Rigged war games?

http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2002/08/22/story/0000165104 ^

[Jake0001]

Wargame `fixed' to ensure US victory, general claims

THE GUARDIAN AND AFP

LONDON AND WASHINGTON The biggest war game in US military history, staged this month at a cost of US$253 million with 13,000 troops, was rigged to ensure that the Americans beat their "Middle Eastern" adversaries, according to one of the main participants.

General Paul Van Riper, a retired marine lieutenant-general, told the Army Times that the sprawling three-week millennium challenge exercises, were "almost entirely scripted to ensure a [US] win."

He protested by quitting his role as commander of enemy forces, and warning that the Pentagon might wrongly conclude that its experimental tactics were working.

But the Pentagon has denied it rigged the exercises.

"I actually believe that it was not rigged," Marine Corps General Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday.

"If some people in a particular part of the experiment felt like their life was being controlled more than they would like it to be, that wouldn't surprise me. That happens in every exercise because somebody has to be the object of the other person's experiment."

The massive, three-week Millennium Challenge 2002 exercise involving more than 13,500 US troops, has generated controversy since the retired Marine general who commanded the imaginary opposing force went public with his complaints. Van Riper said when he agreed to command the forces of an unnamed Middle Eastern state -- which bore a strong resemblance to Iraq, but could have been Iran -- he thought he would be given a free rein to probe US weaknesses. But when the game began, he was told to deploy his forces to make life easier for US forces. "We were directed ... to move air defenses so that the army and marine units could successfully land," he said. "We were simply directed to turn [air defense systems] off or move them ... So it was scripted to be whatever the control group wanted it to be." The Army Times reported that, as commander of a low-tech, third-world army, Van Riper appeared to have repeatedly outwitted US forces.

"Instead of a free-play, two-sided game as the joint forces commander advertised it was going to be, it simply became a scripted exercise. They had a predetermined end, and they scripted the exercise to that end," Van Riper said.

Vice-Admiral Marty Mayer, one of the coordinators, denied claims of fixing.

"I want to disabuse anybody of any notion that somehow the books were cooked," he said.

[Jake0001]

I guess the question would be:

Is General Riper a sore loser or pointing out a serious flaw?

[ladtx]

Is General Riper a sore loser or pointing out a serious flaw?

It all depends on the objective of the excercise. If it is to determine tactical or strategic weaknesses he may have a point. If it is a logistical excercise to see how troops and equipment may be moved he may have overstepped his bounds. You can't tell from the article what the objective was.

[Aric2000]

When we played war games back in the 80's, the opfor force followed and was trained in enemy doctrine, and tried to the best of it's ability to follow that doctrine.

Saddam would use a defensive style, whereas we would be offense, he would not probe for weakness, he would lob Scuds at Israel, and hope for reinforcement.

I believe that these games were rigged in the fashion that "what would Saddam do" and he didn't like it!!

[lavaroise]

Oh gees, any fighting exercise does not represent reality, else people would die. Fighting exercises involved the simulation of actions and reactions. So of course the fight is scripted as to who moves first and how the one who is hit first is supposed to react.

[ladtx]

Considering the source of the story I suspect there may be some disengenuousness in the facts to make it look like there is a problem where there is none.

[DK Zimmerman]

The purpose of the experiment, ostensibly, was to prove or disprove the validity of a variety of doctrinal initiatives recently developed by the same headquarters running the experiment, that supported DODs Transformation issues. Additionally, a few pieces of hardware were tried out for the first time.

Van Riper's main point, IMO, is that the games were rigged to "prove" these initiatives, regardless of their validity. I believe he was justified in that claim.

[hchutch]

In a REAL battle, our guys always try to stack the deck. We define a "fair fight" as OUR GUYS COME HOME.

[Centurion2000]

I believe that these games were rigged in the fashion that "what would Saddam do" and he didn't like it!!

Which is why they should let him have a free hand to do what he would. Giving the commander a script can lead to the underestimation of your future enemy's ability.

[TADSLOS]

Sore loser. Wargaming in the professional military sense of the word is all about analyzing the effects of play vs. counter play then developing sound tactics, techniques and procedures based on the outcomes. Military organizations practice this each and every time a tactical plan is developed as part of the military decision making process, time permitting. We don't stop the play just because the OPFOR won. We back up or move on to a new scenario. General Riper let his ego override the commander's intent of the exercise.

[Redcloak]

I disagree. You want a simulation of the enemy at hand, not a copy of your own force. It sounds like Riper wanted to fight like a typical Western commander, not like an Iraqi or Persian commander. A non-Western opponent would be less likely to probe, for example. (Less chance of getting into trouble with your superiors that way!) Thus, they would be more difficult to locate. They would be more likely to break and run. In such a circumstance, a Western force could get over extended in the chase. The non-Western force could then isolate and destroy over-reaching units. You want to simulate these kinds of defensive behaviors in a war game, not aggressive, Western behavior.

[Cicero]

Sore loser. All war games are rigged to a degree, because certain assumptions are made about likely enemy intentions and capabilities. For that reason, real war often comes up with surprises. But what else can you do in a staged exercise? This guy is obviously playing politics. I hope they ease him out of the service for going public with it. He sounds like a clintonoid.

[Gunslingr3]

From other sources I've read the 'Red' team suprised 'Blue' team by using their available small boats and aircraft to attack the CVBG that entered the Persian Gulf. The 'Red' team sunk a sizeable contigent of the 'Blue' forces. In order to have those forces still in the game (and allow them to practice their roles that were preplanned) the sunk ships were refloated by the referees and the exercise continued.
"No plan survives first contact with the enemy."
-Helmuth von Moltke, German Army Chief of Staff between 1906 - 1914

[DK Zimmerman]

Folks, this is the second thread, today, on the subject.

The best version of the article I've seen with pretty good discussion is:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/734530/posts

[razorback-bert]

I think Gen. Ripper is fighting in the War Room.

[harpseal]

I seem to remember it was General Turgidson who was fighting in the war room General Ripper was far too worried about his precious bodily fluids.

Stay well - stay safe - Stay armed - yorktown

[razorback-bert]

You are correct, I sentence myself to watching the movie again.