Book Shelf 25-24 ~ Politics of years past in Politics of Play: Wargaming with the US Military (Aggie Hirst, Oxford University Press, 2024)

Politics of Play: Wargaming with the US Military by Aggie Hirst was for me a difficult book to read. Perhaps this is shameful self-criticism, but the heavily academic language used in the book likely is fine if you are a graduate student in or near the field of International Relations (IR) theory. On the other hand, for somebody like myself who is a dabbling wargame practitioner reading the book was a slog. Perhaps the challenge I faced reading Politics of Play is that it is much more theoretical than I expected. I opened the book expecting to read about the world of wargame practitioners; what I got was IR theory and wargaming. Not necessarily a bad thing, mind you, just not what I expected when I opened the book cover.

It took me until the conclusion of Politics of Play to truly understand what Hirst was presenting:

This book has developed the first in-depth analysis in the field of IR of the twenty-first century US military wargaming renaissance. Presenting original interview testimony gathered with wargaming pioneers and practitioners, it has shown how wargames are productive not only of realities but also—by intervening in players’ cognitive and affective registers—of people. Seeking to expose the politics at work in wargames, and between their designers, sponsors, facilitators, and players, it has developed a mode of critical analysis called “deconstructive play” and put this to work critically examining the power relations that influence both how players think and also their values, beliefs, and identities. It has demonstrated how, in an epoch of ludicrous militarism that extends far beyond military institutions to permeate our cultural and recreational worlds, wargaming works to produce subjectivities. It has argued that play—as distinct from gameplay—can open cracks in the closed system of wargames, thereby pushing against the smooth running of their hyperreal productions in the age of simulation.

p. 297

Politics of Play: Wargaming with the US Military comes from a bit of an unusual perspective. Hirst is an Associate Professor in International Relations Theory and Methods in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. Her academic work specializes in international political theory and critical military studies. Her online presence reveals she is the Principal Investigator for a project funded by the Leverhulme Trust and the British Academy, which investigates the use of wargames and simulations in military training and education. Hirst is certainly a wargaming insider based on her studies and research, but something of an outsider when it comes to the U.S. military. When writing Politics of Play it seems clear that Hirst learned about wargaming in the U.S. military through the lens of U.S. wargame practitioners. That perspective, though invaluable, might of also be an intellectual blinder.

I approached reading Politics of Play from three loosely related perspectives. First, I am a hobby wargamer that (second) dabbles on the fringes of the wargame practitioner world. Third, I am a wargamer within the Department of War serving as an occasional sponsor, erstwhile facilitator, subject matter expert, and player/participant. 

I must admit that, from my hobby wargaming perspective, I did not expect much from Politics of Play. After finishing the book, however, I came away with a better understanding of just how different wargames for research, education, training, and (dare I say) analysis are from hobby wargames. I relish in the potential Hirst presents in, “shifting the focus from leisure to military gaming and introducing the study of play” (p. 299).

From my perspective of a wannabe wargame practitioner, Politics of Play is intellectually challenging in many ways. The “deconstructive play” analysis by Hirst is interesting and enlightened me with new or clarified perspectives on the world of wargame practitioners. That said, after reading the book I was left wondering, “What’s next?” Hirst in Politics of Play reviews the past ten years of the wargaming renaissance in the Department of War but the book ends with an uncertain view of the future. At the very least Hirst delivers a framework for wargame practitioners to build their art upon as they move ahead into the next decade of wargaming. But is that enough? The areas Hirst identifies for further study, “the question of how players play” (p. 301) and “the role of diversity in gaming” (p. 303) are hardly attractive to a sponsor within the Department of War that is being told prepare to “fight tonight.”

From my perspective as a wargamer inside the Department of War, i.e. a person who participates in wargaming as a sponsor or provider of support to scenario development to facilitating wargames or participating in a wargame as a subject matter expert or white/blue/red cell member, it is much more difficult to see the practical applicability of Politics of Play. Hirst’s book also certainly has use for sponsors, designers, and facilitators, though the former group likely does not have the time to devote to fully understanding the theory and how to leverage it in the same ways the later two groups should. Players are the least of all likely to have the time—or inclination—to engage with Hirst’s analysis in no small part because that is not their primary, or even secondary, reasons for engaging with a wargame in the first place.

Politics of Play, written in 2024, does not neatly align with current Department of War policies which may also hinder it’s acceptance within the walls of that five-sided circus. It is unclear how Hirst’s “deconstructive play” can (should?) be leveraged to advance the operational readiness of the U.S. military. How does one rectify the theory of Politics of Play with practical works for wargame practitioners like The Craft of Wargaming: A Detailed Planning Guide for Defense Planners and Analysts (2020) by Col. Jeff Appleget, USA (Ret.), Col. Robert Burks, USA (Ret.), and Fred Cameron (which, incidentally, is not listed in the References by Hirst). During this current administration, Hirst’s call of for further research, “of the role of diversity in gaming” (p. 303) and in particular, “how different security concerns of marginalized people—or example, LGBT+ people—are factored into games and the strategies and operational plans that emerge from them” (p. 304) is unlikely to find easy acceptance in a Department with a renewed focus on Warfighting that strives to unite personnel around shared mission goals rather than identity-centric programs.

Wargame practitioners, above all others should read Politics of Play. Hobby wargamers, and even boardgamers, who are interested in motivations for gaming likely will also benefit from reading Hirst’s book. Players, however, may find the arguments in Politics of Play far beyond the non-critical “looking for a good game” or “what does this game tell me” desires of many. The theory of Politics of Play is also unlikely to resonate within the halls of the Department of War. Hirst and wargame practitioners can call it “deconstructive play” as much as they want but the reality is that the real measure of a wargames’ success inside the Pentagon is that it is finished in time for the Operations Plan (OPLAN) rewrite or the next acquisition milestone or in time for inclusion in a Program Objective Memorandum (POM).  

---

Feature image courtesy RMN

The opinions and views expressed in this blog are those of the author alone and are presented in a personal capacity. They do not necessarily represent the views of U.S. Navy or any other U.S. government Department, Service, Agency, Office, or employer.

RockyMountainNavy.com © 2007-2025 by Ian B is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0