The Rag Blog

Washington D.C., November 4, 2006 – In late April 1999, the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), led by Marine General Anthony Zinni (ret.), conducted a series of war games known as Desert Crossing in order to assess potential outcomes of an invasion of Iraq aimed at unseating Saddam Hussein. The documents posted here today covered the initial pre-war game planning phase from April-May 1999 through the detailed after-action reporting of June and July 1999.

The Desert Crossing war games, which amounted to a feasibility study for part of the main war plan for Iraq — OPLAN 1003-98 — tested “worst case” and “most likely” scenarios of a post-war, post-Saddam, Iraq. The After Action Report presented its recommendations for further planning regarding regime change in Iraq and was an interagency production assisted by the departments of defense and state, as well as the National Security Council, and the Central Intelligence Agency, among others.

The results of Desert Crossing, however, drew pessimistic conclusions regarding the immediate possible outcomes of such action. Some of these conclusions are interestingly similar to the events which actually occurred after Saddam was overthrown. (Note 1) 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.

The Desert Crossing report was similarly pessimistic when discussing the nature of a new Iraqi government. If the U.S. were to establish a transitional government, it would likely encounter difficulty, some groups discussed, from a “period of widespread bloodshed in which various factions seek to eliminate their enemies.” The report stressed that the creation of a democratic government in Iraq was not feasible, but a new pluralistic Iraqi government which included nationalist leaders might be possible, suggesting that nationalist leaders were a stabilizing force. Moreover, the report suggested that the U.S. role be one in which it would assist Middle Eastern governments in creating the transitional government for Iraq.

An emerging issue has made its way into the U.S. election campaign in recent weeks: the possibility of partitioning Iraq as a way out of the deepening quagmire there.

Politicians of both parties have increasingly cited the idea of dividing Iraq into three distinct entities — Shiite, Sunni Arab, and Kurd — as an option that should be seriously considered. For some Republicans, it has become a way to separate themselves from President Bush’s unpopular Iraq policy; for some Democrats, it has been a way to avoid the “cut and run” label and suggest an alternative to the current course.

But few of these candidates seem attuned to the dangerous shoals of religion, national identity and geopolitics in the area, on which the United States and its regional allies could well founder.

In Washington state last week, Mike McGavick, the Republican running for the U.S. Senate who trails badly in the polls, aired a new campaign ad that stated, “President Bush isn’t getting our frustrations — partition the country if we have to, and get our troops home in victory.” Since 60 percent of Washington voters disapprove of President Bush’s handling of the war, and a majority want U.S. troops out of Iraq yesterday, McGavick’s decision to buck his own party’s leadership, which has stayed relentlessly on point on this issue, may not be totally surprising.

Amnesty International has condemned the death sentences handed to Saddam Hussein and two of his senior allies, describing their trial as a “shabby affair, marred by serious flaws”.

The London-based human rights group — which opposes capital punishment — said the trial should have helped the process of establishing justice and the rule of law in Iraq but was in fact “deeply flawed and unfair”.

“This trial should have been a major contribution towards establishing justice and the rule of law in Iraq, and in ensuring truth and accountability for the massive human rights violations perpetrated by Saddam Hussein’s rule,” said Malcolm Smart, director of the Middle East and North Africa programme.

The bankrupt bush administration seems to be planning a little surprise before the mid-term elections. It seems that there are serious preparations to announce saddam’s death verdict tomorrow or the day after in a pathetic attempt to manufacture a small victory in Iraq to effect the mid-term elections. After 16 years of wars, sanctions, invasions and an ongoing occupation, the only victories that the bush gang is still celebrating in Iraq, after capture of the former ally and showing him in his underwear, is executing him now.

A BBC investigation can reveal that the US and UK military have continued to use depleted uranium weapons despite warnings from scientists that it poses a potential long-term cancer risk to civilians.

A former senior scientist with the United Nations has told the BBC that studies showing that it was carcinogenic were suppressed from a seminal World Health Organisation report. The US has refused to fund major research and has been criticised for failing to cooperate with UN attempts to conduct a post conflict assessment in Iraq.

Angus Stickler reports:

When depleted uranium bullets are fired, the rounds can rip through the tank armour. And once inside – on contact with air they combust exploding into a 10,000 degrees centigrade ball of fire.

Both the US and UK used depleted uranium in Iraq. The US fired 320 tons in Gulf War I – and possibly as much as 2,000 tonnes in Gulf War II. But its use is highly controversial – blamed as one of the possible causes of cancer and birth defects. It’s this that prompted the United Nations’ World Health Organisation to conduct a major assessment of the post conflict hazards. The findings were published in 2001. Dr Mike Repacholi retired as the Coordinator of the W.H.O. Radiation and Environmental Health Unit in June of this year. He oversaw the project.

Dr. Keith Baverstock – now retired – was a senior radiation advisor with 12 years experience at the W.H.O – part of Dr Repacholi’s editorial team at the time. He came across research indicating that depleted uranium is a potentially dangerous carcinogen:

A US government agency that has exposed corruption in Iraqi reconstruction projects will close in 2007.

Washington lawmakers have reacted with shock at the discovery that an obscure clause in a military spending bill will terminate the work of the auditor.

The Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has embarrassed the US administration with its reports on corrupt practices.

Critics of the government claim this is what lies behind its sudden closure.

Dogged investigator

Under the direction of Special Inspector General Stuart Bowen, the Office employs 55 auditors and inspectors.

His office has detailed successes among the many reconstruction projects, such as in the rebuilding of infrastructure essential for transport and education.

However, critics of President George W Bush’s Iraq policy seized on the auditor’s conclusion that the overall $20bn (£11.5bn) reconstruction effort was being hampered by inefficiency as well as attacks by insurgents.

The auditor recently reported that a subsidiary of Halliburton, the largest US civilian contractor in Iraq, had withheld information from US officials.

By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer Sat Nov 4, 11:29 AM ET

WASHINGTON – A leading conservative proponent of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq now says dysfunction within the Bush administration has turned U.S. policy there into a disaster.

Richard Perle, who chaired a committee of Pentagon policy advisers early in the Bush administration, said had he seen at the start of the war in 2003 where it would go, he probably would not have advocated an invasion to depose Saddam Hussein. Perle was an assistant secretary of defense under President Reagan.

“I probably would have said, ‘Let’s consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists,'” he told Vanity Fair magazine in its upcoming January issue.

Meanwhile, the Military Times Media Group, a Gannett Co. subsidiary that publishes Army Times and other military-oriented periodicals, said Friday it was calling for Bush to fire Rumsfeld. An editorial due to be published Monday says active-duty military leaders are beginning to voice misgivings about the war’s planning and execution and dimming prospects for success. It declares that “Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large.”

The editorial concludes by saying that regardless of which party wins in next week’s election, the time has come “to face the hard bruising truth: Donald Rumsfeld must go.”

The third and final act in the national tragedy that is the Bush administration may soon play itself out. The Okhrana reports increasing indications of “something big” happening between the election and Christmas. That could be the long-planned attack on Iran.

An attack on Iran will not be an invasion with ground troops. We don’t have enough of those left to invade Ruritania. It will be a “package” of air and missile strikes, by U.S. forces or Israel. If Israel does it, there is a possibility of nuclear weapons being employed. But Israel would prefer the U.S. to do the dirty work.

That this would constitute folly piled on top of folly is no deterrent to the Bush administration. Like the French Bourbons, it forgets nothing and it learns nothing. It takes pride in not adapting. Or did you somehow miss George W. Bush’s declaration of Presidential Infallibility? It followed shortly after the visit to the aircraft carrier with the “Mission Accomplished” sign.

The Democrats taking either or both Houses of Congress, if it happens, will not make any difference. They would rather have the Republicans start and lose another war than prevent a national disaster. Politics comes first and the country second.

Many of the consequences of a war with Iran are easy to imagine. Oil would soar to at least $200 per barrel if we could get it. Gas shortages would bring back the gas lines of 1973 and 1979. Our European alliances would be stretched to the breaking point if not beyond it. Most people outside the Bushbubble can see all this coming.