Human Terrain & Anthropology (merged thread)

[Sargent]

Agree 100% with LTCOL Gentile. If anthropologists weren't helping commanders figure out who to detain/kill, they wouldn't really be all that much use.

The alternative that anthropologists in opposition should understand is that that American troops without local knowledge will possibly detain/kill many who don't deserve it.

Well, the blow could be softened by arguing that what they are really helping the military to do in Iraq is NOT kill or detain the WRONG people. Without the focus their knowledge can bring to the table, force must be applied in a far more blunt manner, causing more unintended collateral damage. Furthermore, it seems that the collateral damage issues, not the failure to kill the right people, has done the greater harm to the effort in Iraq.

The morality of the death a sniper brings can be debated, but it is certainly better than the indiscriminate death and destruction of a couple of two thousand pound bombs. While this sort of moral subjectivity has its repulsive implications, what is truly important is that the former action gets you out of the killing/fighting phase much sooner (because you're not creating more enemies), which is an indisputable good.

As with many things associated with war, it is often the marketing (public relations, propaganda, etc.) that makes ultimate difference in effectiveness. Given the philosophy the underpins modern anthropology, it is obvious why the idea that their knowledge being used as a tool to deliver force chafes. But if the message is that their knowledge is being used to minimize the use of force, well that might make it all a bit easier for them.

Of course, there is something about this argument that makes me feel distinctly evil.

[wm]

Thanks for your post. It has crystalized the reasons for my antipathetical responses to positions of the members of SAMA (Society of Anti-Military Anthropolgists). I find that their proclamations portray them as being sophistical, eristical, and hypocritical rather than critical, unbiased Socratic searchers after truth. In case it isn't clear, I believe that scholars ought to be the latter.

As with many things associated with war, it is often the marketing (public relations, propaganda, etc.) that makes ultimate difference in effectiveness. Given the philosophy the underpins modern anthropology, it is obvious why the idea that their knowledge being used as a tool to deliver force chafes. But if the message is that their knowledge is being used to minimize the use of force, well that might make it all a bit easier for them.

Of course, there is something about this argument that makes me feel distinctly evil.

What you describes is not limited to war. As to your feeling of malaise about the argument, I suspect that you might now be in a better position to understand why the charge of Sophistry against Socrates could have resulted in the death penalty.