ORIGINAL: ravinhood
I would have much preferred Iran or North Korea and/or China combined, someone we might be more likely to goto war with than little ole puny Syria.
As previously noted here and in other threads your ignorance is rivaling that of a child, but it does go a long way to explaining why wargamers are constantly regurgitated the same tired old scene.
Ive been following CMSF for a few months now and although there are some areas I wish to see expanded overall it appears to be a very descent attempt to recreate modern combat. Being able to play red on red should allow us to recreate a huge amount of scenarios from Iraq/Iraq, Africa, Afghanastan to hypothetical Iran/North Korea. NO, these campaigns are not included out of the box, but considering the War in the Pacific campaign what buggy to the point of UNPLAYABILITY when I purchased it I think that this can be forgiven. If there were no scenario editor then there would be something to complain about.
With regards to it being out of taste some people need to take a step back and look at our hobby. There are many currently serving troops on the forums over there who have commented about their interest in the title, and if they arent upset by the content its sad that we would be. Any wargame can be said to be in bad taste if one looks for a reason.
Its has also been noted that the review you mention was largely copied from various press articles. If you want a descent preview try the one below.
http://www.wargamer.com/reviews/cmsf_preview/
Our Airforce would destroy all their battle tanks within the 1st week if not less. 
