Enlarge By John Moore, Getty Images Village elders in Korengal Valley, Afghanistan, speak with a U.S. Marine as Afghan forces search for weapons. Behind the scences, field anthropologists offer the U.S. military a "deep perspective" of the various Afghan cultures. But some say the science has been used to identify targets. TAKING PART COMPROMISES STANDARDS, GROUPS SAY TAKING PART COMPROMISES STANDARDS, GROUPS SAY Other scientific organizations have opposed their members' involvement in counterterrorism, citing fears that scientists are violating professional standards. In 2006, the American Psychiatric Association barred its members from taking part in prisoner interrogations at Guantanamo. The American Medical Association also said such participation "undermines the physician's role as healer and thereby erodes trust in the individual physician-interrogator and in the medical profession." In August, the American Psychological Association ruled its members couldn't take part in terrorism detainee interrogations in Iraq and Afghanistan that use "waterboarding, sexual humiliation, stress positions and exploitation of phobias (which) are clear violations of APA's no torture/no abuse policy." Q&A: ANTHROPOLOGY AND WAR Q&A: ANTHROPOLOGY AND WAR Anthropologist Montgomery McFate is the chief social scientist for the U.S. Army's Human Terrain System program. She answers a few questions about the program below: Q: In April, Defense Secretary Gates discussed the "unfortunate reality that many people believe there is this sharp divide between academia and the military" in the context of the Human Terrain Teams. What do you see as the reality of this divide? A: The divide between academic anthropologists and the military actually stretches much farther back in time, to Franz Boaz' censure of a number of anthropologists who assisted the military and intelligence community during World War I. In my personal view, this estrangement results from deep anxieties within the discipline about its own origins as the "handmaiden of colonialism" and subsequent attempts to reconstruct the discipline after Vietnam as an advocate for indigenous populations. That the military ... might apply anthropology to solving problems in its domain interferes with and potentially negates the disciplines' view of itself. That said, the goals of the military during stability operations are very similar to the core values of most anthropologists: that local consent is critical, that harm should be mitigated, and that local cultural knowledge can alleviate suffering. Q: Why is it necessary to have social scientists on efforts like the Human Terrain Teams? Why not just teach social science skills to military personnel? Is the fieldwork experience somehow critical? A: While it is certainly possible to teach social science skills to military personnel ... they already have a number of extremely challenging tasks to perform in their own domain and requiring soldiers to perform this function creates an additional burden. What social scientists bring to the military is in some cases a deep expertise on the specific area of interest. In all cases, however, they bring a fresh perspective ... and a methodology for research and analysis that benefits both the military and the local civilian population in the area of operations. Q: What should the military be doing to expand its own social science capabilities? A: The military has made enormous strides in the realm of socio-cultural knowledge capabilities since 2003, including advances in training, doctrine, education, operational programs, analysis, etc. First, the U.S. military should institutionalize many of the programs, doctrine, and training made during the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. ... Failing to institutionalize the adaptations generated by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan presents a real hazard ... building capabilities during a war is difficult, time-consuming, expensive, costs the lives of civilians and soldiers alike, and imposes a huge strain on the bureaucracy. Second, the U.S. government should develop a large-scale, systematic research program within its science and technology portfolio to support qualitative social science in non-Western societies where future military operations are likely to occur. ... This information would provide a socio-cultural knowledge baseline that would facilitate future stability operations, the success of which depend on the ability of U.S. personnel to operate within a foreign society ... Q: What would you want our readers to know about efforts like the Human Terrain Teams that has been underreported or not adequately conveyed in news stories so far? How does the effort stand today, in your view? A: The need for HTS as a capability was recognized in Phase 4 of Iraq and Afghanistan, when the military identified their lack of socio-cultural knowledge as an operational gap. Building HTS during the war was expensive and difficult because we were reacting to a crisis rather than planning 'left of boom'. Had this capability been developed and implemented during a Phase 0 pre-conflict phase, policy decision-makers and planners in the Pentagon would have had a much richer and more granular baseline knowledge of the societies in which operations were to be conducted, which would have allowed them to develop more effective policies and strategies. Even more important, these senior officials would have potentially had the opportunity to use this knowledge to deter conflict in the first place.



By Dan Vergano SAN FRANCISCO  The military for years has enlisted anthropologists, depending on their expertise to write up analyses of distant places and cultures. But debate is growing among those scientists over whether it is appropriate for them to be involved in actually working alongside soldiers in combat or to contribute to the growing field of counterterrorism research. At the just-concluded American Anthropological Association meeting here, the question of whether anthropologists should take part in military operations took the stage, though not for the first time. In 2007, the AAA's executive board expressed "disapproval" of anthropologists' work in Afghanistan and Iraq, arguing that they helped in "identifying and selecting specific populations as targets of U.S. military operations." The debate is more than academic. Two social scientists with the U.S. Army Human Terrain System (HTS) were killed in bombings this year in Afghanistan and Iraq. HTS researchers are essentially the Army's polling force, surveying local sentiments to, among other things, increase the security of the area and facilitate aid and rebuilding efforts and to ensure those efforts are culturally sensitive, according to the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, which runs the program. Anthropology, military go way back Ties between anthropology and the military are old ones. The science originated as a "tool of colonialism" in the 19th century to understand British Empire subjects, says historian David Kaiser of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In Iraq and Afghanistan, field anthropologists study culture, kinship and networks in societies, "particularly key" factors in the insurgencies, according to the Army's counterinsurgency manual. For example, in these countries it is considered reasonable to put family ties above the needs of society, and nepotism is seen as positive, not negative. That's something young soldiers raised in the USA, with our veneration of the rugged individualist, may not immediately understand. Is this right or wrong? A necessary tool in the defense of the nation and the world? Or a misuse of science to advance warfare? Arguments are raised on both sides. And the anthropologists, recruited from universities and making from $81,093 to $124,010, plus combat pay, are in the middle of the debate. "The idea of militarization of anthropology alarms people," says Robert Albro of American University in Washington, D.C. For one thing, anthropologists don't want to be viewed as spies, he says, and military financing could bend the field's purpose away from the study of cultures. Anthropologist Roberto Gonzalez of San Jose State University posed questions at the meeting for those working with the military: •What safeguards prevent human terrain data being used to target individuals? •How do you ensure the information isn't used for war crimes? •How can embedded anthropologists get informed consent from civilians? Gonzalez says use of information from human terrain teams to unleash lethal force is at odds with the core values of anthropology. A group Gonzalez helped create called the Network of Concerned Anthropologists submitted a "Pledge of Non-participation in Counterinsurgency" signed by 1,056 anthropologists. 'Working to make the world a better place' On the other hand, Phillips Stevens of the State University of New York-Buffalo said it became clear to him from the first moment U.S. troops entered Iraq that "the implementation of some cultural advice would have saved lives and dollars." "All anthropologists are working to make the world a better place," said panelist Brian Selmeski, a professor of anthropology at the Air Force's Air University at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. He quoted an infantry officer who told him, "We don't need your help to break things. We need your help so we don't have to break things." Defense Secretary Robert Gates agrees. "It is an unfortunate reality that many people believe there is this sharp divide between academia and the military — that each continues to look on the other with a jaundiced eye," he said in May. "Challenges facing the world require a much broader conception and application of national power than just military prowess." What social scientists bring to the military "is in some cases a deep perspective on the specific area of interest," Montgomery McFate, senior social scientist for the HTS program, says by e-mail. Anthropologist Kerry Fosher of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University believes that the training in understanding the complexities of culture that anthropologists receive is vital to saving lives during conflicts, and that anthropologists shouldn't be afraid of putting their training to work. "If we were a little bit less terrified of somebody harming themselves or the world with the knowledge we share," she says, "maybe the world would look a little bit different than it does." READERS: So, what do you think —should anthropologists work alongside soldiers? Guidelines: You share in the USA TODAY community, so please keep your comments smart and civil. Don't attack other readers personally, and keep your language decent. Use the "Report Abuse" button to make a difference. You share in the USA TODAY community, so please keep your comments smart and civil. Don't attack other readers personally, and keep your language decent. Use the "Report Abuse" button to make a difference. Read more