"In a lot of different ways, either passively or actively, the military players ended up gravitating toward higher-level discussions that didn't put them on the ground or didn't put their troops in harm's way," Davies said. "When players got in the game, they were really stuck on that guidance," he said.Īnother possible holdover from the experience supporting the ebola response was a hesitancy to game out scenarios in which troops had direct contact with infected populations or regions, he said. military was not supposed to provide direct aid to infected populations. "In this case, there may have been a fairly significant hangover from the ebola response," Davies said, referring to the deadly outbreak of the virus between 20 in West Africa.ĭavies, who spoke to on his own behalf and not to present an official position of the college, Navy or Defense Department, added that, during the ebola outbreak, which resulted in more than 13,000 deaths, the U.S. "This can directly inhibit effective planning and adaptation," it adds.īenjamin Davies, the game's designer and the associate director of research for NWC's civilian-military humanitarian response program, said that, for the mid-grade and senior officers participating in the game, one challenge came down to a recurring theme for the military: a tendency to fight the last war instead of the current one. "Even in the planning phase, the military and government may (consciously or unconsciously) exhibit avoidance behaviors to limit the scope of their involvement with affected and/or infected populations in the field," one of 16 conclusions in the 12-page summary document notes.Īnother conclusion assesses the tendency of "experienced professionals" to meet unusual or unprecedented conditions in the scenario with resistance.
0 kommentar(er)
