Another Gaming Controversy

On September 8th of this year I wrote an essay on games dealing with controversial subject matter. In trying to define what games might be considered objectionable I wrote:

…it would be in bad taste for an American game company to make a game about any war in which our soldiers are currently fighting and dying. If I was the parent of a soldier fighting in Iraq, I wouldn’t like to see anyone playing a game called Insurgency in which one player gains points by blowing up American units with suicide meeples.

Imagine my surprise when I looked at the latest Strategy and Tactics magazine (number 240) and read their list of proposed games. Among the list of proposed modern era games was this item:

Insurgency. Covers the first two years in Iraq following the ground campaign as the American-led Coalition attempts to rebuild infrastructure in the face of armed Iraqi resistance.

There is also a proposal for a game called Iraq that deals with more than just the first two years of the Iraq war.

In my previous essay, I tried to strike a balance in my approach to the subject of political correctness in games. But on the subject of Iraq games, I don’t think that approach is necessary. I believe it is a bad idea for Decision Games, the parent company of Strategy & Tactics, to be proposing games about a war in which our soldiers are still engaged.

This is not about censorship. Decision Games has the legal right to publish games about any subject they please. I am not suggesting that anyone diminish that right in any way.

This is not about a permanent ban on Iraq and terrorism as the subject matter for games. I think both Insurgency and Iraq sound like interesting game proposals, and I might very well buy a copy of the games when they are published. As long as they are published after the war is over.

This is not about support for the war or criticism of it. It doesn’t matter if you think the war is a necessary one that we must win, or if you think the war was pure folly from its conception: you still probably believe that our soldiers deserve our utmost respect.

My objection to the game proposals is based on this respect for our men and women in uniform. American soldiers make heroic sacrifices in any war, but this war has been especially hard on our all-volunteer army. Because the Bush administration has not been willing to ask the American people as a whole to make sacrifices, and because few politicians in either party are willing to discuss a draft—let alone vote for one, many of our soldiers have not been able to leave the military when their normal terms of enlistments are up. Many soldiers have been required to do multiple tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. And some have paid the ultimate price.

I know that many games have long development cycles, and that by the time these Iraq games are ready for publication American soldiers may no longer be in Iraq. But I see no indication in the magazine that the good folks at Decision Games intend to delay publication if American soldiers are still fighting in Iraq when the games are finished.

Maybe I am making a mountain out of a molehill. Maybe there are American soldiers in Iraq who would enjoy seeing their experience become a game. But the idea of rolling for cardboard American casualties while real Americans are suffering real wounds and worse just seems callous to me.

I urge gamers who agree with me to contact Joseph Miranda at Decision Games and respectfully suggest to him that consideration of these games should be delayed until after American troops have left Iraq.

Those of us who have not been required to sacrifice for our country should not be playing games about the lives and deaths of those who are still in the thick of battle.