Winds of Change recently covered the USA's huge "Millennium Challenge 02" war game, which simulates aspects of an attack on an Axis of Evil nation. Which one exactly, is a matter of some conjecture (see our past coverage for an explanation).

Well, it's over now. And apparently, the "enemy commander," a Marine General, is crying foul. Says the exercise was rigged. He may have a point, too. Of even greater interest are some leaked details that explain how he managed to beat the opposing "U.S." forces.

The excellent crew at Shoutin' Across the Pacific have the story. First the breaking report, then the update. Read it. It's priceless. Especially stuff like this:

"Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders, negating Blue’s high-tech eavesdropping capabilities, Oakley said. Then, when the Blue fleet sailed into the 'Persian Gulf' early in the experiment, Van Riper’s forces surrounded the ships with small boats and planes sailing and flying in apparently innocuous circles.

When the Blue commander issued an ultimatum to Red to surrender or face destruction, Van Riper took the initiative, issuing attack orders via the morning call to prayer broadcast from the minarets of his country’s mosques. His force’s small boats and aircraft sped into action "By that time there wasn’t enough time left to intercept them," Oakley said. As a result of Van Riper’s cunning, much of the Blue navy [JK: that's supposed to be us, folks] ended up at the bottom of the ocean.

The Joint Forces Command officials had to stop the exercise and "refloat" the fleet in order to continue, Oakley said."

Having read this, go back and read DeAtkine's thoughts today in "Why Arabs Lose Wars". NOW do you see why those cultural traits are so deadly to armies? I hope the Pentagon has learned something from this experience. I hope their next exercise is more honest. And I'm happy as hell that Van Riper is on our side.

UPDATE: Chuck Watson of the Shoutin' Across the Pacific crew disagrees with his colleague Charles Oliver, and says Van Riper is wrong. War games are sometimes used to simulate certain known tactics and limitations, he says, and that's reasonable. These exercises also involve huge outlays of cash and time, and so what else could they do except call a "do-over" after Van Riper sank the fleet? Reasonable point. Agree. But it sounds like Van Riper was also restricted in ways that don't have anything to do with modeling particular tactics. That (still) strikes me as short-sighted.

Here's my view: Go up against the best ideas you can, and if the enemy isn't that good when you meet him then oh, happy day. I want to be prepared for the enemy we never thought we'd face, not just the one we expect. (Kloognome uses that fact to put the whole exercise in appropriate context). I also want guys who were smart enough to win as "Red" commanders in charge, which means giving them a fighting chance and then promoting the ones who beat the system. What I don't want is nasty surprises when there are no do-overs to be had. Glad the Marines share that view. So do the Army's OPFORS units at Ft. Irwin and Ft. Polk, who usually win.