http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18831193/
"Intelligence analysts predicted, in secret papers circulated within the government before the Iraq invasion, that al-Qaida would see U.S. military action as an opportunity to increase its operations and that Iran would try to shape a post-Saddam Iraq.
"The top analysts in government also said that establishing a stable democracy in Iraq would be a 'long, difficult and probably turbulent process.'
...
"Among other conclusions, the analysts found:
"-Establishing a stable democracy in Iraq would be a long, steep and probably turbulent challenge. They said that contributions could be made by 4 million Iraqi exiles and Iraq's impoverished, underemployed middle class. But they noted that opposition parties would need sustained economic, political and military support.
...
"-Groups in Iraq's deeply divided society would become violent, unless stopped by the occupying force. 'Score settling would occur throughout Iraq between those associated with Saddam's regime and those who have suffered most under it,' one report stated.
"-Iraq's neighbors would jockey for influence and Iranian leaders would try to shape the post-Saddam era to demonstrate Tehran's importance in the region. The less Tehran felt threatened by U.S. actions, the analysts said, 'the better the chance that they could cooperate in the postwar period.'
"-Postwar Iraq would face significant economic challenges, having few resources beyond oil. Analysts predicted that Iraq's large petroleum resources would make economic reconstruction easier, but they didn't anticipate that continued fighting and sabotage would drag down oil production.
"-Military action to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction would not cause other governments in the region to give up such programs."
So, I ask you now, was it all really worth it? Was it really worth nearly 3500 U.S. military lives? The Bush administration knew the consequences but seemingly lacked concern and failed to react.
Originally posted by wittywonkaBush has said since day one that this war on terror/iraq/who ever gets in the way... would take a long long time. What he did not know was that the american people are a bunch of pussies who can not stand to see someone die... so those who could care less about death will win everytime.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18831193/
"[b]Intelligence analysts predicted, in secret papers circulated within the government before the Iraq invasion, that al-Qaida would see U.S. military action as an opportunity to increase its operations and that Iran would try to shape a post-Saddam Iraq.
"The top analysts in government also said that est [b]The Bush administration knew the consequences but failed to react.[/b] [/b]
Originally posted by lepomisWe invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003.
Bush has said since day one that this war on terror/iraq/who ever gets in the way... would take a long long time. What he did not know was that the american people are a bunch of pussies who can not stand to see someone die... so those who could care less about death will win everytime.
Bush delivered his "Mission Accomplished" speech on May 1, 2003.
Apparently, Bush did not think the war would take multiple years.
Originally posted by lepomisAs much as I hate his speeches and how he gets all dreamy eyed when he talks about democracy setting people free, he has been right about this being a generation long conflict.
Bush has said since day one that this war on terror/iraq/who ever gets in the way... would take a long long time. What he did not know was that the american people are a bunch of pussies who can not stand to see someone die... so those who could care less about death will win everytime.
You have a pretty good summary there. Basically, OBL was right, we don't have the guts.
The report in this thread looks like a normal CIA paper trying to cover all the potential pitfalls in a brief summary. The problem with these reports, is that there's very little explanation as to why they have come to these conclusions.
Also, it wasn't just the administration that new Iraq could be ugly. There was a lot of people all around the world that were saying that.
Originally posted by MerkI'm just stuck on the fact that the CIA itself told the Bush administration that it would be a terrible decision. The administration could have easily dismissed other predictions as speculation, but the fact that he ignored "expert" CIA analysts' predictions, even if they were somewhat vague, just angers me even more.
As much as I hate his speeches and how he gets all dreamy eyed when he talks about democracy setting people free, he has been right about this being a generation long conflict.
You have a pretty good summary there. Basically, OBL was right, we don't have the guts.
The report in this thread looks like a normal CIA paper trying to cover all the potential new Iraq could be ugly. There was a lot of people all around the world that were saying that.
Originally posted by wittywonkaAlmost anytime the CIA delivers a paper to policy makers, it tries to cover all aspects and possibilities. They assign a person, or a team of people to write "the other side". These are presented sometimes presented separately or highlighted within the main report.
I'm just stuck on the fact that the CIA itself told the Bush administration that it would be a terrible decision. The administration could have easily dismissed other predictions as speculation, but the fact that he ignored "expert" CIA analysts' predictions, even if they were somewhat vague, just angers me even more.
What's important is to realize that these are not the official CIA estimates. The CIA had written a report titled. "The Perfect Storm: Planning for Negative Consequences of Invading Iraq." (not sure if that's what your post is from) This However, was not the official NIE. (National Intelligence Estimate) In fact, Goerge Tenet (CIA director at the time) says in his memoirs that "Had we felt strongly that these were outcomes, we should have shouted our conclusions. There was, in fact, no screaming, no table pounding. Instead, we said these were WORST CASE. We also, quite accurately labeled them scenarios."
Not all contingencies can be seen or planned for. I happen to fault the administration for not being more prepared for an insurgency, but this CIA paper means very little.
Originally posted by wittywonkaThat's the way the current administration has always been. Dismissive. Awesomely arrogant. Contemptuous of all who don't toe the neo-con party line. It's breathtaking, really. Largely a reflection of Bush's "faith-based" approach to everything, it would seem.
I'm just stuck on the fact that the CIA itself told the Bush administration that it would be a terrible decision. The administration could have easily dismissed other predictions as speculation, but the fact that he ignored "expert" CIA analysts' predictions, even if they were somewhat vague, just angers me even more.