Redefining combat: current operations shape army war game.

• Author: Erwin, Sandra I.

Among the hard lessons the U.S. Army is learning in Iraq is that the line between "major combat" and "stability operations" is blurred, at best, and that the enemy gets to decide when the war is finally over.

The turn of events in Iraq during the past year heavily influenced an Army war game conducted last month, which started with a series of regional conflicts that were supposed to transition to post-combat stability operations. The transition, however, did not happen as planned, because the "red" fictitious enemy force, like the Iraqi insurgents, decided to extend the fight, and drive the "blue" U.S. force to exhaustion and frustration.

The war game, called Unified Quest 2004, was staged during two weeks in early May at the U.S. Army War College, in Carlisle, Pa., where hundreds of players--active-duty, retired officers and civilians--fought two major regional wars set in 2015. The U.S. Joint Forces Command and the Army co-sponsored the game.

Whereas previous war games had been criticized for being unrealistic and far-fetched, Unified Quest in many ways mirrored current events, and could lead to major revisions in Army doctrine and weapon procurement plans.

The scenario devised for Unified Quest has the blue force engaged in a major conflict against a Middle-Eastern country called Nair. Another contingency also erupts in the Pacific area, where Islamic fundamentalist rebels are trying to topple the secular and corrupt U.S.-friendly government of Sumesia.

In both conflicts, the red commanders pinpointed the greatest weak ness of their blue enemy: being unprepared for a protracted guerilla war and misjudging the enemy's will to fight.

Blue's difficulties in many ways stemmed from the U.S. Army's long-held notions that major combat and stability operations are cut-and-dried terms, noted Army Maj. Gen. Janaes M. Dubik, director of joint experimentation at U.S. Joint Forces Command.

When blue wants to go into stability...