War simulation in 1999 pointed out Iraq invasion problems

Navigation

User login

Online users

The Original Yoda
FRESH
chad360
rolandovich
Guglielmo
JMK

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

Sara Ballard
GooseKaler
LongRider
non illegitimi ...
acreatureapart

War simulation in 1999 pointed out Iraq invasion problems

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 9:03pm.

This is hard evidence that people need to be fired for incompetence. I don't think action in Iraq is illegal (because I don't believe in illegal armed conflicts, nor do I believe a nation can surrender their ability to wage conflict), so I have never believed an impeachment was possible without hard evidence (high crimes and other misdemeanors). But this is definately a signal that individuals sitting in certain posts within the administration are incompetent.

When my older cousin returned from Iraq following the initial invasion with the 82nd Airborne (he also served in Haiti and Kosovo under the Clinton administration), he said Rumsfeld needed to go then.

Military intelligence may not be an oxymoron, either.

CNN: "War simulation in 1999 pointed out Iraq invasion problems":

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.
"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."
"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."

The Fire Inside's blog
Login or register to post comments

Something Is Wrong with the Iraq War

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 10:10pm.

I agree with you about incompetence in the Bush Administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfie, Condie, Rove, et al.)

But I do think that there is a strong case to be made for the illegality of the war. The basis for this case exists in these agreements: UN Charter, Nuremberg Trials, Geneva Conventions.

Illegal or not, we need to demand that those who misled us into the Iraq War be held accountable.

Thanks for posting this, TFI.

Aha!

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 10:29pm.

"Illegal or not, we need to demand that those who misled us into the Iraq War be held accountable."

I think this might have to be a quote of the week or something.

"Case for War Cooked Up"

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 11:08pm.

It looks like the British are having problems holding their leaders accountable, just as we are.

It's clear. The case for war was cooked up

The vast majority of Labour MPs failed Parliament when they didn't back a fresh inquiry into Blair's manipulation of the case for the invasion of Iraq
Henry Porter
Sunday November 5, 2006
The Observer
Last Wednesday's melancholy defeat of the vote to hold a parliamentary inquiry into the Iraq war produced a brief roll of honour from the Labour benches. They are Harry Cohen, Jeremy Corbyn, Mark Fisher, Glenda Jackson, Roger Godsiff, John McDonnell, Alan Simpson, Peter Soulsby, Bob Marshall Andrews, Gavin Strang, Robert Wareing and Mike Wood.
They are the few. They voted against their party, but for parliament and democracy.
A mere dozen among 356 Labour members, they were the only ones on the government side not to fall for the phony argument that a parliamentary inquiry would undermine our troops in southern Iraq. They also knew that not one of the inquiries into Iraq so often cited by the government has got anywhere close to the facts of how Tony Blair deployed the government machine to take us to war.
...
in Britain, it appears that at a very early stage - 14 months before the war - we were trying to fit intelligence and facts around the policy, just as they were in America.
...

For many, it is still

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 11:19pm.

For many, it is still surprising that as early as 23 July 2002, nine months before the invasion, the planning for war was so advanced in both countries

If we were running classified war games in 1999, why would it be surprising that we would have extensive military plans for countries in a region of the world we've known for some time would be the next theater of armed conflict by 2002?

I'm not saying information could not have been or was not pushed to be viewed in a certain light, but (and I may be reading this entire article wrong in its implications) I don't think the Second Iraq War was created in a darkroom in Crawford, Texas.

If people are really intent on removing Secretary Rumsfeld, they should play an angle with mass appeal. Most Americans (and people in general, really) aren't going to understand or buy into the notion that President Bush et al. had this elaborate conspiracy to not only attack the World Trade Centers and Pentagon but to also invade both Afghanistan and Iraq once they were elected (not to mention having to allegedly steal those two elections, one of which would have involved members of the US Supreme Court).

People do, however, believe Iraq has (at the very least) been mishandled since the invasion. We can question the wisdom of invading all we want, but if I remember correctly most Americans supported the conflict at the onset and the initial occupation. At the time I figured even if the country was wrong the government would be competent enough for American forces to "find" weapons of mass destruction (so yes, I did believe there could have been a plausible conspiracy in this entire affair before it happened).

At any rate, go with the incompetence angle if you would at least salvage some victory in knowing people were held semi-accountable for their mistakes.

Appeal to Hold Bush et al. Accountable

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sun, 11/05/2006 - 8:57am.

Yes, the war's prosecution has been incompetent. However, it is also shown that it is illegal. What you're talking about there, military strategizing and war games, is different from the type of political and intelligence fraud that the Bush Administration (and Tony Blair over at Downing Street) committed. These two men, according to the best available evidence, should be held under suspicion of knowingly misleading their respective nations into a war, based not on mutual security, by pre-empting a foreign aggressor (as they would have you believe), but based instead on providing security for the Anglo-American energy industry.

All I am saying is that there are better ways to reach energy security than aggressively invading and occupying a sovereign nation, especially when those actions result in death and suffering on such a great scale. Over 3,000 coalition military personell have died, tens of thousands more have suffered less severe casualties. It is estimated that over 600,000 Iraqi people have died! I can't imagine that anyone in Iraq has not suffered as a result of this invasion, with its phony justifications and illegal foundations.

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: