In article ,
(Jack Linthicum) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in message
. com...

He then went to a low-tech communications mode, to "beat" the high-tech
intel that the US normally gets when fighting against pretty much anyone
else in the real world, and expected to have 100% effectiveness in
fighting the game. Of course, his low-tech methods (motorcycle couriers
and personal communications) were degraded by the exercise monitors,
like they would be in real life.


Present situation seems to duplicate that low tech communications
mode. So far.

With even *less* effect. The attacks in Iraq show very little - or no -
central command and control. If there was any sort of command structure
left in Iraq, we'd be seeing multiple large attacks, at lightly-defended
targets, with some reasonably serious effects. So far, it's more of a
copycat war, where something works once, a few other folks try it, and
then it stops working because the US changes tactics.

Some of the other results were very much non-real, like sneak attacks
that only succeeded because the one guy sitting at a terminal was
looking something up, and missed the first warnings - something that
couldn't happen in reality, with hundreds of people out there to notice
troop movements.

You are assuming 'troop movements' the present situation is guys
hiding in mosques or behind children ambushing GIs who get out of the
protective zone.

No, the exercise did. In the current situation, there's nothing much
going on besides some fairly random attacks.

The funny thing is that the *real* world results were even more
optimistic than the expected results from the exercise... a fraction of
the deaths and a shorter war.

We expected a war from March to way past December?

No, we expected the actual war to last a few months, and continued
operations to last for years.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.