In This Story
“When we decided to close the Suez Canal, everyone else in the room had to change their plans, especially the United States.”
So commented one Schar School of Policy and Government student who represented Egypt during a Middle East crisis simulation hosted by George Mason University’s Center for Security Policy Studies (CSPS).
One year after the beginning of fighting in Gaza, CSPS trained students to anticipate the next crisis and how countries might respond. This simulation, which took the form of a daylong matrix board game, was part of an annual series held by the Schar School, including a defense and security research forum and a Gettysburg battlefield tour.
“We offer these ‘out of the classroom’ opportunities,” said Ellen Laipson, director of CSPS and the school’s Master of International Security program, "because they help students move from conceptual thinking and scholarly writing to actually imagining what it would be like to operate in a crisis decision-making environment.”
Reflecting on her extensive career, which includes time as vice chair of the National Intelligence Council and on the staff of the National Security Council, Laipson believes that these simulations can help participants better understand what careers suit them.
“Some people are more suited to being the analyst, with deep knowledge of different world regions, or of specific political and military issues,” she said. “Others enjoy the ‘gaming’ of weighing different policy options; those who think more in terms of ‘now what do we do?’”
George Mason alumni Lee Roberts, PhD Political Science ‘22, an adjunct professor and U.S. Army strategic intelligence officer, and Jerad Harper, PhD Political Science ‘20, an associate professor at the U.S. Army War College, led the simulation in which three years had passed since the fighting in Gaza and Lebanon ended in a ceasefire. They painted a picture in which the new leadership of Fatah and Hamas had formed a united front against Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and were demanding a full withdrawal to the 1967 “Green Line.” Students were then divided into eight teams representing the United States, the European Union, Israel, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and given packets describing their countries’ respective goals and interests.
"Designing and facilitating exercises like this gives us an opportunity to merge our experience as practitioners with the curriculum," said Roberts. "Seminar discussion is great, but it can't really recreate the pressure of prioritizing limited resources, options, and time against multiple urgent challenges. We compress that sensation as best we can into the game and the students report that it makes the concepts much more tangible to them."
During the simulation, each team took turns during which they could take any action incorporating one of the “instruments of national power” identified by the Defense Department’s DIME framework (i.e., diplomatic, informational, military, or economic). They then had to defend the viability of their preferred action. Every other team was given the option of either arguing in favor of or against that action's chances of success. The adjudicator—Roberts or Harper—then used dice to determine whether that team was successful. The relative strength of the arguments for and against the proposed action determined the threshold that the dice roll must reach for the action to be successful.
“It's really great to see how quickly people get into their roles,” said Meredith Hutchens, a CSPS fellow and international security master’s student. “Most people are not timid about stepping into the role, regardless of which country they’ve been assigned.”
As a CSPS fellow, Hutchens volunteered to help facilitate the simulation and was able to observe how her peers navigated the scenario. She was especially intrigued by the negotiations that took place as groups of teams sought to coordinate their actions to achieve common goals and outmaneuver other groups.
“Your decision and your actions can have a lot of consequences, and if you choose to leave someone out of your action plan, that really impacts the game,” she said.
The Schar School’s security studies graduate programs are ranked No. 4 by U.S. News & World Report and include degrees in biodefense and international security as well as a national security track in the master of public policy program and an emergency management and homeland security concentration in the master of public administration program.