Are Republicans LYING, or just IGNORANT, when they say NO ONE COULD HAVE PREDICTED THE MESS IN IRAQ?

Question

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

1999 war games predicted problems in Iraq
Exercise showed that chaos was possible even with 400,000 troops

Updated: 5:42 a.m. ET Nov 5, 2006
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 documents came to light Saturday through a Freedom of Information Act request by the 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 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.

'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.”
© 2006 The Associated Press.

Answer 1

It's simple. The politicians are lying and the sheeple that support the LIARS are ignorant.

Answer 2

First, the applicability of the results of the war game would require a detailed review of the assumptions of said game, versus the actual conditions. Without a review of the assumptions, it's hard to determine how accurate the war game is.

Second, the Coalition forces mustered about 300,000 troops, which is not insignificant, especially when one considers the difficulty of supporting such numbers logistically over such a distance.

Third, they did consider many of the difficulties and problems they would encounter in the aftermath, especially security issues.

But nobody could have predicted, based on any historical precedent, the bloody terrorist insurgency and the terrorist attacks that followed. Those have had the greatest impact in preventing progress. There has never been an insurgency that has chosen to murder tens of thousands of innocent fellow countrymen in order to prevent the establishment of a constitutional parliamentary government.

Lastly, anybody who actually believes there was only one consensus view on how many troops were needed, is clearly mistaken.

Answer 3

They test the war games, to be sure that they will be in no position of winning it! They will surely not tell anybody this, but they just knew it, why else would have they lied, and send only 130000 troops there. They did not want to win, as winning too fast would not have helped their plan, which is to remain in this region as long as they can to control the region oils, while restarting the cold war with Russia, which in turn will leave all Europe dependent of American oil supplies, as well as possibly China. So again, the few will control the whole world in about 5 years or so!!

You know, when Germany invade France, they did use 900000 soldiers to control it, and yet France at the time was as populous as Iraq today, and is not that much bigger than Iraq too! So they REALLY knew everything before hand, but they did play a geopolitical game, and they are still playing it!

Answer 4

George Bush gave a special speech to Congress in the House chamber on September 20, 2001. He said that this war would be a long, drawn out war, where troops should be expected to remain for at least a decade. He predicted it all. He knew the consequences to the troops and his own reputation. But he did it anyway, and he is still standing firm on his decision. God bless George W. Bush.

Answer 5

i do no longer would desire to lie approximately something, and that i'm something yet "ignorant". tell me, why did Nancy Pelosi refuse to permit a vote on the only skill plan it is previously the congress suitable now. Nevermind what Obama and McCain want. Why is the precise Democrat in the land blocking off progression, hmmmm?

Answer 6

Uh hello, its war; there is NO WAY to predict how a war will turn out... Haven't you heard of the "fog of war"... anyone who goes into war expecting everything to go perfectly is a fool... the truth is this war has gone pretty darn well; it has cost less, in terms of money spent and lives lost, than every other conflict in our 200 year history... you can't build a democracy in 5 years (it took us almost 200) and you can't expect the "bad guys" to just sit around and let you do it in their own backyard... how long have we been fighting, both here and abroad, for the survival of our own democracy?... and why do people (specifically liberal types) think Iraq would be any different?...


FYI John mcd-- the Romans did a pretty good job of conquering most of the ancient world and controlling it for thousands of years and the Native Americans haven't launched a successful raid in something like 180 years... likewise the Aztecs and Incas where both successfully conquered by the Spanish while the British still hold sway over Scottland and parts of Ireland and only recently relinquished control of Hong Kong (and not because of any insurgency)... If history has shown anything it has shown that the only way to deal with an insurgency is through brutal and unrelenting force...

Answer 7

After Pappa Bush kicked Saddam out of kuwait he warned junior about not messing around there. So it may not be so much a party thing but the pig headedness of a party leader. Loyal party members often don't argue with leaders but work to make changes. Some in the GOP are beginning to do just that.

Answer 8

Not only that, but Bush's father gave this as a reason for not invading Iraq in 1991, and the Powell doctrine required overwhelming force in the form of boots on the ground.

Maybe it's just my software, but I get "access denied" when I try clink on your link.

Answer 9

You seem to be omiting a very simple fact.

It was never predicted that Al Qaeda would pour in and that foreign insurgents would wreak havoc and try to start a civil war.

So, while some said that it would be a problem, the same was said for any other war.

It's like Nostradamus's predictions. Some say that he made them broad and general so that they could easily apply to future events.

Answer 10

Not ignorant. Self serving, pompus, evil, lying sacks of dirt tho.

I have said more than once: it is all about the OIL.

Answer 11

chaos might ensue?!? in a war!?!?

i can't believe they knew that ahead of time!!!!

every negative thing you liberals hear about the war, i swear you throw a party. you claim to be peaceful people but you're a bunch of angry haters who don't care about the good of our country.

i wish you all would have left when bush got re-elected like you SAID you were going to.

oops, forgot, welfare probably doesn't pay for sabbaticals like that.