Army Enlists Anthropology in War Zones (Academics Sign Pledge to Boycott Program)

[Hissyspit]

Source: New York Times

Army Enlists Anthropology in War Zones

By DAVID ROHDE
Published: October 5, 2007
SHABAK VALLEY, Afghanistan — In this isolated Taliban stronghold in eastern Afghanistan, American paratroopers are fielding what they consider a crucial new weapon in counterinsurgency operations here: a soft-spoken civilian anthropologist named Tracy.

Tracy, who asked that her surname not be used for security reasons, is a member of the first Human Terrain Team, an experimental Pentagon program that assigns anthropologists and other social scientists to American combat units in Afghanistan and Iraq. Her team’s ability to understand subtle points of tribal relations — in one case spotting a land dispute that allowed the Taliban to bully parts of a major tribe — has won the praise of officers who say they are seeing concrete results.

- snip -

Yet criticism is emerging in academia. Citing the past misuse of social sciences in counterinsurgency campaigns, including in Vietnam and Latin America, some denounce the program as “mercenary anthropology” that exploits social science for political gain. Opponents fear that, whatever their intention, the scholars who work with the military could inadvertently cause all anthropologists to be viewed as intelligence gatherers for the American military.

Hugh Gusterson, an anthropology professor at George Mason University, and 10 other anthropologists are circulating an online pledge calling for anthropologists to boycott the teams, particularly in Iraq. “While often presented by its proponents as work that builds a more secure world,” the pledge says, “at base, it contributes instead to a brutal war of occupation which has entailed massive casualties.”



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

---

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/09/when-anthropolo.html

When Anthropologists Go to War (Against the Military)
By Sharon Weinberger September 19, 2007 | 3:14:41 PMCategories: Human Terrain
A newly formed ad-hoc group called The Network of Concerned Anthropologists is hoping to convince their colleagues to sign a pledge of "non-participation in counter-insurgency." They write: "The War in Iraq has created a dangerous situation not only for the nation but also for the discipline of anthropology. The Department of Defense and allied agencies are mobilizing anthropologists for interventions in the Middle East and beyond. It is likely that larger, more permanent initiatives are in the works."


Here's an excerpt of the pledge:

US military and intelligence agencies and military contractors have identified “cultural knowledge,” “ethnographic intelligence,” and “human terrain mapping” as essential to US-led military intervention in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East. Consequently, these agencies have mounted a drive to recruit professional anthropologists as employees and consultants. While often presented by its proponents as work that builds a more secure world, protects US soldiers on the battlefield, or promotes cross-cultural understanding, at base it contributes instead to a brutal war of occupation which has entailed massive casualties. By so doing, such work breaches relations of openness and trust with the people anthropologists work with around the world and, directly or indirectly, enables the occupation of one country by another. In addition, much of this work is covert. Anthropological support for such an enterprise is at odds with the humane ideals of our discipline as well as professional standards.

MORE

[Igel]

1. It's the Title VI squabble from 2002 ...

redivivus.

I thought it was dishonest in the '90s when I knew students getting Title VI money that had no use for the source of purposes of the money, and departments that gamed the system to make sure they had US money that served not necessarily the stated purposes of the program, but their own.

Now, many of these anthropologists have probably never taken Title VI money. But it doesn't keep them, I suspect, from viewing academic freedom through an ideological filter. Which is precisely what the Slavic, Near Eastern, East Asian, and other depts. that I was familiar with in the '90s did.