The US 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 follow. (Source.)
This is how an Associated Press / Reuters story is portraying the recent release of previously secret documents on the Desert Crossing war games. (And just one day before the elections.)
However, after reading the Desert Crossing After Action Report (June 28, 1999) and Desert Crossing After Action Report Briefing (July 22, 1999) I wonder where they got their information.
The Desert Crossing Seminar was a “senior level interagency effort in which participants were asked to identify issues on how to manage change in a post-Saddam Iraq” (Briefing, p. 2). The issues considered were:
- What are the key U.S. decision points and conditions for intervention?
- How do we manage Iraq’s neighbors and other influential states?
- How do we build and maintain the coalition?
- What are the major refugee assistance challenges external to Iraq?
- What is the appropriate role for co-opted elements of Iraqi military power?
- How do we contain Shia and Kurdish threats to the stability of Iraq and prevent fragmentation?
- What is the U.S. role in establishing a transitional government in Iraq?
- How do we synchronize humanitarian assistance, civilian, and military activities during combat and/or peace enforcement operations?
- How do we reestablish civil order in the wake of combat operations?
- What is the U.S. exit strategy and long-term presence in Iraq? (Briefing, p. 7, Report, p. 15)
Although that may sound like the Iraq War we’re currently in, there are major differences. First, Desert Crossing post-Saddam situation is one brought about by an internal coup and counter-coup by Saddam’s sons (Report, p. 32), not the U.S. military. Second, Desert Crossing does not contemplate a major U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. The former complicates the entry of U.S. troops onto Iraqi soil and changes the situation from one of enforcing the U.N. resolutions to attempting to stabilize a fragmenting country with a lot of oil; the latter effects not only how many troops are available for Iraq, but also how many Iran will “tolerate” on its western boarder before becoming more belligerent.
I was also unable to find the 400,000 troops figure in the Briefing or Report. I found a mention of 300,000 on page 20 of the Report pertaining to the issue of number of troops not seen as threatening to Iran, with the implication that more troops could be problematic.
The AP and Reuters must be reading something other than what was released. Maybe someone will be able to set me straight in the comments. But please, let’s wait until after the election to get this resolved. Bush must appear idiotic until November 8.
___
Via Openswitch.
