The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Iraq and the Big Picture

4.7.03 @ 12:01AM

Re: John Corry's How Little We Know:

Poor John Corry. His brief now seems to reduce to an abiding resentment of Richard Perle's net worth, and a desperate certainty that President Bush's policy will fail in the next phase, not the current one.
-- Paul Kotik
Plantation, FL

I tend to disagree with you about the Iraqi war, but I commend you for expressing your disagreement. Keep it up. Informed dissent is important.
-- Richard Clement

Please do me a favor and send John Corry to Patrick Buchanan. I'm sure those two will get along very well.
-- Pierre Legrand
American Spectator Subscriber who wonders if John Corry is a trend.

I read John Corry's article with what must have been a puzzled look on my face. The piece lacked any form of logic, continuity or pattern. Stories and examples were given that had nothing to do with the conclusions. Sweeping claims were made with, at best, incoherent supporting facts. The essay is absolutely horrible and I cannot imagine that it would convince anyone to his viewpoint (and may even cause people to change their minds when they find themselves in agreement). While he is beating the same dead horse from a month ago, at least he did not repeat his assertion that unless you agree with him, you cannot be intelligent (unless of course you happen to be liberal, which from what I can tell from his 03/05/03 essay indicates that your status as an intellectual is assured).

To address the essay, I'd like to point out that while I believe that his fears of a destabilized region are a possible threat, even probable in the short term, I hope that a strong foreign policy will ensure long term stability and peace. Can anyone argue that a Middle East with an unencumbered Saddam Hussein at the reins of Iraq could ever lead to a long-term peace? Most importantly, I'd like to remind Mr. Corry of the obvious fact that before democracy existed on this planet -- it did not exist on this planet. And look -- wow -- now it does....
-- G. Mitchell

John Corry might have given his readers a background on the purpose of why "wargames" or combat simulations are carried out. Because the combat result of this specific OPFOR wargame fit his hypothesis -- it was included as a justifier of "current military thinking in this DOD." Maybe so -- maybe not.

A quick background as to the many purposes of combat simulations:

1. They can be used to validate contingency plans.

2. They can be used to collect stochastic data.

3. They can be used for specific training on battlefield operating systems, tactics or leadership development.

4. The "winners" have fun -- the "losers" shout "deal."

5. Any combination of 1-4 are possible.

If the purpose of this exercise was winning or losing -- I'd argue for Mr. Corry's interpretation. Military leaders are aggressive by nature. (We wouldn't have it any other way.) Alan Alda need not apply for this type of job. If the purpose of the exercise was to test friendly command, control, systems or communications, the replay of this exercise based on the described events would be "normal."

In my experience, we routinely "re-run" scenarios when OPFOR disrupts the intended training goals (other than tactical combat). Dead soldiers, marines or aviators can't practice their craft when the computer lists them as dead. Aggressive wargamers (even in the military) often work the limits or find blind spots in the computer logic or programming to achieve "winning." Happens all the time. Leaders are regularly instructed on the limitations of the simulation they are using to evaluate results.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Foreign Policy, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Israel, NATO, Oil