July 16, 2003


1) The Iraqi Army would fight much harder to defend its country than it did in Kuwait.

Most Iraqi soldiers deserted at the first opportunity, having no desire to defend the Ba'ath National Socialist regime.

2) Iraq is not Afghanistan - it will take half a million American troops and at least six months to capture Baghdad, resulting in 50,000 American casualties (of which approximately 10,000 would be deaths).

As with the earlier "Afghanistan is not Iraq" prediction, this one likewise failed to materialize. It took half that number of American troops, less than a third as much time, and a tiny fraction of that casualty estimate.

3) Iraq will draw Israel into the war, leading to a larger Middle East conflagration.

Didn't happen.

4) There would be massive resistance from the Iraqi population defending their country from invasion.

Hardly anyone lifted a finger to defend the Ba'ath National Socialist Regime. Aside from the Republican Guard, Special Republican Guard, Ba'athist thugs, and foreign volunteers, the bulk of the population simply stayed out of the way.
Even now, if one looks at the pattern of attacks, they are by and large restricted to a region north and west of Baghdad, where Saddam drew his greatest support, and carried out by Ba'athist death squads (typically the same sort of people who were used to terrorize the Iraqi population) and foreign auxiliaries from other Arab states. The vast majority of the Iraqi population, rather than supporting these attacks, are mainly concerned that we end them and produce security.

5) There would be street by street, house to house fighting in Baghdad that would destroy the city, cost thousands of American casualties, and drag on for six weeks or more.

Didn't happen that way.

Read the whole thing. Porphyrogenitus asks: "Is it proper to characterize these as 'lies'? Or were they just, *ahem* 'intelligence' failures on the part of those who issued these pre-war warnings?" I demand a Congressional investigation!