Article on Liberals against Anthropologists fighting the War on Terror

[wigon]

How Some Anthropologists Have Learned to Stop Worrying and Start Loving the Army (http://www.truthout.org/051609Z)

Saturday 16 May 2009
by: Dahr Jamail, t r u t h o u t | Perspective (http://www.truthout.org/051609Z?print)

Anthropologist Audrey Roberts works for Human Terrain System (HTS), a Pentagon program. Referring to the information produced by HTS scholars, she says (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-afghanculture_08int.ART.State.Edition2.48b1d26.html), "If it's going to inform how targeting is done - whether that targeting is bad guys, development or governance - how our information is used is how it's going to be used. All I'm concerned about is pushing our information to as many soldiers as possible. The reality is there are people out there who are looking for bad guys to kill. I'd rather they did not operate in a vacuum."
In a recent article (http://www.truthout.org/043009R) on this site I have described HTS as comprising American scholars, primarily in the field of anthropology, along with sociologists and social psychologists, embedding themselves with the US military in the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan . Their brief is to enable the military to make better decisions by helping it to understand the social mores and customs of the cultures it is occupying.
As a program that is likely to have a long tenure, it deserves further examining. The US military would like the US public to believe it is a benevolent program, but it does not require a crystal ball to recognize the insidious reality. HTS teams actively engage in targeting the "enemy" in Iraq and Afghanistan . Team members often wear military uniforms and body armor, and even carry weapons. Like Ms. Roberts, they are not overly concerned about the fact that the "intelligence" they produce is instrumental in capturing and killing people. The social scientists who choose to employ themselves within HTS clearly are not having a moral struggle with the fact that they are allowing their knowledge to be used as a weapon of war.
The military's benign description (http://humanterrainsystem.army.mil/) specifies that HTS will "improve the military's ability to understand the highly complex local social-cultural environment in the areas where they are deployed." Proponents of the program go as far as to claim that its goal is to help the military save lives.
Those who know better, like US Army Lt. Col. Gian Gentile, will tell you (http://www.counterpunch.com/price04072009.html), "Don't fool yourself, these Human Terrain Teams, whether they want to acknowledge it or not, in a generalized and subtle way, do at some point contribute to the collective knowledge of a commander, which allows him to target and kill the enemy in the Civil War in Iraq."
The two highest ethical principles of anthropology are protection of the interests of studied populations, and their safety. All anthropological studies consequently are premised on the consent of the subject society. Clearly, the HTS anthropologists have thrown these ethical guidelines out the window. They are to anthropology what state stenographers like Judith Miller and John Burns are to journalism.
I consulted David Price, author of "Anthropological Intelligence: The Deployment and Neglect of American Anthropology in the Second World War" and a contributor to the Counter-Counterinsurgency Manual, a forthcoming work of the Network of Concerned Anthropologists, of which he is a member.
According to Price, "HTS presents real ethical problems for anthropologists, because the demands of the military in situations of occupation put anthropologists in positions undermining their fundamental ethical loyalties to those they study. Moreover, it presents political problems that link anthropology to a disciplinary past where anthropologists were complicit in assisting in colonial conquests. Those selling HTS to the military have misrepresented what culture is and have downplayed the difficulties of using culture to bring about change, much less conquest. There is a certain dishonesty in pretending that anthropologists possess some sort of magic beans of culture, and that if only occupiers had better cultural knowledge, or made the right pay-offs, then occupied people would fall in line and stop resisting foreign invaders. Culture is being presented as if it were a variable in a linear equation, and if only HTS teams could collect the right data variables and present troops with the right information conquest could be entered in the equation. Life and culture doesn't work that way; occupied people know they are occupied, and while cultural knowledge can ease an occupation, historically it has almost never led to conquest - but even if it could, anthropology would irreparably damage itself if it became nothing more than a tool of occupations and conquest."
The Handbook for the HTS offers the Human Terrain "toolkit" for the US military to understand subjects living in militarily occupied areas. It states:
"HTTs will use the Map-HT Toolkit of developmental hardware and software to capture, consolidate, tag, and ingest human terrain data. HTTs use this human terrain information gathered to assist commanders in understanding the operational relevance of the information as it applies to the unit's planning processes. The expectation is that the resulting courses of actions developed by the staff and selected by the commander will consistently be more culturally harmonized with the local population, which in Counter-Insurgency Operations should lead to greater success. It is the trust of the indigenous population that is at the heart of the struggle between coalition forces and the insurgents." (Emphasis added.)
The mission of the Human Terrain social scientists gains legitimacy and credibility when expressed in terms of engineering the "trust of the indigenous population."
It is obvious that for the neo-colonialist, the HTS is a form of "soft power." In addition to dropping 2,000-pound bombs in civilian areas, occupation forces now see fit to use HTS to get into the minds of the people of the occupied country.
Price avers, "The problem with anthropology being used in counterinsurgency isn't just that anthropologists are helping the military to wear different cultural skins; the problem is that it finds anthropologists using bio power and basic infrastructure as bargaining chips to force occupied cultures to surrender."
Although he says it is too soon to gauge [a] possible increase in HTS operations since Obama took office, Price is convinced that the president is falling for the claim that a smart counterinsurgency can lead not just to easier occupations, but to victory.
For the military to find regionally competent anthropologists to work for them is unlikely. Price is convinced that, "most (American) anthropologists understand the obvious ethical problems in working for HTS. The real risk lies in the likelihood that anthropologists will be seduced by arguments to support soft-power projects tied to occupation and counterinsurgency - especially when these projects are increasingly being presented as "helping" the occupied.
"Those favoring soft-power forms of counterinsurgency are going to need anthropologists and other social scientists," Price said, "Narratives of aid and assistance, of building hospitals and schools will replace the strategic narratives of soft-power counterinsurgency manipulation of occupied people by occupiers. When you add to this the grim job prospects many anthropologists face in this economy, you can see how easy it is for the US administration to sell these soft-power programs."
As the new administration adopts less-violent manipulations of the environments and peoples in Iraq and Afghanistan , Price is concerned that anthropologists will fail to see the distinction between military coercion of occupied peoples and publicized acts of "humanitarianism."
As in most matters related to the occupation, the corporate media are squarely responsible for selling the HTS program to the American public. Price has written (http://www.counterpunch.com/price04072009.html), "... the media has become a key supportive enabler of HTS. In the last two years I have probably spent twenty to thirty hours speaking with journalists from NPR, Elle, USA Today, Newsweek, Time, AP, New York Times, Wired, Harpers, Washington Post, etc. patiently explaining what the critical issues for anthropologists are when a program like Human Terrain Systems embeds anthropologists with troops engaged in counterinsurgency operations in occupied battle settings in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sometimes portions of these critiques show up along the way in the final stories, but in most cases, the arguments and critiques against the efficacy, ethical, neocolonial politics as well as the practical impossibility of HTS working as advertised are ignored, or worse yet, they are presented as absurd caricatures."
Corporate media coverage of the program conveniently does not indicate that HTS ignores basic anthropological principles of ethics, such as voluntary informed consent, issues of secrecy, and doing no harm, among others. Most anthropologists concur with Price that HTS is also part of a domestic propaganda project, "that tells the Americans that wars for the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan can be won. History argues against any such outcome, but HTS becomes part of a lie to the American people that helps keep us fighting these already lost causes. It is so poorly designed that HTS has no hope of actually working as advertised, yet both the Bush and Obama administrations have sold us a false hope that such counterinsurgency programs can lead to an eventual victory."
As Price wrote recently (http://www.counterpunch.com/price04072009.html), the media stance does not bode well for the future, or for President Obama. "The real bad news for American foreign policy is that given President Obama's commitment to "soft power" and his open endorsements of counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan , we can expect more of this uncritical coverage on HTS as a crucial tool needed for America 's occupations in foreign lands. I am left to wonder how anthropologist Ann Dunham, Barack Obama's mother, would have reacted to her son's reliance on such clearly unethical anthropological means to achieve political ends so aligned with neocolonialist goals of occupation and subjugation?"
» (http://www.truthout.org/articles/by-author/40197)

Dahr Jamail, an independent journalist, is the author of "Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq ," (Haymarket Books, 2007). Jamail reported from occupied Iraq for eight months as well as from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Turkey over the last four years.

______________________________________________________________



As a cultural anthropologist currently trying to gain employment with the federal government conducting psychological operations and dialog with the Taliban (and developing cultural/religious knowledge about them), I am completely 100% opposed to this article which distorts many of the ambitious goals of the HTS program. This author and the other individual mentioned (Price) make the incorrect assumptions that everyone taught anthropology somehow takes an oath to follow some code of ethics put together by the AAA (American Anthropological Association) that was meant for the Vietnam era. The Vietnam War, while sharing some similarities with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, had VASTLY different circumstances and cultures that for the most part, were NOT a direct threat to the United States of America. This war on terror has a very different enemy who's religious interpretations are spread around the world including here in America and all over Europe. What I've in the past tried to relay to people here on this forum was that research such as my own in Islamic theology can have a vast impact on psychological operations and diplomacy. In effect it can steal the thunder from our enemy by using their own religion to nullify them. Neocons on this forum and others have argued against this but I've had first-hand experience to show otherwise if its done properly. In addition, other anthropologists have done excellent work in training our forces in how to better work with locals in Iraq and Afghanistan. Without such cultural knowledge, the "Surge" in Iraq would have been a failure without getting "The Awakening" councils (former enemies) to side with America and against Al-Qaeda. The liberals (such as in this article) call it "Neo-colonialism" while the conservatives call it "appeasement".

My opinion is that all of the anthropologists and other social scientists involved who are dedicated to winning the war on terror are doing the right thing when both sides give them hell as long as they are getting positive results.
People like Dahr Jamail (the author) have lots of criticisms, but no solutions. These kinds of liberals piss me off to no end.

Wigon

[BloodyTalon]

As a cultural anthropologist currently trying to gain employment with the federal government conducting psychological operations and dialog with the Taliban (and developing cultural/religious knowledge about them), I am completely 100% opposed to this article which distorts many of the ambitious goals of the HTS program. This author and the other individual mentioned (Price) make the incorrect assumptions that everyone taught anthropology somehow takes an oath to follow some code of ethics put together by the AAA (American Anthropological Association) that was meant for the Vietnam era. The Vietnam War, while sharing some similarities with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, had VASTLY different circumstances and cultures that for the most part, were NOT a direct threat to the United States of America. This war on terror has a very different enemy who's religious interpretations are spread around the world including here in America and all over Europe. What I've in the past tried to relay to people here on this forum was that research such as my own in Islamic theology can have a vast impact on psychological operations and diplomacy. In effect it can steal the thunder from our enemy by using their own religion to nullify them. Neocons on this forum and others have argued against this but I've had first-hand experience to show otherwise if its done properly. In addition, other anthropologists have done excellent work in training our forces in how to better work with locals in Iraghanistan. Without such cultural knowledge, the "Surge" in Iraq would have been a failure without getting "The Awakening" councils (former enemies) to side with America and against Al-Qaeda. The liberals (such as in this article) call it "Neo-colonialism" while the conservatives call it "appeasement".

My opinion is that all of the anthropologists and other social scientists involved who are dedicated to winning the war oq and Afn terror are doing the right thing when both sides give them hell as long as they are getting positive results.
People like Dahr Jamail (the author) have lots of criticisms, but no solutions. These kinds of liberals piss me off to no end.

Wigon
As someone who's going to become a US Army officer after college and is studying international affairs and anthropology, I agree 100%.

There is a lot of debate on the issue of having anthropologist collaborate with the military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whenever this issue goes up, the opponents usually cite the same arguments the author mentioned, or they're own bias against the wars, and a few have even resorted to Anthropology version of Godwin's Law by bringing up Eugenics.

I always try to argue that, in spite of anyone's opinions towards the war, it's ultimately going to help the civilian population much more than theoretically hurting them with all of this speculative "neo-colonialism" (i.e. the sexy new term for imperialism) nonsense. Soldiers are not ethnographers; any military unit is going to be concerned specifically with completing an objective in the most effective way possible. However, with the the help of anthropologists we'll be able to understand the various cultures that we encounter and find a way to simultaneously befriend the population and eliminate any enemies without upsetting the local culture. The alternative of staying out of the war means that most units aren't going to take culture into account during their operations, which, as evident in Vietnam, is ultimately worse for both the soldiers and the local cultures.

[wigon]

Wow, you've seen people bring up Eugenics as a comparison? I guess that's the equivalent of comparing people to Nazis (generally a sign of desperation in a debate).

I think that what alot of these social scientists opposed to the war do not understand is that a good battlefield anthropologist does not go into a place Afghanistan in a naive manner. They fully understand the broader political issues, economic issues, and religioius issues. Furthermore, most are specialists in understanding our enemies (Al-Qaeida, the Taliban, and all the sub-factions) in a way that allows for the potential of non-violent, diplomatic resolutions to a conflict. With a fine-grained cultural understanding, those involved with intelligence analysis can also help to allow both military commanders and civilian policy makers to make more accurate judgements that can potentially save thousands of civilian lives not to mention the lives of American soldiers. The die-hard anti-war social scientists can claim this to be "neo-colonialism" however I generally ask them to deconstruct that idea by asking what colonialism was historically. Then I ask them to match that criteria to our current operations in Afghanistan. They key element of natural resource control does not fit in. Neither are we setting up permanent settlements or plantations to exploit the locals. These critics completely forget 9/11 and when challenged some will jabber on about conspiracy theories.

Now In Iraq, they have a bit more fuel for arguement. I did not support the war in Iraq, however I do support cleaning up our mess there. I see it as dammage control. Many liberals wish for us to simply leave immediately with absolutely no thought towards the consequences of simply pulling everyone out. I often refer to them as "close-minded" liberals who are no better then close minded conservatives. Both see things in black and white and do not wish to see the complexities of the situation. To me, not supporting the effort to gradually disengage from Iraq in a responsible manner, is HIGHLY unethical. The work with Sunni tribesman to encourage cooperation with the Shi'a central government (and to kick out Al-Qaeda) has overall been very successful but it still very shaky and needs continued support by social scientists and military officers skilled in conflict resolution, culture, religion, and political analysis. Concentrated efforts there can insure stability in Iraq, respect and cooperation between factions, and the identification of key factors that are preventing that from happening in a rapid and precise manner (along with solutions).

So overall it really blows my mind why liberal social scientists would be against doing this. They chant the mantra of "WE DON'T SUPPORT IMPERIALISM" in much the way that neo-conservatives chant the mantra "KILL ALL THE TERRORISTS" in a single-minded manner with very little critical thinking. For these people to lack the ability to critically analyze their own belief system logically is very scary. However sadly, it is these people who are about to have me kicked out of graduate school which is why I'm trying to find employment or a PH.D program dedicated towards this type of work in the Middle East. For me personally, my research is ethnical as I seek peaceful resolutions to the conflicts in the region, I seek to understand our enemy in order to fascilitate dipolomacy, and I only use traditional Islamic sources to combat the Deobandi and Salafi/Qtbist ideologies in a gentle manner that promotes critical thinking in extremist religious circles.

However I'm lmited right now in what I can do as I require security clearances before attempting to make direct contact with known centers of terrorism in Pakistan (otherwise risk a not-so-friendly visit from the FBI). So while I'm waiting around for employment or contract work, I'm just gathering together indirect contact sources and information on maddrassas and influential leaders in the Northwestern Frontier Province of Pakistan.

[DS73]

There is nothing to discuss about this article:
Pretty much anything that can make ongoing wars shorter should be welcome. Pretty much because some efforts can have dangerous side effects. Like, let say increased monitoring of lawful population, or the introduction of the limits on law protection.

Obviously any anthropologist involvement could never hurt. As, if anything, such involvement is going to break anything with "-ism" by exposing cultural and social properties of proposed or ongoing conflict.
Of course nobody should forget that not only the anthropologists, but all scientists, doctors, engineers are the citizens of one or more countries and therefore have civil, citizenship obligations to follow.

Nevertheless, Mr. Wigon, I believe, you've wrote some contradicting statements on this forum. I don't know about other members, but I am lost here.
Wouldn't you mind to elaborate what exactly are you going to do, when you will be involved in this, why to hide, intercultural mess?

[Gleipnir]

Excellent post, Wigon- thanks not only for the article, but for your thoughts as well. I have to say that I agree with you and concur that this article distorts the aims and activities of the HTS teams.

I think that it has only been very recently that contemporary anthropology has made a leap forward in considering warfare and violence as an authentic and legitimate form of cultural expression and also even as a form of cultural exchange.
I think that anthropology has always been very resistant to including readings of warfare and violence ever since post-Colonial attitudes informed the field because of the fear of interpreting such activities as materializations of 'savage', 'backwards', 'barbaric', 'uncivilized' 'primitive' behaviour- a legacy that arose historically with the field of anthropology, and a history that anthropologists have taken great lengths to avoid and move away from.

I think it is safe to say that most Westerners are indoctrinated by society to think violence is somehow a barbaric, uneducated activity due to the fact that we have so many legal systems in place in an attempt to diminish it and a history of condemning it- this certainly falls in line with how most liberals some to express themselves against violence and warfare- that it is barbaric and uncivilized and that we should be somehow above it and I think that Jamail is pandering to this mindset.

That being said, I think that the Human Terrain System website FAQ deals directly with some of the concerns that Jamail raises in his article, and I wonder why he chose to conveniently ignore this-
http://humanterrainsystem.army.mil/faqs.html

What is more suspect to me is how he finds it inappropriate that HTS team members wear body armour and carry weapons in a warzone- even going so far as to call this an 'insidious reality', which is baffling considering the time he spent in theatre.

It bothers me that the crux of article takes the activities of the HTS out of context and spins them to look like some type of covert assassination squad with the military waging a domestic PR propaganda war to hide these activities.
Which is bull****.

I think it should be made clear that the activities of the HTS are in no way covert (HTS was designed as an open-source, non-classified program) and the strange paranoia that this is somehow Phoenix program part 2 are unfounded as the main activities of the HTS teams are glossed over in favour of a sensationalistic story that wishes to make clear the 'insidious reality' that the HTS isn't upholding a non-reflexive (I thought anthropology was already way past this) academic study but also using their data for the purpose of warfare!

I think that it is unfair to define the criteria surrounding the aims and the use of data by the HTS under the same context as an anthropologist working within the confines of academia- it is a question of what is appropriate and that this work is being conducted in a theatre of warfare for specific aims should make it a no-brainer that it should have to operate under differing sets of codes and criteria. That some of the methodology is the same shouldn't contextualize the work of the HTS simply as soldiers operating within the context of anthropology, or anthropologists operating within the context of warfare.

As far as the code of ethics made explicit by the AAA, I think it it should be said that this code of ethics is a set of guidelines and not a law.

The purpose of this Code is to foster discussion and education. The American Anthropological Association (AAA) does not adjudicate claims for unethical behavior.http://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/Code-of-Ethics.cfm

To say that the work of the HTS challenges ethical loyalties an anthropologist may have is a fair assessment, but one needs to look at the environment and the conditions in which these ethics are modified- the battlefield demands its own guidelines of appropriate behaviour and I think that this reality has been cleverly glossed over.

I think that the HTS is a fascinating and necessary program and it is sad to see it misunderstood and misrepresented by an author that clearly has his own agenda to pursue. Hopefully the work that the HTS has done and is doing will speak for itself. Thanks once again for the post, Wigon.

[LineDoggie]

Good God, wall of text attack.....

[wigon]

Thank you very much for you response Gleipnir. That's good that you pointed out the HTS website. I should point out that my own research that I'm trying to get employment doing is seperate from the HTS program and deals more with psychological operations. However, like the HTS program I intend for it to be public and I actually like critical feedback from Muslims as they are my target audience and it gives me an opportunity to learn more from them and is an opportunity to engage them in some critical theological analysis.
A few liberals have brought up the issue of separation of church and state saying that such programs are un-constitutional as it basically is preaching a certain religious interpretation. However checking with constitutional law professors, I was assured that such laws only cover government operations within the United States as long as all personel involved in the programs are there on a voluntary basis and as long as the program is not about preaching, but rather engaging in dialog towards building mutual understandings and productive negotiations.

Areas of dialog include areas that the Pakistani government is now engaged in revolving around allowing the Taliban in the Swat valley to have shariat courts. Negotations broke down after Taliban Shaykh Sufi Mohammad rejected the appeals court set up by the Pakistani government because he was not consulted on who made up the court. If the Shariat court is set up properly and has sufficient checks and balances, (and proper legal representation for women), it is not far worse then the horrifically corrupt and brutal legal system that Pakistan currently has.

If the United States supports this as free people deciding a legal system that they wish to have and with protections for those individuals who do not want to live under such laws (with normal Pakistani courts as the alternative), it would take alot of the thunder from the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. These shariat court systems should be topics of open discussion and analysis for the entire world. The light should be shown on how the Taliban wish to develop their Shariat courts in order for Muslim scholars around the world to examine it and provide critiques of the system. What we have right now are scattered press reports about horrors committed in the name of Shariat Law which very often are nothing more then local tribal justice being carried out with very little if any basis on Shariat Law. These issues are those that even Saudi Salafi scholars of the Shariat would be very much interested in.

Granted we may not like it. But forcing Pakistanis (and Afghanis) to reject a absolutely core part of their religion is simply not realistic. Most legal systems in the Islamic world are already heavily influenced by Shariat law. Some (like Morrocco, Indonesia, and Malaysia) are more progressive then others. Others like Saudi Arabia, not so much although things are steadily changing.
To refuse to engage extremists on the topic of their Islamic religion is to refuse to accept their lived reality and their history. It does not mean that we must agree. But it does mean that we can begin a dialog that can lead to mutual respect and positive encouragement towards more progressive Shariat systems grounded in tradition, but forward thinking. Systems in which punishment is not the emphasis of the legal system, but rather mercy and compassion. There are precedents for this during more progressive periods of Islamic governance in Islamic history as well as in Sunah (the lifestyle, teachings, and sayings of their Prophet Mohammad).

From the dialog that I've had with extremists, I'm a strong believer that we can change their mindsets towards the West and towards their own religion. The building of respect and positive political action (such as joint development projects) are key to this. The Bush era notion of "we don't talk to terrorists" is a rejection of reality.
Our own military rejected this idea in Iraq by talking to the more "moderate" terrorists. Like myself, they discovered that, hey, some of these people are just ordinary people fighting to be free of what they perceive to be oppressive forces telling them what to do and how to live their life. Free people don't like being told what to do by outsiders.

Unfortunately the current Karzai government in Afghanistan has not provided Afghanis with a good alternative to Taliban rule. While it is not my particular field, the HTS program is a key component to identifying tribal leaders who are respected, who should be protected at all cost from Taliban hit teams, and who can provide the core of local police forces that can be trained to a level in which they can protect themselves from both the Taliban as well as corrupt police/army units and provincial governors seeking to move in on their opium growing operations. This of coarse is not easy and very risky. Proper assessments of risk (whether they may defect to Taliban or become corrupt warlords) has to be calculated. That can ONLY happen through long term immersive anthropological research in which the anthropologist lives and works with these communities and tribal leaders intimately on a daily basis.
Military officers rotating in and out from a region have other jobs to do and can not always devote themselves to this task nor do they have the training to do it. My own vision is for the US Army and Marines to develop a joint-school in which all combat officers Captain and above are required to undergo training in anthropological research methodology, regional cultural training (more in-depth then what they currently receive), and cross-cultural psychology (again region specific). A voluntary coarse on the usage of Islamic theology in dialog with Afghanis would go a long ways for officers who are serious about building trust with locals. Furthermore, using the positive aspects of how Muslim warriors should behave in combat would go along way in disciplining the Afghan soldiers and police forces. By providing emphasis on fighting with honor and with mercy and compassion towards defeated fellow Muslims and on doing good deeds in remote Afghan communities, it will help not only their nation, but themselves in their Islamic belief that good deeds bring them closer to entering paradise when they die. Currently many Afghan military and police units have little respect due to their reputation of having corrupt officers and soldiers who loot from civilians.

My main fear is that parts of the US military leadership is not interested in "winning hearts and minds." By that I mean that our military is currently doing diplomatic missions on one hand (brining in food, development projects, etc..) but destroying trust that is built with the actions of a handful of gung-ho commanders who don't give a rat's ass about the people in the reigion and are there to kick some terrorist ass. Alot of civilians back here in America have that same belief. A quick check on recent history shows that the Russians used absolute brute force with no respect towards civilian casualties. They conducted massive carpet bombing, used chemical weapons, laid an incredible number of landmines (some of which looked like toys), and poisoned drinking wells and springs. Yet despite all of this, they still lost that war.

Granted our American warfighters and our allies are generally very successful in their military operations. However they are too few and Afghans have a history of never giving up and of kicking out every invading army in their history sooner or later. Many may look at them as brutes and barbaric savages, but they must be given a certain amount of respect and a certain amount of effort to understand how things are done in their country. If we don't do that, who knows how long we will be there. What we know for certain is that currently the Taliban is gaining strength and we are NOT winning strategically. The paragigm of warfighting and our concepts of victory need to be flexible if we hope to leave Afghanistan anytime in the near future in a manner in which we leave the country as a stable nation and without the threat of terrorist camps training new generations of Al-Qaeda. The only sure way of doing so is to nullify the fundamental ideological/religious rationale that drive their movement. In short, we need to counter the conspiracy theories with direct action. We need to show them directly that we are not attacking Islam. We also need to show them that we are not their to humiliate them, but to empower them to build a beautiful Islamic nation that will lead the world by example and not one that threatens the non-Islamic world with death and destruction while killing fellow Muslims who disagree with them (declaring Takfir on them) and further dividing the Islamic world (the Umma).

The alternative is either the usage of WMD's and a vastly more brutal way of fighting war, or possibly a decade longer of fighting that has no predictable outcome. Either of which will certainly lead to fueling Islamic extremist movements around the world that will undermine all of the positive progress made in Muslim nations that have been moving towards democracy, improved human rights, and freedom.

[Digimon]

There seem to be a lot of patting each other on the back going on here, so here are a few points to provide ground for concrete discussion.

First, (to recap the AAA ethical position) one must understand that an anthropologist is a person embedded in a number of roles (e.g., social, academic, professional, communal, familial, civic, and universal) and all of these roles carry their own ethical obligations, which, at times, come into conflict and require resolution. Navigation among these norms is basically guided by the idea of respect for the autonomy of others (clearly liberal deontological position)

The development of anthropological knowledge can leave the lives of the studied group unaffected, or change it for the better or for the worse. This implies ethical obligations to disclose the intent of the study to the studied group, obtaining informed consent from the group, and refraining from action (study) which might negatively affect the group.

Anthropological researchers should make the results of their research appropriately available to sponsors, students, decision makers, but in doing so, they must consider the social and political implications of the information they disseminate. Anthropological researchers must ensure that they do not harm the safety, dignity, or privacy of the people with whom they work, conduct research, or perform other professional activities, or who might reasonably be thought to be affected by their research.

In their academic and professional capacity, anthropologists have obligations to the discipline (can’t compromise its reputation and integrity), colleagues (must preserve opportunity for field workers to follow them in the field, etc...). Prior to accepting employment, anthropologists must review the purposes of prospective employers (their past activities and future goals) to ensure absence of conflict with their professional and other ethical commitments.

Thus, three main roles had been identified: Professional (researcher/colleague/scholar); Academic (member of a scientific community); Universal (member of human species). Arguably (depending on the actual facts), HTS violates ethical commitments implied by all three roles.

1) From a universal moral perspective, any person (including anthropologists) has an obligation not to harm others (i.e., to respect their autonomy and freedom). This ethical obligation (which is not special to anthropology) is violated when the others are misinformed (manipulated, controlled), harmed (beaten, interrogated, destroyed, etc...) or restrained (imprisoned, coerced, etc.) To guard against such violations, informed consent from the subject is required.

2) From professional moral perspective, any anthropologist who engages in unethical activity (see above) puts his/her uninvolved colleagues in danger of harm and undermines their ability to conduct their work (follow them into field). If HTS members enable occupation and control of the occupied population, they will not be perceived as neutral scientists by the controlled public or the insurgents, which means that all anthropologists become potential targets.

3) From an academic moral perspective, if anthropology is employed as means to successful control of the occupied populations, or other political or military purposes, its integrity and reputation as an intrinsically worthy pursuit of knowledge is undermined (anthropology will be viewed as a handmaiden of political, social, or military control).

Some might argue in the following way: As had been pointed out, every individual is embedded in a number of roles with associated ethical obligations. One could argue that the role of anthropologists as member of a community and society places him/her under the obligation to assist in preventing harm to the members of the same communal or social group (US soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan; US citizens as potential subjects of terrorist attack). This obligation overrides the obligation towards members of the wider group—humanity. This is a familiar argument, and the context of its historical application provides its own objection: many of the medical experimentation in the Nazi concentration camps were conducted for the purposes of gathering data relevant to saving German soldiers. The argument for torture follows along similar lines.

Yet, it is possible to make sure that anthropological research is employed to understand a particular culture not for the purposes of manipulation or control but for the purposes of communication and understanding of cultural motivators. Using HTS against terrorists (insurgency against occupational forces is more complex) is not as problematic because terrorists (confirmed terrorists), not unlike general criminals, have forfeited some of their rights to respectful treatment (in virtue of harming others). This, however, does not apply to the general occupied population. In respect to this group, HTS can be made unproblematic if it is used only in a way that respects the autonomy of the studied subjects (implies consent and full disclosure about intent, methods, and so on).

However, even if the HTS research can be made compliant with ethical guidelines, it will still violate obligations to other researchers and the discipline in general since those consequences result from perceptions rather than the matters of fact.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

As a university student I can attest that most anthropologists are nice people but are also leftist moonbats.

[Laworkerbee]

Good God, wall of text attack.....

X2

I want to read it but it hurts too much.

[JJC]

Megaraptor;4139210']As a university student I can attest that most anthropologists are nice people but are also leftist moonbats.

x2 There isn't a single anthropology or an ethnic studies professor in my college who is not a Marxist or does not have some hardcore leftist views. You won't get your PhD if you don't sing to the tune of your committee, so that means your views will be shaped to their liking before you're done with grad school.

[Bulletproof]

Megaraptor;4139210']As a university student I can attest that most anthropologists are nice people but are also leftist moonbats.

x2 Make me remember that neo-nazi in my anthropo class, he failed twice because he couldn't admit that every races are equal...lol.

[Gleipnir]

Digimon,
I won't speak for the HTS and quite frankly, am not committed to convincing people that they should see the issue as I do.
In my opinion, I think the work the HTS is doing is necessary and should be looked at primarily within the context of warfare.

The HTS homepage FAQ may be of interest, as it does address some of the ethical issues involved:
http://humanterrainsystem.army.mil/faqs.html

[wigon]

x2 There isn't a single anthropology or an ethnic studies professor in my college who is not a Marxist or does not have some hardcore leftist views. You won't get your PhD if you don't sing to the tune of your committee, so that means your views will be shaped to their liking before you're done with grad school.


You are 100% correct. That is the primary reason why I'm getting kicked out of my graduate program. They did not like the political framework of my reserach and the IRB (institutional review board for human subjects research) refuses to grant a waiver of informed consent.

Ironically I do use Marxist analysis. Many people get confused with the usage of Marxist theory in the analysis of power relationships between social classes and poltiical Marxism (the political application of Marxist theory). They are two VERY different things. There is nothing at all wrong or anti-capitalist with studying the relationships of power between socioeconomic classes within a society. However, as you said, the left-leaning faculty of most social science departments makes it extremely difficult to conduct social research that does not fall within their belief systems.

[wigon]

There seem to be a lot of patting each other on the back going on here, so here are a few points to provide ground for concrete discussion.

First, (to recap the AAA ethical position) one must understand that an anthropologist is a person embedded in a number of roles (e.g., social, academic, professional, communal, familial, civic, and universal) and all of these roles carry their own ethical obligations, which, at times, come into conflict and require resolution. Navigation among these norms is basically guided by the idea of respect for the autonomy of others (clearly liberal deontological position)

As I mentioned earlier, no anthropology student signs a AAA statement of ethics and do not have to commit to those guidelines unless they are a AAA member. They are guidelines based upon past abuses and mistakes by anthropologists that should very strongly be considered.
Nevertheless, as a firm believer in cultural relativism (simialar to that advocated by Clifford Geertz), I believe that it should also apply to the discipline itself.
As Gleipnir mentioned, the discipline is terrified to enter the field of applied conflict research other then as a purely academic/theory building endeavor. This needs to change. Anthropology has the tools to make a difference. Those who tell me that I can't use my knowledge in this manner, quite frankly, have little say so in the matter. At worst I can be backlisted from academic employment. However as an American, I have the freedom to use my knowledge in a manner consistent with national and international laws.




The development of anthropological knowledge can leave the lives of the studied group unaffected, or change it for the better or for the worse. This implies ethical obligations to disclose the intent of the study to the studied group, obtaining informed consent from the group, and refraining from action (study) which might negatively affect the group.

Anthropological researchers should make the results of their research appropriately available to sponsors, students, decision makers, but in doing so, they must consider the social and political implications of the information they disseminate. Anthropological researchers must ensure that they do not harm the safety, dignity, or privacy of the people with whom they work, conduct research, or perform other professional activities, or who might reasonably be thought to be affected by their research.


When you are studying Islamic extremists, I promise you, you will NOT get informed consent other then perhaps long after you have started your applied programs and have gained the trust of your target population. Otherwise there is no way in hell that you can ever hope to recieve informed consent. If that rule is followed, then any anthropological endeavor in counter-terrorism is dead before it can even begin. The current informed consent models used in most institutions are based upon biomedical human subjects research models. Unfortunately most university institutional review boards have little flexibility when it comes to the study of Islamic extremists. THey are NOT even remotely similar to the study of say, a confined population like in a prison system or a marginalized society of indigenous peoples. Applying Marxist analysis to the issue of power, in the area of ideology, the Islamic extremists have the upper-hand in the Islamic world at the moment in many areas of public perception in the Islamic world. As a researcher, I do not have any leverage or power over these target populations of Islamic extremists.

In the HTS program, as Gleipnir stated, the HTS website addresses those issues you mentioned in detail when it comes to work focusing on the general Afghani populations so I won't repeat them here. However all of those issues you mention are almost always discussed in project proposals put forth by any applied anthropologist. That is just standard operating procedure for any anthropologist conducting applied research. If you don't do that, you don't get contracts or grants for research.
.
So overall, I believe the field of anthropology needs to look at whether or not the lives of Afghanis are better or worse for the HTS program being there. Developing appropriate forms of measuring success in any social project is always difficult and more so in a place like Aftghanistan.





In their academic and professional capacity, anthropologists have obligations to the discipline (can’t compromise its reputation and integrity), colleagues (must preserve opportunity for field workers to follow them in the field, etc...). Prior to accepting employment, anthropologists must review the purposes of prospective employers (their past activities and future goals) to ensure absence of conflict with their professional and other ethical commitments.


The strongest single arguement for keeping HTS and similar programs ethical is that indeed it must preserve the integrity of the social sciences. Otherwise, researchers will not be welcomed into communities and deep intimate knowledge about a culture will be much more difficult to document... at least for the short-term anyways.



Thus, three main roles had been identified: Professional (researcher/colleague/scholar); Academic (member of a scientific community); Universal (member of human species). Arguably (depending on the actual facts), HTS violates ethical commitments implied by all three roles.


1) From a universal moral perspective, any person (including anthropologists) has an obligation not to harm others (i.e., to respect their autonomy and freedom). This ethical obligation (which is not special to anthropology) is violated when the others are misinformed (manipulated, controlled), harmed (beaten, interrogated, destroyed, etc...) or restrained (imprisoned, coerced, etc.) To guard against such violations, informed consent from the subject is required.


Have you heard of any anthropologist being directly involved in such activities? If indirectly, how so? Specific examples please. Lets get to the meat of the matter rather then discussing semantics.




2) From professional moral perspective, any anthropologist who engages in unethical activity (see above) puts his/her uninvolved colleagues in danger of harm and undermines their ability to conduct their work (follow them into field). If HTS members enable occupation and control of the occupied population, they will not be perceived as neutral scientists by the controlled public or the insurgents, which means that all anthropologists become potential targets.


Lets flip this around. If the HTS member finds that a community truly is terrified of the Taliban and is instrumental in developing local Afghani police forces and facilitating the expressed needs of the local community, then are they still being unethical especially if this allows the "occupiers" to leave the area? Are you making an assumption that all of these areas wish to be ruled by the Taliban or that the Taliban have their best interest in mind? Would it be more unethical to allow the military to blunder around kicking in doors with absolutely no voice given to the Afghani people other then the voice of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban or the international media?
It's easy to yell, "end the occupation" or to stay neutral on the sidelines. Its hard to come up with alternative solutions to end the occupation while also ending the global and very real threat that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban pose.



3) From an academic moral perspective, if anthropology is employed as means to successful control of the occupied populations, or other political or military purposes, its integrity and reputation as an intrinsically worthy pursuit of knowledge is undermined (anthropology will be viewed as a handmaiden of political, social, or military control).


It was used as such in the past and recovered just fine. Much depends on the outcomes of applied anthropology. The U.N. has been using anthropologists in politically sensitive areas of the world for years in much the same manner as HTS. So far no backlash has occured against the field. Knowledge building is a fine thing. However personaly I've had enough of the "ivory tower" mentality of academic elites who are more interested in arguing about theoretical issues rather than solving problems in the world. I like to refer to their academic debates as "intellectual masturbation."





Some might argue in the following way: As had been pointed out, every individual is embedded in a number of roles with associated ethical obligations. One could argue that the role of anthropologists as member of a community and society places him/her under the obligation to assist in preventing harm to the members of the same communal or social group (US soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan; US citizens as potential subjects of terrorist attack). This obligation overrides the obligation towards members of the wider group—humanity. This is a familiar argument, and the context of its historical application provides its own objection: many of the medical experimentation in the Nazi concentration camps were conducted for the purposes of gathering data relevant to saving German soldiers. The argument for torture follows along similar lines.


What's the old saying? When someone starts making comparisons to Nazis in a debate, then you know that they're grasping for straws. You are indeed making a straw-man arguement as I've not heard of any anthropologist or group of anthropologists who support the usage of torture. If anything, anthropologist can provide vastly more accurate and timely intelligence then any torture can provide and without any coercion involved. If a meaningful partnership is created with the local population and trust is established, residents and community leaders will come foreward with information voluntarily.




Yet, it is possible to make sure that anthropological research is employed to understand a particular culture not for the purposes of manipulation or control but for the purposes of communication and understanding of cultural motivators. Using HTS against terrorists (insurgency against occupational forces is more complex) is not as problematic because terrorists (confirmed terrorists), not unlike general criminals, have forfeited some of their rights to respectful treatment (in virtue of harming others). This, however, does not apply to the general occupied population. In respect to this group, HTS can be made unproblematic if it is used only in a way that respects the autonomy of the studied subjects (implies consent and full disclosure about intent, methods, and so on).

However, even if the HTS research can be made compliant with ethical guidelines, it will still violate obligations to other researchers and the discipline in general since those consequences result from perceptions rather than the matters of fact.

There is no reason that matters of fact along with perceptions can not both be used. An example would be fascilitating peace in an area, fascilitating and end to local tribal disputes (as happened in one successful HTS mission), fascilitating development projects, etc... etc... These are not mere perception. These are very real improvements in the lives of people of that region.

The trickier area is that of local vs. regional or national governance and human rights beliefs that the local populations simply may not agree with us on. That's where things get very dicey and where the anthropologist must have an artist's talent for moving through the political minefields of the region and dealing with a lot of unsavory political players in a delicate manner.

[ggk]

nice read...good insight

[Digimon]

As I mentioned earlier....

Many words. So I split it into two sections: ethics, and general discussion

On normative nature of AAA guidelines: Your answer seems to imply a number of things, including implicit ethical positions. First, you are either confusing the AAA ethical guideline for some form of a contract or Hippocratic Oath or you model all moral obligations on contracts. In the first case, your defence is that anthropologists do not sign it, so there is no moral obligation; in the second case, there is no obligation at all and you can use your knowledge any way you want. Both views are wrong. The force of the moral obligations expressed in the AAA guideline is not derived from the binding nature of some legal contract; these are formulations of moral norms based on principles of justice and individual autonomy (can’t exploit or abuse people; cant’ impose costs on others)—whether you sign them or not is completely irrelevant to their normative character. Your claim that others have no say in how you use your knowledge, presumably because you did not sign anything, seems to presuppose a moral position independent of any contractual obligation: clearly there is a normative overtone in your claim in so far as it implies that you are in your moral rights to act as you deem appropriate, if you did not bind yourself with a contract. Your position, in this case, implies moral justification which is independent of any contract (in fact, you defend your autonomy, which implies a deontological moral position).

On cultural relativism: Cultural relativism does not imply moral relativism, although many social scientists in the past made this mistake, failing to recognize that their desire to protect the rights of other cultures is itself rooted in a liberal moral position. Indeed, even a cursory glance at the normative implications made by those who have historically argued for moral relativism on the basis of cultural relativism shows that it cannot be sustained without a contradiction: the argument is based in the liberal position that an ethnos is morally entitled to their culture and normative system. Furthermore, even if it did, by some bizarre Munchhausen feat, imply moral relativism, it would not make any difference to anthropologists in the US, whose moral position will have to comply with the ethical principles and norms of the Western societies (which are the norms that AAA guidelines reflect).

On law: you seem to argue that your moral obligations are discharged by you being in compliance with the domestic or international law. This is of course not so. You are certainly free to use your knowledge as you see fit within the law, this however does not imply that your actions will be moral. Laws are not arbitrary—their purpose is to regulate interaction and protect rights which are established in accord with principles of justice and morality. So, compliance with the law is neither a necessary nor sufficient conditions of moral behaviour: this is because not every moral rule is captured by law (e.g., emotionally abusing your child or cheating on your girlfriend) and not every law is in accord with moral principles (e.g., racial or ****** discrimination in the recent past, etc...)

You made some other point about using anthropology because it can make a difference, which of course needs interpretation (since throwing a chair through my window also makes a difference, but it is certainly not a good reason for doing so). I detect undigested moral position as the justification for employing anthropology: we should employ it because, presumably, it makes a difference by increasing some social utility, which would be a utilitarian moral position, or saving lives, which would be a deontological moral position. Other positions are possible, but you should make your pick and justify your conclusion rather than simply restate it.

[Digimon]

When you are studying Islamic extremists...

On informed consent: Your point about the informed consent condition is fair; you also make a reasonable point about the context of ethical norms requiring informed consent as being fundamentally civil, although you make a mistake when you think that they are borrowed from bioethics—in fact, both bioethics and ethics of social research are grounded in deontological ethical framework of respect for persons. Argument that the ethical framework is developed for people who are entitled to the same moral rights (unlike terrorists or, I suspect, Islamic extremists, in your opinion) is in fact the best way to tackle this issue. As I have pointed out, we imprison and punish criminals (denying their autonomy) and we collect information on suspects or foreign governments or government officials (again, denying their autonomy) if we believe they pose a threat to others. This is because individuals who we know intend to harm innocent people have forfeited their rights to the same respect to which those who participate in normal social or medical research still remain entitled. Of course, anthropologists requesting informed consent from terrorists or Islamic extremists would be as defeating as a spy requesting an informed consent from some foreign intelligence agent in order to collect intelligence on him, nor would they need to do so (after all, we have doctors do mental profiles on serial killers or do research on gang violence).

On Islamic extremism: The problem is of course who you designate as Islamic extremists, and I suspect the term might conveniently cover just about any person of Muslim faith who has some critical view of United State’s foreign policy (just like in Russia, the groups demanding fair elections or a referendum on independence are called extremists). When you deny criminals their right to freedom, to which they were entitled prior to the crime, it is morally kosher; when you deny the freedom to innocent people and simply call them “criminal,” you are violating the rights to which they are still entitled. Same goes for your designation “Islamic extremist.” I doubt any one will have much to say about you going to do field research on terrorists, but if you go to collect data that will be used to control people who simply happened to be on the other end of the ideological divide with the United States, then you are guilty of a moral trespass.

On facts: As to your demand for facts or evidence against HTS, I have none. I make no assumptions; I only make conditionals. I have neither a personal stake in the matter, nor do I argue that HTS is guilty of anything. I am simply outlining how ethical norms could be bridged, not whether HTS has bridged them. I also do not demand to cease occupation; I think it would be morally irresponsible, nor do I think that US should be morally complacent in the face of injustice or oppression (the question is of course how to go about fixing those problems).

On comparison to Nazis, and the Straw Man Fallacy: The logical fallacy you were looking for is Faulty Analogy, which, nevertheless, my argument is not. I did not compare HTS to Nazis in order to transfer the moral judgement from one to the other on the basis of some irrelevant similarities. Indeed, I did not compare them at all. I identified an implicit moral principle in a particular argument for overriding the rights of one innocent group for the sake of the rights of another group to which we happen to belong. I pointed out that when universally applied, the argument, if true, justifies experimentation on innocent people (e.g. Jews) for developing treatments for one’s compatriots (e.g., German soldiers). Logic is not semiotics: it is a bad policy to look for signs or key words (e.g., Nazis) as grounds for identifying logical fallacies, even if the procedure is a frequently reliable predictor when applied to Fox News pundits.

On damage to anthropology and obligations to colleagues: You seem to suggest that HTS can facilitate resolution to tribal disputes, ensure peace, enable development project and so on... If HTS does indeed employ norms that allow to improve lives while avoid harming, manipulating, or disadvantaging innocent people (even those that happen to resent US presence or policies), then there would be nothing wrong with its work. Then, this whole argument and discussion is completely irrelevant: if they do not violate any norms, there will be no adverse effects in the population, and, as a result, no danger to other anthropologists or damage to the reputation of anthropology in general (by the way, rape victims also eventually recover, but this felicitous outcome can hardly exculpate those who inflict on them those damages: likewise, anthropology is an institutions with many, many stakeholders who will suffer the consequences of possible adverse effects).

[wigon]

You make some good points but I think we're approaching the issue from two extremely different world views. I also still think that you are making some assumptions (as we all do) that may not be quite accurate. All ethical norms in social science are indeed based on deontological concepts as you stated. That includes the biomedical model. What I was saying is that from my experience, IRB's at major institutions reviewing human subjects research, tend to be heavily influenced by the biomedical research model such as what is often used in clinical psychology. It is a common complaint amongst anthropologists in academia.

Also let me clarify, I do not lump Islamic extremists with terrorists. A terrorist I define as someone who openly advocates the killing of non-combatants that are not directly affiliated with a military force. Those who conduct political killings or conduct sectarian violence, I would define as a terrorist. However, more importantly, I do not lay down a moral judgement on them. Rather I seek "WHY" and "HOW" they become a terrorist. At least that is my hope. However currently my research is not directed so much towards terrorists but rather towards "Islamic extremists" who generally sympathize and "may" directly or indirectly support terrorists (I do not try to find out the latter). They also have an Islamic ideology that is easily used to rationalize terrorist actions. I am by no means saying that they don't have the same rights as everyone else. What I am saying is that one simply has to be pragmatic about doing research with this population while taking into consideration the repercussions of the research as far as both short-term and long term consequences. It is this area (the details) that I'm always open to feedback and criticism. The broader moral issue is not one I struggle with until someone gives me an example of a problem or possible problem. As an anthropologist, I firm believe in looking at everything within its context and not so much from a broader theoretical view. I am assuming that you work in academia or are a graduate student as your statements sound very much like the lectures I received from my department's faculty who did not quite understand what I was doing and who took a highly moralistic (deontological as you say) view on my research.

Proper anthropology in the area of terrorists or Islamic extremists is to tell their side of the story as accurately as possible. It is the act of translating their world view to ours in a detailed and humanist manner. Through this cross-cultural understanding of "the other", true dialog can be done as well as separating out those with whom no dialog can be made and who are truly, even from an Islamic/Iraqi/Afghani standpoint, psychopaths and hypocrites (munafiqun). This is based upon long term research where there is broad agreement amongst your research population rather then some Western categorization. If the target population does not agree with my research, it is absolutely useless. Hence, feedback is extremely important unlike many other social science research where often little or no effort is made to get feedback on the actual research results prior to publication.
When conducting final analysis of the data, the effects of the researcher being there, power issues between researcher and subject, local laws and customs, tribal/ethnic affiliations, local history, the political/military situation, and many other such factors are all considered in the analysis.

Concerning the HTS, the conditional arguments you make are fine and indeed are NEEDED in all social science research. However, for me at least, it becomes a bit of an exercise in "intellectual masturbation" if their are no real violations of these conditional arguments. They are just "What If" types of warnings that are good to acknowledge, but a waste of time to ponder too much about. I prefer direct and detailed critical analysis pinpointing issues in the current research that may be problematic or unethical. The "War on Terror" is too fast-flowing to waste time on broader theoretical arguments as events on the ground and even the ideologies and perceptions of those on the ground are always rapidly changing. Becoming stuck in any one fixed paradigm or theory leads to failure or at least faulty analysis that can lead to faulty policy making. Complex issues such as the War on Terror need to be approached from a variety of theoretical approaches... even contradictory approaches to the issues.
This approach I learned not from any social scientist, but rather from the science fiction author Frank Herbert (author of the Dune series). It is part of what he called the Mentat school of philosophy which gets its name from ancient Roman chariot riders who would stand on two horses with one foot on each. It would seem like common sense, but no school of social science currently teaches this approach, other than the "4 fields" approach in anthropology perhaps getting the closest. But even in Anthropology, you are encouraged to stick to one overarching theory as the foundation of your research. My thesis committee did not appreciate that I was hopping around between theories that did not always relate to each other (although they did apply perfectly to a particular issue). They were looking for a unifying theory in my research which is something I rejected as essentially lying if I were to attempt to do that.
Another idea that Frank Herbert emphasized was that of finding "key logs" in conflict analysis. This comes from the term used by lumbermen who floated their timber down rivers. Occasionally they would pile up at a choke point. An expert timberman would be called in to find the key log, which if removed, would un-jam all of the logs. Within conflict research, this means identifying the key factors and players in the conflict so as to resolve the conflict as efficiently as possible.

Concerning the Nazis, I understand what you are getting at. However it is not a universally held moral viewpoint that it is wrong to override the rights of one innocent group to protect the rights of another group. In fact capitalism is heavily based upon the rejection of this principle and a constant struggle over what those "rights" are. Islamic extremists certainly feel that they are at the blunt end of Western oppression against their religion and culture. At the same time, they generally completely support the idea of dominating non-Muslims and forcing them to submit to Islamic rule.
So essentially what you are describing is the constant competition within the human race between groups. This has always been the case. The Nazi example is an extreme example of the abuse of power over one group to further the cause of another group. To the Nazis, those who they conducted research on were far from innocent. This is typical "demonization" of "the other" that occurs during conflict between groups. It's a well known sociological phenomena that is very difficult to prevent and one that the field of anthropology is VERY aware of.


Part Two below-

[wigon]

Your position, in this case, implies moral justification which is independent of any contract (in fact, you defend your autonomy, which implies a deontological moral position).

Actually no. My idea of autonomy is not at all based on any deontological moral position. Such moral positions are nice to have as a guideline, but in fact, my belief in autonomy is based upon a vast range of factors including how my parents raised me, my cultural background, my experiences travelling around the world, the social norms of where I've lived in the United States, and most importantly, the laws of the United States of America. I'm free to bend and flex my belief system however I see fit within the laws governing the United States. If I stray past those, then I risk serious consequences legally. So as much as you like to insist that those AAA ethical codes apply to me, they really only apply to me as much as I choose for them to apply. For the most part I do abide by them. With that said however, if I see them as not applying to the context of my research and if I do not see any negative consequences (after listening to critiques of others) for ignoring some area of the AAA code of ethics, then I have no problems doing so. For me its not about blindly following societal or professional norms of conduct (unless I have little choice due to laws), but rather about understanding the roots of those norms and ethical codes. Then with that knowledge I determine whether to accept or reject them within the context of my research and life.

As for moral relativism, you have a completely different understanding of it then I do. I understand your definition of moral relativism and we can argue about definitions fruitlessly. I can only tell you how I operationalize moral relativism within my research and life. Moral relativism for me is indeed closely affiliated with cultural relativism. I reject the liberal notion that every culture's ideas of morality are inherently equal to our own and that they are entitled to it without question. Moral relativism does not need to limit someone from making moral judgements about another culture. It is tied to cultural relativism because moral norms within populations are deeply based on their particular cultures with roots in their histories, religions, traditions, politics, family structures, ect...
Once the culture is understood from a deep emic perspective, then their particular brand of moral norms are better understood. From a culturally INFORMED position, one then can begin to get an idea of a population's views on their traditional beliefs on morality. From that, one can make judgement calls on whether certain forms of morality in a population are, in fact, detrimental to their society even from the perspective of people living in that society.

With that said, I also differ from conservatives in that I do not believe on forcing our own morality and value systems upon other cultures. These are best changed with a gentle touch based upon dialog, trade, diplomacy, education, and exposure to other cultures. We may not like how some people around the world do things, but there are both smart and stupid ways of attempting to change that. In some cases they may be right and we may be wrong. We must be very critical of our own normative morality within our own cultures and be able to examine it thoroughly. We should not feel fearful of these other cultures challenging our normative morality. That is all part of dialog and developing a solid mutual understanding of each other.
On an individual level, much of morality also boils down to life experiences and a person's individual psychology. Understanding how that shapes a person's decision making makes a tremendous difference in gaining a person's trust and being able to talk to them within a context that he (or she) can understand. For that reason I tend to use the context of Islam as my primary means of communicating to extremists. I don't attack the Shariat, their prophet, or any part of their religion. Instead, I seek to understand how the extremists interpret Islam compared to more moderate interpretations I've studied (such as the more legitimate Sufi sects as well as moderate Sunni scholars throughout Islamic history. When I seek knowledge from these extremists, the dynamics of the dialog change enormously and respect and trust is then built upon that. Once those psychological defensive walls are down, true dialog can take place.
Morality then can be discussed, rationalized, and critiqued by both sides.
By gently recommending the readings of well known Islamic scholars (both living and long dead), the process of moral change and critical thinking begins while retaining an emphasis on traditional but positive Islamic values.
Personally my goal is not to "liberate" Afghani women or disband shariat courts. My goal is to encourage Afghanis to get on the path of wanting to become more progressive on human rights and to champion an interpretation of Islam based primarily on mercy and compassion. Most importantly my goal is change their belief that America is out to destroy their religion and to develop alternative (but more productive) non-violent methods of resistance to both perceived and real oppression.

Regarding the law, Yes, I fully understand and agree with your definition of the law. However I do not agree that I somehow MUST abide by what you regard as normative morality. The only morality I must follow are those that are bound by natural law. By natural law, I mean any set of laws that are based on the concept that an action will have serious negative consequences for an individual in a given society. The example of cheating on a girlfriend. Here in America, if caught, then yeah my girlfriend would castrate me (or attempt to). That is natural law being a factor in keeping me from cheating. However in other countries and cultures, there are few negative consequences for a man to cheat on his wife or girlfriend. So for them the natural law that applies in our culture does not apply. Are they immoral? From our perspective, yes. But I'm not going to criticize them other then demonstrating to them how it can negatively effect their family as well as their personal honor and reputation in their community (if those things are important to them).

As far as throwing chairs through windows, I do not believe I am doing that. I've spent years consulting with Muslims of all sects regarding my research and continue to do so.
The fact of the matter is that CULTURE CHANGES. The Human race is always going through cultural change. It is not always good, and not always bad. It is just change and it happens with or without the help of cultural anthropology. Nevertheless, what I see now are two trains rapidly approaching each other on a collision course. If my knowledge on Islam and Middle Eastern cultures can help to thwart that collision, then for me that moral belief overrides any opposition to it within the laws of the United States.
I hope I have stated my case, but if not and you believe that I still have not justified it, perhaps you could be more specific. If you can't be more specific, then I'm afraid I can't help you, and vice-versa, I can not apply your input in a constructive manner other then as a general reminder to be extremely self-critical in what I am doing and to always conduct predictive analysis of possible outcomes (including worst outcome scenarios). That is actually a big part of my research methodology by the way. Proposals that I've sent out include fail-safe protocols for damage control in the event of worst possible outcomes. Those aspects of my research proposals however I do not make public for the moment for a wide variety of reasons that probably go against the AAA (and were not part of my original thesis research). But they are pragmatic precautions in a chess game where not all players abide by the rules. I've learned that from hard experience.

[Digimon]

.....

It’s alright. I am not going to pursue this further. I am surprised though, for it seems to me that you lack, or perhaps choose to ignore, some basic, and I would say essential for an anthropologist, background in applied ethics and metaethics (I am also puzzled by your stipulative definition of natural law). For one thing, you fail to distinguish between ethics and ethos or appreciate the pervasive, inescapable nature of objective moral judgements. This is not a sleight at you, particularly because I recognize that you are driven by moral considerations, which you yourself chose to explain away as a result of your own socio-cultural conditioning. It appears that you vacillate between causal and normative explanations. I think you should give a serious thought to the idea that socio-cultural causal explanations are just a different level of description for norms, which, nevertheless, cannot possibly explain their normative character (no more, indeed, than a neural or molecular explanation can properly explain the semantic or intentional content of our thoughts; although, mind you, they do describe them on a basic physical level).

I do not think this is inevitable for an anthropologist to conflate causal and normative explanations (in fact, to make sure that it is not is precisely the reason why social science programs require ethics courses as mandatory part of the degree). I had an anthropologist friend whom I loved dearly, and who, sadly, never completed his PhD. He spent most of his time during grad school volunteering for the Red Cross and driving around distributing blankets to homeless people in subarctic temperatures. Now, he is somewhere in the Central Congo helping the refugees as part of the UN effort. He was an anthropologist, yet he was never tempted to conflate cultural and moral relativism. Crucially, he never saw his actions as being justified by nothing more than some arbitrary set of historical circumstances, be it family, travels, social background, upbringing, or anything else. Clearly, he recognized that causal explanations are not justifications.

I wish you luck in your research, but I wish you did not employ it, however gently, to manipulate people into getting opinions that serve your or your country’s purposes. I wish the same to journalists, lawyers, marketers, psychologists, and whoever else whose knowledge and professional capacity gives them an advantage over others—who, just like they, wish to remain free to make up their own minds.

P.S. The general problem with hopping between theories in your methodology is due to the fundamental assumption that reality is unitary and therefore your theoretical postulates ought to be coherent. I cannot say much more without knowing the details.

[wigon]

I think you should give a serious thought to the idea that socio-cultural causal explanations are just a different level of description for norms, which, nevertheless, cannot possibly explain their normative character (no more, indeed, than a neural or molecular explanation can properly explain the semantic or intentional content of our thoughts; although, mind you, they do describe them on a basic physical level).


Actually I very much disagree with that analogy. Socio-cultural causal explanations of normative behavior can often be demonstrated quite clearly in cross-cultural analysis where certain patterns of behavior in different cultures can be shown to be linked by very similar factors in those different societies. Socio-cultural causal explanations are vastly more then a simple description. They very often shed light on the root of normative behaviors.
The social sciences are all about searching for and understanding socio-cultural causal factors so as to explain why societies (and individuals) act the way they do. This includes studying and critiquing our own cultures and ethics in the same manner.

I applaud the work your Anthropologist friend is doing in Africa. I understand your point that ethics are not merely a bunch of "...arbitrary set of historical circumstances" as you put it. However I respectfully disagree. They are not arbitrary circumstances but rather all intimately tied together. To hold on to normative ethics at all costs is based very much on human emotions rather then rationality. These are often very good emotions: compassion, generosity, love, honor, etc… However they can be highly limiting in ambiguous situations or where such emotions are not reciprocated. I say this because I am an extremely emotional person who's ideas of ethics in my personal life have cost me dearly. Looking at my rationality in hind-sight, I realized that I am often blinded by romantic emotions surrounding my views on morality. Do I still do it? Usually. But these days I like to analyze why I believe in certain ethics. That really is just to keep myself in check as I am very idealistic and I tend to romanticize everything I do in life (it makes life more worthwhile when you live it with passion).

As for my research, quite honestly, it is ALL about manipulation. However politics is all about manipulation. Religion is all about manipulation. Marketing is all about manipulation. We are manipulated every day by people with ideas who want you and I to believe a certain way. For me, what is more important is looking at the purpose of this manipulation and being self-critical as to any possible negative results.
So essentially I am a salesman in the Islamic world trying to convince Islamic extremists that there are better ways of solving issues other then Jihad while using arguments based within Islamic traditions. Nothing less, nothing more.

As a Cajun-Muslim friend said to me ounce, "Make your enemy your friend, and you no longer have an enemy."
The tough part is convincing the U.S. government, the military, and other Americans that doing so is the only way to truly win the War on Terror.
Again, I manipulate to convince them. I'm ex Army so I use military rationale when speaking to military officers. When speaking to Christians I will use the example of Jesus Christ to justify the argument. When speaking to atheists, I'll use more logic and psychological based arguments. So ethically I have no problems with manipulating perception and belief if the stated purpose, goals, and outcomes are ethical (in this case de-escalating the conflict and reducing or ending the violence on both sides).

[zapatero]

Time to refresh the thread. It seems that HTS had made it into the movie world. Below the relevant docu trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZOYjok4BPs

[wigon]

Oh interesting. From the trailer however it looks like they're portraying the HTS people more as mercenaries or something. I know that the majority in social science academia are steadfastly against HTS, especially in anthropology which is where they recruit the most from. Alot of the professors I've spoken to against HTS are REAL assholes and hardcore political Marxist fanatics who are all about "resistance to American imperialism" and crap like that where they romantacize the Taliban and Al-Qaeda as a bunch of sensitive brave warriors fighting American hegemony. The site, ZEROANTHROPOLOGY.com is an example of these fanatics/Al-Qaeda sympathizers who actively advocate for Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Maximilian Forte, the head of Zero Anthropology, is one of the biggest assholes you will ever meet. He is just a nasty nasty individual. His blog is a joke however. Anyone from HTS who tries to debate him, he just refuses to post their responses once he starts clearly losing the debate and devolving to just insulting them and ranting about the wonderful brave mujahadin. Last time I debated him, he claimed to have run me off his blog when the fact was that he just refused to post my responses that he couldn't challenge in any other way but with profane insults. This guy even posts pro Jihadi videos on YouTube and does interviews all over the Arab media. I can't post one of those videos here as it violates the forum rules (terrorist propaganda) but he goes on youtube under the name maximilianforte and the video I speak of is called "Human al-Balawi: Slayer of CIA Terrorists in Afghanistan." Read his comments and you'll say how big of an asshole this guy is. He is a sick, twisted, devious individual who is the absolute worst stereotype of a liberal academic that you could EVER imagine. They, similar groups, and even the AAA (American Anthropological Association) actively have campaigned in D.C. to shutdown HTS citing lack of evidence that it works among other things. Ironically, the only reason why Congress hasn't shut it down is because Army ground commanders demand that the program stays open and continue to ask for more HTS personel who they believe are a critical component of mission success during operations.

[zapatero]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBkHWb6Iurw&playnext_from=TL&videos=0GhPIVmyMJ4&feature=sub
1234567890

[wigon]

Overall an interesting video, but they really didn't show the operational methodology of dialog used by HTS. They kinda described a mickey-mouse version of it along with all the exciting shooting and security stuff. Rather disappointing but then again, National Geographic documentaries have always leaned more towards entertainment rather then factual knowledge.
It's funny that it was posted by Zeroanthropology.net. It's helarious that Max blocked me from posting any comments on his video. He's a total coward who is incapable of logical debate regarding HTS. It's wierd because according to his students he encourages debates and is a pretty cool guy. However on the internet he gets this wierd alter-ego where he acts like a complete and total asshole. I probably should give his university office a phone call and talk to the man directly. I imagine he would just hang up on me. lol

[seraosha]

This might be in my top 10 threads on this site.

Very informative, thanks for everyone's insight.