US knew dangers of Iraq invasion in 1999

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 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 at the weekend 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 US 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.”

There are currently about 144,000 US troops in Iraq, down from a peak of about 160,000 in January.

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 US-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 US-led intervention in Iraq,” the briefings read. “The influx of US 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 US 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.”