Army "Future": Invade Azerbaijan
WIRED
Observers give different reasons for why Azerbaijan was picked for the simulated invasion. Some say the country's varied terrain provided an excellent testing ground for the Army's $200 billion "Future Combat Systems." Others believe that the U.S. "now faces a new reality embodied in the Caspian Sea scenario," centered in Azerbaijan. No one suggests that the country is in any imminent danger of American attack.
Originally Posted by sgmgrumpy
This is a perennial problem with wargames. Game architects tell participants over and over that they are not planning or predicting an operation, but just need some venue to run the game. Then someone like this misses the point and our ambassadors end up having to waste a lot of time explaining to said countries that we are not getting ready to invade.
Noah Shachtman, from WIRED, here.
Steve: I'm sure what you say is true. But - just curious - what do you make of this? Is the guy just being ignorant? Or is there something to what he's saying?
Azerbaijan was picked as the FCS model because "the nation now faces a new reality embodied in the Caspian Sea scenario," Army consultant Clyde T. Wilson in an Armor magazine article.
The Caspian Sea scenario is not about fighting in the Caspian Sea area, but is all about the next most dangerous situation U.S. forces are likely to face. In many ways, it follows the 1950-53 Korean War scenario. Country A (South Korea) is attacked by Country B (North Korea). The U.S. comes to the assistance of Country A. The thrust of the scenario is how does the U.S. enter the battle area and build-up sufficient forces to achieve its national goals. The scenario is further complicated by Country C (China), which threatens to enter the conflict, especially during the buildup phase when the U.S. is most vulnerable.
The Korean scenario provides national decisionmakers with significant geopolitical issues. The situation becomes more complicated when adding an asymmetric threat like we saw during Vietnam. The Caspian Sea scenario is about getting credible force into the area of operations and deterring aggression by Country C. In the scenario, the arrival of U.S. heavy forces represents endgame. At this point, we dominate the battlefield. After heavy forces arrive in the area, they must be prepared to conduct combat operations against the heavy threat presented by Country C while providing self-protection against an asymmetric threat that specifically targets U.S. vulnerabilities.
It's certainly true that the Department of Defense in general sees that as an area of growing strategic concern. It has the combination of instability and growing economic importance. Plus, it's a region where a number of states have conventional military power, thus testing FCS. But wargames simply select regions that are illustrative of future challenges rather than ones in which U.S. military intervention is planned or even likely. It just makes wargaming a lot easier if you have existing geography, demographic, and other information rather than having to make it up.
Makes sense to me. Might there also be some value in picking a place as seemingly "off-the-wall" as Azerbaijan? I mean, is Iran or China discovered to be the model, the mess that gets stirred up is much bigger, right?
Or do these political calculations never come into play...
I've participated in a billion of these things and I've never seen political calculations come in during the scenario development. Gamers are much more concerned with whether the country is "illustrative." Now, there may be real classified planning for operations in any number of places, but that's separate from wargaming which is designed to test concepts.
Wargaming Scenarios
This is always a headache - selecting a scenario that does not rile political sensitivities. For those of us that work major unclassified wargames the time and resources saved by using an existing place on our planet is immense.
Creating a fictional country / regional / non-state actor scenario is a major - MAJOR - undertaking. Maps, military, cultural, political, economic, information, etc data all must be built from scratch. Then there is the BS factor. You just do not get the participant interest when wargaming against the Redorians in Redovia...
While there are wargames that of course put contingencies through the wringer - the Title 10 and other concept-based wargames are simply using a spot on the earth to facilitate meeting wargame objectives - not real-world contingency objectives.
Sorry to bring up an old thread but i was browsing the site and came across this and thought i'd checulk my 2 cents in
Yeah there does seem that people consistently don't realise that we aren't invading and so much time is wasted, but no system is perfect i suppose!
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks