News 1999 war games predicted problems with invasion of Iraq

  • Thread starter Thread starter edward
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Games
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the U.S. government's prior knowledge regarding the challenges of invading Iraq, highlighted by secret war games conducted in 1999. These simulations indicated that an invasion would necessitate around 400,000 troops to maintain order and security, predicting that regime change alone would not ensure stability. Despite these warnings, the Bush administration proceeded with a significantly lower troop deployment, which ultimately led to chaos in the region. The conversation also touches on discrepancies in reported troop numbers during the invasion and subsequent deployments, with some participants noting confusion over figures and the mixing of unrelated facts. The consensus suggests that even with a larger troop presence, the outcome may have still resulted in a failed state. The documents detailing these war games were later made public through a Freedom of Information Act request.
edward
Messages
62
Reaction score
167
We had the correct information long before the war. The Bush administration choose to ignore it.

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. government was tipped off years ago that invading Iraq would likely be problematic.

A series of secret war games in 1999 predicted that 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 game also predicted that "a change in regimes does not guarantee stability."
http://www.nbc6.net/news/10243429/detail.html#
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I finde the article somewhat confusing: it talks about the invasion requiring 400,000 troops, then says:
There are currently about 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from a peak of about 160,000 in January.
160,000 is most certainly not more than we had for the invasion, though I'm having trouble finding that number. (edit: near as I can tell, we had about 250,000, but I'm looking more reliable sources)

Regardless, they are mixing unrelated facts to support their conclusion. I'd like to read the actual report...
 
Last edited:
Perhaps 160,000 was the post-invasion peak level? Here's Rummy's words:

http://usinfo.state.gov/usinfo/Archive/2005/Dec/23-44645.html

Visiting with U.S. troops in Iraq December 23, Rumsfeld announced adjustments in troop deployments that "reduce forces in Iraq by the spring of 2006 below the current high of 160,000 during the [Iraqi] election period to below the 138,000 baseline that had existed before the most recent elections."

Hard to say what exactly he is referring to (and I suspect this is the source of this oft repeated number)...but I too recall a number like 250,000 troops for the invasion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You'll have to be careful to distinguish the number of troops in Iraq, as apposed to the number of troops in theater, e.g. those in Kuwait and off-shore.

I've seen troop deployment numbers somewhere. There is usually a Defense Department summary montly or quarterly.

Here's something from 2004 - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/troops_04-15-04.html
About 137,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq now, and that number was supposed to have dropped to 115,000 by May. But Rumsfeld said Gen. John Abizaid, the overall commander of the Iraq war, wants to keep the force level at about 135,000 troops.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
russ_watters said:
I finde the article somewhat confusing: it talks about the invasion requiring 400,000 troops, then says: 160,000 is most certainly not more than we had for the invasion, though I'm having trouble finding that number. (edit: near as I can tell, we had about 250,000, but I'm looking more reliable sources)

Regardless, they are mixing unrelated facts to support their conclusion. I'd like to read the actual report...

Apparently whatever number we had in the initial inasion was sufficient to topple the govenment of Iraq, but not enough to control the country.

WASHINGTON | The U.S. government conducted a series of secret war games in 1999 that anticipated that 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 that 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.

“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.”

GWU now has the documents. I doubt that they will be available on the net for a while.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

or I could be wrong about that.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB207/index.htm
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

News Turkey & Iraq: Regional War Looming?
Replies
17
Views
5K
News Iraq war going to cost us $8000 each
Replies
10
Views
6K
News Bush admin ordered CIA to forge Iraq/al-Qaeda link
Replies
9
Views
4K
News War may be criminal - GOP Sen Smith
Replies
36
Views
7K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
Replies
29
Views
10K
News Is U.S. Intelligence Predicting Civil War in Iraq?
Replies
2
Views
2K
News U.S. is building permanent bases in Iraq
2
Replies
51
Views
6K
News We had a chance to prevent the Iraq War
Replies
21
Views
3K
News Kerry's speech calling for and suggesting an exit strategy from Iraq
Replies
42
Views
4K
News NOW the war is unpopular? Well, its a little too late
4
Replies
174
Views
12K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top