You do, of course, realize that artificial intelligence that has to process and navigate real terrain has nothing whatsoever to do with bots in a game that have to behave somewhat reasonably...
Besides, we already have bots. They just still stink because they can't properly adapt to close quarters, for example. So they either ridiculously slow reaction times in close combat or shoot you in an instant from a mile away. Or they try their open ground formations with buildings in the way and get stuck and move through cities in a retarded fashion. Those are all things that can be addressed.
We really don't need practical, war-zone applicable AI the military may or may not be working on for whatever purpose...
Besides everything else: ArmA is not a simulation. It doesn't simulate anything, therefore it's not a simulation. In Forza you can try and simulate with reasonable accuracy how different rubber mixtures or suspension settings affect your car's handling. That's a simulation.
ArmA doesn't simulate jack. It has unrealistic cars, unrealistic weaponry, horrible AI, clunky movement, terrible tanks... It's a game. A game that tries to convey a feeling of authenticity and depending on how far you're willing to immerse yourself into it despite its problems it does a pretty good job with that. Better than any other game anyway, I'd say. But it's still a game. Not a simulation.
I know the military uses a special version of Flashpoint for training purposes, but that's along the lines of "if you see this happen, what do you do? Excellent". It's like an interactive driver's license practicing game. It does what it sets out to do reasonably well, but it's not a simulation.
And it'll be quite a while until we see a simulation of war. Flight sims, yes, racing sims, yes, shooting range sims, maybe even hunting sims, yes. But an actual war simulation with the amount of detail that it's a playable shooter and not a statistics-driven table-top... not any time soon.
