11-05-2006, 11:24 AM
Quote:'Replacement regime could be problematic'
The war games looked at âworst caseâ and âmost likelyâ 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:
âA change in regimes does not guarantee stability,â the 1999 seminar briefings said. âA 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.â
âEven when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic â especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments.â
âIranâs anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq,â the briefings read. âThe 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.â
âThe 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.â
âAlso, 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.â
âA long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners.â
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.