According to an
AP article by John Heilprin, a) they did anticipate Iraq in chaos back in 1999 during some war games and b) it probably wouldn't have made much of a different:
"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."
A Freedom of Information Act request by the George Washington University's National Security Archive got the info released.
"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."
More below the fold:
The more I think about it though, they have war games scenarios for almost everything, the question is whether or not they actually go back, pull the results for a particular region or country out and
read the damn thing(s)!
Then again, since it says 400,000 troop would have still need up in a "failed state," going in at all was an absolutely ludicrous idea. Here are some more of the details:
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."
More information can be found at the University's National Security Archive: http://www.gwu.edu/...
1999...These War Games were done during the Clinton years, by the way.
UPDATE:
In an interview
on ABC's "This Week," Cheney basically say he doesn't give a shit what people think about Iraq.
He insists it's "full-speed ahead" with their (failed) Iraq strategy and even though the war "may not be popular with the public," Cheney says it "doesn't matter in the sense that we have to continue the mission and do what we think is right. And that's exactly what we're doing. We're not running for office. We're doing what we think is right."
Unfuckingbelievable. Or not.
Liberal isn't a dirty word. Pass it along.