How the U.S. Government Designs War Games
A recently declassified U.S. war simulation conducted in 1999 by U.S. Central Command to explore post-occupation Iraq scenarios illustrates the use of war gaming within the U.S. government. The formerly secret simulation, called Desert Crossing, included 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence participants who role-played for the exercise.
The simulation and seminar was essentially a change management workshop designed to minimize undesireable effects in a post-Saddam Iraq. The simulation relied on a series of descriptive worst-case and most-likely-case scenarios that were intended to be plausible, not predictive, and to present a range of possible events that would allow participants to explore and develop issues and requirements in a not for attribution, risk-free environment.
Teams were divided into Interagency Deputies (Blue Team), Iraq (Red Team), and Coalition Countries (Green Team). The simulation was organized into four rounds. During each round, the Blue Team was required to define issues facing the U.S. and how they believed Red and Green team would respond to their decisions.
Some of the conclusions from the simulation exercise are similar to what actually occurred after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, including potential stability problems, reactions from coalition partners, and responses from Iran and other Arab governments.
The declassified documents can be found at the George Washington University National Security Archive. A description of the simulation design can be found in Section IV of the Desert Crossing After Action Report (PDF document) from June 28, 1999.
Posted by Michael Bean
