Army, AF, Navy & Marine Corps Times Editorial: Rumsfeld must go!

[samsonite2100]

It's just unspeakably annoying to have to wade through AC hijacks in each and every thread, no matter how tangentially or non-related the OP is to AC theory. If this thread proves anything, it proves once again that there really does need to be a separate AC political forum.

[AngusThermopyle]

Too bad the Bush Administration had no idea that Iraq would require 400,000 men, and even then might fall into chaos.



[ QUOTE ]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.

And even then, the games showed, the country still had a chance of dissolving into chaos.

In the simulation, called Desert Crossing, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence participants concluded the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs.

......


The war games looked at "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios after a war that removed then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power. Some of the conclusions are similar to what actually occurred after the U.S.-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 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."

# "The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development."

# "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."

# "A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners."



[/ QUOTE ]

Article

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Too bad the Bush Administration had no idea that Iraq would require 400,000 men, and even then might fall into chaos.

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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...


[/ QUOTE ]

Bear in mind that this was a worse case scenario, where the anticipation of active resistance of the populous is factored in. If you applied the same model to the U.S. occupation of Japan after WWII - the number of troops needed would have been in the millions.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
A grand total of one military leader was quoted in this editorial

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding? If the Wall Street Journal called for the resignation of the head of the Federal Reserve, would you dismiss that for not naming another critic?? The Army Times IS the critic of significance in this case.

Army Times etc. may not be owned by the Pentagon, but they are part and parcel of the military community. All their sales, all their sources, all their reporters are military. When your own team calls for your firing, that is significant.

I am confident the Army Times has the best interests of militarism at heart. If it says Rumsfeld is a liability in maintaining world hegemony and total spectrum dominance, I think you should listen.

Hmmm. After writing that, I'm starting to hope Bush keeps him on.

[vanwely]

I had this argument with my friend this weekend. Calling for Rumsfield to resign is stupid. If you don't like how the war is being run, critisize BUSH. As far as I am concerned he can appoint whoever he wants to help him. If you don't like the result, the buck stops in the oval office not with the Sec of Defence.

[[Phill]]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, sure. With success right around the corner, with the huge almost 100% turn out at the elections, with the terrorists in their last gasp, you want to get rid of the guy responsible. Typical liberal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this sarcasm, or are you that out of touch with what is actually going on in Iraq?

[KurtAngle]

[ QUOTE ]
Democrats (not the party members, but supporters of our democratic system) can't understand this. When you don't like something you do whatever it takes to get him out with no consideration of the alternatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would think this wouldn't need to be pointed out to anyone who can add 2+2 together, but you don't really think it's always necessary to debate who specifically should replace someone, to know that they should be replaced, do you?

[KurtAngle]

they all need to go