Tweet
As I am new to this community, this seemed to be the most appropriate forum to start this discussion. Forgive me if I am incorrect.
This was a question posed to me in my member introduction, but I feel like it deserves a bit more exposure and would love to hear other perspectives.
You're absolutely right -- there is a big disconnect between the science of anthropology and its role in national security issues. Similarly, the anthro community views any connection to military operations as anathema to the health and progress of the field.
It's funny you should ask this -- only four days ago I went to a seminar on the CU campus that was hosted by six full-bird Colonels, all students at the Army War College (1 USAF, 1 USMC, 4 USA). The audience included myself and only five others, so I was able to discuss this in detail.
Before getting into this, it's important to understand that as a field anthropology has an usually large and heavy cross to bear.
While nearly every science has at one point been involved in eugenics, colonialism, exploitation, etc., for one reason or another anthropology stands out in the world's mind as the ivory tower's Gestapo. Because of the field's checkered history (the grandmother of modern anth, Margaret Mead, was rumored to have worked with the OSS) its students, professors, and adherents are HYPER sensitive to ethics and how they are perceived by their subjects, host nations, and cultures of study. It can be very easy to tar anthropologists with the "whiny liberal PC" brush, but their political correctness is necessary for the preservation of their science.
At the same time, anthropology has been essential in the quest to chart the human/cultural trajectory and can single-handedly diffuse and even dismiss silly, even dangerous, myths, and in so doing lessen the associated levels of violence. Anthropology is the West's only method for understanding far-flung cultures with as little bias or subjectivity as a science can muster.
In a bit of a paradox, my undergraduate studies in anthropology led me to the military. I began to understand the great powers of observation, interpretation, and empahty anthropologists have discovered, over the decades and through the evolution of their doctrine and method. Without becoming too anecdotal, let me say that I felt my training in anthropology (I went a little further than most ungrads by spending summers in field schools as far away as Alaska) would be a perfect fit in my aspirations to become an Army intelligence/CA/FAO officer.
And this is where the discussion picks up. Anthropologists view intelligence work as a poison to their field. Regrettably, Western militaries have a history of treating anthropologists as field-level intelligence gatherers. With good reason: anthropologists have the unique ability to immerse themselves in a society and thoroughly study, document, and interpret cultural mores, pathways, and general goings-on while at the same time leaving no footprint and operating at the highest levels of discretion. Even the most experienced CIA officer could never disappear into a culture the way an experienced and trained cultural anthropologist can.
Today we're using "Human Terrain Teams" in Iraq and particularly Afghanistan. From what I can tell, these are graduate-level anthropologists (not experienced or established academics). I'd like to open up this discussion because I am having difficult finding out detailed information about their operations. I do know they are extremely well paid and are NOT, contrary to popular belief, being used as intelligence assets.
However, the American anthropological institution doesn't think so. According to the War College Colonels I spoke with, anthropologists are one of the few relevant groups of academics that are reluctant to lecture at the War College.
It would be too easy to call [anthropologists] obtuse and stubborn. On an individual level, I'm sure this is the case here and there, but the institution at large wants nothing to do with the military.
Why?
First I believe we must stop calling them "Human Terrain Teams." It's much too close to "Combat Team" and similarly terrain is something soldiers learn from day one to use to their advantage.
Colonel Evans, from the War College panel, made a good point: During his tour in Iraq he was tasked with outfitting the National Police. Protocol had the Iraqi police wearing ball-caps. The Iraqis did not want to wear the ball-caps because they felt it made them look immature. We made them wear the ball-caps and now Col. Evans had 100,000 Iraqi police that were that much more resentful.
An anthropologist could have submitted a study to Col. Evans confirming the cultural promotion of "high-speed" things.
There was no apparatus in place for the military to determine, in excruciating detail, what sort of uniform would be appropriate for a nascent Muslim/Arab paramilitary. We just assumed. And as many of you know, if protocol says wear the hat, then you wear the hat and it better look doggone dress-right-dress.
This may seem like a silly example, but it is within this microcosm we are failing. We burn the poppy fields in Afghanistan, and tell the farmers to plant wheat, but now the farmers have neither the income from their poppy crop nor the security provided to them by the drug/warlords that reap the profits their harvest.
I am not suggesting anthropology has answers. Indeed, it is less interested in finding answers insofar as answers are solutions to "problems." The anthropological community does not see the global diaspora of poverty, disease, and disaffection as a "problem" requiring a "solution", but rather as a pressing area of study from which acknowledgment, consideration, and ultimately understanding can be drawn. That is my interpretation, anyway.
I believe the anthropological perspective is essential to the positive evolution of Western military doctrine. Something like 40% of new PhD-level anthropologists return to work in academia. The military must take advantage of the other 60% by forging a dialog that includes their research and their hesitations in the development of region-specific doctrine.
While the anthropologist's distaste for kinetic operations will never change, he or she is not fundamentally opposed to prescient and discrete intervention if it promotes cultural and humanitarian well being. The field of Applied Anthropology is dedicated to positive intervention in the interest of cultural preservation.
And that, ultimately, is our goal, correct? The preservation of stability in these regions. Applied Anthropology may be the only way to successfully rehabilitate Iraq's fractured socio-cultural "terrain."
Anyway, I would love to hear the perspectives of those more intimately familiar with these issues and look forward to adding more to this discussion.
This was a question posed to me in my member introduction, but I feel like it deserves a bit more exposure and would love to hear other perspectives.
Originally posted by Shek
View Post
It's funny you should ask this -- only four days ago I went to a seminar on the CU campus that was hosted by six full-bird Colonels, all students at the Army War College (1 USAF, 1 USMC, 4 USA). The audience included myself and only five others, so I was able to discuss this in detail.
Before getting into this, it's important to understand that as a field anthropology has an usually large and heavy cross to bear.
While nearly every science has at one point been involved in eugenics, colonialism, exploitation, etc., for one reason or another anthropology stands out in the world's mind as the ivory tower's Gestapo. Because of the field's checkered history (the grandmother of modern anth, Margaret Mead, was rumored to have worked with the OSS) its students, professors, and adherents are HYPER sensitive to ethics and how they are perceived by their subjects, host nations, and cultures of study. It can be very easy to tar anthropologists with the "whiny liberal PC" brush, but their political correctness is necessary for the preservation of their science.
At the same time, anthropology has been essential in the quest to chart the human/cultural trajectory and can single-handedly diffuse and even dismiss silly, even dangerous, myths, and in so doing lessen the associated levels of violence. Anthropology is the West's only method for understanding far-flung cultures with as little bias or subjectivity as a science can muster.
In a bit of a paradox, my undergraduate studies in anthropology led me to the military. I began to understand the great powers of observation, interpretation, and empahty anthropologists have discovered, over the decades and through the evolution of their doctrine and method. Without becoming too anecdotal, let me say that I felt my training in anthropology (I went a little further than most ungrads by spending summers in field schools as far away as Alaska) would be a perfect fit in my aspirations to become an Army intelligence/CA/FAO officer.
And this is where the discussion picks up. Anthropologists view intelligence work as a poison to their field. Regrettably, Western militaries have a history of treating anthropologists as field-level intelligence gatherers. With good reason: anthropologists have the unique ability to immerse themselves in a society and thoroughly study, document, and interpret cultural mores, pathways, and general goings-on while at the same time leaving no footprint and operating at the highest levels of discretion. Even the most experienced CIA officer could never disappear into a culture the way an experienced and trained cultural anthropologist can.
Today we're using "Human Terrain Teams" in Iraq and particularly Afghanistan. From what I can tell, these are graduate-level anthropologists (not experienced or established academics). I'd like to open up this discussion because I am having difficult finding out detailed information about their operations. I do know they are extremely well paid and are NOT, contrary to popular belief, being used as intelligence assets.
However, the American anthropological institution doesn't think so. According to the War College Colonels I spoke with, anthropologists are one of the few relevant groups of academics that are reluctant to lecture at the War College.
It would be too easy to call [anthropologists] obtuse and stubborn. On an individual level, I'm sure this is the case here and there, but the institution at large wants nothing to do with the military.
Why?
First I believe we must stop calling them "Human Terrain Teams." It's much too close to "Combat Team" and similarly terrain is something soldiers learn from day one to use to their advantage.
Colonel Evans, from the War College panel, made a good point: During his tour in Iraq he was tasked with outfitting the National Police. Protocol had the Iraqi police wearing ball-caps. The Iraqis did not want to wear the ball-caps because they felt it made them look immature. We made them wear the ball-caps and now Col. Evans had 100,000 Iraqi police that were that much more resentful.
An anthropologist could have submitted a study to Col. Evans confirming the cultural promotion of "high-speed" things.
There was no apparatus in place for the military to determine, in excruciating detail, what sort of uniform would be appropriate for a nascent Muslim/Arab paramilitary. We just assumed. And as many of you know, if protocol says wear the hat, then you wear the hat and it better look doggone dress-right-dress.
This may seem like a silly example, but it is within this microcosm we are failing. We burn the poppy fields in Afghanistan, and tell the farmers to plant wheat, but now the farmers have neither the income from their poppy crop nor the security provided to them by the drug/warlords that reap the profits their harvest.
I am not suggesting anthropology has answers. Indeed, it is less interested in finding answers insofar as answers are solutions to "problems." The anthropological community does not see the global diaspora of poverty, disease, and disaffection as a "problem" requiring a "solution", but rather as a pressing area of study from which acknowledgment, consideration, and ultimately understanding can be drawn. That is my interpretation, anyway.
I believe the anthropological perspective is essential to the positive evolution of Western military doctrine. Something like 40% of new PhD-level anthropologists return to work in academia. The military must take advantage of the other 60% by forging a dialog that includes their research and their hesitations in the development of region-specific doctrine.
While the anthropologist's distaste for kinetic operations will never change, he or she is not fundamentally opposed to prescient and discrete intervention if it promotes cultural and humanitarian well being. The field of Applied Anthropology is dedicated to positive intervention in the interest of cultural preservation.
And that, ultimately, is our goal, correct? The preservation of stability in these regions. Applied Anthropology may be the only way to successfully rehabilitate Iraq's fractured socio-cultural "terrain."
Anyway, I would love to hear the perspectives of those more intimately familiar with these issues and look forward to adding more to this discussion.
Comment