Talk:Millennium Challenge 2002

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: `<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->` `\|B-Class-1=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->` `\|B-Class-2=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->` `\|B-Class-3=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->` `\|B-Class-4=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->` `\|B-Class-5=yes/no`
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	United States military history task force

[edit] Minarets

Just because the commander of Red said he used the calls to prayer from minarets does not mean the opposing force could not have been Israel—there are Muslims in Israel.--SOCL 16:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Israel does have minarets but do they actually use them? I haven't been to Israel yet so I personally find it weird that the target nation would be Israel given the use of minarets in a predominantly Jewish society. Aside from that, should we also include this link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,786992,00.html) in the article? It depicts a clearer picture on the events of MC2002. (Psychoneko 08:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC))

Israel controls and occupies the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip, both of which are predominantly Muslim. In any event, the fact that Israel is mostly Jewish doesn't make it non-Muslim. Minarets are located in the USA, yet the USA is predominantly Christian. In any event, it's been cited time and again by various documentaries and even General Riper that the OpFor was Israel.--SOCL 00:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, then why would General Riper use suicide attacks against the US Expeditionary Fleet? Wouldn't that be against the whole point of Israel's development of survival-oriented vehicles? (Psychoneko 09:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC))
- I do not believe that's a question we can answer. General Riper did what any good commander of an OpFor would do: he used every, any, and all tactics and attacks available to him to gain a victory, or at least drive the main force crazy--it's the point of the OpFor. What prevents Israel from using suicide attacks, especially against an enemy as large, well-armed, and well-prepared as the USA? In any event, suicide attacks doesn't mean that the OpFor wasn't Israel. General Riper stated that it was Israel--the matter rests. I don't understand why this is continuing.--SOCL 15:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I saw the issue as still having a few kinks in it. I suppose we'll have to wait 25 years for official papers to be de-classified.(Psychoneko 09:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC))
  - What kinks? General Riper, the officer commanding the OpFor!, said it was Israel! This was backed by the New York Times/Discovery Channel documentary A Perfect War. I do not see any sources which claim that Israel was not the OpFor. I have seen war games conducted with U.S. citizens as the OpFor using, get this, suicide bombings! This has no bearing on what country they were from. The simulation had them as U.S. citizens. In that same sense, just because suicide bombers were used in this simulation of Israel as the OpFor has no bearing on anything else.--SOCL 13:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Eh, then we'll just leave it at that then. (Psychoneko 04:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC))
- Actually, if it were really the Israelis, then where did the Israeli Air Force disappear to? Not to mention the complete absence of Israel's prized missile boats of the Israeli Navy. (Psychoneko 04:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC))

If the Opfor were really simulating Israel, then I'm not surprised the USA lost!;) Wikiphyte 12:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not opfor was Israel is immaterial. The likely opposition that we would face in the future would be an eastern state (and for 2002, either Iraq or Iran, now it is just Iran). Thus acting like an eastern style opponent would be desirable for a simulated eastern opponent. Suicide attacks are not beyond the realm of that. As a result I can see why van Riper was to say the least pissed off. All I can say is that I hope we learn the basic lesson of this, that a thinking opponent will not play to your strengths. I will also say this, it sure looks like van Riper got into his opponent's OODA loop. Good for him. Anyone know who the blue for commander was?

72.227.229.229 06:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The remark was in jest. Israel is not located anywhere near the Persian Gulf. If you used acronyms like OODA in front of Van Riper he'll probably tell you to speak English! The people he wargamed against apparently were very fond of using acronyms. According to one of the links in the reference section of the article, the Bluefor commander was an Army Lieutenant General. Anyway the US would lose a war with Iran, and both sides know that. WikiphyteMk1 (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Van Ripper would know what OODA is: it is exactly what he used to "defeat" Blues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.29.71 (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of this seems to have been lifted from the rather awful book 'Blink' by Malcom Gladwell. - (HyperlogiK

[edit] Wargames were rigged

Autopsy of MC 2002 Van Riper: Exercise officials denied him the opportunity to use his own tactics and ideas

(he quit) to avoid presenting one of his Opposing Force subordinates with a moral dilemma. That subordinate was retired Army Col. George Utter, a full-time Joint Forces Command employee who, as the Opposing Force chief of staff, was responsible for taking Van Riper’s commands and making them happen in the simulation. But several days into the exercise, Van Riper realized his orders weren’t being followed.

“I was giving him directions on how I thought the OPFOR ought to perform, and those directions were being countermanded by the exercise director,” Van Riper said. The exercise director was Air Force Brig. Gen. Jim Smith, Utter’s real-life boss at Joint Forces Command. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.29.71 (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)