Millennium Challenge 2002

Last updated

Millennium Challenge 2002 (MC02) was a major war game exercise conducted by the United States Armed Forces under JFCOM in mid-2002, running from 24 July to 15 August. The exercise involved both live exercises and computer simulations, costing US$250 million (equivalent to about $423M in 2023), the most expensive war game in US military history. [1] MC02 was set in 2007, intended to be a test of future military "transformation"—a transition towards new technologies that enabled network-centric warfare, and providing a more effective command and control of current and future weaponry and tactics. The simulated combatants were the United States, referred to as "Blue", and a fictitious state in the Persian Gulf, "Red", often characterized as Iran or Iraq. [2] [3]

Contents

MC02 was an experiment mandated by Congress in 2000 to "explore critical war fighting challenges at the operational level of war that will confront United States joint military forces after 2010." [4] The simulation took two years of planning and involved 13,000 troops. The Red force, led by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, used numerous asymmetrical tactics unanticipated by the Blue force, resulting in initial major successes. Over the course of the simulation, constraints were placed on the Red force's ability to free-play "to the point where the end state was scripted", [4] resulting in a Blue victory.

Constraints

Since the war game allowed for a ship-to-shore landing of ground troops at some (unknown) point during the 14 day exercise, and because their naval force was substantial, the Blue force was positioned on the shore-side of the region's active shipping lanes to keep them from impacting commerce during the exercise. This placed them near the Red shore rather than at a "standoff" distance. Conducting the war games during peacetime also meant that there were a large number of friendly/unaligned ships and aircraft in the zone, restricting the use of automated defense systems and more cautious Rules of Engagement. Red's tactics took full advantage of these factors, and to great effect.

Exercise action

Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper PKVanRiper USMC.jpg
Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper

Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, adopted an asymmetric strategy, in particular, simulating using old methods to evade Blue's sophisticated electronic surveillance network. Van Riper simulated using motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops and World-War-II-style light signals to launch airplanes without radio communications in the model.

Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships: one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of Blue's six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.

Such defeat can be attributed to various shortfall in simulation capabilities and design that significantly hindered Blueforce fighting and command capabilities. Examples include: a time lag in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance information being forwarded to the Blueforce by the simulation master, various glitches that limited Blue ships point-defense capabilities and error in the simulation which placed ships unrealistically close to Red assets. [5] [6]

Exercise suspension and restart

At this point, the exercise was suspended, Blue's ships were "re-floated", and the rules of engagement were changed; this was later justified by General Peter Pace as follows: "You kill me in the first day and I sit there for the next 13 days doing nothing, or you put me back to life and you get 13 more days' worth of experiment out of me. Which is a better way to do it?" [2]

After the war game was restarted, its participants were forced to follow a script drafted to ensure a Blue Force victory. Among other rules imposed by this script, Red Force was ordered to turn on their anti-aircraft radar in order for them to be destroyed, and during a combined parachute assault by the 82nd Airborne Division and Marines air assaulting on the then new and still controversial CV-22, Van Riper's forces were ordered not to shoot down any of the approaching aircraft. [7] [8] Van Riper also claimed that exercise officials denied him the opportunity to use his own tactics and ideas against Blue Force, and that they also ordered Red Force not to use certain weapons systems against Blue Force and even ordered the location of Red Force units to be revealed. [9] The postmortem JFCOM report on MC02 would say "As the exercise progressed, the OPFOR free-play was eventually constrained to the point where the end state was scripted. This scripting ensured a blue team operational victory and established conditions in the exercise for transition operations." [10]

Aftermath

The rule changes following the restart led to accusations that the war game had turned from an honest, open, free playtest of U.S. war-fighting capabilities into a rigidly controlled and scripted exercise intended to end in an overwhelming U.S. victory, [8] alleging that "$250 million was wasted". [11] Van Riper was extremely critical of the scripted nature of the new exercise and resigned from the exercise in the middle of the war game. [12] Van Riper later said that Vice Admiral Marty Mayer altered the exercise's purpose to reinforce existing doctrine and notions within the U.S. military rather than serving as a learning experience.

Van Riper also stated that the war game was rigged so that it appeared to validate the modern, joint-service war-fighting concepts it was supposed to be testing. [9] He was quoted in the ZDF New York Times documentary The Perfect War (2004) [13] as saying that what he saw in MC02 echoed the same view promoted by the Department of Defense under Robert McNamara before and during the Vietnam War, namely that the U.S. military could not and would not be defeated.

Responding to Van Riper's criticism, Vice Admiral Mayer, who ran the war game and who was charged with developing the military's joint concepts and requirements, stated the following: [9]

Gen. Van Riper apparently feels he was too constrained. I can only say there were certain parts where he was not constrained, and then there were parts where he was in order to facilitate the conduct of the experiment and certain exercise pieces that were being done.

Vice Admiral Marty Mayer

Navy Captain John Carman, Joint Forces Command spokesman, said the war game had properly validated all the major concepts which were tested by Blue Force, ignoring the restrictions placed on Van Riper's Red Force that led them to succeed. Based on these findings, Carman stated that recommendations based on the war game's result on areas such as doctrine, training, and procurement would be forwarded to General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. [9]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Fifth Fleet</span> Numbered fleet of the United States Navy

The Fifth Fleet is a numbered fleet of the United States Navy. Its area of responsibility encompasses approximately 2.5 million square miles, and includes the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Arabian Sea, and parts of the Indian Ocean. It shares a commander and headquarters with U.S. Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT) in Bahrain. Fifth Fleet/NAVCENT is a component command of, and reports to, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM).

USS <i>Mitscher</i> (DDG-57)

The USS Mitscher (DDG-57) is an Arleigh Burke class in service with the United States Navy. It was constructed by Ingalls Shipbuilding, in Pascagoula, Mississippi on an order in December 1988. Laid down in 1992 it was formally commissioned on 10 December 1994.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Military exercise</span> Employment of military resources for training

A military exercise, training exercise, maneuver (manoeuvre), or war game is the employment of military resources in training for military operations. Military exercises are conducted to explore the effects of warfare or test tactics and strategies without actual combat. They also ensure the combat readiness of garrisoned or deployable forces prior to deployment from a home base.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Joint Forces Command</span> Former U.S. Unified Combatant Command (1999–2011)

The United States Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) was a Unified Combatant Command of the United States Department of Defense. USJFCOM was a functional command that provided specific services to the military. The last commander was Army Gen. Ray Odierno and the Command Senior Enlisted was Marine Sergeant Major Bryan B. Battaglia. As directed by the President to identify opportunities to cut costs and rebalance priorities, Defense Secretary Robert Gates recommended that USJFCOM be disestablished and its essential functions reassigned to other unified combatant commands. Formal disestablishment occurred on 4 August 2011.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Exercise Red Flag</span> Military exercise

Exercise Red Flag is a two-week advanced aerial combat training exercise held several times a year by the United States Air Force. It aims to offer realistic air-combat training for military pilots and other flight crew members from the United States and allied countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paul Van Riper</span> United States Marine Corps general

Paul K. Van Riper is a retired United States Marine lieutenant general. Van Riper was a combat veteran—twice receiving the Silver Star Medal for his heroic actions during the Vietnam War. At the time of his retirement, Van Riper was serving as the Commanding General, 2nd Marine Division and Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico, Virginia. Since his retirement, Van Riper has served on several advisory boards and panels. He is currently the Chairman of the Board of Directors for the Marine Corps Heritage Foundation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Man-to-man wargame</span>

A man-to-man wargame is a wargame in which units generally represent single individuals or weapons systems, and are rated not only on weaponry but may also be rated on such facets as morale, perception, skill-at-arms, etc. The game is designed so that a knowledge of military tactics, especially at the small unit or squad level, will facilitate successful gameplay. Man-to-man wargames offer an extreme challenge to the designer, as fewer variables or characteristics inherent in the units being simulated are directly quantifiable. Modern commercial board wargaming stayed away from man-to-man subjects for many years, though once the initial attempts were made to address the subject, it has evolved into a popular topic among wargamers.

The Fleet Problems are a series of naval exercises of the United States Navy conducted in the interwar period, and later resurrected by Pacific Fleet around 2014.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Command and control</span> Military exercise of authority by a commanding officer over assigned forces

Command and control is a "set of organizational and technical attributes and processes ... [that] employs human, physical, and information resources to solve problems and accomplish missions" to achieve the goals of an organization or enterprise, according to a 2015 definition by military scientists Marius Vassiliou, David S. Alberts, and Jonathan R. Agre. The term often refers to a military system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Military simulation</span> Type of simulation

Military simulations, also known informally as war games, are simulations in which theories of warfare can be tested and refined without the need for actual hostilities. Military simulations are seen as a useful way to develop tactical, strategical and doctrinal solutions, but critics argue that the conclusions drawn from such models are inherently flawed, due to the approximate nature of the models used. Many professional analysts object to the term wargames as this is generally taken to be referring to the civilian hobby, thus the preference for the term simulation.

Purdue University's Synthetic Environment for Analysis and Simulations, or SEAS, is currently being used by Homeland Security and the US Defense Department to simulate crises on the US mainland. SEAS "enables researchers and organizations to try out their models or techniques in a publicly known, realistically detailed environment." It "is now capable of running real-time simulations for up to 62 nations, including Iraq, Afghanistan, and China. The simulations gobble up breaking news, census data, economic indicators, and climactic events in the real world, along with proprietary information such as military intelligence. [...] The Iraq and Afghanistan computer models are the most highly developed and complex of the 62 available to JFCOM-J9. Each has about five million individual nodes representing things such as hospitals, mosques, pipelines, and people."

Intelligence dissemination management is a maxim of intelligence arguing that intelligence agencies advise policymakers instead of shaping policy. Due to the necessity of quick decision-making in periods of crisis, intelligence analysts may suggest possible actions, including a prediction of the consequences of each decision. Intelligence consumers and providers still struggle with the balance of what drives information flow. Dissemination is the part of the intelligence cycle that delivers products to consumers, and intelligence dissemination management refers to the process that encompasses organizing the dissemination of the finished intelligence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foal Eagle</span> U.S.–South Korea military exercises

Foal Eagle is a combined field training exercise (FTX) conducted annually by the Republic of Korea Armed Forces and the United States Armed Forces under the auspices of the Combined Forces Command. It is one of the largest military exercises conducted annually in the world. Foal Eagle has been a source of friction with the government of Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and domestic ROK critics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Joint Enabling Capabilities Command</span> Subordinate command of U.S. Transportation Command

The Joint Enabling Capabilities Command (JECC) is a subordinate command of United States Transportation Command, headquartered at Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia. It was previously part of United States Joint Forces Command. It developed from the Standing Joint Force Headquarters concept trialed during Exercise Millennium Challenge 2002.

Bold Alligator is a multinational littoral warfare exercise hosted by the United States. It has been held annually since 2011. In 2012, it involved 14,000 marines, sailors, airmen and soldiers, encompassing more than 25 ships and involving eleven countries, with Canada, Mexico, UK, France, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, New Zealand, Australia, and other allied nations participating at sea, on land, and in the air, at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina and in Virginia.

The Joint Theater Level Simulation (JTLS) is used to simulate joint, combined, and coalition civil-military operations at the operational level. Used for civil/military simulations and humanitarian assistance/disaster relief (HA/DR) scenarios, JTLS is an interactive, computer-assisted simulation that models multi-sided air, ground, and naval resources with logistical Special Operation Forces (SOF) and intelligence support. The primary purpose of JTLS is to create a realistic environment in which agency staff can operate as they would within a real-world or operational situation. A training audience conducts a scenario or event to practice their ability to coordinate various staff functions.

The Sigma I-64 war game, one of the Sigma war games, was played from 6 to 9 April 1964. Its purpose was to test scenarios of escalation of warfare in Vietnam. After rigorous research into information needed to form a scenario, a simulation took place, with knowledgeable officials playing out the roles of actual government decision makers. Participants were drawn from the State Department, Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In Sigma I-64, the scenarios to be examined were the burgeoning Viet Cong insurgency in Vietnam, and the possible use of U.S. air power against it.

Military exercises are conducted by the Pakistan Armed Forces to increase combat readiness, and to identify problems in logistics, training, and current military doctrine. They also test the ability of units to work together. Lastly, they act as a visible expression of military might, which acts as a deterrent to potential enemy action. An important component of each exercise is the after-action assessment. Since 1989 the four branches services have increasingly begun coordinated exercises.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Special Operations Command</span> Unified combatant command of the United States Armed Forces responsible for special operations

The United States Special Operations Command is the unified combatant command charged with overseeing the various special operations component commands of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force of the United States Armed Forces. The command is part of the Department of Defense and is the only unified combatant command created by an Act of Congress. USSOCOM is headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Professional wargaming</span>

A wargame, generally, is a type of strategy game which realistically simulates warfare. A professional wargame, specifically, is a wargame that is used by military organizations to train officers in tactical and strategic decision-making, to test new tactics and strategies, or to predict trends in future conflicts. This is in contrast to recreational wargames, which are designed for fun and competition.

References

  1. Borger, Julian (2002-08-21). "War game was fixed to ensure American victory, claims general". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077. Archived from the original on 2023-06-02. Retrieved 2023-12-24.
  2. 1 2 Borger, Julian (6 September 2002). "Wake-up call". the Guardian. Archived from the original on 1 December 2016. Retrieved 15 December 2016.
  3. Shanker, Thom (12 January 2008). "Iran Encounter Grimly Echoes '02 War Game". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 24 June 2019. Retrieved 25 June 2019.
  4. 1 2 Zenko, Micah. "MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE: THE REAL STORY OF A CORRUPTED MILITARY EXERCISE AND ITS LEGACY". War on the Rocks. Archived from the original on 24 December 2023. Retrieved 28 December 2023.
  5. U.S. Joint Forces Command Millennium Challenge 2002: Experiment Report (PDF). pp. 59–60. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2021-11-23. Retrieved 2022-01-10.
  6. "Gen. Kernan And Maj. Gen. Cash Discuss Millennium Challenge's Lessons Learned". GlobalSecurity.org. September 17, 2002. Archived from the original on January 10, 2022. Retrieved January 10, 2022.
  7. "The lost lesson of Millennium Challenge 2002, the Pentagon's embarrassing post-9/11 war game". 6 November 2019. Archived from the original on 30 August 2021. Retrieved 20 August 2021.
  8. 1 2 Joe Galloway (April 26, 2006). "Rumsfeld's War Games". Military.com. Archived from the original on May 4, 2006. Retrieved 2012-01-03.
  9. 1 2 3 4 Sean D. Naylor (August 26, 2002). "War games rigged? General says Millennium Challenge 02 'was almost entirely scripted'". Army Times .
  10. Zenko, Micah (2015-11-05). "Millennium Challenge: The Real Story of a Corrupted Military Exercise and its Legacy". War on the Rocks. Archived from the original on 2023-12-24. Retrieved 2023-12-24.
  11. "The Immutable Nature of War". Nova . PBS. Archived from the original on 2018-11-16. Retrieved 2017-09-05.
  12. Gal Perl Finkel, The IDF that Eisenkot leaves behind is ready Archived 2020-11-10 at the Wayback Machine , The Jerusalem Post, January 1, 2019.
  13. "The New York Times Television Co-Produces News Documentary The Perfect War with Germany's ZDF". Business Wire. 2004-03-23. Archived from the original on 2010-04-06. A version of the documentary aired in the US as Nova: Battle Plan Under Fire Archived 2020-12-31 at the Wayback Machine (2004).

Further reading