Meet the Sims … and Shoot Them

The rise of militainment.

BY P.W. SINGER | MARCH/APRIL 2010

Be (Online) All That You Can Be

Like many innovations, America's Army and the broader rise of militainment didn't grow out of a grand strategic plan. Almost a decade ago, a group of U.S. Marines hacked the commercial video game Doom II to create "Marine Doom," a software program that helped them teach urban warfare (instead of fighting the demons of hell, the Marine version has players team up to take out an enemy bunker). Col. Casey Wardynski, then a professor at West Point, was impressed by the program, as well as by the fact that his two teenage sons were fans of action video games. While researching how to build an increasingly high-tech U.S. military, he approached the Pentagon about making an online game as a recruiting tool. The idea stuck, and in 2000 the Army contracted the Naval Postgraduate School to create it.

After two years of development, the game, called America's Army, was released at the Electronic Entertainment Expo, a sort of annual pilgrimage for video-gamers that draws some 60,000 people to the Los Angeles Convention Center. What happened next surprised all: The Army didn't just have a new recruiting tool, but an actual market hit. It quickly became one of the top 10 most popular games on the Internet, and within its first five years, some 9 million individuals had signed up to join America's video-game army, spending some 160 million hours on the site and making it one of the top 10 of all video games, online or otherwise.

From the Army's perspective, commercial triumph was secondary. Its goal was to recruit. And at this, too, the game proved to be a wild success. To log on to the game, you have to connect via the Army's recruitment website and fork over your information. Gamers can also check out profiles of current Army soldiers and video testimonials of why they joined. Just one year after America's Army was released, one-fifth of West Point's freshman class said they had played the game. By 2008, a study by two researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that "30 percent of all Americans age 16 to 24 had a more positive impression of the Army because of the game and, even more amazingly, the game had more impact on recruits than all other forms of Army advertising combined." Notably, this is from a game that the Pentagon has spent an average of $3.28 million a year developing and promoting over the last 10 years -- compared with the military's roughly $8 billion annual recruiting budget.

Behind the success of America's Army lies a story of entrepreneurship and good old-fashioned interservice rivalry. As one of the developers explained in an online forum, "The Navy started to get pissed at the Army because there was never any mention that the game was actually built within a Naval think tank." So, with the Navy angry, the Army did the only logical thing: It brought in the French. Future versions of America's Army were licensed to French game company Ubisoft, which also allowed the game to be used on Microsoft Xboxes -- a breakthrough because it meant the game could penetrate a much wider marketplace. Ubisoft paid the Army $2 million upfront, plus 5 percent in royalties per game sold. The Army also kept its right to edit content; video games were becoming too violent even for the U.S. military. As Wardynski, the program's originator who now directs the Army Game Project that administers it, told National Defense, the military wanted to ensure that it wouldn't be "the sort of game where you tear off someone's arm and beat them to death with it."

Instead, America's Army is meant to imbue potential recruits with traditional military values. To join, would-be video soldiers have to pass training sessions not only for the game but also for U.S. military systems, lingo, and values. Over time, they can go through added training to specialize in becoming anything from a Javelin missile operator to a Humvee driver.

Once in, players enter a virtual battle built around a scenario from recent real-world U.S. Army experience -- in a squad with other online soldiers anywhere in the world. America's Army has proven so popular globally that, with so many users signing on from Internet cafes in China, the Chinese government tried to ban it. Real soldiers play too, usually identifiable by the unit insignias listed in their gamer names.

The game itself isn't just a regular shoot 'em up, but features an "honor system." Those who cooperate the best tend to win the most, while the go-it-alone Rambo types tend not to last too long. Following the rules of engagement wins extra points, as does stopping to give medical care to your buddies. Commit a "friendly fire" incident, and you get banned from the server. If you log back on under that same account, your point of view is from behind jail bars in a virtual Fort Leavenworth military prison.

The game is not without its shortcomings, suggesting a far more antiseptic version of war than the real thing. Get hit by a bullet and there is only a tiny puff of pink smoke that quickly disappears. And the real world's "fog of war" -- the chaos, confusion, and mistakes in battle that Prussian überstrategist Carl von Clausewitz defined as an enduring feature of warfare -- doesn't cloud the game.

One scenario, for example, is built around a real battle during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. A team of Green Berets was attacked by an Iraqi motorized infantry company backed by artillery, tanks, and armored personnel carriers. As the real-life Green Berets did, you can beat back the virtual Iraqis by deftly firing Javelin anti-tank missiles. However, the game leaves out the part when the Green Berets called in an airstrike. Instead of hitting the Iraqis, the plane mistakenly dropped a bomb on friendly forces, killing 17 U.S. troops and their Kurdish allies.

U.S. ARMY

 

P.W. Singer is senior fellow and director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative at the Brookings Institution and author of Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century.

REUBEN HINTZ

9:05 PM ET

February 21, 2010

Just the beginning

Now if we can just get USAID, the World Bank, and Gramen to collaborate on a video game that teaches kids how to distribute microfinance loans.

 

GRANT

12:25 AM ET

February 22, 2010

This is hardly new in any

This is hardly new in any sense of the word. Whenever some new media comes out it isn't long before the military finds it. Reading for pleasure? Plenty of books glorifying this or that. Radio? Ditto. Movies? Faster than you can blink and only held back by technical limitations? TV? Wow, deja vu anyone?

Of course I am a bit worried about a child's over-exposure to video games, but I myself played quite a few different games in life, including some of the more violent ones, am a relatively law-abiding citizen, and have just finished college with my greatest concern how to get a job. Maybe we should focus a bit more on a child's friends and family before we worry about a game.

 

ZERI

6:16 PM ET

February 24, 2010

maybe, but...

I clearly remember reading in "Blackhawk Down" about a young soldier who got hit and took off his helmet thinking "game over." Only it wasn't -- as he realized when a live round went whizzing by (p 178).

I worry about the background assumptions that these games teach you to make. I see people every day on my commute who clearly learned to operate a motor vehicle playing games like "Grand Theft Auto." Notice I said "operate a motor vehicle," and not "drive."

 

COMPANYFORMATION

2:35 AM ET

February 23, 2010

Company Formation

The games should also educate children about healthy and productive activities such as Company Formation, playing for their better financial and healthy future. Its a great way to tell about their future activites

 

ADR1NY

10:55 PM ET

March 16, 2010

well.....

well they do have several games like that.

 

JDD

5:58 PM ET

March 2, 2010

deja vu is right

Hey Peter

After hearing your NPR riff this AM on 'militainment' and then reading this essay I too got a bad case of deja vu all over again. I've always held that information wants to be free, but I also give credit where credit is due, a credo that I would hope operates in not just universities and journalism but think tanks as well. Perhaps it's merely a case of bad editing, but contrary to the impression you gave, the idea and term 'militainment' - both in its first coinage and your 'redefinition' - have been kicking around for some time now, from way back in the early 90s, in Wired 1.01 (Bruce Sterling) and Wired 2.09 (Der Derian) to.....that 2004 Underfire issue edited by Jordan Crandall (now online), where you wrote about private military contractors and I wrote about...the military-industrial-media-entertainment network. Let me jog the collective memory:

>From: James Der Derian
>Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 19:28:28
>
I would like to discuss the role of media and
entertainment industries in the war machine,
following from my recent book Virtuous War:
Mapping the Military-Industrial-Media-
Entertainment Network.The title is an oxymoron,
trying to capture the twisted logic of modern
warfare, in which the U.S., enjoying a
technological supremacy and preaching an
ethical superiority, works hard to deter,
discipline, and when necessary, preemptively
destroy potential foes by a relatively remote
(virtual), relatively discriminate (virtuous) form
of killing. The subtitle is a riff off general-turned-
president Eisenhower’s famous presidential
farewell address warning of a “military-industrial
complex” (he also warned about a techno-
scientific elite capturing public policy). My
argument, based on an extended, seven-year
road-trip to desert and urban war games, Darpa,
defense industry conferences, Hollywood-Silicon
Valley-Pentagon collaborations, and the like, is
that with the addition of the media and
entertainment industries to the mix, the complex
has become a much more powerful, much less
accountable network.

>From: James Der Derian
>Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:50:10
>
I have been interested for some time in the
collapse of the distance between simulations
(war games, training exercises, scenario
planning, and modeling) and dissimulations
(propaganda, disinformation, info war, deceit,
and lies) through increasingly sophisticated,
technologically-assisted ways of reproducing
reality, including videogames. From Francis
Bacon on, simulation was thought to be a
“pretence of what is not,” dissimulation as a
“concealment of what is.” But with new
technological powers of verisimilitude and new
virtual corporate alliances with Pentagon,
Hollywood, and Silicon Valley, “wagging the dog”
of reality through dis/simulations seems to be
an everyday event.
>
My first encounter with the videogame crossover
was at the annual military/defense/entertainment
industry conference on simulations in Orlando,
Florida, called ITSEC I think (just too many
acronyms in the military to remember). The
transformation of Doom into a marine training
video was first showcased there, and I was ......

Enuff. Or as Barthes sez, it's all an intertext.

VTY
JDD

 

MIMENET

7:13 PM ET

March 2, 2010

Where previews of the future merge with flashbacks to the past

On youtube there's an intro to JDD's "Virtuous War: mapping the military-industrial-media-entertainment network" that videographically chronicles the rise of virtual and virtuous warfare after the end of the cold war:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XLUI6sM8nQ

 

BUTTERFISH22

11:13 PM ET

March 9, 2010

Yes, you are right to put these "games" in quotes

Yes, you are right to put these "games" in quotes. As you rightly say, these "games" range from the deadly serious, like programs designed to train soldiers in cultural sensitivity or help veterans overcome the trauma of combat, to the truly outlandish, like a human-sized hamster wheel that makes virtual-reality software feel more realistic. There are even video-game modules that teach soldiers about the perils of sexual harassment. So, in plain English, these "games" are not really games and should be trashed. It is much better to use some link building and connect the dots. Then probably we will have less confusion in the future.