Washington D.C., February 14, 2007 - The U.S. Central Command's war plan for invading Iraq postulated in August 2002 that the U.S. would have only 5,000 troops left in Iraq as of December 2006, according to the Command's PowerPoint briefing slides, which were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and are posted on the Web today by the National Security Archive (www.nsarchive.org).

The PowerPoint slides, prepared by CentCom planners for Gen. Tommy Franks under code name POLO STEP, for briefings during 2002 for President Bush, the NSC, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the JCS, and Franks' commanders, refer to the "Phase IV" post-hostilities period as "UNKNOWN" and "months" in duration, but assume that U.S. forces would be almost completely "re-deployed" out of Iraq within 45 months of the invasion (i.e. December 2006).

"Completely unrealistic assumptions about a post-Saddam Iraq permeate these war plans," said National Security Archive Executive Director Thomas Blanton. "First, they assumed that a provisional government would be in place by 'D-Day', then that the Iraqis would stay in their garrisons and be reliable partners, and finally that the post-hostilities phase would be a matter of mere 'months'. All of these were delusions."

The PowerPoint slides reflect the continuous debate over the size of the invasion force that took place within the Bush administration. In late November 2001, President Bush asked Rumsfeld about the status of plans for war with Iraq. He asked for an updated approach, but did not want to attract attention. Rumsfeld ordered Gen. Franks to prepare a commander's estimate of improvements needed, and Franks convened a planning group that adopted the codeword POLO STEP.

POLO STEP was a coded compartment created during the Clinton administration to encompass covert Iraq and counter-terrorism plans and activities. In the mid-1990s, the compartment specifically included the targeting of Osama bin Laden. Following the September 11 attacks, CentCom, among other military and national security components, used the designation to cover planning for the war in Iraq. (Note 1)

In mid-2002, military analyst William Arkin obtained a leaked copy of a briefing on the Iraq plans and revealed the existence of POLO STEP in an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times (June 23, 2002, p. M1). According to Arkin, the revelation unleashed the fury of Gen. Franks and Secretary Rumsfeld who immediately ordered a probe of the leak that lasted until the end of 2003 and subjected more than 1,000 military and contractor personnel to sometimes repeated questioning. (Note 2)

The slides in this Web posting are a compilation reflecting various iterations in war planning. The U.S. government maintains plans for conflict with a multitude of possible adversaries. The contingency operating plan for Iraq--OPLAN 1003-98--had last been fully reviewed in 1996 and was updated in 1998. It envisioned an invasion force of more than 380,000 troops. Former CentCom commander Gen. Anthony Zinni (who saw gaps in the plan--particularly in regard to the post-war order) organized a war game--Desert Crossing--in 1999 to examine additional contingencies.

Under pressure from Secretary Rumsfeld for a leaner force (according to accounts in books by Michael Gordon/Bernard Trainor, Thomas Ricks, and Bob Woodward), Zinni's successor, Gen. Franks, reduced the number to 275,000 in the commander's estimate he gave to President Bush on December 28, 2001. During the course of 2002 alternative versions of the plan were developed reflecting various assumptions about levels of allied support--"robust", "reduced", or "unilateral"--and about the amount of lead time available between the order to invade and the deployment of forces. Under the Generated Start option Bush would have provided CentCom with 30 days notice for war, and 60 days to deploy. Following Rumsfeld's mandate to reduce deployment time to prepare for any contingency, Franks developed the alternative Running Start option: conflict would begin with escalating Red, White, and Blue air strikes followed by ground war as troops were deployed. By mid-August 2002 a Hybrid concept had been developed--the U.S. military would quickly mobilize forces in the region, initiate an air strike campaign, then launch a ground invasion.

One account written after the war points out a basic problem with the concept of scaled-down ground forces - a "contradiction" between ends and means (Michael R. Gordon & Gen. Bernard Trainor, Cobra II, pp. 503-504):

"Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Tommy Franks spent most of their time and energy on the least demanding task - defeating Saddam's weakened conventional forces - and the least amount on the most demanding - rehabilitation of and security for the new Iraq. The result was a surprising contradiction. The United States did not have nearly enough troops to secure the hundreds of suspected WMD sites that had supposedly been identified in Iraq or to secure the nation's long, porous borders. Had the Iraqis possessed WMD and terrorist groups been prevalent in Iraq as the Bush administration so loudly asserted, U.S. forces might well have failed to prevent the WMD from being spirited out of the country and falling into the hands of the dark forces the administration had declared war against."

In the end, Secretary of State Colin Powell and British Prime Minister Tony Blair persuaded President Bush that the U.S. needed to go to the U.N. to try to legitimize the invasion. Diplomatic efforts over the next few months allowed more time for war preparations and the final option embraced by Rumsfeld - Lt. Gen. David McKiernan's Cobra II - was closer to Generated Start, the original plan, than the various iterations that were subsequently developed and are reflected in the declassified PowerPoint slides.

Lt. Gen. McKiernan later told Washington Post reporter Thomas Ricks (Fiasco, p. 75):

"It's quite frustrating the way this works, but the way we do things nowadays is combatant commanders brief their products in PowerPoint up in Washington to OSD and Secretary of Defense... In lieu of an order, or a frag [fragmentary] order, or plan, you get a set of PowerPoint slides... [T]hat is frustrating, because nobody wants to plan against PowerPoint slides."

Retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich told Ricks (Fiasco, pp. 75-76) that PowerPoint war planning was the ultimate insult:

"Here may be the clearest manifestation of OSD's [Office of Secretary of Defense] contempt for the accumulated wisdom of the military profession and of the assumption among forward thinkers that technology -- above all information technology -- has rendered obsolete the conventions traditionally governing the preparation and conduct of war. To imagine that PowerPoint slides can substitute for such means is really the height of recklessness."

National Security Archive senior analyst Joyce Battle asked the U.S. Army under the FOIA in 2004 for documents related to the 2001-2003 debates over troop levels for the Iraq war. In response, the Army referred the request to Central Command in 2005; and CentCom responded to the FOIA request in January 2007 with the declassified PowerPoint slides. The slides were compiled at CentCom with tabs labeled "A" through "L" (one slide is unlabeled). The Web posting today reproduces the documents as they were released by CentCom, together with additional items prepared by the National Security Archive: a brief chronology of Iraq war planning based on secondary sources, a glossary of military acronyms (essential for translating the otherwise cryptic references on the slides), and an introduction written by Ms. Battle.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB214/index.htm
If military action against Iran is to be pursued, what would make sure that the post war planning for Iran would be better than that for Iraq?

What geo-political similarities and differences could make the approach needed the same or different?

Does this strengthen the argument for a more multi-national approach?

Can the US, UK etc afford another deployment in Iran as well as Afghanistan & Iraq?

Can the US, UK etc afford another deployment in Iran as well as Afghanistan & Iraq?

You gutless idiots on the left don't have a fn clue do you. let me spell it out for you. We don't need to INVADE Iran. NO FN TROOPS WITHIN THEIR BORDERS. Get that through your thick pea brained skulls. The action against Iran will be all air to destroy their nuke facilities.

And if Bush can find his balls we will also carpet bomb Republican Guard facilities and all other military installations. NO FN INVASION, GET IT!!!

And WTF do you think this troop surge is all about you Einstiens? It's to protect the Iraq border from Iranian invasion after our air attacks.
Sorry to give you a burst of reality here. You may now reenter your fantasy world.

If military action (not neccesarily an invasion by definition) against Iran is to be pursued, what would make sure that the post war planning for Iran would be better than that for Iraq?

What geo-political similarities and differences could make the approach needed the same or different?

Does this strengthen the argument for a more multi-national approach?

Can the US, UK etc afford another deployment in Iran as well as Afghanistan & Iraq?

I asked
You replied (in your own cute, rabid neo con way)

"Do not invade when you are militarily overstretched elsewhere. Win your battles one at a time"
I then asked
You replied

"The nuclear facilities that Iran have are easily targeted by an air campaign which could reduce the need to commit troops to the ground as a first step" Then you ranted about flattening the whole place while we're at it and I chose to ignore you at that point before you started talking about "turning the whole ###### region to glass"
I pondered
You did not reply, but appear to think it is taken for granted that only the US has the balls to do anything

Finally I posed
And you replied

"No, airstrikes are our best option at the moment, but we'll need to make sure that the security situation in Iraq is as good as we can make it before going ahead"

I thank you for your input and greatly appreciate the time you took to add a comedic slant to it.

I did not make those "replies". It appears you took my advice and retreated to your own little delusional fantasy world. Just as I expected. You just keep listening to those voices in your head...........

Now lets try this again. And take your meds before you reply..............

Do you think it is acceptable for Iran to possess nuclear weapons?

Huhh.You have to make allowances for the fact that he's a yank.They tend to be a bit slow on the uptake.But ###### can they eat.

Quick, someone let CNN know, Nomad has inside info!!!

Last Updated: Monday, 19 February 2007, 23:26 GMT

US 'Iran attack plans' revealed

USS John C Stennis is being deployed to the Persian Gulf
US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.
It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.

The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment.

The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions.

But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran.

That list includes Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list, the sources say.

Huhh.You have to make allowances for the fact that he's a yank.They tend to be a bit slow on the uptake.But ###### can they eat.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source hem·or·rhoid (hěm'ə-roid') Pronunciation Key
n.
An itching or painful mass of dilated veins in swollen anal tissue.
hemorrhoids The pathological condition in which such painful masses occur. Also called Piles.

Not inside info, just alot more years under my belt in addition to smarts and commen sense you will never come close to possessing...........................

Does this sound familiar...............
Full Article

Just love the way you libs are so intent on proving your terminal ignorance.

And WTF do you think this troop surge is all about you Einstiens? It's to protect the Iraq border from Iranian invasion after our air attacks.

It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres. ...

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.

Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.

as a fallback plan

VonPiles

Sounds about right to me.................................

So now you are saying that you did say it would be airstrikes?

Make up your mind! What's it to be - invasion or airstrikes?



So you are now saying that the above comment is correct and the President has lied about the real reason for requesting additional troops.

For the last time dipsh1t - no one was asking whether there would be military action, just what form it should take.

To just respond "we're gonna flatten the whole ######ing place" just shows that ou may have thought about the potential targets but not about the consequences that attacking each one may have.

After all, will there be much point in blowing it all in one "shock and awe" type attack that may do little more than to bolster a currently restless population behind a currently fragile Government (Iran in case you missed that point) and acting as a further focus for the wider fundamentalist islamic world. That could increase incursions into Iraq from Iran, Syria, Jordan etc forcing the hand of the allies into invading Iran etc before they are ready and/or Iraq is 'stable'.

Surely keeping the targets to nuclear ones helps retain some of the moral highground whereas attacking other infrastructure gives fuel to those who want to argue that the US is acting purely out pf agression rather than just stopping Iran getting nuclear weapons.



A little bit off saying that the attack is about to happen. Every country maintains plans for military action against its most likely adversaries (we have plans detailing targets etc for another Falklands war. Does not mean that we will be fighting the Argies any time soon though.)

I am sure there are plans saying what targets could be attacked
but what targets are likely to be attacked? Would the US risk expanding the conflict outside its current theatre by attacking anything other than 'legitimate' nuclear targets?

There really is no fool like an old fool.

You gutless idiots on the left don't have a fn clue do you. let me spell it out for you. We don't need to INVADE Iran. NO FN TROOPS WITHIN THEIR BORDERS. Get that through your thick pea brained skulls. The action against Iran will be all air to destroy their nuke facilities. And if Bush can find his balls we will also carpet bomb Republican Guard facilities and all other military installations. NO FN INVASION, GET IT!!!
And WTF do you think this troop surge is all about you Einstiens? It's to protect the Iraq border from Iranian invasion after our air attacks.
Sorry to give you a burst of reality here. You may now reenter your fantasy world.

Ok, @sswipe. I'm gonna give you a mulligan here. My post that you keep referring to..........
Now get your script refilled so as to come back with some sort of coherent response here. And do try to reply to MY post. If you ignore those voices in your head you should be able to do this.

Doh!!

So you DO agree that any military action should be restricted to airstrikes then? I think we agree on that.

You obviously think that it will be a good idea that these airstrikes include targets other than the nuclear infrastructure of Iran. I believe we should stick to their nuclear infrastructure for now.

Do you not see any issues with that (hitting targets other than nuclear ones)? No possibility that it may lead to a greater escalation than we may be able to deal with?

Do you genuinely believe that the troop surge is about protecting the border against Iranian invasion? AFAIK, it has been requested to combat sectarian violence.

Doh!!

So you DO agree that any military action should be restricted to airstrikes then? I think we agree on that.

......

Your ignoring the Isreali's.They are not going to sit by idly waiting for something to happen.I'll bet you a pound to a bag of dog ###### that they will go in first and flatten any Iranian nuclear facilities.Which in the long run will make little difference.The Iranians will have a nuke 2 years at the latest either from North Korea or former comcon's.Then we can all kiss our #####'s goodbye.There is too much hatred against the West out there,all we can do is buy time.This will sound very defeatist to our so called American partners but guess what?You ######ed up again.

That's almost stereotypical. Leftist wants to blow 'em up with thousands of bombs from 8 miles high, and condemn the "MURDERING IMPERIALISTS" the first time one misses its target by 12 feet or is 12 seconds late when a 12 year old walked by the target. I think we agree that will be your condemnation. Americans are the devil with few exceptions in your posts, no matter the situation or consequence.

That doesn't make you the enemy, but certainly doesn't make you useful or even helpful. You're the person pointing at the bodies while screaming hysterically 'I know nothing, nothing' every time you have a tear jerked.

Actually, its more about how the only military action we are able to take while troops are still tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan is airstrikes. Invading Iran and/or regime change may be the only long term solution, but I am yet to be convinced how a deployment of troops to Iran is advisable at the moment.

By calling me a leftist you have shown more about your political leanings than mine. In the UK, I actually vote Conservative.

Show me where I have made the Americans to be the devils!!

Collateral damage happens in all bombing campaigns and I have not screamed about any of them. I do have an issue with the treatment of LCoH Hull's family by the MoD and DoD and the way ustrader tried to make a point by claiming that a UK court marshall was politically motivated, but that does not mean I do not accept colletral damage.

Gosh, why do you hate America so very much? Of he, or thee do thou speak, in the procreate of the breed, in both fit and in creed?

Of he, or thee do thou speak, in the procreate of the breed, in both fit and in creed?

So you're saying you hate America more than humanly possible?

If one cannot, in capability answer a question honestly, pose another to disguise the dishonesty is of course the only alternative to the emptiness of both naught and nay in that no choice alternative.

So you really hate America?
A lot?

I think Iran with 90% Shiite, wouldnt really be compareable to Iraq, as long as we are playing??...Saturday evening quarterback. Iraq was ruled by the Sunni arabs who only made up 15% of the population. If we are going to take out the current regime in Iran with military force, I would probably vote for doing so primarily from the air and letting the Iranians sort out its replacement.

Wow Traitor, just move to Antartica you commie pig!



Try as the silly child would try, it cannot demise in this neophyte of inane diatribe so clear in self-reproach to its own surprise.

Sorry, not on your best day or hour ever. But try if you must even in this self shame of a hernia’s truss.



baa! Klang

And you hate black people? You just don't know how funny that is.

And dwarves?


My God, man!

God, you say,

So long as we have a Commander in Chief worth the name, youall can prattle. God help us if that should change.
Bean

You should scare them. One overdose of success on their part and hundreds of millions of Americans just like you will demand we nuke all of them....just for a start. Then your (probably younger) buddies will go mop up.

We will have killed and maimed hundreds of millions of bad guys and dumb guys...but also innocent babies and children.

Sir, I personally fear your ilk. Do you come for me next, because I tried to be merciful?
See, you are meaner than I choose to be...but I am smarter...much smarter. Who would win...and what difference would it make? We both have to answer to God.

KenBean, isn't it helpful when somebody like Nomad states an extreme case, so that we can all distance ourself from it?