War Game Predicted Iraq Mess

A 1999 war simulation sponsored by the U.S. Central Command contained some uncannily accurate predictions of what might happen following a regime change in Iraq. The same study estimated that 400,000 troops would be necessary to maintain security (actual deployment peaked at about 160,000). I am simultaneously pleased and appalled - pleased at the accuracy of our war gaming and appalled that it was ignored.

"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 inflamed 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."