Did you know Bush ignored the advice of his own military leaders when he attacked Iraq?

Question

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/05/iraq/main2153499.shtml
By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer
Sun Nov 5, 4:48 AM ET


WASHINGTON - 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 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."

Answer 1

No surprises there...at least to anyone with more than one brain cell (thus excluding RePukes).

Than, after a few years of mindless war in Iraq, when Bush's "general's on the ground" spoke up about what a failure Iraq had become, those generals were fired, making way for the new guy : Patreus. He'll tow the Bush line for a while, until he too must admit that Iraq is a complete disaster, and he will then be fired...and the Bush logic-cycle continues...

Answer 2

Not for nothing, I didn't read the whole expose listed in the additional details. I don't think I needed to.

I swear, reading this stuff is depressing. I know Bush is a moron. I can't wait until he's officially out of the White House. I also can't wait to stop reading all these "Bush is an idiot" posts. It's just like as if someone new walked up to you every day just to tell you that the sky is blue.

I think we should really start paying more attention to the primary races being held soon. We need to focus on choosing the best candidate for the job because it's pretty obvious that whomever takes the Oval Office after Bush is going to have one heck of a mess to clean up.

Answer 3

Yes. The conventional wisdom at the time was that a huge invasion, like one that liberated Kuwait, would be be too expensive and unpopular, so to 'sell' the invasion to the Dems and the American people, the Administration decided to do it 'on the cheap.'

Bad idea.

Powel Doctrine of Overwhelming Force, anyone?

Answer 4

With recent evidence turning up from outside sources, it's apparent that Bush not only ignored the advice of his military leaders, but already had bureaucracies established to confirm his pre-conceived notions to move into Iraq.

What's even more disheartening, is that people who spoke out initially, were either fired or were stonewalled. Not to mention they were publicly criticized as being un-patriotic.

Answer 5

NO THAT IS NOT TRUE

The Whitehouse tapes show Bush asking Karen Hughes to draw up a battle plan.

Karen Hughes a Texas TV reporter and long time Bush confidant was his military leader. And he did follow her advice.

Rush into Badgag get yourself surrounded and then Stay the course.

In Texas they call that circling the wagons.

Go Team Bush Go

Answer 6

No he didn't. As I've always said, the media is controlled by liberals. Anyway, I'm not doubting the legitimacy of your question, I know you got that information from a real source, thus I gave your question a star.
Geraldo.

Answer 7

Everyone knows that he did.. I didn't think that was a secret. He is a pro-war president. America should have that figured out by now..... but, i'll step over a homeless person or run into a man just recently released after rapong a child...... no problem there... let's go terroize Iraq instead.

Answer 8

I love some of these answers. We got people calling each other names like Libturd and Repuke. Wow. What playground are you kids typing from? Act like a grown adult, it is childish actions like these that are really hurting our political system. Let's just stand around and point fingers. Great strategy.

Answer 9

You mean that the U.S. government made a mistake in its handling of the Iraqi war?!?!?!?!?! Get the hell out of here!!

Answer 10

Insider info.