Human Terrain & Anthropology (merged thread)

[Steve Blair]

Are you suggesting the Zawahiri's videos and bin Laden's fatwas aren't peer reviewed? Then how do you account for their similarity to a Noam Chomsky book?

They aren't peer-reviewed....they're (gasp) plagiarized!

[SteveMetz]

They aren't peer-reviewed....they're (gasp) plagiarized!

Well, if we ever catch the cads then, they ought to be sentenced to attend the MLA Conference for the rest of their unnatural lives.

[marct]

It looks like AQ thinks the HTTs are worth imitating!

The Intellectual Arms Race
Posted by Kerim under Anthropology at war

Al Qaeda in Iraq has responded to the US military’s Human Terrain System (HTS) program by implementing its own army of cultural experts in what they call the Imperial Terrain System or ITS. Since the logistics of fighting an armed insurgency make it impossible for the Iraqis to directly question the Americans about their culture, they have instead hired critics trained in post-colonial critique. Omar Ali, the director of this new program has explained that the insurgent forces find it useful to understand Said’s theory of orientalism.

More...

I will point out that the ITS is using more "(post-)modern" theories. Make of that what you will .

[selil]

Well, if we ever catch the cads then, they ought to be sentenced to attend the MLA Conference for the rest of their unnatural lives.

That's cruel and unusual punishment.

[Stan]

Hi Marc !
An interesting evaluation and post...Thanks.

Admittedly, I enjoyed Laura's comments more than the story itself. She has a point, but I don't think that such a 'blanket approach' will hold much water today. Granted, some will subcome to greed.

Don't we (in practice - today) use the term 'postcolonial studies' much more loosely? It used to be the 'cookie cutter' for defining social formations of the colony (my primitive psychology lessons are showing).

In your opinion, studying 'yanks' , do you believe that understanding our experiences with colonization (e.g., dumping the Brits tea into the ocean) gives you a leg up in our society ? If it does, please do explain

Sorry, but this seems a bit too generic and still won't come close to understanding modern U.S. Military warfare and tactics. Or does it ?

Now, if they got ahold of say Goesh and Slapout (God help us), they'd have their hands full

It looks like AQ thinks the HTTs are worth imitating!

I will point out that the ITS is using more "(post-)modern" theories. Make of that what you will .

Regards, Stan

[marct]

Hi Stan,

Don't we (in practice - today) use the term 'postcolonial studies' much more loosely? It used to be the 'cookie cutter' for defining social formations of the colony (my primitive psychology lessons are showing).

In your opinion, studying 'yanks' , do you believe that understanding our experiences with colonization (e.g., dumping the Brits tea into the ocean) gives you a leg up in our society ? If it does, please do explain

A lot of it is now defined by Said's work - 'nuf said on that. As for studying the Yanks, yeah, it, or rather the variant I use, does help explain both parts of your history and your current attitudes .

Sorry, but this seems a bit too generic and still won't come close to understanding modern U.S. Military warfare and tactics. Or does it ?

Some, limited, help. Then again, it is aimed mainly at the civilian population which, after all, has been pretty heavily conditioned for the past 50 years or so.

Now, if they got ahold of say Goesh and Slapout (God help us), they'd have their hands full

Now you're scarin' me Stan .

Marc

[Rex Brynen]

Al Qaeda in Iraq has responded to the US military’s Human Terrain System (HTS) program by implementing its own army of cultural experts in what they call the Imperial Terrain System or ITS.

Hahaha

They used to try to explain to the Americans that they were Sunnis not Shi’ites, but after discussing Said they know better. As one soldier put it too me: “I understand now, they just see us as the mirror image of the West, not for who we really are.”

The originator of the prank ought to read his Said more carefully, since that's not at all what he suggested in Orientalism Rather, he argued that the West tended to see the "Orient" as a timeless, unchanging, exotic "other."

[marct]

Al Qaeda in Iraq has responded to the US military’s Human Terrain System (HTS) program by implementing its own army of cultural experts in what they call the Imperial Terrain System or ITS.

Hahaha

I know - I wanted that title for us (that's just the unrepentant British Imperialist in me speaking ).

The originator of the prank ought to read his Said more carefully, since that's not at all what he suggested in Orientalism Rather, he argued that the West tended to see the "Orient" as a timeless, unchanging, exotic "other."

No citations either by the "originator". Obviously bad scholarship that needs to be commented on in Counterpounch !

[Stan]

Hey Marc !

Hi Stan,

As for studying the Yanks, yeah, it, or rather the variant I use, does help explain both parts of your history and your current attitudes .

Some, limited, help. Then again, it is aimed mainly at the civilian population which, after all, has been pretty heavily conditioned for the past 50 years or so.

Marc

I'm of the opinion (anymore) that mainstream America only begins to think and care when if affects their pocket books and/or political ratings in an election year.

Would being able to explain our history and current public attitudes "aimed at the civilian population" then be of an advantage under the current administration governing the war ?

We've got Counter 1. Proliferation, 2. Terrorism, Clockwise and Punch Is there an end in sight ? Sorry, but I don't see much productive 'countering' coming from this new twist.

<sigh>

[J Wolfsberger]

That's cruel and unusual punishment.

No, it's torture. Probably as bad if not worse than bright lights and loud music.

[Adam L]

As I mentioned above, John's decision to try to answer Price is, as far as I know, his own. The Army and Marine Corps themselves have not. With hindsight, I wish John had just ignored him and simply said, "this is a government document for which academic standards do not apply."

This is not a matter of academic, technical or military standards. It is an issue of this nation's copryright laws. Nagl stated, "This is not the academic way, but soldiers are not academics; it is my understanding that this longstanding practice in doctrine writing is well within the provisions of “fair use” copyright law." ("Desperat People with Limited Skills") This may be his understanding, but if he did take it upon himself to find out if this is in fact true and had cited his legal sources (or military guidelines pertaining to such) it would have ended the issue.

Adam

[SteveMetz]

This is not a matter of academic, technical or military standards. It is an issue of this nation's copryright laws. Nagl stated, "This is not the academic way, but soldiers are not academics; it is my understanding that this longstanding practice in doctrine writing is well within the provisions of “fair use” copyright law." ("Desperat People with Limited Skills") This may be his understanding, but if he did take it upon himself to find out if this is in fact true and had cited his legal sources (or military guidelines pertaining to such) it would have ended the issue.

Adam

For starters, I don't think Price was motivated by his concern for copyright laws.

Second, I think that is a red herring: if copyright laws have been violated (and I don't know that they have), adding a citation doesn't change it. As someone else pointed out, ideas aren't copyrighted, words are. I don't believe that the manual includes enough verbatim use of copyright material to constitute a legal violation. I would strongly suspect that it was scrubbed by lawyers at some point before publication.

Again, keep in mind that John is giving his personal opinion in the statements you quoted.

[Adam L]

For starters, I don't think Price was motivated by his concern for copyright laws.

Price and his motivations are not the focuse of what I wrote. The issue I am addressing is broader.

Second, I think that is a red herring: if copyright laws have been violated (and I don't know that they have), adding a citation doesn't change it. As someone else pointed out, ideas aren't copyrighted, words are. I don't believe that the manual includes enough verbatim use of copyright material to constitute a legal violation. I would strongly suspect that it was scrubbed by lawyers at some point before publication.

My point exactly. Why couldn't someone just have said that?

Adam

[Steve Blair]

My point exactly. Why couldn't someone just have said that?

Adam

Because people like Price wouldn't listen...and don't listen. They have their own agenda.

"Fair Use" is in fact a damned fluid concept at times...I've seen it quoted for photocopying purposes as up to 25 pages. Notice that this is for PHOTOCOPYING an existing, printed work. What it translates to in terms of "how much can you use without citations" varies depending on the academic community you're working from. As others have pointed out, the scientific academic community has different standards (hard science journal articles may contain only a handful of citations, while those in the biological sciences will contain hundreds in some cases) and theirs are also different from the social sciences community (to which Price belongs) and those are again different from the historical community.

In short, Price is flogging what could be a dead horse to advance his own ideological viewpoint. And I still contend that the best "solution" for this is to make the actual citations for 3-24 available through the University of Chicago press as a downloadable file (assuming that they can be recovered...which I would assume is possible). That way those of us who WANT to look through them (and I'm one of them...just for the historical backtrail) can do so.

[Adam L]

In short, Price is flogging what could be a dead horse to advance his own ideological viewpoint. And I still contend that the best "solution" for this is to make the actual citations for 3-24 available through the University of Chicago press as a downloadable file (assuming that they can be recovered...which I would assume is possible). That way those of us who WANT to look through them (and I'm one of them...just for the historical backtrail) can do so.

Exactly how I feel!

Adam

[Adam L]

In short, Price is flogging what could be a dead horse to advance his own ideological viewpoint. And I still contend that the best "solution" for this is to make the actual citations for 3-24 available through the University of Chicago press as a downloadable file (assuming that they can be recovered...which I would assume is possible). That way those of us who WANT to look through them (and I'm one of them...just for the historical backtrail) can do so.

Here we are argueing over all of this theoretical BS when we should have all just come together and said, "Just post the damned sources and be done with it!"

Adam

[SteveMetz]

Because people like Price wouldn't listen...and don't listen. They have their own agenda.

"Fair Use" is in fact a damned fluid concept at times...I've seen it quoted for photocopying purposes as up to 25 pages. Notice that this is for PHOTOCOPYING an existing, printed work. What it translates to in terms of "how much can you use without citations" varies depending on the academic community you're working from. As others have pointed out, the scientific academic community has different standards (hard science journal articles may contain only a handful of citations, while those in the biological sciences will contain hundreds in some cases) and theirs are also different from the social sciences community (to which Price belongs) and those are again different from the historical community.

In short, Price is flogging what could be a dead horse to advance his own ideological viewpoint. And I still contend that the best "solution" for this is to make the actual citations for 3-24 available through the University of Chicago press as a downloadable file (assuming that they can be recovered...which I would assume is possible). That way those of us who WANT to look through them (and I'm one of them...just for the historical backtrail) can do so.

I think you'd be disappointed if you had the "withheld" citations. It's not like every idea is cited and someone is just holding them out. In doctrine development, things get in if they are approved by the various people who vet the document, not because there is a citation pointing to something else.

I'll be honest with you: while I understand the theory behind citations in academia, I'm leery of the process as a means of establishing validity. I've just seen too many instances where someone simply pulls an idea out of their butt (to put it in GI terminology) and somehow gets it included in a published article. Then someone else repeats that point, citing the first source. Then someone else repeats it citing the second source. And so forth.

As one example of this, I was reviewing a manuscript that simply stated as fact that the U.S. military was killing journalists it didn't like in Iraq. The statement footnoted another academic article. I followed the trail back about four levels without finding anyone that had hard information before I decided I had much better ways to waste my time.

The moral of my story is that doctrine writers don't have a bunch of citations to academic material sitting around somewhere because they generally don't think it adds to the validity of the doctrine to have them.

Ultimately what we have here is cultural dissonance. In academia, the validity of something is determined, in part, by where it is published and by whom. Military doctrine writers don't give a toot if an idea is published in the most prestigious academic journals; if it doesn't match their experience (and that of their bosses), it isn't going in.

[Adam L]

I think you'd be disappointed if you had the "withheld" citations. It's not like every idea is cited and someone is just holding them out. In doctrine development, things get in if they are approved by the various people who vet the document, not because there is a citation pointing to something else.

I can't speak for Steve Blair, but I would not be disappointed. I just want to see where they got their information. If a lot of it was through discussions and word of mouth then fine, it won't be in there. Still, I want to see what sources they did in fact use.

I'll be honest with you: while I understand the theory behind citations in academia, I'm leery of the process as a means of establishing validity. I've just seen too many instances where someone simply pulls an idea out of their butt (to put it in GI terminology) and somehow gets it included in a published article. Then someone else repeats that point, citing the first source. Then someone else repeats it citing the second source. And so forth.

As one example of this, I was reviewing a manuscript that simply stated as fact that the U.S. military was killing journalists it didn't like in Iraq. The statement footnoted another academic article. I followed the trail back about four levels without finding anyone that had hard information before I decided I had much better ways to waste my time.

This is an issue of poor source material. The point of the citations is so you can see that its poor source material.

The moral of my story is that doctrine writers don't have a bunch of citations to academic material sitting around somewhere because they generally don't think it adds to the validity of the doctrine to have them.

Forget about validity. It’s good to have it in there (not necessarily the field version but one of them) so that people can try to better understand your opinions. Also, if anyone in the future is looking back at it you want them to be able to find where you got the information for obvious reasons. If there is a file somewhere with this stuff in it, then that is good. If its just file boxes filled with the research, but no references as to what was used and how it effected the paper, then it poses a great obstacle for those in the future who attempt to revise or understand the authors' opinions.

Look, somewhere along the way I suspect you had a crazy and stupid professor who cited everything (including idle discussions which he had with someone in the next stall while he was on the can) and traumatized you. You appear to be upset with people’s practices (improper practices I might add) and have transferred your dislike for them onto legitimate writing tools (citations whatever form they come in.) Again, these are simply tools that are most often utilized because they are useful. They are nothing "academic," it’s just that academics happen to use them a lot (as do lawyers, engineers, anyone who does research.)

Adam

[SteveMetz]

I can't speak for Steve Blair, but I would not be disappointed. I just want to see where they got their information. If a lot of it was through discussions and word of mouth then fine, it won't be in there. Still, I want to see what sources they did in fact use.



This is an issue of poor source material. The point of the citations is so you can see that its poor source material.



Forget about validity. It’s good to have it in there (not necessarily the field version but one of them) so that people can try to better understand your opinions. Also, if anyone in the future is looking back at it you want them to be able to find where you got the information for obvious reasons. If there is a file somewhere with this stuff in it, then that is good. If its just file boxes filled with the research, but no references as to what was used and how it effected the paper, then it poses a great obstacle for those in the future who attempt to revise or understand the authors' opinions.

Look, somewhere along the way I suspect you had a crazy and stupid professor who cited everything (including idle discussions which he had with someone in the next stall while he was on the can) and traumatized you. You appear to be upset with people’s practices (improper practices I might add) and have transferred your dislike for them onto legitimate writing tools (citations whatever form they come in.) Again, these are simply tools that are most often utilized because they are useful. They are nothing "academic," it’s just that academics happen to use them a lot (as do lawyers, engineers, anyone who does research.)

Adam

I just don't seem to be getting my point across. In a doctrine manual, the overwhelming majority of the information is derived from professional experience, not from some other published sources. DOCTRINE IS NOT A WORK OF RESEARCH. It's more akin to the owner's manual of your car. Do you ask your car manufacturer to provide citations so you can judge how it arrived at its recommendations?

Citations may be a "legitimate" writing tool but they are not a universal one applicable to all types of writing. You seem to have this perception that doctrine is like a master's thesis and someone is keeping all the citations or "boxes of research" secret from you. That's just not how it is developed. DOCTRINE IS NOT A WORK OF RESEARCH. It is a compilation of best practices within a professional community.

In research publications, citations are used, in part, to convince readers of the validity of the conclusions. The consumers of doctrine accept its validity because it reflects the knowledge of the professional community which developed it. As a scholar, I can look at an academic article and decide that based on its citations, I don't accept its conclusions. The consumers of doctrine--junior officers, field commanders, planners, NCOs--don't have that option. They are obligated to accept the collective wisdom of their professional community.

(And I would suggest you drop the bush league psychoanalysis of my past. Unless you want to exchange CVs. My list of professional and scholarly publications runs to about 8 pages. And there are well over 1,000 citations in the book manuscript I'm sitting here working on.)

[Gian P Gentile]

But this case of FM 3-24 is different which seems to pass over most of the blog postings on this issue up to now. FM3-24 is not your garden variety army doctrine. It is not at all like for example the doctrine I used for reconnaissance in a heavy brigade when I commanded an ars. This was one of the main points of the Price piece. This FM3-24, at least the way it has been hawked to the public, is unique in that the perception created by Nagl, Con Crane, Gen Petreaus, McFate, Sarah Sewall, et al is that they as scholars had a very strong hand in writing it. So Price's point is that in this case you shouldn’t have it both ways. If as scholars would they see it as acceptable to use direct quotes or ideas from another source without somehow crediting it? I would not even if I wrote parts of or entire chapters in the new Coin manual. Also, the new Coin doctrine is intentionally built not so much on previous and contemporary army experience in coin (because of so much what many coin experts always say that the army up to the Surge was basically horrible at it and discarded any lessons from previous coin ops) but on historical cases like Galula and Thompson and on social and anthropological theories and models. So FM3-24 is different and Price's point that a different standard concerning the crediting of sources should apply.

You know sitting back as an outsider to the majority of thinking of the writers on this blog most of you have your hair stand on end when certain things are attacked or questioned. Those things are: anything that John Nagl or Dave Kilkullen writes; anything that questions the perceived success of the Surge; anything that fundamentally questions the efficacy of Coin operations to include its operational doctrine. The only topic I have seen on this blog that had drawn serious and deep debate is the discussion currently ongoing over waterboarding and torture.

gentile