Not sure if this is what you were talking about.
http://www.dailyalert.org/archive/20...004-06-29.html
or this one
http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/Com...3-5cced41be927
Printable View
Not sure if this is what you were talking about.
http://www.dailyalert.org/archive/20...004-06-29.html
or this one
http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/Com...3-5cced41be927
Hi Stan,
This is the one I was talking about http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf
Marc
It is now that I will admit to being an Interrogator for the Army, back in the 90s. And our training consisted of "screening" and "interviews". At no time were we trained, asked, encouraged or allowed to "pressure" the screenee or interviewee. In fact, we were trained that "getting information" was not the issue, dealing with the vast amounts of information that you will get is the real issue and determining what is useless and what is useful and relevant.
There are truly not that many resistent subjects. Especially among tribal cultures. It is pretty easy to transition from "core belief" issues to tactical information.
Hey 120 !
My background is different, but then somewhat similar with intel. I would however argue that such a transition would be arduously slow and drive one or the other crazy (then comes torture :wry: ).Quote:
It is pretty easy to transition from "core belief" issues to tactical information.
We also deal with enormous amounts of info (to include quasi interviews..a tad more friendly environment...over dinner :D ) and then decide if we were going anywhere. That said, without sufficient knowledge of customs, cultures, etc., all the info in the world may not be enough to draw a conclusion.
Perhaps I should have learned Interrogation.
Regards, Stan
IMO, a good interrogator is someone who has good "people skills" and comes off as empathetic. While there are some mild payoffs for using small amounts of pressure at the point of capture, torture is just not a good idea.
I remember my initial training in screening and interviews; I thought the same thing you just said. It wasn't that different from going to a social event and collecting information on people you find attractive and want to get to know better.
Hi Marc !
Tom and I gave them rice and chicken which, probably is banned by the Geneva Convention :DQuote:
practice of sending rafts to all your informants.
Hasn't that already been done? Anthropology and Sociology are closely related; in fact I have seen a few universities that have joint Anthropology and Sociology departments. It would seem that if a person wants to practice traditional anthropological work and avoid all of the institutionalized anti-military and anti-government bias of the Anthropology world all one has to do is call ones self a Sociologist.
At least that is the way it seems from this layman’s perspective. Does that argument have any validity?
Those EU donated chickens that we ended up buying on the black market after who knows how many thaws and refreezes probably would be a violation :eek:Quote:
Tom and I gave them rice and chicken which, probably is banned by the Geneva Convention:D
But as you recall, no one complained and besides even at their worst, those chickens smelled better that those feces fed grubs our drivers used to munch on for lunch...
Tom :cool:
Hey Tom !
Now don't get Marc going. He recently promised me a Canadian student (for the US Army). Frozen, et al.
As I recall from my 5th group days after the '3-day map reading course' at Bragg, we at least had a choice between a chicken or a rabbit. They were to some extent still alive. Who cares ?
You know, those grubs were still alive, and served on toast every A.M. :DQuote:
But as you recall, no one complained and besides even at their worst, those chickens smelled better that those feces fed grubs our drivers used to munch on for lunch...
The EU chickens...however...Well, another story. Hmmm, got me thinking why they were always missing the left leg :wry:
I was always partial to the fries in front of the embassy freshly wrapped in unclas message traffic from the previous day :cool:
PS. Your pics left this morning.
Regards, Stan
I am happy to say that in all my years as a FAO I never felt compelled to sample the grubs on toast--gives new meaning to the old GI term "SOS" for breakfast..Quote:
You know, those grubs were still alive, and served on toast every A.M.
For those who are not familiar with this particular delicacy, the Congolese used to grow these grubs in "honey pots". They would toss 'em on a hot griddle just enough to wake 'em up and serve on toast still wiggling, The post-prandial aroma of our drivers after their lunch was eye-watering.
They were truly sad specimens of EU poultry science...Quote:
The EU chickens...however...Well, another story. Hmmm, got me thinking why they were always missing the left leg
That was part of the Comm center's "think green" program I am sure :cool:Quote:
I was always partial to the fries in front of the embassy freshly wrapped in unclas message traffic from the previous day
Thanks for shipping the photos!
Best
Tom
Tom,
Com' on already !
I saw you looking at those :eek: Who could resist ? I suddenly have a craving for French C-rats :DQuote:
am happy to say that in all my years as a FAO I never felt compelled to sample the grubs on toast--gives new meaning to the old GI term "SOS" for breakfast..
For those who are not familiar with this particular delicacy, the Congolese used to grow these grubs in "honey pots". They would toss 'em on a hot griddle just enough to wake 'em up and serve on toast still wiggling, The post-prandial aroma of our drivers after their lunch was eye-watering.
On the continuing debate inside Anthropology.
Quote:
The Fate of McFate: Anthropology’s Relationship with the Military Revisited
Back in January, Matthew Stannard at the SF Chronicle, having come across my SM piece Anthropologists as Counter-Insurgents, contacted me about doing an interview for an upcoming profile on Montgomery McFate, the advocate for anthropology in the military whose work I was responding to. The piece is now online, entitled Montgomery McFate’s Mission: Can one anthropologist possibly steer the course in Iraq?. I’m not quite ready to revisit this topic—I’m up to my neck in grading and other work, with the semester’s end a week-and-a-half away, but I thought I’d mention it now while I put together some further thoughts on the matter. It’s a fairly good article, even though I’m only quoted once (Stannard apparently has not been taught the maxim that the more quotes of me a paper has, the better it is). Interestingly, though the interview ranged all over, I’m quoted more in my capacity as historian of anthropology than in my—I think more relevant—role as anthropological ethicist.
I think the second link is bad, can you check?
thanks
Hi Cori,
I think their server is really slow! try
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MGHQP19VD1.DTL
If that doesn't work, I can email you the entire story.
Marc
Hi Marc,
I personally think it's a relations issue. The military are not trained to get along with their Anthropologists in order to get the job done, and our politicians are also not interested in why Dr. Johnny won't go !Quote:
but it is a good indication of the military’s problem, and why those anthropologists who have cooperated with the military have often come to regret it. To return to my imagined example above, the military is committed to invade the region our researcher’s expertise is in, regardless of the quality of their intelligence.
I realize that perhaps somewhere in history this was often the case. Your recent and detailed analysis was excellent in covering that subject.
Did we truly invade Iraq based on knowledge gained from Anthropologists ?
Now that we are indeed 'there', what's the opinion ? Is it now OK to assist and make the situation less painful, make it 'go away' smoother, faster, and without further regret ?
My rotations in Afghanistan were not graced with experts, and the learning curve was steep. By the 3rd rotation, our teams were functioning well. Would it have hurt one's pride to get us going faster with far less risk ? I would have loved someone getting me ahead of the game without further loss of life. That's my Bravo-Sierra-Bible-Study take.
As I reflect on the years of experience in Sub-Sahara, Tom and I were always in a sense 'used'. Yes, we knew it from the start. It may not have always been pleasant, but we convinced ourselves that, what we were doing was better than standing on the sidelines watching things go to hell, when we could have prevented it.
Thanks, I enjoyed the article !
Hi Stan,
Sorry for the delayed reply...
True and, let's face it, there are some serious disconnects with how the military and Anthropology view the world :D.
Thanks, Stan. Information from Anthropologists, specifically some cultural insights from a book published in the 1960's, was used in some cases. The invasion certainly was not "based on" anthropology - in fact, the vast majority of Anthropologists opposed the Iraqi war and would have nothing to do with it.
In a word - "poor". There are serious problems getting anyone to work on the Human Terrain Teams, anyone who tries to work with the military is subject to be ostracized by PC radicals, and the vast majority of Anthropologists just don't want to have anything to do with it. Assisting now is viewed as being a "traitor to the discipline" by some of the extremist, and highly vocal, PC crowd.
Afghanistan is somewhat different from Iraq, although there is still a lot of negativity attached to it. I was actually involved in a project for CIDA at the time, tracking world opinion of what was happening in Afghanistan, and it became pretty clear to me that many government agencies, at least in Canada, didn't want Anthropologists involved.
You know, in some ways we are dealing with a situation where Anthropology has backed itself into a corner. First, yelling "Hands Off!!!" in the 1960-70's to governments established a situation where these agencies wouldn't think of Anthropology. Later on, when people start realizing how useful we could be, the radicals who were yelling "Hands Off" are now the senior members of the discipline and, as with old generals, they are always ready to fight the last war :wry:.
Yeah, I understand the feeling :wry:.
Marc
Marc, you sure hit a raw nerve with your article! The boys claim that they are not making ad hominem attacks as they take out their billy clubs and whale away for just that purpose. I'll take your "shoddy scholarship" over their whining any day. Looking forward to seeing your response.
Cheers
John