Human Terrain & Anthropology (merged thread)

[Abu Suleyman]

HTT's and everything of their ilk (Civil Affairs, Psyops, FAO's etc) are an attempt to understand something that is only a major factor in Small Wars. The best soldiers are those that understand the terrain upon which they fight, and in Small Wars the human terrain is at least as important as the physical terrain. The difference is that the physical terrain has only five major and three minor terrain features, and it can be taught effectively to virtually anyone who goes through basic training. Of course the effective use of that terrain is another matter, but the basic verbiage is available to every Soldier and Marine on the ground.

On the other hand, human terrain has not only dozens and perhaps hundreds of features but each feature can have thousands of variables. There are over two thousand religious sects in the United States alone! We cannot possibly hope to teach that to the wider military audience in a short time. Experts are required and that is why we try to involve anthropologists, among others, in forums such as this one.

Unfortunately there is a fundamental conflict between the philosophy of anthropology and that of the military. Because anthropology is concerned with the study of people, any injection of other people or societies into the study can alter it. It would be like trying to take a temperature with a thermometer that is self heating. Therefore anthropologists are trained to limit their involvement with cultures in order to study them better.

Those techniques include, but are not limited to, identifying and distancing themselves from the subject. While these techniques are not perfect, and contamination does inevitably occur, it is what they are trained and required to do to be considered anthropologists. This is also the cause of the perceived moral relativism. While some anthropologists are indeed relativists the study of the cultures itself requires a completely blank slate.

This is also why, in part, the AAA is going to oppose the use of Anthropologists in HTT's. I am not saying that there is not an anti-military bias, which there may well be. But what the military is asking the anthropologists to do goes against, not some vague hippie ideal, but the very science the military wants anthropologists to represent. We are asking them to do their job, without following the principles of their training. It is like asking an infantryman to take a bunker without shooting, or communicating.

That said, everyone would be better off with anthropologists, and other people involved. I don't know the total solution, but the beginning is the same as the beginning of any communication between two cultures, or in this case sub cultures, and that is understanding. The military needs to understand the difficulty of what they are asking anthropologists to do, and they need to respect it. Likewise, the anthropologists, need to understand what the military is trying to do. Until communication occurs between groups, there is no point in working at the group level, e.g. DOD and AAA. The best we can hope for is to win people one at a time, and that is going to be too little too late, I fear.

[SteveMetz]

HTT's and everything of their ilk (Civil Affairs, Psyops, FAO's etc) are an attempt to understand something that is only a major factor in Small Wars. The best soldiers are those that understand the terrain upon which they fight, and in Small Wars the human terrain is at least as important as the physical terrain. The difference is that the physical terrain has only five major and three minor terrain features, and it can be taught effectively to virtually anyone who goes through basic training. Of course the effective use of that terrain is another matter, but the basic verbiage is available to every Soldier and Marine on the ground.

On the other hand, human terrain has not only dozens and perhaps hundreds of features but each feature can have thousands of variables. There are over two thousand religious sects in the United States alone! We cannot possibly hope to teach that to the wider military audience in a short time. Experts are required and that is why we try to involve anthropologists, among others, in forums such as this one.

Unfortunately there is a fundamental conflict between the philosophy of anthropology and that of the military. Because anthropology is concerned with the study of people, any injection of other people or societies into the study can alter it. It would be like trying to take a temperature with a thermometer that is self heating. Therefore anthropologists are trained to limit their involvement with cultures in order to study them better.

Those techniques include, but are not limited to, identifying and distancing themselves from the subject. While these techniques are not perfect, and contamination does inevitably occur, it is what they are trained and required to do to be considered anthropologists. This is also the cause of the perceived moral relativism. While some anthropologists are indeed relativists the study of the cultures itself requires a completely blank slate.

This is also why, in part, the AAA is going to oppose the use of Anthropologists in HTT's. I am not saying that there is not an anti-military bias, which there may well be. But what the military is asking the anthropologists to do goes against, not some vague hippie ideal, but the very science the military wants anthropologists to represent. We are asking them to do their job, without following the principles of their training. It is like asking an infantryman to take a bunker without shooting, or communicating.

That said, everyone would be better off with anthropologists, and other people involved. I don't know the total solution, but the beginning is the same as the beginning of any communication between two cultures, or in this case sub cultures, and that is understanding. The military needs to understand the difficulty of what they are asking anthropologists to do, and they need to respect it. Likewise, the anthropologists, need to understand what the military is trying to do. Until communication occurs between groups, there is no point in working at the group level, e.g. DOD and AAA. The best we can hope for is to win people one at a time, and that is going to be too little too late, I fear.

I take your point that some anthropologists prefer to remain "scientists" rather than undertake praxis, but what annoys me is their aggression in attempting to delegitimize anthropologists who see thinks different. To me, this is as if whatever the professional associations of sociologists is condemned those of their members who decided to become social workers.

Phrased differently, I don't think this is purely an issue of how professional training should be used, but an instance of one group within a profession attempting to impose their personal politics on the profession as a whole. Is the profession opposed to any practical application of its knowledge, or just THIS practical application? If it is just "this" one, then the real issue is no longer preserving professional integrity. If one practical application of anthropological knowledge damaged professional integrity, then all would. If the professional integrity argument as, as I I believe, simply a stalking horse for personal opposition to U.S. involving in Iraq, I believe those making the argument have a moral obligation to explain how deterring professional anthropologists from contributing to stabilization and counterinsurgency operations is going to make Iraq a better place.

This reminds me of a discussion I had with some people who were protesting the presence of a CIA recruiter at a college job fair. I asked them to explain to me how preventing the U.S. intelligence community from hiring talented people is going to make the world a better place. They hadn't really thought it through that far.

[marct]

Hi Steve,

I take your point that some anthropologists prefer to remain "scientists" rather than undertake praxis, but what annoys me is their aggression in attempting to delegitimize anthropologists who see thinks different.

Well, I agree with the sentiment if not the specific terms you use . I wouldn't use the term "scientist" in the way you have - there is nothing scientific about their actions and it is, in many ways, anti-scientific. I think the most appropriate term would be "theologian" or, if I was being realy pedantic, neo-Thomistic pseudo-Marxian theologian.

The dynamic itself is nothing new - it is a standard variant on the witch hunting process used by theologians and other demagogues to rout out heretics. As such, the ad hominen attacks are to be expected as is the use of illogical logic (e.g. binary logic with extremely flawed assumptions).

[SteveMetz]

Hi Steve,



Well, I agree with the sentiment if not the specific terms you use . I wouldn't use the term "scientist" in the way you have - there is nothing scientific about their actions and it is, in many ways, anti-scientific. I think the most appropriate term would be "theologian" or, if I was being realy pedantic, neo-Thomistic pseudo-Marxian theologian.

The dynamic itself is nothing new - it is a standard variant on the witch hunting process used by theologians and other demagogues to rout out heretics. As such, the ad hominen attacks are to be expected as is the use of illogical logic (e.g. binary logic with extremely flawed assumptions).

As long as my dander is up and I'm in mid-rant, let me throw out another point. While some trained anthropologist who consult with the government undoubtedly do so because they believe in the cause, I suspect there are other who do it just because it's a job. So the profession generates more anthropologists than the academic market can absorb, and then carps when they seek other ways to make a living.

This is a longstanding pet peeve of mine. I once taught in a master's granting political science department which was desperately trying to get a Ph.D. program. I opposed this, pointing out that there were already dozens of Ph.D.s for every job, so I didn't see why we needed to produce even more. That was not a popular position in my department since all the tenured folks were obsessed with the idea that it would increase their prestige (and salaries) to be a Ph.D. granting department. They didn't care that they'd be churning out many unemployable Ph.D.s.

[Abu Suleyman]

Phrased differently, I don't think this is purely an issue of how professional training should be used, but an instance of one group within a profession attempting to impose their personal politics on the profession as a whole. Is the profession opposed to any practical application of its knowledge, or just THIS practical application?

Let me clarify by saying that I have no doubt whatsoever that there is an anti-military bias within anthropology and many other social sciences. To be utterly fair, though, there is also an anti-academia bias within the military. If you doubt this, look at all the name calling on this site. I cannot speak knowledgeably on involvement in general, but anecdotally when I took anthropology I was told a story about a man who became peripherally involved in his PhD. thesis, and when it came out a fist fight erupted between the the PhD. candidate and the Dean who wanted the document back, because it violated the norms of the science. (In the interest of full disclosure, that anecdote may actually relate to Sociology, I have forgotten. The similarity between the two fields allows some leeway in anecdotes, I believe.)

All that notwithstanding, it is probable that a large portion of this conflict with one group trying to impose its views on another, is a reflection of a power struggle that seems to be typical within the social sciences (political science and economics being notable exceptions). Specifically it is between the "Ivory Tower" scientists who traditionally have power in professional associations, almost always have PhD's, and so on, and the practitioners, or rather those who go and work for government, think tanks, or in general try to change the world we live in.

This little scrum is almost analogous to our current experience in Iraq. The military doesn't have enough knowledge of the human terrain to make good decisions, and apparently inadvertently has wandered into a turf fight in an unrelated area. It is almost like the military needs HTT's for academia.

Sincerely though, the keys to success here are the same as anywhere. In fact they are in the first two paragraphs of an OP Order. First you must know your own strengths, and weaknesses, which in this case is our own prejudices. You don't have to overcome them. just know them, and account for it in your planning. Next know what is going on with your enemy or target, in this case the people we want to woo to the cause. Then you have to know exactly what you want to accomplish. Once you know all that, everything else is much simpler.

There are a lot of emotions involved in this issue. And while the analogy is not perfect, this situation is a lot like the teenage dramas where the nerd feel slighted by the jocks, because they don't get to play ball. And the jocks feel slighted by the nerds because the nerds look down on them. The analogy is not completely apt, because in this case both sides (military/academia) feel like outsiders, and cast the others as the insiders in their own minds.

While it is fun to call names, and it makes for an extremely long thread, it doesn't accomplish anything. If we have learned anything in Iraq it should be that trampling all over the feelings, value system, and political issues of another culture does not get us what we want, understanding, accounting for, and capitalizing on them does. Just like the bumper sticker says, "Love begins at home," and so does political comity.

[SteveMetz]

Let me clarify by saying that I have no doubt whatsoever that there is an anti-military bias within anthropology and many other social sciences. To be utterly fair, though, there is also an anti-academia bias within the military. If you doubt this, look at all the name calling on this site. I cannot speak knowledgeably on involvement in general, but anecdotally when I took anthropology I was told a story about a man who became peripherally involved in his PhD. thesis, and when it came out a fist fight erupted between the the PhD. candidate and the Dean who wanted the document back, because it violated the norms of the science. (In the interest of full disclosure, that anecdote may actually relate to Sociology, I have forgotten. The similarity between the two fields allows some leeway in anecdotes, I believe.)

All that notwithstanding, it is probable that a large portion of this conflict with one group trying to impose its views on another, is a reflection of a power struggle that seems to be typical within the social sciences (political science and economics being notable exceptions). Specifically it is between the "Ivory Tower" scientists who traditionally have power in professional associations, almost always have PhD's, and so on, and the practitioners, or rather those who go and work for government, think tanks, or in general try to change the world we live in.

This little scrum is almost analogous to our current experience in Iraq. The military doesn't have enough knowledge of the human terrain to make good decisions, and apparently inadvertently has wandered into a turf fight in an unrelated area. It is almost like the military needs HTT's for academia.

Sincerely though, the keys to success here are the same as anywhere. In fact they are in the first two paragraphs of an OP Order. First you must know your own strengths, and weaknesses, which in this case is our own prejudices. You don't have to overcome them. just know them, and account for it in your planning. Next know what is going on with your enemy or target, in this case the people we want to woo to the cause. Then you have to know exactly what you want to accomplish. Once you know all that, everything else is much simpler.

There are a lot of emotions involved in this issue. And while the analogy is not perfect, this situation is a lot like the teenage dramas where the nerd feel slighted by the jocks, because they don't get to play ball. And the jocks feel slighted by the nerds because the nerds look down on them. The analogy is not completely apt, because in this case both sides (military/academia) feel like outsiders, and cast the others as the insiders in their own minds.

While it is fun to call names, and it makes for an extremely long thread, it doesn't accomplish anything. If we have learned anything in Iraq it should be that trampling all over the feelings, value system, and political issues of another culture does not get us what we want, understanding, accounting for, and capitalizing on them does. Just like the bumper sticker says, "Love begins at home," and so does political comity.

Very thoughtful post. Having lived at the intersection of academia and the military for 20 years, though, I personally think there is less hostility toward academia in the military than there is hostility toward the military in some niches of academia. In fact, I was amazed at the deference I received when I left civilian academia and went to work with the military.

I'll admit I've done a lot of the name calling myself in these exchanges but, to be frank, I think I have the academic credentials to justify my criticism of academia. I kind of feel like I have the right to criticize things that I "am"--academia, Southerners, Appalachia, etc. And, let me note, my name calling has not been targeted at academia in general but what I personally consider some of the hypocrisy and blindness that is common in some niches of academia, specifically the tendency, in this case, to couch what is, in reality, a ideological attack in terms of professional ethics, and a longstanding propensity to cast American actions as evil while failing to grapple with the real evil that lies at the root of many of the conflicts we become involved in.

I'll stand by my contention that doctors Gonzales and Price, as well as the Executive Board of the AAA are hypocrits with badly distorted ethics.

[invictus0972]

To be utterly fair, though, there is also an anti-academia bias within the military. If you doubt this, look at all the name calling on this site.

Hi Abu Suleyman!

I agree! However, this is not just limited to the military. It seems to me that there is an anti-intellectual bent across the spectrum of American society. Unfortunately, this feeling manifests itself in too many military leaders.

[selil]

Hi Abu Suleyman!

I agree! However, this is not just limited to the military. It seems to me that there is an anti-intellectual bent across the spectrum of American society. Unfortunately, this feeling manifests itself in too many military leaders.

I find it interesting that Shows like Bull####! on Showtime with Penn and Teller have more intellectualism and scientific skepticism than the evening news. Sad or scary it is hilarious.

[invictus0972]

You are exactly right! One only has to look at the dramatic arts to get a reflection of America's intellectual state. Some of the so called comedies out there are intellectually bankrupt, to put it mildly ("Dumb and Dumber", "Napoleaon Dynamite", etc.). I don't mean to sound like a prude; but if we want to understand why we must hire anthropoligists, we have to do a little self-examination. The facts are that our kids are more interested in watching these types of movies than learning about the real world. I am probably taking this too seriously, though! As my own kids tell me, I am just a "big ol' fuddie-duddie"!

[SteveMetz]

You are exactly right! One only has to look at the dramatic arts to get a reflection of America's intellectual state. Some of the so called comedies out there are intellectually bankrupt, to put it mildly ("Dumb and Dumber", "Napoleaon Dynamite", etc.). I don't mean to sound like a prude; but if we want to understand why we must hire anthropoligists, we have to do a little self-examination. The facts are that our kids are more interested in watching these types of movies than learning about the real world. I am probably taking this too seriously, though! As my own kids tell me, I am just a "big ol' fuddie-duddie"!

Hey--I found Napoleon Dynamite rife with existential pathos.

[Rex Brynen]

The facts are that our kids are more interested in watching these types of movies than learning about the real world. I am probably taking this too seriously, though! As my own kids tell me, I am just a "big ol' fuddie-duddie"!

For what its worth, I've taught an awful lot of university students (well over ten thousand by my reckoning), and I usually find them a pretty impressive bunch--engaged, interested, active.

Just to provide an example: a couple of years back, a UNDP colleague in Africa needed an intern for 3-4 months to work on a host of urgent issues (AIDS, food security). There was free accommodation, but no pay, and the student would have to finance their own travel.

I mentioned it to my senior class of 105 students. By the end of the week I had 23 volunteers. The one that we ultimately selected had a straight-A record and was joint honours in development studies and microbiology. By all accounts, she did a superb job.

I can't go anywhere these days without running into ex-students in the field--with the UN, NGOs, as FSOs or with aid agencies or as soldiers, as translators or analysts, or teachers and researchers. They are at least as committed as "my" generation, and have a range of networking and IT skills (on top of everything) that didn't exist a couple of decades ago.

(I don't agree as to the quality of contemporary popular culture either, I'll leave that one aside for now!)

[Schmedlap]

Let me clarify by saying that I have no doubt whatsoever that there is an anti-military bias within anthropology and many other social sciences. To be utterly fair, though, there is also an anti-academia bias within the military. If you doubt this, look at all the name calling on this site.

I don't think this is anti-academia bias. It is a disdain for a niche within academia that has an irrational dislike, borne primarily of ignorance, towards the military. I don't think that any significant portion of the military has a bias against the majority of normal professors who, while they may be leftists, do not have an irrational dislike for the military.

Speaking for myself, I was commissioned through a 2-year military program and then finished my degree at a 4-year university in a far-left city. I actually kept my military affiliation a secret for my junior year for fear of being treated unfairly by my professors, but I soon learned that this was nothing to worry about. I have a high regard for many of those professors - even though several were socialists. On the other hand, I encountered a community college professor in my hometown who was energetically opposing a JROTC program in a local high school. He claimed that this was "an attempt to instill the military mindset into unsuspecting children and turn them into cold blooded killers." When I explained to him his fundamental misunderstanding of JROTC and the limited utility of drill & ceremonies to modern warfare, he declared that I am a brain-washed murderer with the blood of innocent people on my hands (and this was BEFORE 9/11). I confess to having an extreme bias towards that individual and those like him him who have dedicated themselves to ignorance and hate.

[invictus0972]

Here is a thought on the macro level concerning this issue. Although I support the HTT concept, I think it is a sad commentary on the American education system that the military needs to hire anthropologists to teach soldiers about other cultures. One of the most important requirements in understanding cultures is to understand some basic history; but Americans, as a general rule, tend to abhor the study of history. On the other hand, Muslims have a deep understanding of at least their own history. If one were to ask any Muslim youth between the ages of 10-17 who Saladin was, they would probably be able to tell all about his heroic efforts to repel the "infidel crusaders". Now, ask any Western youth in the same age group who Charles Matel was, and they will probaby give you a blank look even though he is the main reason we are all not running around saying, "Praise be to Allah!"

The point I am getting at here is that the American education system used to better prepare citizens to understand other cultures. We used to receive a classical education in which history, literature, and philosophy were studied. Now, public schools only give a cursory look at these subjects. The result is a population, from which military personnel are drawn, that is ignorant of culture. This is why we need to hire anthropologists to assist us in understanding the human terrain of the Middle East.

[SteveMetz]

Here is a thought on the macro level concerning this issue. Although I support the HTT concept, I think it is a sad commentary on the American education system that the military needs to hire anthropologists to teach soldiers about other cultures. One of the most important requirements in understanding cultures is to understand some basic history; but Americans, as a general rule, tend to abhor the study of history. On the other hand, Muslims have a deep understanding of at least their own history. If one were to ask any Muslim youth between the ages of 10-17 who Saladin was, they would probably be able to tell all about his heroic efforts to repel the "infidel crusaders". Now, ask any Western youth in the same age group who Charles Matel was, and they will probaby give you a blank look even though he is the main reason we are all not running around saying, "Praise be to Allah!"

The point I am getting at here is that the American education system used to better prepare citizens to understand other cultures. We used to receive a classical education in which history, literature, and philosophy were studied. Now, public schools only give a cursory look at these subjects. The result is a population, from which military personnel are drawn, that is ignorant of culture. This is why we need to hire anthropologists to assist us in understanding the human terrain of the Middle East.

I take your overall point but I sure wouldn't use the word "understanding" to describe the accepted view of history in the Arab world (or many other places as well, such as the Balkans). It's more of a consensus on myth more than an understanding of history.

But you're exactly right that Americans have no sense of the power of communal or primal ties, and of place. Let me give an example. When I taught at Leavenworth in the 1980s I had a student from Lebanon. This guy was a Maronite Christian. Lebanon's civil war flared up while he was there and he was totally out of touch with his family. Didn't know whether his wife and young son were even alive.

Of course, it was distraught so his American classmates tried to engage him in conversation to make him feel better. One American asked him where he would move to if things were so bad that he had to leave Lebanon. The guy got a puzzled look on his face and said--"You don't understand. My family has lived in the same house for 500 years. No matter how bad it gets, we could never leave."

Since most Americans tend to pack up and move across the country if their neighbor's dog barks too much, this was a totally alien idea to the Lebanese major's American classmates. To me, it was a poignant example of how deep our inability to understand other cultures runs.

[invictus0972]

I take your overall point but I sure wouldn't use the word "understanding" to describe the accepted view of history in the Arab world (or many other places as well, such as the Balkans). It's more of a consensus on myth more than an understanding of history.

Hi Steve,

Yes, you are absolutely correct about their conception of history! One of the challenges of IO professionals is to figure out how to deconstruct Muslim conceptions of history. How do we get them not to view events that occured in the 10th Century as the apex of their civilization? Talk about a difficult challenge!!! That being said, at least they do not have the Western self-loathing that prevents them from learning at least a mythological version of the heroes of their civilization.

[SteveMetz]

Hi Steve,

Yes, you are absolutely correct about their conception of history! One of the challenges of IO professionals is to figure out how to deconstruct Muslim conceptions of history. How do we get them not to view events that occured in the 10th Century as the apex of their civilization? Talk about a difficult challenge!!! That being said, at least they do not have the Western self-loathing that prevents them from learning at least a mythological version of the heroes of their civilization.

I'm a bit skeptical of the ability of IO professionals to alter a lifetime of acculturation.

But, of course, every culture, including our own, has a mythological version of its own past. I've found myself having to explain to officers from abroad that the author of the Declaration of Independence owned slaves, and that the the freedom of religion that the Pilgrims came so far for was, in fact, the freedom to impose their benighted religion on everyone within reach.