I'm not so sure about that, at least as an absolute statement. First off, it "worked" in a particular time and place and, most important, media environment. Second, while it was a tactical success, the war was still lost and I've never really liked "the operation was a success but the patient died" type of argument.
I think the key to using a tactic like Phoenix is inherent in the word "judicial", especially with all of the current concerns over rule of law.
Now you're buying into Anthro propaganda . It's always nice to know that people think we could win the wars without having to resort to a Phoenix type program if only(!!) we had the help of Anthropologists . Reality? Pretty unlikely. I think that Anthropological insights can help make such a program limited in nature but you're still going to have to "neutralize" some people either via imprisonmen or assassination.
Besides anything else, a lot of the anger was over being lied to and feeling "betrayed" by the "misuse" of our research. As an analogue, how would you feel over an SF op to destroy Venezuala's oil production facilities only to discover afterwards that the op was a "favour" to Haliburton executives so they could maximize their profits?
Agreed with that; it's not an illusion I've ever had. And, let me just also note for the record, I have nothing against targeted assassinations either if they can be 99% guaranteed to have a "positive" effect (something I said when I was being interviewed for the AAA ethics committee on working with the military). I have very little time for people who bitch and complain about how everything is the fault of the West while they take advantage of the freedom to actually say that and not get arrested and interned. Bunch of soi disant, self-proclaimed "elites" who have no concept that each right is balanced by a responsibility! These are the same people who will call for blood when their own interests are attacked.
[/rant...]
At the same time, I refuse to do covert research with people that may, later, be used to "neutralize" them (obviously within foreseeable limits ), and I will not betray my informants. That's my personal line in the sand; it doesn't mean that I won't do secondary research that has a direct impact on a war (hey, Ruth Benedict did that!). Nor does it mean that I won't try and do my best to make sure that people going in theatre have the best advice I can give them if they ask for it.
Bookmarks