War Games In '99 Predicted Iraq Problems

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."

"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."

[bluestardad]

Heck of a Job Rummy, Stay the Course!

[gramto7]

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?

[lestb35]

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.

[firststate]

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.

[j-whitman]

Oreaga, Ortacg, Gonzoles, Whatever,, I don't speak spaninh.

[j-whitman]

Speaking of dictators,,, see who we let back in power in Nicarauga??? -- Dictator Oreaga

[j-whitman]

radiobob,,, ritht again,,, Now let's see some accountability.

[mh4cbs1]

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!

[rawehage]

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.

[mwe3wm]

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
[e-mail]