Human Terrain & Anthropology (merged thread) [Archive]

marct

09-20-2007, 02:45 PM

I've been following this for several days now on a confidential list serve I'm on, as you might imagine, and I am somewhat encouraged by the reactions I have seen from some of my fellow Anthropologists - mainly from those who refuse to sign the "pledge" for reasons of principle.

I also think that the "pledge" itself contains certain contradictory assumptions that are, to my mind, indicative of an ideological stance that I consider to be unethical. In particular, the "pledge (http://concerned.anthropologists.googlepages.com/home)" states

we pledge not to undertake research or other activities in support of counter-insurgency work in Iraq or in related theaters in the “war on terror,” and we appeal to colleagues everywhere to make the same commitment

Nowhere in all of the discussions surrounding this issue have I found any interest or concern with studying all of the roots behind the current conflicts - it is all focused on studying how the West is to blame. To me, this is a theoretically and ethically debunk position.

On the theoretical level, it reverts to a crude "Us" (the West) vs. "Them" (all others) typology where the potential for action is a priori assigned solely to "Us". By denying that "They" can commit action (only reaction) the "pledge" is an insult to "Them" implying, in no uncertain terms, that "They" are incapable of making any meaningful action, and hence having a responsibility for that action.

Furthermore, I find this position to be useless in any scientific sense. The dichotomy underlying their position means that they cannot examine any of the roots of violence (including torture, death squads, terror attacks using car bomb and gas tankers) without concluding that it is simply a reaction to Western aggression. Possibly we should be thankful that they pledge themselves not to "undertake research or other activities in support of counter-insurgency work in Iraq or in related theaters in the “war on terror” " since we already know what their results would be.

On the ethical level, by denying the potential of meaningful action to "Them", I believe that they are denying a core quality of what makes people "human". In effect, they are using the same arguments as the worst of the Colonialists did but to a different purpose. Rather than having even a thin veneer of justification for that ideological position, say an "attempt to 'civilize'" the "savages", they are using the pain and suffering of all involved in the current conflicts to justify an imposition of what I can only call thought control upon their own discipline and, by extension, on the Academy and the populace. If I were to translate how I see this "pledge" into terms most people on the SWC will easily understand, I view this as the middle-to-end of a Stage 1, Classic Maoist insurgency conducted not with guns, but with ideas.

Marc

goesh

09-20-2007, 03:13 PM

I am reminded too of the communist witch hunt of the McCarthy era in which a goodly number of artists refused to cave in to the blackballing and intimidation. More recently, there was the attempt to boycott Israeli scholars and intellectuals in England.

"On the theoretical level, it reverts to a crude "Us" (the West) vs. "Them" (all others) typology where the potential for action is a priori assigned solely to "Us". (Marct)

Well said, Sir! Once I get a theme song and ship, I'm nominating you to be the Captain as you are in the forefront of the charge against ignorance and bullying by people who should know better. Stan will have to salute you then.

marct

09-20-2007, 03:28 PM

Hi Goesh,

I am reminded too of the communist witch hunt of the McCarthy era in which a goodly number of artists refused to cave in to the blackballing and intimidation. More recently, there was the attempt to boycott Israeli scholars and intellectuals in England.

Agreed, the mechanism is very similar. I keep getting reminded of the dynamics of the Witchcraft trials in Europe :wry:. Anyway, there is a truly excellent book by Gustav Henningsen, The Witches Advocate (http://www.amazon.com/Witches-Advocate-Witchcraft-Inquisition-1609-1614/dp/0874170567/ref=sr_1_6/105-1794199-6034065?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190301846&sr=1-6), that really looks at this dynamic, although his focus is the Basque Trials of 1609-1614. Well worth reading for anyone interested in how thought control has been institutionalized.

"On the theoretical level, it reverts to a crude "Us" (the West) vs. "Them" (all others) typology where the potential for action is a priori assigned solely to "Us". (Marct)

Well said, Sir! Once I get a theme song and ship, I'm nominating you to be the Captain as you are in the forefront of the charge against ignorance and bullying by people who should know better. Stan will have to salute you then.

LOLOL - just, PLEASE, don't use a patter song!

goesh

09-20-2007, 04:26 PM

It is more serious than I surmised if the excesses of the witchcraft trials are coming to your mind. Come to think of it, I have come across more than one blog author who went the anonymous route because of their Conservative bent and fear of 'in-house retaliation' by those of the Liberal persuasion, not that peer reviews and issues of tenure and budgeting would ever be impacted by such things. No! I will not be the one to pee on the foundations of the ivory tower in such a manner and say it's true. Hope does float however. It hasn't been that long since I saw where a former Soc. Prof. of mine had signed a petition against the petition to boycott Israeli scholars and said Prof. is a raging Liberal if ever one walked our earth.

I'm sticking with Wagner as a theme by the way, though a couple of Elvis songs have been nominated already.

Steve Blair

09-20-2007, 04:29 PM

Agreed, the mechanism is very similar. I keep getting reminded of the dynamics of the Witchcraft trials in Europe :wry:. Anyway, there is a truly excellent book by Gustav Henningsen, The Witches Advocate (http://www.amazon.com/Witches-Advocate-Witchcraft-Inquisition-1609-1614/dp/0874170567/ref=sr_1_6/105-1794199-6034065?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190301846&sr=1-6), that really looks at this dynamic, although his focus is the Basque Trials of 1609-1614. Well worth reading for anyone interested in how thought control has been institutionalized.

And in an interesting aside, we have this BBC story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7003128.stm) about a later period "witchcraft" trial that may be coming back to haunt some people.

09-20-2007, 05:14 PM

~~ these are the voyages of certain Anthropologists who boldly go where no other Anthropologists will go, into the realms of understanding that involve military forces and indigenous forces, their mission, to faciliate cultural awareness and understanding and the reduction of violence amongst humans, regardless of which political party occupies the White House~~ all I need is a theme song to accompany this and Madonna type themes will be rejected upon receipt - personally I think a Wagnerian type genre should be used:wry:

While using Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" has merit, I think Strauss's "Also Sprach Zarathustra" (the 2001 A Space Odyssey theme music) has much to recommend itself as well, especially if you use the visual from 2001 of the primate starting to use the bone as a club as the backdrop for the narration of your proposed script. After all, we are talking about anthropologists aren't we?:D

goesh

09-20-2007, 05:41 PM

Excellent choice, Wm. There was a Jimmi Hendrix nomination which I felt might give 'Nam vets on hand flashbacks so I scratched it. I'm waiting for Stan's theme nomination. What has our world come to when scholars feel they are in the figurative gun sites of colleagues? I recall in one blog a couple years back the author telling me if she ever spoke her true feelings about the war and terrorism, she would be ostracized by most of her colleagues and the one's sympathetic would be afraid to even speak up on her behalf. I vividly recall her words, "I would be sitting alone in the faculty lounge". Weeping Jesus! Have we reached the apex of evolution already? I think Marct was not jesting when he said this petition business causes him think of the witch hunts of medieval times.

Danny

09-20-2007, 05:57 PM

goesh,

I seriously doubt that anyone who would be persuaded to serve in this capacity in the first place would be persuaded otherwise by "pressure" from colleagues. The real point of my article was to convey my disgust at the pusillanimous behavior of the mental Pygmies who started the petition. The same cowards who would themselves be persuaded by peer pressure of this sort are the ones who attempt to do it to others. Fortunately, the people they try to bully are of a different lot.

Rex Brynen

09-20-2007, 06:34 PM

I think there are two issues here.

The first is the petition, and its explicit assumption that anthropologists supporting COIN in Afghanistan are engaged in a fundamentally immoral activity. Here much depends on one's view of legitimacy (and in both cases, one would have thought that the fact that the missions are endorsed by both the local elected government and the UN Security Council ought to count for something).

The second issue is the tensions that arise from one's professional responsibility as a social scientist, and one's potential function as a counter-insurgent. Academic social scientists are suppose to live by a series of research ethics that, for example, require disclosure research project to most interviewees, disclosure of data and findings, informed consent, and very stringent safeguards for interviewing involuntary subjects (such as prisoners) or those otherwise unable to give informed consent. HUMINT collection, IO, PSYOPS, etc all work rather differently, as does providing professional advice in these areas. There are some potentially troubling professional and ethical implications of moving back and forth between both worlds.

I suspect most SWJ readers would take it as a given that I shouldn't divulge TS/SCI information in the classroom, even if it assisted in the noble enterprise of teaching. Also problematic, however, would be using data gathered confidentially, for particular academic purposes, and passing it on in rich detail to military/government actors with whom the interviewee would not have willingly shared it. Doing so not only violates professional ethics, but potentially endangers later academic researchers.

Frankly, its probably a good idea that professional organizations (and the military) reflect on this--and how any potential conflicts between the universes be dealt with.

Stan

09-20-2007, 06:50 PM

Because they consider the original invasion to be unwarranted, they will take no part of a successful counterinsurgency. Rather, they will try to bully other anthropologists into the same position with a childish “petition” (as if other Doctors of Philosophy in anthropology are incapable of making their own minds up about what they consider to be ethical use of their knowledge).

Sounds like this thread goes straight back to Marc's "Why Doctor Johnny won't go to war (http://smallwarsjournal.com/documents/swjmag/v7/tyrrell-swjvol7.pdf)".
I won't even pretend to understand the pathetic attack that Doctors McFate and Price concocted stressing the need for 'crytical 'self' evaluation' and freely using native populations as if we were all in Africa fighting the Pygmies for floor space in the jungle.

McFate wastes no time 'stressing' the need to read his book - before even going anywhere with some credible point (other than chewing on Marc for punctuation). That probably kept me from even giving his book a second thought.

Well, that's my take...confusion, when one considers the immense amount of intelligence these individuals have, yet are content to go to the grave with it despite soldiers and 'natives' dying all around them.

Now to Goesh.
Probably one of my favorites from the Vietnam Era, and seems appropriate is by the Animals: ‘We Gotta Get Out of this Place’

Way Off Topic, but short:
Talk to any vet (I have several times during the annual 'Ride to the Wall') and you'll soon discover how much they related to individual songs and the musicians that created them. One very crusty SGM told me how hard it was to discuss his experience, because he felt the language of our politicians was inadequate to describe the war.

Although I like your current choice, my second would have to be "Sitting on the Dock of the Bay" by Otis Redding.

Regards, Stan

09-20-2007, 07:02 PM

Rex Brynen

09-20-2007, 07:11 PM

Even Captains Kirk and Picard felt compelled to disobey the Prime Directive once and while. Are the academic anthropologists pushing this petition sewn together with stronger moral thread than these to heroic icons? :D

Ahh, now we're really talking in my area of expertise :D

Rex Brynen, "Mirror, Mirror? The Politics of TV Science Fiction." In David Schultz, ed., It's Showtime! Media, Politics and Popular Culture (Baltimore: Peter Lang, 2000). (version here (http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/exofile/sftv.html))

marct

09-20-2007, 08:52 PM

Hi Stan,

Sounds like this thread goes straight back to Marc's "Why Doctor Johnny won't go to war (http://smallwarsjournal.com/documents/swjmag/v7/tyrrell-swjvol7.pdf)".

It is all part of the same issue.

I won't even pretend to understand the pathetic attack that Doctors McFate and Price concocted stressing the need for 'crytical 'self' evaluation' and freely using native populations as if we were all in Africa fighting the Pygmies for floor space in the jungle.

Um, McFate? She is the one who has been vilified to most by the Price Gusterson crowd who wrote the "pledge". It think you have her confused with someone else, Stan :D.

Well, that's my take...confusion, when one considers the immense amount of intelligence these individuals have, yet are content to go to the grave with it despite soldiers and 'natives' dying all around them.

And that is a moral argument that, IMO, has a chunk of weight.

It goes back to what Rex was talking about regarding professional codes of ethics (aka professional morality).

The second issue is the tensions that arise from one's professional responsibility as a social scientist, and one's potential function as a counter-insurgent. Academic social scientists are suppose to live by a series of research ethics that, for example, require disclosure research project to most interviewees, disclosure of data and findings, informed consent, and very stringent safeguards for interviewing involuntary subjects (such as prisoners) or those otherwise unable to give informed consent. HUMINT collection, IO, PSYOPS, etc all work rather differently, as does providing professional advice in these areas. There are some potentially troubling professional and ethical implications of moving back and forth between both worlds.

I agree, there are some troubling implications about shifting back and forth. But I think that one reason behind the existence of the professional moral codes that has not been examined is that they serve as a guarantor to the state which, ultimately, serves to legitimate and legitimize these professions. This, in turn, implies that these codes are no more that prophylactic mechanisms to avoid state and/or popular censure - a guarantee of moral "purity" as it were.

Marc

Stan

09-21-2007, 07:22 AM

Hey Marc !

Hi Stan,

Um, McFate? She is the one who has been vilified to most by the Price Gusterson crowd who wrote the "pledge". It think you have her confused with someone else, Stan :D.

Doctor Montgomery McFate is a she ? Jeez, and I thought I had a hard time going to school with my first name :D

It's no wonder then why she has such a pesky demeanor !

Regards, Stan

Rex Brynen

09-21-2007, 12:25 PM

To be frank, I think the witchcraft analogies here are rather overblown. The petition (which I certainly wouldn't sign were I an anthropologist) doesn't suggest any restriction or sanction upon anthropologists who do work with the military--it merely represents a statement by its signatories that they personally won't do so. It is hardly a threat to professional, academic freedom.

Teaching in a department where faculty opinions have run from very conservative to Marxist, I don't think (in general) we're in anyone sights, or hunkered in anyone's bunkers.

Finally, let me once more disengage the politics behind the petition from the very real issue of managing research ethics. While Marc is right that professional ethical standards (and research ethics boards) serve as a kind of ritualized inoculation against criticism, they are also vitally important. Especially for those of us doing research in conflict zones, failure to maintain ethical standards can hurt, even kill, people. Issues of source anonymity are important where research interviewees are at personal risk (I've had three of them assassinated after interviews, although I hasten to add there was no connection!). Credibility is essential, since researchers do their work without PSDs (I've been taken on car rides to unknown destinations by armed insurgents, had guns pointed at me by nervous conscripts, been arrested and shaken down by secret police, had my belongings searched by security services trolling for data on my research contacts more times than I can count, and have even been accused of being a spy once--and it sure helped that my reputation was clean and well documented). I've also had to warn colleagues that their research might put subjects at risk if they fail to maintain interviewee anonymity, or where detainees were involved and might be being abused by their jailers as a consequence of interviews.

The development of appropriate ethical guidelines for social scientists--or more especially for those social scientists moving between the academic and military worlds--would, I think, be a rather useful thing for all concerned.

goesh

09-21-2007, 12:28 PM

Between theory and application lies a bridge of assumption in which one camp insists the other is soley out to employ violence as a means of attaining and maintaining power and control. This is the basis of the petition(s) and censure in the academic arena and the grounds for unwritten blacklists, snubbing and other juvenile conduct in which 'those to be gotten' are easily identified by political party affiliation and/or support of direct action against people trying to kill us and our allies. The camp of the latter has never claimed to be in sole possession of reason and at least respects the continum of history rife with conflict and aggression. I contend that a goodly number in the camp of the former are unable to accept the fact that military professionals do not want aggression and killing and that is a failure of reason.

It's a hard choice between Stan's nomination for theme song and that of Wm.

Stan

09-21-2007, 02:26 PM

The Human Terrain System - An intriguing article from Ethnography (http://www.ethnography.com/2007/09/anthropologists-and-the-militarys-human-terrain-system/) with a hint of support.

I feel certain Marc will have a few comments, so let the games begin :cool:

One anthropologist that is a member of the HTS project is Marcus Griffin (http://marcusgriffin.com/blog/), on a year long leave from his job teaching anthropology at Christopher Newport University in Newport News, Virginia. Marcus has been blogging about his experience working with the army. It’s rare that anthropologists get this kind of insider look at what it’s like to work directly with the military. Surprise! Despite what all your teachers have told you, working with the military is NOT evil….

Posted by Mark Dawson on September 16th, 2007

One Response to “Anthropologists and the Military’s Human Terrain System”

Mark, this is another interesting coincidence with the content of the Anthropology Newsletter for Sept (table of contents and some content links here (http://aaanet.org/press/an/index.htm)). There is a particularly nuanced examination by Greg Starrett of whether AAA should publish announcements from intelligence and military agencies. He argues, in part, that we anthropologists are all grown-ups, and don’t need to be sheltered by our organization from the Big Bad Whatever. He further points out that depriving military and intelligence agencies of anthropological knowledge is not for the greater good. I tend to agree–think how much worse things would be if we didn’t have anthropologists involved! Laura Nader’s comment is that of the idealist–we should only publish the announcements, or get involved with those agencies as researchers, if we can have complete control over our data and the circumstances of our research (obviously, I am paraphrasing and interpreting here).
To which I say: when do we ever have complete control? Funding agencies, logistics, everyday life, all of these things serve to constrict the circumstances of our research. We do the best we can, given what we know at the time. If we were to wait for perfect circumstances, we’d never get anything done.

Goesh, I dunno which song would be better. WM's primate with a bone is pretty far fetched, but just might be the ticket. Perhaps we could work the monkey in somewhere with a 70's tune or two :D

Regards, Stan

marct

09-21-2007, 03:32 PM

Hi Rex,

To be frank, I think the witchcraft analogies here are rather overblown. The petition (which I certainly wouldn't sign were I an anthropologist) doesn't suggest any restriction or sanction upon anthropologists who do work with the military--it merely represents a statement by its signatories that they personally won't do so. It is hardly a threat to professional, academic freedom.

Taken in and of itself, I would agree. I do still feel that there are fatal flaws in its wording - for example, it doesn't pledge that the signatories will not be involved as insurgents, just counter-insurgency!

I used the witchcraft analogies partly because I know the dynamics of them so well and they are, quite frankly, somewhat terrifying - at least in terms of social movement dynamics. The first main cycle of witch crazes (~1490's to 1530's) started against the express wishes of the Catholic Church as the result of two psychotics Heinrich Kramer and James Sprenger publishing (illegally I might add!) the Malleus Maleficarum or "The Hammer of Witches". Within the space of 10 years, this had completely recreated the popular understanding of "witchcraft" and led to over 1000 deaths.

Now, I truly doubt that anything like that would happen at the immediate moment, but the dynamic is the crucial part - it completely restructured the narrative surrounding "witchcraft", moving it from a form of paganism and "delusion" to a form of Christian Heresy and, hence, the rightful prey of the Inquisition.

Teaching in a department where faculty opinions have run from very conservative to Marxist, I don't think (in general) we're in anyone sights, or hunkered in anyone's bunkers.

Honestly, my department (actually Institute, not department) is strongly on the left. Despite that, there is a fantastic sense of collegiality and absolutely no attacks on anyone at all about their research. I have had colleagues express their concerns to me about my research interests, but it has always been in the form of concern for myself and my career.

Finally, let me once more disengage the politics behind the petition from the very real issue of managing research ethics.

Absolutely! My objections are at the political and ideological (okay, and theoretical) levels.

While Marc is right that professional ethical standards (and research ethics boards) serve as a kind of ritualized inoculation against criticism, they are also vitally important. Especially for those of us doing research in conflict zones, failure to maintain ethical standards can hurt, even kill, people. Issues of source anonymity are important where research interviewees are at personal risk (I've had three of them assassinated after interviews, although I hasten to add there was no connection!). Credibility is essential, since researchers do their work without PSDs (I've been taken on car rides to unknown destinations by armed insurgents, had guns pointed at me by nervous conscripts, been arrested and shaken down by secret police, had my belongings searched by security services trolling for data on my research contacts more times than I can count, and have even been accused of being a spy once--and it sure helped that my reputation was clean and well documented). I've also had to warn colleagues that their research might put subjects at risk if they fail to maintain interviewee anonymity, or where detainees were involved and might be being abused by their jailers as a consequence of interviews.

Absolutely! While I haven't researched in war zones, I have conducted research in situations where any loss of anonymity can have serious personal consequences, including death. I have worked with informants who have had their houses burned down, who have been fired from their jobs and who have had their children taken away from them as a result of their religious beliefs. I have also worked with people who are on the tipping edge of suicide / homicide.

I am a firm believer in "sanitizing" fieldnotes so that any identifying traces are eliminated unless people specifically request and require that I use their names (it's happened, and caused my ethics oversight committees problems :wry:). Like you, Rex, I've also talked with colleagues and students over the absolute importance of anonymity and, also, the potential psychological damage that can happen while engaged in fieldwork. It's also one of the reasons I was so opposed to the original HTT proposal - they were going to keep databases of informants with identifying features in them and turn all of that over to the Iraqi government - I can't thnk of anything mre likely to create a bloodbath!

The development of appropriate ethical guidelines for social scientists--or more especially for those social scientists moving between the academic and military worlds--would, I think, be a rather useful thing for all concerned.

Definitely, and I am all in favour of it. The AAA has struck a committee to do exactly that (I was interviewed by Laura McNamara for it) and I am very hopeful that they will come up with a good set of guidelines. BTW, Laura has been posting at Savage Minds on some of the issues being raised by Gusterson and Price. Her posts (http://savageminds.org/author/laura/)are well worth looking at and reading one (http://savageminds.org/2007/09/09/some-general-thoughts-about-anthropology-interrogation-and-torture/), in particular, was what sparked my thinking to the analogy of the witch trials.

Rex, I am in full support of having a set of open and transparent research guidelines that are understood by all stakeholders and that have some teeth in them. What I am opposed to is the construction of a set of guidelines that are based on political ideology and are only enforceable by the development of a "thought police". I want to make it clear that I do NOT believe that this is the intention behind Hugh Gusterson and David Prices' stance - I think they are truly concerned over what might happen. I do, however, believe that they are jumping to unwarranted conclusions based on an ideological stance and that they are setting in motion forces that could lead to the marginalization of Anthropology. I also find the implications of their position to be ethically repugnant in that they are attempting to exert a moral force to withhold information and expertise that could save lives.

Marc

goesh

09-21-2007, 04:02 PM

"Rex, I am in full support of having a set of open and transparent research guidelines that are understood by all stakeholders and that have some teeth in them....." (marct)

If anyone can achieve that, most likely it will be the folks of your discipline, given the willingness and ability of your profession to actually live with people they are trying to understand and learn from. I might proffer too that Marct's positive experience with the Institute he is affiliated with comes in part because of the Canadian influence and take on things. The Academics I previously mentioned, about 5-6 in number, show a markedly different perspective and experience in the American academic world. The witchcraft analogy remains valid IMO.

Stan: Purple Haze by Hendrix is getting alot of votes and there is a door prize, a box of 00 10 ga shells

Stan

09-21-2007, 04:17 PM

"Rex, I am in full support of having a set of open and transparent research guidelines that are understood by all stakeholders and that have some teeth in them....." (marct)

Good luck with that one.

Stan: Purple Haze by Hendrix is getting alot of votes and there is a door prize, a box of 00 10 ga shells

Our PMs did not indicate conducting a poll or subsequent door prize.
Where in God's name are you gettin' this Bravo Sierra from :confused:

You should at the very least indicate what meaning Purple Haze really had during the Vietnam era :D

Back at ya !

BTW, I have a 12 ga. and don't need 10 ga rounds

marct

09-21-2007, 04:49 PM

My vote is for "White Rabbit" - Jefferson Airplane, 1967

Steve Blair

09-21-2007, 04:56 PM

My vote is for "White Rabbit" - Jefferson Airplane, 1967

I tend to prefer the Sanctuary remake of the same song, but that is a good choice. "Paint it Black" might also be worth consideration.

Stan

09-21-2007, 04:56 PM

My vote is for "White Rabbit" - Jefferson Airplane, 1967

Go ask Alice
I think she'll know

When logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy dead
And the White Knight is talking backwards
And the Red Queen's "off with her head!"
Remember what the dormouse said:
"Feed your head
Feed your head
Feed your head"

Will the monkey fit in :wry:

goesh

09-21-2007, 05:00 PM

Stan, to mention Viet Nam is to raise some hackles and inhibit objectivity on the part of many social scientists. Well, any metion of armed conflict tends to do that, but, regarding the theme song for brave academics who oppose the game of dirty pool in the ivory tower, I've nominated myself Captain of the Search Committee and as such, I can change and make up rules as I go. Many military personnel can relate to that I'm sure as they seek the middle ground between shock n' awe and self-reliance in Iraq. Purple Haze we will define as that which emenated from the sh**ters as they were being burned, a picture of which, minus the purple haze, Tom has provided in another section of this forum. Some say purple haze is an apt description of my Posts.:p

marct

09-21-2007, 05:02 PM

Will the monkey fit in :wry:

Hey, backup singers are important :D!

goesh

09-21-2007, 05:11 PM

By the nominations so far, it appears many inhaled when they experimented with marijuana.

09-21-2007, 05:13 PM

My vote is for "White Rabbit" - Jefferson Airplane, 1967

If you choose to go with JA, then I suggest "Lather" from the 1968 "Crown of Creation" album The following lyrics are particularly apropos I think.

"Lather was 30 years old today,
They took away all of his toys.
His mother sent newspaper clippings to him
About his old friends who'd stopped being boys."

marct

09-21-2007, 05:26 PM

If you choose to go with JA, then I suggest "Lather" from the 1968 "Crown of Creation" album The following lyrics are particularly apropos I think.

That's certainly a valid comment on the lyrics WM. Then again, White Rabbit truly does capture the postmodernist existential angst of performing theoretical praxis in the current regressive, militaristic environment (I can't believe I typed that with a straight face :eek::D).

sgmgrumpy

09-21-2007, 05:51 PM

Hey Marct,

Can you help decode this Phd language?:D :D

Now I think that the militarisation of everyday life is all about technology and security but it isn't Bentham's panopticon, Foucault's docile bodies or even the disciplinary power manifest in CCTV and consumer RFID that I'm talking about. It's the research, development and deployment of biopolitics and network technologies of terror, control and bare life that are actively re-shaping our very understandings of what it means to be together-in-the-world. It's how people with real power are constructing--in procedure, policy and law--what it means to be human, what it means to be social, and even what we should be able to expect from each other.

One of my favourite anthropology students used to love winding me up by threatening to go work for the military. (Sociology students seeking the same threaten to work for Stats Can.) And although he tried to persuade me along the lines of "it's better me than someone else, right?" I never bought it, even when he reminded me that I teach students to always keep an open mind. I'll also admit that these discussions of ours most often ended with me blurting out something intellectually rich like "But, but, but... It's just WRONG to help them!" and him sitting back with a smug smile. (So much for rational argument or ethics, I was clearly signing up for a simpler moral judgment.)

Space and Culture is a cross-disciplinary journal of cultural studies that fosters the publication of reflections on a wide range of socio-spatial arenas.

SPACE AND CULTURE (http://www.spaceandculture.org/2007/05/human-terrain-systems-and-other-ways-of.php)

marct

09-21-2007, 06:22 PM

Hey Marct,

Can you help decode this Phd language?:D :D

Sure, although since Anne (the author) is a colleague of mine I'll have to be careful ;).

Now I think that the militarisation of everyday life is all about technology and security but it isn't Bentham's panopticon, Foucault's docile bodies or even the disciplinary power manifest in CCTV and consumer RFID that I'm talking about. It's the research, development and deployment of biopolitics and network technologies of terror, control and bare life that are actively re-shaping our very understandings of what it means to be together-in-the-world. It's how people with real power are constructing--in procedure, policy and law--what it means to be human, what it means to be social, and even what we should be able to expect from each other.What she is saying here is that "the militarisation of everyday life" (used as a term for a process) is not about internalizing guilt or fear that someone is being watched (that's the panopticon reference) or monitored by technologies (RFID, CCTV, etc - think of it as a Big Brother, 1984 allusion). She appears to be saying that she views "the militarisation of everyday life" as an example of changing how we perceive society and social relations from a broadly "friendly" approach (assuming everyone isn't out to get you) to a broadly antagonistic approach (everyone IS out to get you).

One of my favourite anthropology students used to love winding me up by threatening to go work for the military. (Sociology students seeking the same threaten to work for Stats Can.) And although he tried to persuade me along the lines of "it's better me than someone else, right?" I never bought it, even when he reminded me that I teach students to always keep an open mind. I'll also admit that these discussions of ours most often ended with me blurting out something intellectually rich like "But, but, but... It's just WRONG to help them!" and him sitting back with a smug smile. (So much for rational argument or ethics, I was clearly signing up for a simpler moral judgment.)

And I know who that student is, too (or at least I'm pretty sure I do). If it's who I think it is, they are a frequent visitor, but not poster, here at the SWC.

Space and Culture is a cross-disciplinary journal of cultural studies that fosters the publication of reflections on a wide range of socio-spatial arenas.

Got time for a few beers :wry:? Actually, the journal was started by a friend of mine and they do publish some really good work in the area. At it's simplest, it just means that the journal looks at issues about how spatial arrangements influence human action. As an example, think about the different type of "feel" (and culture) in an office where everyone has offices vs. everyone having desks in the open. Another example would be looking at how and why the Lincoln Memorial in DC affects so many people who see it. I've used some of the ideas they play with in some of my own research, and they do have a lot of explanatory power in some areas.

Marc

09-21-2007, 09:53 PM

Hey Marct,

Can you help decode this Phd language?:D :D
SGM,

While you doidn't ask me, I wanted to take a crack at translating English into English too.

[Begin Translation]we are witnessing a change in our perceptions of the "friendliness" of the world. We now have to fear that we might at any moment fall victim to the depradations of terrrorists or other forms of violence from other people. This has caused us to become more pugnacious in our dealings with others in the world around us.[End Translation]

What she does not go on to consider in this excerpt is whether this is an appropriate way for us to view where we are in the world. I for one tend to view this as a form of Chicken Little reaction to a few relatively isolated incidents of acorns dropping.

BTW while considering journals, I suggest a look at Armed Forces and Society. The last issue included papers like "Reassessing Victory in Warfare," "The Dilemma behind the Classical Dilemma of Civil-Military Relations," anf "The Effectiveness of Military Governments during War."

MarkD

09-21-2007, 10:59 PM

I just found this site due a link to my site, ethnography.com about the Human Terrain System. As an anthropologist, I am very excited and encouraged by the much more overt and "on the ground" use of anthropologists by military and intelligence communities. This is also a raving big deal to a lot of other anthropologists.

I have more than a couple of rants on my site about the short-sighted nature of my profession in this regard. On the other hand, I am meeting more anthropologists: students and long-term professionals alike, that would love the chance to work with the Human Terrain System program and other military or government agencies. Why? Because more and more anthropologists want to do something thats feels real and has an impact on the world around them and they make their own choices about what that looks like.

The only reason I am a member of the American Anthropology Association is because you are a member when you join to attend the national conference that was in my city last year. I would never sign some wacko pledge about the kind of work or clients I am partnering with. A) I have my own moral compass, thank you, and I don't need my supposed professional association dictating to me my moral choices. B) I am an anthropologist if I work for Habitat for Humanity or the CIA using cultural knowledge to develop propaganda (As an aside, some very famous anthropologists worked with the OSS to create propaganda in WWII and are held in high regard. The difference between what is seen as a morally "clean" war with nationally supported goals, and more ambiguous wars.)

The Anthropologists in academia get in a froth every few years about those of us in the corporate world (I use anthropology to develop corporate strategies for global and regional business units), and those in the government and the military. In fact they see no difference between an anthropologist in the military or business at all. In the past the code of ethics was very clear that the work most of us in business or government did was out of bounds. The result? Umm, we just didn't join the anthropology association. Its not like we missed much.

You'll notice that all these ideas for pledges and resolutions, etc to ban certain kinds of work by social scientists rarely if ever from people with actual experience in the field. Why? Well those of us in the Business/Government/Military end of anthropology are too busy actually DOING things.

marct

09-22-2007, 04:42 AM

Hi Mark,

I just found this site due a link to my site, ethnography.com about the Human Terrain System. As an anthropologist, I am very excited and encouraged by the much more overt and "on the ground" use of anthropologists by military and intelligence communities. This is also a raving big deal to a lot of other anthropologists.

Glad you're here! I'm looking forward to seeing some interesting posts from you :D. And I will definitely say it's nice to have another Anthropologist around.

Marc

Stan

09-22-2007, 09:10 AM

Hey Mark !

I just found this site due a link to my site, ethnography.com about the Human Terrain System. As an anthropologist, I am very excited and encouraged by the much more overt and "on the ground" use of anthropologists by military and intelligence communities. This is also a raving big deal to a lot of other anthropologists.

Given your background, I'd be very interested in checking out your site. I've tried to obtain a better understanding of Anthropologists and Marc is always ready to assist.

You'll notice that all these ideas for pledges and resolutions, etc to ban certain kinds of work by social scientists rarely if ever from people with actual experience in the field. Why? Well those of us in the Business/Government/Military end of anthropology are too busy actually DOING things.

Although I spent some time reading AAA's Code of Ethincs (http://www.aaanet.org/committees/ethics/ethcode.htm), I came away with mere broad stroke regulations and certainly no straight forward 'Do's and Don'ts'. At the very least, I found nothing forbidding an Anthropologist from assisting the US Military in saving lives, both ours and others. This broad statement would lead me to believe
the contrary:

Anthropological researchers have primary ethical obligations to the people, species, and materials they study and to the people with whom they work.

To avoid harm or wrong, understanding that the development of knowledge can lead to change which may be positive or negative for the people or animals worked with or studied
To respect the well-being of humans and nonhuman primates
To work for the long-term conservation of the archaeological, fossil, and historical records
To consult actively with the affected individuals or group(s), with the goal of establishing a working relationship that can be beneficial to all parties involved

Regards, Stan

Stan

09-22-2007, 09:23 AM

Hey Goesh !
You are showing signs of spending way too much time with the Navy (or as Sam puts it (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=25399)...

Wait for it...

Bath Tub Toys :D

I've nominated myself Captain of the Search Committee and as such, I can change and make up rules as I go.

MarkD

09-22-2007, 05:58 PM

Hi Stan-

Its true, the most current revision of the AAA code of ethics (which is also under revision) is no longer as explicit about secret research. At one point it was a direct breach of ethics.

The rub is the interpretation of the different parts of the code. Most anthropologists would still argue that a person should never do research that cannot be made public to everyone including those the research is about.

Take the "do no harm" related section. Of course, thats a basic *duh* for most people. BUT, what if you are doing research with military teams, say a bomber crew. The objective is to understand how to make them a more effective team to improve accuracy, reduce error and generally bomb the bejesus out of the enemy. For many anthropologists, you are indeed doing harm at that point. Cultural understanding to improve relations for military units is questionable, but sort of OK. Developing a better understanding of Al Queda to locate and bomb them is waaaaaay out of bounds.

Me on the othref hand? I am totally fine with anthro's working in any capacity. Before I was an anthropologist I worked developing training systems for tanks for the army and base interdiction for the air force, among others.

I don't object to a code of ethics of course. One of the most interesting classes I had in grad school was my ethics class. The time to really ponder ethical dilemmas is before they happen, then at least you have some footing when the inevitable unexpected surprise happens.

Here is a post I wrote about my most difficult ethical problem I have encountered. http://www.ethnography.com/2007/03/what-would-you-do-with-this-ethical-dilemma/

marct

09-22-2007, 06:16 PM

Hi Mark,

Its true, the most current revision of the AAA code of ethics (which is also under revision) is no longer as explicit about secret research. At one point it was a direct breach of ethics.

It is also interesting that a number of people still think that it is a part of the code of ethics.

The rub is the interpretation of the different parts of the code. Most anthropologists would still argue that a person should never do research that cannot be made public to everyone including those the research is about.

Yup. Add to that the situation that you may be working with groups where some of your research cannot be made public since it could cause them "harm", and you get an interesting conflict arising.

Take the "do no harm" related section. Of course, thats a basic *duh* for most people. BUT, what if you are doing research with military teams, say a bomber crew. The objective is to understand how to make them a more effective team to improve accuracy, reduce error and generally bomb the bejesus out of the enemy. For many anthropologists, you are indeed doing harm at that point. Cultural understanding to improve relations for military units is questionable, but sort of OK. Developing a better understanding of Al Queda to locate and bomb them is waaaaaay out of bounds.

Is it? Hmmm, I spent a lot of time debating what "do no harm" means with a lot of people I really respect (Jerry Barkow, Charlie Laughlin, Regna Darnell to name just a few). One of the distinctions that has to be made is between "harm" and "hurt". A second distinction that has to be made is if the primary locus of concern is based on our "subject", then does that include harm to those who are not our subjects? A third distinction is when does the primary locus of concern shift from our subjects to other groups?

I don't object to a code of ethics of course. One of the most interesting classes I had in grad school was my ethics class. The time to really ponder ethical dilemmas is before they happen, then at least you have some footing when the inevitable unexpected surprise happens.

I agree that that is exactly the time to ponder them :D. I do, however, have a problem with codes in general, at least in the sense that they can become substitutes for the individual developing their own codes. I think they are definitely useful in the sense that they provide a framework for discussion and general guidance, but I also find most professional codes quite lacking in that they do not lay out their "first principles" as it were.

Here is a post I wrote about my most difficult ethical problem I have encountered. http://www.ethnography.com/2007/03/what-would-you-do-with-this-ethical-dilemma/

Interesting problem, and I may just toss it off to my students. BTW, I would have done exactly the same thing as you did.

Marc

Stan

09-24-2007, 07:29 AM

Hey Mark,

Hi Stan-

Its true, the most current revision of the AAA code of ethics (which is also under revision) is no longer as explicit about secret research. At one point it was a direct breach of ethics.

The rub is the interpretation of the different parts of the code. Most anthropologists would still argue that a person should never do research that cannot be made public to everyone including those the research is about.

Now you indeed have my curiosity going. Secret research I assume for say the CIA, etc., or for lack of better terms, secret as in corporate world business secrets.

IMO, regardless of how the research ends up being 'classified', if one agrees to those terms from the beginning, I see no moral dilemma. Quite the contrary, if an Anthropologist enters into a binding contract with a company or a USG agency, He/She just jumped into the proverbial code of ethics frying pan :eek:

I liked what you said in your first post about being busy and doing something. Seems, your intellectual peers have little better to do that worry about what Mark D. is up to today.

Take the "do no harm" related section. Of course, thats a basic *duh* for most people. BUT, what if you are doing research with military teams, say a bomber crew. The objective is to understand how to make them a more effective team to improve accuracy, reduce error and generally bomb the bejesus out of the enemy. For many anthropologists, you are indeed doing harm at that point. Cultural understanding to improve relations for military units is questionable, but sort of OK. Developing a better understanding of Al Queda to locate and bomb them is waaaaaay out of bounds.

Me on the othref hand? I am totally fine with anthro's working in any capacity. Before I was an anthropologist I worked developing training systems for tanks for the army and base interdiction for the air force, among others.

I don't object to a code of ethics of course. One of the most interesting classes I had in grad school was my ethics class. The time to really ponder ethical dilemmas is before they happen, then at least you have some footing when the inevitable unexpected surprise happens.

I don't know that I ever thought of employing Anthropologists to get our ordnance on target. BTW, I didn’t know you folks could do that :D

I was thinking more along the lines of a 'Cultural Awareness' advisor - as you pointed out, ponder over some of the unexpected. I tend to call it figuring out what the other’s about to do before he gets there. I know it’s possible as I’m accused of having the ability to do said. During my time in Sub-Sahara, I felt most of our mistakes could be directly attributed to misinterpretations.

Here is a post I wrote about my most difficult ethical problem I have encountered. http://www.ethnography.com/2007/03/what-would-you-do-with-this-ethical-dilemma/

Although very interesting, I’m having my own ethically driven thoughts. This one kind of rubs me the wrong way and perhaps clearly reflects my lack of understanding for your field of work. Personally, I may have smuggled in a rope for ‘Jim’ to hang himself with :eek:

marct

09-24-2007, 01:39 PM

Hey Stan,

Although very interesting, I’m having my own ethically driven thoughts. This one kind of rubs me the wrong way and perhaps clearly reflects my lack of understanding for your field of work. Personally, I may have smuggled in a rope for ‘Jim’ to hang himself with :eek:

One of the reasons I call professional codes of ethics "morals" or "moral codes" is because they derive from the group, not the transcendent nature of reality (however any individual views that ;)). Mark's example of a dilemna is a pretty classic one in our field simply because it is based on a structural paradox created by the way us Anthropologists operate.

Remember when I was talking about verstehen in my SWJ article? That establishes a "structural" relationship between us and our informants (the people we work with / study). That relationship is defined as one of "trust" and "confidentiality", which is really a misnomer because those are merely necessary characteristics of such a relationship.

The second "structure" that defines the relationship, at least as far as the AAA code of ethics is concerned, is the concept of asymmetric power. There is an axiomatic assumption that the Anthropologist holds greater power than the informant - an assumption that really stems from the early 20th century when it was probably true.

Personally, I believe that it is increasingly less true, and I suspect that anyone who has done fieldwork with modern organizations realizes this. Still and all, it is a "comforting" assumption for some since it reinforces their inherent "superiority" - a (misunderstood) "White Man's Burden" if you will for the academic world.

One of the things that I find quite repellent in the current "ethics" debates is the general polarization of those debates and the unwillingness of many to examine the structures that underly the assumptions. For example, Rex noted that his having a "clean" record has enabled him to conduct his research without too much interference (barring the occasional guns being pointed at him :D). Now, to my mind, a "clean" research record is really no more than keeping your word and doing exactly what you say you will do, including guarantees of confidentiality as requested (and not if your informants request that).

Where we start getting into problematic areas are in some of the other structures. For example, there is an axiomatic assumption that says the data, or at least the analyses, should be published. This puts that material out into the public domain where it now becomes available for use by anyone. But if anyone can use it, then this includes those who can "misuse" it as well. This actually sets up a feedback loop as far as confidentiality is concerned based on the concept of "do no harm" which, in my opinion, means that there should be a very exacting discussion of what "harm" is - something that doesn't happen that often.

I believe that most of the current debate over Anthropologists working with the military actually centers on the nature of this feedback loop and the definition, or lack thereof, of "harm". For me, the dilemna posed by Mark isn't a dilemna at all, but that is because I have spent a lot of time analyzing that feedback loop and trying to work out a definition of harm. In particular, I take individual choice to be both an axiomatic and an operational assumption. Could I have stopped that prisoner from committing suicide with 100% success? Nope, and any efforts to invoke structural conditions to increase a chance of success would have increased his likeliness to want to commit suicide, therefore I would be "harming" him by taking those actions.

But notice that my axiomatic and operational assumption of individual choice is totally counter to the (misunderstood) "White Man's Burden" assumption that operates with some of my colleagues. Personally, I find their assumption of a superior power position to be ludicrous since that assumption requires them to posit that it exists in all situations without actually analyzing any specific situation. Furthermore, it places the onus of responsibility on the collective (i.e. the profession) rather than the individual, which I find to be ethically repugnant since it creates an enforced reliance of the individual on the collective and, as a consequence, decreases the growth of the individual.

I think Shakespeare summed up my own understanding beautifully when he wrote:
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Marc

goesh

09-24-2007, 02:11 PM

For a second there in reading Marct's last paragraph, I thought he was talking about the pharmaceutical corporations.

Stan

09-25-2007, 09:40 AM

Hi Marc !
I had no idea that my last sentence would have mustered such a detailed response :eek:

Hey Stan,

One of the reasons I call professional codes of ethics "morals" or "moral codes" is because they derive from the group, not the transcendent nature of reality (however any individual views that). Mark's example of a dilemna is a pretty classic one in our field simply because it is based on a structural paradox created by the way us Anthropologists operate.

I don’t know that I could conclude that my professional ethics or “moral codes” were derived from a group per se. However, I do know for a fact, they were not derived via meditation with some ‘Krishna fruitcake’ :D. Based on my upbringing, education and experience, I would conclude that most of my professional ethics are little more than broad regulations (one then individually chooses his/her moral high ground within the given parameters).

Remember when I was talking about verstehen in my SWJ article? That establishes a "structural" relationship between us and our informants (the people we work with / study). That relationship is defined as one of "trust" and "confidentiality", which is really a misnomer because those are merely necessary characteristics of such a relationship.

The second "structure" that defines the relationship, at least as far as the AAA code of ethics is concerned, is the concept of asymmetric power. There is an axiomatic assumption that the Anthropologist holds greater power than the informant - an assumption that really stems from the early 20th century when it was probably true.

Personally, I believe that it is increasingly less true, and I suspect that anyone who has done fieldwork with modern organizations realizes this. Still and all, it is a "comforting" assumption for some since it reinforces their inherent "superiority" - a (misunderstood) "White Man's Burden" if you will for the academic world.

I’ll start by admitting that I didn’t realize the depth and full scope of your field as an Anthropologist. ‘The study of humanity’ as you once put it, obviously carries with it some heavier burdens than say my profession.

I’ve noted that most Psychologists (yes, even the Army’s) convey themselves with the very same concept of asymmetric power. This may be merely a broad assumption by the patients, but without being thought of as ‘intellectually superior’, the Psychologist wouldn’t be as capable. As an Army senior instructor, we were presented with theoretical and practical confrontations involving human behavior, and warned that teachers are often looked upon as being intellectually superior. In a nutshell not something to abuse, and don’t let it go to your head!

One of the things that I find quite repellent in the current "ethics" debates is the general polarization of those debates and the unwillingness of many to examine the structures that underly the assumptions. For example, Rex noted that his having a "clean" record has enabled him to conduct his research without too much interference (barring the occasional guns being pointed at him :D). Now, to my mind, a "clean" research record is really no more than keeping your word and doing exactly what you say you will do, including guarantees of confidentiality as requested (and not if your informants request that).

I was taught such moral ethics as a child and they have served me well in the last 50 years. I can also relate to Rex’s point from say an African’s perspective. Rex’s reputation probably kept the occasional ‘gun-in-the-face’ from ever going bang! My relationship with Africans and now Estonians stems from my understanding and ability to integrate, but not go local. I wasn’t studying them, but needed to understand them in order to get along and do my job more efficiently – even during civil wars and upheavals. That ability probably did save my bacon many times.

Where we start getting into problematic areas are in some of the other structures. For example, there is an axiomatic assumption that says the data, or at least the analyses, should be published. This puts that material out into the public domain where it now becomes available for use by anyone. But if anyone can use it, then this includes those who can "misuse" it as well. This actually sets up a feedback loop as far as confidentiality is concerned based on the concept of "do no harm" which, in my opinion, means that there should be a very exacting discussion of what "harm" is - something that doesn't happen that often.

That’s a tough one, but I now have a better handle on why such ethical codes are in place. My work in the Army kept most of our information out of the public domain. There were still plenty of other people with access to abuse and misuse the information. Or worse, not use it and ignore it altogether.

I believe that most of the current debate over Anthropologists working with the military actually centers on the nature of this feedback loop and the definition, or lack thereof, of "harm". For me, the dilemna posed by Mark isn't a dilemna at all, but that is because I have spent a lot of time analyzing that feedback loop and trying to work out a definition of harm. In particular, I take individual choice to be both an axiomatic and an operational assumption. Could I have stopped that prisoner from committing suicide with 100% success? Nope, and any efforts to invoke structural conditions to increase a chance of success would have increased his likeliness to want to commit suicide, therefore I would be "harming" him by taking those actions.

But notice that my axiomatic and operational assumption of individual choice is totally counter to the (misunderstood) "White Man's Burden" assumption that operates with some of my colleagues. Personally, I find their assumption of a superior power position to be ludicrous since that assumption requires them to posit that it exists in all situations without actually analyzing any specific situation. Furthermore, it places the onus of responsibility on the collective (i.e. the profession) rather than the individual, which I find to be ethically repugnant since it creates an enforced reliance of the individual on the collective and, as a consequence, decreases the growth of the individual.

Damn your good :cool: If we could just copy/paste this para on the AAA cite, I’d have far fewer questions regarding the need for an Anthropologist’s code of ethics, or anyone else for that matter.

I think Shakespeare summed up my own understanding beautifully when he wrote:
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Marc

Marc, you’re a hopeless romantic !

Thanks for insight, Stan

Stan

09-25-2007, 09:56 AM

Somewhat related to Mark's Human Terrain from Wired's Danger Room (http://blog.wired.com/defense/human_terrain/index.html)

By Sharon Weinberger, September 19, 2007

A newly formed ad-hoc group called The Network of Concerned Anthropologists is hoping to convince their colleagues to sign a pledge of "non-participation in counter-insurgency." They write: "The War in Iraq has created a dangerous situation not only for the nation but also for the discipline of anthropology. The Department of Defense and allied agencies are mobilizing anthropologists for interventions in the Middle East and beyond. It is likely that larger, more permanent initiatives are in the works."

An excerpt of the pledge can be found at the link.

Rex Brynen

09-25-2007, 12:37 PM

Let me put a few hypothetical moral dilemmas on the table, and see what people think:

1) You study a community as an academic social scientist, and gather considerable information on a not-for-attribution or background-only/not-for-publication basis. In your subsequent thesis/article/book/whatever, you respect this. Later, however, you're approached by the military to assist in their efforts to influence this community. Your unpublished, confidential insights and information on the community would be useful in this regard. Do you share them?

2) You work with the military, and then go on to an academic career. During the former stint, you gather much useful information. However, your "subjects" were hardly in a position of informed consent--you were armed (or travelling with armed people), some of your interviewees were detainees who may have feared punishment for non-cooperation, etc. Do you use the information in your scholarly writings ("data is data"), or does the way in which it was gathered bar its use?

3) Your social scientific knowledge as a scholar is requested by the military to assist in helping a community (whether development efforts, establishing the rule of law, etc.) with whom you've had a privileged, confidential relationship of trust. However, once you've disseminated this information, you have no control over its spread and subsequent use, or misuse, by others (the local security forces, who are known to be hostile to the community). Do you share the information?

4) As a graduate student, you work with a community and gain their trust. Later, you join the military, and are sent to work with the same community--this time in uniform. While your experience will be useful to COIN efforts, you know that your return as a soldier will affect the way other current and future civilian researchers are seen by the locals, and possibly put them at risk. What do you do?

While I can't think of many cases where I've ever been faced with very difficult moral quandaries in the field, I can think of a colleague who, I felt, made some really poor choices in this regard (and no, I won't be posting the details).

There are also a lot or parallels here with issues that arise in military-NGO cooperation, etc.

marct

09-25-2007, 03:01 PM

Hi Rex,

Those are really good ones. Let me give you my own answers on them.

1) You study a community as an academic social scientist, and gather considerable information on a not-for-attribution or background-only/not-for-publication basis. In your subsequent thesis/article/book/whatever, you respect this. Later, however, you're approached by the military to assist in their efforts to influence this community. Your unpublished, confidential insights and information on the community would be useful in this regard. Do you share them?

I would note that the key "hook" in this is the "unpublished" and "confidential" criteria. But there is another, to my mind more important, criterion which is internalized pattern recognition - the internalized models and understandings of that community that allowed you to write your work in the first place.

I tend to view the research writing process as a series of perceptual phase changes, and the part I am talking about here is a series that goes like this:

internalized model of a community process by author / researcher (your "insights")
attempts to select / find an appropriate communicative form / genre
attempts to "solidify" the explanations within that form / genre.
externalization of that model
drafting of writing
selection of analogs of communicative genre
production of writing/product
re-drafting of product based on communicative venue
final version of product
dissemination of product
individual "understandings" of product
social / communal constructions surrounding the product (e.g. reviews, citations, word of mouth, etc.)
individual internalizations of product based on personal experiences / perceptions. A roundabout way to answer, but necessary I think. So, the answer, for me at least, would be that I would certainly agree to share the insights I had published but in different forms / genres and using different analogs and communicative genres, but I would not agree to share any confidential information. In essence, I would agree to rewrite my research for the military in a form they could understand and use (within certain limits established by the "harm" constraint), but I would not give any confidential information.

2) You work with the military, and then go on to an academic career. During the former stint, you gather much useful information. However, your "subjects" were hardly in a position of informed consent--you were armed (or travelling with armed people), some of your interviewees were detainees who may have feared punishment for non-cooperation, etc. Do you use the information in your scholarly writings ("data is data"), or does the way in which it was gathered bar its use?

Much trickier in my opinion. I do not agree with the "data is data" argument on the whole for three reasons:

coerced data is probably quite biased and, hence, unreliable (empirical argument for rejection);
coerced data is likely to be data that reflects only one part of extreme reactions and cannot give insights outside of, at best, an extremely limited reaction space within the culture (empirical and theoretical grounds for rejection); and
coerced data is ethically repugnant to me personally. Having said that, now let me start cutting it away.

The hook here is who the subjects are. If I were focusing on the subjects of interrogation, then the general answer is "no". If I were focusing on the interrogator - detainee interaction, then the answer is "maybe", but only in the abstract interactive sense and only with "observational data".

Let me expand on this concept of "observational data" for a minute, since I think it is a crucial point. Part of the key to the way you have defined this conundrum is "informed consent". I would argue that "data" that is produced for display with no expectation of privacy contains implied informed consent. For example, if someone writes a post on a publicly accessible blog or forum that does not require membership to view, I would consider that posting to be "in the public domain" and containing inherent "informed consent". If it requires membership in order to view it, even if membership can be achieved simply by registering, then I would hold that there is no implication of informed consent. The same is true, in my mind, to social actions and interactions in a public venue (the key here being public venue).

To get back to your example, if I was traveling with a group of soldiers and I saw interactions taking place in a public venue,say a village square, I would consider that to be "open source" and containing implied "informed consent". Interactions that took place in, say, a private home would, in my mind, not be "open source" and, hence, would not contain any consent therefore those observations would not be acceptable for use (the same would hold for private emails, PMs, conversations, etc. - anything with any expectation of privacy).

3) Your social scientific knowledge as a scholar is requested by the military to assist in helping a community (whether development efforts, establishing the rule of law) with whom you've had a privileged, confidential relationship of trust. However, once you've disseminated this information, you have no control over its spread and subsequent use, or its misuse by others (the local security forces, who are known to be hostile to the community). Do you share the information?

Again, the key here is what information are we talking about? Honestly, I would need a lot more details to parse this one out. However, on the limited data you've given, I might agree to work with the military but only i the role of an advocate - cultural "translator" if you will - for that community. I would not disseminate or collect any information that could be used by local security forces that they did not already have. I will also freely admit that I would, in all probability, do my best to "shade" my information (via selection and emphasis) to increase the physical security of that community from those security forces.

4) As a graduate student, you work with a community and gain their trust. Later, you join the military, and are sent to work with the same community--this time in uniform. While your experience will be useful for COIN efforts, you know that your return as a soldier will affect the way other current and future civilian researchers are seen by the locals, and possibly put them at risk. What do you do?

First of all, let me say that this dilemna must be considered before taking any military oaths.

This is, to my mind, the trickiest dilemna you have tossed out. It also highlights one of the dangers I see with restrictive professional moral codes which is the possibility that the codes will be accepted solely in and of themselves without an examination of the structures underlying those codes, the ethical principles involved and, most importantly, how those principles will be individually internalized. This gets back to what Stan calls my sense of hopeless romanticism :D.

To my mind, the crux of this dilemna resides in my relationship with that community and my current requirements "in uniform". If the two put me into a situation where I felt my relationship with that community was being abused by my current orders, and I felt that the community was not committing "gross harm", I would refuse those orders and take the consequences. If I felt that the community was committing "gross harm", or if I felt that I could act as an effective agent in reducing general harm, I would accept them.

They key, as I see it, is in the communication to the community of the role of a researcher, and that understanding is not based on what we say, although that is part of it, but on what we do. I remember having a discussion years ago at a CASCA meeting on how Americanist Anthropologists have unconsciously patterned ourselves on the "Twisted Hairs (http://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Legends/TwistedHair-Unknown.html)" - storytellers and shamans who were members of all tribes but, at the same time, members of none. After that discussion, I really started noticing some very interesting patterns within the discipline (or, at least, in the lineage I was part of); most importantly the feeling that Anthropologists were "betwixt and between", not really members of our own cultures but not really members of the cultures we studied. Basically, a feeling that we are constantly in a liminal space.

All of that tangent is a roundabout way of saying that I believe that ethical decisions should be guided by precedent and codes but are, ultimately, decided by individuals based on specific situations.

Marc

goesh

09-25-2007, 04:03 PM

Challenging questions to say the least....

1.) It is not always easy to distinguish what is Public knowledge and observation and what is not. Certainly many religious ceremonies and interfamilial dynamics would be confidential but then, Anthros may be excluded from the latter from the get-go. I know in muslim Bush villages in W. Africa, nobody would bat an eye if an outsider were to kick a dog that was in the way and being a nuisance but to boot a goat would be a different matter, and that is Public, observable knowledge with no confidentiality attachments to it. Some cultural boundaries are best defined by their exclusionary mechanisms which are often overt in nature. To answer the direct question, IMO it would be an individual choice but ideally would be made without concern for any censure from colleagues who see little merit to military endeavors, and with full disclosure from the Military as to exactly what they intend to do with the data.

2.) Data is data, having been observed and recorded with all pertinent conditions duly noted. It's an issue of contamination/purity that can't be answered.

3.) You really know how to knock on people's noggins, don't you? Hmmmm, that's what Advisors, peers, spouses, friends and ju-jus are for.

4.) Request a transfer for exactly those reasons.

09-25-2007, 04:38 PM

Rex and MarcT,

I think that much of this discussion could be forestalled were we to have some clearly understood underlying theory or theories of moral value and obligation upon which to base our moral reasoning here. For example, were I a good utilitarian like Spock in Star Trek II,

Spock: Don't grieve, Admiral. It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh...
Kirk: ...the needs of the few.
Spock: ...Or the one. I never took the Kobayashi Maru test until now. What do you think of my solution?
then I could probably make a fairly strong case that would allow me to make use of the data in your second example. But I could make an equally strong case against using that data were I a non-consequentialist of a Kantian stripe.

What is really at issue here is more of a question of what is that makes an anthropolgist an anthropologist. Or to use an Aristotlean phrasing, what are the virtues of an anthropologist? I suspect that were the profession to have uniformity in the answer to that question (which it clearly does not given the debate with the AAA), then these cases would be fairly easily resolved, from a professional standpoint. However, the rub comes in when you recognize that not only are you an anthropologist, but you are also a Canadian, a college professor, a parent (perhaps), etc. etc. Each of these roles also carries with it its own archetype with its own virtues. This is what I take away from MarcT''s
coerced data is ethically repugnant to me personally As long as we are able to describe differently who and what we are in various contexts, we will have these struggles. So the search for verstehen and a consistent weltenschaaung will continue. Let's just not take the Bernard Williams stance found in Moral Luck as a justification for being outside the bounds of moral culpability. To do so would, IMHO, be to act using the worst form of existential mauvaise foi/bad faith. Martin Luther at the door of Worms cathedral is a better role model, I think.

Rex Brynen

09-25-2007, 05:05 PM

As long as we are able to describe differently who and what we are in various contexts, we will have these struggles.

The struggles lie, I think, not only in complex, varied, and sometimes potential contradictory underpinnings, but also in the unknowability of "consequence" and the difficulting in measuring (and, indeed, the incommensurability) of the benefits and hurts involved.

An essential step, as you suggest, is to grapple with the problem. Indeed, the greatest moral and practical danger (whether as scholars, aid workers, or the military) lurks when we avoid grappling, or wish it away, in the name of getting the job done (Interestingly, this was Kirk's solution to the Kobayashi Maru test--I'll admit to being far better on Roddenberry than Kant :rolleyes:).

A second useful step is to have to convincingly articulate your moral reasoning to others, whether research ethics boards, or the chain of command.

marct

09-25-2007, 05:23 PM

Hi WM,

I think that much of this discussion could be forestalled were we to have some clearly understood underlying theory or theories of moral value and obligation upon which to base our moral reasoning here.

I certainly agree that that is a first step; a least in the sense used by St. Paul in his observation that "I had not known sin except through the law" (Romans 7:7).

What is really at issue here is more of a question of what is that makes an anthropolgist an anthropologist. Or to use an Aristotlean phrasing, what are the virtues of an anthropologist? I suspect that were the profession to have uniformity in the answer to that question (which it clearly does not given the debate with the AAA), then these cases would be fairly easily resolved, from a professional standpoint. However, the rub comes in when you recognize that not only are you an anthropologist, but you are also a Canadian, a college professor, a parent (perhaps), etc. etc. Each of these roles also carries with it its own archetype with its own virtues. This is what I take away from MarcT''s

coerced data is ethically repugnant to me personally

Personally, I wouldn't use that way of getting there (I always preffered Xenophon's Socrates to Aristotle :D) but, yes, I would say hat that was a definite stage that takes place after the "knowing the law" stage as it were. I would argue that there is another "stage" that follows that one which is the "search for self" not through roles but through a "unification of significata" (to, slightly, misquote Victor Turner). Then again, in addition to being a hopeless romantic, I have also been accused of being mystically inclined :D.

As long as we are able to describe differently who and what we are in various contexts, we will have these struggles. So the search for verstehen and a consistent weltenschaaung will continue. Let's just not take the Bernard Williams stance found in Moral Luck as a justification for being outside the bounds of moral culpability. To do so would, IMHO, be to act using the worst form of existential mauvaise foi/bad faith. Martin Luther at the door of Worms cathedral is a better role model, I think.

I agree completely.

09-25-2007, 05:24 PM

The struggles lie, I think, not only in complex, varied, and sometimes potential contradictory underpinnings, but also in the unknowability of "consequence" and the difficulting in measuring (and, indeed, the incommensurability) of the benefits and hurts involved. The unpredictability of the future is Kant's point in his example sometimes described as the case of the enquiring murder. Would that we had the fictional panopticon that SGM Grumpy mentioned in an earlier post to this thread! I find a resort to such fictions (or archangels in the case of R.M. Hare) a telling argument against consequentialist ethical theories.

marct

09-25-2007, 05:33 PM

I find it a telling point that we always come back, in these debates, to some form of transcendental justification, be it archangels, panopticons or least likely consequences. I think there is a danger of hubris in all of these debates, whether it appears in the (misunderstood) "White Man's Burden" form I mentioned earlier or in my own individualist stance. I certainly agree with Rex about the importance of the struggle. I do get worried, also, about the effects of stopping that struggle since any resolution, I wold hold, is only temporary and contingent on the time and space in which it is achieved.

Stan

10-05-2007, 07:34 AM

From the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?hp), "American paratroopers are fielding what they consider a crucial new weapon in counterinsurgency operations here: a soft-spoken civilian anthropologist named Tracy. "

A good news story and something that the everyday soldier can now extensively learn from and relate to. More importantly IMO, this experience will change the all too often imagined generalizations our young soldiers tend to employ in order to conceal their general lack of cultural understanding. :)

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 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.

There are of course some naysayers still around :o.

Hugh Gusterson, an anthropology professor at George Mason University, and 10 other anthropologists are circulating an online pledge calling for anthropologists to boycott the teams, particularly in Iraq.

goesh

10-05-2007, 12:27 PM

There ain't nothing wrong with an armed Peace Corps, never was. This flexibility/adaptation is quite remarkable and proves the tenet that talent and ability trumps rank when circumstances demand it. It must irk some traditionalists to have an Anthro saddled up with the troops. What's next? Former Hippies who've pulled the trigger volunteering and wearing bell bottoms on the streets??:p

http://www.acclaimstockphotography.com/_gallery/_pages/0018-0310-0309-2625.html

Beelzebubalicious

10-05-2007, 02:55 PM

Stan

10-05-2007, 03:35 PM

Chosen Soldier: The Making of a Special Forces Warrior (http://astore.amazon.com/chinesedefenc-20/detail/0307339386)

Apparently, the author is quoted as saying the green berets are "peace corps with guns". He "explains that Green Berets not only fight, they teach: living in the world's hot spots, they speak the language, win the trust of the locals, and train and fight alongside them to defeat a common enemy." according to the Publisher's Weekly Editorial Review.

Perhaps a better reference is the FAO. In my limited knowledge, seems like the DOD is trying to scale up the program (more career options, interagency positings, etc.), but where is it going?

Hey Beelz !
Good question. I've been around both in Sub-Sahara (actually, Tom was both). Depends on the SF unit and tasking. Ours worked well both in Africa (cheap mercenaries and training, class 101) and later in Eastern Europe (humanitarian demining, PSYOPs and a smigin of CA). I have/had no complaints.

If I was authorized to decide, which I am not, I'd choose answer 'D', all of the above (an armed FAO) :cool:

Now that I'm beggin', could I have an armed Anthropologist too ?
Regards, Stan

goesh

10-05-2007, 03:56 PM

Stan

10-05-2007, 04:11 PM

From the strategy of shock and awe and high tech wizardry which had human Intel playing 2cd fiddle, to the current adaptation in but a couple of years speaks volumes to the talent, insight and determination of seasoned NCOs and the 0-1 to 0-6 Officer Corps who are in-the-sand in real time, and has naught to do with freakin' Admin weenies, manuals, theory, talking heads and public opinion. There, Stan, that's my field note and observation for the day.

And well said, Goesh.
I attribute my still being alive to several 'boots on the ground' officers and NCOs.
The first, my anti-terrorism and firearms instructor (then an SF E6) at Bragg, and later a whole host of combat arms and combat support folks.

Then, of course, there's Tom :cool:

SN100682136

10-05-2007, 07:29 PM

Just though you might find this intersting... :D

http://concerned.anthropologist.googlepages.com/home

marct

10-05-2007, 07:32 PM

Just though you might find this intersting... :D

http://concerned.anthropologist.googlepages.com/home

You just had to get it in first, didn't you, Yannick? :D

Stan, this is right up your alley... Don't bust a gut laughing too hard ;)

Marc

Steve Blair

10-05-2007, 07:34 PM

..........

Rob Thornton

10-05-2007, 08:12 PM

Quebec? Whats up with those northerners with the funny accents anyway ay? Hold on, IP address is ......? Smells like a conspiracy to me.

Tom Odom

10-05-2007, 08:18 PM

You just had to get it in first, didn't you, Yannick? :D

Stan, this is right up your alley... Don't bust a gut laughing too hard ;)

Marc

I kept trying to sign the form but everytime I put "Mental" under institution it kicked me off :o

Obviously this group is against crazy ass peeps...:wry:

Tom

No, Stan, they won't take you either, buddy

marct

10-05-2007, 08:19 PM

Quebec? Whats up with those northerners with the funny accents anyway ay? Hold on, IP address is ......? Smells like a conspiracy to me.

LOLOL

Actually, he is a student of mine in Directed Interdisciplinary Studies with a focus on Security, Stability and Reconstruction. We're in the the grad pub at the same table right now, hence the IP address....

Conspiracy? Mais non!

Marc

SN100682136

10-05-2007, 08:26 PM

Mais non!

Oh Marc.

What many time will I have to tell you. In colloquial french (popularly used in Quebec) It's Ben non Ca'lise

Stan

10-05-2007, 09:14 PM

Hey Marc !
I thought it was Greg, my Estonian Protégé :eek:
In any case, I've returned from a nice restaurant and enjoying a beer and late movie.

If they won't let Tom sign up, there's little hope for the remainder herein <sigh> and it's back to creative writing.

Jokes aside, I enjoyed the article and hope to find this Dr. Tracey :p

jusqu'à la fois suivante !

Stan

PS. Needed the French practice :D

LOLOL

Actually, he is a student of mine in Directed Interdisciplinary Studies with a focus on Security, Stability and Reconstruction. We're in the the grad pub at the same table right now, hence the IP address....

Conspiracy? Mais non!

Marc

rightwingprof

10-06-2007, 06:48 PM

I did my BA in anthropology in the 70s. Note that it was nonsense like the AAA (and a number of other factors) that made me decide to change my plans and do my grad work in another field.

Tom OC

10-08-2007, 04:12 AM

rightwingprof: what field did you change to? I switched from anthropology to criminology and never regretted it, but I do run into a lot of animosity and elitism from straight-up anthropologists. I have no estimation of how anthropologists feel on certain issues, but in criminology, we have a similar "discipline-wide" stance in opposition to the death penalty (not me, the discipline's association) and 2nd Amendment topics are pretty much off-limits in criminal justice circles.

Jedburgh

10-08-2007, 03:38 PM

Moderator at Work

Prompted by the most recent post I have merged eight threads on the subject of Human Terrain, Human Terrain teams (HTS) and Anthropology into one. Most threads were in the Social Science forum and a few outside, including one in Job Seekers. I have left two threads on Iraq & HTS. (Ends)

If anyone is interested in joining a Human Terrain Team or knows of someone who would be qualified to be on one of the teams, they are looking for additional personnel:

• The Human Terrain System is a new Army program designed to improve the military’s ability to understand the local socio-cultural environment in Iraq and Afghanistan. This program is a pioneering effort with the potential to fundamentally change the way the military operates in foreign environments: knowledge of the local population provides a departure point for a military staff’s ability to plan and execute its mission more effectively using less lethal force. Preliminary findings from Afghanistan demonstrate that Human Terrain Teams help military commanders reduce the amount of lethal force used, with a corresponding reduction in military and civilian casualties.

• Social scientists will be members of five-person Human Terrain Teams, which are composed of military specialists, linguists, area studies specialists, and others. The Human Terrain Teams act as advisers to Army Brigades and Marine Corps Regiments. The Human Terrain Team does not engage in combat missions, nor does it collect intelligence. This program is neither covert nor clandestine: when interacting with the local population, all members of the human terrain team fully identify themselves and their mission. All team members undergo four months of training, with a deployment of 6 to 9 months.

• In addition to drawing upon their own experience and expertise, field social scientists, as members of a Human Terrain Team, will gather data from a variety of sources operating in theatre (e.g. conventional military patrols, non-governmental organizations, international organizations, civil affairs units, special forces). The teams assist commanders in understanding the operational relevance of socio-cultural information as it applies to the military decision-making process. The expectation is that the social scientist’s knowledge will allow the commander to make decisions that will increase the security of the area, allow other organizations (local and international) to more effectively provide aid and restore the infrastructure, ensure that US efforts are culturally sensitive, promote economic development, and help the local population more effectively communicate their needs to US and Coalition forces.

• In recent decades scholarly access to military operations has been limited to those in uniform and a select handful of insiders. Working as a social scientist on a Human Terrain Team offers a rare and unique opportunity to help reshape the military's execution of their mission by offering them a much greater appreciation of existing socio-cultural realities and sensitivities in the countries where they are operating. This position also offers an opportunity to develop new methods for data collection and analysis. Social scientists will be able to write about their experiences and otherwise contribute to the academic literature in their field after participation.

• Applicants selected will be subject to a government security investigation (which requires that applicants report their employment, residence and lifestyle activities for the past seven years) and must meet the eligibility requirements for access to classified information. Applicants will also undergo a 4-month training program at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, including orientation to the military/deployment environment, in-depth country briefings, and multi-disciplinary social science concepts and methods.

• Qualifications:
o US citizen
o PhD (or ABD) in anthropology or related field such as sociology, political science, history, theology, economics, public policy, social psychology or area studies
o Experience living or working overseas for extended periods
o Comprehensive physical exam within last year
o Ability to travel to Afghanistan and/or Iraq
o Ability to obtain and maintain a security clearance
o Ability to work in a team environment
o Ability to work with social scientists from other disciplines
o An open-minded attitude towards a variety of concepts and methods
o Willingness to work with the military

• In addition to the above requirements, the following are preferred:
o Experience living or working in the Middle East
o Arabic, Pashtoo or Dari language skills

• Start date: open

• Salary: negotiable, depending on experience and qualifications

• All inquiries should be directed to Dr. Janice Laurence, Director of Human Resources: Janice.laurence@us.army.mil

Beelzebubalicious

10-10-2007, 02:22 PM

Kathleen Dunn - 10/09D

A new project that embeds university professors with military units in Iraq and Afghanistan has drawn fierce criticism from the academic community. After nine, Kathleen Dunn talks with anthropologists on both sides of the issue.

Guests:
9:00 - Marcus B. Griffin, cultural anthropologist who is working with the U.S. Army as part of the Human Terrain System in Iraq.
9:30 - David Price, Associate Professor of anthropology and sociology, St. Martin's University, Washington. (9:30)

http://www.marcusgriffin.com/blog/
http://www.wpr.org/ideas/programnotes.cfm

Stan

10-10-2007, 02:52 PM

I'm pleasantly surprised to see that the naysayers are far fewer than those who feel they can make a difference (and even get paid to do said). I was concerned that our intellectual brothers would leave us hanging coping with death, dying and grief over this friggin code of ethics saving lives and animals <dumb ass grin>.

Our last Anthropology thread (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=3963) was an intriguing eye opener. I certainly hope there's a few more like Marc willing to get involved.

This link (http://leav-www.army.mil/fmso/documents/human-terrain-system.pdf) sort of gets there without all the negative aspects which come with any operation.

Conducting military operations in a low-intensity conflict without ethnographic and cultural intelligence is like building a house without using your thumbs: it is a wasteful, clumsy, and unnecessarily slow process at best, with a high probability for frustration and failure. But while waste on a building site means merely loss of time and materials, waste on the battlefield means loss of life, both civilian and military, with high potential for failure having grave geopolitical consequences to the loser.

Many of the principal challenges we face in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom (OIF and OEF) stem from just such initial institutional
disregard for the necessity to understand the people among whom our forces operate as well as the cultural characteristics and propensities of the enemies we now fight.

More at the link

goesh

10-10-2007, 05:39 PM

This is quite a step forward for the US Military. They would be very wise to ramp down the academic requirements a notch or two or at least have an exception clause based on experience incorporated into the program. I have two Archeologist friends for instance who have ran digs and done a spot of publishing with naught but a Masters and the good Peace Corps Volunteers who accomplished a few things I knew didn't have but B.A./B.S. degrees. My gut reaction to the posting was, 'heavy on the intellectual side with lots of conferencing and meetings and sitting at the computer in the green zone and little time on the streets/in the bush'. Talent trumps rank? Seems I read that somehwere in some COIN publication.

Stan

10-10-2007, 05:53 PM

You're quite right, Goesh. An ambitious step forward for the Army, but the bar is set a tad too high. That and the fact that we have our own assets - those who were neglected for years in the form of FAOs and intel Os and Es. Culturally aware and language background to boot. The Army blindly squandered her best assets just prior to needing them folks more than ever. We should have kept those soldiers In Service and Up to Speed.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with employing Peace Corps Volunteers. Nothing personal, they kinda went too local even for me.

goesh

10-10-2007, 06:18 PM

Stan, I never had a problem wearing ju-jus in the bush or feathers or ears for that matter. One out of a thousand former PCVs at best would commit to the military, along the same reasons Anthros are whining and wringing their hands and pontificating about it. I don't know the reason for not scouring the ranks for real in-house talent to employ. The first sniper/IED/fire fight is going to send half the civilians home on the spot most likely so the standards will have to be adjusted anyway. It's in its infancy and will flex to make itself work this program. Alot of employed Phds are not going to ship over for the sake of some extra money I don't think so they will have to tap in-house talent at some point. It sounds like its for real this program and not some look-good-feel-good BS.

Ken White

10-10-2007, 06:20 PM

Tom Odom

10-10-2007, 06:27 PM

Agreed on lowering the reqs.

PhDs would mean that most retired FAOs would not qualify.

Tom

Stan

10-10-2007, 06:36 PM

PhD is overkill, get advanced degree candidates.

Re: the PC PC (not redundant), I even got shot at by one -- once. ;)

Jeez, you managed to find one that used a firearm :confused:

We just had the stinky lacked-a-bath-this-year, fuzzy-legs...Well, you get the idea :rolleyes:.

My first trip to the bush in fatigues was rather interesting. To be told I was training baby killers (I did teach a few how to use the M2HB on a 114 command post, but don't recall baby target practice in the lesson plans), and not making humanitarian use of my education (from Suitland, MD...Are you kidding ?).

Tom Odom

10-10-2007, 06:39 PM

Jeez, you managed to find one that used a firearm

Kate wanted to shoot us in Goma, Stan. We had the guns; she did not. :wry:

Tom

Stan

10-10-2007, 06:44 PM

Kate wanted to shoot us in Goma, Stan. We had the guns; she did not. :wry:

Tom

Bud, that's why you wanted me to chain the firearms safe to the wall :eek:

Kate was retrained, Tom. I recall having typical male thoughts in that Animal House right up to the point she began a bitchin' :cool:

Tom Odom

10-10-2007, 06:55 PM

Bud, that's why you wanted me to chain the firearms safe to the wall :eek:

Kate was retrained, Tom. I recall having typical male thoughts in that Animal House right up to the point she began a bitchin' :cool:

Oh no doubt. She did a great Maureen Ohara on me in the middle of the FOB. She proved herself time and time again in the long run. But those initial days were a trip. Peeing on fire hydrants is not a behavior exclusively male. :wry:

Tom

Ken White

10-10-2007, 07:52 PM

to the bad guys; she got really torqued when we stopped her Ambulance and insisted on searching it and her first attempt at blonde charm failed. She totally lost it when we found 14 weapons and a bunch of ammo. She was big girl, no razor, picked up an old Mauser, cranked off a round at me, it missed, I looked super cool (actually I was saying "wha..." and it all didn't register-- but it became a minor legend [myth?] with the troops) and the young speedy Four standing closest to her buttstroked her. :cool:

The good thing about that little soiree was that one of the weapons was an NWM made AR-10, the ones that got sold only to Batista and inherited by Castro and the S2 got to show it to the very anti-American Indian MG who was the UN rep and who was adamant there was no Cubano involvement in the Dom Rep. That and the un-PC PC nurse got hassled, oops, sorry, interrogated, for three days before we turned her over to State. :D

goesh

10-11-2007, 12:29 AM

we had one who after a 2 week courtship married a PLO rep in country - the standard joke was at the wedding reception food and drink would be served on top of a case of hand grenades - they probably inserted some plastique in her and detonated her somewhere in Tel Aviv

Ken White

10-11-2007, 01:03 AM

great and few are flakes. Hmmm -- sounds just like your average rifle company..:D.

jhlaurence

10-11-2007, 12:55 PM

There are exceptions -- I agree with the need for experience and not just rank. There are additional team members that don't require a Ph.D. The ideal is to have a military lead with credibility, a senior social scientist with the right skills and credibility, a linguist, an area expert. The "additional" social scientist need not have the "official" credentials.

Thanks for the feedback -- I am the director of human resource development

jhlaurence

10-11-2007, 01:03 PM

Tom Odom

10-11-2007, 01:03 PM

jhlaurence

10-11-2007, 01:06 PM

JHL,

Thanks for stopping in. This work is really important and of great interest to those of us who have worked this arena. Lot's of experience on here.

Best

Tom
Thanks for the welcome. I need this experience. Keep up the contact and the feedback. And THANKS for all you do -- I am a civilian military psychogists who plans to go to Iraq and Afghanistan and see the program functioning at the source! It's an opportunity for me to put my actions where my "mouth" is....

goesh

10-11-2007, 01:12 PM

jhlaurence

10-11-2007, 01:18 PM

Thanks for joining Dr. Laurence and by all means join in other discussions when time permits. HTP is overdue but better late than never. The fact that opponents and antagonists have so quickly arisen is a testament to the potential of the program. The diversity, experience and commitment found in the membership of this forum is truly impressive and can prove to be a valuable asset easily tapped. Keep up the good work!
I agree that we might be late for Iraq and Afghanistan (though there seems to be some good effects in Afghanistan). If (when) this becomes a program of record then I would expect to be in such areas as Africa, Indonesia, South America, etc. So help us make this a program of record!

goesh

10-11-2007, 01:23 PM

Tap your in-country connections, make her feel most welcome and keep her extra safe when she lands.

Stan

10-11-2007, 01:26 PM

Hey JHL and Welcome !
Marc will indeed have some questions for you...nature of the beast.

It is the real deal and I am really taking this feedback seriously. Tell any of those FAOs to contact me and I will give them info on the other Human Terrain Team members besides Social Scientists.

I'm no FAO, but hung and hang around with many FAOs. I consider myself culturally aware and constantly suspicious.

Don't take what I said too much to heart...well, not right away.

I look forward to your posts.

Regards, Stan

Jedburgh

10-11-2007, 01:53 PM

-- I agree with the need for experience and not just rank. There are additional team members that don't require a Ph.D. The ideal is to have a military lead with credibility, a senior social scientist with the right skills and credibility, a linguist, an area expert. The "additional" social scientist need not have the "official" credentials.

Thanks for the feedback -- I am the director of human resource development

-- I am a civilian military psychogists who plans to go to Iraq and Afghanistan and see the program functioning at the source! It's an opportunity for me to put my actions where my "mouth" is....
Janice, welcome to the board. "Human Terrain" has long been a focus of those involved in Small Wars, and the relatively recent injection of social science academia into the military arena - even if still yet to be fully realized - has been something that many of us have been observing closely. We certainly appreciate any feedback you are able to give in response to our comments.

Ted

marct

10-11-2007, 02:37 PM

Hi Janice,

There are exceptions -- I agree with the need for experience and not just rank. There are additional team members that don't require a Ph.D. The ideal is to have a military lead with credibility, a senior social scientist with the right skills and credibility, a linguist, an area expert. The "additional" social scientist need not have the "official" credentials.

Thanks for the feedback -- I am the director of human resource development

Great to have you here! I do have a couple of questions about the program that maybe you can answer.

First, especially given the current uproar n Anthropology right now, it certainly looks to me like you are going to have a lot of difficulty meeting recruiting targets for Ph.D.'s. While I would agree that lowering the academic standards is one way to meet them, have you also thought about relaxing the US citizenship requirements, say, to include Canadians, Brits and Oz/NZ academics?

Second, is here a specifically stated policy that is open that meets the ethical concerns about secrecy and informed consent that are at the core of the current Military-Anthropology debate? I have heard rumours that there are, but I haven't been able to find anything on them.

Third, if I remember the original HTS proposal correctly, there were supposed to be reach back teams in CONUS. I haven't heard anything about them, though, since that proposal. Could you fill us in on that?

Marc

Tom Odom

10-11-2007, 02:44 PM

I am a civilian military psychogist

Janice,

You are needed here...

We could probably give you a byline column called: "Ask Janice"

Seriously on the FAO thing--good avenue to recruit former FAOs and guys like Stan is through the FAO Association or even through FAO proponency.

Best

Tom

goesh

10-11-2007, 04:10 PM

Afghan and Iraqi Law and the exigency of being able to save lives in the very foreseeable future should keep some concerns confined to the ivory tower.
It is my impression that this operational platform will be implemented well out and away from the green zone/Kabul bunkers.

marct

10-11-2007, 04:21 PM

Hi Goesh,

Afghan and Iraqi Law and the exigency of being able to save lives in the very foreseeable future should keep some concerns confined to the ivory tower.

From what I have been seeing, the concerns are certainly not limited to the Ivory Tower. There are, to my mind, some very serious concerns that relate to confidentiality that are operating in the field as well given that some of the CORDS data was used, latter on, to arrange selective assassinations; while I disagree with David Price on a number of issues, his research and findings in this area are pretty darned solid and, as the saying goes, "once burned, twice shy".

It is my impression that this operational platform will be implemented well out and away from the green zone/Kabul bunkers.

That's my understanding as well.

jhlaurence

10-11-2007, 06:28 PM

Hi Janice,

Great to have you here! I do have a couple of questions about the program that maybe you can answer.

First, especially given the current uproar n Anthropology right now, it certainly looks to me like you are going to have a lot of difficulty meeting recruiting targets for Ph.D.'s. While I would agree that lowering the academic standards is one way to meet them, have you also thought about relaxing the US citizenship requirements, say, to include Canadians, Brits and Oz/NZ academics?

Second, is here a specifically stated policy that is open that meets the ethical concerns about secrecy and informed consent that are at the core of the current Military-Anthropology debate? I have heard rumours that there are, but I haven't been able to find anything on them.

Third, if I remember the original HTS proposal correctly, there were supposed to be reach back teams in CONUS. I haven't heard anything about them, though, since that proposal. Could you fill us in on that?

Marc
Marc -- I have been speaking to an ad hoc committee of the AAA about HTS. As with the American Psychological Association, there seems to be misunderstanding on both sides -- military and anthropologists. This program is designed to be "green" not "red" -- we are not looking for enemies but looking for ways to interact positively with the local population. I hope that the "ethical" concerns can be addressed but suffice it to say here, I think that social science and the military MUST interact for the good of both "institutions." On a personal note, when I worked at the Pentagon (ugh!!) I would see the protesters there at the metro entrance every Monday. They have a right to be there but I kept saying to myself that they were at the WRONG building. They should be at the White House. The military is just doing what the US government asked them to do....
There is a Research Reachback Center (RRC)that is up and running 24/7 and we have a network of subject matter experts (SME-net). The HTS is growing and adapting as the "field" conditions demand. The citizenship requirement is only for the Teams in country. FOr the RRC and SME-net -- not all have to be US citizens. Perhaps in time we will truly be multinational but the clearance requirements for HTT members are not something that we can negotiate right now -- although from my Quadrennial Defense Review days -- I do remember the Brits and Australians in on almost every meeting. Again, to you and all -- I will be bringing these suggestions forward. We are having our first conference Nov 6-8 in Leavenworth. At the opening staff meeting, I will voice your questions and concerns..

Janice

marct

10-11-2007, 06:47 PM

Hi Janice,

Marc -- I have been speaking to an ad hoc committee of the AAA about HTS. As with the American Psychological Association, there seems to be misunderstanding on both sides -- military and anthropologists. This program is designed to be "green" not "red" -- we are not looking for enemies but looking for ways to interact positively with the local population. I hope that the "ethical" concerns can be addressed but suffice it to say here, I think that social science and the military MUST interact for the good of both "institutions."

I was interviewed by that committee as well - it was an "interesting" experience all around :wry:. On the actual debate between the military and Anthropology, I've been following it for some time now and written one article (here (http://smallwarsjournal.com/documents/swjmag/v7/tyrrell-swjvol7.pdf)) on it and I'm in the process of writing another that is trying to get at the underlying mechanisms of why the debate has gone the way it has.

My original ethical concern about the program goes back to the original proposal to build local databases and then turn them over to the host government. To me, that was a) a clear violation of confidentiality and b) a really bad precedent since I fully suspect that such databases would be used to target non-government supporters. On general interaction and finding ways to reduce harm on both sides, I certainly had no problems ;).

On a personal note, when I worked at the Pentagon (ugh!!) I would see the protesters there at the metro entrance every Monday. They have a right to be there but I kept saying to myself that they were at the WRONG building. They should be at the White House. The military is just doing what the US government asked them to do....

The perils of living in a democracy <sigh>.

There is a Research Reachback Center (RRC)that is up and running 24/7 and we have a network of subject matter experts (SME-net). The HTS is growing and adapting as the "field" conditions demand. The citizenship requirement is only for the Teams in country. FOr the RRC and SME-net -- not all have to be US citizens. Perhaps in time we will truly be multinational but the clearance requirements for HTT members are not something that we can negotiate right now -- although from my Quadrennial Defense Review days -- I do remember the Brits and Australians in on almost every meeting.

Well, if you can use a symbolic Anthropologist on SME-net, just drop me a line. I suspect that, in time, you will have to either a) relax the citizenship requirements for field teams or b) get other nations to form them (I believe that we [Canada] have one Anthropologist in the field in Afghanistan right now). It may be an idea to consider reworking it so a NATO TS clearance would be enough.

Again, to you and all -- I will be bringing these suggestions forward. We are having our first conference Nov 6-8 in Leavenworth. At the opening staff meeting, I will voice your questions and concerns.

Thank you! If you don't mind, I may just try and put together a list of specific concerns (and, maybe, possible solutions to them) and shoot it off to you before that meeting.

Marc

jhlaurence

10-11-2007, 07:20 PM

Hi Janice,

I was interviewed by that committee as well - it was an "interesting" experience all around :wry:. On the actual debate between the military and Anthropology, I've been following it for some time now and written one article (here (http://smallwarsjournal.com/documents/swjmag/v7/tyrrell-swjvol7.pdf)) on it and I'm in the process of writing another that is trying to get at the underlying mechanisms of why the debate has gone the way it has.

My original ethical concern about the program goes back to the original proposal to build local databases and then turn them over to the host government. To me, that was a) a clear violation of confidentiality and b) a really bad precedent since I fully suspect that such databases would be used to target non-government supporters. On general interaction and finding ways to reduce harm on both sides, I certainly had no problems ;).

The perils of living in a democracy <sigh>.

Well, if you can use a symbolic Anthropologist on SME-net, just drop me a line. I suspect that, in time, you will have to either a) relax the citizenship requirements for field teams or b) get other nations to form them (I believe that we [Canada] have one Anthropologist in the field in Afghanistan right now). It may be an idea to consider reworking it so a NATO TS clearance would be enough.

Thank you! If you don't mind, I may just try and put together a list of specific concerns (and, maybe, possible solutions to them) and shoot it off to you before that meeting.

Marc
Please do so -- I'm off and running for now

Rex Brynen

10-11-2007, 07:58 PM

Marc -- I have been speaking to an ad hoc committee of the AAA about HTS. As with the American Psychological Association, there seems to be misunderstanding on both sides -- military and anthropologists. This program is designed to be "green" not "red" -- we are not looking for enemies but looking for ways to interact positively with the local population. I hope that the "ethical" concerns can be addressed but suffice it to say here, I think that social science and the military MUST interact for the good of both "institutions."

First off, welcome aboard SWC, Janice. It is great to have you contributing.

I think any effort to address the possible ethical concerns that the program might create would probably benefit from some scenario-based training for the missions before they deploy. Anthropologists are better than most on these issues, but I'm struck how often social scientists fail to think through the possible ethical dilemmas before they come and smack them in the face.

You may have seen the thread, but we did some playing around with these potential situations here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?p=26938&highlight=moral+dilemmas#post26938).

marct

10-12-2007, 01:46 PM

The show is available in RealMedia format here (http://clipcast.wpr.org:8080/ramgen/wpr/dun/dun071009d.rm).

Beelzebubalicious

10-14-2007, 06:02 PM

Apparently, Marshall Sahlins has weighed in on Anthropologists in Iraq in an open letter to the NY Times. This, according to Savage Minds...

To the Editor:
The report (Oct.11) of the killing of two Iraqi women by hired guns of the State Department whose mission was “to improve local government and democratic institutions” bears an interesting relation to the story of a few days earlier about the collaboration of anthropologists in just such imperious interventions in other peoples’ existence in the interest of extending American power around the world. It seems only pathetic that some anthropologists would criticize their colleagues’ participation in such adventures on grounds of their own disciplinary self-interest, complaining that now they will not be able to do fieldwork because the local people will suspect them of being spies. What about the victims of these militarily-backed intrusions, designed to prescribe how others should organize their lives at the constant risk of losing them? What is as incredible as it is reprehensible is that anthropologists should be engaged in such projects of cultural domination, that is, as willing collaborators in the forceful imposition of American values and governmental forms on people who have long known how to maintain and cherish their own ways of life.

Of course, these collaborating anthropologists have the sense that they are doing good and being good. I am reminded of a cartoon I saw years ago, I think it was in the Saturday Review of Literature, which shows two hooded executioners leaning on their long-handled axes, and one says to the other: “The way I see it, if I didn’t do this, some sonovabitch would get the job.”

Marshall Sahlins

http://savageminds.org/2007/10/11/marshall-sahlins-on-anthropologists-in-iraq/

SteveMetz

10-14-2007, 07:09 PM

SteveMetz

10-14-2007, 08:24 PM

Apparently, Marshall Sahlins has weighed in on Anthropologists in Iraq in an open letter to the NY Times. This, according to Savage Minds...

http://savageminds.org/2007/10/11/marshall-sahlins-on-anthropologists-in-iraq/

How dare we impose our values on the Iraqi "way of life" like this:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Insurgents in Iraq targeted Shiite Muslims on Sunday -- the second day of the Eid al-Fitr festival -- in separate attacks that left at least 24 dead, Iraqi officials said.

Iraqis check out damaged vehicles Sunday in Baghdad where a blast killed at least six people on a minibus.

The deadliest attack happened in Samarra, north of Baghdad, where a car bomb detonated near a mosque in the city's center. The explosion was followed by clashes between gunmen and Iraqi security forces, according to Samarra police.

At least 18 were killed -- 10 civilians and eight security officers -- and 37 were wounded in the blast and gunfight in Samarra, police said.

At least the Times had enough good sense to not public the pinhead's letter. When it comes to the Iraqi conflict, Sahlins knows a lot about James Cook's death.

SWJED

10-14-2007, 08:50 PM

http://smallwarsjournal.com/images/goodbadugly.gif

Cox and Forkum (http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000584.html) - But Cross Out Media - Replace With Concerned Anthropologists (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/concerned-anthropologists-or-s/)

Ken White

10-14-2007, 08:51 PM

who parroted the accepted wisdom of the "Middle East experts" who predicted the Sunni - Shia divide in Iraq would drive a new Iraq into the arms of Iran.

My argument was the 'divide' was virtually non-existent in Iraq and while it would be exploited -- since the western experts and media were trumpeting the division and folks in that area are not slow -- it would be in the vein of justifying the pay-back that was always going to occur. The only question being when that pay back occurred. Seems to be wearing itself out for the most part, though there'll always be some tension, I suspect that the major violence will dissipate.

I further posited that as one of the worst insults one could accord a Persian was to call him an Arab -- and the Arabs were very much aware of this and returned the favor -- that any significant rapprochement with Iran by the Iraqis was unlikely and if any did occur it would be for short term benefit only. All there are pragmatic and will put aside -- or actively foster -- differences as the situation seems to demand but a couple of thousand years of history are unlikely to be tossed aside.

Absorbing assorted slings and arrows over this, I was amused to see this Article (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071013/D8S8KSN81.html) yesterday. While one article does not a sea change make, I suspect that it is indicative of reality -- to include future reality. I particularly enjoyed the last paragraph...

I think all that means that those who wish to help will. For whatever reason others do not wish to help and they are, IMO, of little or no consequence.

Shivan

10-15-2007, 12:38 AM

I was checking out the biographies of "Concerned Anthropologists" and the collective bloggers who run Savage Minds. A few things jump out at me:

(1) Many research esoteric issues like "transformations in anti-witchcraft practices" or "sex and sexuality in American culture." Interesting to some, but IMHO, academic junk written to sate egos and get tenure (which most will not anyway).

(2) Since their research/academic focus may be the U.S. or "exotic" places like Melanesia, field research can hardly be called dangerous (unless, maybe the research is in a NYC gay bar for a study of "sex and sexuality in American culture").

(3) Some biographies indicate a pre-existing bias anyway, i.e., liberal. Cannot expect them to be favorably disposed to the U.S. Many are "bloody furriners" anyway (Helsinki, Oslo, Manchester).

OK. My view of anthropologists in Iraq or Afghanistan is simple.

(A) the anthropologists are not there to show the Army how to kill people, they are there to facilitate, i.e., help understand the cultural environment in which the Army is operating, and minimize the use of kinetic force. The New York Times article of Oct. 5, 2007 that is giving some anthropologists the vapors notes a key point which they have missed: In the area where the anthropologists are deployed, combat ops are down 60%.

(B) The anthropologists with HTS are saving lives, conducting useful and publishable field research that no other anthropologists have access to. They are seeing first hand the changes in Arab and Afghan tribal and Islamic societies as they happen. In the case of Afghanistan, after 30 years of war, much has changed. The anthropologists with the Army are the only ones with access to this treasure trove of ethnographic material.

(C) The "concerned anthropologists" can hold onto their principles, since IMHO, most of their work is boring, and they are in no danger while conducting field research.

(D) Being in the thick of such changes in Iraq/Afghanistan is fun, despite the danger. Beats hanging about a library or interviewing people on the streets of Des Moines.

The "concerned anthropologists" can blather all they like, but no one ever reads their work, and they wind up stuck as assistant or associate faculty in some fifth tier university or community college in the Midwest, making little money and boring the daylights out of stoned u/grads.

Me? I'm off to Afghanistan, and I will write a book about my experiences that will actually be read and contribute the advancement of our knowledge of the people of that land. And I don't care if the liberal faculty hate my guts for it. In fact, so much the better.

Salaam,

SM

Rex Brynen

10-15-2007, 01:37 AM

(3) Some biographies indicate a pre-existing bias anyway, i.e., liberal. Cannot expect them to be favorably disposed to the U.S.

I do hope you bring a rather more nuanced view of politics with you to the field in Afghanistan, Shivan ;)

(on behalf of liberal scholars everywhere :D )

Beelzebubalicious

10-15-2007, 06:36 AM

What bothers me more than anything about this is that I see the concerned anthropologists are providing knee-jerk reactions. There is a history there and many people are concerned (or ashamed) about what that means today. Fair enough. Some are applying objectivity and science to study the issue and they should be applauded, but many are just making assumptions.

I often see how people will take one side of an issue and then will systematically only accept information which supports their view while they ignore information which doesn't. In this case, it seems like Sahlins is doing the same. He connects two cases which are not linked to support his argument. He starts by saying that the security contractors worked in Iraq to promote democracy, which is not only wrong, but ridiculous. He then tries to link them to Anthropologists - huh? His logical argument appears to be that security contractors promote western models of democracy in Iraq and Anthropologists also work in Iraq, hence they are also promoting democracy.

He's basically saying that the US shouldn't be there at all and definitely shouldn't be pushing Western models of government on Iraqis who have their own models and traditions. I wonder what he would say to Iraqis who have asked for assistance and support and who volunteer to work with US contractors providing assistance. These people are not blindly pushing a Western democratic model, but working with Iraqis to develop a system of government that will work for them, whether it's Iraqi or other. Sahlins would argue that they think they are doing good, but are really doing harm. So, what's the alternative?

I'd like to see some nuance and objective analysis of these issues instead of knee-jerk reactions. What would be interesting is if one of these concerned anthropologists were to take a position on the "other" side - that is, start with a hypothesis that Anthropology can be beneficial in Iraq and then work on finding evidence to support or reject it (objectively). This is a fair scientific question (hypothesis could be stated better). Would these anthropologists be able to go through this process scientifically? They should be able to and it would be a good exercise to see if they could set aside their political and personal opinions.

My last note on this subject is that I would like to see if David Price takes up Col. Agoglia's invitation to meet with him and others (McFate, presumably) to discuss these issues in an open and constructive way. Is he serious about understanding this issue? If so, he'll follow up. If not, well, that's sends another message. We'll see....

marct

10-15-2007, 03:43 PM

Hi Folks, Savage Minds has (finally) collected their blogs on Anthropology and war (http://savageminds.org/2007/10/13/savage-minds-on-anthropology-and-war/) together. What bothers me most about this is the inclusion of spying, interrogation and torture in with "war".

marct

10-15-2007, 04:07 PM

Hi Beelzebubalicious,

What bothers me more than anything about this is that I see the concerned anthropologists are providing knee-jerk reactions. There is a history there and many people are concerned (or ashamed) about what that means today. Fair enough. Some are applying objectivity and science to study the issue and they should be applauded, but many are just making assumptions.

I think that a large part of the contentiousness of the issue is wrapped up in a very tangled skein of disciplinary history, self-identity and methodology. It is very hard to study "yourselves" in a systematic manner that is not self delusory.

He's basically saying that the US shouldn't be there at all and definitely shouldn't be pushing Western models of government on Iraqis who have their own models and traditions. I wonder what he would say to Iraqis who have asked for assistance and support and who volunteer to work with US contractors providing assistance. These people are not blindly pushing a Western democratic model, but working with Iraqis to develop a system of government that will work for them, whether it's Iraqi or other. Sahlins would argue that they think they are doing good, but are really doing harm. So, what's the alternative?

I would certainly agree with that assessment of what he is saying. In many ways, I happen to agree with some of the underlying reasons for that assessment as well. To take one example, the "imposition of democracy" (actually republicanism, not democracy) on Iraq and Afghanistan is, IMO, bound to be unstable simply because the cultural reconditions for its operation are not there.

Let me expand on this for a bit. These "cultural preconditions" are, really, clusters of perceptions that form part of the "natural attitude" of a population - the often unexamined "biases" of a population. One of the cultural preconditions of any "modern" form of democracy is a strong sense of individualism and a weak definition of "kinship" (i.e. a restrictive definition of family, usually nuclear or, at most, one to two layers out). Another cultural precondition is the strongly held belief that a) there is an individual "right to resist" state action (not a kinship/lineage based one) and b) that this "right" should take place at the level of politics rather than open warfare in almost all cases.

I think that many Anthropologists, including myself, viewed President Bush's stated desire to set up a "democracy" in Iraq as not only an imposition but, also, one that was doomed to failure (the same is not, IMO, true in Afghanistan for a variety of reasons). Will the Iraqis come up with some workable, overtly "democratic" government? I don't know - I think that it's a coin toss right now. But, if they do, it certainly won't be the republican model that was originally trumpeted.

Marc

marct

10-15-2007, 06:55 PM

that Anthropologists don't have a sense of humour :D. One of my ex-students just emailed this (http://www.cafepress.com/buy/anthropology/-/pv_design_prod/p_1045820.50726589/pNo_50726589/id_11533170/fpt_/opt_/c_666/pg_1) to me.

Marc

Beelzebubalicious

10-15-2007, 07:28 PM

Thanks Marc. I have spent time around Anthropologists and I have spent time around soldiers. I find that members of the armed forces are much better at self-reflection and analysis. Or at least, seem to be more honest and open about it.

Regarding the imposition of democracy, I agree with what you're saying. There are aspects of democracy that don't fit. That's true of any system, I think. There are a lot of aspects that do, however, or at least while they might run counter to how society operates, would help improve things if implemented. I don't know how many times I've heard people defend their cultural practices by saying, "it's our culture". I'm sorry, but that doesn't always fly. I like to think of cultures as organic - they change. They also have cancerous cells. Sometimes things need to change and sometimes, it's external forces that change things. Some form of government will emerge from Iraq and I'd be willing to bet it's better than what was there during Saddam's era.

marct

10-18-2007, 04:13 PM

Savage Minds has a number of recent blog entries...

An excellent article by Strong on the question of IRB (Institutional Review Board) oversight of HTS research (http://savageminds.org/2007/10/18/human-terrain-and-the-irb-puzzle/). This is a core question for many who work in US universities and Strongs' blog lays out many of the structural conditions surrounding it.

A question from SM to SWJ/SWC (http://savageminds.org/2007/10/18/what-flavor-are-we/) - I'll leave it to Bill and Dave to answer :D.

In a blog entitled Efficacy Issues (http://savageminds.org/2007/10/17/efficacy-issues/), Rex examines some of the claims in the current debate. While I, personally, disagree with some of what he says, he has done a very good job of laying some of these claims out in a straight forward manner.

Next, Jonathan Marks (http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/) responds (http://savageminds.org/2007/10/17/jonathan-marks-on-the-war-in-iraq/) to both the Marshal Sahlins letter and the Diane Rehm show (http://wamu.org/programs/dr/07/10/10.php) discussion. While more of a personal / textual analysis, e does raise some interesting points concerning what is being said in public about the HTS.

Finally, there is an interesting discussion (at least in some ways) about the US Army's international promotion of the HTS (http://savageminds.org/2007/10/16/bbc-picks-up-hts/).

marct

10-18-2007, 05:36 PM

Hi Janice,

Have you seen the Human Terrain and the IRB Puzzle (http://savageminds.org/2007/10/18/human-terrain-and-the-irb-puzzle/) blog at Savage Minds? If not, you should take a look at it. Strong has done an excellent job of laying out some of the key issues from one side of the problem.

Marc

Beelzebubalicious

10-18-2007, 08:20 PM

marct

10-19-2007, 12:40 PM

I've tried to read this blog, but I just don't see much of value. The IRB discussion is interesting, but much of this is just rhetoric and big words. There isn't much analysis, partly b/c few of these folks seem to have much direct relevant experience with the subject matter. I'm not talking anthropology, but war.

Hmmm, if I wre to use an analogy, the IRB discussion is pretty much one on the technical aspects of American Anthropology's ROE with the HTS. The rest of the posts, while interesting to me (mainly as data points in the debate I'll admit), really aren't as substantive as the IRB one.

On the point of subject matter, that is really the crucial one: what is the "subject matter" of the HTS? Is it "the military"? Is it the Afghans/Iraqi's? For us, it's a crucial distinction because it controls our ROE.

They act high and mighty about the military trying to learn about culture and use anthropology to do it and they ridicule people like Marcus Griffin b/c his statements are simplistic. One of the problems I have with anthropology is that it's too damn difficult and confusing for its own good sometimes.

Of curse they do! Come on, do you know of any in-group that doesn't use this tactic, including the military :p?

None of this is any good if nobody understands it.

Wrong. It all depends on how you define "good". It is a very good tactic if you are trying to maintain in-group cohesion. It is also a very good tactic if you are trying to obscure the pragmatic, applied value of your knowledge, skills and training. Always remember that some people understand it and that very understanding is a marker of potential in-group status.

If, on the other hand, you define "good" as being along the lines of reducing civilian casualties in a combat/COIN zone, increasing the effectiveness of COIN operations, and increasing the likelihood of successful states developing in Iraq and Afghanistan, then you are quite correct :wry:.

Mark O'Neill

10-19-2007, 12:53 PM

marct

10-19-2007, 01:24 PM

You know, the more I read these threads I increasingly suspect that it is one of the great regrets of a lot of military guys that is that it is anthropologists , rather then some truly interesting folks (such as master brewers), provide a useful insight to COIN ops....:rolleyes:

Who says that master brewers couldn't provide excellent insight into COIN ops ?!?! Leave us not forget that the first beer was produced in Iraq about 5,000 years ago (and recreated in a California brewery in the 1990's no less!) Even better, it doesn't fall under the injunctions of the Prophet since it is made from dates!

Deep down in some place we really do not like to acknowledge (or really understand) we love anthropologists and your lengthy expositions.... really........:D

Aw, you guys just like seeing somebody else twisting in the wind - and with less reason :D.

Mark O'Neill

10-19-2007, 01:33 PM

Even better, it doesn't fall under the injunctions of the Prophet since it is made from dates!
:D.

I'm with the prophet on this one- if it is made from dates it definitely does not count as beer in any Pub I have ever been in. Just like some of my Sub-saharan mates who insist that millet beer is 'kosher'..... bleeeh :p

Cheers (even whilst gagging at the thought of date beer),

Mark

Mark O'Neill

10-19-2007, 01:36 PM

have turned a thread about Anthropologists into a beer thread (which is a change from the barbecuing Anthropologists thread subversion of few months ago...)

marct

10-19-2007, 01:50 PM

have turned a thread about Anthropologists into a beer thread (which is a change from the barbecuing Anthropologists thread subversion of few months ago...)

Well, speaking as someone who has done a lot of fieldwork on beer, I don't think we can count it as a "subversion" - more of a "shift in field research emphasis" :D.

Cheers!

10-19-2007, 01:54 PM

Aw, you guys just like seeing somebody else twisting in the wind - and with less reason :D.

MarcT,

What makes you think it is with less reason?? That famous line from Shakespeare's Henry VI was originally "The first thing we do, let's kill all the Anthropologists." Some early anthro don visiting at Oxford from the Continent (I think his name was Hermann Ootiks) edited the manuscript. :D

10-19-2007, 01:59 PM

Well, speaking as someone who has done a lot of fieldwork on beer, I don't think we can count it as a "subversion" - more of a "shift in field research emphasis" :D.

Cheers!
MarcT,

The quoted post is additional support for my point about anthro guys "adjusting" a well-turned phrase in order to suit their purposes. QED with the tip of a well-earned stout. :D

Beelzebubalicious

10-19-2007, 02:23 PM

Some people work at the tip of the spear, other work at the tip of the stout. I know where I'd like to be...

Norfolk

10-19-2007, 02:41 PM

MarcT,

The quoted post is additional support for my point about anthro guys "adjusting" a well-turned phrase in order to suit their purposes. QED with the tip of a well-earned stout. :D

And here it is wm (See bottom of post):

Ah, that tastes good. Complements spit-roasted anthropologist nicely (with apologies to our own resident anthropologists who are refreshingly free of such narrowness of mind as many of their colleagues seem to suffer from). Turney-High performed some of the most comprehensive anthropological research on warfare decades ago. I read some of his articles years ago after first coming across references to him in Keegan's A History of Warfare. Keegan himself wrote that anthropologists consider Turney-High's works to be, quote, "inaccessible", unquote.

Keegan took this to mean that anthropologists in general spurrned Turney-High for ideological reasons; that may well be true, but I suspect that a basic unfamiliarity with, and lack of interest in, warfare in general and the military in particular render warfare in general "inaccessible" to anthropology as a discipline (with notable exceptions). The result is that much of what poses as scientific research and analysis of warfare and the military by anthropologists is much less than fact, and much more the equivalent of "popular" tripe peculiar to a particular class.

Beelzebubalicious

10-19-2007, 03:00 PM

marct

10-19-2007, 03:10 PM

And here it is wm (See bottom of post):

Now that is worthy of a field study :D!

Keegan took this to mean that anthropologists in general spurrned Turney-High for ideological reasons; that may well be true, but I suspect that a basic unfamiliarity with, and lack of interest in, warfare in general and the military in particular render warfare in general "inaccessible" to anthropology as a discipline (with notable exceptions).

That's probably a good observation; at least in general. There are some Anthropologists who do have a military background, Brian Selmeski is a good example, but not too many. Part of it, I suspect, has to do with an ability to "shift levels" for want of a better phrase. While a lot of Anthropologists are capable of going from an immediate "here and now" to an overarching (in terms of time and space) viewpoint shift, I have noticed that that ability is decreasing somewhat (purely anecdotal - not confirmed in any scientific way).

I think that "warfare" is somewhat inaccessible to most Anthropologists. Let's face it, most of us have never fraught, and that is a pretty serious limit considering that we tend to be experiential learners. The other way we "learn" is by immersing ourself "at a distance" - this is how Ruth Benedict dealt with Japan during WW II. But that means getting involved in reading a lot about the military, something that is getting harder and harder for people to do if they don't have any military background (hey, we may invent new words, but you guys take the cake on acronyms!!!!).

The final point that I see as a major barrier is the reaction to Project Camelot and some other things from the Vietnam era - that set up a moral vector inside the discipline that made "military"="bad/evil". I'm not trying to excuse that vector, just point out that a) it exists and b) it presented some pretty serious barriers to anyone who actually was interested in the military getting through grad school and/or getting hired.

The result is that much of what poses as scientific research and analysis of warfare and the military by anthropologists is much less than fact, and much more the equivalent of "popular" tripe peculiar to a particular class.

Some of it - I'd say that people like Robert Rubinstein have done some good work in the area as have a few others. Honestly, outside of a few limited areas, I don't think Anthropologists have really dealt well with warfare at all as an object of study. Even when you do find decent materials, note hat a lot of the time they deal with "primitive" peoples.

Then again, how do you think the military would react if we did start engaging in serious research? Honestly, a lot of it would be highly critical of current military policies and practices, to say nothing about what would be said about the political process! Ten again, I suspect that it would be highly unlikely that we would be given the type of field access and freedoms to publish that would lead to a really serious scientific examination.

10-19-2007, 03:15 PM

I read most of his work and it resonated with me in a very practical, "I can understand and use this" sort of way.

Ah, the death-knell for a hard-core academic theoretician, especially those of the "social scientific" persuasion. :rolleyes: Hall was doomed if his writing was not sufficiently opaque as to be incomprehensible to an average reader.

Norfolk

10-19-2007, 03:52 PM

Have you tried Mackeson's Triple-X Stout? One of my faves..

Getting back to MarcT's response on what's "good". It's all relative, I suppose. Makes me think of Edward T. Hall. Here's a guy who brought Anthropology down to earth. Mainstream Anthropologists criticized him, if I recall correctly, about not being rigorous and for defining culture in terms of "high context" and "low context". It also didn't help that he worked with the USG Foreign Service Institute. Nowadays, he's essentially persona-non-grata in Anthropology, especially since his work has become the foundation of the intercultural communication field.

I read most of his work and it resonated with me in a very practical, "I can understand and use this" sort of way.

Yes I have, and I found it a little, shall we say, "rich", for my taste. But the bottle it came in was pretty cool:cool: - I may have seen it on tap in Toronto once or twice, but my experience with the bottled version caused me to seek out something with a little less kick - personally my favourite stout is either Murphy's or St-Ambroise (depends upon my mood and availability of said brands).

The entire range of Real Ale, Bitters, Porter, and Stout constitute most worthy subject matter for serious academic and scientific investigation, research, and experimentation. The fact that so little formal study of the matter has hitherto occurred is a source of much consternation and curiousity:confused: in my quarter - do anthropology and sociology have disciplinary biases against such research, and if so, what conclusion that may be reached might they be afraid of...hmmm?;)

I suspect that a considerable proportion of many academic disciplines' apparent aversion to "real-world" practical use not only derives from a fixation upon ideological ends, but also from "professionalization". In order to demonstrate that the discipline is in fact a serious one (especially by comparison to the "hard" sciences and traditional arts), anthropology and other younger disciplines are still very much involved with not only developing but consolidating "technical" terms and language that serve to render it "inaccessible" to those outside of the discipline/profession. In short, rather than concentrating on real, useful, and applicable results (in addition to the necessary work of advancing theory) to establish and "justify" themselves in comparison to older disciplines, the younger disciplines remain inclined to contrive, IMO, a professional/technical "base" that has taken the older disciplines centuries to develop. Putting the cart before the horse so to speak.

I think the main resistance to serious and honest anthropological investigation research into warfare and the military would come from within the discipline itself; while I certainly do not deny that there are closed minds rearding the social sciences (amongst others) within the military, I think that athropologists who demonstrate an open mind would be well-received for the most part by the military (there are always a few ignoramuses to deal with). Frankly, I think many soldiers would be all too happy to find that someone, with an open mind, is actually interested in them and wants to talk to them about what they do.

Now, I'm not sure what resistance may be encountered at the highest echelons, where things can get a "little" politicized"; alternatively, that may actually be a foot in the door for social scientists, granting them an access that might not otherwise be so forthcoming.

As for anthropology as a discipline, B. and marc (speaking for said discipline), I fear that the chief obstacle to serious and worthwhile social science research is from within the social sciences themselves; to engage in such is to almost ensure professional ostracization from the rest of the dscipline at large. It's not merely a matter of ideology or "group think" or even the herd mentality; it's a matter of closed minds entering the social sciences (or having their minds closed by said sciences) and seeking, more or less, only what they want to find.:(

marct

10-19-2007, 04:22 PM

The entire range of Real Ale, Bitters, Porter, and Stout constitute most worthy subject matter for serious academic and scientific investigation, research, and experimentation. The fact that so little formal study of the matter has hitherto occurred is a source of much consternation and curiousity in my quarter - do anthropology and sociology have disciplinary biases against such research, and if so, what conclusion that may be reached might they be afraid of...hmmm?;)

Nope, no biases against such research - just some trouble convincing potential funding sources of how darn useful such a study would be :D.

Getting back to MarcT's response on what's "good". It's all relative, I suppose. Makes me think of Edward T. Hall. Here's a guy who brought Anthropology down to earth....

I read most of his work and it resonated with me in a very practical, "I can understand and use this" sort of way.

Personally, I always liked his stuff and recommended it to my students.

I suspect that a considerable proportion of many academic disciplines' apparent aversion to "real-world" practical use not only derives from a fixation upon ideological ends, but also from "professionalization". In order to demonstrate that the discipline is in fact a serious one (especially by comparison to the "hard" sciences and traditional arts), anthropology and other younger disciplines are still very much involved with not only developing but consolidating "technical" terms and language that serve to render it "inaccessible" to those outside of the discipline/profession. In short, rather than concentrating on real, useful, and applicable results (in addition to the necessary work of advancing theory) to establish and "justify" themselves in comparison to older disciplines, the younger disciplines remain inclined to contrive, IMO, a professional/technical "base" that has taken the older disciplines centuries to develop. Putting the cart before the horse so to speak.

I'd have to say "yes and no" to that. Sure, a lot of it was professionalization, but there is also a major difference between the "natural" and "social" sciences - we aren't allowed to experiment on the whole. I suspect you guys will come up with all sorts of reasons why that is :cool:.

Anyway, if you can't experiment, then you have a problem - you have to work by almost pure observation/induction. Not necessarily a problem per se, but in order to get some decent results, you have to wait for situations covered by your hypotheses to appear.

I think the main resistance to serious and honest anthropological investigation research into warfare and the military would come from within the discipline itself; while I certainly do not deny that there are closed minds rearding the social sciences (amongst others) within the military, I think that athropologists who demonstrate an open mind would be well-received for the most part by the military (there are always a few ignoramuses to deal with). Frankly, I think many soldiers would be all too happy to find that someone, with an open mind, is actually interested in them and wants to talk to them about what they do.

That's certainly been my experience, and I would agree that the major barriers to such work come from within the discipline and within academia as a whole.

As for anthropology as a discipline, B. and marc (speaking for said discipline), I fear that the chief obstacle to serious and worthwhile social science research is from within the social sciences themselves; to engage in such is to almost ensure professional ostracization from the rest of the dscipline at large. It's not merely a matter of ideology or "group think" or even the herd mentality; it's a matter of closed minds entering the social sciences (or having their minds closed by said sciences) and seeking, more or less, only what they want to find.:(

Well, I would also have to add that there are major structural forces (i.e. funding, entry to grad school and jobs, etc) that are probably as important. Just to take one case example, take a look at the vilification of Montgomery McFate by many in the discipline.

SWJED

10-27-2007, 05:21 AM

A True Culture War (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/27/opinion/27shweder.html?ref=opinion) – Richard Shweder, 27 October New York Times Op-Ed.

Is the Pentagon truly going to deploy an army of cultural relativists to Muslim nations in an effort to make the world a safer place?

A few weeks ago this newspaper reported on an experimental Pentagon “human terrain” program to embed anthropologists in combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan. It featured two military anthropologists: Tracy (last name withheld), a cultural translator viewed by American paratroopers as “a crucial new weapon” in counterinsurgency; and Montgomery McFate, who has taken her Yale doctorate into active duty in a media blitz to convince skeptical colleagues that the occupying forces should know more about the local cultural scene.

How have members of the anthropological profession reacted to the Pentagon’s new inclusion agenda? A group calling itself the Network of Concerned Anthropologists has called for a boycott and asked faculty members and students around the country to pledge not to contribute to counterinsurgency efforts. Their logic is clear: America is engaged in a brutal war of occupation; if you don’t support the mission then you shouldn’t support the troops. Understandably these concerned scholars don’t want to make it easier for the American military to conquer or pacify people who once trusted anthropologists. Nevertheless, I believe the pledge campaign is a way of shooting oneself in the foot...

Gian P Gentile

10-27-2007, 12:19 PM

Anthropologists should not fool themselves. These Human Terrain Teams whether they want to acknowledge it or not, in a generalized and subtle way, do at some point contribute to the collective knowledge of a commander which allows him to target and kill the enemy in wars like Iraq.

I commanded an Armored Reconnaissance Squadron in West Baghdad in 2006. Although I did not have one of these HTTs assigned to me (and I certainly would have liked to) I did have a Civil Affairs Team that was led by a major who in his civilian life was an investment banker in New York City and had been in the area I operated for about 6 months prior. He knew the area well and understood the people and the culture in it; just like a HTT adviser would. I often used his knowledge to help me sort through who was the enemy and who was not and from that understanding that he contributed to I was able to target and sometimes kill the enemy. So to anthropologists like Ms McFate should stop sugarcoating what these teams do and end up being a part of; to deny this fact is to deny the reality of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I am in favor of this program of HTTs and see great utility in it for combat commanders. I understand the debate too between these field anthropologists who are part of the HTTs and academia as this oped point outs. I think academia is wrong to chastise these people for being a part of the HTTs. But I also think that these anthropologists who make up the HTTs should call a spade a spade and accept the reality of the effects that these HTTs produce.

tequila

10-27-2007, 10:38 PM

Agree 100% with LTCOL Gentile. If anthropologists weren't helping commanders figure out who to detain/kill, they wouldn't really be all that much use.

The alternative that anthropologists in opposition should understand is that that American troops without local knowledge will possibly detain/kill many who don't deserve it.

John T. Fishel

10-28-2007, 03:21 PM

The article is interesting for several reasons. First, it represents a mainstream anthropologist who is takig a reasonable approach to the role of his discipline in war, unlike the hysteria that is often revealed in Savage Minds. (We've seen much of that debate in this forum with our own MarcT taking a leading role "on the side of the angels." :wry:) Second, while I didn't hear McFate's interview on the Rehm show, she has called a "spade a spade" in print and makes no apology for her role (nor did the author of the op ed suggest she did). And, third, most immportantly, the anthoroplogists (some) are at last really debating their roles as citizens and giving some thought to it rather than simply spewing anti-military, government, capitalist cliches. We will all be better off for this because, Lord knows, we really do need the skills they bring to the fight, as LTC Gentile points out. Fortunately, not all anthropologists ever fell into the ideological trap. I remember teaching in the Army FAO Course in 1985 and 86 (Yes, Virginia, there once was a 6 month Army FAO course and 18/48 was a common specialty combination;).) where one of my colleagues was an academic anthropologist (we were all hired from civilian academic institutions under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act).

Beelzebubalicious

10-29-2007, 12:07 PM

I don't think LTCOL Gentile was writing that Anthropologists directly help commanders figure out who to kill/detain. He did use a personal example that involved a CA Major, which was probably misleading in that there's a world of difference between a civilian anthropologists and a Major in the US Army with at least 6 months in Iraq under his belt.

I think it's misleading to talk about the mission of the HTT in this way. There's no way a civilian anthropologist is going to be able to advise a Commander about who to kill or not to kill, even if they were willing to, which is another far stretch.

To say that an Anthropologist could contribute to a Commander's knowledge of the local culture/populace and that Commander could use that knowledge to better target the enemy, that's certainly plausible. If the Anthropologist is trying to understand the relative level of poverty (see Marcus Griffin's recent blog entry) (http://www.marcusgriffin.com/blog/) so that the Army can better target and support the most vulnerable segments of the population, what happens, if he/she happens to see something suspicious in the course of his research? He would be obliged to report it, I imagine. And what if that piece of information leads to the successful targeting and killing of an insurgent?

J Wolfsberger

10-29-2007, 12:56 PM

I think it's a mistake to focus on "kill/detain." The HTTs do lot of good just making troops aware that it's a bad idea to have male soldiers searching the women's quarters.

If "hearts and minds" is more than just a buzz phrase (and I think it is), then it has to be about obtaining active civilian commitment to the Iraqi government. That won't come about until we understand the Iraqi culture(s) and reflect that understanding across the board in our speech and behavior. That understanding won't happen without the support of the anthropologists.

goesh

10-29-2007, 02:44 PM

- it boils down to the mindset that refuses to believe the Military is interested in peace and stability, that willfully chooses to see military personnel as knuckle dragging sociopaths, despite the abundance of evidence in total contradiction to such ignorant beliefs coming from such educated people....blah, blah, blah

marct

10-29-2007, 03:39 PM

Hi Folks,

I think it's misleading to talk about the mission of the HTT in this way. There's no way a civilian anthropologist is going to be able to advise a Commander about who to kill or not to kill, even if they were willing to, which is another far stretch.

Definitely a stretch. Right now, it is pretty much unthinkable by, I would guess, most Anthropologists.

To say that an Anthropologist could contribute to a Commander's knowledge of the local culture/populace and that Commander could use that knowledge to better target the enemy, that's certainly plausible. If the Anthropologist is trying to understand the relative level of poverty (see Marcus Griffin's recent blog entry) (http://www.marcusgriffin.com/blog/) so that the Army can better target and support the most vulnerable segments of the population, what happens, if he/she happens to see something suspicious in the course of his research? He would be obliged to report it, I imagine. And what if that piece of information leads to the successful targeting and killing of an insurgent?

That is a really nasty question. At the moment, at least to my understanding of it, Anthropologists have a "partial shield" on reporting "suspicions". It's closer to the clergy model than, say, that of a social worker. In most cases, we go out of our way to try and make sure that we don't see anything "suspicious" to avoid the legal problems.

In the case of the HTTs, the observations will have an effect that will, IMO, inevitably lead to deaths. The moral crux, at least at the operational level, is on whether these will be a reduced number of deaths from the number that would have taken place without the HTT. Note that this is totally different from a refusal to work for the HTTs because of the strategic moral crux, i.e. whether or not the war in Iraq is a "just war".

If "hearts and minds" is more than just a buzz phrase (and I think it is), then it has to be about obtaining active civilian commitment to the Iraqi government. That won't come about until we understand the Iraqi culture(s) and reflect that understanding across the board in our speech and behavior. That understanding won't happen without the support of the anthropologists.

Personally, I think there is an inherent problem with the Hearts and Minds approach as it is currently used - it isn't about "obtaining active civilian commitment to the Iraqi government" at the operational level, it is about obtaining allies and supporters for the US troops currently in Iraq. The problem stems from the observation that the Iraqi government is not able to exercise sovereignty within their own borders even to the point of excluding private companies from operating there. I doubt if this was thought out fully, but who are the Iraqis going to see as the benefactor: the Iraq government or the US? As a hint, look at how the Anbar sheiks referred to the US....

- it boils down to the mindset that refuses to believe the Military is interested in peace and stability, that willfully chooses to see military personnel as knuckle dragging sociopaths, despite the abundance of evidence in total contradiction to such ignorant beliefs coming from such educated people....blah, blah, blah

Sure some of it does - no question. Some of it, however, also comes down to looking at the strategic problems and thinking "why don't we get asked to try and solve some of them"? Look, Goesh, I support the HTTs even though I have some serious reservations about them (mainly the part in the original plan to turn over the databases to the host nations). I think they can make a major difference in how both the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts play out. At the same time, I am really bothered about how the politicians are muddling around in areas they really know nothing about be that local cultures or military matters.

Marc

Ken White

10-29-2007, 03:57 PM

Hi Folks,
. . .

... At the same time, I am really bothered about how the politicians are muddling around in areas they really know nothing about be that local cultures or military matters.
Marc

another nation??? :D

marct

10-29-2007, 04:05 PM

half a dozen of the other, Ken :wry:.

And lest you think I wasn't including Canadian politicians (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2007/10/29/military-exports.html)...

Ken White

10-29-2007, 04:21 PM

great indicator of why World Government should be diligently avoided. At least a large number of gaggles of politicians will do less damage than one big gaggle...

marct

10-29-2007, 04:26 PM

At least a large number of gaggles of politicians will do less damage than one big gaggle...

Oh, I don't know... If they were all in the same place at the same time, there are some great possibilities :D.

Norfolk

10-29-2007, 08:28 PM

great indicator of why World Government should be diligently avoided. At least a large number of gaggles of politicians will do less damage than one big gaggle...

Ken, I believe that you and marc are describing Distributed Operations, using politicans instead of infantry. I'm certain the enemy in the GWOT would just tremble at the sight of such a mighty show of force and demonstration of resolve...:wry:

I find myself rather disinclined towards the HTT concept. While I am not entirely averse to a small research presence in-theatre, I'm not certain that HTT's would result in benefits that would outweigh the risks of putting anthropologists and other researchers in situations where the natives, so to speak, might get a little restless. And even if the HTT's had military escorts, even some of the time, this might just aggravate certain sensibilities, on both sides.

Officers should develop a practical grasp of local life, culture, and conditions; that many may not, never mind the Other Ranks, is a problem that can only be addressed at home, in the education system, which seems to serve admirably to atrophy and close the minds of the young. If anything, I would recommend that a few of the better minds on the HTT's tour around Military Units providing a little practical guidance on ethnography to the officers and men. It's not much, but maybe a little more useful and a little safer, than going out to survey a society still at war.

And a good time was had by all! Well, most.

John T. Fishel

10-29-2007, 08:41 PM

marct

10-29-2007, 09:51 PM

Personally, I have no problem with HTTs, anthropologists and other social scientists at the operational level so long as their efforts are focused on trying to reduce casualties among the innocent. (Boy what an oversimplification but you get my drift.) On the strategic level, each individual must decide whether he sees the war as just or not - if, not then resign or don't join up. (I realize that a soldier is somewhat more limited regarding thos kinds of choices but not completely.)

Yeah, I do get your drift. And, on the whole, I agree with the way you have framed it. I have some, hmmm, tactical/operational level problems with the original HTT proposal - it was those databases with real names that got to me). I have no problems with them trying to reduce casualties by identifying specific "at risk" groups in terms of poverty, demographics, etc. I would also have no problem going armed if I was over there :wry:. Then again, unlike a lot of my confreres, I actually do know how to shoot and use a blade.

In addition to the strategic level moral decision, I think there is also a pragmatic moral crux. In the case of the Iraq war, I, personally, believe it to be an unjust war. At the same time, there are many things happening in the world that I believe to be unjust, and that doesn't stop me from playing Don Quixote to them :cool:. We don't live in a perfect world, and that means that we have to clean up the excrement politicians leave lying around at times before more people die. I would have volunteered for the HTTs already (if they'd take me :D), but it looks like they only want red-blooded US Type Americans - prejudice I tell you ;).

Marc

John T. Fishel

10-30-2007, 01:54 AM

Isn't that enough?:wry:

I agree with you on the databases with real names. Pragmatically, over the long haul it doesn't help the war effort to maintain that kind of database. different story for intel types but theirs are more selective anyway (or should be).

Ceaning up after politicos seems to be an occupational hazard on these pages: Malcom Nance (aka Abu Buckwheat), Stu Harrington, John Nagl, Dave Kilcullen, and all the gang in the Small Wars Council. But without some good politicians all our cleanup efforts would be in vain.:)

Cheers

JohnT

marct

10-30-2007, 06:47 PM

in the ongoing culture war...

A CounterPunch Special Investigation (http://www.counterpunch.com/price10302007.html)
Pilfered Scholarship Devastates General Petraeus's Counterinsurgency Manual

* Core Chapter a Morass of "Borrowed" Quotes
* University of Chicago Press Badly Compromised
* Counterinsurgency Anthropologist Montgomery McFate's Role Under Attack

By DAVID PRICE

Editors' note: This expose of the stolen scholarship in the Army's new manual on counterinsurgency to which General David Petraeus has attached his name also runs in our current newsletter sent by US mail or as a pdf to our newsletter subscribers. Normally material in our newsletter does not run on the CounterPunch website. In the belief that David Price's story merits the widest and swiftest circulation, not only as regards the "borrowings" from unacknowledged sources but also the prostitution of anthropology in evil military enterprises we re making an exception in this case. AC / JSC

Full article here (http://www.counterpunch.com/price10302007.html).

Steve Blair

10-30-2007, 06:51 PM

Sad to say I didn't see much of an expose here...more just a collection of innuendo and invictive. Ah, well.....all in a day's unbiased research, I guess....:wry:

marct

10-30-2007, 07:10 PM

Hi Steve,

Sad to say I didn't see much of an expose here...more just a collection of innuendo and invictive. Ah, well.....all in a day's unbiased research, I guess....:wry:

Well, if you check ut the very end, you will see the case for plagiarism in detail. I do have some problems with it, mainly the old "common knowledge" rule seems to have been forgotten. I think what truly bugs me is that the references didn't have to be taken out - they could easily have been left in, especially for the Chicago edition!

Steve Blair

10-30-2007, 07:15 PM

Hi Steve,

Well, if you check ut the very end, you will see the case for plagiarism in detail. I do have some problems with it, mainly the old "common knowledge" rule seems to have been forgotten. I think what truly bugs me is that the references didn't have to be taken out - they could easily have been left in, especially for the Chicago edition!

I agree about the Chicago edition...and did find the lack of notes odd (especially when compared to the Marine Corps' Warfighting books that contain good notes). They certainly could have done a better job there. Not sure if I'd hang the bones for that one on sloppy editing on the part of the military (some GO didn't like the look of endnotes or footnotes) or a style guide suited for standard FMs and not up to the task of this one. Or just someone(s) being stupid....

But it just gets my hackles up when attacks like this come out against a military publication while the same 'academic sources' remain silent regarding cases within their own ranks (Ward Churchill springs immediately to mind, but there are others...Ambrose for another). Been a long Tuesday already, and that just spiked the ol' blood pressure and triggered the "need beer" sensor....:o

marct

10-30-2007, 08:33 PM

Hi Steve,

But it just gets my hackles up when attacks like this come out against a military publication while the same 'academic sources' remain silent regarding cases within their own ranks (Ward Churchill springs immediately to mind, but there are others...Ambrose for another). Been a long Tuesday already, and that just spiked the ol' blood pressure and triggered the "need beer" sensor....:o

I'm finding "warning: beer low" lights flashing inside my own head right now :wry:. Yeah, I also have problems with the rhetoric being used. Anyway, 'nuff said for now.

Beelzebubalicious

10-31-2007, 09:34 AM

It’s probably pointless to critique Price since his arguments will be supported by those who hold his viewpoint and dismissed by those who don’t. But, I think it’s worthwhile critiquing his critique.

The authors of the manual made a mistake by not noting references to published works. The point is made. We all know how this is an issue in the academic world. Plagiarism is probably the worse thing an academic can do - perhaps even worse than sleeping with one’s student. By the way, in my opinion, academia can be its own petri dish of intellectual incest – everything is derivative.

However, as McFate points out, this isn’t an academic work nor was it meant for an academic audience. The bigger picture is that it is laying out a strategy for use in the field. Being academic would be entirely useless in this regard. I may be wrong, but I don’t think that the Manual aims to be “…an object of academic respectability” as Price claims. His entire point rests on tearing this down as an academic work.

Of course, Price doesn’t just make his point and move on; he uses the point to make a lot of other arguments. I find a lot of his connections and assumptions irresponsible. For example, he quotes “Human Terrain research gathers data that help inform what Assistant Undersecretary of Defense John Wilcox recently described as the military's ‘need to map Human Terrain across the Kill Chain’”. Yes, the army needs to do this. But where is the specific link, other than the use of the term “human terrain” to the HTT project and the use of Anthropologists. If there was a statement or reference from a HTT authority or publication stating that this was the goal, that would be one thing, but if it’s just a weak connection to a line from a PPT presentation that discusses weapons technology, then that’s another.

Price goes on to attack McFate, of course. One of his lamest arguments is that “The military and intelligence community loves McFate and her programs not because her thinking is innovative -- but because…[she] tell them what they already know.” First of all, he misses the point. Helping the military to understand culture is the point, starting at the beginning. It doesn’t have to be innovative, but it should be simple, easy to understand and applicable/useful. Most academic work is not. Second, Price falls into the trap that many Anthropologists do which is assuming the role of critic and defender of the defenseless. It starts with taking a pre-determined position on a situation, say “the military is evil” and then seeking to attack it from that viewpoint. What if you’re an Anthropologist and you happen to believe the military is not evil and you support their goals and objectives?

His last statement is, “Considering the Manual's importance for Iraq, perhaps it is only fitting that American strategists are now trying to win a war based on lies with the stolen words and thoughts of others.” I know words are important and words sometimes get us into big messes, but this isn’t a war of words.

Rob Thornton

10-31-2007, 10:21 AM

I do not think Price understands there is a difference between the effort of writing something down and the effort (and stones) required to put it into practice. This is where I appreciate McFate most, she walks the walk. Hats off to her and those willing to serve and give us a hand.

Price can sit back and huck stones till his arms gets tired - if he wants traction here - he's got some sacrificing to do before he can carry the water to those anthropologists going out on the HTTs. I used to tell my soldiers who decided to leave the Army after one tour - that in my eyes, their service put them head and shoulders above those who would not serve - they were among the best part of America - reading Price reminded why I said that to them. Folks like Price are not worth the time - they'll never get past the printed page.

marct

10-31-2007, 01:07 PM

Hi Beelzebubalicious,

It’s probably pointless to critique Price since his arguments will be supported by those who hold his viewpoint and dismissed by those who don’t. But, I think it’s worthwhile critiquing his critique.

I agree.

The authors of the manual made a mistake by not noting references to published works. The point is made. We all know how this is an issue in the academic world.

I am not sure if it was the authors - my understanding is that the references, and quotation marks, were in the original drafts of the document, probably in (MLA or APA) footnote format. Is it "plagiarism" when citations were included in the draft and sticken by the editors? I don't think so.

However, as McFate points out, this isn’t an academic work nor was it meant for an academic audience. The bigger picture is that it is laying out a strategy for use in the field. Being academic would be entirely useless in this regard. I may be wrong, but I don’t think that the Manual aims to be “…an object of academic respectability” as Price claims. His entire point rests on tearing this down as an academic work.

This is somewhat tricky. Yes, the field manual was not meant as an academic work originally, but David does have a point about how it has been taken up after U of C published it. I can understand why they reproduced the pdf version, but I am surprised, and bothered, that they didn't offer a proper, academic version as well. I doubt that it was portrayed by the authors as “…an object of academic respectability”, but by virtue of being published by U of C it has been constructed as such by pop culture. As such it is, IMO, an obvious IO failure on someones part to think through the possible ramifications of publishing it in that venue.

Of course, Price doesn’t just make his point and move on; he uses the point to make a lot of other arguments. I find a lot of his connections and assumptions irresponsible. For example, he quotes “Human Terrain research gathers data that help inform what Assistant Undersecretary of Defense John Wilcox recently described as the military's ‘need to map Human Terrain across the Kill Chain’”. Yes, the army needs to do this. But where is the specific link, other than the use of the term “human terrain” to the HTT project and the use of Anthropologists. If there was a statement or reference from a HTT authority or publication stating that this was the goal, that would be one thing, but if it’s just a weak connection to a line from a PPT presentation that discusses weapons technology, then that’s another.

Yup; he is using what JG Fraser (The Golden Bough, 1906-15; yeah, I have the 12 volumn version on my shelf ;)) called the Law of Contagion - this is polluted therefore everything it touches is polluted; surprisingly sophisticated magical thinking for someone claiming to be "objective" :cool:.

Probably the worst effect of his "critique" is that by making it in this format, he has created a hostile environment for any positive critique of FM 3-24. For example, the definition of "symbol"

Counterinsurgency Manual, section 3-51: Cultural Forms

"Symbolscan beobjects, activities, words, relationships, events, or gestures."
Unacknowledged Source:

"The symbols I observed in the field were, empirically, objects, activities, relationships, events, gestures, and spatial units in a ritual situation" (Turner, Victor. The Forest of Symbols. Cornell University Press, 1967. P.19.)

is, in my opinion, poor simply because of the exclusion of the word "empirical". I've used a lot of Turner's work myself in my comments on IO and PSYOPS here at SWC and his models have some excellent applicability. Price's critique, however, means that it will now be a "harder sell" for me to get that more sophisticated understanding of symbols into operations simply because such an attempt is more likely to be viewed as an attack rather than a critique and expansion. In this, at least, he has probably succeeded in his obviously ideologically driven agenda of spearating Anthropology and the military.

Price goes on to attack McFate, of course. One of his lamest arguments is that “The military and intelligence community loves McFate and her programs not because her thinking is innovative -- but because…[she] tell them what they already know.” First of all, he misses the point. Helping the military to understand culture is the point, starting at the beginning. It doesn’t have to be innovative, but it should be simple, easy to understand and applicable/useful. Most academic work is not.

Of course most academic work isn't simple - if it were, then anyone could do it and you wouldn't "need" academics :D. On a (slightly) more sophisticated note, all specialized groups create specialized language and models to define their professional spheres and maintain their social control over specific task areas (cf Andrew Abbott, The System of the Professions, University of Chicago Press, 1988). A corollary of this is that professions attempt to destroy those who would open their knowledge bases to the "laity". In this particular case, the "witch hunting" process (in the post malleus maleficarum sense of witchcraft as heresy rather than witchcraft as delusion [cf the canoni episcopi]) is compounded by the "moral" valuation of the military by many within Anthropoogy.

Second, Price falls into the trap that many Anthropologists do which is assuming the role of critic and defender of the defenseless. It starts with taking a pre-determined position on a situation, say “the military is evil” and then seeking to attack it from that viewpoint. What if you’re an Anthropologist and you happen to believe the military is not evil and you support their goals and objectives?

Don't be so Manichean about it :p! What if you are an Anthropologist who supports only some of the goals and objectives? What if <shudder> you are actually trying to be objective about the entire thing?!?

His last statement is, “Considering the Manual's importance for Iraq, perhaps it is only fitting that American strategists are now trying to win a war based on lies with the stolen words and thoughts of others.” I know words are important and words sometimes get us into big messes, but this isn’t a war of words.

Back to the Law of Contagion again. Yes, words are important as are the perceptions and connotations they imply. You are right that this isn't a war of words, and yet, at the same time, it is a war of words and thoughts and actions.

Marc

Brian Hanley

11-01-2007, 12:05 AM

is it "plagiarism" when citations were included in the draft and sticken by the editors? I don't think so.

It is very bad editing to open a book to charges of plagiarism. The criticism of the book as a politically rushed document stands, and I suspect that particular editing decision was made to improve its "look". It may also be that McFate is dissembling a wee bit, but I don't know that. Ensconced now in graduate-student land my view of PhDs has become highly cynical. Quite a few liars and operators in academia, and they learn an ethos that is the inverse of "Semper Fidelis".

Those I have worked with have not touched a line of what I have written except for excisions and making requests to me for revision. Once they held up final press at some expense to fix 3 slightly wrong citations. So not all military related books are edited this way.

Aside from that this matter of anthropologists participating in warfare is sticky for a pretty simple reason. It makes those studying anyone anywhere open to question as a functional spy. In quite a few regions of the world that anthropologists study indigenous peoples that can get them killed. Thus, it is a practical matter for the profession. However, anthropologists fairly frequently find themselves "involved" in the struggles of indigenous peoples. So it is somewhat disingenuous for the profession to act as if its hands are entirely clean.

A very dear friend of mine got involved in the revolutionary movement in Bolivia while studying the tin miners as a field anthropologist. In the end, after springing a couple of revoluionairies out of prisons they were being tortured in, she had a hit squad assigned to kill her from both the leftists and the rightists. She was saved by two old Bolivian men who had served together in the same unit during Bolivia's war of independence. They had shifted to opposite sides but still maintained their friendship and decided they should save her life. The execution order still stands today should she return.

Personally, I read anthropology. It is highly educational, and some of it very readable.

SWJED

11-01-2007, 03:45 PM

“Desperate People with Limited Skills” (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/11/desperate-people-with-limited/) by LTC John Nagl at the SWJ Blog.

Writing and Employing the Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual

In the current issue of “Counterpunch”, anthropologist Dr. David Price continues his assault on social scientists assisting national efforts to succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan. This time he impugns the work of anthropologists who helped write Field Manual 3-24, the Counterinsurgency Field Manual that was published by the Army and Marine Corps in December 2006 and republished by the University of Chicago Press in July 2007.

Price’s essay is extensive, but the argument and the tone of the whole can be extrapolated from this paragraph on the first page:

Most academics know that bad things can happen when marginally skilled writers must produce ambitious amounts of writing in short time periods; sometimes the only resulting calamities are grammatical abominations, but in other instances the pressures to perform lead to shoddy academic practices. Neither of these outcomes is especially surprising among desperate people with limited skills-- but Petraeus and others leading the charge apparently did not worry about such trivialities: they had to crank out a new strategy to calm growing domestic anger at military failures in Iraq.

I will attempt to explain the motivation for the project that led to the writing of the Field Manual as I observed it, provide a few words explaining the process of writing doctrine, and then discuss the effects of the Counterinsurgency Field Manual in the field and on the American military. This is not an official response to Price’s essay, and I do not speak on behalf of the Army, General Petraeus, or any of the other members of the team that produced the Counterinsurgency Field Manual, but only for myself...

Much more at the link...

Rank amateur

11-01-2007, 03:52 PM

Looks like Mr. Nagl can stand up for himself. I thought the charge of "cultural relativism" was devastating and potentially fatal.

SWJED

11-01-2007, 04:28 PM

Army Response to Counterpunch (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/11/countercounter-punch/)

In response to a SWJ e-mail concerning Dr. David Price’s recent Counterpunch article U.S. Army spokesman Major Tom McCuin:

As Lieutenant Colonel John Nagl stated:

Military Field Manuals have their own grammar and their own logic. They are not doctoral dissertations, designed to be read by few and judged largely for the quality of their sourcing; instead, they are intended for applied use by Soldiers. Thus authors are not named, and those whose scholarship informs the manual are only credited if they are quoted extensively.
The essential point to be made is that the messages contained in the manual are valid, regardless of any discussion of academic standards. Any argument over missing citations should in no way diminish the manual's utility in the current counterinsurgency fight. The emphasis on cultural understanding and increased reliance on non-lethal forms of engagement to achieve military goals represents a giant leap forward in U.S. military doctrine.

Unfortunately, Dr. Price has chosen to focus his disagreement with current American foreign policy on the Human Terrain System. Rather than accept the Army's several offers to enter in a reasoned dialogue on the merits – or lack of merits - of the role anthropologists can play in helping to reduce the use of lethal force to achieve military and political objectives, Dr. Price has chosen to wage a public and increasingly personal media campaign to discredit HTS and the dedicated social scientists associated with it.

The Human Terrain System is recognition of the fact that academic study and applied social science has practical uses, and those who have chosen to devote their time and efforts to exploring non-lethal alternatives to combat are making a vital contribution to the nation's efforts to secure a peaceful, stable and secure future for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The long term by-product of their heroic efforts will be better informed military decisions that minimize casualties and suffering, and ultimately, optimized policy decision making within government that is harmonized with the ethical principles social science values the most.

SteveMetz

11-01-2007, 04:38 PM

Army Response to Counterpunch (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/11/countercounter-punch/)

In response to a SWJ e-mail concerning Dr. David Price’s recent Counterpunch article U.S. Army spokesman Major Tom McCuin:

I've vowed to stop paying attention to this whole thing. Dr. Price is an obscure and rather clueless academic at a third tier university who, unfortunately, has found a theme to address the fact that his normal work is largely ignored. I'm no longer going to play along.

Steve Blair

11-01-2007, 04:40 PM

Looks like Mr. Nagl can stand up for himself. I thought the charge of "cultural relativism" was devastating and potentially fatal.

Not necessarily. Price's invective is sadly fairly common in academic circles, where the only battles they often fight are in the book review sections of the various scholarly journals. In any case, he can rebut it by simply claiming that since Nagl is "only" a soldier he certainly can't understand the basics of a complex thing like cultural relativism, and even if he could he doesn't have the qualifications to render an opinion on same. [/sarcasm]

Price is writing for his own audience, many of whom won't see (or will discount) Nagl's reasoned response. To an extent this is a situation that was caused by a rush to publication (possibly) on the part of the University of Chicago (which should have tried to reconstruct the footnotes if possible, or if not issued a very clear disclaimer in the introduction), but that doesn't (IMO) excuse the personal attacks launched by Price.

selil

11-01-2007, 05:10 PM

The obvious grammatical effluvia of academic discourse wrapped in the absent specter of Pericles pen shows the dishonesty of the academician. There is only shame for the academic hiding behind bellicose diatribes in obfuscation of honest discourse. An attack on grammar is the last gasp held in an attempt to impoverish intellectual discourse while toiling in the dung heap of “ad hominem” sophistry. In a culture of his vanity and imperiled ideas the social order of the academician is challenged by those who he can only engage in fallacious name calling with because his homilies will not withstand the test of daylight and logic. The academician mistakenly imperils his science while in a stupor of ill-considered ideas he lashes out with the sword of injustice only to be bitten by the poison of his politics.

Attacks on grammar and people is but one thread in the unraveling tapestry of scholarship. There is a presumptive arrogance in hiding behind imprecise and obfuscated language of academia. In attempting to be use $3 words for $1 concepts there is not much to be said other than they have ceded the high ground. English is a living language of emotion and ideas and those are what we should be talking about. Attempting to foil politics while holding up singularly ideas of scholarship baked in the ovens of Popper, Kuhn, Newton ignores that even science is a political process and subject to the scrutiny of the public. Hiding behind large words and citation is a travesty and failure of the academy in its primary role as service to society. It shows an ultimate hubris in the rampant paternalism found in the attacking of other peoples work.

selil

11-01-2007, 05:13 PM

I've vowed to stop paying attention to this whole thing. Dr. Price is an obscure and rather clueless academic at a third tier university who, unfortunately, has found a theme to address the fact that his normal work is largely ignored. I'm no longer going to play along.

Hey! What do you have against third tier universities?! <pout> I like research and stuff too!

SteveMetz

11-01-2007, 05:14 PM

I agree with you. But the question of whether Crane and Nagl are, in fact, "desperate people with limited skills” nonetheless remains open. Being friends of theirs, I can see where a reasonable case can be made on both sides of the argument.

Rank amateur

11-01-2007, 05:17 PM

since Nagl is "only" a soldier he certainly can't understand the basics of a complex thing like cultural relativism, and even if he could he doesn't have the qualifications to render an opinion on same. [/sarcasm]

"Mortally" wounded is a more accurate word than "fatally;" I doubt Price will want to get into a discussion over who is more qualified to judge the other's profession.

Rex Brynen

11-01-2007, 05:27 PM

I haven't weighed in on this yet, but I think we need to separate out several issues: (1) the plagiarism issue, (2) the quality of FM 3-24, and (3) the question of HTS (and academic anthropology).

On #2, I've always thought FM 3-24 was a major advance in COIN doctrine, and nothing in Price's critique substantively addresses that.

On #3, I've raised some of the moral and professional issues involved with HTS deployments of research anthropologists, so I won't revisit them here. Provided those issues are adequately addressed, I certainly no qualms with the the approach, however. Then again, they are not irrelevant issues.

On #1, I DO think plagiarism is an important thing, and while I recognize both the accidental and cultural elements of how it happened, it was nonetheless an easily avoided mistake. The Army's response, I think, is an ineffectual and even counterproductive one, lacking the absolutely essential "mistakes were made, we apologize, and we'll fix it in any future editions". Perhaps they're thinking ahead to civil suit liability (and yes, plagiarism can be grounds for a civil suit), but even then I think an "honest mistake" approach would be better. The official response also smacks somewhat of a "yes we left our left flank open, but then we often do that and its unfair of our opponents to exploit the opening..." which I find no more convincing in political damage-control or the debate over doctrine than I would on a battlefield.

Overall, its a shame that this will further contribute to a polarized debate along predictable institutional and ideological lines, rather than a useful one on the policy challenges and appropriate challenges to the spectrum of COIN/stability operations/PKOs (or, for that matter, on the equally important issue of academics, analysts, policymakers, and trigger-pullers).

SteveMetz

11-01-2007, 05:50 PM

I DO think plagiarism is an important thing, and while I recognize both the accidental and cultural elements of how it happened, it was nonetheless an easily avoided mistake. The Army's response, I think, is an ineffectual and even counterproductive one, lacking the absolutely essential "mistakes were made, we apologize, and we'll fix it in any future editions". Perhaps they're thinking ahead to civil suit liability (and yes, plagiarism can be grounds for a civil suit), but even then I think an "honest mistake" approach would be better. The official response also smacks somewhat of a "yes we left our left flank open, but then we often do that and its unfair of our opponents to exploit the opening..." which I find no more convincing in political damage-control or the debate over doctrine than I would on a battlefield.ss).

I disagree. I think plagiarism is a concept that applies to scholarly writing, not government documents. I believing critiquing military doctrine because it doesn't meet academic standards makes no more sense than critiquing an academic article because it doesn't include actionable policy recommendations. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

If a mistake was made, it was allowing the University of Chicago Press to reprint the thing. That opened the manual to charges that it should be judged by academic standards.

SteveMetz

11-01-2007, 05:51 PM

Hey! What do you have against third tier universities?! <pout> I like research and stuff too!

You're right. I let my anger get the best of me. Strike that from the record. (At least I had enough restraint to keep myself from pointing out that Con Crane and John Nagl's Ph.D.s are from "better" programs than Price's).

11-01-2007, 06:02 PM

To paraphrase from LTC Nagl's title, desperate academics with limited skills are the kind of folks who produce low brow criticism focused on the form rather than the content of others' work. Unable to find significant areas on which to comment, charlatan scholars focus on trivialities like failure to cite sources properly. All that I might choose to say to David Price regarding his critique of the counterinsurgency field manual was best said by the Bard, William Shakespeare (or whoever wrote the works passed around under that author's name, works, by the way which themselves are rife with unacknowledged borrowings from classical authors like Plautus, who also lifted his work from other, earlier Greek comic playwrights). "a tale Told [sic] by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying [sic] nothing." (Macbeth, Act V Scene V, lines 26-28). As for Price himself, I might add this characterization from the same source, "a poor player, That [sic] struts and frets his hour upon the stage And [sic] then is heard no more" (op. cit., lines 24-26).

Were I to stoop to ad hominem attacks :rolleyes:, I might choose to draw inferences from the following information about St. Martin’s University, a school with 1049 full time undergraduates at which Price is an associate professor. It has a 33% graduation rate within 4 years of matriculation and a less than 50% graduate rate 6 years after matriculation. 80% of its 2005 admittees were from the bottom half of their high school class, and the non-returning rate for the 2005 admittees in 2006 was 24%. All these data are drawn from the institution’s publicly posted common data set from 2007. Instead, I will let the readers make their own inferences.

I certainly hope I have met the appropriate documentation criteria. ;)

11-01-2007, 06:41 PM

Hey! What do you have against third tier universities?! <pout> I like research and stuff too!

I think that the irony here is that the guy is on the faculty of St Martin U. Isn't St Martin the patron saint of soldiers? And isn't his feast day November 11--Veteran's Day, Armistice Day, Remembrance Day? And wasn't Saint Martin originally a Roman soldier?

SteveMetz

11-01-2007, 07:01 PM

I think that the irony here is that the guy is on the faculty of St Martin U. Isn't St Martin the patron saint of soldiers? And isn't his feast day November 11--Veteran's Day, Armistice Day, Remembrance Day? And wasn't Saint Martin originally a Roman soldier?

Oh, heck, as long as we're doing this, how about the fight song of Dr. Price's undergraduate alma mater:

Go, Geoducks, go!
Through the mud and the sand let's go!
Siphon high, squirt it out, swivel all about.
Let it all hang out!

Go, Geoducks, go!
Stretch your necks when the tide is low!
Siphon high, squirt it out, swivel all about.
Let it all hang out!

skiguy

11-01-2007, 07:45 PM

What I like about LTC Nagl's writing is he makes it simple enough for us common folk to understand....yet it still remains effective. I also like that he doesn't attack any person, school, or organization. He just tells it like it is.
I particularly like this:

I am sincerely hopeful that the broader and deeper understanding of other societies that anthropologists like Drs. Kilcullen and McFate bring to the table will diminish not just the casualties in the wars we are fighting today, but also make future wars less likely.

It sort of plays to the emotions of the Left-leaning crowd, yet it's completely accurate and true and what we all want.

Good job as always and thank you, sir.

Oh yeah, here's the citation to what I quoted, just in case anyone complains.

Nagl, John, Desperate People with Limited Skills, Small Wars Journal Blog, 1 Nov 2007, <http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/11/desperate-people-with-limited/>.

CR6

11-01-2007, 07:49 PM

I think that the irony here is that the guy is on the faculty of St Martin U. Isn't St Martin the patron saint of soldiers? And isn't his feast day November 11--Veteran's Day, Armistice Day, Remembrance Day? And wasn't Saint Martin originally a Roman soldier?

Saint Martin also refused to bear arms after his baptism into the catholic faith at the age of 18, and was briefly jailed for his beliefs. Maybe it's not quite so ironic. :)

Ken White

11-01-2007, 09:06 PM

wasn't he?

Then, he didn't really want to bear arms in the first place...

"He was still an unbaptized catechumen when he was forced to join the army at 15. The Roman army apparently had a law that required sons of veterans to serve in the military. Still, Martin found this so far removed from his desire to be a Christian monk that he had to be held in chains before taking the military oath. Once the oath was administered he felt bound to obey..." LINK (http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=81)

Different strokes...

CR6

11-01-2007, 09:17 PM

wasn't he?

Then, he didn't really want to bear arms in the first place...

LINK (http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=81)

Different strokes...

Not to take the thread too far afield, I find his story to be a good example of a young man choosing what he perceives as the harder right over the easier wrong.

Stan

11-01-2007, 09:25 PM

Oh, heck, as long as we're doing this, how about the fight song of Dr. Price's undergraduate alma mater:

Go, Geoducks, go!
Through the mud and the sand let's go!
Siphon high, squirt it out, swivel all about.
Let it all hang out!

Go, Geoducks, go!
Stretch your necks when the tide is low!
Siphon high, squirt it out, swivel all about.
Let it all hang out!

I think you really got this one dead to rights !

The most impressive clam in the Pacific Northwest is the geoduck (Panopea abrupta). The world's largest burrowing clam...

:D

11-01-2007, 09:40 PM

Not to take the thread too far afield, I find his story to be a good example of a young man choosing what he perceives as the harder right over the easier wrong.
I agree completely, which brings me back to my original claim of irony. Our anthropological commentator seems to have chosen the easy road of criticism--disputing form--rather than the harder one--counter arguments on content.

selil

11-01-2007, 10:30 PM

I think you really got this one dead to rights !

The most impressive clam in the Pacific Northwest is the geoduck (Panopea abrupta). The world's largest burrowing clam...

:D

As a young teenager living with my parents on our sailboat in the Pacific Northwest and being fully dive qualified I made the impressive sum of $12.50 an hour harvesting the geoduck off the bottom of Puget Sound. Not to be outdone I also harvested the wondrous Sea Cucumber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_cucumber) a nasty animal that spills it's guts upon the bottom of the sea and then runs away. Much like some ivory tower academics I imagine.

Brian Hanley

11-02-2007, 12:48 AM

An effective way to protest would be to get a fax, letter and email campaign going to two parties:

The provost and Chancellor of St. Martins.

Academia is a pretty top-down organization, and it's captained by men and women that mostly haven't got a lot of backbone. Those men and women in the top positions know their jobs are political and they like the money they make and their personal parking spots on campus. I can tell you that if they think they are sitting on a publicity bomb that they will make Dr. Price's life quite unpleasant. ;) Seriously. In practice, I think that there is more freedom of speech in the Army than on campus.

Academics make a big show of how courageous they are politically, but in most cases it's just a show. Price is probably no exception. :D

You could request also that Nagl be allowed to have his response printed in the same academic journals that Price frequents.

If you want to be effective as opposed to complaining. :)

Shivan

11-02-2007, 12:53 AM

I find it quite amusing that a mediocre professor at a mediocre university writing mediocre academic work and languishing there as a non-tenured professor for 13 years <http://homepages.stmartin.edu/fac_staff/dprice/> should chose to attack a COIN manual prepared by Petraeus (West Point and Princeton); McFate (Yale); Kilcullen (U. New South Wales) and Nagl (West Point and Oxford). All of the COIN contributors (as far as I am aware), have excellent academic records from fine schools, and moreover, they have put forth scholarship that is saving American lives and winning wars. Like many other commentators here, I hate giving Price his 15 mins., but it needs to be said. Maybe this is his attempt at finally getting tenure, not by way of fine scholarship, but by attacking better scholars.

SteveMetz

11-02-2007, 01:00 AM

selil

11-02-2007, 01:57 AM

I find it quite amusing that a mediocre professor at a mediocre university writing mediocre academic work and languishing there as a non-tenured professor for 13 years ...... Maybe this is his attempt at finally getting tenure, not by way of fine scholarship, but by attacking better scholars.

Sorry I don't see where he doesn't have tenure. It looks like he's tenured to me which means as long as he's on topic in his discipline he's untouchable (the way it should be like it or not). He's an associate professor and that usually is a tenured rank.

We talk about academic freedom and such but this is the actual document that explains it http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/1940statement.htm

Ironhorse

11-02-2007, 02:10 AM

You could request also that Nagl be allowed to have his response printed in the same academic journals that Price frequents.
No no noooOOOO!! :mad:

Too much risk that the "equal time" argument might get Price onto the Daily Show. :eek:

Think of the backlash it might have on Colbert's campaign.

Shivan

11-02-2007, 03:40 AM

Sorry I don't see where he doesn't have tenure. It looks like he's tenured to me which means as long as he's on topic in his discipline he's untouchable (the way it should be like it or not). He's an associate professor and that usually is a tenured rank.

All professors at the universities I have attended bearing "Assistant" or "Associate" rank are not tenured.

Adam L

11-02-2007, 04:43 AM

I have something to say on this, but I am too tired to do it now. I'll write it in the morning.

Adam

SteveMetz

11-02-2007, 09:38 AM

All professors at the universities I have attended bearing "Assistant" or "Associate" rank are not tenured.

It varies. At some schools, promotion to associate also brings tenure. At other places, the two are separate. But normally a tenure decision is at about the five year mark. If the guy has been there 13 years, chances are he's tenured.

SabreXray

11-02-2007, 10:43 AM

Did we lose the point of this thread? Why do Dr. Price's credentials (or apparent lack there of) discredit (or lessen) his opinions?

The point is that an FM is not a piece of scholarly hokum but a document meant to be useful. I have validated SOPs for the units I have served in. One of the keys for me is the "Napoleon's Corporal" standard. If I hand the unit SOP to a 19 year old private, can he read the document and understand it?

Dr. Price obviously missed the point. The Army is not worried about plagiarism and providing credit to source material. Not only do we (Army Officers) liberally borrow material from our peers, we are actively encouraged to do so. (The CALL website (http://call.army.mil) being a great information source and prime example of this). Soldiering is not rocket science (although we do have rocket scientists on the payroll :rolleyes:), and our Field Manuals should not be (and thank god that they aren't) written for academia. FMs are written for soldiers.

SabreXray

11-02-2007, 10:50 AM

BTW Selil, "what you talking about Willis?"

The obvious grammatical effluvia of academic discourse wrapped in the absent specter of Pericles pen shows the dishonesty of the academician. There is only shame for the academic hiding behind bellicose diatribes in obfuscation of honest discourse. An attack on grammar is the last gasp held in an attempt to impoverish intellectual discourse while toiling in the dung heap of “ad hominem” sophistry. In a culture of his vanity and imperiled ideas the social order of the academician is challenged by those who he can only engage in fallacious name calling with because his homilies will not withstand the test of daylight and logic. The academician mistakenly imperils his science while in a stupor of ill-considered ideas he lashes out with the sword of injustice only to be bitten by the poison of his politics.

Attacks on grammar and people is but one thread in the unraveling tapestry of scholarship. There is a presumptive arrogance in hiding behind imprecise and obfuscated language of academia. In attempting to be use $3 words for $1 concepts there is not much to be said other than they have ceded the high ground. English is a living language of emotion and ideas and those are what we should be talking about. Attempting to foil politics while holding up singularly ideas of scholarship baked in the ovens of Popper, Kuhn, Newton ignores that even science is a political process and subject to the scrutiny of the public. Hiding behind large words and citation is a travesty and failure of the academy in its primary role as service to society. It shows an ultimate hubris in the rampant paternalism found in the attacking of other peoples work.

Talk about using $3 words. (Or was that your point?:p)

JP

goesh

11-02-2007, 11:39 AM

Powerful, powerful words here that are putting the finishing touches on the myths and polemics that military folks and military thinkers are dullards, robotic, non-critical thinkers. A large boot is leaving its heavy print in and on the ivory tower without tooth enamel being scattered nor blood splattered, just some mud and fecal matter being kicked onto some deserving faces.

"The obvious grammatical effluvia of academic discourse wrapped in the absent specter of Pericles pen shows the dishonesty of the academician. There is only shame for the academic hiding behind bellicose diatribes in obfuscation of honest discourse. " (Selil) :p:p:p

That's a 3-fingers-of-top-shelf-bourbon phrase if I've ever seen one. Pour it on 'em, by God! don't stop!:D

Mktennis

11-02-2007, 11:42 AM

I agree that his credentials shouldn't be called into question. We shouldn't poison the well here. We should stick to the man's ideas lest we try to assert our points through logical fallacies.

I agree with the last post, and I think that Dr. Price's flaw is that he equates manuals with academic writing. There is a place for both, but rarely should they find themselves on the same playing field. They are apples and oranges; Dr. Price is, apparently, not aware of the necessity of ease of language in manuals. Because he is used to high-fluted language he assumes anything less is a reflection of ability. His assumptions are false.

Rex Brynen

11-02-2007, 12:01 PM

Did we lose the point of this thread? Why do Dr. Price's credentials (or apparent lack there of) discredit (or lessen) his opinions?

Agreed.

Dr. Price obviously missed the point. The Army is not worried about plagiarism and providing credit to source material.

Actually, FM 3-24 DOES provide notes to source material (pp. 373-377 of the U Chicago version), even to the point of noting date-of-access for webpages (p. 373, which is an over-the top, academic standard), but doesn't source the borrowings from anthropological sources. The "we don't do source notes" defence doesn't make much sense in a FM with source notes, IMHO.

Moreover, there are two other issues here. First, why not simply rewrite basic concepts in the authors' own words? This is the normal practice in every policy, diplomatic, and analytical shop that I've ever worked in, and frankly my bosses and team leaders would have had my a** had I ever used direct, verbatim quotes from published sources without attribution.

Indeed, the inclusion of these is a policy advisor's nightmare, since it puts your bosses in the vulnerable position of accidental, public plagiarism should they quote product not knowing that the product isn't original. The very wide play that this story is getting would seem to me to be confirmation of why one doesn't do it. It was apparent that a new COIN FM would be subject to intense scrutiny from the start. Given that a core lesson on FM 3-24 is that almost everything is political, there's a little irony in failing to predict the political consequences of non-sourced quotations.

Second, it is of dubious legality. In intellectual property law, ownership of the specific formulation and expression of an idea typically resides with the creator. Of course, in this case it would be hard to prove substantial damages, but there are one or two unsourced near verbatim borrowings that could be problematic in the case of a civil suit. (Steve earlier noted "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" ...yes, but don't Render unto Caesar what is Milton Rokeach's...)

Just to be clear: I'm a FM 3-24 fan (indeed, I've used it in classes), and I accept that there was absolutely no malicous intent to deceive by the authors. I think its a shame that the "plagiarism" issue has distracted from the real issues. I don't buy into Price's broader critique. However, I do still believe that the "oops, sorry, we'll fix it" defence is the best one to take.

SabreXray

11-02-2007, 12:44 PM

I think you miss the point too. I want a good manual. I don't care where the authors get their material from or if they credit ALL of their source material. Call me myopic if you want to.

I don't expect nor even care if I am given credit for MY work (as long as my Rater and Senior Rater know where it came from). If a lesson I and my men learned the hard way and that I openly share with my peers helps them from having to also pay the price for the knowledge (the currency on the battlefield is blood), good. Do I want to see my name in lights in Time Square? (Or in the citations of a future FM?) NO.

I suppose I should restate my argument that the Soldiers / Marines who are benefiting from FM 3-24 don't care if the intellectual property of the original authors is protected. Should our FMs be subject to academic review? NO. Should we (the service members at the sharp end of the stick) care? IMHO no. (It’s been my experience that soldiers are more interested in having regular chow and an occasional letter / phone call from home or even a hot shower than the academic merits of any Army manual).

SteveMetz

11-02-2007, 12:57 PM

Agreed.

Actually, FM 3-24 DOES provide notes to source material (pp. 373-377 of the U Chicago version), even to the point of noting date-of-access for webpages (p. 373, which is an over-the top, academic standard), but doesn't source the borrowings from anthropological sources. The "we don't do source notes" defence doesn't make much sense in a FM with source notes, IMHO.

Moreover, there are two other issues here. First, why not simply rewrite basic concepts in the authors' own words? This is the normal practice in every policy, diplomatic, and analytical shop that I've ever worked in, and frankly my bosses and team leaders would have had my a** had I ever used direct, verbatim quotes from published sources without attribution.

Indeed, the inclusion of these is a policy advisor's nightmare, since it puts your bosses in the vulnerable position of accidental, public plagiarism should they quote product not knowing that the product isn't original. The very wide play that this story is getting would seem to me to be confirmation of why one doesn't do it. It was apparent that a new COIN FM would be subject to intense scrutiny from the start. Given that a core lesson on FM 3-24 is that almost everything is political, there's a little irony in failing to predict the political consequences of non-sourced quotations.

Second, it is of dubious legality. In intellectual property law, ownership of the specific formulation and expression of an idea typically resides with the creator. Of course, in this case it would be hard to prove substantial damages, but there are one or two unsourced near verbatim borrowings that could be problematic in the case of a civil suit. (Steve earlier noted "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" ...yes, but don't Render unto Caesar what is Milton Rokeach's...)

Just to be clear: I'm a FM 3-24 fan (indeed, I've used it in classes), and I accept that there was absolutely no malicous intent to deceive by the authors. I think its a shame that the "plagiarism" issue has distracted from the real issues. I don't buy into Price's broader critique. However, I do still believe that the "oops, sorry, we'll fix it" defence is the best one to take.

I guess I didn't explain my point well--the concept of plagiarism simply does not apply to military doctrine. So, in my opinion at least, the whole question of whether the manual did or did not represent plagiarism in the scholarly sense is meaningless.

I also don't think plagiarism per se is grounds for a civil suit unless a work substantially replicates a copyrighted work. No court would hold that using a phrase here and paragraph there replicated a copyrighted work.

Personally I think the lesson learned for the Army is don't put any citations in a doctrine manual unless you're going to fully cite all of it. That simply creates the false expectation that it is going to adhere to scholarly standards. And don't, for the love of pete, publish it with a university press.

Ironically, there are a few paragraphs of the manual which are lifted verbatim from my publications. I don't plan to sue.

selil

11-02-2007, 01:17 PM

The only reason I would question Dr. Price and his credentials is that he questioned the credentials of the manuals authors. Within academia unfortunately that is the second most serious attack possible. The most serious attack is plagarism. Personally I think Dr. Metz is likely correct in that fair use, and replication levels are likely not suit worthy.

marct

11-02-2007, 02:56 PM

Hello folks,

First off, let me start by saying that attacking Price's credentials and other forms of ad hominen commentary in a public forum is using a tactic that I really "dislike". It is the intellectual equivalent of terrorist tactics designed to destroy the reputation of the person involved and, as a result, to smear their work with the same emotional connotations of "immorality". I will freely admit that such commentary has a cathartic effect when done in private, usually over a few beers, but doing it in public is just not good form; it detracts from the substantive issue of disagreements over the content while, at the same time, reducing the general discussion to something reminiscent of a school yard brawl amongst 5 year olds.

It is also a tactic that I would hope most people who have been in Iraq and Afghanistan would recognize, at least by analogy. In academic terms, David just set up an intellectual IED aimed at the CoG of most academics - their employability in universities and their ability to get research funding. Again, by analogy (which I will admit is always suspect :wry:), engaging in public ad hominem counter-attacks is as productive of the general good as coalition forces placing IEDs in Taliban strongholds or insurgent held areas of Iraq.

The ultimate question, at least regarding the use of public ad hominem attacks, is whether or not "we" are better than "them".

On the copyright issue, the standard for fair use I have been given by my university is 250 words with citation. Higher amounts require permission of the copyright holder, which is frequently not the author. Citation of some type is mandatory, otherwise this constitutes theft of intellectual property. There are, as far as I know, two exceptions to that. The first exception is the "common knowledge" exception where something, such as a generic definition similar to many of those in first year text books, is held "in common" within the discipline. The second exception is parallel evolution of thought where the author reaches a conclusion (or concept or definition) from a different starting point and using different logic than that of the person whose work they supposedly plagiarized. A third, possible exception (I'm not a copyright lawyer by any means!), would be the use of eminent domain over intellectual property.

I can certainly understand the requirement that a field manual be easily readable (which most academic writing isn't). I would be horrified if field manuals were held to academic standards. At the same time, a second publication of the manual by an academic press places the audience focus of the document in question. As Rex notes, there are some citations in the U of C published version, which I applaud, but I believe that the rest of the citations should have been included even if they were stripped out by the original publication committee. The audience for the U of C version is not the military in the field, although I am certain that a significant number of military personelle have purchased it, it is the general public. As Price notes:

"Some view the Manual as containing plans for a new intellectually fueled "smart bomb," and it is being sold to the public as a scholarly based strategic guide to victory in Iraq. In July, this contrivance was bolstered as the University of Chicago Press republished the Manual in a stylish, olive drab, faux-field ready edition, designed to slip into flack jackets or Urban Outfitter accessory bags." (1)

Despite his snide innuendo that it is only of interest to the military and survivalists, he is quite correct that this is a document that is being published for the general public by an academic press. The defense that the University of Chicago press appears to offer as noted by Price (1) is, in many ways valid - it is an historical document and should be published "as released" - to modify the text of an historical document, as Price suggests should have been done, would, in and of itself, constitute an academic abuse that, if any of my students did it, would call for their expulsion.

Given the importance of FM 3-24, I would, however, strongly urge that the authors consider the production of a "critical version" of the FM for publication by the University of Chicago.

Marc

Endnotes:
1. David Price, Pilfered Scholarship Devastates General Petraeus's Counterinsurgency Manual, Counterpunch, October 30th, 20007, available at http://www.counterpunch.com/price10302007.html dl:Nov 2, 2007

Steve Blair

11-02-2007, 03:18 PM

As I suggest in my blog response, what they could have done (or could do now) is release the notes as a downloadable supplement. Of course, which citation format would be used? I know that the social sciences model (author last name and date: page number) is considered crap in many historical circles, so I'd suggest they use the full-blown versions (or barring that at least use a parenthetical citation model ["cited text..." author last name date: page number] presented as endnotes). I seriously doubt that there's much preventing this, and it would certainly help derail Price's claims.

marct

11-02-2007, 03:25 PM

Hi Steve,

As I suggest in my blog response, what they could have done (or could do now) is release the notes as a downloadable supplement. Of course, which citation format would be used? I know that the social sciences model (author last name and date: page number) is considered crap in many historical circles, so I'd suggest they use the full-blown versions (or barring that at least use a parenthetical citation model ["cited text..." author last name date: page number] presented as endnotes). I seriously doubt that there's much preventing this, and it would certainly help derail Price's claims.

Personally, I think that is an excellent suggestion and one I would really like to see. Much as it pains me, I would have to agree with an endnote/footnote citation version (footnotes by preference, I hate endnotes :mad:).

Marc

Steve Blair

11-02-2007, 03:28 PM

Hi Steve,

Personally, I think that is an excellent suggestion and one I would really like to see. Much as it pains me, I would have to agree with an endnote/footnote citation version (footnotes by preference, I hate endnotes :mad:).

Marc

Agreed. I'm not a big endnote fan, but I prefer either to the parenthetical crap that gets foisted on the reading public at times.

At the VERY LEAST they could have put in a "citations available upon request" notice in the introduction of the UC version. That's not unheard of, either, though these days the download would be much preferred.

SteveMetz

11-02-2007, 04:49 PM

Hello folks,

First off, let me start by saying that attacking Price's credentials and other forms of ad hominen commentary in a public forum is using a tactic that I really "dislike". It is the intellectual equivalent of terrorist tactics designed to destroy the reputation of the person involved and, as a result, to smear their work with the same emotional connotations of "immorality". I will freely admit that such commentary has a cathartic effect when done in private, usually over a few beers, but doing it in public is just not good form; it detracts from the substantive issue of disagreements over the content while, at the same time, reducing the general discussion to something reminiscent of a school yard brawl amongst 5 year olds.

It is also a tactic that I would hope most people who have been in Iraq and Afghanistan would recognize, at least by analogy. In academic terms, David just set up an intellectual IED aimed at the CoG of most academics - their employability in universities and their ability to get research funding. Again, by analogy (which I will admit is always suspect :wry:), engaging in public ad hominem counter-attacks is as productive of the general good as coalition forces placing IEDs in Taliban strongholds or insurgent held areas of Iraq.

The ultimate question, at least regarding the use of public ad hominem attacks, is whether or not "we" are better than "them".

On the copyright issue, the standard for fair use I have been given by my university is 250 words with citation. Higher amounts require permission of the copyright holder, which is frequently not the author. Citation of some type is mandatory, otherwise this constitutes theft of intellectual property. There are, as far as I know, two exceptions to that. The first exception is the "common knowledge" exception where something, such as a generic definition similar to many of those in first year text books, is held "in common" within the discipline. The second exception is parallel evolution of thought where the author reaches a conclusion (or concept or definition) from a different starting point and using different logic than that of the person whose work they supposedly plagiarized. A third, possible exception (I'm not a copyright lawyer by any means!), would be the use of eminent domain over intellectual property.

I can certainly understand the requirement that a field manual be easily readable (which most academic writing isn't). I would be horrified if field manuals were held to academic standards. At the same time, a second publication of the manual by an academic press places the audience focus of the document in question. As Rex notes, there are some citations in the U of C published version, which I applaud, but I believe that the rest of the citations should have been included even if they were stripped out by the original publication committee. The audience for the U of C version is not the military in the field, although I am certain that a significant number of military personelle have purchased it, it is the general public. As Price notes:

Despite his snide innuendo that it is only of interest to the military and survivalists, he is quite correct that this is a document that is being published for the general public by an academic press. The defense that the University of Chicago press appears to offer as noted by Price (1) is, in many ways valid - it is an historical document and should be published "as released" - to modify the text of an historical document, as Price suggests should have been done, would, in and of itself, constitute an academic abuse that, if any of my students did it, would call for their expulsion.

Given the importance of FM 3-24, I would, however, strongly urge that the authors consider the production of a "critical version" of the FM for publication by the University of Chicago.

Marc

Endnotes:
1. David Price, Pilfered Scholarship Devastates General Petraeus's Counterinsurgency Manual, Counterpunch, October 30th, 20007, available at http://www.counterpunch.com/price10302007.html dl:Nov 2, 2007

In that case, the culpability lies with the University of Chicago Press, not the authors of the manual. The concern of the authors was saving the lives of soldiers and attaining U.S. national security interests, not meeting scholarly standards.

As I've mentioned, in my opinion it was a mistake to publish something that was never intended as a scholarly work with a university press. Knowing most of the authors of the manual, I myself think there are probably better uses of their time than trying to address the complaints of Dr. Price, et. al. As others have noted in this thread, though, his issue was not really the absence of citations. He was just using that as a trojan horse for his personal ideology.

marct

11-02-2007, 05:11 PM

Hi Steve,

In that case, the culpability lies with the University of Chicago Press, not the authors of the manual. The concern of the authors was saving the lives of soldiers and attaining U.S. national security interests, not meeting scholarly standards.

I've got to show you how to edit long quotes :D! I agree totally that the "flaw", if there is one, does not lie with the authors. I'm not even sure if it lies with U of C press either - an historical document shouldn't be "corrected", so it is, IMO, open to honest debate. I do like the idea of either a "critical edition" or a fully referenced version being made available.

In some ways, it boils down to intended audience. Field manuals are aimed at soldiers - they are written in a specific genre and language style that has to be neat, clean, logically laid out and, above all else, easily translatable into do's and don'ts in the field.

The genres of academic writing don't really fit this bill. In some circles, "applicability" of an article in the non-academic world is a hindrance, and not only in Anthropology! (references provided on request!). One of the (many) conflations I see in the Price article (op. cit) is that he applies scholarly standards from one discipline to a multi-disciplinary work that was not targeted at a scholarly audience. I could as easily criticize his writing for not being accessible to the internet audiences he is writing for because he did not use the culturally appropriate symbolic form of communications - i.e. emoticons ;) - and that would be an equally "valid" critique.

As I've mentioned, in my opinion it was a mistake to publish something that was never intended as a scholarly work with a university press. Knowing most of the authors of the manual, I myself think there are probably better uses of their time than trying to address the complaints of Dr. Price, et. al. As others have noted in this thread, though, his issue was not really the absence of citations. He was just using that as a trojan horse for his personal ideology.

Agreed. Then again, I would like to point out that he is also providing me with invaluable, open source (with full references made ;)), data for an article I am thinking of writing on the similarities in rhetorical strategies between the current extremist anti-military Anthropologists and Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Spenger (see here (http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/)). The pattern of social interaction has so many similarities at the rhetorical level that I believe it would be an important piece of research drawing in, as it does, the confluence of rhetoric, professional knowledge and new technologies :cool:.

Marc

selil

11-02-2007, 05:23 PM

I'm going to piss everybody off....

I think one of the problems is that anthropologists aren't scientists. Well, not bottle and beaker kind. The FM is more like a lab manual than a text book or journal article. Though a lab manual might have some references, the concepts, ideas, and even language found in a chemistry lab manual isn't going to be cited verbatim. Ideas and lanague are going to be reported as actionable items that the student or audience are going to do. Not research. Looking through my technology lab manual for TCP/IP nowhere does it cite Vint Cerf when discussing the principles of TCP/IP. Now grab my text book or any of hundreds of journal articles and there you go... Cited. Even in academia we have different standards. Oh, in the aforementioned lab manual it does have end notes discussing a variety of topics and some things are cited here and there.

Steve Blair

11-02-2007, 05:40 PM

No chance of pissing me off, Sam. I think you're right with that one. But I also think that the semi-science communities want to have it both ways (use sloppy/no citing when they feel like it and then whip out the citation stick when they want to whack someone).

As I've said before, I just have a personal interest in being able to track down some of the stuff in 3-24, and I'm lazy enough about it that I'd like the citations. But I can also live with 3-24 without them. It's more of a distillation and handbook than an actual academic text, IMO anyhow.

SteveMetz

11-02-2007, 05:49 PM

how edit long authors made boils neat, clean, logically I could not being accessible i.e. emoticons ;)

One interesting side note here is that I instinctively rush to the defense of the doctrine writers and you to the academic world.

I don't mean this as a critique at all, just an observation.

marct

11-02-2007, 06:07 PM

Hi Folks,

I'm going to piss everybody off....

I think one of the problems is that anthropologists aren't scientists. Well, not bottle and beaker kind. The FM is more like a lab manual than a text book or journal article.

Hmmm, good point, Sam. And, no, it doesn't piss me off either :).

But I also think that the semi-science communities want to have it both ways (use sloppy/no citing when they feel like it and then whip out the citation stick when they want to whack someone).

I'll have to think about that one but, just off the top of my head, would guess that there is no institutional intent to "whack" people. Then again, I always use the "never ascribe to malice what can be covered by stupidity" meme :wry:.

One interesting side note here is that I instinctively rush to the defense of the doctrine writers and you to the academic world.

I don't mean this as a critique at all, just an observation.

No, I certainly didn't take it that way at all. As an observation, I think you are probably bang on. On the level of emotional reactions, I find myself slightly more than mildly frustrated with the bureaucratic process of writing and publishing the FM without many of the citations, but certainly not "angry" over it. Sorry, I can't remember who mentioned that the USMC tends to use citations in their manuals, but that, along with the references that were included, seems to establish a precedent for the inclusion of at least some of them.

Where I do get "angry" is with David's rhetoric and logic, and with the effects that seems to be having on at least some parts of the Anthropology-Military dialogue. It frustrates me to see that "terrorist" rhetorical strategy working by inflaming passions in public and emotionally polarizing the entire universe of discourse (no references, DP, it's part of common knowledge).

Marc

Steve Blair

11-02-2007, 06:28 PM

I was the one who brought up the citations in USMC manuals, Marc, but that was in direct reference to the Warfighting series (the MCDP 1- series), which are something of a unique case (they're intended more to teach how to think about war as opposed to prescriptive doctrine). Interesting stuff if you feel like a light read.

And with the community comment, I was referring to individuals more than institutions, since I tend to feel that individuals are attracted to institutions that match their own behavior patterns (or will not seriously restrict those behavior patterns). Of course stupidity is always an option as well....:D

J Wolfsberger

11-02-2007, 07:54 PM

Just when I was preparing my own nasty contribution, you had to inject calm and reason into the thread.:D

In my own experience, if I, or my people, prepare any engineering document, such as a research report, there better be appropriate citations. If we prepare a manual, a) we cut and paste with shameless abandon and b) there are no citations. It’s the difference between a manual and other types of writing. (No one expects citations to scholarly papers on network or information theory in the users’ manual for their cell phone.) In fact, if I caught someone trying to find a way to rewrite things to avoid “plagiarism,” I’d probably chew them out.

Criticizing a manual for being a manual instead of a dissertation strikes me as a bit silly. I think Dr. Price has entered a culture (military and/or technical) of which he has neither knowledge nor appreciation, and imposed his own cultural norms. (Marc, wouldn’t that be a pretty serious violation of his own “cultural” norms?)

The only other point that approached validity was criticizing the HTTs for their research. On that score, I wasn’t aware they were over there to perform research. I wasn’t aware that the war was an experiment. Does he really think it serves anyone’s interest to have troops blunder about in complete ignorance of the culture they’re dealing with?

Overall, Dr. Price’s article didn’t offer anything of value. I’m sorry I wasted my time reading it.

Ken White

11-02-2007, 08:06 PM

Well said.....

SWJED

11-02-2007, 08:35 PM

SteveMetz

11-02-2007, 09:03 PM

SteveMetz

11-02-2007, 09:08 PM

As an aside, I wrote a "pocket handbook" for the Marine Corps in 1999 - The Urban Generic Information Requirements Handbook (now called Intelligence vice Information). I took great pains to cite all works and all were removed when edited and to print. I have to say I agreed with that decision for several reasons.

1) The handbook was / is a field-ready guide - a check list to determine information gaps, a quick reference to request information and a baseline support tool for forward deployed units. As such the information contained in the handbook was the heart and soul - citations would have added clutter to the essential elements of the document.

2) Deployed units don't exactly have the time or resources to data-mine citations. Again, the essential elements of information are the important items - the who, what, when, where and why - up front and brief.

3) Documents like the UGIRH were designed to fit into a cargo pocket - as such my footnotes would have added another 15-20 (guesstimate here) pages to a document of this size. Clutter, a much larger document and a significant cost for printing when you are talking thousands of copies.

Just my 2-cents on a related issue.

I think you've touched on one the key issues on 3-24. During the big prep session at Leavenworth in February 2005, there were lots of debate over who the audience was. Was it senior NCOs, junior officers who had to go out and do counterinsurgency, or was it the PME system, strategic planners, and senior leaders? Ultimately, the authors tried to address both audiences. And, like any compromise, it ended up not fully satisfying either.

I can see where the conceptual part intended for PME, planners, and senior leaders should be more rigorous in its documentation. Probably it should have been two separate manuals.

Incidentally, I had the same reaction a few years ago when asked to chop on a draft of the "new" Small Wars Manual. I said I couldn't figure out who the audience was since--in stark contrast to the original one--it seemed more appropriate for use in a graduate seminar than to be read by a grizzled gunny while on the boat to some tropical hotspot. I was particularly upset that they took out the guidance on how to load a pack mule.

Ken White

11-02-2007, 10:03 PM

...
. . .
I was particularly upset that they took out the guidance on how to load a pack mule.

See: LINK (http://www.fototime.com/5CD2C53769A1150/standard.jpg)

On an only slightly more serious note; we used to tailor manuals by echelon; occasionally one for each echelon where appropriate but mostly broadly defined as Bn/Co/Platoon, then Regt/Bde and finally echelons above reality. It seemed to work -- which is, I guess, why we dumped the idea. On size fits all, the American way... :wry:

I guess that makes life easier on the doctrine writers at the branch and service schools who in my observation tended to do more cutting and pasting than writing.

selil

11-02-2007, 10:48 PM

There are some questions about this I've not formulated really good ideas about. I'll pose them as questions because to me that is really what they are....

1) The national academies of science have stated on several occasions that copyrights and government funded research are in direct contrast to each other. Is it possible that anybody publishing in a copyright journal whether funded by NSF, state university pay check, or just private institution receiving federal education dollars are involved in unethical or immoral conduct of dissemination?

2) In contrast to MPAA/RIAA/ and issues with intellectual property ownership of the Mouse (Disney) academic plagiarism is about claim of credit and not necessarily profit and as such is protected by fair use and relaxed constraints on use. Is it possible that the scope of plagiarism has been expanded inappropriately by the commercial copyright issues?

3) In the United States federal use of copyright material has always been protected through a variety of mechanisms from library exemption to evidence exemption to sunshine laws in the production and dissemination of materials. Is it possible that copyright simply does not apply to the federal government as a creating and publishing entity?

4) The government could simply stamp FOUO the FM and it would no longer be an issue but they haven't. Is academic political punditry creating a situation where refusal of open disclosure will be the result and access to materials will be restricted?

5) In the social sciences the ideas are the science. Without evidence (no published work) of the ideas of scholars involved in the Human Terrain project their science is questioned (and threatened with censorship). Is the idealogical position (statement of principles) of the discipline of anthropology simply at odds with dissemination and evaluation of good science?

I guess is this just simply another example of academia and the military taking different roads and how long will it be before the military has their own complete education system? Ooops already happened.

MattM

11-02-2007, 10:54 PM

With hindsight, Dr. McFate replies to queries and critiques of the Manual's scholarship seem odd. In response to González's critique in Anthropology Today of the Manual's weak anthropological base, McFate framed the Manual as "military doctrine, not an academic treatise" and inexplicably proclaimed that "doctrine does not have footnotes."

Thus, Dr. Price was aware of the Field Manuals Authors’ stance before he wrote this Counterpunch article.

Dr. Price's premise is that the US Army Field Manual is not up to scholarly standards. He was well aware that the author's did not hold themselves to this set of standards. Yet, it forms the basis for his criticisms.

I did a point by point rebutall of most of Dr. Price's claims. It would not be a good thread read, as it would start above the screen and finish below the screen. Honestly, I don't think the wild claims and disassociated points of Dr. Price's article would pass in a Philosophy 300 class. I am sure he was heralded at happy hour, though.

Note to self: Low standards at St. Martin's University.

SteveMetz

11-02-2007, 11:48 PM

There are some questions about this I've not formulated really good ideas about. I'll pose them as questions because to me that is really what they are....

1) The national academies of science have stated on several occasions that copyrights and government funded research are in direct contrast to each other. Is it possible that anybody publishing in a copyright journal whether funded by NSF, state university pay check, or just private institution receiving federal education dollars are involved in unethical or immoral conduct of dissemination?

I guess this kind of tangentially addresses your point, but anything I write at the office becomes the property of the People and cannot be copyrighted. So when I get the copyright release form for a journal article, I have to indicate that I do not own the copyright and therefore cannot assign it.

Here's the kicker--right now I'm on sabbatical working out of my home office. Much of the material I'm using was collected at government expense. Yet this manuscript can be copyrighted.

This has actually been a big issue for us: we're an accredited, degree granting institution of higher education, yet our faculty cannot sit in their office and write books because no publisher is going to produce a book they can't hold copyright on. We're trying to get the legislation changed on this.

Interesting tidbit on this--because Harry Summers' book On Strategy was written while he was at the Strategic Studies Institute, it is not copyrighted. Only the preface, which he wrote at home, is.

marct

11-03-2007, 12:01 AM

Hi Sam,

These are really good questions.

There are some questions about this I've not formulated really good ideas about. I'll pose them as questions because to me that is really what they are....

[quote=selil;30069]1) The national academies of science have stated on several occasions that copyrights and government funded research are in direct contrast to each other. Is it possible that anybody publishing in a copyright journal whether funded by NSF, state university pay check, or just private institution receiving federal education dollars are involved in unethical or immoral conduct of dissemination?

I would have to say yes, but only if they accepted the NAS moral code you conditional that you mention. I have noticed a curious disconnect amongst many people between their stated ideals and their "unofficial" views.

Is it possible that the scope of plagiarism has been expanded inappropriately by the commercial copyright issues?

Probably, but I would also argue that copyright has been expanded well beyond its original purpose.

3) In the United States federal use of copyright material has always been protected through a variety of mechanisms from library exemption to evidence exemption to sunshine laws in the production and dissemination of materials. Is it possible that copyright simply does not apply to the federal government as a creating and publishing entity?

No comment. In Canada, the Crown retains copyright (not the Government).

4) The government could simply stamp FOUO the FM and it would no longer be an issue but they haven't. Is academic political punditry creating a situation where refusal of open disclosure will be the result and access to materials will be restricted?

Possible, but I wouldn't call it too likely given the propensity of things to leak. I think a far more likely outcome of academic punditry is a growing wedge between polarized sides and the increasing marginalization of certain disciplines.

5) In the social sciences the ideas are the science. Without evidence (no published work) of the ideas of scholars involved in the Human Terrain project their science is questioned (and threatened with censorship). Is the idealogical position (statement of principles) of the discipline of anthropology simply at odds with dissemination and evaluation of good science?

No. There is a long tradition in Anthropology of taking a fairly long time to do fieldwork and long delays in publication. The HTTs haven't been around long enough for this to be a problem.

I guess is this just simply another example of academia and the military taking different roads and how long will it be before the military has their own complete education system? Ooops already happened.

LOLOL

jcustis

11-03-2007, 12:24 AM

Was it senior NCOs, junior officers who had to go out and do counterinsurgency, or was it the PME system, strategic planners, and senior leaders? Ultimately, the authors tried to address both audiences. And, like any compromise, it ended up not fully satisfying either.

I think the 3-24 is built for the battalion TF and above. It's companion, the MCIP 3-33.01 is definitely built for the small unit leader, coy-level and below. The MCIP is, however, relevant reading for every staff member at the battalion level and above, so they can grasp what the subordinate maneuver elements will be wrestling with.

goesh

11-03-2007, 02:50 AM

Fat war budgets and sabbatic needs make strange bed fellows, and that's even assuming Anthros are in sole possession of what the Military and other agents desire. My feelings are with a different political landscape and a differently worded HT proposal, half the Savage Minds camp would jump ship and their banner of purity would sag a bit with so fewer hands to hold it high.

I don't think the relationship between living and working in a combat zone where there are no distinct lines and its impact on objectivity has been much addressed in real depth by your bretheren and correct me if I am wrong. The traditional guest/visitor status most field staff are accustomed to facilitates objectivity IMO and environmental conditions encountered, perhaps best characterized as inconvenience, could hinder objectivity at times I suppose. Coming face to face with visceral hatred, IEDs and snipers is another matter. Abject fear, urinating in the pants, shock and a trembling body can do strange things to memories and fleshing out field notes. Add some incoming while trying to get some sleep after an ambush and the morning's intent becomes more muddied and one's vision narrows. The SM camp may not have as much to worry about as they think

marct

11-03-2007, 07:26 PM

Refuting Colonel John Nagl (http://www.counterpunch.org/price11032007.html)
Army's Prime Salesman of Counterinsurgency Manual Seeks to Defend Stolen Scholarship

By DAVID PRICE
Counterpunch, Nov 3/4, 2007

I will note that there is at least one quote included in DP's article that, while attributed, lists no source, id est

By this I mean people like the recently retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez who know that the Iraq war is now "a nightmare with no end in sight".

SteveMetz

11-03-2007, 07:52 PM

I will note that there is at least one quote included in DP's article that, while attributed, lists no source, id est

Well, my theory is that Dr. Price has stumbled on a way to get the attention that his normal work doesn't bring. My recommendation to him is that instead of writing silly essays, he follow the lead of Chris Crocker (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc) and do a YouTube video called, "Leave Anthropology Alone!!"

selil

11-03-2007, 08:10 PM

Anybody else notice that Counterpunch is in the middle of a fundraising drive, and Dr. Price's book is listed on each of his posts?

marct

11-03-2007, 08:19 PM

Anybody else notice that Counterpunch is in the middle of a fundraising drive, and Dr. Price's book is listed on each of his posts?

Yup. Need more be said on that :wry:?

On a different note, and back to an earlier question, does anyone know if eminent domain applies to copyright?

Ken White

11-03-2007, 08:24 PM

than that I thought J. Wolfsberger and thus by extension Steve Metz, Selil and a couple of others had a valid point; an FM is not an academic work regardless of who outside DoD elects to publish it for whatever reason and some of the modficiation suggested to dress the sow's ear seem rather pointless.

However, with this from Marc:

"I will note that there is at least one quote included in DP's article that, while attributed, lists no source, id est"

By this I mean people like the recently retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez who know that the Iraq war is now "a nightmare with no end in sight".

I'm moved to comment that Professor Price is building significant credibility problems in my mind. Not from the lack of a source for the quote, rather from his choice of quote and its originator... :rolleyes:

selil

11-03-2007, 10:38 PM

Yup. Need more be said on that :wry:?

On a different note, and back to an earlier question, does anyone know if eminent domain applies to copyright?

Copyright law in the United States is a strange creature. Especially the government. It's not necessarily a fifth amendment issue (eminent domain) but a "superseding interest" issue. Library, records, sunshine laws (http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#521), etc.. all make copyright a different issue. Especially when the government and even more importantly the military violates what we would expect of it.

I am not a copyright attorney but have a specific interest from a different perspective. When dealing with digital evidence we seize copyrighted material then publish that material as evidence and that is protected. I've seen arguments of fair use (http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#222), and law enforcement use that supersede normal copyright law

The government does claim fair use exception (http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#223) fairly often which can be challenged. Government works can be challenged for copyright violation (http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#511). The government can be sued for monetary damages, but has sovereign immunity rights. The ideas in a work are not copyrighted but the words are. Already in this thread the concept of 250 words maximum from a work has been discussed, but that is an academic standard not a legal standard. Also the idea of citation is an academic standard not a legal standard. If the use is NOT substantive there is no violation of copyright. See hyper links (THE INTERNET WAY OF CITING WORK) for a more substantive discussion of most questions answered here.

11-04-2007, 12:20 AM

I'm moved to comment that Professor Price is building significant credibility problems in my mind. Not from the lack of a source for the quote, rather from his choice of quote and its originator... :rolleyes:

With regard to Dr. Price's credibility in his latest Counterpunch posting (http://www.counterpunch.org/price11032007.html), it matters less to me whom he chooses to quote (appropriately documented or otherwise) and more that he chooses to make allegations for which he has presented little or no evidence. A representative example of the case in point is as follows:

Nagl knows full well that Chicago's republication of the Manual was part of a public relations campaign to bury the views of those like Sanchez who recognize that President's Bush's policies have led us into a quagmire. Selling America a war with fake scholarship won't get us out of this mess.
(Price, http://www.counterpunch.org/price11032007.html)

I have seen nothing in either of his two Counterpunch pieces to substantiate the conclusions drawn in the above quotation, viz., that "Nagl knows full well that Chicago's republication of the Manual was part of a public relations campaign to bury the views of those like Sanchez who recognize that President's Bush's policies have led us into a quagmire" and that "[s]elling America a war with fake scholarship won't get us out of this mess." (ibid.) Good scholars do much more than just document their research sources. Good scholars provide good reasons for the conclusions that they draw in their research. In his latest effort, I submit that Price has not done either at the level one would expect from an associate professor with a Ph.D.

Had I received the latest piece of Price's invective, which was published by Counterpunch in its November 3/4 weekend edition, from one of my Freshman Composition, Introduction to Philosophy or Advanced Composition students, I would have had little trouble awarding it a failing grade. At the post-secondary educational institutions where I have studied and taught, the standards for post-doctoral work were much higher than those applied to undergraduates in their freshmen, sophomore, and junior years. I would expect, as a mimimum, that Price (or my English Comp freshman for that matter) provide evidence to show what Nagl "knows full well" about the government's motivation with regard to allowing the publication of the FM by a university press.

One might object to my criticism with a variant of Nagl's defense (found at http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/11/desperate-people-with-limited/). Just as Nagl defended the lack of citations on the grounds that FMs have a different standard for sourcing, one might argue on Price's behalf that an op-ed piece has a different standard for acceptable argumentation. This leaves us with at least three options:
1.) Accept the claim, which entails that we also dismiss Price's "poor scholarship" attack on the FM because "sholarship" standards are relative to their publishing venue.
2.) Equivocate on the claim and shift blame to the editorial staff of Counterpunch for allowing such shoddy work to be published, as has been suggested with regard to the Chicago U. Press and the FM.
3.) Deny the relativism claim and expect high standards from Price simply because he is a member of Academe.

I happen to opt for the third choice. Teachers have a positional duty: they are role models for reasoned discourse. As such, members of academe must be held to a higher standard when expressing their opinions. That standard is a Platonic standard, one that requires academics to state their opinions with an account that rationally justifies the assertion of those opinions as true.

SteveMetz

11-04-2007, 12:55 AM

I don't mean this as a slam on anyone here, but one reason I divorced myself from academia was what was, in my opinion, a pervasive ignorance about the way the American security policy and armed conflict in general really works. I remember going to major conferences with panels on these topics and sitting in the back of the room thinking how utterly clueless the presenters were. And these were well known academics. I

was particularly taken aback at the absence of primary source material in so many refereed publications (and I'm talking here mostly about political scientists). A few years ago I evaluated a book manuscript by a well known scholar that had not a single primary source citation in it. Even when the author was talking about things like the National Security Strategy, he would refer to descriptions of it in other academic articles rather than the original. I literally went to one of his sources, and found no primary sources in it either. It was like the kids' game of "gossip" where information gets passed from person to person and eventually is almost nothing like the original.

I realize there are scholars and even programs that are exceptions to this. But it is still my impression that it is common.

What all this rant is about is my belief that Price is truly ignorant about the way doctrine is made, what its designed to do, the way government works, and the nature of armed conflict. But he is not aware of how little he knows, therefore speaks with the certitude of the ignorant.

I apologize, but this whole issue has really gotten my dander up.

Rex Brynen

11-04-2007, 01:40 AM

I realize there are scholars and even programs that are exceptions to this. But it is still my impression that it is common..

On this we absolutely agree, Steve (and it applies not only to the military and national security policy, but to the broader conduct of diplomacy, aid policy, and government in general).

Of course, the world is also full of politically naive aid workers, undiplomatic soldiers, and all sorts of policy-doers who aren't aware of existing research in their areas of responsibility. However, I think there is a particular burden on scholars to actually understand the things they purport to research/analyze/write about.

In some ways it ought to be easy enough to do: summers with no teaching and sabbaticals every seven years provide ample opportunity to involve oneself in the policy world as resource, consultant, or even practitioner. However, most social science disciplines view such activity as less worthy than the more traditional research-and-publish activities, and university reward systems (tenure, promotion, salary increments) reflect this.

In my own case, I suspect that everything I've done in the policy world (policy advisor at the Department of Foreign Affairs, a decade on the Interdepartmental Experts Group on Middle East Intelligence, World Bank and UN consultant, second track diplomatic negotiation) collectively count for less than an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. I'm not complaining about my personal situation--after all, I'm full professor at a great university, full of great students--but to get there you do rather have to burn the candle at both ends. More importantly, it results in a discipline that often seems to be preoccupied by abstract theorizing and to have little intrinsic grasp of the actual nature of politics and policy processes.

The odd (and even tragic) thing is that many, perhaps most graduate students usually come into the system wanting to not only study the world, but to engage with it too. We put then put them through a series of disciplinary tribal rituals that emphasize the theoretical at the cost of the actual, and in the end reproduce the discipline's own weaknesses. (Or we put them off graduate school altogether--which is a shame, since there is a lot that is useful to learn too.)

Adam L

11-04-2007, 03:58 AM

Look, I am still tired and I will get to writing on this tomorrow, but here's what I can toss off now.

1) There should be 2 versions of the manual. First a manual for normal use with little or no citations and a full version with everything in it. The first mentioned manual should have a note in it refering to the full version. ALso, the full version should be the one released to the public. Whether or not you feel this should be necessary, it is certainly the proper thing to do. The military should be concerned with avoiding this brand of insanity. I'm amazed that someone in legal didn't suggest something like this. Again, there probably is little or no chance of a lawsuit, but efforts should be made to avoid one. We don't need the publicity or the cost of attorneys.
2) I don't care about the credentials of Price or Nagl. We should evaluate arguments on their merits not degrees. Price made his credentials fair game by going after Nagle. Personally I think Nagle and everybody else these days has made it fair game by "flaunting" (whether or not intentional. NO offense is inteded with this statement.) of PhD's.
3) This debate over academic standards, scholarship, etc. is ridiculous. All of these concepts have been perverted over the last 40 or so years. Whether it is academic, technical or military writing they all historically have had similar standards. The methods of achieving the same ends have been different (mainly the punctuation.)
4) The debate over grammar is ridiculous. Occasionally it is necessary in certain areas to take a little exception with regard to grammar in order to maintain clarity, but this is not usual except in very technical areas. Punctuation on the other hand is an area where it is not uncommon for there to be difficult siltuations where the rules are bent in order to maintain clarity. I also have to say that it is important to remember that grammar and punctuation are two totally different things! Too many people are forgeting that these days.
5) I am curious about Nagl's comment about Clausewitz comment on grammar. First, is this what he said in the original German. Also, writing in German I'm sure has its own gramatical intricacies. I feel this was a poor example to use, which only continued an endless ### for tat argument. [If someone can refer me to this comment it would be helpful. (if only he had cited it. LOL! :) ) Also, if someon here speeks German maybe you can see what it says in the original text. Also, what translatioin was Nagl using.]
6) My biggest objection to FM 3-24 is its style. Specifically, that it has one. My objection is that FM 3-24 is written in the same style that most acedemic writings (and all others for that matter) are written with these days. Compare the language of the 1940 Small Wars Manual to the FM 3-24 and you will se what I mean. The language in FM 3-24 is not concise as well as many other things. I really think they need to do some editing.
7) I do not know who the manual is targeted at. I know many others here have also been wondering.
8) There is no reason that things cannot be written in such a way that meets the highest of academic standards and is still perfectly understood by the common foot soldier.

I'll continue at a later point, but for now that it what I have to say.

Adam

Ken White

11-04-2007, 05:00 AM

of One Strong. For years the "Army writing style" was to avoid bombast, redundancy, emphasis of words or phrases and to use concise clear prose with no stylistic gimmicks. Illustrations, charts and diagrams were held to a minimum as they require more space and made for books that would no longer fit in a pocket and were so voluminous they were seldom read. Exercise and operation names were two totally unrelated words selected from a random list.

In the mid 60s and more so in the 70s, we got wrapped around Taylor and Deming, adopted a modified Madison Avenue writing style and it's been steadily downhill ever since. We dumbed down our instructional material -- and much of the instruction to which it pertained at the behest of the Educational Technology gurus -- who were mostly elementary education specialists. :confused:

We started using flowery phrases in OpSums and reports, applying the words 'valiant' and 'hero' entirely too often, became warriors instead of Soldiers or Marines and produced large volumes of 'doctrine' becaue we hired a slew of civilian doctrine writers and no one wanted to give up the spaces so they had to write something *. We came up with names like Urgent Fury, Just Cause, OEF and OIF.

Now we are forming "Centers of Excellence." I expect Quality Control Circles at Squad level soon...:rolleyes:

Oh -- and I agree with much of your 3-24 criticism on style (and volume).

* My all time pet was one that came out of Benning in the 90s. One page change to one of the 7-series or maybe 21-75, don't recall which. I do remember what it said; "Patrol is a verb and not an organizational element. No organizational unit will be referred to as a Patrol." (or words to that effect). Priceless.

Maximus

11-04-2007, 06:17 AM

While I don't pretend to be an expert on anthropology, counterinsurgency, Dr. Price, LtCol Nagl, proper documenting methods, Chicago Press, etc., I do have a bit of a clue on how the doctrine process works in the Marine Corps. This said, the simple fact that we have a new counterinsurgency doctrine is in many ways a miracle, especially one that was blessed so quickly by the USMC and US Army! Since publication this new doctrine has already had profound impacts on the training and education process, not to mention the conduct of U.S. forces on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Everyday that the authors could have spent double and triple checking sources, re-wording footnotes, bibliography, etc., is one more day that this mission critical publication would not have been where it needed to be--in the hands of those executing COIN or preparing to execute.

The previous post mentioned that it won't be long before we have quality control circles looking at publications down to the rifle squad level. Maybe. The sad reality is that the vast majority of our publications haven't been updated in more than 20 years because there's usually a 30+ step process before a new reference, warfighting or doctrinal publication is released. While I'm all for accuracy and legitimacy in writing, there's also an element of timeliness that must be met so that slow moving military and government bureaucracies can get the ship headed in the right direction. LtCol Nagl highlights well in Learning to Eat Soup With a Knife that permanent change in western militaries normally requires a new "doctrinal" publication to justify the change. From my perspective, this is a very true statement.

One more thought on the subject... the Small Unit Leader's Guide to Counterinsurgency was put together by 5-10 different people, reviewed by about 10-20 more and then put to print in mass quantity all in a less than 8-month period due to some very high level general officers forcing this book (made to fit in a cargo pocket) through the normal doctrine process. I remember a few days after the pub was released when a person from the USMC doctrine division said that it should have never been published because of the way Dr. Kilcullen phrased Rule #19 Engage the women, beware the children (I think it was covet the women, beware the children initially... I could be wrong here)... anyway, the Small Unit Leader's Guide to COIN has been atop the Marine Forces Central Command reading list for all Marines ever since it was released. Along with the Anbar Awakening, bold and decisive leadership from warriors like Col McFarland, Capt Patriquin, LtCol Alford and many others, I know that FM 3-24 and the Small Unit Leader's Guide to COIN have played an integral role in the changing security environment in Anbar and throughout Iraq as a whole.

In sum, Iraq isn't Harvard or Yale or Foreign Affairs magazine. Therefore, I don't care much about documentation. Get the information in our warriors hands as fast as possible so that we can learn and adapt faster than our enemies.

marct

11-04-2007, 03:57 PM

Hi Maximus,

....This said, the simple fact that we have a new counterinsurgency doctrine is in many ways a miracle, especially one that was blessed so quickly by the USMC and US Army! Since publication this new doctrine has already had profound impacts on the training and education process, not to mention the conduct of U.S. forces on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Everyday that the authors could have spent double and triple checking sources, re-wording footnotes, bibliography, etc., is one more day that this mission critical publication would not have been where it needed to be--in the hands of those executing COIN or preparing to execute.

I would hope that anyone with two neurons to rub together would agree with your point that the primary aim of any FM is to get doctrine into the hands of the troops as quickly as possible. Furthermore, I totally agree that a lot of citations and footnotes are, in all probability, an interference with an FM as a training document. This is one of the reasons why I totally agree with Adam's comment that there should have been two versions - one with and one without citations.

Let me, for the moment, bring out another aspect to doctrinal writing that hasn't received as much emphasis as it should. It is my understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, that part of the function of doctrinal writing is to define an "operational reality", i.e. what to look for, how to react to these perceptions and, most importantly, why. In effect, doctrine is applied theory; "praxis" in academic-speak. If this is the case, then doctrine plays an important role in professional military education. It is this function of doctrine that I see as being a very good reason for having a "critical edition" of doctrine available (i.e. full citations, etc.).

The previous post mentioned that it won't be long before we have quality control circles looking at publications down to the rifle squad level.

I'm going to take this on a (somewhat) academic tangent :). First, when Ken mentioned Taylor, I really had to laugh since Taylor actually took many of his ideas, filtered 3rd and 4th hand (without citations :eek:), from the beginnings of modern warfare going back to William the Silent and Maurice of Nassau. Second, Demming actually got a lot of his ideas from Mao via, in part, the 1st Marine Raider BTN. The idea of using quality control circles, or some modern variant of them, is actually not too bad. In some ways, the SWC is just a giant quality control circle, as are many of the informal communications networks that exist.

That being said, let's take it back to doctrine and FM 3-24. A good critical edition of FM 3-24 would serve as a solid basis for for the development of expansions to, and specific applications of counter-insurgency operations. I believe that is one of the reasons why we saw the use of paradoxes in the manual. I am not saying that the critical edition should have come first, just that it should be there. One final comment and then I'll leave off: I fully expect that the authors of the manual draft chapters included references in their drafts, and I would ask that anyone on the SWC who was an author or reviewer if this was so. If it was, then the production of a critical edition of FM 3-24 could have been produced at the same time as the regular edition.

Marc