War gaming: For whom and what?

Abstract

In his paper entitled "A Program to Improve Analytic Methods Related to Strategic Games," Andrew Marshall notes at least three potential user groups for war gaming in the Department of Defense (DoD). They are: (1) Those interested in making assessments of military balances; (2) Those involved in evaluating alternative force programs, and (3) Those involved in evaluating operational plans. He then goes on to specify the desired features of future wargames. In essence, I am in complete agreement with every point made by Marshall. My concern is for what has not been said, not for what has been said. I am a dedicated believer in the future of war gaming both for military and nonmilitary purposes. I served briefly as a consultant to Science Applications Inc. (SAI) at the early stages of its project; and as a consultant for many years to The Rand Corporation I had the pleasure of working with Herb Goldhamer, Olaf Helmer, Bill Jones, Ed Paxon and several others who all have played an important role in the development of gaming. I am not an impartial viewer of gaming but a proponent. As such I found that I was simultaneously pleased and disappointed by both the Rand and SAI papers. One of the major themes in Clausewitz' great book is that one should distinguish the science and techniques of war from the social process of war which includes politicomilitary communication and military organization. Research and technical knowledge are far different from institutional change and modification of procedures. There is much to be done in research and development on the basic techniques of gaming. There is also much to be done in the ulitization of gaming methods both as an educational device and as a planning tool here and now. The paper by Martin and Olin has stressed the man-machine utilization of gaming methods for better strategic warfare analysis. The paper by Graubard and Builder lays emphasis upon totally computerized war gaming in a manner reminiscent of some of the innovative suggestions of Edward Parson. They suggest (almost parodoxically) that the computerization of the players will make the game more transparent. The style of the three papers completely identifies to me three highly different