Hi Ganuly,

Quote Originally Posted by ganulv View Post
[LIST=1][*] The two methods, broadly speaking, of social and cultural anthropology are ethnography (field work of the sort done by Malinowski) and ethnology (cross-cultural comparison using textual and non-textual artifacts of various kinds). The former is not the exclusive domain of anthropologists, though I think it fair to say they were central in its legitimization amongst scientists social and otherwise. The latter isn’t, either, but doing it well presumes some background that would be difficult to acquire outside of anthropology and a handful of genetically related disciplines (folklore and [human & historical] geography, for example).
We could go back and forth on this since a lot of it is national school dependent but, sure, let's work with these as the two base methods for gathering and comparing data. That said, we do know a fari bit after 150 years or so about kinship systems, economic systems, etc. that, IMHO, does have some direct relevance.

Quote Originally Posted by ganulv View Post
[LIST=2][*]Good ethnography is difficult in the most stable social contexts. Presume an ethnographic encounter between a visitor with no particular self-interest beyond intellectual curiosity and a local with absolute willingness to reveal the warts and all of his or her knowledge. Even if the visitor is a top notch student and the local a top notch teacher 1:1 transmission of knowledge is impeded by cultural differences and the reliability of data and inferences built on them is always somewhat in doubt. Now imagine the same ethnographic encounter when the visitor shows up backed by a group of rough men in full kit and the local has to answer to his or her shadow governor after they have departed. The reliability of data gathered under these circumstances and inferences built on them are in serious doubt.[*]I do not on principle object to the use being made of tools associated with anthropology by any parties to a conflict. I may find their aims distasteful but the fact is that anthropology made its IPO long ago. I absolutely believe that the agent handler, ODA team member, or FSO with some formal training in anthropology will benefit from it in the field. That is not to say, however, that I believe that good anthropological field work is likely during wartime (see #2 above).
Absolutely agree! This means that whoever is doing "fieldwork" under such a condition must be top notch in their ability to perceive patterns and anomalies. Basically, it means that we have to throw out your point 1, except as background reference, and concentrate instead on observation skills.

Quote Originally Posted by ganulv View Post
  1. The entire HTS project strikes me as an effort to use ethnography to make an unfeasible strategy somehow serviceable. A better applied use of anthropological tools for OEF–like undertakings would be, IMHO, to run the strategy by a group of ethnologists and ask the seemingly simple question, “Do you judge this to be feasible in the first place?”
LOLOL - yup, which is why I am increasingly coming to the opinion that "senor social scientists" should be lodged in Red teaming cells vs. something like the HTS. Of course, that's another article .

Quote Originally Posted by ganulv View Post
This is just my 5¢ as someone who knows a lot more about anthropology than do most military professionals (and who fully acknowledges that military professionals tend to know no less about anthropology than do most other non-anthropologists) and more about the military than do most anthropologists (which is not to be understood as a claim that I have a vast or even good knowledge of the military). Some of it may be restatement of previous posts in this thread but I haven’t read many of them since joining this forum less than a year ago. It’s a topic that in my experience involves a lot of misinformation, posturing, and talking past one another so I tend to give it a wide berth for better or worse.
I would certainly agree that the "debate" is often a case of people talking past each other. Honestly, it's been kind of frustrating for me since all of the sides seem to have decided to ignore what actually happens . I think that's why I stuck the "rhetorical dead horses" in the title of my piece: I was honestly tired or hearing the "same old, same old" again, with little movement happening.

Cheers,

Marc