Quote Originally Posted by John View Post
All -

Thank you for the comments thus far. I am looking at the tactical level wargame, not unlike the MDMP that we currently use. My questioning is not based on a "game" or "sim", but the thought process required to understand competitors, tribes, etc. Further, I am not convinced, based on personal experience, that one can completely understand every effect on the battlefield. Nor am I attempting to develop a product to predict the future. However, I do propose that TTPs, good practices, in conjunction with current business models can provide an estimate of actions, reactions and counteractions.
As someone who went through this process as a planner bound for Afghanistan in 2006, I can give you some insights - mostly negative 'cause I screwed up, but leavened a little in hindsight. I understand you are talking wargame not in the sense most of the posters in this thread have taken it, but in the Army planning sense of marathon sessions with some poor unfortunate posted at a matrix chart to fill out tiny boxes. The only good thing about them is that they were too boring for the generals to attend, so actual work does get done.

First, you can't expect the same level of fidelity you learn to strive for when planning a river crossing on the north German plains - you won't come away with "TF 1-23 LD 210330 at PP 1 & 2" or "Activate Branch Plan B if 3rd TA retains 75% of combat power". Second, it is much easier to talk yourself into things when wargaming counterinsurgency or nation-building, either out of ignorance or wishful thinking - or most likely both. "Yeah, if we kill or capture Mullah Omar the local elders will agree to promote recruitment for the ANSF" may sound reasonable, but it reflects an inappropriately linear faith in cause-and-effect that just doesn't hold when dealing with human hearts in a hideously complex operating environment.

You can't really wargame operations because in this environment they are spread out over months, not days, and because they are subject to incredible ethical, social, political, economic, and, yes, military stresses. They can also be radically affected by things that would normally be insignificant in a conventional setting: the death of a particular individual, the crash of a helicopter, an enterprising reporter, a phone call from a politician (or his brother-in-law), a case of collateral damage or fratricide.

You can and should wargame concepts of operations. Say you want to stop infiltration over the international border. You can wargame the concept fairly easily, along with the bad guys' likely reaction, possible counter-reactions, counter-counter-reactions, etc. You won't come away with details that will help in the day-to-day grind, but you can emerge with the following:

A rough idea of the problems that will crop up
A vague notion of the resources required for various levels of success
A primitive understanding of the political, social, and economic influences at work
A draft list of possible indicators and barely adequate measures of effectiveness/progress
A lot of blank spaces in your understanding and situational awareness that various staff weenies can go away to try to fill in

In other words, it is a brainstorming session with a modicum of discipline applied through adherence to normal wargaming procedures. Helpful, but not a silver bullet. It is really easy to allow it to focus directly on staff processes; try to avoid that as it will give the illusion of solutions without preparing you to face the messy realities on the ground.

One last word - get some real experts to role play during the wargame. Best solution would be to get guys currently on the ground, but that won't happen. Indigenous personnel, guys with past experience, academics, State guys, NGO reps, smart-ass captains who think they are smarter than every field-grade they ever met - these are the guys you want in the room, particularly on the 'red' team.