Iraq

War simulation in 1999 pointed out Iraq invasion problems POSTED: 10:15 p.m. EST, November 4, 2006 WASHINGTON (AP) -- A series of secret U.S. war games in 1999 showed that an nvasion 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. A spokeswoman for the 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. News of the war games results comes a day before judges are expected to deliver a verdict in Saddam Hussein war crimes trial. (Watch people prepare as curfew sets across Baghdad in anticipation of the verdicts -- 3:20 ) 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." Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Anyone that values their life and their family needs to study the major difference between the Republican and Democrats on the issue of National Security. Democrats 1) Democrats have celebrated the release of Top Secret National Security Programs designed to stop terrorist. 2) Democrats have called for the closing of the prisons that house terrorist. Democrats what to give each captured terrorist ACLU lawyers and their day in US court. 3) Democrats have betrayed and belittled the trust of our ally Nations. 4) Democrats have contempt for the US military. 5) Are against the Patriot Act, needed to protect the USA. 6) Calls the wiretapping of Terrorist "wiretapping of Americans" 8) Against missile-defense system. 7) It seems that no National Security matters are safe in their hands. The far left has taken over the Democrat Party. Proof they dumped Joe Lieberman, a moderate in the DNC. On other issues: 1) Democrats have promised to raise taxes. 2) Continue their attack on the traditional Family. 3) Wants to appoint Judges that will make Laws, rather than apply them. Republican Party: 1) National defense is the main responsibility of government. 2) America must fight terrorism abroad in order to prevent it at home; history from 911 to today is proof this true. 3) Border Security is National Security, started the making of a southern border fence. 4) US military is a force for good against the War on Terror and should not be painted evil because of a few bad individuals. 5) Believe that schools should be held accountable for student progress through testing. 6) Taxes should be low and fair. 7) Equal opportunity for all (not forced equality by government). 8) Have helped bring the US to the lowest unemployment in decades. 9) Home ownership is at a all time high. Vote Republican !

Iggy Randal: They did not dump Joe Lieberman, and I'm tired of seeing that lie. Joe lost a primary, because he was a warhawk, and people are tired of the war. He's running as an Indie, a perfectly honorable thing to do, just like losing a primary. There is no shame in either. Why do you republicans lie about everything? Have you considered that's why 65% of America want to kick your dishonest asses out of office? Try a little honesty and maybe Americans will stop being so disgusted with you.

Facts and intelligent analysis don't matter to conservatives. What does matter? FEELINGS. IDEOLOGY. IRRATIONAL HOPE. They wanted to win in Iraq. They found a way to justify a war. Their only planning assumed everything would go great. Reality isn't like that. Facts aren't like that. They have NO BUSINESS running a country.

I doubt W had a clue about Iraq. The man didn't even know there were 2 major sects of Islam. Shiites and Sunnis. This is after his father had overseen a war on that country. Bush was willfully ignorant and was persuaded to invade by the NeoCons. Bush is intellectually lazy, up to the point of being coastful of that fact. Not enough troops were used for the invasion for political reasons and because they pinned their hopes on Chalabi who told them we would be welcomed "with sweets and flowers".

HE KNEW, THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES TOLD HIM !!! BLOODY... :(( Dominique de Villepin, Minister for Foreign Affairs of France, ../.. His Government did not subscribe to what might be the other objectives of a war, he said. As to a regime change in Baghdad, while no one underestimated the cruelty of that dictatorship, that was not the objective of resolution 1441. And force was certainly not the best way to bring about democracy. It would encourage dangerous instability, there and elsewhere. As for fighting terrorism, war would only increase it, and the world would then be faced with a new wave of violence. As for remolding the political landscape of the Middle East, doing so ran the risk of exacerbating tensions in a region already marked by great instability. ../.. 07th march /2003