In accurately defining the contextual and cultural population of the task force battlespace, it became rapidly
apparent that we needed to develop a keen understanding of demographics
as well as the cultural intricacies that drive the Iraqi population.1
- Major General Peter W. Chiarelli, Commander, 1st Cavalry Division, Baghdad, 2004-2005
With this statement, the idea of having trained anthropologists embedded with military units in places like Iraq and Afghanistan came to fruition and the Human Terrain System (HTS) was born. New York Times reporter David Rohde clues us in
In this isolated Taliban stronghold in eastern Afghanistan, American paratroopers are fielding what they consider a crucial new weapon in counterinsurgency operations here: a soft-spoken civilian anthropologist named Tracy.
Tracy, who asked that her surname not be used for security reasons, is a member of the first Human Terrain Team, an experimental Pentagon program that assigns anthropologists and other social scientists to American combat units in Afghanistan and Iraq. Her team's ability to understand subtle points of tribal relations -- in one case spotting a land dispute that allowed the Taliban to bully parts of a major tribe -- has won the praise of officers who say they are seeing concrete results.
Col. Martin Schweitzer, commander of the 82nd Airborne Division unit working with the anthropologists here, said that the unit's combat operations had been reduced by 60 percent since the scientists arrived in February, and that the soldiers were now able to focus more on improving security, health care and education for the population.
''We're looking at this from a human perspective, from a social scientist's perspective,'' he said. ''We're not focused on the enemy. We're focused on bringing governance down to the people.''
In September, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates authorized a $40 million expansion of the program, which will assign teams of anthropologists and social scientists to each of the 26 American combat brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since early September, five new teams have been deployed in the Baghdad area, bringing the total to six.
Now this sounds like a good idea to me. And it seems like a good way for the country to employ all aspects of our creativity, talent, wisdom and knowledge to the problem of freeing people from oppression: An alternative to all guns all the time. Don't you think?
But, as may have been expected, not everyone agrees. Specifically in this case, the American Anthropology Association (AAA) has officially expressed "its disapproval of the [Human Terrain System] HTS program"
Now one would think that individual anthropologists would have a problem with the program, but not as a group: after all isn't their calling specifically to foster the foundation for peace through cultural understanding? If not this, what exactly does an applied anthropologist really do?
So what are the concerns of the AAA?
Well, one
As military contractors working in settings of war, HTS anthropologists work in situations where it will not always be possible for them to distinguish themselves from military personnel and identify themselves as anthropologists. This places a significant constraint on their ability to fulfill their ethical responsibility as anthropologists to disclose who they are and what they are doing.
So they are worried about people not know they are anthropologists? Well, it would seem they could solve this simply by putting a big "I'm an Anthropologist" sign on their backs. Why won't that work?
Or are they afraid they'll get shot at just like any other member of the contingent of folks who are not criminals or Islamists. And do they really think that al Qaida cares that they are anthropologists? If you're scared to be in a battle zone, just say it. No need to hide under intellectual desks. It may surprise you, but most soldiers in the battle zone are scared too.
They do it anyway.
They have three other complaints all relating to the fact that something they do could get someone killed. Yeah, well lots of people live with these kinds of decisions every single day of their lives; politicians, cops, soldiers...so what? Man up will you? You can live life or avoid it, but you can't do both.
Finally we get to the meat
Because HTS identifies anthropology and anthropologists with U.S. military operations, this identification, given the existing range of globally dispersed understandings of U.S. militarism, may create serious difficulties for, including grave risks to the personal safety of, many non-HTS anthropologists and the people they study.
US militarism? Grave risks to personal safety?
You know, the military is a population worthy of study in and of itself. And being able to study them under the circumstances for which they were trained would seem like a great opportunity for anthropologists. This in addition to the valuable service they would do to regular Iraqis who just want to live their lives free from oppression.
But perhaps they are only interested in studying people when there is no grave risk to personal safety. Kinda reminds me of the State Department folks who didn't want to do their job in Iraq for fear of great personal safety.
And when I browse around the Triple A website, it seems that, like the NEA, they are more concerned with promoting anthropology and anthropologists instead of using anthropology to better mankind
Look at some of their goals
- initiates and responds to national and international policies relevant to anthropology
- works with the White House and federal agencies on issues and activities important to anthropology
- supports and assists the development of federal programs and initiatives that benefit anthropology
Call me a cretin, but shouldn't we be using anthropology to inform our national and international policies rather than just promoting anthropology?
In any case, and despite the AAA's stand against HTS, there are anthropologists who are not cowards and who disregard personal safety, and are not squeamish about possibly making life and death decisions especially if those informed decisions save a US Serviceman's life, or the life of an innocent civilian.
In fact, Dr Marcus B. Griffin, Ph.D, an anthropologist and professor at Christopher Newport University in Newport News, Virginia is currently embedded with the military and is even blogging about his experience.
He directly addresses the position of the AAA with regards to HTS here. He concludes
..the AAA disapproving of HTS is unfortunate. The statement creates a climate that discourages qualified anthropologists from participating in the program. The result will likely be that the program will seek participation from other disciplines, including the humanities, and anthropology will have failed to take advantage of an important opportunity to make a difference in the world.
It seems to me that "making a difference in the world" is not in the AAAs mission statement.
And Dr Griffin has more courage, and common sense than most people, anthropologist or not
In the blogosphere, there are suggestions that I am unwilling to really say what we are doing because I don’t want to be discovered for the rat I must be for working with the US Army. What must be understood in order to be an informed reader of this blog I keep for the benefit of my students back home is that I am in a combat environment. The soldiers I work with are in harm’s way. So readers looking for conspiracy should keep in mind that operations security (OPSEC) is a very real necessity to protect the lives of personnel—Iraqi or American. An operation cannot be discussed because that information might be used by someone to set up an ambush or other activity that causes harm or failure. When the time is right to write about an activity in order to illustrate how we are using anthropology, I will write about it, such as my upcoming post on an aerial survey.
It seems to me, that unlike the AAA, Dr Griffin understands the meaning of ethics.
