The United States recently held war games simulating a conflict with an “unspecified Middle Eastern adversary” that involved 13,000 troops. However, as this story reports, the games were basically “fixed to ensure an American victory,” as retired marine lieutenant-general, the commander of “enemy” forces told the Army Times recently. Apparently he was told to deploy his forces and defenses in a way that made it easier for U.S. forces to land and manuever their troops rather than being given free rein to probe US weaknesses, as he thought would be the case. Despite this handicap, “as commander of a low-tech, third-world army, General Van Riper appeared to have repeatedly outwitted U.S. forces” and the “experimental new tactics and doctrines advocated by the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, …referred to in Pentagon-speak as ‘military transformation.’” In fact, most of the U.S. Navy’s ships were “sank” in this wargame and had to be “’refloated’ so that the US forces stood a chance.” What kind of a wargame is this? Gen. Van Riper “protested by quitting his role as commander of enemy forces, and warning that the Pentagon might wrongly conclude that its experimental tactics were working.” I’m glad he managed to get the word out on this, because there is no point in attempting any sort of action against Iraq or whoever (yeah, OK, Iraq) with tactics that are unproven and that will ultimately needlessly endanger American troops.
Speaking of which, it’s interesting to note the dissension in W’s own GOP with respect to an attack on Iraq. Although I really think they should have finished Saddam Hussein off during the Persian Gulf War 10 years ago, any kind of invasion this time will be nothing like the cakewalk that Desert Storm was, and the aftermath of such an attack is anyone’s guess at this point. My knee-jerk reaction is to go get ’em, but I really think that some prudence needs to be exercised here.