Army offers Virtual Army Experience game
The US Army has been displaying a Virtual Army Experience, (VAE), at Six Flags amusement parks and airshow venues across the nation in the hopes of exposing the public to what soldiers experience when fighting insurgents in theatre. Utilizing a complex set-up of computers, LAN based scenarios, motion simulators, videos, and presenters, the VAE is a massive display of technological power. While impressive in design and structure, some critics are concerned with the format and message that is being conveyed to the public. Is the VAE truly effective at communicating what a typical convey soldier experiences or is it merely a recruiting tool that glamorizes war?
As the VAE website explains, “This 10,000 square-foot interactive exhibit brings the Army’s exceptionally popular computer game, America’s Army: Special Forces (Overmatch), to a life-size networked world to provide visitors with a virtual test drive of Soldiering.” Sizable lines are cordoned off in a Disneyland-esque fashion that keeps the queue moving. Once inside, waiting participants can join in a LAN version of America’s Army while they wait for their group to get called up for the main event: a simulated mission.
Missions are comprised of three parts: a pre-briefing, the mission and a debrief. The group is given a basic understanding of what their objective is: protect friendly aid workers from known genocidal extremists. Then each group is told to take their positions in a Humvee simulator. Each position has air-powered weapons that simulate the recoil, or “kick”, of an actual weapon. Three simulator screens give an almost 180 degree view of a Middle Eastern scenario with streets, buildings, civilians, and enemy personnel. As the scenario is played, the Humvee rocks with each simulated blast and participants are jostled as they try to accomplish their mission. When the simulation finishes, the group is told to dismount and enter the debriefing area where live presenters go over the performance of the crew and answer questions.
All told, it is probably the most comprehensive technological road show every put on by any branch of the US Armed Forces.
But critics are concerned about the message that is conveyed by the VAE. By presenting war as a game or even in a game-like scenario, detractors state that it makes light of a very serious situation. This year’s VAE display at the Cleveland Air Show was waived off after Veterans for Peace protested the display.* “The group Veterans for Peace says the simulators desensitize children to killing,” reported the Mansfield News Journal. Those who oppose the VAE say that by adopting a familiar and attractive platform like computer games and simulators, the VAE is skewing children’s views on war. But was the issue that the VAE allows children aged 13 to participate and would that change if attendance requirements were set to age 18? Attempts to reach the Veterans for Peace for comment were unsuccessful.
“I don’t think it does make light of it,” says retired Colonel James Allard of the US Army public relations department. “For a few minutes, people get a very realistic simulation of what it’s like to be on a mission.” In Col. Allard’s opinion, the VAE is one of the best ways the US Army has of sharing the experience of soldiering. Regarding the issue of reaching the public and exposing them to the types of things that occur during an actual attack mission, “I can tell you that it’s [the VAE] quite effective in conveying that message.”
The US Army has actually done a fairly good job of harnessing technology to communicate and educate. On the one hand, they have provided a mobile system capable of displaying scenarios that incorporate the major pieces of hardware that soldiers use to complete their job. On the other hand, they’ve had to use that same technology to “dumb down” the experience so that it is “user friendly”. For example, simulators require 60 degree temperatures that a Humvee crew would never see in Iraq, computer simulations make target identification overly simplistic, and the scenarios lack the carnage that occurs when bombs, bullets, and projectiles are exchanged. Still, in order to demonstrate how a soldier must make split second reactions based on briefings received prior to mounting up, and then share the ramifications of such decisions after the fact, VAE does offer the public a basic understanding of the complexities of war. “Sharing in this manner…those sort of things build respect,” comments Col. Allard.
The VAE is a unique use of military technology. While not an official recruiting tool, the Wall Street Journal found that “Those who want to try the game are asked for their age, address, phone number and email, and the information is entered into a database.” Clearly the Army isn’t passing up an opportunity to gather information.
What the public gets out of the VAE depends greatly on what they bring to it. Parents need to take an active role in deciding if their child is too emotionally young to handle the information being presented. They should also take some time after the military debriefing to have a chat session of their own with their child and explain issues that are important to their values and beliefs. The VAE becomes a springboard for discussion and “I certainly couldn’t ask for a better use of my tax dollars” says Col. Allard.
Those in the New England area who wish to investigate the Virtual Army Experience for themselves are advised to attend the 2008 Great State of Maine Airshow scheduled September 5th, 6th, and 7th at Naval Air Station Brunswick. Due to mobile technology, the US Army is bringing audiences a highly interactive method of communicating its unique experience at this venue.
“It’s a great way to get a taste of what we are asking our young people to do,” advises Col. Allard.
* CORRECTION 27AUG08: The VAE will be present at this year’s Cleveland National Air Show. Please visit the 2008 Cleveland National Air Show site for more information.
By Alicen Hogan

Monday, 22 September, 2008at19:53
My name is Anderson Connor. The final straw for me was the Ft. Bragg video that came out just as the Company I worked indirectly with was negotiating the next year’s contract with NASCAR and Army driver, Mark Martin. I began in this industry at entry level just months before 9/11, and after the attacks was extremely proud of what I did, helping show race fans all of the fascinating things the Army was doing for us. Over my seven years with the effort, I talked to hundreds if not thousands of soldiers. And more soldiers than not shared their feelings with me that the Army was giving them a raw deal. A soldier’s oath is to defend the Constitution, not obey the President. Ft. Bragg is real. Walter Reed is real. Corporate profiteering is real. And what we, the American people, have done to the Iraqis is real. Your leaders are lying to you. Support IVAW. Support soldiers with something other than magnetic ribbons on your car. Get them out before the next one is killed.
Anderson Connor
admin@cammmo.org
Sunday, 18 October, 2009at11:10
Mr. Connor,
With respect, either you or the soldiers you spoke with do not know what they are talking about. Either that or someone is lying. And I say this with the experience of a 9 year veteran in the US Army, including a combat tour in Iraq.
The Army enlistment oath is very clear:
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
A soldiers job very much is to obey the President of the United states, because the President is the Commander in Chef of the military. There is nobody who’s orders carry more weight then the President.
Further more, I have a hard time beleiving that of the “hundreds if not thousands of soldiers” that you spoke to would have confided in you that they felt they were getting a “raw deal”, because quite frankly a soldier just wouldn’t say that to a civilian, particularly a civilian contractor.
Finally, you should have more respect for the author of this blog to comment on what the article was about, not put out bogus propaganda on behalf of the IVAW. While I’m sure you will never read this, someone else who happens across this article like I did will not fall for what you have written.
To the author of the blog, a well written article. I had not herd of this system before, I look forward to the time when I can see it for myself.