I just came across this strategic, long-term, war game, designed for the future Generals to test their skills at prioritizing Defense spending, Future Force. You can buy and play the war game for yourself, as can our strategic enemies. I would expect they already have. I have not, so I have to rely on the words of the left aligned "Foreign Policy" organization for what Michael Peck found out about the game. In turn, he relies on the left aligned CNAS, for his "strategy" in the game.
From what I gather, there are only a few things that the game player can influence in the war game. It appears that one cannot choose their enemies, or alter the budget allocated to fight those enemies. As such, it has value to the intended users of the game, i.e. Generals who must work with the resources politicians allot them to fight the enemies they've foreseen. We don't choose who will attack us, but there would be value in allowing strategic planners to test their skills against different sets of enemies.
The game was designed prior to the announcement by the Obama Administration that it wants to cut another Half-Trillion from the Department of Defence, but implements the calls by the left to abandon the ability to fight against Standing Armies, as we did in 2003. Michael Peck, of Foreign Policy, played by the left-leaning playbook, with the forces that will be available after the currently approved Troop cuts.
Beginning the game with two conflicts: a major groundwar, and a counter-insurgency, along with 3 peacekeeping deployments, this is very similar to the situation of 2007. So too, are the locations: Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, and two he doesn't name. Using the doctrines of the left-leaning CNAS, he discovers he must cede one of the 5 to the enemy. He discovers that based on the current policies, he can't maintain the peace in 3 locations, AND win the two conflicts.
While there is value in average Americans having the ability to try their hand at the tough decisions Our Generals must make when politicians cut the funds needed to defend America, it is also dangerous that our enemies and potential enemies already have access to this realistic simulation of what Our Military will look like in 2016. For $20 to $25, you too can attempt to win against our enemies, based on the decreased budgets, Troops, and resources Our Generals will have, based on current, but not requested cuts of the Administration.
And there would be value in allowing the game player to adjust the budget, to discover how much money it would take to defeat those enemies, or what the results would be, based on current Administration calls for even deeper cuts than are already approved. There would also be value in using real dollars, as opposed to the 5:1 exchange rate programmed into the game, as analyzed by Michael Peck.
One thing that no game can completely simulate is the level of chance involved in battle. Games must assign values to how effective weapon systems are, how effective Intelligence dollars are, and what technologies will be developed and their effectiveness. One of the things that increases the cost to US Defense is that we fight our wars in distant lands, and hence must have the capacity to move Troops and Equipment to the battlefields of our enemy's choosing.
I know of a Battalion sized element that moved 50 miles in order to train up for a deployment. It cost $1 Million to do so, using only organic equipment, no air assets. I can only imagine how much it then cost to deploy them, by air, to Afghanistan, without their vehicles. I don't know why it cost so much for such a short move. I only know that the unit's bean-counter told me the cost of the 50 mile move.
Nevertheless, the fact that the smart people of Foreign Policy find it necessary to abandon one Area of Operation, in order to maintain a stalemate in two, and fight two, when 3 start off as peacetime engagements, before the latest request for more cuts of the Administration, should be cause to change course. If the proponents for Cutting more from a smaller military, than cutting a little from a larger military, can't make the military win a war, before the latest round of cuts, then perhaps, we should consider Rebuilding the Military, rather than cutting it even more drastically.
Why do I point out the organizations involved are aligned with the left, i.e. with the DNC? Because they claim to be "non-partisan," and are also aligned with the current Administration. If they can't make their own policy recommendations work, then they should abandon those recommendations. And there is significant danger in that those enemies now have the tools available to them that our own Generals have, to wargame from our own point of view, how they can defeat us. If we don't change our course, they can now figure out precisely when and where to place their forces, given any number of US resource decisions, including the current policies and priorities.
Stumble It!
