Human Terrain & Anthropology (merged thread)

[marct]

Hi Rex,

As to Phil Salzman's broader point on MESH, he's correct that scholars (and especially anthropologists) are very wary of excessively close connection with the government/military for both ideological and scholarly reasons.

I would add in "historical" as well and, possibly, metaphysical (I really don't want to get into that one here...).

Regarding the latter, I'm struck by the extent to which--despite all the hot debate on HTTs, Project Minerva, and so forth--there has been very little substantive analysis of the pluses and minuses of the relationship, how to address the ethical issues involved, and other practical issues. (SWJ and Savage Minds being, in general, relatively rare exceptions to this pattern.)

Instead, much of the commentary and discussion remains far too polemical to be useful.

On the whole, I agree with you on that. I could point out a few more, Marcus Griffin comes to mind but, on the whole, it tends to be here and SM (and a few private lists like MilAnthNet).

I've often suspected that part of the problem is some pretty basic different philosophical assumptions about "reality". In many ways, the position taken by a lot of the extreme anti-military crowd are on the extreme end of social constructivism - "reality is a social construct". This, at least in many of the forms it shows up in, is an extreme version of "nurture" (vs. Nature) or free-will vs. predestination and one that disregards many of the scientific discoveries of the past 20 years in the area of neuro-cognition, etc.

In this paradigm, conflict cannot be "natural" since "nature" is an illusion that is used as a rhetorical device to explain the complexities of social manipulation. Since conflict arises from the social, then we must look to the social for its causes and this can only be because of the US (okay, I skipped out about 10 intermediate levels in the causal chain, but, hey, this isn't a dissertation!).

I noted that Phil specifically excepted the behavioural and evolutionary crowd in Anthropology which, on the whole, doesn't surprise me at all since these are some of the few people who still look at "nature" (read biology and neuro-biology).

As an observation, it gets really hard to argue ethics when you are coming from totally contradictory metaphysical positions about the nature of reality!

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

Phoenix worked. It wasn't very nice but then war isn't nice.

It not only worked it is probably one of the more effective tactics in prosecuting COIN, when used judiciously. The anthro's shudder to think their research will be used in such a way without realizing that in actuality their help might actually allow us to win without going that far.

Unfortunately there are many who believe that you can fight a war by being nice. Reminds me of Orwell's observation: "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

[marct]

It not only worked it is probably one of the more effective tactics in prosecuting COIN, when used judiciously.

I'm not so sure about that, at least as an absolute statement. First off, it "worked" in a particular time and place and, most important, media environment. Second, while it was a tactical success, the war was still lost and I've never really liked "the operation was a success but the patient died" type of argument.

I think the key to using a tactic like Phoenix is inherent in the word "judicial", especially with all of the current concerns over rule of law.

The anthro's shudder to think their research will be used in such a way without realizing that in actuality their help might actually allow us to win without going that far.

Now you're buying into Anthro propaganda . It's always nice to know that people think we could win the wars without having to resort to a Phoenix type program if only(!!) we had the help of Anthropologists . Reality? Pretty unlikely. I think that Anthropological insights can help make such a program limited in nature but you're still going to have to "neutralize" some people either via imprisonmen or assassination.

Besides anything else, a lot of the anger was over being lied to and feeling "betrayed" by the "misuse" of our research. As an analogue, how would you feel over an SF op to destroy Venezuala's oil production facilities only to discover afterwards that the op was a "favour" to Haliburton executives so they could maximize their profits?

Unfortunately there are many who believe that you can fight a war by being nice. Reminds me of Orwell's observation: "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Agreed with that; it's not an illusion I've ever had. And, let me just also note for the record, I have nothing against targeted assassinations either if they can be 99% guaranteed to have a "positive" effect (something I said when I was being interviewed for the AAA ethics committee on working with the military). I have very little time for people who bitch and complain about how everything is the fault of the West while they take advantage of the freedom to actually say that and not get arrested and interned. Bunch of soi disant, self-proclaimed "elites" who have no concept that each right is balanced by a responsibility! These are the same people who will call for blood when their own interests are attacked.

[/rant...]

At the same time, I refuse to do covert research with people that may, later, be used to "neutralize" them (obviously within foreseeable limits ), and I will not betray my informants. That's my personal line in the sand; it doesn't mean that I won't do secondary research that has a direct impact on a war (hey, Ruth Benedict did that!). Nor does it mean that I won't try and do my best to make sure that people going in theatre have the best advice I can give them if they ask for it.

[Ken White]

using half measures in an attempt to reduce the suffering caused almost invariably ends up in prolonging that war (usually immeasurably) and thus inducing even more suffering it seems a short sighted, illogical and even inhumane approach to me.

But I'm just a uneddicated grunt...

[Hacksaw]

Marc you hurt my brain, but judging from my picture its a minor achievement

[SteveMetz]

I must add that anthropologists may today's masters of 1960s intellectual leftist silliness, but they don't have a monopoly. I was at an AFRICOM conference at the Pentagon Doubletree yesterday listening to a historian basically make the argument that training African militaries is a bad idea since it simply made them more effective at repressing "the people." Give you one guess as to where said historian took his bachelor's degree.

[marct]

I must add that anthropologists may today's masters of 1960s intellectual leftist silliness, but they don't have a monopoly. I was at an AFRICOM conference at the Pentagon Doubletree yesterday listening to a historian basically make the argument that training African militaries is a bad idea since it simply made them more effective at repressing "the people."

Yeah, I've heard that argument as well . Recently, I've been thinking that if Africom wanted to start off on the right foot, they should do some live fire training in Zimbabwe .

[marct]

Marc you hurt my brain, but judging from my picture its a minor achievement

Hacksaw, let me introduce you to my old Anthro ethics tutor...

[Ken White]

I'm not so sure about that, at least as an absolute statement. First off, it "worked" in a particular time and place and, most important, media environment. Second, while it was a tactical success, the war was still lost and I've never really liked "the operation was a success but the patient died" type of argument.

The war was lost because the Army screwed it up for seven years and lost support of the politicians. The fact that the effort got turned around (and Phoenix played a part in that) too late to und the early errors does not negate the value of the program -- sort of the operation was a success but the patient died due to a cancer...

I think the key to using a tactic like Phoenix is inherent in the word "judicial", especially with all of the current concerns over rule of law.

True. Though I would submit that current concerns may modify upwards or downwards dependent upon many things.

Agreed with that; it's not an illusion I've ever had. And, let me just also note for the record, I have nothing against targeted assassinations either if they can be 99% guaranteed to have a "positive" effect (something I said when I was being interviewed for the AAA ethics committee on working with the military). I have very little time for people who bitch and complain about how everything is the fault of the West while they take advantage of the freedom to actually say that and not get arrested and interned. Bunch of soi disant, self-proclaimed "elites" who have no concept that each right is balanced by a responsibility! These are the same people who will call for blood when their own interests are attacked.

Heh. Yep...

At the same time, I refuse to do covert research with people that may, later, be used to "neutralize" them (obviously within foreseeable limits ), and I will not betray my informants. That's my personal line in the sand; it doesn't mean that I won't do secondary research that has a direct impact on a war (hey, Ruth Benedict did that!). Nor does it mean that I won't try and do my best to make sure that people going in theatre have the best advice I can give them if they ask for it.

Sounds totally ethical, moral and logical to me. Good for you!

[Rex Brynen]

I must add that anthropologists may today's masters of 1960s intellectual leftist silliness, but they don't have a monopoly. I was at an AFRICOM conference at the Pentagon Doubletree yesterday listening to a historian basically make the argument that training African militaries is a bad idea since it simply made them more effective at repressing "the people." Give you one guess as to where said historian took his bachelor's degree.

It is not, however, an irrelevant point--I think inadequate attention has been given to how military training, assistance to civilian police institutions, and indeed role-of-law sectoral assistance more broadly can have a range of undesired effects, including reinforcing patron-client structures in the security sector, and strengthening the repressive apparatus of authoritarian regimes.

Obviously, this certainly isn't to say that it shouldn't ever be done. It is to say that it is worth thinking about how it is best done, and how to maximize the positive while minimizing the negatives...

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

how would you feel over an SF op to destroy Venezuala's oil production facilities only to discover afterwards that the op was a "favour" to Haliburton executives so they could maximize their profits?

have you been sneaking down here and looking into our playbook? Who told you about this op?

Phoenix was way too late. South Vietnam had pretty much lost the war in '62 thanks to Diem's ruthless policies, capped by Decree 10/59. Then the '63 coup left the country leaderless for too many years, in which time the NLF consolidated its hold. '68 was a heavy blow to the NLF but it had the same affect as the Red River Delta Offensive had on the Viet Minh in '51, it only made them stronger. Had we initiated CORD/Phoenix in '65 we might have come out on top.

But by eliminating leadership judiciously (and permanently) faster than they can be replaced makes many an insurgent take a closer look at the benefits of capitalism.

[Mike Innes]

It is not, however, an irrelevant point--I think inadequate attention has been given to how military training, assistance to civilian police institutions, and indeed role-of-law sectoral assistance more broadly can have a range of undesired effects, including reinforcing patron-client structures in the security sector, and strengthening the repressive apparatus of authoritarian regimes.

Obviously, this certainly isn't to say that it shouldn't ever be done. It is to say that it is worth thinking about how it is best done, and how to maximize the positive while minimizing the negatives...

Right. I think one of the most important consequences of some kinds of interventions is precisely the lack of follow-on mentoring needed to ensure new equipment and new skills aren't put to ill use. And that's where things can fall short. State-building is all fine and well, but if said capacity - which for our interests centers on the capacity to justify political borders and a corresponding entitlement to sovereign powers - isn't coupled with some form of longer term external oversight (can it be done non-paternalistically?) that understands local level issues and implementation, then the risk is that the abuses can happen.

[marct]

The war was lost because the Army screwed it up for seven years and lost support of the politicians. The fact that the effort got turned around (and Phoenix played a part in that) too late to und the early errors does not negate the value of the program -- sort of the operation was a success but the patient died due to a cancer

Well, in extreme cases radical surgery works - I've just always been in favour of preventative medicine or early surgery .

I think the key to using a tactic like Phoenix is inherent in the word "judicial", especially with all of the current concerns over rule of law.

...True. Though I would submit that current concerns may modify upwards or downwards dependent upon many things.

Yeah, that is definitely true. The worst part about itis the effect it can have on the people executing it (pun not intended). There's an all too easy slippery slope that can destroy people all too easily. In some ways, I'm a great believer in the potential for "salvation" (yeah, Stan, I know... I'm a romantic). Still and all, some people just need to be involuntarily discarnated and told "get it right next time"!

have you been sneaking down here and looking into our playbook? Who told you about this op?

Nah, I just popped over to a friends blog and read it there .

But by eliminating leadership judiciously (and permanently) faster than they can be replaced makes many an insurgent take a closer look at the benefits of capitalism.

Very true! After all, given the current fad for foreign outsourceing amongst the US government, they could easily find high paying employment in the near future . Personally, I have nothing against capitalism, even though we have never seen it in action. I prefer KYFHO as a guiding philosophy...

[SteveMetz]

It is not, however, an irrelevant point--I think inadequate attention has been given to how military training, assistance to civilian police institutions, and indeed role-of-law sectoral assistance more broadly can have a range of undesired effects, including reinforcing patron-client structures in the security sector, and strengthening the repressive apparatus of authoritarian regimes.

Obviously, this certainly isn't to say that it shouldn't ever be done. It is to say that it is worth thinking about how it is best done, and how to maximize the positive while minimizing the negatives...

The training by the U.S. does as much as possible to reinforce respect for human rights, civilian control of the military etc. No doubt people trained by the U.S. commit abuses. What I was taking issue with was this guy's assumption that ANY military is by definition going to be abusive so, in his warped logic, not training foreign militaries is better. I guess that's why places without a professional military like Somalia, Sierra Leone, and Liberia are such bastions of peace.

My other favorite bit of nonsense at the conference was the argument by a very charming Liberian-American woman that since small arms fuel African conflicts and the U.S. is the world's largest arms producer, the U.S. is to blame for African conflicts. I tried to make the point that only a minuscule percentage of the small arms in Africa come from the U.S. but she was determined not to let facts interfere with a perfectly good ideological point.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

of anything that starts with "KY"

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

I agree. That is also a basic tenent of traditional martial arts.

[Tom Odom]

The training by the U.S. does as much as possible to reinforce respect for human rights, civilian control of the military etc. No doubt people trained by the U.S. commit abuses. What I was taking issue with was this guy's assumption that ANY military is by definition going to be abusive so, in his warped logic, not training foreign militaries is better. I guess that's why places without a professional military like Somalia, Sierra Leone, and Liberia are such bastions of peace.

My other favorite bit of nonsense at the conference was the argument by a very charming Liberian-American woman that since small arms fuel African conflicts and the U.S. is the world's largest arms producer, the U.S. is to blame for African conflicts. I tried to make the point that only a minuscule percentage of the small arms in Africa come from the U.S. but she was determined not to let facts interfere with a perfectly good ideological point.

Thank you, Steve!

Please tell State Department that as many in Foggy Bottom operate uinder those exact same assumptions

As for the "trained" military that repressess the population, that always seems to come around to Zaire/Congo as a talking point, to whit that Western training of Zairian/Congolese security forces made them more inclined to suppress the Zairians/Congolese and that absent such training the Zairian/Congolese military would not be so inclined.

The extension of this logic led a senior State department envoy to challenge me to "reform and downsize" the Zairian military so that democracy would flower in the Congo. The funny thing was and still is that the US never emphasized direct combat training or lethal arms in our assistance to the Zairians. That came from the French, the Egyptians, and the Israelis. The primary architects of units targeted toward internal security were the Egyptians and the Israelis and the latter were by far the most blatant in doing so. No doubt that the US paid a key role in setting those things up but the lead agancy in that effort was State.

As for the arms control equates to peace theory, I never saw a machete with a trigger

Tom

[Stan]

As for the arms control equates to peace theory, I never saw a machete with a trigger

Tom

And they want to approve 200K to peacefully engage in anthropology
Wait for the AAA's response on that one

And, as Tom's NCO put it, machetes don't 'click' on empty

[marct]

The training by the U.S. does as much as possible to reinforce respect for human rights, civilian control of the military etc. No doubt people trained by the U.S. commit abuses. What I was taking issue with was this guy's assumption that ANY military is by definition going to be abusive so, in his warped logic, not training foreign militaries is better. I guess that's why places without a professional military like Somalia, Sierra Leone, and Liberia are such bastions of peace.

You know, Steve, I'd grant you that about US training and I agree that this character's logic is so flawed, he must be a follower of Foucault, but I do want to point out a couple of problems. First, training the military to be more professional (and we'll leave of any combat training for the nonce), does nothing to train the politicians who control them.

In a way, this gets us back into the civ-mil relationship and the entire nature of many f these post-colonial "states" (using the term very loosely).

My other favorite bit of nonsense at the conference was the argument by a very charming Liberian-American woman that since small arms fuel African conflicts and the U.S. is the world's largest arms producer, the U.S. is to blame for African conflicts. I tried to make the point that only a minuscule percentage of the small arms in Africa come from the U.S. but she was determined not to let facts interfere with a perfectly good ideological point.

As for the arms control equates to peace theory, I never saw a machete with a trigger

Agreed on machetes, but here's always this....

[Ken White]

Well, in extreme cases radical surgery works - I've just always been in favour of preventative medicine or early surgery .

Me too -- but my wife refuses to get a physical so we can see if there may be any incipient problems...

People are funny about that. Then, too the Medical, military and political fields (among many others) are far from error free in the determination of potential problems.

Yeah, that is definitely true. The worst part about itis the effect it can have on the people executing it (pun not intended). There's an all too easy slippery slope that can destroy people all too easily.

Which is why I'm a strong believer in psychological testing and personnel selection in most things. Shouldn't be a problem if you get the right sociopaths...

As an aside, Phoenix was in operation under another name long before the onset of that name and CORDS; it dated back to the earliest days (62 IIRC) and was modeled on a British program from the Malayan Emergency. Some Australian involvement in the set up and training was beneficial. The onset of CORDS saw it ramped up considerably in effort.