Human Terrain & Anthropology (merged thread)

[Mike Innes]

Brian's one of those rare creatures. He's a scholar, tenured, etc. - and also spends extensive time on the ground, so he knows whereof he speaks. He's also got an online portfolio site, at http://www.brianglynwilliams.com/, where you can reference his writings for yourself.

His writing is also genius in that he doesn't just write for the three other scholars in the field who might understand him in those terms. He writes with great great style, and communicates his findings in such an engaging way, that it's always a pleasure to read. The best part is that a lot of is contemporary and experiential - he writes from the ground, and places you in the scene.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

Williams' remark "anthropologists in Afghanistan are not working on the Manhattan project" might also have included "nor the Phoenix Program."

[marct]

Williams' remark "anthropologists in Afghanistan are not working on the Manhattan project" might also have included "nor the Phoenix Program."

LOLOL. I mean, seriously (quoth he with tongue planted firmly in cheek), all reall Anthropologists are already involved with the Post-Colonial version of the Phoenix Program - figuring out who is sympathetic to the military and conducting targeted character assassinations on them .

I think my favorite line in the entire piece was

It is not that anthropologists believe any more in neutrality, objectivity, or truth. These ideas are largely deceased among social and cultural anthropologists (excepting behavioral/evolutionary ecologists). On the contrary, subjectivity is now explicitly paired with political commitment as the twin pillars of anthropology. As there is no point seeking “truth,” the only purpose of the field is advancing the interests of the subaltern: people of color, women, gays, workers, the third world, and so on. Thus the call from the most famous of contemporary anthropologists, Nancy Scheper-Hughes, for “revolutionary anthropology.” This is a “postcolonial” extension of the Marxism that was so popular in anthropology for the decades prior to the fall of the Soviet Union.

What really gets me about this is that they haven't followed their own logic: since the military is obviously being oppressed by incompetent (and incoherent) politicians, attacked by almost every academic discipline, and the subject of extensive media spin, obviously they need Anthropologists to speak for them !

[Ken White]

Williams' remark "anthropologists in Afghanistan are not working on the Manhattan project" might also have included "nor the Phoenix Program."

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

The 'principles' of 'fighting cleanly' and minimal force have always intrigued me. Both those efforts can only prolong a war and thus produce more widespread suffering. Beautiful example of cutting off one's nose...

[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]

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!

[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.

[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

[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...