>... he was given an impossibly powerful position -- a military force with the sole objective of military victory without any underlying political objective. I

>... he was given an impossibly powerful position -- a military force with the sole objective of military victory without any underlying political objective. If we're going to spend resources the way that we do, our .mil ought to be able win against exactly such a case. In fact, I think the scenario could go worse for our .mil. Consider the case that we simply misjudge the political objective, which arguably could lead to more dire tactical mistakes. I've seen no reason to think that our .mil are immune from such a prospect. Nor do I think a prudent military planner would fail to consider it. >If this were a real war, with an underlying political simulation, and Red sank an Blue aircraft carrier and killed 20,000 sailors in a day in a preemptive strike, Blue would respond with rules of engagement that would redefine the term "atrocity". I keep hearing that argument about our military's capabilities, with specific respect paid to the technological capabilities. Yet, I observe results that suggest very strongly the notion that we have placed unwarranted faith in our ability to make effective use of tech. Unfortunately for us, such faith can serve no useful purpose and has no place in the mind of one making battle plans. I think they were right to restart the war game, let them evolve their tactics; but, not to hobble Van Riper and turn the exercise into a quarter-billion dollar (false) confidence building exercise. You'd also have to think that troops are incredibly stupid if you expect them to fall for it.