Desert Crossing

[Bullypulpit]

In 1999, CENTCOM wargamed the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath. The conclusions were, in light of current events, prophetic and stunning.

<blockquote>The report forewarned that regime change may cause regional instability by opening the doors to "rival forces bidding for power" which, in turn, could cause societal "fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines" and antagonize "aggressive neighbors." Further, the report illuminated worries that secure borders and a restoration of civil order may not be enough to stabilize Iraq if the replacement government were perceived as weak, subservient to outside powers, or out of touch with other regional governments. An exit strategy, the report said, would also be complicated by differing visions for a post-Saddam Iraq among those involved in the conflict.</blockquote>

Golly, imagine that! Someone actually foresaw the consequences of the invasion of Iraq.

<blockquote>Even more significantly, the former CENTCOM commander (<i>Gen Anthony Zinni</i>) noted that his plan had called for a force of 400,000 for the invasion -- <b>240,000 more than what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld approved</b>. "We were concerned about the ability to get in there right away, to flood the towns and villages," USA Today quoted Zinni as saying in July 2003. "We knew the initial problem would be security." (<i>emphasis mine</i>)</blockquote>

And to think, General Eric Shinseki was drummed out of the service for suggesting that, "...that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq..." in contradiction to Rummy's assertion that a "...figure closer to 100,000 troops..." would suffice.

But even with some 400,000 troops on the ground in Iraq, the report layed out a less than optimistic picture of events in a post-invasion Iraq and, thus far, the current situation in Iraq is proceeding as predicted in 1999. So, just remeber all those rosy predictions laid out by Chimpy and Co as to the out come in Iraq:

<blockquote>"The notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish.” - Paul Wolfowitz, 3/4/03</blockquote>

<blockquote>"We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months. - DIck Cheney, 3/16/03</blockquote>

<blockquote>"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months. - Donald Rumsfeld, 2/7/03</blockquote>

<blockquote>"What is, I think, reasonably certain is the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far from the mark.” - Donald Rumsfeld, 2/27/03</blockquote>

So, when some GOP, right wing-nut mouthpiece suggests that "...We simply couldn't have foreseen this (<i>the current situation in Iraq</i>)..." you will now recognize it for the lie it is.

 

[CSM]

In 1999, CENTCOM wargamed the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath. The conclusions were, in light of current events, prophetic and stunning.

<blockquote>The report forewarned that regime change may cause regional instability by opening the doors to "rival forces bidding for power" which, in turn, could cause societal "fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines" and antagonize "aggressive neighbors." Further, the report illuminated worries that secure borders and a restoration of civil order may not be enough to stabilize Iraq if the replacement government were perceived as weak, subservient to outside powers, or out of touch with other regional governments. An exit strategy, the report said, would also be complicated by differing visions for a post-Saddam Iraq among those involved in the conflict.</blockquote>

Golly, imagine that! Someone actually foresaw the consequences of the invasion of Iraq.

<blockquote>Even more significantly, the former CENTCOM commander (<i>Gen Anthony Zinni</i>) noted that his plan had called for a force of 400,000 for the invasion -- <b>240,000 more than what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld approved</b>. "We were concerned about the ability to get in there right away, to flood the towns and villages," USA Today quoted Zinni as saying in July 2003. "We knew the initial problem would be security." (<i>emphasis mine</i>)</blockquote>

And to think, General Eric Shinseki was drummed out of the service for suggesting that, "...that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq..." in contradiction to Rummy's assertion that a "...figure closer to 100,000 troops..." would suffice.

But even with some 400,000 troops on the ground in Iraq, the report layed out a less than optimistic picture of events in a post-invasion Iraq and, thus far, the current situation in Iraq is proceeding as predicted in 1999. So, just remeber all those rosy predictions laid out by Chimpy and Co as to the out come in Iraq:

<blockquote>"The notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish.” - Paul Wolfowitz, 3/4/03</blockquote>

<blockquote>"We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months. - DIck Cheney, 3/16/03</blockquote>

<blockquote>"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months. - Donald Rumsfeld, 2/7/03</blockquote>

<blockquote>"What is, I think, reasonably certain is the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far from the mark.” - Donald Rumsfeld, 2/27/03</blockquote>

So, when some GOP, right wing-nut mouthpiece suggests that "...We simply couldn't have foreseen this (<i>the current situation in Iraq</i>)..." you will now recognize it for the lie it is.

Did you go read the actual report?


Of course you didn't...what a silly question.

Guess what ... the entire report and it's accompanying e-mails never stipulate how many forces are on the ground in Iraq...in fact, it only mentions the number 300,000 troops in the region. There is also a pre-wargame brief defining the scenario, and it never mentions any numbers at all.

I would love to see the original quote from the good general where he stipulates 400,000 troops.

The report does point out a lot of the issues we are seeing but it never states that the issues are not resolvable.

I suspect you knew all that and so does the MSM.

 

[trobinett]

In 1999, CENTCOM wargamed the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath. The conclusions were, in light of current events, prophetic and stunning.

<blockquote>The report forewarned that regime change may cause regional instability by opening the doors to "rival forces bidding for power" which, in turn, could cause societal "fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines" and antagonize "aggressive neighbors." Further, the report illuminated worries that secure borders and a restoration of civil order may not be enough to stabilize Iraq if the replacement government were perceived as weak, subservient to outside powers, or out of touch with other regional governments. An exit strategy, the report said, would also be complicated by differing visions for a post-Saddam Iraq among those involved in the conflict.</blockquote>

Golly, imagine that! Someone actually foresaw the consequences of the invasion of Iraq.

<blockquote>Even more significantly, the former CENTCOM commander (<i>Gen Anthony Zinni</i>) noted that his plan had called for a force of 400,000 for the invasion -- <b>240,000 more than what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld approved</b>. "We were concerned about the ability to get in there right away, to flood the towns and villages," USA Today quoted Zinni as saying in July 2003. "We knew the initial problem would be security." (<i>emphasis mine</i>)</blockquote>

And to think, General Eric Shinseki was drummed out of the service for suggesting that, "...that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq..." in contradiction to Rummy's assertion that a "...figure closer to 100,000 troops..." would suffice.

But even with some 400,000 troops on the ground in Iraq, the report layed out a less than optimistic picture of events in a post-invasion Iraq and, thus far, the current situation in Iraq is proceeding as predicted in 1999. So, just remeber all those rosy predictions laid out by Chimpy and Co as to the out come in Iraq:

<blockquote>"The notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish.” - Paul Wolfowitz, 3/4/03</blockquote>

<blockquote>"We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months. - DIck Cheney, 3/16/03</blockquote>

<blockquote>"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months. - Donald Rumsfeld, 2/7/03</blockquote>

<blockquote>"What is, I think, reasonably certain is the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far from the mark.” - Donald Rumsfeld, 2/27/03</blockquote>

So, when some GOP, right wing-nut mouthpiece suggests that "...We simply couldn't have foreseen this (<i>the current situation in Iraq</i>)..." you will now recognize it for the lie it is.

Oh wow, another in a long line of "I told you so" articles.

I'll give it to the appeasement crowd on this point, they NEVER give up.

I think most on this board have figured out by now what YOU, and the rest of the appeasement crowd think of the current situation in Iraq.

I'm just trying to figure what the administration could of expected, IF they had geared up to send 400,000 plus troops into the Iraq theater?

Nuclear Winter would have got his wish, WWIII.

Everything in life, and certainly in world diplomacy, is a matter of weighing the situation, and mixing a little of this, and a little of that, for the most effective results, WITHOUT stirring up those watching from the sidelines.

Oh course I wouldn't expect the liberals to understand this, they being so engrossed in appeasing, and developing plans for, "cut, and run", and a plan for pulling out, even before one boot is on the ground.

 

[red states rule]

WaPo Shocker: ‘Soldiers in Iraq Say Pullout Would Have Devastating Results’
Posted by Noel Sheppard on November 6, 2006 - 11:26.
This certainly wasn’t something I expected to see published just hours before a crucial election, but there it was in Monday’s Washington Post (hat tip to Patterico), “Soldiers in Iraq Say Pullout Would Have Devastating Results.” Granted, Josh White’s fabulous piece got relegated to page A13. But, let’s not look a gift-horse in the mouth (emphasis mine throughout):

For the U.S. troops fighting in Iraq, the war is alternately violent and hopeful, sometimes very hot and sometimes very cold. It is dusty and muddy, calm and chaotic, deafeningly loud and eerily quiet.

The one thing the war is not, however, is finished, dozens of soldiers across the country said in interviews. And leaving Iraq now would have devastating consequences, they said.

The article marvelously continued:

With a potentially historic U.S. midterm election on Tuesday and the war in Iraq a major issue at the polls, many soldiers said the United States should not abandon its effort here. Such a move, enlisted soldiers and officers said, would set Iraq on a path to civil war, give new life to the insurgency and create the possibility of a failed state after nearly four years of fighting to implant democracy.

And then quoted some of our soldiers in Iraq:

"Take us out of that vacuum -- and it's on the edge now -- and boom, it would become a free-for-all," said Lt. Col. Mark Suich, who commands the 1st Squadron, 89th Cavalry Regiment just south of Baghdad. "It would be a raw contention for power. That would be the bloodiest piece of this war."

White even addressed the political ramifications, and how soldiers and officers disagree with the Democrat view:

The soldiers declined to discuss the political jousting back home, but they expressed support for the Bush administration's approach to the war, which they described as sticking with a tumultuous situation to give Iraq a chance to stand on its own.

Leading Democrats have argued for a timeline to bring U.S. troops home, because obvious progress has been elusive, especially in Baghdad, and even some Republican lawmakers have recently called for a change in strategy. But soldiers criticized the idea of a precipitate withdrawal, largely because they believe their hard work would go for naught.

The article also depicted conditions that defy conventional wisdom:

Capt. Jim Modlin, 26, of Oceanport, N.J., said he thought the situation in Iraq had improved between his deployment in 2003 and his return this year as a liaison officer to Iraqi security forces with the 3rd Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment, based here on FOB Sykes outside Tall Afar. Modlin described himself as more liberal than conservative and said he had already cast his absentee ballot in Texas. He said he believed that U.S. elected officials would lead the military in the right direction, regardless of what happens Tuesday.

"Pulling out now would be as bad or worse than going forward with no changes," Modlin said. "Sectarian violence would be rampant, democracy would cease to exist, and the rule of law would be decimated. It's not 'stay the course,' and it's not 'cut and run' or other political catchphrases. There are people's lives here. There are so many different dynamics that go on here that a simple solution just isn't possible."

And one truism that every American should consider this Election Day:

"This is a worthwhile endeavor," said Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Multinational Division North and the 25th Infantry Division. "Nothing that is worthwhile is usually easy, and we need to give this more time for it to all come together. We all want to come home, but we have a significant investment here, and we need to give the Iraqi army and the Iraqi people a chance to succeed."

The piece concluded with some very powerful opinions from our brave men:

"We'll pull their feet out from under them if we leave," Lingenfelter said.

"It's still fragile enough now that if the coalition were to leave, it would embolden the insurgents. A lot of people have put their trust and faith in us to see it to the end. It would be an extreme betrayal for us to leave."

Sgt. Jonathan Kirkendall, 23, of Falls City, Neb., said he fears that many Americans think that building the country to viability will be "quick and easy," when he believes it could take many years. Kirkendall, of the 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division in Baghdad, is on his third deployment to Iraq and celebrated his 21st and 23rd birthdays here.

"If they say leave in six months, we'll leave in six months. If they say six years, it's six years," said Kirkendall, who is awaiting the birth of his first daughter, due next week.

"I'm just an average soldier, and I'll do what they tell me to do. I'm proud to be a part of it, either way it goes, but I'd like to see it through."

Bravo, White and WaPo. This was a gutsy move the day before Election Day.

http://newsbusters.org/node/8866