The Marine Corps’ current use of wargames is not just flawed; it’s downright dangerous. According to a recent article by Paul K. Van Riper in “Real Clear Defense,” instead of providing a comprehensive evaluation, these games are being manipulated by recent military leaders to back up their predetermined plans for restructuring the Corps.
Having spent decades supervising and participating in wargames, Riper is alarmed that critical decisions about the structure and equipment of our operational forces are being made based on incomplete and biased simulations.
Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper is a retired infantry officer who has extensively participated in various military wargames, most notably as the Red Team leader in Millennium Challenge 2002.
His article is based up another article published in the Marine Corps Times in March by writer Irene Loewenson who said that personnel who ran the Marine Corps Force Design 2030 (Force Design) war-games Amit they did not test all seven Marine Corps war fighting functions including logistics and command and control. Yet, former Commandant General David Berger still used these flawed results to justify a sweeping overhaul of the Corps.
Playing games with our security: the seven deadly sins of neglect.
This is unprecedented and reckless, Riper says, adding that no previous decisions on force structure have been made without thoroughly examining their impact on all seven warfighting functions: command and control, fires, force protection, information, intelligence, logistics, and maneuver.
Too little, too late.
The Marine Corps is now scrambling to rectify these oversights by retroactively examining the neglected warfighting functions. But Riper says this is nothing more than a futile attempt to close the barn door after the horse has bolted. He points out that critical decisions have already been made, leading to the divestment of weapons and equipment and significant cuts in force structure.
Ignoring the process.
Properly conducted, Riper says that the force development process starts with identifying a military problem and developing conceptual solutions, which are then refined through workshops, conferences, and wargames. It is only when these concepts prove viable in wargames do they proceed to field exercises and further analyses, eventually leading to new or modified doctrine, organizational structures, training programs, and more.
However, Riper states that there is little evidence that this rigorous process was followed for Force Design 2030. Instead, it appears decisions were made first, with wargames conducted afterward as mere formalities to justify preordained outcomes.
A dangerous precedent.
The current Commandant, General Eric Smith, has argued that the Marine Corps couldn’t afford to wait until the concepts were “totally fleshed-out” before implementing them. Riper says that the reasoning is not only flawed but dangerous, adding that no other case in Marine Corps history shows such a blatant disregard for the proper combat development process. He asserts that past leaders never made fundamental, Corps-wide changes without thoroughly vetting them first.
Whistleblowers sound the alarm.
In reviewing notes from wargames conducted by one identified and two anonymous officials Riper says that their accounts reveal blatant manipulation aimed at validating early Force Design decisions.
They reported that Marine Corps Warfighting Lab leaders were pressured to skew results to support the Commandant’s preferred outcomes.
Time for accountability.
Riper says the Congressionally mandated independent study on the implementation of Force Design must be thorough and unflinching adding that If these wargames were manipulated to achieve a certain outcome, our leaders owe it to their Marines and the country to come clean about the risks to national security.
Our defense cannot be built on a foundation of lies and half-truths in order to satisfy a politically based outcome. It’s time for accountability and transparency in how we plan for the future of our armed forces.
Join the Discussion
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.