But frankly, the lack of logic exhibited in the AAA main points makes the head fairly spin:

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/0...ists.html#more

"HTS prompted a whole re-evaluation of our ethics," Dr. Setha Low, AAA president, said during a teleconference yesterday. She said there are big issues:

1. There are too few anthropologists involved in HTS's eight five-person teams (six teams in Iraq, two in Afghanistan) to accurately represent the full range of theories and perspectives within academia.
2. Researchers participating in combat operations perhaps cannot be intellectually honest. Their research "might be slanted by the needs of the Department of Defense," Low said.
3. Research should be distributed as widely as possible in order to invite peer review, but some HTS findings might be classified.

As Low spoke, I thought: Hold the phone. Doesn't point one contradict points two and three? On one hand, Low is concerned that any anthropologists are working with the military; on the other hand, there are too few anthropologists involved. What gives?
The author does a better job than I of pointing out that you can't bar anthropologists from participating, and then whine and bitch that there aren't enough anthropologists participating.