U.S. Embassy attacked in Syria and other stories of note

[MikeyD]

My 2¢. I'd vote for BOTH 'generic' and 'Syria' at the same time, as in:

"The U.S. Army has evolved significantly in recent years. This simulation pits current day Stryker Brigade 'Transformational Warfare' against the capabilities of a real-world military force in the form of the Syrian Army. Will 'Transformational Warfare' win the day?"

This de-emphasises the Syria backstory while keeping Syria in the game (no need to come up with a reason for the war). Shifts the focus to a real-world OPFOR training status. Less mess, less fuss.

[birdstrike]

IIRC the mentioned USNF scenario (back in 95?) was about a Russian invasion of Ukraine in 97(?) with Ukranian forces fighting alongside an intervening US force.

I too could picture a fictional scenario setting in Syria with radicals taking over (suppose they had infiltrated the armed forces?), resulting in a state of civil war and an US-led intervention. But the prospect of loyal Syrian troops accepting help from (or being led by?!?) the US seems maybe a little far-fetched? I don't know... it's fictional after all...

Would be an interesting thing, however, to have some red vs. red scenarios or to implement for the US forces to have to distinguish between the 'good' Syrians and the 'bad' Syrians, restricting a 'if it moves, kill it' strategy.

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks for all the thoughts guys.

We knew what we were getting into when we started. We didn't need Emrys to know that it was a minefield This is, after all, the Middle East we're talking about here!

The problem, as I see it, is that the US' ability to react to anything major in the near future is diminishing each day. The willingness of Europe to put its neck on the line is also becoming less each day, but for more reasons. The first is that the US and UK have so completely soured the popultions of the West on nation building and military "adventure" that it is difficult to imagine mass support for a large, protracted ground action (which, like Iraq and Afghanistan, would be counted in years). If a country, such as Syria, were responsible for terrible acts of Terrorism, perhaps. However, I anticipate the first desired course of action would be limited to air attacks and heavy on things like embargos and asset freezes.

Second, Europe's inherent military capacity has been repeatedly reduced, year after year, due to budget cuts and general popular opposition to military actions in general. Why have a big, expensive military if your people won't want to use it when the time comes anyway?

Third, Europe's economies are not very strong. They've been in the dump longer than the US', though the US is playing catchup now. The cost of a large military action, for either, is difficult to imagine having mass support. Note the Americans didn't want a big expensive war in Iraq either, which is why the Bush Administration had to peddle the "it will be paid for by Iraqi oil" argument so hard in the run up to the war. "Oh, it won't cost us anything? Well... I guess it's OK then" is what the American people said. If the likes of Cheney and Wolfowitz instead said "it will likely cost $1 Trillion Dollars", I don't think we'd be in Iraq right now. It is better to beg for forgiveness than to ask for permission.

Anyway... bottom line is with each passing day I see less capability, less willingness, and less money.

As for Iran, there is no way a ground war could be launched against that country. First of all, guess what would happen in Iraq? I don't think the Shias would be very pleased with that sort of thing, and the last thing we need are the Shias rising up in large numbers. Especially because there is no other option than to strip Iraq bare of US troops to fight a war in Iran.

The most that could happen, and it would take a long time to prepare for, is a quick "in and out" ground assault with an extremely limited objective, such as a nuclear power facility. It would be, basically, a large scale commando raid. It would be difficult to pull off, and have a massive backlash (like oil being cut off in retalliation), so even if practical I don't think it is probable.

Steve

[Sequoia]

Perhaps you can have a contest for whoever can submit the best backstory. Also be sure to make the backstory modable.

[emodin-]

What leaps immediately to mind is a more active/overt Syrian intervention in Iraq. Maybe a cross-border encounter with US or Iraqi border guards where both sides get bloodied and some regular Syrian forces are accused of firing on US/Iraqi forces?

You could even follow that up with mounting evidence that Syria has been supplying more sophisticated weaponry (and even training) to the insurgents in Iraq after seeing how this worked in Lebanon against the Israelis. The Iraqi government responds by requesting added US help in securing their border with Syria, and the US puts on a show of force (whereupon they run into all those nasty new ATGMs?). You could have something like that happen, whereby the US government would be able to point to Syria as a major destabalizing factor in Iraq and the ME in general.

Just a thought

[MikeyD]

Nice idea emodin-, a 'demonstration of force' along the border gone terribly wrong. Two opponents stand toe-to-toe. Everyone expects one of them to back down but they don't. Events spiral out of control. That would explain why Strykers are in the vanguard. The battle's a last-minute cobbled-together affair with available forces, no advance warning to spend six months assembling a phalanx of Abram's behind a wall of artillery.

Another advantage- the premise of 'unanticipated events' is easy to buy. Whoever says "Awh, that would never happen that way" you could respond '...and that's the very definition of unanticipated!"

[Battlefront.com]

Emodin,

It's been considered However, it is extremely unlikely. And even if it did happen, what would be most probable would be some limited air strikes and a complete shutting down of the border. Meaning, anything that moved in that area would be targeted for destruction. Full sanctions against Syria would be enacted, probably by a great many countries (border violations of a serious nature are harder to ignore than other events), and Syrian monetary assets frozen. Basically, the same things that were argued for instead of a ground war back in 2002/2003 in relation to Iraq. I don't see there being much of an option in 2007.

Mikey,

Another advantage- the premise of 'unanticipated events' is easy to buy. Whoever says "Awh, that would never happen that way" you could respond '...and that's the very definition of unanticipated!"

True enough. But like I said above, once you put out an unanticipated situation you have to look at what is the probably anticipated response. A full ground war against Syria seems far less likely than what I sketched out above. In fact, if you look back at my original storyline in 2004 I had already predicted that the only way a major land war could happen is if the "unanticipated" situation were massive and outside the Middle East. Like massive dirty bombs in NYC, London, and Berlin "unanticipated" situation. Now in 2006 I'm not even sure that would be enough.

Steve

[Cpl Steiner]

This is turning into an interesting discussion.

However unlikely a scenario, I don't think it can or should be abandoned if it makes for an interesting game. The trick, to my mind, would be to incorporate all the "improbability" aspects of the scenario into the back-story.

For instance, how do you get around the public opposition factor? How about if the US president is assassinated by a Syrian agent? Surely the US public would support toppling the Syrian regime if it was proved without doubt that Syria was behind the murder of their commander in chief, regardless of his popularity ratings at the time of the attack.

What if the US military is just too stretched to fight in both Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria at the same time? Is this really such an issue? In times of crisis, governments always seem to be able to come up with a few more divisions. It is just a case of political will. Maybe all the best gear in Iraq is replaced with older, moth-balled equipment, so the newer kit can be used for the new Syrian invasion force. As for man-power, perhaps there is a limited call-up and a massive intensive training program to put together enough troops - perhaps stripping the best troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and replacing them with draftees.

Some of you are probably saying this would not get through the Senate and even if it did, there would be massive civil unrest. So what - just factor that in too. Say that the motion only scraped through the Senate and Congress and there was anti-war rioting on the streets, the worst since the Vietnam War. The new president would probably be committing political suicide but if he had sufficient conviction in the rightness of his action he could probably just live with his unpopularity and take electoral defeat on the chin - sure in his beliefs that he was right and the American public was wrong.

Personally, I think a little hint of opposition to the war and domestic and political problems resulting from it would make the story a hell of a lot more interesting and realistic.

[Battlefront.com]

For instance, how do you get around the public opposition factor? How about if the US president is assassinated by a Syrian agent? Surely the US public would support toppling the Syrian regime if it was proved without doubt that Syria was behind the murder of their commander in chief, regardless of his popularity ratings at the time of the attack.

Dunno... depends on which President If it was Bush then about 50% of the country would probably try to give the guy a medal. If it is Hillary, then the other 50% would do the same (after paying him as per their arrangement )

But I get your point. The problem is we've been doing that for a few years now and it seems that every few months whatever we've come up with goes down the crapper.

As for US manpower, it is a critical problem right now. There is nobody left to scrounge without abandoning 60 years of security arrangements. The 172nd Stryker Briagde, for example, just got involuntarily extended for at least 4 months just as their 12 month tour ended. Some of the guys had already been shipped home and no sooner did they land had to get back on planes to go back to Iraq. The Marines and Navy are doing Involuntary Reserve Activation, including one of my best friends (who is going to Fallujah, yippie ). The loss in equipment due to wearing it out and IEDs is difficult to replace and has instead caused a drawdown on National Guard equipment. So much so the General of the National Guard has stated that 70% of the Guard's units are unfit for combat. This is a problem that usually only becomes apparent when there is a domestic disaster, like Katrina, or when the Army decides to activate another Guard unit and finds it's just a bunch of guys with some uniforms and boots. Recruiting is also falling short, and is projected to continue falling short. All the while the experts, and more recently the military, are saying they need MORE troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan or things will tip out of control.

So yeah... I don't see how to work around the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan have swallowed up the military's major combat power for years to come. A draft wouldn't help near term, but obviously it is a possible solution. Whoever suggests that will be voted out of office and replaced by someone who advocates bringing the troops home. This is why Abrams wanted an all volunteer military... to make sure that the politicians weren't able to wage unpopular wars. It would take a massive, no other options, WWIII type scenario to get a change there.

Steve

P.S. Just in case some don't like what I've said, this is all non-partisan stuff since I'm just rattling off facts given by the military themselves and drawing some rather braindead conclusions that many other people with brains have already long figured out.

[LongLeftFlank]

I absolutely agree that the game's backstory MUST be credible for it to sell outside the CMx1 installed base. BFC's competitive advantage in the market (at least among better educated strategy gamers) is that it simulates real armies in realistic conditions, and the backstory is a part of that experience.

As I see it, there are two options:

1. Come up with a new venue and compelling/credible backstory that meets the following basic requirements:

- Combat in arid/desert/mountain terrain

- Blue team = US Army Stryker brigade

- Red team = Mainly bloc-equipped regular / irregular forces

The problem with this one IMHO is finding a backstory that is credible and holds gamer interest throughout a full campaign, as opposed to a scenario or two. Other than Iraq, nothing really springs to mind right now for me.

2. Broaden the scope of the game to include a wide range of historical and fictional scenarios set in a variety of (arid) hotspots. This wouldn't be limited to US Stryker brigade vs. Reds.

With Stryker Brigade (using Queensberry Rules or with "gloves off")

- Iraq

- Afghanistan

- Fort Irwin (Blue on Blue)

- Korea (large parts of this country are pretty arid)

- Iraq border clash with Iranian forces

Red on Red combinations (Neither side cares much about collateral damage)

- Iraqi army vs. insurgents / militias

- Chechens vs. Russians (though RA TOE might be a bit too much)

- Insurrection / civil war in any Middle Eastern state

- India vs. Pakistan -- Kashmir clash or full scale war (I bet you'd tap into a HUGE gamer market in both these countries, BTW)

- Darfur rebels vs. Sudanese army / Janjaweed (Red on Red)

- Horn of Africa (Ethiopian, Eritreans, Somalis)

- Turks or Iranians vs. Kurds

- South Africa/UN intervention in (arid) Zimbabwe or Angola

OK, OK, I can already hear the disdainful groans of gamers who could care less about "commanding" bands of indisciplined, unwashed heathen spraying Toyota-loads of Chinese ammo at each other for control of some tin-roofed shacks. Just play the Blue vs _____ scenarios all the time, fine, and wait for the next game.

The practical downside of this "Janes All The World's Tinpot Armies" approach is that you would need to stick in a bunch more "Red" equipment. Oh, and of course there's the flesh tone issues (a lot of folks in the Mideast and India are as dark as subsaharan Africans... as are a lot of American infantry, for that matter).

I also know that BFC swore off this "wargaming kit" approach given its experience with CMx1, and I sympathize with its reasoning. But I just feel in my gut that the wider market isn't going to show much interest in a game based on a NEW intervention in a theater that is making the entire world increasingly queasy.

[MoNuckah]

That sounded familiar.

MoNuckah said:

Aparently, commanders in Iraq want 3X the troops they have to combat Iraqi insurgents. Enough to actually finish the fight instead of playing 'whack-a-mole'. Ever play that game in an old school arcade? It tires you quickly.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_Commanders_privately_express_needing_3X_0912.html

To bring that many troops in, and still have enough to keep up other commitments in Afghanistan (which is backsliding rapidly) and presence of force in other areas (Korea, Uzbekistan, etc.)well, that may require a draft.

Toss in a destabilized Syria, and an Israeli setback in Lebanon, a shrinking international friendslist, sluggish economy and even slower recruitment and re-enlistment rates with lower acceptance standards in the Army and what do you have?

Kettler's mention of the US forces being spread 'too thin' seems quite accurate.

I wonder if they would wait until after election day for a Draft?

http://www.slate.com/id/2133908/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1499164,00.html

We are, so to speak, between a rock and a dumb place.

[emodin-]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Emodin,

It's been considered However, it is extremely unlikely. And even if it did happen, what would be most probable would be some limited air strikes and a complete shutting down of the border. Meaning, anything that moved in that area would be targeted for destruction. Full sanctions against Syria would be enacted, probably by a great many countries (border violations of a serious nature are harder to ignore than other events), and Syrian monetary assets frozen. Basically, the same things that were argued for instead of a ground war back in 2002/2003 in relation to Iraq. I don't see there being much of an option in 2007.

Steve

Good point.

You could up the ante by putting Lebanon in the picture. Something along the lines of the Druze/Christian minorities there actually working with the UN peacekeeping force that is supposed to be sent there due to their dislike over Syrian intervention in Lebanese politics and a backlash against Hezbollah for the recent Israeli military actions. I don't know their timetable for elections, but you could tie that in as well with the idea being the Syrians start getting antsy about the chance of a candidate opposed to Syrian intervention in Lebanese politics as showing a strong chance to take over the government in the next general election. Syria escalates the pressure on Lebanon , and some NATO country peacekeepers get caught in the crossfire. Things escalate from there into a broader conflict.

Tie that in with the Iraq thing, or add the accidental or deliberate shoot-down of some high ranking Western politician touring the area, and you might have a plausable reason.

The main problem, as I see it, is that you'd be hard pressed to name a government that is willing to commit political suicide-by-foreign-army. Most governments like to stay away from the big no-no's.

EDIT: for some clarification

[ September 14, 2006, 05:19 AM: Message edited by: emodin- ]

[Cpl Steiner]

I wonder if private security companies might not be an answer to some of the manpower issues? There are already thousands of so-called mercenaries acting as security guards in Iraq - often ex British SAS soldiers with a huge amount of military experience behind them. Historically, all the major empires of the world have had to employ "auxiliaries" at some time to cope with overstretch. There are probably tens if not hundreds of thousands of ex soldiers of all nationalities in the world today who could be formed up into new military units for the right price if push came to shove.

[MoNuckah]

Would it be out of the question to have, say, Blackwater units?

Mercenaries are the second largest force in Iraq now, at an enormous expense. Aparently, they pay so much better than the regular armed forces, that our highly trained people get jobs with them instead of re-enlisting. Kind of a force vaccuum.

They would mostly have the same gear as the US, but they would have to simulate armored SUV's and lots of guys with slick sunglasses. And looser rules of engagement.

http://www.blackwaterusa.com/about/

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1013202004

And then there are the Force Ministries guys. I wonder why Muslims could percieve the Iraq War as a crusade? Oh, maybe its these bullets for Jesus guys "imparting faith in Christ" while holding an M-16. Nice.

http://www.forceministries.com/whoweare.html

Its entirely possible, in fact likely, that if US action against Syria was taken, PMCs would either be in left in nearly full 'control' of Iraq, or part of supplementry security operations during an invasion.

[hellfish]

Not to delve into symantics, but don't call them mercenaries.

[C'Rogers]

Just in case some don't like what I've said, this is all non-partisan stuff since I'm just rattling off facts given by the military themselves and drawing some rather braindead conclusions that many other people with brains have already long figured out.

I take it you weren't referring to the following part of your post.

If it was Bush then about 50% of the country would probably try to give the guy a medal. If it is Hillary, then the other 50% would do the same (after paying him as per their arrangement [Wink] )

[Cpl Steiner]

In Roman times, non-Romans served as auxiliaries with the legions with the promise of being granted Roman citizenship at the end of their term of service (which in those days was a staggering 25 years or so). I bet these days lots of foreigners with some military background would jump at the chance of being granted US citizenship as part of a payment package for serving in Iraq or Afghanistan under US officers. In point of fact, weren't the Green Berets set up precisely to train and lead non-US military units? Are they still around as an organization?

Recently there was a bit of controversy when NATO wouldn't come up with any more troops for Afghanistan. Wouldn't it be a lot simpler just to approach NATO personnel and get them to quit the army and fight as private security contractors instead? I personally know of one British soldier who was actively considering quiting the army and serving in Iraq as a truck driver for a security firm. He would have been able to retire on the money it would pay for maybe 6-12 months work. With that sort of money being offered, many are prepared to accept the risks.

[MoNuckah]

Fytinghellfish:

Not to delve into symantics, but don't call them mercenaries.

Ummm, 'Hired Guns' then?

Or 'Guns for Hire'?

'Soldiers of Fortune'?

Sorry, its just that 'private security contractors' sounds like a PC way of saying Mercenary.

But I may be missing some subtle differences?

Maybe they aren't Mercs because they work for a company instead of themselves. Or maybe because they are serving 'our intrests' Mercenary is somewhat unsavory. I'm not sure.

[hellfish]

Hey, I understand. I talk to several of the guys, and they really, really don't like to be called mercenaries. Like I said, symantics.

[Battlefront.com]

C'Rogers,

I take it you weren't referring to the following part of your post.

Correct. That was just a joke that both sides could laugh at (in theory, anyway ).

Steve

[John Kettler]

Steve et al.,

In the wee hours of this morning CNN reported on a worldwide Internet survey of perceptions of the U.S.

To say they're not good would be a British grade understatement, seeing as how the U.S. ranked about on par with Iran and North Korea! There is widespread distrust of the U.S., a firm belief that it's talking the talk but not walking the walk on freedom and democracy; that it's really all about power and controlling oil supplies while expanding its global influence.

In short, the U.S. has a huge and rapidly widening global credibility gap, and the lies used to sell OIF to the U.S. people and the world are well known internationally. The Bush administration has responded by appointing a longtime Bush friend to handle the problem. I feel that this issue is a major one in terms of posturing CM:SF. If you posit a casus belli, then it had better be a real doozy, else it simply won't be credible.

Regards,

John Kettler

[FAI]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

Hey, I understand. I talk to several of the guys, and they really, really don't like to be called mercenaries. Like I said, symantics.

Just wondering, do they find it offensive? Isn't that what they do, taking up arms primarily for money?

[akd]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

Hey, I understand. I talk to several of the guys, and they really, really don't like to be called mercenaries. Like I said, symantics.

That's not semantics, that's euphemism.

[hellfish]

Like I said, symantics.