Drat! I guess that means I won't get that research contract to study the ideological oppression of French baguettes by camembert! Measly 200k! How much fieldwork can you do with that? Especially in Paris :eek::D!
Printable View
Too bad we don't have psychological testing for politicians :D.... getting the sociopaths isn't a problem :( (on the right or the left).
Yeah, I'd read that in John Nagl's book and, also, heard about it from my great uncle (an even earlier version in Sicily in WW II). The basic idea appears workable, but my concern with any program like that is the "false positives". After WW II during the de-Nazification process in Austria, ex-party members lost all social benefits. The problem was that, in order to get them under the Nazi's, you had to be a party member...
That's an operational issue, but there is a deeper philosophical issue which relates to free speech. Any organization that has a monopoly on power has a tendency to use that power to its own benefit (think institutional de Tocqueville). I agree that it is certainly ethical to blow the snot out of someone who is trying to blow the snot out of you, but what if they are just advocating that things should be different without engaging in armed conflict? I can easily see a Phoenix type program being used by repressive regimes to stifle free discussion and freedom of thought and action (BTW, it's one of the reasons why I was opposed to turning over the HTS databases to the host governments).
Not exactly true--that's exactly what the regional centers like the Marshall Center and the Africa Center for Strategic Studies do. They realized that for civilian control of the military to work, you have to have civilians who understand defense issues. So they include elected officials, civil servants, and representatives of civil society in their programs.
And to add to the point, it is very much the role of the country team regardless of composition to engage the conuntry's leadership regarding such assistance. We regrettably have a spotty record in this area; some CTs do it very well, others don't and it is NOT merely a question of DoD versus State. Some of the worst offenders in this arena that I knew were military. Most were on the pure security assistance track and the fell into the trap of "we don't do diplomacy, the ambassador does," which is absolute horse crap. Everyone on a CT is engaged in diplomacy because they have foreign counterparts. Part of the issue is the way that SAO duties have been taught in the past with a centric core of bean counter versus operational purpose.
Tom
Here is a link to some of the testimony before the Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee joint with the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education of the Science and Technology Committee. It relates to the role of the social and behavioral sciences in national security.
Hi, I'm new to this discussion board, and for that matter the whole study of COIN strategy and tactics, however the issue of anthropologist in the war zone interest me, I'm about to finish my undergrad, could anyone suggest a graduate level program related to this, pacifically focusing on the Middle East?
Thanks.
Kivlonic,
There are a wide variety of graduate programs available where you can study this sort of thing. I guess my question would be whether you intend to study anthropology as it relates to the war (i.e. how does human behavior affect war), or whether you intend to study the uses of anthropology in war (i.e. how should the sciences or scientists be used in war). If the former you should look at anthropology programs, which are wide, and varied. If the latter, you should look into political science, or international relations.
The bad news is this, (and you probably already know it), most of the better programs application deadlines are long past. Some may have rolling enrollment, but that usually means that you can start in winter, instead of fall.
My advice is the following: If you have at least a year left in school take a class or two in anthropology or one of the Political Sciences that would relate to something like this. If you are about to graduate, and you are interested in the actual prosecution of COIN there is no better 'graduate education' than to get down to business with the the Army or Marine Corps, and you should give serious thought to that. If you cannot serve for some reason, or consider that an unacceptable option (and my only advice on that would be to not let your pride stop you from following what you truly want to do), then you have a year to look at what really interests you.
Sadly, I don't think there is any way that you can get into a program starting in fall. That is not always a huge issue though. You may not have considered all of the commitment that graduate education entails. And what you are interested in now, may not interest you in the long run. If you have a year to burn, don't waste it. Take a class or two; get a job that relates (civilian intelligence); read up (this forum is a great place to start); take your GRE again (required at most universities for admissions to graduate school), and write.
I don't know if any of that helps, but I found myself in a similar position mwwmfr years ago. I joined the army, learned Arabic, went to Iraq, and am now returning to graduate education all these many years later. I think the pause helped me to focus in on what I really wanted to do, and it has also made me much more highly marketable. If I had done it the other way around, I don't think I could have done it.
I would echo the excellent advice from Abu Suleyman.
It is too late to be applying to a graduate programme now--aim for fall 2009.
I also agree that its useful getting some practical experience before graduate school. I did a short stint in the (Canadian) reserves before going on for my graduate degrees. If you don't want to make the full commitment to the Army or Marines, you could also consider internship or volunteer with a UN agency or NGO in the field--its another essential part of peace and stabilization operations, and easier to arrange for a 4-12 month period.
I graduated with a Masters in Applied Anthropology from the University of Maryland, College Park. It's a sort of self-directed program. You have to choose one of their four or five broad areas, but within that you select what your focus is going to be and then you research and prepare a capstone project. If you select a topic (for me, anthropology of violence/war) for which there is no corresponding faculty member, it's up to you to figure it out and work it out, but you can also select from a wider group of faculty (I took one from the conflict studies program) for your advisor group. I preferred this approach since nobody is going to give you a career and what everyone needs to do is figure out what' the best way to define your niche and who are the people that can help you along the way.
Of course, most of what I've learned about war and violence is from my own eyes and ears (to the extent that I've kept them open).
Beelzebubalicious, Rex Brynen, Abu Suleyman,
-Thanks for the advice.
Yes most deadlines have past, and Brynen I agree, I wold definitely like to get some experience before jumping into more academics, I have looked into OCS etc, (still considering this) and I do believe experience is the best knowledge one could have - I'm in the process of going through UN programs, NGOs, etc. but none seem very promising. Spent last summer in Beirut taking Arabic, was looking into going back for grad school but several people have told me the more time I spend abroad (the Middle East) the longer my application process, backround checks become. Peace and conflict management interest me, though I would much rather "get my hands dirty," in field studies than studying IR. Is there any paticular program you can suggest?
You guys have been alot of help, I graduating in 3 weeks so I guess I have alot of decisions to make. Got to go hand in a paper on Phoenix for my Vietnam class, wish I would of found this board earlier in college - would of made research a hell of alot easier!
-Thanks again.
Phoenix :rolleyes:!?! Make sure you reference some of David Price's work :wry:!
On graduate programs, you might want to contact Jeremy Littlewood at Carleton in the Norman Patterson Schol of International Affairs; Jez runs the Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security and Intelligence Studies (part of NPSIA). There's a good group of people at Carleton looking into State building, Security, etc.
Marc
Hi Folks,
Hot off the presses....
As a note, Newsweek won't correct their factual errors until they are provided with the names of everyone in field - a clear OPSEC breach. Since they had the opportunity to interview everyone before deployment, one has to wonder....Quote:
Dear Editors,
Having long been an admirer of Newsweek, I found your failure to fact check the story by Dan Ephron & Silvia Springs entitled "A gun in one hand, a pen in the other" (21 April issue) completely shocking. One naturally expects more from Newsweek than such sloppy journalism.
Below you will find a list of factual corrections and some more general points about the article.
FACTUAL ERRORS:
1) "the idea is to recruit academics whose area expertise and language skills" - Incorrect. In fact, the goal of HTS is to recruit social scientists with the appropriate research skills and methodological approaches. There are very, very few social scientists in the US who have the requisite knowledge of Iraq or Afghanistan, since these countries have been closed to research for many decades. However, if the social scientist on a team is not an Arabic speaker, other members of the team possess the requisite area expertise and language skills.
2) "only three speak Arabic" - Incorrect. Each team in Iraq and Afghanistan has members who speak the local language, although this person is not necessarily the social scientist. As of 14 April, there are 38 HTS personnel in Iraq distributed among 5 teams (slightly higher than normal, since we are in transition and executing some individual Reliefs in Place). 8 of those personnel are Social Scientists. 13 of those personnel speak Arabic,of which 2 are Social Scientists and 11 are Human Terrain Analysts or Research Managers.
3) "Johnson served in Afghanistan on a pilot Human Terrain team last year" - Incorrect. Tom Johnson was never a team member, but merely visited theater for two weeks.
4) Tom Johnson is a "Pashto speaker", and "spent much of his time there interviewing Afghans in their homes" - Incorrect. According to Tom Johnson, he has no idea where this information came from -- "surely not me."
5) "Omar Altalib was one of only two Iraqi-Americans in the program" - Incorrect. Actually the program currently has about 20 Iraqi Americans.
6) Social scientists earn "$300,000" a year - Overstated. This is true only if hazard pay, overtime, and danger pay are included. The base salary is a low six figures.
7) "Steve Fondacaro...........a retired Special Forces colonel.." - Incorrect. COL Fondacaro (ret'd) has never been in Army Special Forces. His experience as Special Operations Force (SOF) officer was exclusively with 75th Ranger Regiment and higher Headquarters.
8) "Fondacaro says overseers had to rush through the start-up phase because Pentagon planners wanted the terrain teams in Iraq quickly" - Incorrect. The requirement to put teams in country was in response to the Joint Urgent Operational Needs Statement (JUONS) that came from the units in the war zone. Pentagon planners actually slowed the process down to carefully analyze and validate the need.
9) the contract "was handed to British Aerospace Engineering (BAE) without a bidding process" - Overstated. BAE is the omnibus contractor for TRADOC and for a start-up program, this was a normal process. Once HTS becomes a program of record, the contract will be bid out.
10) "The rest are social scientists or former GIs" - Incorrect. Actually, much of the manpower is made up of US Army reserves.
11) "the anthropologists sent to Iraq..." - Incorrect. Not all of the social scientists on teams are anthropologists.
12) "the relationship between civilian academics and military or ex-military team members was sometimes strained" - Incorrect. The environment in the training program is very different than a year ago, which is the period the quoted sources were familiar with.
13) "40-year-old expert on trash" - Incorrect. Actually, Dr. Griffin is an anthropologist with an interest in food security and economics.
GENERAL ISSUES
1) The main input to the article came from two individuals who were terminated for cause, and whose knowledge is outdated.
2) The article's main premise is that the majority of HTS social scientists are not Middle East specialists with fluency in Arabic. Fair enough, but Human Terrain Teams include personnel with language, regional, and local area knowledge in addition to social scientists. The teams are not just the lone social science advisor that the media has tended to focus upon. As teams, they include a variety of individuals uniquely suited to understanding the social, political, economic and cultural aspects of the population in question -- both military and civilian.
3) In the article, the significance of research methods was downplayed in favor of language and culture area skills. Certain subfields require formal area studies training, but as whole, social scientists are trained to apply their knowledge of analytical frameworks and research methodologies across different locales, based on the premise that the dynamics of human behavior exhibit certain universal features. This does not mean that social scientists cannot be area experts: many are, given their past research. However, what social scientists bring to the table is a way of looking at the social world, studying it, and analyzing it in a way that is distinct from the way the military approaches these issues.
4) That soldiers on their second- or third- tours possess inestimable knowledge about the area in which they are operating is undeniable. Yet, as currently organized, combat brigades do not possess the organic staff capability or assets to organize this knowledge and look at the broad questions that HTTs are concerned with. While civil affairs soldiers are the closest to such an organic asset, along with information operations, these assets are mission-focused and often lack the manpower to engage in the sort of question-formulation and asking that HTTs can. Nor do these assets always include personnel trained in social scientific analysis. Therefore, it is the job of HTTs to take the knowledge these soldiers have gleaned, to examine the information already being gathered on the ground on a daily basis, engage in original research, and consider this information in terms of broader issues from a different perspective in order to add to the brigade commander's situational awareness of the social, economic, political, cultural and psychological factors at work in the environment.
5) All this was explained to both Dan Ephron & Silvia Spring, but none of it is reflected in the article.
GEN Wallace, the commander of TRADOC, has written a letter to the editors of Newsweek regarding this article, which I hope you will consider publishing. You may also consider this email as a 'letter to the editor' and publish any or all of it.
I hope in the future that Newsweek will hold itself to a higher standard of journalism.
Warm regards,
Montgomery McFate, JD PhD
I am assuming you are American. If you are considering OCS, there is a great page at http://www.armyocs.org/ that will answer a lot of your questions. Just be aware that if you join either the Army or, I believe, the Marines, they do not let you pick your specialty as an officer. That isn't as important as it may seem, since a lieutenant is a lieutenant, and you will get a pretty good chance to see the war regardless of specialty (although more direct with a combat arm to be sure).
If you decide the military is not the way to go, you might look at State Department, specifically foreign service. I don't have any first hand knowledge, but people I talk to tell me that they are desperate for people who are willing to go to Iraq. As an undergraduate social scientist, it will be hard to get a job in the field, unless you go with an agency of some kind. Pretty much every government agency has some kind of intelligence or outreach program that will get you either analytical or practical experience. The problem with most government positions is that it may take just as long as applying to graduate school to actually get the job.
Remember, it doesn't matter where you go, you are going to have to pay dues, and learn the ropes, and that is often going to include things that you are not as interested in. Sometimes, though, it exposes you to things that you are more interested in, and didn't even know existed. The important thing is to show that you are good at thinking and working, and then the specialties will open up. It may be tempting to try to bypass that introductory phase, but while some people make it most just get in over their head and drown. And even those who do are stuck, and eventually want to leave, but don't have strong enough fundamentals, and can't.
I don't know if it's changed, but when I was looking at the Foreign Service, they had 20K people a year take the written test, 2K pass that, 400 pass the oral exam, and about 200 get offers. They then had extended training. The normal age of entry was upper 20s, and the vast majority had an MA or better.
Hi Kivlonik,
One of my (ex) students applied for a government job (in Canada) and for his MA at the same time. He finally got the job offer for the position he had applied for the day before he defended his MA thesis :cool:.
Marc
Marct and I were discussing novels that addressed "radical Anthropologists" and I've just come upon a gem: David Weber's "Off Armageddon Reef".
It is a novel set in the future, where a mysterious ancient race has wiped out humanity "except" a single shipload of humans who come upon a habitable planet. Sometime during the journey from now-destroyed humanity, radical Anthropologists and Sociologists have seized control of the "Ark Project", and decided that humanity itself was at fault for being wiped out, because their technology drew the mysterious race to destroy them.
So, the "Social Scientists" kill everyone who oppose them, and drum up a "religion" to prevent mankind from ever using technology again.
Of course, these "Social Scientists" really don't understand history, religion or technology, so their "religion" is just a straw man, and mankind, after a short millenium is on the cusp of embracing tech again. Add to this a cybernetic organism that several engineers hid from the "Social Scientists" just in case, which is timed to activate after 1000 years, and you have a very interesting novel, which turns the "alternative history" genre on its head.
Good read, so far.
I have no information on hiring processes, although the three people I have known who joined the foreign service did not have M.A.' (they all spoke a foreign language though, which may be just as good). However, what I was thinking of was this how they are having a hard time with volunteers for duty in Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041503145.html). Of course, that may not have resulted in a change in hiring.
This actually sort of brings us back to the original question of this thread, which is the shortage of 'non-soldier types' like anthropologists, and Foreign Service Officers in the war zone. I think that if Kivlonic wants to 'get his hands dirty' there should be plenty of opportunity, but maybe there just isn't, outside the military, or an advanced degree. Why is that? And how could we fix that? Would things be better in Iraq if we did?
One place to look into is the George Bush School of Government and Public Service where they are schooling PRT memberrs.
Tom
I'll admit that when *I* was a candidate for the foreign service, John Quincy Adams was Secretary of State.
Just for the record, I passed the written and oral exams but failed my physical because of damage to my knee from an old high school football injury. At the time I was running 8 miles a day and had just finished the season in a grad school basketball league, so go figger.