VI. Description of war games in general
For purposes of this publication, war games can have two identifying characteristics. First, a war game can be either an “exercise” or an “experiment.” Second, a war game can be scripted or “free play.”
An “exercise” uses primarily live forces. [34] The doctrines used by both the Blue force (the U.S. military) and the Opposing Force (OPFOR) are defined. Typically, an exercise is used to assess existing training, readiness, capabilities, and skill sets. [35] Stated differently, an exercise utilizes prescriptive tasks, conditions, and standards in order to measure current doctrine and forces. [36]
An “experiment” “does not focus on things. It does not focus so much on platforms and systems and technology as it does concepts.” [37] It does not examine the present as much as it does what the military envisions for the future. [38] Also, “If you're truly experimenting, you're looking at what's within the realm of the possible, and you don't know until you get into it. If you already know what the after-action report's going to look like on an experiment, you've probably not got an experiment. You've just validated a known concept.” [39]
The differences between an “exercise” and “experiment” are important because after this particular war game, USJFCOM insisted that MC 02 was primarily an experiment.
War games are often scripted, meaning that the Blue force and the OPFOR are required to perform certain attacks or responses. [40] This is done so that equipment and concepts can be tested. [41] However, war games are sometimes “free play,” which means that anything goes. [42]
_________________________________________
34. Department of Defense News Transcript, “Gen. Kernan And Maj. Gen. Cash Discuss Millennium Challenge's Lessons Learned,” September 17, 2002; statement by Gen. Kernan.
35. Id.
36. Id.
37. Id.
38. Id.
39. Special Pentagon briefing on Millennium Challenge 2002, July 18, 2002.
40. Koerner, “How Do the Pentagon's 'War Games' Work?”
41. Nicholas D. Kristof, “How We Won the War,” New York Times, September 6, 2002.
42. Koerner, “How Do the Pentagon's 'War Games' Work?”
An “exercise” uses primarily live forces. [34] The doctrines used by both the Blue force (the U.S. military) and the Opposing Force (OPFOR) are defined. Typically, an exercise is used to assess existing training, readiness, capabilities, and skill sets. [35] Stated differently, an exercise utilizes prescriptive tasks, conditions, and standards in order to measure current doctrine and forces. [36]
An “experiment” “does not focus on things. It does not focus so much on platforms and systems and technology as it does concepts.” [37] It does not examine the present as much as it does what the military envisions for the future. [38] Also, “If you're truly experimenting, you're looking at what's within the realm of the possible, and you don't know until you get into it. If you already know what the after-action report's going to look like on an experiment, you've probably not got an experiment. You've just validated a known concept.” [39]
The differences between an “exercise” and “experiment” are important because after this particular war game, USJFCOM insisted that MC 02 was primarily an experiment.
War games are often scripted, meaning that the Blue force and the OPFOR are required to perform certain attacks or responses. [40] This is done so that equipment and concepts can be tested. [41] However, war games are sometimes “free play,” which means that anything goes. [42]
_________________________________________
34. Department of Defense News Transcript, “Gen. Kernan And Maj. Gen. Cash Discuss Millennium Challenge's Lessons Learned,” September 17, 2002; statement by Gen. Kernan.
35. Id.
36. Id.
37. Id.
38. Id.
39. Special Pentagon briefing on Millennium Challenge 2002, July 18, 2002.
40. Koerner, “How Do the Pentagon's 'War Games' Work?”
41. Nicholas D. Kristof, “How We Won the War,” New York Times, September 6, 2002.
42. Koerner, “How Do the Pentagon's 'War Games' Work?”
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home