Today was @kclwargaming with @warstudies but obvs I was repping @DefenceResearch and #ATDU I have some options on regaining competitive advantage and future capability and “ #Innovation through Wargaming”. Read on....

First off we actually have some great pubs on this (see link) and the Defence Wargaming Centre will stand up with @dstlmod on 1 Dec 19. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/641040/doctrine_uk_wargaming_handbook.pdf

I put forward three main points:

1. WGing must balance science and art and take account of impactful change as a variable.
2. WGing must migrate its practice to the point of relevance to the customer.
3. WGing works best when: simple, accessible, “safe place” and compartmented

Defence is experimenting in two epochs.

1. Regain capability advantage.
2. Discover/explore what future advantage is.

1st epoch our capabilities are known but we need to WG their use/employment.

2nd epoch we don’t know our capabilities or their advantages. WG can help us.

But there’s a problem: constant competition, lower thresholds of action and more domains of action.

Escalation can be gradually incremental, West minimally ambitious “retain status-quo”. Putin and Lavrov believe the West has failed to re-cast the world order (2017).

Constant competition and globalisation has also shifted tools and fulcrums of leverage.

Our doctrine has moved there (Fusion)

Our tools in WG have not. Must now cover 5 domains and full DIME range of levers. Are we replicating that in analysis?

2nd problem: narratives, emotion and resonance.

Hulst’s work on over use of rationality and patterns of strategic behaviour is important here.

Most shocks of recent years not as a result of risk calculus but emotion and impulse. Ranging from civil unrest to impulsive leaders.

Our games & analysis often don’t consider or play such events. We use them as jumping off points in an escalation ladder rather than start points for questioning policy and strategy.

There are important policy implications here as well as a question of whether your strategy TL remains viable and deliverable. We should game support packages to stress test their performance and effectiveness - STTTs as an example.

Innovation. Why not have a control audience that we poll outcomes with as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for the national interest or other entity. Could be students, military, journalists, Sci-Fi writers (Freedman).

What are the opportunities for WG? Strategic Command - significant opportunity to test policy-strategy-delivery. Def Force Dev - significant opportunity to discover/explore future capabilities. Education. In a lack of a large op with deployed HQ - get people gaming and learning.

Education. Far too much of @icsc_l and @UKACSC is too passive. Good quality strategic operational and tactical games to get on with and game and learn. “Iron sharpens Iron” as the USMC say. Boyd would approve I think. https://warontherocks.com/2019/01/welcome-to-fight-club-wargaming-the-future/

Education. We also need Executive Education in the mil and civ decision makers charged with Mil Strat Ops in a participatory way - not being presented the results of a game. @kclwargaming are perfect for this @zacstenn Make it short, simple, focussed, accessible and normal.

Take Aways:

Normalise WG and migrate practice to the point of relevance - decision analysis and support.

CSAGE experiment was about implementation - the hardest bit for strategists!

Pop the fear bubble, simple, accessible, relevant. Move away from complex sim and scenarios.