|
|
||||||||
THE LAW AND THE WARGAME
MY
EXPERIENCE AS A GUEST AT A PREMIER LAW SCHOOL
I am not a lawyer, nor have I attended
a single day of law school. My
degrees, a BA and MA, are in political science, and I work at a bank. So I was very much surprised in the
spring, when I received an invitation from Professor John Setear of the
University of
Virginia’s law school to go to My reaction was one of surprise. I was not an attorney, nor was I the most
prolific or renowned designer around.
Yet one of the very best law schools in the Plans changed as time went on. Nothing was etched into stone, and
Professor Setear and I discussed what might be best for his purposes, and his
students. Then came September 11. With American life in general and
interstate transportation in particular in a state of ragged and sad
disarray, my trip to I made the trip, leaving
I arrived on time and met the
professor, and within an hour I was observing a game of I was very pleased to see that they
were really understanding and enjoying the game. Despite being newcomers to wargaming, they
quickly understood the dominant factors of intelligence, timing, and aircraft
range: That the Me 109 could not reach much beyond Due to the constraints of time, it was
impossible to play an entire game of RAF. Instead, the goal was for the students to get
far enough into the game to better understand the historical campaign that it
simulates. As it was, the game lasted
for five days, and the Royal Air Force was badly beaten and exhausted, but
with significant replacements due to arrive the next day. Immediately after that, Professor
Setear and I went to a larger classroom for Britain Stands Alone. There were four students scheduled to play,
with two other experienced gamers, one a student and the other a member of
local law enforcement, also attending. I have a great deal of confidence that Britain
Stands Alone can serve as a good instructional tool. After all, I did not exactly stint on the
history when I designed it. However,
it is a fairly complex game, with elaborate interactions within the subsystems. At least one of the students destined to
play it had never seen a hexgrid before, and none of them had seen a wargame
map with terrain. So at Professor Setear’s suggestion, we
played a much-simplified game. Two
players sat on each side, one handling land units, and the other air and
naval operations. They would formulate
general strategy, and I would execute most of the movement and combat, with
their approval of course. We also distilled the game system into
a virtual introductory game. The irregular
warfare units, the Brandenburgers for There was a general air of skepticism,
one that I expected and fully understood.
This was a big leap for those who had no experience in military
simulations, nor expertise in military operations. That night, the Fortunately, once the game got
underway, things changed. The players
discovered that this could be fun, and that their actions could have
consequences for history, at least the simulated kind. Though the game lasted just five turns,
about fifteen days of operations in Sealion, they could see a slow but
undeniable German progress from Dover toward London. From the beginning, the students had a
healthy grasp of the kinds of decisions needed in such a campaign. Where should the Germans invade? When asked, I did not make any
recommendations, but told them that the Wehrmacht planned to invade in Kent,
around Dover, and that the British originally viewed East Anglia as the most
likely site. The German players chose
Kent. They also wanted to know which side was stronger. I said that Germany had overwhelming superiority on land, assuming a different outcome to the Battle of Britain for game purposes an advantage in the air, but were totally outclassed at sea. From that, they could see that Germany’s major advantage would be difficult to bring to bear across the English Channel. The players’ interest grew in other areas as well. They asked about the problems of simulating an event that never really happened, and the methods and priorities of research needed to design a game on military operations. Furthermore, some time and a couple of
pizzas later, they were having fun.
The Germans were eager to attack London directly, and were willing to
spill all the blood, including their own, to do it as soon as possible. Both sides found that they liked to bomb
things, and readily found the relationship between aerial attack and ground
combat that I had built into Britain Stands Alone. The next day came the biggest challenge
of my stay, the talk on countering terrorism.
I already knew that this was an unusually knowledgeable and adept
group of people, and any questions were liable to be tough ones. Both expectations turned out to be
true. There were about twenty
attendees for what was planned to be an hour-long session. I concurred with Professor Setear’s request
that I speak for a short period, ten or fifteen minutes at most, and then
turn the rest of the time over to questions and discussion. What followed was a very productive and
stimulating discussion. The questions
were incisive and perceptive. I stand
by what I’ve written on the subject, but know that some readers considered my
approach rather harsh. So did some of
the students, with very firm convictions to that effect, and areas which they
wanted to question. They were also
very polite, without a single shred of politically correct dogma or moral
arrogance. Many simply had a view of
the conflict that relied heavily on the idea that morality and ethics should
always be paramount for the conduct of any policy, including war. Others put a priority on finding a solution
that avoided counterproductive means as much as humanly possible, and saw the
application of violence toward Afghanistan as possibly just such a strategy. There was actually no fundamental
disagreement between us, just differences of perspective and priority. I come from an academic background in which
realpolitik and the “power school” of international relations hold the
most appeal. I am definitely an
admirer of Hans Morgenthau. Like Morgenthau, I can also see how a
blind adherence to power relations untempered by a moral component creates a
monster. Hitler is the best example of
a power politician whose cynicism recognizes no constraint of law, whether
natural or divine. Therefore I tried to
make clear that the moral concerns that some students stated were entirely
valid, but had to be balanced against the measure of what is effective in
eradicating terrorism. So there was common ground among us. In addition, one student questioned
whether a desire to maintain national resolve might actually be a suppression
of war aims and means under the mantle of patriotism. It was a most a most valid question, from a
woman who had a very good grasp of the duties of a citizen in a democratic
republic at any time, war or peace. Our time together was supposed to be an
hour. However, after the people with
one o’clock classes left, we went on for another thirty minutes. The issues discussed were important, and I
was honored that those who remained were eager to continue. My final duty was several hours later,
at Professor Setear’s regular class, the one for which I was originally
invited. That was another small group
organized in a seminar form. We began with a discussion of the games
people played for the course, and what they had learned from them. The consensus was that the games, and RAF
was the most widely played, were valuable means of active learning. They would not replace books or articles,
but gave a perspective that text narrative and analysis lacks. Several mentioned that they did not fully
grasp the importance of aircraft range and performance, which was part of
their required reading, until seeing it in interactive form in RAF. Those who played Britain Stands
Alone also found it constructive, I was happy to hear. One student mentioned that the map gave him
a fresh appreciation of how terrain can impede mobility and aid in the
defense of a territorial objective. Ironically, I never did talk much about
Operation Sealion. It probably was not
really necessary, as they had already read my article on the subject in Command
Number 45 (October 1997). Instead, part of the class became a
workshop about creating wargames. The
students had plenty of questions regarding the science and art of game
design, especially about research, scale, and victory conditions. As the resident game designer, I was happy
to answer to the best of my ability. One thing that struck me was that
although nearly all present had very little experience with board wargames,
they were able to identify the most important elements of one. Perhaps it was their legal training in
process, and perhaps native intelligence, or most probably both, but they
discovered the critical aspects of game design immediately. I was truly sorry to see the class end,
as it meant the end of my work at the University of Virginia. That was mitigated somewhat by some very
good sushi that followed, but I was still sorry to go. All of my thoughts and feelings of my
stay in Charlottesville can be summed up by saying that this was the best
experience of my wargame design career.
I deeply believe that the craft, and its educational value, were fully
appreciated. In addition, though there
are other experienced game designers with many more credits and awards, one
would never know that from the way that the faculty and students treated
me. I cannot say enough in
appreciation for the way in which they made me feel welcome. This goes beyond hospitality. Nothing would have worked without their
enthusiasm and active participation. I
spent enough time inside classrooms to know when people go through the
motions. This was not it. They approached the wargames with open
minds, and yes a little healthy skepticism, and invested a good deal of thought
and work. It was rewarding to me to
see that they were rewarded for the experience. At the same time that John Setear
introduced the board wargames that so many of us love into the course, he
preserved its academic rigor.
Following my visit, there was going to be some very in-depth study of
the jurisprudence of war. If someone
wants an easy class, I suggest they look elsewhere. I have absolutely no mixed feelings
about my short time at the University of Virginia. It was entirely positive, with my only
regret being in taking leave of it. |
