Human Terrain & Anthropology (merged thread)

[Featherock]

the article has a link to a Mother Jones piece which the author seems to include to cast aspersions upon the reputation of Mitzie McFate. But the article pertains to a Mary McFate/Sapone who lives in FL and there is no mention in the piece of this particular woman's activities with HTS. WTFO!

Hmm... a link to a Mother Jones article in a blurb about my article? Wasn't aware of that. By "author" do you mean me? Cuz it ain't me. I can't seem to find this link. In any case, I don't mention McFate in the entire article.

[CR6]

Hmm... a link to a Mother Jones article in a blurb about my article? Wasn't aware of that. By "author" do you mean me? Cuz it ain't me. I can't seem to find this link. In any case, I don't mention McFate in the entire article.

Umar Al-Mokhtār is referring to the cryptome piece.

[Featherock]

oh right, the cryptome piece. 'piece' is precisely what it is. a piece of what I leave to your good opinion.

[120mm]

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.

[marct]

Hi 120,

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

I suspect that part of it comes from the logic being taken out of context in some ways. The AAA has posted their revised ethics code and space for commentary at http://aaanewsinfo.blogspot.com/2008...of-ethics.html and it is worth looking at since it abandons some of the extremely isolationist language of last meetings resolutions.

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.

Makes life interesting, doesn't it? Actually, it is an almost nsanely complex intersection of competing factors. Most of today's Anthropologists have been conditioned against the "military" (as a general category), and you also have the remnants of a form of scientific idealism from Boas showing up, at least in North America. On the other hand, some Anthropologists have, in my opinion, lost the scientific ideal and replaced it with a political ideal which, while also being anti-"military", is also anti-scientific.

In all honesty, I was quite pleased with the new wording on the code. But that is the wording and not how it will be interpreted and played out in various departments.

[120mm]

From the Featherstone piece:

As a vision of the future it was pragmatic and, I feared, too optimistic. The military will always be a blunt instrument, whether it is crashing through walls or entering through a door held open by an HTT. But as long as we use our military as the primary tool of our foreign policy, one could hardly improve upon this vision.

Kudos to Steven for asking the right question, ala "I, Robot".

How about we develop non-military foreign policies that address fighting radical islam, while simultaneously addressing some of the causes that radicalists use to gain support against us through a civilian-led and academically vetted set of programs designed to solve problems without using military force?

I believe Galula said in his seminal counterinsurgency book that the counterinsurgency needs to be led by a civilian agency. But then, he also said that the legal issues surrounding how to deal with insurgents need to be worked out first, but at least we are consistent.

[Ron Humphrey]

I told grandpa I was going to get out on my own because I didn't need my parent's telling me what to do any more. I was growed up

He told me that parents and the army are like the jewlers tools and a sledge hammer.

Both can be used to refine a diamond the difference
is in how fine the final result is.

The military can and will do whatever it has to but it is important to understand that the end result will never be quite as pretty as it would be where the diplomats and other gov agencies actually where able to handle the entirety of their own missions.