Quote:
Originally Posted by mweber24
Anthropologists ARE intelligence assets for the military.
|
Well, that's the crux of the debate here. The military says no, they are not. Intelligence, strictly speaking, is determining who Individual X is, what he is doing, and what his relationship to Individual Y is. The work of the HTTs is rather to determine past and future trajectories on a societal and cultural scale.
Supposedly there is no tactical relevance to the work of HTTs. Obviously the anthropological community (and you) disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mweber24
Get over it.
|
...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mweber24
All information is intelligence by another name. Either they will willingly work with the military to gain access to areas in crisis, or they can sit back and watch cultures they say they care about be destroyed by conflict.
|
A field anthropologist would say that not only have anthropologists operated in war-torn hinterlands for decades -- including "areas of crisis" of no interest to the U.S. -- but also that U.S. military involvement hinders independent study by limiting access to the discretion of the government.
Implying that anthropologists are obliged to assist the military in "intelligence" gathering (as you previously construed their study) is a pernicious interpretation of their relevance as an independent and critical component of the social-science world.
Should all chemists and physicists be forced to assist in the development of war material?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mweber24
If members of the military cannot use these scientists directly, then they will do their best to BECOME anthopologists using open source material (military officers CAN read despite popular academic belief) and will apply theories as they see best without academic advice, and maybe just force the issue by forcably changing the culture instead of using it.
|
As a fledgling Army officer, I will confirm our ability to read but will also ignore the right-ish stab at the academy.
After all it is the same academy that trains our officers.
Suggesting we forcibly change cultures in an anthropological pantomime is missing the point completely and will only widen the gap between the military's mission and the academic fora.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mweber24
Bottom line, the US military does not involve itself in areas or cultures that are doing all right, we are only there because something went really wrong. We are trying to fix it in a way that supports our interests.
|
Don't confuse a volatile political situation with culture. On one hand, yes, we are "nation-building" -- but here is where the verbiage becomes important: the U.S. is seeking to rebuild these nations' infrastructure and government in such a fashion that their culture can thrive. And while we seek to police violent extremism (as we should), we as a nation and a military have no interest in re-shaping the Islamic cultural diaspora.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mweber24
Anthropologists may be able to guide military operations in ways that both accomplish the military and national objectives while preserving what is best about local cultures, while at the same time learning from them.
|
I agree completely.