Help In These Times raise $10,000 in three weeks! Donate now!
PrintDiscuss
Features » June 19, 2008

Anthropologists At War

New military program that embeds anthropologists with soldiers has academics up in arms

By Bill Stamets

Maj. Robert Holbert takes notes and drinks tea with local school administrators in Nani, Afghanistan, on June 2, 2007. Holbert is attached to the 4th Brigade's Human Terrain Team.

Share   Facebook Digg del.icio.us Newsvine   StumbleUpon Reddit Furl Propeller

Not in our name. That could be the battle cry of American anthropologists resisting the recent use of their discipline in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The U.S. Army is sending anthropologists into the field to help soldiers counter insurgents. The program, called Human Terrain System (HTS), responds to combat brigade commanders’ 2006 call for “operationally relevant cultural knowledge.”

In June, 12 Human Terrain Teams (HTT) — each made up of three military members and three civilians — were expected to join combat brigades in either Iraq or Afghanistan. By the end of September, another 12 will deploy.

Training for the six-member teams occurs at the Army’s Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. The teams spend six to nine months in Iraq or Afghanistan and spend anywhere from three days to three weeks in a given locale, according to James K. Greer, deputy program manager of the Human Terrain System.

According to HTT’s website: “The role of the HTTs is to help the troops better understand who is NOT their enemy.” The teams help the U.S. Army “influence the population through non-lethal means.”

At an April 24 hearing at the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities, Col. Martin Schweitzer testified that HTS helped decrease “kinetic operations” by 60 to 70 percent in his brigade’s area of operations in Afghanistan.

“We must understand the culture to win,” Schweitzer testified.

In 2007, his 4th Brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division was the first to use a Human Terrain Team. It was also the first to have an HTT fatality. On May 7, 2008, a roadside bomb in the Afghan province of Khowst killed Michael Bhatia, an Oxford doctoral candidate and the brigade’s field social scientist. After his year-long contract, Bhatia had planned to finish his dissertation titled “The Mujahideen: A Study of Combatant Motives in Afghanistan, 1978-2005.”

Anthropologists outsourced

BAE Systems, a global defense firm, has recruited and trained HTT members since 2006. To date, BAE has placed about 30 field social scientists in HTTs, says Scott Fazekas, a BAE press contact.

Academics at home have been raising a ruckus over the military’s use of a mobilized, militarized and weaponized anthropology. In September, the Network of Concerned Anthropologists formed to circulate a Pledge of Non-participation in Counterinsurgency. The pledge has since garnered nearly 1,000 signatures.

Last November, at its annual meeting in Washington, D.C., the executive board of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) issued a statement deeming HTS’s “application of anthropological expertise” both “problematic” and “unacceptable.”

“The impact of anti-HTS activists on program recruitment in universities, especially in anthropology departments, is profound,” Zenia Helbig, an academic kicked out of HTS, tells In These Times. Helbig brought BAE Systems — and its three HTS contracts, estimated at $160 million — to the attention of the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that investigates corruption in the federal government.

Felix Moos, an anthropology professor at the University of Kansas who has taught some HTT classes, concedes, “Because we are outsourcing the war, we are giving the title of ‘anthropologist’ to people who are not really anthropologists.”

In a May 6 letter to Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), Roberto J. González, an anthropology professor at San Jose State University and a member of the Network of Concerned Anthropologists, attacked HTS: “The program is dysfunctional, wasteful, and perhaps even fraudulent. As an anthropologist, it is also clear to me that HTS simply cannot work as its proponents claim.”

Key players

Counterinsurgency is the specialty of two key players in the Pentagon’s post-9/11 turn to culture.

Anthropologist Montgomery McFate is the senior social science adviser to the HTS program. Her 1995 thesis at Yale University was “Pax Britannica: British Counterinsurgency in Northern Ireland.” David J. Kilcullen is a policy-planning adviser in the State Department. His 2000 thesis at the University of New South Wales–Australian Defense Force Academy was titled “The Political Consequences of Military Operations in Indonesia 1945-99: A Fieldwork Analysis of the Political Power-Diffusion Effects of Guerrilla Conflict.” Kilcullen’s non-academic credentials include a stint in the Australian Army as a commander of counterinsurgency operations in East Timor.

McFate is credited with jumpstarting a program — called the Cultural Operational Research Human Terrain System — at the Department of Defense (DOD) that was the springboard for HTS.

“Cultural ignorance can kill,” argued McFate in a 2005 article published in Joint Forces Quarterly. “Cultural knowledge and warfare are inextricably bound. … The U.S. Armed Forces must adopt an ethnographer’s view of the world.”

Next page »Page 1 of 2
  • Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
  • Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!
Bill Stamets is a Chicago-based freelance writer who once took 10 grad school courses in anthropology at the University of Chicago.

More information about Bill Stamets
Share   StumbleUpon Facebook Digg del.icio.us Reddit Newsvine Propeller Furl
  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    Surely we don’t want to discriminate and just kill the bad guys. Shame on those who seek to understand for practical purposes!

    After all, in anthropology aren’t we taught that all cultures are equally valid? So lets stop discriminating against such “equal” cultures like Burma, North Korea and Zimbabwe (not to mention the Taliban), they are merely different, not better or worse.

    Posted by wolf on Jun 19, 2008 at 8:28 PM

    It’s easy to get seduced by the rhetoric: If you ethnographers tell us military folks all there is to know, we’ll kill less of them. Hey, we hunky uniform types are just the grunts, sympathetic characters, risking our lives for a bunch of corrupt politicians and CEOs. You geeks have your hearts in the right place, let’s work together, so less of us romantic-uniformed grunts/heroes die and less exotic civilians get bombed, mined, and given cluster bombs for the holidays.

    It’s win-win, they say; you get info, which makes you academically and financially comfy. We get info which makes us the Big Cheese, able to exploit their resources with less spent on fire-power. Fire power is so expensive because so many bribes must be paid, so much profit must be made by those corrupt politicians and CEOs - we grunts can’t stop them, we just minimize the collateral damage (!).

    What, you might break thru the spell for a moment to ask, of all the knowledge available in advance to avoid the bloodshed? Mistake #1: They [corporate/political/military honchos] are not trying to avoid the bloodshed. They want the bloodshed to shock and awe, paralyze resistance. Then they want the knowledge because it’s too expensive to keep up the full-out assault. All they ultimately want is resources, oil, gas, minerals - wealth, not to avoid bloodshed. Blood is incidental to them, wealth is the goal - remember, There Will Be Blood? We don’t want your knowledge up front, we want bombs up front.

    If you’re an academic tempted by all that, just become a mercenary and be done with it. It pays better, and there’s no hypocrisy. You’ll be just as big a target, either way. Is it any wonder?

    Posted by Inaru on Jun 19, 2008 at 10:55 PM
  • register a new account »Posting Security

    To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.
Appeared in the july 2008 Issue
Also by Bill Stamets
  • The History of a Bad Idea
    David Roediger--author of The Wages of Whiteness and Towards the Abolition of Whiteness--comes… morePosted on September 15, 2005
If you like what you're reading, why not help pay for it?
IN THESE TIMES COMMUNITY MEMBERS
Help this website survive! Donate to In These Times now!