Connections 2000

Army Transformation 2000

Lecture by Bill Rittenhouse


In order to transform the current US Army into the Army of the future, you have to visualize what combat will look like in 2025, and then try to reel in that vision to 2010. The Army is currently developing its optimal force for deployment in the 2010 to 2015 timeframe, with an interim force by 2003. To help, it develops wargames to test out hypotheses and objectives in a particular environment and culture. It's not easy.

Take an example of a scenario in the Middle East (noting that a scenario with Russia as the neemy is no longer politically correct). A corrupt aggressive regime gets nukes and threatens a neighbor over water rights. Why this? It's rigorous, representative, and plausible.

So, for example, Turkey could dam the Euphrates. However, you can't use Turkey because it's a NATO ally, and you can't use Syria instead because we're wooing them and that would be politically incorrect as well. Enter the New Islamic Republic. Seems safe, right? Wrong. Can't use Islamic, either. So, a new entity is created--The New Independent Republic--and it wants water rights from Turkey. Here's one everyone can agree is politically correct, and it gives an opportunity to work with NATO allies as well. You see, part of the balancing act of scenario designis plausibility. You have tpo be sensitive to the "giggle factor" -- if a scenario is too outlandish, no one will take it seriously.

So, around 2014 the NIR demands water rights from Turkey, and to an extent Syria, under threat of nuclear attack. The US goes to help its allies.

Background Work

It takes about a year to design, pull people together, and execute the simulation. It is an exercise in national security and logistics as much as the application of military force. As for what would happen, the scenario would balanc military and political factors (coalitions and national wills to be added). There is also take into account the perception that speedier insertion into trouble spots equals higher casualities.

In the scneario, two forces were involved (other simulations have multiple sides, but 2014 Middle East had only Blue and Red forces), but each side had two teams: i.e., two Blue teams and two Red tams. There was also a strategic insights panel made up of experts. All told, there were 300 participants working the various layers of military and civilian positions trying to find, halt, and destroy the NIR and restore a non-NIR government.

The game ran over five days (one day each for): Preparation, Crisis Response, Warfighting, Post-Conflict, and Seminar (Debriefing). Two games were run to about 75 days after the NIR started its shenanigans. Ideas included that a brigade needed 96 hours to move, a division needed 120 hours, and ultimately the five divisions needed 30 days. If Blue (the US and good guys) could stuff "X" amount of forces into Turkey and Syria by a certain time, Red (the bad NIR guys) would not attack. Otherwise, the NIT would and the Blue team had to figure out how to meet its objectives of ridding the world of the NIR.

Simuluation success occurred in both games, paying off in coordinating forces and allies. However, a real benefit also occurred when participants started to understand the full-range of post-conflict resolutions (win the war and lose the peace as I define it--RL). With this under their belts, the next time an Iraq or Kosovo situation occurs, the military will be in a better position to prepare, execute, and win future conflicts, and deal with the lack of an enemy "unconditional surrender" option.

More Connections 2000:

Back to MWAN #109 Table of Contents
Back to MWAN List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 2001 Hal Thinglum
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com