Guides to "the human terrain"
I know a Canadian anthropologist who would answer the question posed at the end of this article in the affirmative. As in, with a loud "Damn f***ing right, it does!":
The U.S. HTT concept is an interesting one, although as the article indicates, a largely unproven one at this point. But anything that allows us to understand and interact with the Afghans more effectively is a Good ThingTM in my book, and should receive some consideration.
If anyone at DND is interested, I know just the fellow to lay out the parameters of such a program and get you pointed in the right direction...
The program is still in the experimental and testing stages, but if it turns out that anthropologists and other social scientists are providing a real service by helping soldiers to cut through the fog and reduce violence, if their services truly are unique and unavailable elsewhere, then the objections of professional associations would start to seem a little arcane. In other words, doesn't a reduced death toll, if indeed there is one as a result of Human Terrain Teams, take precedence over professional ethics?
The U.S. HTT concept is an interesting one, although as the article indicates, a largely unproven one at this point. But anything that allows us to understand and interact with the Afghans more effectively is a Good ThingTM in my book, and should receive some consideration.
If anyone at DND is interested, I know just the fellow to lay out the parameters of such a program and get you pointed in the right direction...
posted by Babbling Brooks at 8:54 a.m.
4 Comments:
"anthropologists and other social scientists" have no qualms in helping merchandisers sell useless stuff, or political campaigns etc. I think they are just negotiating for a higher paycheck.
Social scientists and anthropologists have a long history in cooperating with the military: the Brits got their maps of the Middle East by sending in archaeologists or folklorists when they could not send military teams openly.
"Every anthropologist in camouflage casts a pall of suspicion over the rest of us," he [anthropologist Hugh Gusterson]said, adding with disdain that few of the "embedded academics" actually speak the local languages or know much about the cultures in Afghanistan and Iraq."
That lack of knowledge of local languages doesn't stop anthropologists from pontificating on campuses. Debaters would call that point a "straw man". And what's this "pall of suspicion"? Could that really just be the very common leftist academic's pall of antagonism towards the Military and military people?
"...The program is still in the experimental and testing stages, but if it turns out that anthropologists and other social scientists are providing a real service by helping soldiers to cut through the fog and reduce violence, if their services truly are unique and unavailable elsewhere, then the objections of professional associations would start to seem a little arcane."
The objections of professional associations are neither arcane nor well articulated, at least in this article. Other than they don't like anthropologists working for the military, for whatever reasons, they fail to mount a real argument. Leaving just a general antipathy, the words for which are "disingenuous", "bias", "prejudice".
The pall would be the same pall cast on journalists by those who opt to carry weapons (a few do) and dress in military fatigues (though that does make sense in some situations). It has nothing to do with your perceived antagonism and everything to do with a total loss of anything resembling objectivity.
Perhaps you're right, Cam, although I'm firmly in the camp of those who believe that antagonism exists - it's not everywhere, but it's widespread enough to attract my attention.
But apart from that, there's another point that needs making: there's far too much value placed upon "objectivity" by some in our society. Why is taking sides considered such a bad thing? These journalists wouldn't be able to practice their trade under an Islamo-fascist regime, and the anthropologists would have no opportunity to pursue their research and studies under the Taliban.
So how exactly is this supposed "objectivity" - which I think is a neat ideal that can never truly exist in the real world - productive?
It is all too easy to snipe at those who are actively defending you and your way of life from behind their protective presence.
Post a Comment
<< Home