In 1999 the Pentagon had done a secret war simulation on what would happen if the United States invaded and took over Iraq. The simulation showed that at minimum 400,000 troops would be needed, and even with that many, the country might still slip into chaos. Rumsfeld and Bush did not even listen to his own advisers—no he probably told them to shut up actually—when they were telling him he needed more troops. Here’s the quandry Bush faced in 2002, though. How could he get more troops? His actions and rhetoric in 2002 about Iraq were not getting the full support needed—but then again, we know he was using Iraq as a political tool for both the 2002 election and the upcoming 2004 presidential election. He wanted to be perceived as a war president who could fight enemies abroad. He really didn’t care if he didn’t have enough troops. So what else did the war games simulation show?

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:

1 “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.”

2 “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.”

3 “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.”

4 “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.”

5 “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.”

6 “A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners.”

Hmmm, what a lot of us who criticized the war from the beginning said. The Pentagon’s own said even before we said it! How ’bout that!

Do y’all still need yet more evidence of the ineptitude of the Bush Administration and Republican leadership in the Congress? VOTE THEM OUT!