So the guy who called Obama a “boy” was talking about Obama’s actions in some kind of confidential simulation of national security protocols and procedures and so on.
My question is, why was Obama participating in this thing? Who sets these things up, for whom are they set up, and for what purpose are they set up?
Is Obama on a national security committee or something?
-FrL-
Frankly, I might see why a senator (especially one who might be entertaining thoughts of running for President) might participate in one of these. What I can’t understand is why a minor Kentucky representative with little to no chance of ever even actually seeing the “football” would be there…
No, well, duh, I know why Obama would want to participate. :smack: 
I’m asking, basically, why he gets to. Who decides? On what basis? What is the purpose according to which such decisions are made? Etc.
-FrL-
Actually, I meant I could see why he would be asked to participate. If there’s a good chance that someone is going to declare a run for president in the next couple of years, you might just want to give them a little insight into what it actually means to be responsible for that kind of power.
I’m not entirely convinced of the actual existence of this simulation, since the only source we’ve heard anything about it from is Davis, to my knowledge.
Do you have a link or something that might give me a clue as to what you’re talking about?
As a data point, Obama is both on the Foreign Relations Committee and the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs.
From here
Speaking in very general terms, simulations of topics in current events (which some call wargames, but which really leaves an incorrect perception of what they really are) are really common here in DC, and invitees run the gamut. Simulations on various topics can be run by anyone from the Pentagon, to thinktanks, to a type of government contractor known as a Federally Funded Research and Development Center, to NGOs, to independent commissions, and so on.
Who participates in these exercises? Military leaders from generals down to staff officers, members of Congress, political appointees from the Executive Branch, top civil service officials, academics, journalists, and pretty much anyone else who you can think of who might bring a certain amount of expertise to the table.
I guess the question really is, why would members of Congress be invited to participate in these kinds of simulations? The simple answer is that generals or deputy assistant secretaries of state are usually experts in certain issues, but politicians tend to look at issues not as experts, but through the lens of political feasibility.
Interesting. I wish I knew exactly what went on in that simulation thingy.
Here is an example of what one of the simulations is like.
There are certain key things to keep in mind: in many of these simulations, the participants are basically led through a series of decision points. Each decision point is basically introduced by a series of developments, conveyed to the participants by things like mock news reports, intelligence estimates, and so on. The general point is that participants react to the events, and something new happens, they react again, and so on until the scenario plays out. At the end, everyone looks back at what was decided to review how decisionmakers came to their judgments, what assumptions were made, and what opportunities may have been missed.
Contrary to what the term “wargame” would imply, these exercises are not meant to be predictors of future events (ie, if we do this, then our enemy is going to do that). Most of them have a static script for the scenario: it isn’t like a choose your own adventure book where if you choose policy A then the game proceeds, but if you choose policy B something radically different happens. The goal of these exercises isn’t to get the “players” to achieve or avoid a certain outcome, it is to observe how people make decisions, what their hidden biases may be, what leaders may be taking for granted, and so on, to inform the decision making of real leaders should a similar crisis happen.