Comments on: Anthropology and the CIA (again)

Comments on: Anthropology and the CIA (again) http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/ Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog Thu, 24 May 2012 01:47:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: L.N. http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/comment-page-1/#comment-37931 L.N. Sat, 04 Nov 2006 13:29:23 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/#comment-37931 The topic of anthropology and the CIA is drifting to the center of the discipline. The current issue of US News & World Report has a major article, "Hey Lets Play Ball" on anthropologists working for the CIA (11/6/06 PP:52-57). I've heard that there are several sessions on this at the AAA and that motions will be brought to the AAA business meeting. The topic of anthropology and the CIA is drifting to the center of the discipline.

The current issue of US News & World Report has a major article, “Hey Lets Play Ball” on anthropologists working for the CIA (11/6/06 PP:52-57). I’ve heard that there are several sessions on this at the AAA and that motions will be brought to the AAA business meeting.

Report this comment

]]> By: Patrick http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/comment-page-1/#comment-37448 Patrick Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:11:21 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/#comment-37448 The obvious answer regarding the secrecy issue is that an anthropologist working for a company or a government has different ethical obligations than a research anthropologist working for a university. Saying that an anthropologist shouldn't work for the government because his research and work on behalf of the government will be secret in violation of an ethical obligation to publish knowledge seems sort of like... saying that an attorney shouldn't work as a criminal defense lawyer because it doesn't uphold his obligations as a prosecuting lawyer. The obvious answer regarding the secrecy issue is that an anthropologist working for a company or a government has different ethical obligations than a research anthropologist working for a university.

Saying that an anthropologist shouldn’t work for the government because his research and work on behalf of the government will be secret in violation of an ethical obligation to publish knowledge seems sort of like… saying that an attorney shouldn’t work as a criminal defense lawyer because it doesn’t uphold his obligations as a prosecuting lawyer.

Report this comment

]]> By: Pat Nelson http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/comment-page-1/#comment-36946 Pat Nelson Fri, 27 Oct 2006 00:22:57 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/#comment-36946 Kate, are you doing an ethnographic study of anthropologists who want to work for the CIA and you are protecting their identity as research subjects in your study? This sounds like an important and interesting study. Let us know when you publish this fieldwork research. Kate, are you doing an ethnographic study of anthropologists who want to work for the CIA and you are protecting their identity as research subjects in your study? This sounds like an important and interesting study. Let us know when you publish this fieldwork research.

Report this comment

]]> By: John McCreery http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/comment-page-1/#comment-36754 John McCreery Wed, 25 Oct 2006 05:21:13 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/#comment-36754 In a spirit of comparable transparency, allow me to note that I will be giving a paper on collaborative research involving business folk in Taiwan in December. One critical point I want to make is that from a business perspective the value of proprietary information normally declines very rapidly. To someone who needs to make a decision on what markets or consumers are doing today and are likely to do in the near future, research that is even a year old has already become (to borrow Joseph Levenson's phrase) "of merely historical value." It may, however, remain of considerable value to historians or social scientists with the leisure to ponder the course of social and cultural change over longer periods of time. To me this represents an opportunity for anthropologists as well as other scholars to persuade corporations to open their archives for research. The questions of how to gain access and when and to what extent information will be "declassified" are the critical practical issues facing anyone who pursues this opportunity. In a spirit of comparable transparency, allow me to note that I will be giving a paper on collaborative research involving business folk in Taiwan in December. One critical point I want to make is that from a business perspective the value of proprietary information normally declines very rapidly. To someone who needs to make a decision on what markets or consumers are doing today and are likely to do in the near future, research that is even a year old has already become (to borrow Joseph Levenson’s phrase) “of merely historical value.” It may, however, remain of considerable value to historians or social scientists with the leisure to ponder the course of social and cultural change over longer periods of time. To me this represents an opportunity for anthropologists as well as other scholars to persuade corporations to open their archives for research. The questions of how to gain access and when and to what extent information will be “declassified” are the critical practical issues facing anyone who pursues this opportunity.

Report this comment

]]> By: Kate Gillogly http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/comment-page-1/#comment-36739 Kate Gillogly Wed, 25 Oct 2006 03:04:16 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/#comment-36739 I have to add another point on secrecy and revelation. Many anthropologists are opposed to working with the military/intelligence industry -- as well as with corporations and design businesses -- because of the secrecy involved. What is the point of secret research? How does it contribute to a body of knowledge that is publicly available? How do we ensure that knowledge is not misused or appropriated and commercialized, and used against the people who kindly let us study with them? These are constant ethical questions for those of us actually doing/practicing anthropology. Open and transparent discussion is one of our protections from abuse of power. However, as in any fieldwork situation, we protect the names of those who have given us information especially when that information might endanger them. Such danger might come from community backlash; from their own governments' oppression; or from international intervention. Our study participants have confidentiality unless they agree to be publicly identified. There's a fundamental difference between the degree of openness that is appropriate for the researcher or the researched. In the spirit of open discussion, many of us involved in discussion on SM use either our names or our names and contact information are available to the SM community with via hyperlink. I have identified myself; I'm willing to take the risks involved in talking intelligently about this topic on myself, because we need to talk about the elephant in the room. Red Pill, I love irony. I have to add another point on secrecy and revelation.

Many anthropologists are opposed to working with the military/intelligence industry — as well as with corporations and design businesses — because of the secrecy involved. What is the point of secret research? How does it contribute to a body of knowledge that is publicly available? How do we ensure that knowledge is not misused or appropriated and commercialized, and used against the people who kindly let us study with them? These are constant ethical questions for those of us actually doing/practicing anthropology. Open and transparent discussion is one of our protections from abuse of power.

However, as in any fieldwork situation, we protect the names of those who have given us information especially when that information might endanger them. Such danger might come from community backlash; from their own governments’ oppression; or from international intervention. Our study participants have confidentiality unless they agree to be publicly identified.

There’s a fundamental difference between the degree of openness that is appropriate for the researcher or the researched.

In the spirit of open discussion, many of us involved in discussion on SM use either our names or our names and contact information are available to the SM community with via hyperlink.

I have identified myself; I’m willing to take the risks involved in talking intelligently about this topic on myself, because we need to talk about the elephant in the room.

Red Pill, I love irony.

Report this comment

]]> By: oneman http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/comment-page-1/#comment-36663 oneman Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:54:45 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/#comment-36663 Red Pill -- a few points: 1) "Savage Minds" is not a think tank, a policy institute, or a professional organization. There is no "Savage Minds philosophy" or "worldview" or anything, aside from the fact that we all share a general commitement to making anthropology more public (of course, we disagree about what that means and how that might happen). It's entirely possible that one of us agrees with you wholly while another of us does secret work for the CIA on how best to torture American citizens who dare to express dissent. 2) You are responding to comments that were not all made by SM members, and I don't think you want to imply that providing a space for discussion equals endorsement. There are several posts on SM that deal with anthropologists' involvement with the military/industrial complex -- I suggest you search the site for "CIA" and read them. 3) I see no call for abuse -- not everyone has the super-special privileged insight to the ethical workings of the state that you claim for yourself, and I think it's fair to admit that reasonable people -- even well-meaning ones -- can disagree on issues of such moral complexity. 4) My own research, and that of others dealing with the relation between anthropology and the military/intelligence apparatus, does not suggest anything like a massive conspiracy to downplay the number of anthropologists actively working in military or intelligence endeavors. Yes, there are some -- and many "canonical" figures in the field have also gotten into bed with the state: Mead of course, but also Murdock, Kluckhohn, and Wittfogel, to name a few. But by and large anthropological knowledge has been marginalized in the US -- and even in the colonial empires of Britain and France, anthropologists have had to fight hard for even minimal standing. Think about it for a second: if intelligence jobs were so attractive and so acceptable to anthros and other social scientists, they'd hardly need to offer incentives like PRISP -- which promises a free ride in college if only students will *consider* a career in intelligence -- and they'd hardly need to go to such great lengths to keep students' involvement in the program a secret. Red Pill — a few points:

1) “Savage Minds” is not a think tank, a policy institute, or a professional organization. There is no “Savage Minds philosophy” or “worldview” or anything, aside from the fact that we all share a general commitement to making anthropology more public (of course, we disagree about what that means and how that might happen). It’s entirely possible that one of us agrees with you wholly while another of us does secret work for the CIA on how best to torture American citizens who dare to express dissent.

2) You are responding to comments that were not all made by SM members, and I don’t think you want to imply that providing a space for discussion equals endorsement. There are several posts on SM that deal with anthropologists’ involvement with the military/industrial complex — I suggest you search the site for “CIA” and read them.

3) I see no call for abuse — not everyone has the super-special privileged insight to the ethical workings of the state that you claim for yourself, and I think it’s fair to admit that reasonable people — even well-meaning ones — can disagree on issues of such moral complexity.

4) My own research, and that of others dealing with the relation between anthropology and the military/intelligence apparatus, does not suggest anything like a massive conspiracy to downplay the number of anthropologists actively working in military or intelligence endeavors. Yes, there are some — and many “canonical” figures in the field have also gotten into bed with the state: Mead of course, but also Murdock, Kluckhohn, and Wittfogel, to name a few. But by and large anthropological knowledge has been marginalized in the US — and even in the colonial empires of Britain and France, anthropologists have had to fight hard for even minimal standing. Think about it for a second: if intelligence jobs were so attractive and so acceptable to anthros and other social scientists, they’d hardly need to offer incentives like PRISP — which promises a free ride in college if only students will *consider* a career in intelligence — and they’d hardly need to go to such great lengths to keep students’ involvement in the program a secret.

Report this comment

]]> By: Red Pill http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/comment-page-1/#comment-36654 Red Pill Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:55:09 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/#comment-36654 No. This isn't the only point involved in this, but it is rather interesting to see how narrow the lines marking the borders of dissent are across the Pacific over at Savage Minds, defender of American ways of thinking. While apparently disagreeing on one's role in protecting CIA aspiring anthropologists brings censorship and the sudden wrath of Kerim, I would state again that there are actually many anthropologists working for the CIA. Reports that anthropologists are being rejected are exagerated by CIA friendly anthropologists like Dr. McFate. Yes, I am sure these anthropologists believe they are following their own moral principles, but the CIA always thinks this even when the torture people and murder people. Big deal. My point is that anthropologists shouldn't do this. Some of you Americans think this is OK, this is oh so American of you. I think we shouldn't even help people who are doing this. Some of you think this is OK. I think that if you shield the people who are doing this or who are trying to do this, then you are helping them do this. I won't help people do this. None of us should. It is not a fine thing to do. So go ahead and pull the plug me, I've seen enough of Savage Minds. Take the blue pill and go back to what you doing. No. This isn’t the only point involved in this, but it is rather interesting to see how narrow the lines marking the borders of dissent are across the Pacific over at Savage Minds, defender of American ways of thinking. While apparently disagreeing on one’s role in protecting CIA aspiring anthropologists brings censorship and the sudden wrath of Kerim, I would state again that there are actually many anthropologists working for the CIA. Reports that anthropologists are being rejected are exagerated by CIA friendly anthropologists like Dr. McFate. Yes, I am sure these anthropologists believe they are following their own moral principles, but the CIA always thinks this even when the torture people and murder people. Big deal. My point is that anthropologists shouldn’t do this. Some of you Americans think this is OK, this is oh so American of you. I think we shouldn’t even help people who are doing this. Some of you think this is OK. I think that if you shield the people who are doing this or who are trying to do this, then you are helping them do this. I won’t help people do this. None of us should. It is not a fine thing to do. So go ahead and pull the plug me, I’ve seen enough of Savage Minds. Take the blue pill and go back to what you doing.

Report this comment

]]> By: Kate Gillogly http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/comment-page-1/#comment-36528 Kate Gillogly Tue, 24 Oct 2006 01:24:59 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/#comment-36528 Dustin, that is absolutely the point -- even if anthropologists wanted to do this work, there are many political, structural, and cultural reasons why there's a poor fit between what anthropologists (and other social scientists) do and what the military does (keeping in mind the different branches have their own cultures as well). A few years ago, Catherine Lutz won the SUNTA Leeds Prize for "Homefront: A Military City and the American 20th Century" (Beacon Press, 2002). I spent an hour or so at the local book store looking through it while I considered using it for my Urban Anthropology class (ah, yes, the local bookstore as the library replacement for under-employed adjunct faculty/grad students!). It was a careful and compassionate discussion of how the interests of the people in the city were formed by and in conflict with military interests. It would be great to have more ethnographies like that. Of course, again, we face the structural difficulties of the type John delineates in carrying out such research. But in all of the anti-military rhetoric, I am reminded of my first fieldwork in the Solomon Islands. At the time, anthropology was still fixated on the 'traditional,' and we turned up our noses at the missionized peoples as somehow ruined. At the very least, my partner and I were decidedly anti-religion and so avoided the evangelicals as much as possible for a time, until I got stuck in a truck with some evangelicals one day and was confronted by a worldview so profoundly 'other' that I had that aha moment -- hey, why apply cultural relativism to the 'primitives' and not to the 'moderns'? Isn't that, you know, ethnocentric? I want to understand worldviews, perspectives, culturally-constructed legitimations, structural tendencies, etc. etc. before I decide others are bad people. Dustin, that is absolutely the point — even if anthropologists wanted to do this work, there are many political, structural, and cultural reasons why there’s a poor fit between what anthropologists (and other social scientists) do and what the military does (keeping in mind the different branches have their own cultures as well). A few years ago, Catherine Lutz won the SUNTA Leeds Prize for “Homefront: A Military City and the American 20th Century” (Beacon Press, 2002). I spent an hour or so at the local book store looking through it while I considered using it for my Urban Anthropology class (ah, yes, the local bookstore as the library replacement for under-employed adjunct faculty/grad students!). It was a careful and compassionate discussion of how the interests of the people in the city were formed by and in conflict with military interests. It would be great to have more ethnographies like that. Of course, again, we face the structural difficulties of the type John delineates in carrying out such research.

But in all of the anti-military rhetoric, I am reminded of my first fieldwork in the Solomon Islands. At the time, anthropology was still fixated on the ‘traditional,’ and we turned up our noses at the missionized peoples as somehow ruined. At the very least, my partner and I were decidedly anti-religion and so avoided the evangelicals as much as possible for a time, until I got stuck in a truck with some evangelicals one day and was confronted by a worldview so profoundly ‘other’ that I had that aha moment — hey, why apply cultural relativism to the ‘primitives’ and not to the ‘moderns’? Isn’t that, you know, ethnocentric? I want to understand worldviews, perspectives, culturally-constructed legitimations, structural tendencies, etc. etc. before I decide others are bad people.

Report this comment

]]> By: John McCreery http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/comment-page-1/#comment-36503 John McCreery Mon, 23 Oct 2006 23:18:58 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/#comment-36503 Dustin is right about Montgomery McFate. My thoughts in re the daughter's experience may help to explain why she faces an uphill battle. Not so much because someone has decided a priori that anthropological knowledge doesn't amount to much, but instead because anthropological knowledge comes at the end of a long list of other things an officer needs to know to be promoted. It's one more thing to learn in a list that is already too long. (Which reminds me of something I read in the <i>Trident</i>, the US Naval Academy's student newspaper: "The coach wants me sixteen hours a day, the dean wants me sixteen hours a day, the commandant wants me sixteen hours a day....We learn to prioritize.") This is what structural issues come down to in practice. Until the organization changes to create a career path in which anthropological knowledge weighs heavily in achieving success, the answer to those who suggest its value will continue to be "Right, that's nice, could be useful....but...." Dustin is right about Montgomery McFate. My thoughts in re the daughter’s experience may help to explain why she faces an uphill battle. Not so much because someone has decided a priori that anthropological knowledge doesn’t amount to much, but instead because anthropological knowledge comes at the end of a long list of other things an officer needs to know to be promoted. It’s one more thing to learn in a list that is already too long. (Which reminds me of something I read in the Trident, the US Naval Academy’s student newspaper: “The coach wants me sixteen hours a day, the dean wants me sixteen hours a day, the commandant wants me sixteen hours a day….We learn to prioritize.”)

This is what structural issues come down to in practice. Until the organization changes to create a career path in which anthropological knowledge weighs heavily in achieving success, the answer to those who suggest its value will continue to be “Right, that’s nice, could be useful….but….”

Report this comment

]]> By: oneman http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/comment-page-1/#comment-36452 oneman Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:44:15 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/#comment-36452 Kate, John, and Red Pill -- although I'm obviously not on the side of <a href="http://savageminds.org/2005/05/19/anthropologists-as-counter-insurgents/" rel="nofollow">Montgomery McFate</a>, I think it is relevant to the discussion here that her campaign is not especially directed at convincing anthropologists to put our expertise at the disposal of the government (if that were her goal, she'd have published in anthropological journals, not military ones) but is rather aimed at convincing the military and intelligence agencies to take advantage of the expertise anthropologists have developed. This is as much of an uphill battle -- if not more -- as convincing anthros to sign on! The military-intelligence rejection of anthropological knowledge (along with the rest of the social sciences) is much longer-standing than the current administration's War on Knowledge -- the anti-Communist witchhunts of the '50s effectively purged social scientists from the State and Defense Departments, and the social sciences (except economics, maybe) have had a hell of a time re-establishing more than a foothold ever since. Kate, John, and Red Pill — although I’m obviously not on the side of Montgomery McFate, I think it is relevant to the discussion here that her campaign is not especially directed at convincing anthropologists to put our expertise at the disposal of the government (if that were her goal, she’d have published in anthropological journals, not military ones) but is rather aimed at convincing the military and intelligence agencies to take advantage of the expertise anthropologists have developed. This is as much of an uphill battle — if not more — as convincing anthros to sign on! The military-intelligence rejection of anthropological knowledge (along with the rest of the social sciences) is much longer-standing than the current administration’s War on Knowledge — the anti-Communist witchhunts of the ’50s effectively purged social scientists from the State and Defense Departments, and the social sciences (except economics, maybe) have had a hell of a time re-establishing more than a foothold ever since.

Report this comment

]]> By: Kerim http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/comment-page-1/#comment-36432 Kerim Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:49:02 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/#comment-36432 Red Pill: Read before posting, or you will be banned. Red Pill: Read before posting, or you will be banned.

Report this comment

]]> By: Red Pill http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/comment-page-1/#comment-36427 Red Pill Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:55:23 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/#comment-36427 Kate Gillogly: Why do you support and enable these anthropologists working for the CIA? You don't think the CIA really turned them down do you? I thought everyone knew that when people are "rejected" after doing all the appliations and background checks that they are really working for the company. Why do you support such CIA incursions into anthropology? Kate Gillogly: Why do you support and enable these anthropologists working for the CIA? You don’t think the CIA really turned them down do you? I thought everyone knew that when people are “rejected” after doing all the appliations and background checks that they are really working for the company. Why do you support such CIA incursions into anthropology?

Report this comment

]]> By: John McCreery http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/comment-page-1/#comment-36410 John McCreery Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:11:51 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/#comment-36410 P.S. My daughter's case is, of course, only indirectly relevant to the question of whether civilian area specialists will have much impact on military decisions. The critical point is, however, that while there are three possible sources of linguistic and area expertise on which the military might draw--(1) the "accidental" expertise of which my daughter is an example, (2) the "military-trained" expertise produced by, for example, the Monterey language schools, and (3) civilian area expertise of the kind that most anthropologists represent--none is a path to high rank in the chain of command. Thus, area-specific knowledge remains at best only one of the factors high ranking officers consider in making military decisions, and for structural and training reasons it is not likely to be weighted very heavily until, as Iraq illustrates, the fecal matter has hit the fan, by which time it becomes too little, too late. P.S. My daughter’s case is, of course, only indirectly relevant to the question of whether civilian area specialists will have much impact on military decisions. The critical point is, however, that while there are three possible sources of linguistic and area expertise on which the military might draw–(1) the “accidental” expertise of which my daughter is an example, (2) the “military-trained” expertise produced by, for example, the Monterey language schools, and (3) civilian area expertise of the kind that most anthropologists represent–none is a path to high rank in the chain of command. Thus, area-specific knowledge remains at best only one of the factors high ranking officers consider in making military decisions, and for structural and training reasons it is not likely to be weighted very heavily until, as Iraq illustrates, the fecal matter has hit the fan, by which time it becomes too little, too late.

Report this comment

]]> By: John McCreery http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/comment-page-1/#comment-36362 John McCreery Mon, 23 Oct 2006 02:22:01 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/#comment-36362 For what it's worth, the truth of the matter may be less that the military doesn't want area specialists than its not having well-developed career tracks for them. Cross-cutting relationships may also be a problem. In the case of my daughter, Annapolis Class of '98, who grew up bilingual and bicultural in Japan, one possible path would have led from her first temporary duty in the Far East office of the Pentagon to a billet as an Admiral's adjutant in Japan, where her fluent Japanese would have been very useful, indeed. She rejected this assignment because (1) it would have isolated her from the helicopter community in which she was trying to prove herself as a pilot and (2) would have meant immediate, long-term separation from the fellow who is now our son-in-law, whom she met in flight school at Pensacola. Also, the problems she faced in balancing the usefulness to the Navy of her Japanese language and culture skills against other career and personal goals are familiar and recurrent issues for people pursuing careers in multinational corporations, where "going native" in one place becomes a barrier to promotions that mean going elsewhere. For what it’s worth, the truth of the matter may be less that the military doesn’t want area specialists than its not having well-developed career tracks for them. Cross-cutting relationships may also be a problem.

In the case of my daughter, Annapolis Class of ’98, who grew up bilingual and bicultural in Japan, one possible path would have led from her first temporary duty in the Far East office of the Pentagon to a billet as an Admiral’s adjutant in Japan, where her fluent Japanese would have been very useful, indeed. She rejected this assignment because (1) it would have isolated her from the helicopter community in which she was trying to prove herself as a pilot and (2) would have meant immediate, long-term separation from the fellow who is now our son-in-law, whom she met in flight school at Pensacola.

Also, the problems she faced in balancing the usefulness to the Navy of her Japanese language and culture skills against other career and personal goals are familiar and recurrent issues for people pursuing careers in multinational corporations, where “going native” in one place becomes a barrier to promotions that mean going elsewhere.

Report this comment

]]> By: Kate Gillogly http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/comment-page-1/#comment-36281 Kate Gillogly Sun, 22 Oct 2006 17:04:19 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/09/01/anthropology-and-the-cia-again/#comment-36281 Red Pill: Obviously, I'm not going to give out that information on a public web site. They were making a well-considered moral choice for them. And it was the military, rather than the CIA. The point was the the U.S. military does not want area/language specialists. Red Pill:
Obviously, I’m not going to give out that information on a public web site. They were making a well-considered moral choice for them. And it was the military, rather than the CIA.
The point was the the U.S. military does not want area/language specialists.

Report this comment

]]>