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.
Bookmarks