true_blue_bill Posted November 5, 2006 Posted November 5, 2006 http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/04/...?eref=rss_topst ories WASHINGTON (AP) -- A series of secret U.S. war games in 1999 showed that an invasion and post-war administration of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, nearly three times the number there now. And even then, the games showed, the country still had a chance of dissolving into chaos. In the simulation, called Desert Crossing, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence participants concluded 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 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 about 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from a peak in January of about 160,000. A week after the invasion, in March 2003, the Pentagon said there were 250,000 U.S. ground force troops inside Iraq, along with 40,000 coalition force troops. A spokeswoman for the 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.
Bungee Jumper Posted November 5, 2006 Posted November 5, 2006 http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/04/...?eref=rss_topst ories WASHINGTON (AP) -- A series of secret U.S. war games in 1999 showed that an invasion and post-war administration of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, nearly three times the number there now. And even then, the games showed, the country still had a chance of dissolving into chaos. In the simulation, called Desert Crossing, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence participants concluded 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 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 about 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from a peak in January of about 160,000. A week after the invasion, in March 2003, the Pentagon said there were 250,000 U.S. ground force troops inside Iraq, along with 40,000 coalition force troops. A spokeswoman for the 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. 825027[/snapback] So why the hell is the Democratic platform to withdraw from Iraq and not increase our presence?
true_blue_bill Posted November 5, 2006 Author Posted November 5, 2006 So why the hell is the Democratic platform to withdraw from Iraq and not increase our presence? 825033[/snapback] Because its based on common sense
Bungee Jumper Posted November 5, 2006 Posted November 5, 2006 Because its based on common sense 825093[/snapback] Iraq requires 400k troops. We only committed 150k. So we should reduce it to 0. And that's common sense?
true_blue_bill Posted November 5, 2006 Author Posted November 5, 2006 Iraq requires 400k troops. We only committed 150k. So we should reduce it to 0. And that's common sense? 825143[/snapback] First off, there isn't 400,000 around, secondly humpty dumpty is broke and all the kings horses and..... I posted what I did to show that the original idea to inavde was flawed, it said that even with 400k it would still have failed. BTW, have you read the preamble to the Constitution yet?
Bungee Jumper Posted November 5, 2006 Posted November 5, 2006 First off, there isn't 400,000 around, secondly humpty dumpty is broke and all the kings horses and..... I posted what I did to show that the original idea to inavde was flawed, it said that even with 400k it would still have failed. 825154[/snapback] "The original idea to invade was flawed" is such an oversimplified observation it's not even worth discussing it with you. You have a very simplistic view of a very complex issue. The fact that you and I happen to agree that the idea of invading was flawed is merely accidental. BTW, have you read the preamble to the Constitution yet? I posted it. Even the part where it says 'protect us".
true_blue_bill Posted November 5, 2006 Author Posted November 5, 2006 "The original idea to invade was flawed" is such an oversimplified observation it's not even worth discussing it with you. You have a very simplistic view of a very complex issue. 825208[/snapback] Ya, real complicated! DON'T DO IT! Very complicated! It was a big mistake and the majority of Americans agree with me
Chilly Posted November 5, 2006 Posted November 5, 2006 So why the hell is the Democratic platform to withdraw from Iraq and not increase our presence? 825033[/snapback] Of course the Republicans don't want to spend any more money on reconstruction either (based on their actions), so no matter what party is in control its gonna be screwed up.
RkFast Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/04/...?eref=rss_topst ories WASHINGTON (AP) -- A series of secret U.S. war games in 1999 showed that an invasion and post-war administration of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, nearly three times the number there now. 825027[/snapback] I defer to the military experts here for the final word, but I would think that overall, disregarding intelligence thats 14 years old is a GOOD thing.
Bungee Jumper Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 I defer to the military experts here for the final word, but I would think that overall, disregarding intelligence thats 14 years old is a GOOD thing. 826793[/snapback] 4, not 14. And wargames, not intelligence. And the results of wargames may or may not become dated in 4 years. Depends on the wargame. And wargames can be notoriously unreliable, as well. Often, when one is run, it's biased by one's preconceived notions (e.g. in the Japanese wargames before Midway, the referees would discard "unrealistic" results - such as the Japanese carrier force being sunk in its entirety - on the grounds of "Oh, that could never happen."). Reality has a very nasty way of biting theory in the ass on not infrequent occasions.
bills_fan Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 So why the hell is the Democratic platform to withdraw from Iraq and not increase our presence? Because its based on common sense How do you figure it is based on common sense? Ignore the reasons we went there and simply forces on the realities of here and now. Why withdraw and what of the consequences, in your opinion?
RkFast Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 4, not 14. And wargames, not intelligence. And the results of wargames may or may not become dated in 4 years. Depends on the wargame. And wargames can be notoriously unreliable, as well. Often, when one is run, it's biased by one's preconceived notions (e.g. in the Japanese wargames before Midway, the referees would discard "unrealistic" results - such as the Japanese carrier force being sunk in its entirety - on the grounds of "Oh, that could never happen."). Reality has a very nasty way of biting theory in the ass on not infrequent occasions. 826805[/snapback] Ah...typo...sorry. Thanks for the info.
PastaJoe Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 How do you figure it is based on common sense? Ignore the reasons we went there and simply forces on the realities of here and now. Why withdraw and what of the consequences, in your opinion? 826812[/snapback] If we withdraw there will be sectarian violence, militias will control areas instead of Iraqi troops, and the population will divide into their seperate tribal groups. Which is the same as what's happening now, except that our troops are caught in the middle. So let's save the troops from further danger and get them out of Iraq, since in the end the result will be the same whether they stay or go.
catchescannonballs Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 If we withdraw there will be sectarian violence, militias will control areas instead of Iraqi troops, and the population will divide into their seperate tribal groups. Which is the same as what's happening now, except that our troops are caught in the middle. So let's save the troops from further danger and get them out of Iraq, since in the end the result will be the same whether they stay or go. 826844[/snapback] You don't have enough faith in our troops to traion, support and equip the Iraqis to take care of there oun country. It may take 10-15 years but we will get the job done given the support is there to achieve it. This can't be another vietnam where the Democrats gave up on freedom and liberty
bills_fan Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 If we withdraw there will be sectarian violence, militias will control areas instead of Iraqi troops, and the population will divide into their seperate tribal groups. Which is the same as what's happening now, except that our troops are caught in the middle. So let's save the troops from further danger and get them out of Iraq, since in the end the result will be the same whether they stay or go. Sort of like what happened in Yugoslavia before we (acting thru NATO) stepped in and allowed the country to peaceably divide? Pretty fatalistic scenario there.
Bungee Jumper Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 Sort of like what happened in Yugoslavia before we (acting thru NATO) stepped in and allowed the country to peaceably divide? Pretty fatalistic scenario there. 826852[/snapback] One BIG difference being that for the most part the Yugoslavian factions didn't have outside powers fostering the instability, as is happening in Iraq. It's a lot easier to pursue an insurgent campaign when you have a mommy to run to when things get rough.
bills_fan Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 One BIG difference being that for the most part the Yugoslavian factions didn't have outside powers fostering the instability, as is happening in Iraq. It's a lot easier to pursue an insurgent campaign when you have a mommy to run to when things get rough. True, that there were no outside powers OVERTLY fostering the instability, but the Serbs always believed that Russia would not allow the int'l community to be too harsh with them. Also, depending on whom you believe, the Russians were providing the Serbs with arms.
Alaska Darin Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 Because its based on common sense 825093[/snapback] Would that be the same common sense that led President Clinton and his genius planners to cut all the meat out of the military, ensuring that we'd have nowhere near the required number of operators to even overtake and hold a country the size of California? You partisan apologists are morons.
Bungee Jumper Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 True, that there were no outside powers OVERTLY fostering the instability, but the Serbs always believed that Russia would not allow the int'l community to be too harsh with them. Also, depending on whom you believe, the Russians were providing the Serbs with arms. 826999[/snapback] The Russians provided everyone with arms; they needed the currency. More to the point, though, is that asymmetric warfare (i.e. insurgents) requires a secure geographical region out of which the insurgency can be supported. If they have a place of relative security to run to (e.g. the Afghani Mujahadeen and Pakistan, Castro and the Sierra Maestra mountains, Russian partisans in WWII and the Polesi'ia, the Viet Cong and...everywhere outside South Vietnam, really), it's very hard for insurgents to lose an insurgency campaign. Conversely, you'd be hard-pressed to think of any successful asymmetrical campaign that didn't feature a secure geographical base. The Serbs never really had that. Even if they had moral and financial support, they didn't have a secure geographical base and were organizationally vulnerable. The Iraqi insurgents...a good number of fighters have always come from Syria or Iran (in the invasion itself, a huge chunk of the "Fedayeen" were Syrian nationals looking to fight The Great Satan.); right now, it's probably less warm bodies coming over the border than organizational support.
bills_fan Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 The Russians provided everyone with arms; they needed the currency. True, I was more referring to their shared religious beliefs (Eastern Orthodoxy) and cultural similarities as the reasons for the alliance. But, you are correct as they sold arms to everyone. The Serbs never really had that. Even if they had moral and financial support, they didn't have a secure geographical base and were organizationally vulnerable. The Iraqi insurgents...a good number of fighters have always come from Syria or Iran (in the invasion itself, a huge chunk of the "Fedayeen" were Syrian nationals looking to fight The Great Satan.); right now, it's probably less warm bodies coming over the border than organizational support. The insurgency is unfortunately only one aspect. They are feeding on the disorder and chaos created by the Sunni minority/Shiite majority and the various conflicts and issues surrounding the split. If that could ever be worked out to the satisfaction of both parties (yeah, I know, and if the kick was 3 feet further left), the insurgency would lose steam in a hurry, Iranian or Syrian support be damned.
Recommended Posts