We used to think that security and development could be separated. The military would take care of security and security sector reform. The development community would do humainitarian relief and long-term development. Iraq and other conflicts changed all that. There's a good, short article posted on another thread that gives an overview of the conflict and cooperation between security and development objectives and initiatives.

You can't really ignore the basic human needs. I know security is paramount, but if you can't provide food to people or provide basic medical services, it may not matter. So, you need people who are focused on and looking at these issues and that's where the Anthropologist comes in. I think there's a bit of a disconnect between the objectives of the anthropologist. Is he or she helping the commanding officer to better understand the population in order to better distinguish between friend and foe or is he trying to help the CO to better understand the population to better meet their needs?

In any case, I think we're past the point where both the military can avoid the issues that the hiring of Anthropologists represents and the development community can ignore the importance of security and the need to coordinate more effectively with the military.

What I think is missing from the Anthropology (HTT) model is the bridge to the development community. If the military is on the front line and identifies a need, they are probably not the best equipped to deal with it (and not the best use of their time). They should be able to call upon resources from the development community. Who from State/USAID is around to deal with health services? Should the military be picking up garbage? No, that's the responsibility of the local government. Who's working with local government to organize the delivery of services?