An issue or two back, _Commentary_ had two articles pushing for strikes on Iran . Apparently their ideas arose from the "cakewalk" school of strategic thought.
Kevin Jones | Homepage | 12.21.06 - 2:08 pm | #

Mr. Shea:

The 2002 war game cited in the article actually happened. It caused quite uproar at the time. General Van Ripper was thought by some in the service to have not played by the rules. Most major military war games are not “fee play”. There is a script. There is an expected outcome. The war games can also be quite expensive. What is tested in the war games are the details of the proposed military operation – not the outcome.

Essentially General Van Ripper was saying that our forces are not organized, equipped or trained to fight the current enemy. For instance the USA depends on its sophisticated electronic eaves dropping capability to figure out the enemy’s intentions in advice. General Ripper, playing the enemy, made all of his communications by trusted messenger on motor bikes and kept the US player in the war game in the dark.

I suspect that we are at a military disadvantage in the current struggle because our forces are essentially organized (fleet carries, main battle tanks, heavy bombers etc.) to re-fight WWII.

Merry Christmas to the Shea family.

God bless

Richard W. Comerford
Richard W. Comerford | 12.21.06 - 2:17 pm | #

Am I suppose to take this seriously? Does anyone?
Nick | 12.21.06 - 2:17 pm | #

I participated in similar exercises as an Army officer back in the 1980s. The OPFOR almost always defeats the U.S. forces in these things. Winning is not the objective; the point is to expose our weaknesses and let everyone learn from them.

I thought most exercises were very useful from that standpoint. Of course, I was at a low level and I don't know how seriously the generals took the really big lessons.

Having said that, I think the current CinC has proven he doesn't learn from experience, simulated or real. Facing Iran under his leadership is not a pleasant prospect.
Patrick Watson | Homepage | 12.21.06 - 2:26 pm | #

Mark, your post reminds me of General George McClennen.

Wouldn't move his army one foot unless everything was perfect.
JCL | 12.21.06 - 2:27 pm | #

It was "McClellan", JCL.
Mark P. Shea | Homepage | 12.21.06 - 2:46 pm | #

Mark, you can rest assured that our government would never get us involved in a military conflcit that we couldn't win handily. If you can't trust our government's leaders, whom can you trust?
(Cut to the famous line from Animal House- you remember the one.)
thomas tucker | 12.21.06 - 2:56 pm | #

Mclennen??? Ugh. Stupid brain can't communicate with fingers.
JCL | 12.21.06 - 3:18 pm | #

Every now and then these types of stories come out, a commenter above claimed they were true, if so, fine. Some are, some are not.

Our military is frequently defeated in wargames, but it's done by people who already know our weaknesses, or we handicap ourselves when playing against others, in order not to reveal the true capabilities of our weaponry. This happened recently when the USAF lost a mock air battle against the Indian air force. The USAF was outnumbered and was not using their radar and missiles to the fullest extent.

A few years back I recall a story going around about how the Israelis had trounced our Navy fighter aircraft in a mock wargame as well.

I would not be disturbed by this, at least not much.

I would be more disturbed by the recent news of a Chinese sub found trailing a US carrier fleet in the Pacific, and news of the Taliban fighting in a more advanced manner in Afghanistan.

Besides, I don't think we are going to do anything to Iran. I think the Israelis will do something before we do anything.
ShortRound | 12.21.06 - 3:20 pm | #

I was frequently at a Battle Simulation Center in the 80's. We ran computer war games of varius scenarios, including invasions of Iran, or siezure of key economic targets, (Karg island).

It was common for a scenario to go badly wrong and end with a massive defeat of the friendly forces. they would would then be ressurected--that's the word we used--and continue the scenario.

The next iteration of the scenario would include changes that reflected the failure of the last. It's called learning.

by repeatedly gaming possible conflicts, one learns of theings that could go wrong, and plans for them. No one can anticipate everything, or have every possible contingency planned for.

But by repeatedly gameing every part of a proposed plan, one can find as many weaknesses as possible and plan around them.

In the end, there are two principals that cannot be ignored--a bad plan well executed is better than a perfect plan unimplemented (the McClelland effect) and there is no way of predicting what will actually occuring in what Von Clauswitz called "the fog of war".

When all the pundits and critics, and arm chair generals spend 20-30myears studying military science, and the operational art, then they can speak. Until then, repectivly, you are not competent to comment.

As to the Marine Genral--the Marines are tactically the most competent of the Armed Services. but, again repectfully, they are a subordinate part of the Department of the Navy, and the Navy has dictated their strategic moves for over 200 years.
ignorant-redneck | 12.21.06 - 4:45 pm | #

Pardon the fact that I can niether spell nor type well.
ignorant-redneck | 12.21.06 - 4:46 pm | #

For what it's worth, I think transmitting messages in code via minaret is pretty darn cool.
Sean P. Dailey | Homepage | 12.21.06 - 5:14 pm | #

Sean P.,

Maybe, but the "Midnight Bark" is even better!
Tramp | 12.21.06 - 5:53 pm | #

This is where we should have been fopcused in the first place. But the administration's strategic bumbling has led us into the disater called Iraq.
marines the best tactically??? Not from my experience...Great warriors, but...
Tom | 12.21.06 - 6:03 pm | #

ignorant-redneck:

Nicely said.

Thank you.

Merry Christmas

Richard W. Comerford
Richard W. Comerford | 12.21.06 - 7:34 pm | #

What's disturbing? We should've started bombing Iran months ago.
Sydney Carton | 12.21.06 - 7:36 pm | #

Tom,

Nobody does JAAT (Joint Air Artillery Tactics) better. They own all their assets and are much better at combined arms than anyone. As a soldier it pains me to admit it, but their techniques were studied by the Army.

Where they have problems it is mostly due to their historical missions--they are optimized for the assault, to sieze objectives in relativly short battles or to force an entry onto a battle field or hostile territory.
ignorant-redneck | 12.21.06 - 10:41 pm | #

Right - much better too handle the situtation like the United States did from 1939 - December 7, 1941.
Matt | 12.24.06 - 2:47 pm | #