Seeing Other Sides: Nongame Simulations and Alternative Perspectives of Middle East Conflict

Abstract

Simple role-play simulations can not only demonstrate the dynamics of a conflict but also create awareness of multiple perspectives even among populations relatively set in their opinions. To teach my student population of military officers, I utilize simple, nongame simulations of multisided Middle East conflicts that not only facilitate learning the complex sides but also generate insight and new perspectives. Understanding the motivations of all sides is a prerequisite to analyzing conflicts fully and creating effective policies, necessary skills for military students. The nongame character of these simulations allowed inclusion of the average person; a role generating alternative perspectives, creative thinking, and understanding of the motivations and grievances of disliked groups. Students stated that they now appreciated different claims and the causes of even terrorist group stances, having seen the conflict from the players' points of view. Most students stated that they had not considered the effect on the average person previously, viewing the conflict and potential solutions purely in terms of superpower diplomacy, military actors, terrorist groups, and governmental actions. By not narrowly focusing on diplomatic negotiations, these role-plays spurred insights into the situation on the ground and empathy for the common people.

Keywords:

• Middle East
• military
• role-play
• simulation

Notes

Note. This is derived from a total of 75 evaluations; 30 were participants in the simulations, and six were women.

^a The group was socialist, pro-Palestinian, and secular.

Note. Derived from 16 evaluations; six were participants. Women did not self-identify in the evaluations and did not play roles in this simulation. There was no “ordinary Palestinian” represented in this simulation due to student numbers.

Note. Derived from 18 evaluations; four were participants. Women did not self-identify in the evaluations and did not play roles in this simulation.

Note. Derived from 72 evaluations; 35 were participants in the simulations, and five were women.

^a A leader of al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigades. Currently imprisoned by Israel.

Note. Total evaluations: 26; total participants: 14; total women: 3.

Note. Total number of evaluations was 209. Almost all participants wrote insights.

Empathy can also skew individual opinions favorably toward the subject of empathy. Still, I contend that there is a better probability of constructive policies if the decision makers have a thorough understanding of the reality on the ground that includes the sentiments of the population. With the students in my classes, there is minimal danger of overidentification due to the general negative attitude toward the Arab groups; an attitude I describe below. The students do not lose the perspective that these groups are opposed to U.S. policy but gain an appreciation for the worldview of that group.

The students have had many personal interactions with Israelis. Due in part to these relationships and often their religious backgrounds, they identify with the Israelis. Given the need for a manageable number of simulation participants and a desire to communicate alternative perspectives, I did not include an Israeli average citizen. I may do so in the future.

I ran simulations in 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2007. In 2003, I ran two simulations, on the Lebanese civil war and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. In 2005 and 2006, I added a third on water conflicts, expanding the countries to include Turkey. In 2007 in response to developments, I ran four role-plays, the Lebanese civil war, a pared-down Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, the 2006 Hizbullah-Israeli war, and the Fatah-Hamas split.

For example, in one Palestine-Israel simulation a student asked the United States representative what the effect of Iran was on U.S. policy toward the Palestinians. The student answered he felt the conflict with Iran was being transposed onto the American view toward Hamas.

Five foreign militaries were involved in the fighting, excluding United Nations peacekeepers, one of which was a multinational regional force, the Arab Deterrent Force. Syria was the main participant of this force, but Sudan, Libya, and some Gulf states took part. Major military funding and sponsorship came from Iran, Iraq, the Soviet Union, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Libya.

This is of course not equivalent to a pretest, which I can run in future classes. My evaluation of student views comes from personal one-on-one conversations and class discussions during the prior weeks. Other professors verified my anecdotal conclusions of the students' opinions. Those with dissenting views generally spoke with me privately or after class on their views.

While not a quantitative determination, students accept the U.S. administration's view that a group deemed terrorist is so. Additionally, these two groups have killed or threatened members of the U.S. military, or people the students sympathize with—the Israelis. They therefore come to class hostile to these groups.

I am the only Middle East professor to utilize simulations, simplifying the evaluation of their effect.