An escalating controversy is swirling around violent computer games due to the growing number of extreme acts of violence linked to exposure to such games. What is not well-publicized is that the Pentagon has, over the past several years, been pumping millions into helping develop some of the most violent games. Eric Harris and Dylan Kleibold, the Columbine Killers, pumped themselves up on the game Doom, which is licensed to the US military to train soldiers in lethal combat. Robert Steinhaueser, the German kid who blew away 16 classmates is spent hours playing some of the most violent computer games available, many of them developed as a joint effort between the military and the gaming industry. It has now come out that Malvo, the young Beltway Sniper, was trained by his lethal "mentor" Mohammed using military "sims" because the latter, an ex-military man, believed the games would help suppress any aversion to killing the boy had.

The military is well aware of how seductive these games can be to young men, especially, and now spends part of its recruitment budget on developing realistic "sims" as recruitment lures.

Although the military and the stakeholders in the gaming industry of course dispute that these games should be linked to violence, study after study tell a much different story: The summary finding, put in its mildest terms: "Young men who are habitually aggressive may be especially vulnerable to the aggression-enhancing effects of repeated exposure to violent games."

I have no doubt that such games can help loosen the tenuous grip a confused or disturbed youth many have on reality. But I think the bigger problem is being ignored: the impact of exposure to such games on young men now in the military who are on missions involving real weapons and real lives. In a computer game, the targets are two dimensional - a disconnect between the idea of flesh and blood people in a war zone and the mental image of computer people may become established in young men who have played games extensively - even among soldiers who have trained extensively on approved military sims. Once in the field, these soldiers may become "charged" in the same way stimulated by the games and with lethal results, thanks to the "disconnect" between 3-D flesh and blood and 2-D pixel people. In a sim, it is common for players to "shoot at any thing that moves" in the height of the game, because it is, after all, just a game, and no real emotional cost is involved, no consequence after the computer is shut down. But out in the field, a conditioned response to adrenaline cultivated by sim playing may kick in - and be reflexively played out - and it is NOT just a game. There ARE consequences. When I hear a news report quoting a 22-year-old as saying it didn't really bother him too much that he had to "drop the chick" (kill a civilian woman), buzzers and bells are sounding big time. If this does not scream disconnect loud and clear, what could? The reality will eventually sink in and supplant the disconnect, however, with terrible emotional/psychological consequences.

The barrage of glory and guts movies, military sims, network bravado (everything reported about the action is "daring" and "heroic" are all designed to suck in the vulnerable young soldier and the public, which has never had a war fought on its soil in its lifetime (unless they are over 150 years old). Consequences are never discussed, much less considered seriously. And, in this war, unlike Korea and Vietnam, there were no psychologists available for the soldiers to talk to when needed (remember Sidney in M.A.S.H.?). There has never been, in history, a crop of young soldiers who were so pre-stuffed on so much realistic-but-not-real war-like-but-not-war material. I think it is extremely significant that British and Australian soldiers were not reported as engaging in the excesses of violence that the US troops committed during this war: Unlike the US, these countries militaries do not make computer games such a key part of training and recruiting. In other words, these troops do not suffer from the hyper-adrenalized disconnect that US soldiers exhibit. The bigger question to ask at this point is: WHY does the Pentagon need to push combat sims so heavily? One can only assume that a future filled with military actions has now been foreseen and planned for some years. Just as it is now known that the attack on Iraq has been contemplated by Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, et al for at least a decade

I believe these young American soldiers have been set up for some grave emotional consequences unless STRONG, ASSERTIVE actions are taken to avert or mitigate it. Pre-discharge Support groups and counseling facilitated by older combat vets from Vietnam or Gulf War I would be extremely helpful. Even more helpful would be the formation of civilian support groups that can be ongoing, a safe place to unload and get a reality check and emotional validation - both so critical in preventing smoldering PTSD from gaining an upper hand. I think the DAV, Gulf War and Vietnam vet organizations, and perhaps even the VA (one can dream, eh?) should start doing some outreach and ground work in this direction.

Meanwhile, even as I write this, at West Point, an ambitious program to create even more elaborate war games is underway.

Lethal Recreations: How Violent Computer Games Can Affect the Teenage Brain

http://www.mafhoum.com/press4/127T46.htm

"Intelligent Synthetic Characters for Computer Games and Military Training"

Here's a paper on how the military is trying to develop ever more realistic characters - intellectually that is, and its interconnection to the game development field:
Excerpt:

" I'll also briefly describe our development of TacAir-Soar, a real-time expert system that flies U.S. military air missions in simulation, and that is used for training in the U.S. Air Force. Our experience building TacAir-Soar is now being applied to building human-like synthetic characters for computer games, including Quake II and Unreal Tournament. The Soar Quakebot creates and uses internal maps of its environment and attempts to anticipate the actions of opponents via internal projective modeling. More recently we are developing computer characters for more story-based games and we are developing AI systems that can provide some direction to make the games more interactive. This research also has direct application to creating synthetic characters for military training for MOUT environments and I will briefly describe our early efforts in that area. "

http://www.aic.nrl.navy.mil/seminars/01to02/Laird-abs.html

Video Games Offer Young Recruits a Peek at Military Life

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0531/p18s01-algn.html

The Rise of Computer Games to Recruit and Train US Soldiers

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/wargames020821.html