Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/world/as...amp;oref=slogin

In September, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates authorized a $40 million expansion of the program, which will assign teams of anthropologists and social scientists to each of the 26 American combat brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since early September, five new teams have been deployed in the Baghdad area, bringing the total to six.

http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/vo...06/12_06_2.html
The core building block of the system will be a five-person Human Terrain Team (HTT) that will be embedded in each forward-deployed brigade or regimental staff. The HTT will provide the commander with experienced officers, NCOs, and civilian social scientists trained and skilled in cultural data research and analysis... This network will be managed by a centralized information-clearinghouse unit nested in FMSO. At the same time, to overcome the kinds of problems now typically encountered when in-place units attempt to transfer knowledge about their area of operations upon relief in place, HTS will provide for the complete transfer of HTT personnel together with the HTT database to the incoming commander upon transfer of authority. This will give the incoming commander and unit immediate "institutional memory" about the people and culture of its area of operations.

 

I think this is a very important and necessarly step in the transformation of the US military into a COIN-capable force. Effective counterinsurgetcy require well-thought out, persistent social engineering to be applied in conjunction with brute force. A good way to accomplish this is to have a group of dedicated cultural scientists working on your team- but such experts are of limited value without actually being present in the field. Now, you can neither put an anthropologist with every squad nor get every single NCO through years of university. However, stiffening your muscle units with dedicated low-level teams of experts that can be moved into new crisis points as they form, combined with a general increase in cultural awareness and rudimentary COIN, sound like a good compormise.

 

And finally, let us not forget that the scientists voulunteering for this mission face not only the very real threats of combat, but also the danger of a boycott by their colleagues in the academia:

Yet criticism is emerging in academia. Citing the past misuse of social sciences in counterinsurgency campaigns... some denounce the program as “mercenary anthropology” that exploits social science for political gain. Hugh Gusterson, an anthropology professor at George Mason University, and 10 other anthropologists are circulating an online pledge calling for anthropologists to boycott the teams, particularly in Iraq

 

Becuse criticising the army's approach to dealing with the insurgency is a hell of a lot easier than actually giving it a try yourself.

Edited by Yish
Posted
Becuse criticising the army's approach to dealing with the insurgency is a hell of a lot easier than actually giving it a try yourself.

Or even admitting that there is an enemy needing to be dealt with. In academia they determine moral right based upon size. They will fetch a map and see the USA being huge, the enemy being small and decide the USA has no buisness doing anything.

Posted

Its worse than that. Anthropological purists don't even want anthropologists working for private companies. they think that once the people being studied realize that someone might try to do something useful with the info, they will consider all anthropologists as spies. Then they will stop giving candid answers to "serious" academics and pollute the data.

 

Incredibly naive. Anthropology is already littered with cases where locals distrusted anthropologists, lied to them, even made fun of them. There is even evidence that some of Margaret Mead's most stunning conclusions were actually caused by elaborate practical jokes on the gullible American.

Guest JamesG123
Posted

As interesting an idea as this is, its probably just going to add a few more fobbits who only have the vaguist, second-to-third hand view of whats really going on outside the wire.

 

One of the best sources of local conditions, info, and the "way things are done here" are the translators that units use. They are usually in one area for several years, and can usually be trusted, since they were vetted, and their asses are on the line when out with US patrols.

Posted

As I read the detailed structure of the system as described at the bottom of article, I get the impression that it is very well planned.

 

Esentially each team is composed of two ex-military-intelligence and two civilians (for the civilians, previous experience in the region is preferable, specialized knowledge of same and ability to speak the local langue mandatory) lead by a staff college graduate.

Beside a fancy databse system, they have system in place for rotating members between field and staff jobs, so that ideally even the rear ecehelon would have hands-on experience. They also put a big emphasis on retaining and sharing accumulated knowledge, the hallmark of most successful long-term enterprises. All the data collected is to be Unclassified so as to be shared amongst the greatest amount of people posssible.

 

If anyone interested, one member of a Human Terrain Team currently serving in Baghdad has been publishing his experiences in a blog:

http://marcusgriffin.com/blog/

Posted
As interesting an idea as this is, its probably just going to add a few more fobbits who only have the vaguist, second-to-third hand view of whats really going on outside the wire.

 

Read the first article I linked to. It describes an offensive in Eastern Afghanistan in which the HTT team accompanied the front line troops to the villagers they cleared, met in person with the locals and dispensed advice which the officers interviewed agree was quite valuable. Now admittedly, the same would be more difficult to accomplish in Iraq, but probably not undoable.

Posted
This saves American, Iraqi, and Afgan lives, and improves their standard of living. How this could be called unethical is beyond me.

Ah, but that is the narrow view. In the Big Picture saving livesand making the world a better place is transitory. But the Science of Anthropology must remain pure, untainted by coarse political or economic agendas.

 

*BARF*

Posted (edited)

Yes, I almost forgot about all that stuff. Science must remain pure and not be contaminated by practicality or God forbid.......money. :glare:

Edited by JWB
Guest JamesG123
Posted
But the Science of Anthropology must remain pure, untainted by coarse political or economic agendas.

 

Not to mention practical utility in the real world...

Posted

I am reminded of the far side cartoon of the natives grabbing the the TV and VCR from their grass hut, yelling: "anthropologist, anthropologist!!!"

Guest JamesG123
Posted

You know if I were an Afgani or Iraqi and learned of this idea i'd be rather insulted.

 

"Anthropologists? There are anthropologists on the team? You mean those who study primative, dead cultures? Piss off!"

Posted
You know if I were an Afgani or Iraqi and learned of this idea i'd be rather insulted.

 

"Anthropologists? There are anthropologists on the team? You mean those who study primative, dead cultures? Piss off!"

 

*laughs

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...