Human Terrain & Anthropology (merged thread)

[davidbfpo]

A large number of the recent posts concern the Afghan drug problem (cultivation) not HTT and after a review have been moved to the existing thread on those issues:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=1234

[davidbfpo]

After what I see as a lull Human Terrain System HTS is back on the agenda. There is today SWJ Blog 'System Failure: Anthropologists on the Battlefield', which links to a very poor USA Today piece:http://www.usatoday.com/story/nation...gists/2640297/

There is a far better link to a NYT column 'How to Read Afghanistan':http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/11/op...pagewanted=all

Bearing in mind another thread on lessons learnt this phrase is so simple:

GOOD intelligence requires good reading; you can’t have one without the other.

The article concludes:

What happened to Paula Loyd reminds us that understanding what motivates our enemies and the people we’re fighting among is a long and painful undertaking. But turning away from this effort, as many in the military did in the wake of Vietnam, ensures only that more Americans will die in other wars, in other far-flung corners of the world.

Finally, with hat tip to the UK-based blog on Afghanistan, Circling the Lion's Den:

US security writer John Stanton has written many articles over the last few years on the US Army's Human Terrain System, some of which have been referenced by this blog. Now 115 of his pieces have been published as a collection. The US Army Terrain System 2008-2013: The Program from Hell costs just $6.66 (ooh er!!), but is worth every penny.

Link:http://circlingthelionsden.blogspot....n-terrain.html

[John T. Fishel]

David, I just finished reading the excerpts of the Stanton book found on Amazon. The biggest problem is that his sources are nearly all anonymous and he presents no data to actually support what he has to say on those pages. It is not like reading Bob Woodward, Tom Ricks, or Linda Robinson where most sources are either identified or identifiable (and where they are not their credibility is strong both because of the detail provided and the corroboration from other sources). The pages are also filled with ad hominem attacks on various individuals none of which are supported. Unless the rest of the book is better, I would dicount it.

Cheers

JohnT

[marct]

John,

I haven't read Stanton's book yet, but I actually do know who a number of his anonymous sources are. I agree, it's not in the Woodward or Ricks category, but he does have legitimate (and sometimes scared) sources. My primary concern, however, is that there is very little information coming out of the program post-2011, so all of the arguments may be moot.

Cheers,

Marc

[BayonetBrant]

here's a column I wrote on Stanton about 3 years ago

http://grognews.blogspot.com/2010/05...-fire-aim.html

bottom line is this: he can't get publicly-verifiable facts right, so why should I believe him when he says "trust me" about stuff I can't verify.

I know a few of his sources, too, and I spent lunchtime over a (few) beer(s) at a restaurant in Fayetteville with one of those who was downright pissed at the way his information to Stanton was portrayed. The dude was burned enough on Stanton that he wouldn't let me publish a thing to set the record straight.

[John T. Fishel]

Good column Brant. I was just responding because I am interested in HTS and looked at the book to see if I might want to buy a copy (hardcopy or Kindle is practically the same price on Amazon), Obviously, I don't want to spend the almost $6....

Gee Marc, it is great to see you on the Council again. Course, I have been absent somewhat myself so it is a case of the pot calling the kettle....

My suspicion is that some of the issues with HTS have to do with the fact that the mainstream anthro community wants no part of the military - most anybody's - and this, among other things, hampered recruiting for the program. But what do I know?

Cheers

JohnT

[ganulv]

My suspicion is that some of the issues with HTS have to do with the fact that the mainstream anthro community wants no part of the military - most anybody's - and this, among other things, hampered recruiting for the program. But what do I know?

Hating on HTS has long been coin of the realm for the bigger part of anthropologists out there, it is true. But my impression is that the program was not originally intended solely for anthropologists.

I don’t know much about the program so I have no idea how much it is/was intended to rely upon rapport. As I and others in the thread have said previously, there are things you should be able to get without even talking to people. But if rapport is an expectation, I have to question the why. I don’t know if Gezari means to suggest that with enough time, energy, and resources that the right kind of outsider is going to be able to achieve true trust and rapport with most of the folks living in an area of long term violent conflict. I myself am dubious.