“Islamic Militants Bloody US Forces In Big Army Wargame”

This is full of interesting things.

What should the takeaways be? Are we paying attention? How much stock should we put in wargames?

Commentary, please.


  1. UltimaRatioRegis says:
  2. Matt says:

    Maybe they could add in the Army and Marines to the AirSea Battle Concept. Maybe call it something unusual like AirLandSea? Taking sea ports is one of the reasons we had the navy and Marine Corps to begin with. We also had Sea Bees to rapidly build port facilities just as we had units to rapidly build airfields. Guess it is time to go back to the basics.

  3. UltimaRatioRegis says:

    Matt, that's not very transformational. -2 internets for you!!!

  4. DaveO says:

    Can't we just fire the OpFor CG like we did a few years ago. America always wins, even when it has to rig a wargame.

    • UltimaRatioRegis says:

      You mean when Van Riper handed them their asses in Millenium Challenge?

      Indeed. Legislating the winning of wars by changing game rules.

      • DaveO says:

        It works quite well.

        It's like having the cheat code for all one's PS2 games.

  5. Matt says:

    I fully understand going back to the basics our Armed Forces were once the uncontested experts is not in keeping with current trends. Maybe they could call it Retrotransformational, put it on thirty PP slides and move forward.

    Winning by changing the rules is probably what future conflict will always be about. There is nothing that says current and future enemies are required to play by our rules. The big rules, Treaties of Westphalia, Geneva Conventions etc have already become obsolete and are routinely ignored by everyone except the score keepers.