Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1999 War Game foresaw Iraq mess
#1
Quote:'Replacement regime could be problematic'
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.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15570330/

There's one of two conclusions that can be drawn from this:

1) The Bush administration is completely did buy into the delusion we could transform Iraq into a democracy in a few years, in which case they are totally incompetent. Or:

2) Establishing some kind of stable civil order was never really a goal of the war.
Reply
#2
I'll take door #2.

Contrary to what the MSM would have us believe, Bush and co are not idiots. They are quite smart and capable.

If so, then why the mess in Iraq? Seems to me there are simple questions to ask based on what we see going on, yet very few are asking them.

The left has this idiotic dismissiveness going on – as if the President and all his advisors are just simply idiots.
The right has a rock solid belief that they are doing what needs done and don’t seem to be questioning too much. Humm, lets see – massive spending, constant government growth, more gov’t control, and a questionable war. These people are not conservatives.

Some of the error in Iraq can be due to wishful thinking. However, ,if they knew it wasn't going to be a cakewalk - and there were plenty of folks telling them so - then why go through with it?

What is gained by it, by our military there, by the increase in tensions, and increase in terrorists being recruited?

Globalists, Collectivists, Fabians... take your pick. But I’m just a nut who doesn’t trust either party, so what do I know?
The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.
F. Scott Fitzgerald
Reply
#3
Once again, it appears time to explain the life of a Lieutenant-Colonel in the Pentagon. The Generals think up possible scenarios - and the LG's research the requests and wargame the possibilities. The results are treed - with branching scenarios... if one thing happens we may do this. If another thing happens, we may do that. There is rarely a warplan devised without alternative reactions based on real world events. There is never a wargame that promises any certain result.
Reply
#4
WmLambert, really, do they? Do you need rocket scientists to predict what happens if a country is bombed and it's population systematically exterminated? Prove your intelligence by picking the right answer;
A. this country turns to anarchy,
B. hell freezes over.

Quote: Establishing some kind of stable civil order was never really a goal of the war.
Establishing civil order by destroying civil order. Kind of oxymoron.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#5
Anon,

I think it is option (A) myself. I think Bush was naive in the criminal sense.

Although that is difficult to believe NOW. I expected the same the day we tore down the Saddam statue myself.

However,you are not paying my salary to know better.

However,if the truth is option (B),fine with me. The Iraqis and Iranians murdered each other for almost a deacde before,fine with me if the Sunnis and Shiites do a repeat.

I just don't think it is the truth.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Ever wonder why the UN is a mess? WarBicycle 21 1,570 05-07-2008, 12:50 AM
Last Post: track_snake

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)