From: Monte Davis 

"Mark"  wrote:

>But those guys are the height of hypocrisy to support a given direction,
>then to wimp out unceremoniously after only a few years

Mark, you've been so clear-minded and eloquent first about the
publicity-seeking, book-pimping former generals...

...and now about the flip-flopping, "I knew it all along" neocons...

That I can't wait to hear your opinion of these America-hating
cut-and-runners --- lefty moles deep in CENTCOM -- who were doing their
post-mortem four years *before* the invasion.

===

WASHINGTON (AP) Nov. 5 -- 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."

...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."



Monte Davis
http://montedavis.livejournal.com

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5