the worlds fanatics. And, he refuses to admit mistakes, refuses to listen to anyone. What can we do? Political leaders seem to only want to keep themselves and their party in power, at the expense of our/their country. I don't have an answer, all I have is frustration and sadness for our children's future.
- Reply to this comment
- Rightwinglie absolutely correct.I am an independent and I have read neough prior to the invasion of Iraq to know that Saddam was no threat.Any if anyone has a memory shorter than a week Colin Powell had said so repeatedly before he was forced to give false info about WMD's. Colin Powell could blow the lid on the white house,former terrorist czar Richard Clarke and former treasury secretary Paul O'Neil did.Now is the time for Powell to tell all that he knows.We need leaders like him.
- Reply to this comment
- I am saddened by seeing the adoptive country that I love being destroyed from within, not by the actions of Al-qaeda on 9/11 but from the current administration.
The politics of fear, hatred, neighbor against neighbor and brother against brother is something that I only heard of in the context of the american civil war.
I never thought I'd live to see the day in which an attack on this country would be used to cement political and religious segregation of it's people, and used to wage war for economic gain.
Even when I did not vote for George W., I gave him my support after 9/11. I felt compeled (like most of us) to give him the chance to fight the righteous war in Afghanistan. I just could have never foreseen the lack of true leadership and the blunder after blunder after blunder coming from his cabinet.
So yes, I am saddened.
On the other hand I have no choice but to vow to fight his atrocious tactics by any pacific means, for as long as there is still such a thing as free speech in these "United" States of America, until such time as we as a people re-assert our most beloved values of honor, liberty and justice for all.
Until the time comes when we elect a government that represents all americans and not just one faction, we have no business leading the world. - Reply to this comment
- Thank you guys/gals for the intelligent, informed opinions. Reading your comments is just as educational as reading the article. If there is something that I don't understand or believe, I just research it.
- Reply to this comment
- Bluestardad you are obviously a Saddam lover. Doubtless if you had lived in Iraq during his bloody reign you'd have been a Baath Party stalwart.
Fools like you should join Amnesty International and go to Iraq to try and influence the country to save this wonderful man's life.
Selah - Reply to this comment
Anybody with any brains at all would listen to other people most of all his advisers.
But bush is so self centered he just can't do that, why is it that Powell and others quit or were fired.
If you don't agree you can't stay you forget I am the decider.- Reply to this comment
- No argument with you about Bush being a wuss and a divider but 9/11 did not call for diplomacy.It called for action.Iraq did not.Now we are in this civil war that will only deepen with the verdict of Saddam.A trial that should have been held in a international court seeing as how we already blundered by going in.
- Reply to this comment
- Who said anything about millions I am talking about carefully planned strategic strikes against the Taliban/Al Queda camps with limited nuclear power,not the big ones.
- Reply to this comment
- Why do people seem to think Nuking someone is the answer to all of our problems????? That doesn't make a bit of sense to me! Why kill millions of innocent people because you don't like what one or two are doing???? Nuking is the easy way out of having to listen to someone else's side to the argument! I personally have had enough of the "Terminator" antic's that got us into the mess called Iraq! I know a lot of people hated Clinton! But, he was intelligent enough to listen to these people's grievances! He was a forceful diplomat and had a little common sense! Enough common sense he didn't jump off a cliff to prove how much of a leader he was! The clown who is in office now just keeps the enemy in a state of turmoil! The mess isn't ever going to get solved until we get someone in the White House who has respect for other prople, their religious belief's and their goals! Bush is a hate mongerer! Most of us dispise him for what he has done to this great country!
- Reply to this comment
The road ahead in Afghanistan, and the crucial decision Obama faces.
