 Anthropologists on the Front Lines in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Brett Schwartz – Washington Prism When anthropologists prepare to enter the field, they usually pack pens, notebooks, cameras, and a sound recorder. However, with the creation of a new U.S. military program, some may be adding a more unlikely item to their gear: a rifle. A year ago, the Pentagon initiated the Human Terrain System (HTS) project to embed anthropologists and other social scientists within brigades and divisions stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Human terrain” is the military’s official, if not euphemistic, term to describe the social and cultural (as opposed to physical) landscape of a particular location. However, as with much of the military’s strategy in the Middle East over the past few years, this program has not been without controversy. In many circles both in the United States and abroad, the U.S. military has been accused of not recognizing the importance of understanding the cultural and social customs of the countries in which they operate. This in turn has led to a great divide between American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and the people they have been sent to protect. Though the recent surge strategy in Iraq has taken the troops out of the bases and onto the streets where they are more visible to the local population, cultural and linguistic differences still abound. According to military analysts, these differences are limiting the effectiveness of the troops on the ground. In the fall of 2006, four military experts wrote an article for the U.S. Army’s Military Review publication supporting the creation of the HTS program because they believed a “lack of cultural knowledge and language capabilities appear to have been major common factors standing in the way of optimal success” in those theatres. They also likened conducting military operations without cultural knowledge to “building a house without using your thumbs.” Recognizing its shortage of cultural fluency, the military has enlisted anthropologists to help soldiers and commanders better engage with the local populations. In its infancy in the early twentieth century, anthropologists studied cultures that were considered “exotic” to Westerners at the time. In recent decades, however, anthropologists have studied a variety of locations and subjects such as inner-city street gangs, rural farmers, college life, and even office behavior. In all cases, however, anthropologists are able to study cultures and social relationships only after gaining the trust of the community. Logistically, the HTS program is composed of six teams, each with five members that include anthropologists, language specialists, and civil affairs officers. Currently, there are five teams working in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. This past September, Defense Secretary Robert Gates pledged an additional $40 million to the program with the goal of eventually enlarging it to 22 teams in Iraq and four in Afghanistan. These teams are not cheap to organize, however. The BBC reports that each member of a unit costs around $400,000 to train and deploy, mainly because of the high price of kidnapping insurance. One of those participants is Dr. Marcus Griffin, a professor of anthropology at Christopher Newport University, in Newport News, Virginia. This past year, Dr. Griffin took a leave of absence from his position at the university to embed with the 101st Airborne Division’s 2nd Brigade Combat Team after learning about the HTS program from a co-worker. While on active duty, he has maintained a blog (http://www.marcusgriffin.com/blog/) to update his students and others interested in his experiences working in Iraq as an anthropologist. Griffin, 40, writes that he works “between 12-15 hours a day, seven days a week.” He elaborates: “Some of that time is working out the purpose and strategies of team members going out on a patrol or other missions…Some of those 12-15 hours are spent in briefings and other meetings…Some hours are spent interviewing Iraqis and Americans and the occasional foreign national about their experiences.” Recently, Griffin has been spending time in Baghdad’s marketplaces, meeting with the local merchants and inspecting the produce available for sale. By observing the quality of the produce and meats available, he has been able to gauge the economic strength of the community, information which he then passes on to his commander. Another HTS team working in a village in Afghanistan recognized that there was an economic vacuum that needed to be filled after many women’s husbands were killed during the conflict. Based on the observations of the social scientists, the U.S. military created job opportunities in textiles for widows in order to limit their sons’ motivation to join the Taliban in order to provide for their mothers. Overall, Griffin believes he is doing important work both for the U.S. military and the local population he serves in northwest Baghdad. Griffin writes his overall goal as an anthropologist working with the military is to “[help] commanders reduce the need for kinetic operations” in Iraq (Kinetic operations are those in which the military uses force). However, despite Griffin’s ambition to limit violent operations, the military has allowed members of these teams to carry a gun for protection after receiving proper training. Though not all the social scientists involved with the program have chosen to do so, the possibility of a civilian carrying a firearm has raised some eyebrows both in the military and the anthropology community. While Griffin and his colleagues in the HTS view their role as a positive contribution to Coalition efforts to bring stability and prosperity to Iraq and Afghanistan, the program has received some backlash here in the United States from a variety of groups. Members of the anthropology community have been the most vocal in their disapproval of what they consider to be a form of militarized social science. At the core of the debate is the anthropologists’ code of conduct which stresses that informants and subjects will not be harmed in any way as a result of the research. The academic community is particularly suspicious of the U.S. military given the misuse of the social sciences during the Vietnam War. During that conflict, President Lyndon Johnson initiated the Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support (CORDS) program to win the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese people by gathering information and statistics about the local population. While the military today views the CORDS program as a positive predecessor to HTS, many academics remember a different legacy. Critics of the program argue that the information and data collected under the auspices of the CORDS program resulted in the killing of 26,000 Vietnamese believed to be associated with the Viet Cong. This exploitation of social work has driven a wedge between the anthropology community and the military for over 30 years. The creation and expansion of HTS has in turn revived painful memories of that difficult time for the anthropology community. Troubled by the military’s recruitment of their colleagues, in September 2007 a group of anthropologists established the Network of Concerned Anthropologists to raise awareness of the program and its consequences. They also wrote a “Pledge of Non-participation in Counter-insurgency” which has been posted on their website (http://concerned.anthropologists.googlepages.com/) and distributed throughout many universities. The pledge expresses the opinion that “anthropologists should not engage in research and other activities that contribute to counter-insurgency operations in Iraq or in related theatres in the ‘war on terror.’ ” Further on in the text: “While often presented by its proponents as work that builds a more secure world, protects U.S. soldiers on the battlefield, or promotes cross-cultural understanding, at base it contributes instead to a brutal war of occupation which has entailed massive causalities.” While the authors of the pledge recognize “the ethical issues are complex,” they feel that an anthropologist who assists the military in this capacity “violates professional standards” of the profession. One of the founders of the Network of Concerned Anthropologists is Dr. Hugh Gusterson, a professor of anthropology and sociology at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. He says that there has been “tremendous support from many anthropologists” for the pledge as well as “strong hostility from a small minority who work with the military.” The American Anthropological Association, the profession’s largest society, issued an official statement rejecting the HTS program, calling it “an unacceptable application of anthropological expertise.” The members of the Network were pleased to have such support from this influential organization. “This was a powerful statement that the overwhelming majority of anthropologists see that kind of counter-insurgency work by anthropologists as deeply problematic from an ethical point of view,” says Gusterson.
Page
[1]
2
|
