One minor point I differ with the General- you have to resurrect the forces after each mission/phase. Ok, you write that particular aspect where you lost off as a "loss" and then you continue with the other missions to test how well they work. They might all be losses, who knows? But it would be an incredible waste of time, money and the evaluation opportunity to just go home after the Red Commander kicked your butt in the first day. For example, you don't deploy a brigade sized element to Hohenfels, gear 'em up to go into the evaluation and then just stop when the OPFOR defeats you- because that normally happens on Day One. You still have to perform your other missions so your commander can evaluate where you need to train and where your strengths lie.
Other than that though, I agree with the General's concern. If something ain't working- we need to know about it before we try it on the battlefield.
My thinking is this. We could have a tactical skill evaluation of every officer and see how many are worthy of their rank or promotion.
Anyone else see Marine Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper's resemblance to Gunny Highway in "Heartbreak Ridge"?
After all, rank means never having to say "I was wrong"...
Why am I scared that these pencil-pushing General Wanna-be's are all KLINTON-ERA appointees and sycophants? Am I the only one?