The Network of Concerned Anthropologists (NCA) is collecting signatures for a collective letter opposing Congress’s potential plan to expand the Human Terrain System Program.
This is what NCA wrote on their website:
Congress is currently evaluating and considering the expansion of the Pentagon’s Human Terrain System (HTS) program, in which anthropologists have been recruited to assist with counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Please join us in expressing our firm opposition to the program and any expansion by agreeing to add your signature to the “Anthropologists’ Statement on the Human Terrain System Program.”
Modeled after a well-publicized 2008 statement written by economists to oppose the Bush administration’s first TARP program, this statement aims to clearly and concisely state the factual grounds for our opposition. Unlike our previous year-long effort to compile signatures for the Network of Concerned Anthropologists’ “Pledge of Non- participation in Counterinsurgency,” we want to collect the signatures of as many professional anthropologists as possible as soon as possible so that our voice can be heard in the debate about HTS.
To add your name to the statement, please EMAIL your NAME, TITLE, and AFFILIATION to NOHUMANTERRAIN@GMAIL.COM. Include the subject line “Anthropologists’ Statement.” Please encourage other professional anthropologists to sign as well. Thank you very much for your support!
Read on for a draft of the letter:
ANTHROPOLOGISTS’ STATEMENT
ON THE HUMAN TERRAIN SYSTEM PROGRAM
To the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate, and the Chairs and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Armed Services and Appropriations Committees:
We, the undersigned anthropologists, want to express to Congress our profound opposition to the Human Terrain System (HTS) program and its proposed expansion. We are heartened and encouraged by the Pentagon’s interest in expanding its cultural knowledge, and we believe that anthropologists have an important role to play in shaping military and foreign policy. However, we believe that the HTS program is an inappropriate and ineffective use of anthropological and other social science expertise for the following reasons:
1) There is no evidence that HTS is effective. There is no evidence, as some supporters have claimed, that the program saves lives. In fact, a special commission of the American Anthropological Association (AAA)—the largest professional anthropology society in the US—concluded in December 2009 that “there exist no publicly available independent evaluations of the effects of HTS’s activities, either positive or negative. Whether, or how, HTS might reduce conflict, in short, has yet to be evaluated.”
2) HTS is dangerous and reckless. To date, three embedded social scientists assigned to Human Terrain Teams have been killed in theaters of war. According to the journal Nature, “some scientists who have joined the program have complained about inadequate training,” while some military personnel reportedly complain that protecting Human Terrain Team members puts the lives of their soldiers at risk.
3) HTS wastes taxpayer money. In addition to its human costs, HTS has been costly. According to one report, approximately $250 million has been allocated to HTS since its creation in 2006.
4) HTS is unethical for anthropologists and other social scientists. In 2007, the Executive Board of the AAA determined HTS to be “an unacceptable application of anthropological expertise.” Last December, the AAA commission found that HTS “can no longer be considered a legitimate professional exercise of anthropology” given the incompatibility of HTS with disciplinary ethics and practice. Like medical doctors, anthropologists are ethically bound to do no harm. Supporting counterinsurgency operations clearly violates this code. Moreover, the HTS program violates scientific and federal research standards mandating informed consent by research subjects.
For these reasons, we ask Congress to halt further appropriations to the HTS program, to cancel plans for expansion of the program, and to carefully consider alternative courses of action for securing peace in Afghanistan, Iraq, and beyond.
Signed,
The thrust of the argument against the HTS is weak and ineffectual at best. Waste of taxpayer dollars, dangerous, no evidence of its effectiveness? Wow, whoever drafted this letter has absolutely no concept of the workings of the military.
As for the ethicality of the effort, the naiivety of this argument is even more distressing than the ignorance of the aforementioned. I’ve been to Afghanistan and I’ve seen the good that NATO is doing there in undoing the damage done by three decades of Soviet and Taliban destruction. The social scientists in the HTT’s have the privelige of being able to harness the resources of the Army and focus them better for the good of the Afghan people. Finally an opportunity for the intelligentsia to come out of their ivory towers and apply practically in reality the theories which have resulted from years and years of self-gratifying mental masturbation.
Get over yourself and do some good for a change!
I’m very pleased to see a group of anthropologists finally taking political action. The NCA could certainly have written a stronger (i.e. more descriptive) letter, but short concise letters are far better at catching a staffer’s eye. What I do think is missing is an invitation for legislators to sit down and discuss this issue with the NCA leadership. Still, I agree with the spirit of the letter and will be adding my name to the list.
1) There is no evidence that HTS is effective. There is no evidence, as some supporters
have claimed, that the program saves lives. In fact, a special commission of the
American Anthropological Association (AAA)—the largest professional anthropology
society in the US—concluded in December 2009 that “there exist no publicly available
independent evaluations of the effects of HTS’s activities, either positive or negative.
Whether, or how, HTS might reduce conflict, in short, has yet to be evaluated.”
– There is no evidence to contradict either, because the program is new and information is being collected and reviewed for efficacy. Congress is doing their homework, as is President Obama. Your facts and the AAA reports are based on RUMINT, hearsay, and quotes from disgruntled employees who are no longer with that program or were never deployed for lack of qualifications.
2) HTS is dangerous and reckless. To date, three embedded social scientists assigned to
Human Terrain Teams have been killed in theaters of war. According to the journal
Nature, “some scientists who have joined the program have complained about inadequate
training,” while some military personnel reportedly complain that protecting Human
Terrain Team members puts the lives of their soldiers at risk.
The Nature article is outdated. Yes there have been casualties, but it is clear that participants in the program go into it willingly. More lives have been lost in other more risky, senseless manners- so why do you continue to dishonor the memory of those three fallen? It is the same as you bad-mouthing a veteran, because those three served their country as honorably. Also, there are far more military personnel (Brigades and Division) bragging about HTS and asking for more and more teams. As I understand it, even other countries are or will be asking for them. Does this sound like they are ineffective?
3) HTS wastes taxpayer money. In addition to its human costs, HTS has been costly.
According to one report, approximately $250 million has been allocated to HTS since its
creation in 2006.
The war wastes taxpayer money. KBR/Halliburton wasted over a billion. Money was wasted that went into the funding of the writing and research for the not-yet-and-may-not-be approved healthcare bill. Money is wasted in the funding of the Clinton’s 250 acre estate and Bill’s salary, which taxpayers get to pay until he dies. This program has potential- so what Exactly is your point? I could easily say the same about NSF that funds projects within the anthropological community that are a waste of time and resources and have little to no applicable value. As a taxpayer I am offended that you are quibbling over this when there is potential for this program to save lives and bring our soldiers home safely.
4) HTS is unethical for anthropologists and other social scientists. In 2007, the Executive
Board of the AAA determined HTS to be “an unacceptable application of anthropological
expertise.” Last December, the AAA commission found that HTS “can no longer be
considered a legitimate professional exercise of anthropology” given the incompatibility
of HTS with disciplinary ethics and practice. Like medical doctors, anthropologists are
ethically bound to do no harm. Supporting counterinsurgency operations clearly violates
this code. Moreover, the HTS program violates scientific and federal research standards
mandating informed consent by research subjects.
-Again, I’d fact check if I were you. The AAA CEAUSSIC report was a joke. It was unprofessional, quoted the board’s internal work as their academic sources, used repeatedly quotes from the same set of 1-2 people, who were disgruntled former employees of HTS, and “indy-media” which last time I checked, was not a recognized scholarly reference resource. And, BTW- the author of most of those indy-blogs was a high school teacher who passes himself off as a reputable journalist. The majority of the anthropological community was shocked at that report and the lack of true “investigative” reporting. As a forensic anthropologist, I can assure you there was no “investigation” anywhere to be found within that report.
Additionally- there is absolutely no proof that the professionals within the HTS program are not performing their work according to their own professional ethical guidelines. It is unprofessional or you to illegitimately assume (since there is no proof) that they are not providing informed consent, specifically when the program trains their people on AAA ethical guidelines, NIH, and IRB protocols. I find this to be offensive as well- that you and your cohorts would assume that a trained social scientist would throw away their ethical beliefs (which BTW are NOT the same as a medical doctor and it is laughable for you to compare them) for the HTS program. You are making assumptions about something you clearly know little about. You are also making unprofessional (and one could consider slanderous) remarks in your assumptions about your colleagues without any evidence or proof of wrong-doing. I have friends in this program and I find it egregiously unprofessional the accusations you level against the people who risk their lives to serve their country. As a result I have dropped my AAA membership and will encourage and continue to encourage my colleagues to do the same.
I wonder if YFA was on the clock when he or she wrote this? The idea that the CEAUSSIC report was anti-military or that it insults people who serve the US is nuts, many who wrote the report work for the military.
I don’t know why, but Human Terrain is back. Here’s a Dahr Jamail report that was on Truthout two days ago that goes even deeper in the critique:
http://www.truthout.org/when-scholars-join-slaughter56379
Do any branches outside of the Army still think HTS is a good idea? Why not choose a more sustainable way to bring cultural know-how to our troops?
Take a hike, mike. Your shit smells of vinegar and you require a bath.
I wonder if this is the most effective strategy — to object to HTS on methodological grounds. I’d certainly be interested to read more from the letter-composers about why this strategy was chosen.
It seems to me there is much to be lost via this kind of protest that is studiedly neutral as to the morality of the invasions of Iran and Afghanistan, and which instead protests the procedures by which they have been carried out. While I sort of get where it comes from, I also think it contributes to the really poisonous idea that Afghanistan or Iraq could in some ideal universe be done “properly” (from the letter: “carefully consider alternative courses of action for securing peace….” what what?). Like, that’s the perpetual nightmare-extender: imperialism, ur doin it rong (which suggests there is, in fact, a way to get it right).
HTS is wrong because the invasions of Iraq and Aghanistan are moral crimes of titanic proportions, not because HTS methods violate some sort of professional code of conduct administered and regulated by anthropologists (which isn’t even a power that in my view would be a good thing for the AAA to have, to act as a licensing body akin to the AMA).
Of course, not like I’m chaining myself to the gates of the Pentagon & thus occupy any high ground from which to cast aspersions on others’ efforts. But this one, like, it actually feels a bit wrong-way-round to me.
The targeted audience for the letter is Congress, so it makes sense for the letter to address “methodological grounds” rather than ethical or moral grounds. Congress won’t care about ethical or moral reasons for not funding Human Terrain Teams, but given that they don’t work, this seems like a logical approach.
Look at the names who wrote the letter, these are scholars who have written a lot about the moral depravity of the war and the ethical bankruptsy of human terrain.
The targeted audience for the letter is Congress, so it makes sense for the letter to address “methodological grounds” rather than ethical or moral grounds. Congress won’t care about ethical or moral reasons for not funding Human Terrain Teams, but given that this program doesn’t work, this seems like a logical approach.
Look at the names who wrote the letter, these are scholars who have written a lot about the moral depravity of the war and the ethical bankruptsy of human terrain.
I’m advising a Marine lieutenant who’s about to be posted to Afghanistan. He’s a nice guy. One of the few Muslim Marines. I met him on Wikipedia, working on the article for the Battle of Badr. He’s been assigned to intel for his unit and I’ve been loaning him books and articles re Taliban/Pashtuns/Afghanistan/South Asia. (history and anthropology). Plus sending him interesting articles from blogs and Pakistani newspapers, and urging him to watch Bollywood movies, listen to qawwali, listen to Ahmad Zahir, read Rumi, read Maududi, etc.
This is something I’ve been researching, at a distance, for a novel. I’ve never been to the area (though would love to go) and have no informants to protect. Everything I give him is already public and published.
He believes that his job is keep order until some political solution is reached. The more he knows, the fewer people are hurt. I believe that too (though generally skeptical of US foreign policy).
Comments?
Yes, I am on the clock- because I have a job. What is your point? Whether or not I am employed has no bearing on the fact that the CEAUSSIC report was an illegitimate representation of my profession and has no real investigative basis. I also never implied that the report was anti-military. They are anti-HTS and wrote a report that has no true value. After two years of compiling information and supposed support for their arguments, I expected more than what was presented as a formal argument against a newly conceptualized program. And before you make comments about “newly conceptualized” remember that government programs and organizations move slow- so three years is a very short period of time to do what HTS has done.
BTW- I clearly stated I have friends in this program- on both sides (civilian and military) who have praise and criticism, yet the ones who work at HTS intend to stay and build on the program to make it better. The ones who serve our country who worked with HTS said they loved the teams and would continue to work with HTS. I trust my friends and I have done my research on this program.
Anne- I have read their books and their arguments are as effective as George R. Lucas’s book titled Anthropology in Arms, or the book titled Anthropology of the United States Military by P. Frese and M. Harrel; take a look.
I have to agree with Kathleen on this one. The methodological sins that the AAA accuses HTS of committing are little different from the ways we have done fieldwork for decades – before the HTS (and the Yanomamo) debates, we railed AGAINST informed consent rules that were impossible to follow in our host communities. (Just a few years ago the Anthropology News had a special issue on the subject, which included creative suggestions for circumventing IRB strictures.) We ignored the fact that the data we collected and published about ‘our’ community could be used by a rival community or faction for political, economic, or even military advantage – or vice-versa.
As Kathleen suggests, HTS is a surrogate for the war itself, and criticism of HTS will be dismissed as just that – and in fact has been by its supporters.
I’ve wondered if there is another issue here as well: the AAA represents academic anthropologists; practicing and applied anthropologists have long been critical of the AAA for marginalizing this large group of working social scientists – even the Society for Applied Anthropology is dominated by anthropologists whose primary job is in the academy. Given this history and social organization of anthropological labor, is it possible that anthropologists and other social scientists who work for HTS find the AAA stance to be just a little arrogant, and react appropriately? That’s certainly been my impression.
A quick follow-up: A sociologist friend just emailed me a link to sociologistswithoutborders(dot)org and this struck me as a better model for anthropological work against the militarizing of the discipline, HTS, etc. One important characteristic of the sociologists’ group is its explicit and in-your-face politics on behalf of people – imagine if AAA opposition to HTS took the form of on-the-ground Afghanistan based counter-military action, the way that Doctors Without Borders provides care to populations that are denied access to State-supported benefits by repressive governments.
It also seemed to me that sociologistswithoutborders.org is a better network for disseminating social science news that will be of interest to broader audiences: Chris Kelty’s excellent post on the problem of anthropology journalism come to mind…
Just to clarify — I certainly didn’t intend to suggest that the HTS letter being a surrogate for war protest is among its flaws; in fact, I think that is its principal merit and only wish it were articulated more forcefully. If you go back to the original anti-Strategic Defense Initiative pledge by physicists on which the HTS protest letter is ostensibly modeled, the pledge actually articulates a specific critique of U.S. nuclear policy during the Cold War: ie, is not merely a procedural objection but a substantive one that makes its political stakes clear.
I also don’t agree that “oh well, it’s just like the Yanomamo dealie-o anyway” can be considered a reason to let HTS alone — yikes and double yikes. I’m not worried about the AAA stance on the HTS (or the whole Chagnon-Yanomamo debacle) being arrogant, I’m worried about it being hedged, muddled, and weak.
bq. If you go back to the original anti-Strategic Defense Initiative pledge by physicists on which the HTS protest letter is ostensibly modeled, the pledge actually articulates a specific critique of U.S. nuclear policy during the Cold War: ie, is not merely a procedural objection but a substantive one that makes its political stakes clear.
But that situation seems different insomuch as there would be no nuclear weapons without physicists while the war in Afghanistan will go on regardless of the participation of anthropologists. I was thinking that a more proper opposite number might be priests objecting to the participation of chaplains in a conflict. Priests often oppose war, but do they do so in this way?
[quote]Additionally- there is absolutely no proof that the professionals within the HTS program are not performing their work according to their own professional ethical guidelines. It is unprofessional or you to illegitimately assume (since there is no proof) that they are not providing informed consent, specifically when the program trains their people on AAA ethical guidelines, NIH, and IRB protocols.[/quote]
My understanding is that lack of coercion is basic to informed consent. I don’t see how you can ask to interview someone while surrounded by people with guns in a way that is free from coercion.
“As a result I have dropped my AAA membership and will encourage and continue to encourage my colleagues to do the same.”
I didn’t renew this last time it came up. I’ve grown more and more ineffectual at the meager attempt to become more inclusive of applied anthros. We are actually out there trying to do all those things that academics write endlessly about; about what needs to be done, in some self-reaffirming, literary masturbation. We write about ourselves in journal articles, like pompus athletes do when they self-refer in the 3rd person.
At the last SfAA conference, I wasn’t at the point of other professional anthros. who hadn’t renewed in 20 years, but I may get there some day.
I’ve been in the Army, and the last thing they need is less cultural sensitivity. Imagine for a second someone writing an ethnography of opinion about a group without any fieldwork involved, yet this is allowing for the army?
Now I’m working in urban development, and I get shit for that, as though I’m working for the evil “Man.” Yet, all I’ve run into is a strong felt need, and a total vacuum to meet that need. The architects, planners, and engineers in my city have been nothing but ecstatic that I’m able to fill that need for them. We have the head architect for my (major US) city going with his team to low income minority communities and literally going into people’s homes, and inviting them to their office in city hall and asking them what they want in their neighborhoods. We even have citizens collaborating in the actual design process of development in their neighborhoods!!! If I wasn’t there, they’d still want to do something like that, but they wouldn’t know how. So you sit on your asses, and I’ll go help people.
Enjoy writing that article no one is going to read, while I write a report for the city manager, and make more in starting pay then you do after getting tenure.
Ok, that was overly harsh. We need good professors too.
Ok, that last one was a bit harsh. We need good professors too, but to many of them are there because they’d be let than useless anywhere else. Actually, a lot of people stay in the military for the exact same reason.
That movie “Men Who Stare at Goats,” was based on a real story. I was in army psyop, and it was part of my history. What came of that was 4 vegetarian MRE’s for the field, yoga done at basic training, meditation being taught to airborne infantry at Bragg, etc… If we’ve learned nothing else from resistance theory, its that the flow of information and influence is never one way. The fact that the Army wants anthropologists, and McChrystal states that the number one priority is to limit civilian casualties, is proof of that.
I recommend you read the position paper for 7th psychological ops. group for the late 1970’s, to help destroy your very limited, and wrong stereotypes.
http://www.xeper.org/maquino/nm/MindWar.pdf
“One important characteristic of the sociologists’ group is its explicit and in-your-face politics on behalf of people”
The last thing anyone needs anywhere is a group of privileged, little experience having people yelling. We are cultural translators. It is our job to dispassionately listen to everyone and deconstruct narrative and discourse; to be able to re-translate cultural memes into others. Anger for its own sake is corrosive and dangerous only. If you’re going to be anger, then be angry at something specific that can be changed, not at a symbol or metaphor. Too often I’ve seen people yell for no reason at people trying to help, and end up turning those people off and hurting their own cause.
Dear Barbara Piper, YAF, and “Anne,”
I’m the author of “Anthropologists without Arms.” Not sure what YAF meant by suggesting that the writings of NCA’s (David Price, Hugh Gusterson, et alia) were “as effective” as “Lucas’s book.” What I would like to point out is that, far from whitewashing HTS, the book reaches two specific conclusions: (1) that AAA should organize something like Doctors Without Borders, an NGO rather than a government-funded organization to provide anthropological expertise (so, Barbara: I agree with your sound suggestion), and (2) that the existing government program, HTS, should be the object of a GAO audit and program review (that proposal was adopted by Congress, by the way).
-George Lucas
@Mike-
1) How do you, as somebody who seems to be working for HTS, think it could be made to run more effectively and less dangerously?
2) Nobody disputes that the kind of reconstruction work done by NATO can be productive in certain ways. What collectively disturbs us is the question of -who- has the capacity to define “what is good for the Afghan people”, particularly in conditions where peoples’ very lives are often assumed as unstable and unprotected.
Mr Lucas- What I meant was I have read all of the books and reports on HTS and found yours to be the most logically reasoned. It was neutral in my opinion and brought up excellent points about what is, could, and should be done regarding programs like HTS. I very much appreciated your work and have recommended it to many of my colleagues who are both in HTS and on the fence about the program.
Rick- I agree with you 100%. I am a forensic anth, as previously stated, and as such I fall into the “applied anthropology” category. I have worked crime scenes, CRM, and historic archaeological sites. However, once I started getting paid for my work, and spending my work time preparing reports instead of articles, I became somehow disengaged from the “spirit of anthropology” (as referenced to me at a AAA meeting). Apparently physical anthropology was not considered to be (at least in ’96 when I was told this) truly ethical since we could not get the permission (informed consent) of the families of the victims, or even the victims themselves, to study remains and thus add to the conclusion of a case. It seemed to me at the time to be the deterioration of my field and I have not seen an uplifting movement since. If the AAA cannot resolve its issues with applied anthropology then the field may disintegrate.
However, HTS is not an anthropology program. It employs, according to John Stanton, less than half dozen anthropologists. The program does, according to my colleagues who work in HTS, have an ethics code and provides informed consent for each interview. Given the nature of the places where they work (Iraq and Afghanistan), I do believe that the locals would be able to understand and agree with or disagree with a request to interview- even if surrounded by soldiers. I believe this because I have argued the cases vociferously with my HTS friends and heard about their experiences. Based upon what I have heard and my research (and personal dealings with Iraqis) I believe that the culture itself enables the soldiers to be present w/o creating the inability to provide clear consent. The reason for this is that the culture and nature of the environment is weapons-permissive.
The bottom line is, the AAA CEUSSIC report did not have all their facts straight. The letter they have presented for anthropologists to send to Congress is not accurate. Congress and the US Army are doing their own investigations and audits of the HTS program. Wouldn’t it be prudent to wait and see what they find out before the program is condemned for all time? What will the AAA do next? They have already subtly implied a relative blacklisting of HTS employees. Will they go so far as to encourage professors to black-ball people who have worked for HTS, leave, then try to either finish their degrees (PhD) or work in a university? Will anthropology become a field that more intensely practices the micro-monitoring of colleagues? If the AAA can’t and won’t trust their colleagues in HTS to perform ethically, which job market will be next? And at what point does the field itself reign in the AAA as supposed spokesmen when the AAA encourages other fields to follow their lead? Does the AAA now represent ALL social sciences? I am highly discouraged by the AAA presently and until more facts are out there for review of the HTS program, I’ll hold off any final opinions on their effectiveness or ability to operate ethically. I encourage others to do the same.
I gave up my AAA membership a long time ago when I realized rather quickly that it was worthless. If the AAA pushes to blacklist anthropologists who work for the government it will still not stop graduate anthropology students from disagreeing with their professors and taking their newly found skill sets to make a ton of cash while getting to “play soldier” wearing body armor and carrying (and sometimes shooting) weapons while practicing their craft. Yes they will die, but how many of you did stupid crap for thrills when you were young?
For alot of young anthropologists its a dream job and quite frankly, the AAA is totally irrelavant to them unless universities begin creating legal contracts for graduate students that can result in costly law suits (or nullification of their degree) if they join HTS. If so, most likely the US military simply start their own schools and you would see private anthropological schools emerge as well for the sole purpose of applied anthropology.
Personally I have no problems with HTS as long as they are clearly wearing US military uniforms and not confused with civilian anthropologists. It is covert military anthropology that worries me more and that I can see as being a clear threat to the discipline.
However the fact of the matter is that knowledge is power and the military will pursue that if it means reaching goals mandated to them by our civilian leaders.
What I hope to see as a move more towards making anthropological training as key component of all Army and USMC officer and NCO training. I have no problems with warrior-anthropologists. A warrior who can achieve peace without having to kill anyone is a good thing.
#4 should have been number one.
Comments from the public who have no information on what our Standard of Ethics requires or how we shun ethnocentrism in order to write effective ethnographies are not cogent to our field. Our fieldwork is intense with information on cultures around the world. We aim to do good,even if sometimes we are academic and pedantic in our pursuit.
I knew instinctively that we had no business supporting this initiative and we are not going to be used for purposes other than the precise and empirical observations we do to make this world a better place.
As for the writer and the comments regarding lack of understanding of the Military? We will be more than happy to show you ethnographies of the military. I presume you are interested in the culture of the United States. There you will find that we make no judgments we just present the empirical/observations.
After 40 years it still amazed me how little is known about this field.
Thank you to my colleagues, thank you. We are well aware who wins in a war in the long run. We have thousands of studies of perished cultures to fully understand the impact.