Labyrinth: The War on Terror, 2001 – ?

Analyzing the boardgame on the Global War on Terrorism

In this article I will analyze the historical accuracy of the game “Labyrinth: The War on Terror, 2001 – ?”. This boardgame is based on the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) starting 2001. I will look at the general information of the game, the background of the designer and the historical background of the theme of the boardgame.

General information

Game: Labyrinth: The War on Terror, 2001 – ?
Year: 2010
Number of players: 1 or 2
Designer: Volko Ruhnke
Publisher: GMT Games
Link to ‘Rules of Play’
Link to ‘Playbook’

The game

This game is based on the idea of the opposition that mostly formed following the September 11th attacks in New York. The opposition in this game takes shape of the United States vs. ‘the jihadists’. When playing alone, the player assumes the role of the United States. When playing with 2 players, the second player portrays the jihadists. The first player (US) is supposed to improve governance in Muslim countries in order to fight Jihadism. The second player is trying to reestablish the Islamic Caliphate and damage the US.

The designer

Russian designer Volko Ruhnke started his carreer working for the US Army. Here he became part of a team that tested computer-based simulations to defend Germany from the Sovjet Union. These simulations are basically tabletop role-playing games. When he was working for the CIA, he was creating his own wargames and instructing analysts and spent most of his life teaching at the Sherman Kent School for Intelligence Analysis, a spy university for CIA intelligence analysts. He continued his interest for tactics and strategy when he started developing boardgames for amateurs, like Wilderness War (2001) on the French-Indian War or Cuba Libre (2013) on the Cuban Revolution. 

Historical background

Start of the Global War On Terror

In the 1990’s the Islamic following in the Middle East and South Asia increased. During the Soviet-Afghan War in the 1980s, the United States supported Afghan mujahideen in their resistance against the Soviet Union. However, after the war Bin Laden felt abandoned and saw the U.S. as an unreliable ally. Then he rejected the U.S. military troops in Saudi Arabia, particularly after the Gulf War in 1990-1991 when American troops were stationed in the region. He saw this presence as a violation of what he considered to be sacred Islamic land. This anger turned into a new conflict against the Western world. Bin Ladin and his al-Qaeda group, a transnational Islamist extremist organization founded in 1988, found shelter in Afghanistan. They were protected by the Taliban, a strict religious group that formed during the anti-Soviet fighting in the 1980s.

A Holy War

Osama Bin Laden declared a holy war against the United States in 1996. In 1998 the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania were bombed. Al-Qaeda was responsible for these attacks. The bombings in East Africa marked a significant turning point in international perceptions of terrorism and led to increased efforts to combat transnational terrorist networks. The U.S. responded by launching cruise missile strikes against suspected al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. In October 2000 al-Qaeda committed a suicide-attack in Yemen on the USS Cole, a military ship of the United States Navy.

After 9/11

Following these events, on September 11th 2001 a series of coordinated terrorist acts on the World Trade Center in New York City were carried out by al-Qaeda. Osama Bin Laden hoped that the attacks would lead to a global Muslim uprising. These attacks had a major impact on global politics, security, and the perception of terrorism and were perceived as a symbol of the ‘clash of cultures’ between the east and the west. In the aftermath of these attacks, the United States, under President George W. Bush, initiated the campaign of the “War on Terror”, or GWOT (Global War on Terrorism). The goal was to eliminate terrorist threats and prevent future attacks like those on September 11th.

Operation Enduring Freedom

Towards late 2001, the US government demanded that the Taliban handed over important Al-Quada leaders. One of these leaders was Osama bin Laden. The Taliban refused to cooperate.  The United States initiated a military campaign called Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) supported by NATO allies and other coalitions of nations. The primary goal for the operation was to dismantle Al-Quada and the Taliban and counter the terrorist threat coming from their networks in Afghanistan. On October 7th 2001 they officially started the OEF with airstrikes that targeted Taliban and Al-Quada positions in Afghanistan. In December 2001, the majority of Afghanistan was liberated from the Taliban control and the initial goals of the operation were achieved. In the period between 2001 and 2003 there was a focus on the global counterterrorism actions and buildup to the invasion of Iraq. 

Operation Iraqi Freedom

The US focussed on Iraq because they believed that the country was developing weapons of mass destruction. They perceived these weapons of mass destruction as a major threat to global security. The US government suspected links between the regime of Saddam Hussein and terrorist organizations as Al-Quada and decided to intervene. Even if some countries strongly objected, the US started military action against Iraq. The United States started Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003. The aim was to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his government. They succeeded in bringing down Saddam Hussein and on May 1 2003, president George W. Bush declared the end of major combat actions in Iraq, but for years following they continued military operations. 

 

The playboard and map

Specifics of the map

Countries & Governance

The board represents a map of the world depicting most of the Muslim-world. There are both Muslim and Non-Muslim countries on the map, and all the Muslim-countries show a track of “governance”, with a descending scale from Good (best), Fair, Poor, to Islamist Rule (worst). This track shows how much governance the US has in the specific countries and can change throughout the game. The non-Muslim countries have a permanent state of ‘good’ or ‘fair’ governance. The game considers Iran neither Muslim or Non-Muslim, so it has a constant state of ‘fair’ governance. 

Posture

Non-Muslim countries (except for Iran and the US) also have a box tracking the posture of the countries, that can be either ‘Hard’ or ‘Soft’. The US GWOT Track keeps track of the world posture, counting the ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ countries. 

Cells and Troops

The game uses black cylinders  to represent Jihad cells or fighters, and white cubes to represent units of Western troops. The player can place them in the countries. The player can take cells from the Jihadist funding track and troops from the Troops track.

Other tracks and markers

Besides the tracks and markers on the map I previously mentioned, there are also some other tracks. These tracks are mostly used for the mechanics of the game. I will not be discussing them now because they are less relevant in order to analyze the historical accuracy of the game.

Design choices

The overall presentation of the board aligns with the purpose of the game. Representing a war game, earthy tones and military greens are chosen for the colors on the board. The countries with ‘good’ governance are clearly distinguished by having a blue color, while the other countries are earth colors. The addition of Governance and other tracks for Muslim countries provide a visual representation of the political and strategic status. The descending scale for Governance and the alignment categorization contribute to the player’s understanding of the state of each country in the game. The countries have connection lines when they are adjacent, to give a clear representation. This is important to know when playing the game. Althogether, the designers did a good job on the visualization of the game.

Accuracy

The board also shows symbols for countries that posses oil as a resource, which has its own function for the game. The countries with oil in the game align with the reality. The map accurately depicts the dominant religious affiliations of countries, distinguishing between Sunni, Shia-Mix, and Non-Muslim regions. Generally, the map is quite accurate for a simplified version of a complicated war.

The playbook

While the rulebook looks solely at the mechanics of the game, the playbook is supposed to provide us a little more information on the game. The first part of the playbook gives more information on how to play the game for unexperienced players. Additionally. the playbook provides background information on all the 120 eventcards. These eventcards are all based on events that have occured in the Global War on Terrorism.

Design notes

The playbook gives a detailed description of the choices the designers made for this game, The designer, Volko Ruhnke, gives an explanation for the fact the game is assymetrical and answers other questions that might arise when playing the game. Unlike the Cold War, the “Global War on Terrorism” is asymmetric. Ruhnke explains how he incorporated this asymmetry into the game mechanics. The U.S. and jihadist players face entirely different operational choices, reflecting the divergent nature of counterterrorist and terrorist tactics.

The Story

Winning

To analyse this game I have to understand the basic rules to the game. The game can be won through 3 different ways. 

US victory when one of these conditions is met:

1. The US-player wins the game when Muslim countries with a total of at least 12 resources have good governance. Winning is based on the resources of the countries that have good governance.
2. At least 15 Muslim countries have fair or good governance. In this way, winning is based on the quantity of countries with good governance. 
3. There are no Jihadist cells in any countries on the map. This means Jihadists have no power in the countries on the map.

Jihadist victory when one of these conditions is met:

1. Islamic Rule governs countries with a total of at least 6 resources, including at least 2 adjacent countries. 
2. US Prestige is 1 and at least 15 Muslim countries have poor or Islamist Rule Governance
3. A weapon of mass destruction is resolved in the US without being countered

The scenario’s

The game offers three different scenarios that are different moments in history. Every scenario requires a different setup. 

Scenario 1: Let’s Roll!

Description in playbook: It is September 12th, 2001. Al-Qaeda has pulled off a devastating “martyrdom operation” in the United States that it hopes will light the fires of Islamist revolution. The US—caught off guard—has awaken and is about to respond…

This scenario takes place starting September 12th 2001, directly following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. In the scenario, the United States is portrayed as being caught off guard by the attack but is now awake and ready for responding.

Scenario 2: Anaconda

Description in playbook: It is early 2002. The United States has carried out a swift military operation to remove the Taliban regime of Afghanistan and scatter al- Qaeda. Jihadist losses have been heavy, but al-Qaeda’s leadership has escaped…

This scenario takes place starting early 2002, following Operation Enduring Freedom.

Scenario 3: Mission Accomplished?

Description in playbook: It is mid-2003. The United States has gambled on pre-emptive war in Iraq in hopes of forging democracy in the heart of the Muslim world. But US overstretch, European doubts, and Iraqi resistance offer the Jihadists an opening…

This scenario takes place following Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

The events

The game has 120 eventcards that influence the game. All these cards are associated with the U.S. side, the Jihadist side or with no side in particular. The cards are all based on actual events that have occured in the GWOT. On every card there is ‘flavor text’ that gives some information on the event in real-life. Additionally, as I talked about before, the player can find more detailed information for every eventcard in the playbook.

 

Overall accuracy