"Operation Desert Crossing"

GWU's invaluable National Security Archive rounds up documents related to the 1999 "Operation Desert Crossing" war game here. Casual fans will probably want to read this after action report briefing the full report fleshes out some details, but doesn't seem to me to introduce a ton of extra material and the miscellaneous emails are fun.

Scanning some of the reportage on these documents, one thing that I think often isn't being made clear is that the "Desert Crossing" scenarios were assuming the presence of some kind of crisis to prompt US military intervention -- either the collapse of Saddam's regime due to internal factors, an imminent Iraqi threat to a regional ally, or something else along those lines. This isn't a "how to" guide for an unprovoked American invasion, it's an effort to find the best possible way to cope with a difficult situation. Note that it's not very optimistic that the more far-reaching American goals are achievable. They say an Arab coalition will be necessary to have legitimacy in the area, but that such a coalition will make it hard and/or impossible to sustain a long-term American military presence or the establishment of a democracy. They also say it'll be vital to secure Iranian cooperation, perhaps through lifting sanctions, and certainly not that a post-Saddam Iraq could be used as a base for launching anti-Iranian initiatives.

Comments

What I found interesting:

Suggested Criteria for Success
-- Destruction of Iraq's WMD Capabilities [Al comments: HUH??? WHAT??? Iraq had WMD??? Why is Zinni lying to us??? In any case, count this as a "success".]
-- Incorporation/elimination of Repblican Guard in Iraqi Army [Al comments: I don't quite understand this bullet, but the Republican Guard has been eliminated. Again, count this as a "success".]
-- Stabilized and growing oil economy [Al comments: the oil business is "stabile" but not growing; the economy overall is growing. Again, count this as a "success".]
-- Government with respect for international obligations and norms [Al comments - this is somewhat true now. The Shiite militias are a problem and undermine the government's respect for international norms. Count this as a "partial success".]

So, by Zinni's four success critera, we have been succful on three-and-a-half. I'm sure that's why all the Zinni-lovers now say it is a failure.

Posted by Al | November 5, 2006 3:36 PM

You write:

"...the "Desert Crossing" scenarios were assuming the presence of some kind of crisis to prompt US military intervention... This isn't a "how to" guide for an unprovoked American invasion, it's an effort to find the best possible way to cope with a difficult situation."

This assumption would of course have an important impact on the mission's chance of success because it to some degree provides "legitimacy" for American military action.

If military intervention was truly a reaction to outside events - a la the first Gulf War - it's chances of success would have increased exponentially due to a perception of legitimacy both at home and in the region (i.e. "We had no choice").

Even under these more favorable moral circumstances, the war games predicted failure was likely. Having quite clearly CHOSEN war - denying ourselves any of legitimacy's force multiplying power - the Administration made failure nearly inevitable. Factor in the forsaking of our moral authority via Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and American torture, and you can subtract the "nearly" from the previous sentence.

Children playing in a sandbox. But lord, what a sandbox.

Posted by Will | November 5, 2006 3:45 PM

Al, you are a funny guy. Did you notice that three of those bullet points were already in place pre-invasion; the oil economy was stable (and better off than it is now), Iraq's WMD capacities were eliminated, and the Republican Guard was incorporated into the government? Respect for international obligations and norms, not so much, but OTOH at least Saddam had a government rather than a civil war.

Posted by Matt Weiner | November 5, 2006 5:00 PM

Al, I don't think you should interlard quotes with comments. From the quality and predictability, I assumed someone was spoofing you.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 5, 2006 5:03 PM

Though the main point is the mind-blowing intellectual dishonesty it takes to ignore the ethnosectarian slaughter when gauging succcess in Iraq. I'm guessing that Zinni thought "no descent into civil war" kind of went without saying as a criterion for success, you know.

Posted by Matt Weiner | November 5, 2006 5:03 PM

Slightly OT, but still: as much as I love your site, Matt, I find the google-ads keep telling me I should invest in the Iraqi Dinar slightly irritating

Posted by novakant | November 5, 2006 5:32 PM

Matt, I find the google-ads keep telling me I should invest in the Iraqi Dinar slightly irritating

You say "slightly irritating" I say "a great investment opportunity." Thanks, advertisers.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | November 5, 2006 5:45 PM

Al, please, i realize that barcelona is having a rough time of it with Eto out, but there's no excuse for playing the wmd game; the remainder of your comments are the kind of hopeless dissociation from reality that has helped create the mess we're in.

that is to say, no, we didn't either destroy the Republican Guard or incorporate it into the military; no, there isn't a stable and growing oil economy; and no, there is no functional government at all.

Posted by howard | November 5, 2006 7:55 PM

But Saddam's WMD capabilities are totally history, howard. Give it up for Bush!

Posted by Matt Weiner | November 5, 2006 9:23 PM