September 19, 2007

Petitioners Urge Anthropologists to Stop Working With Pentagon in Iraq War

“Anthropologists should not engage in research and other activities that contribute to counterinsurgency operations in Iraq or in related theaters in the ‘war on terror.’” That is one of the central declarations of a Pledge of Non-Participation in Counterinsurgency that was circulated today by a loosely defined group that refers to itself as the Network of Concerned Anthropologists.

The network is asking scholars to sign the statement and to send their signatures to the anthropology department at George Mason University. (Two of the network’s organizers, Andrew V. Bickford and Hugh Gusterson, teach there.)

The petition arrives two months before an ad hoc committee of the American Anthropological Association is expected to propose ethical guidelines for anthropologists’ cooperation with military and intelligence agencies.

A few anthropologists, including Montgomery McFate, a senior fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace, have recently argued that social scientists should make their “cultural knowledge” available to the military. (One anthropologist who is doing so is Marcus B. Griffin, a professor of anthropology at Christopher Newport University. Mr. Griffin is in Iraq supporting a military “Human Terrain System” project, and he is chronicling the experience on his blog.)

But many anthropologists are highly skeptical of Ms. McFate and Mr. Griffin’s approach. The petition argues that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is illegitimate and that any support is therefore unethical. More broadly, the petition asserts that anthropologists who work with military and intelligence agencies damage the “relations of openness and trust with the people anthropologists work with around the world.” —David Glenn

Comments

1. When someone has a principled opposition to something, whether a war or whatever, I have a great deal of respect for a decision not to participate or support. The problem is, these are supposed to be scientific researchers. . .who are doing scientific research. And apparently at least some of them do not have a principled opposition to working with the millitary. Why is it, I wonder, that people those who object feel the necessity of trying to force others to see things, do things their way? These “true believers” in the Network of Concerned Anthropologists not only want their views to be respected, they are demanding that those views be respected to the exclusion of anyone else’s view.

   They are not acting as scientists. . .simply self-absorbed, goof ball political activists. Perhaps they should call their group the Network of Insurgency Apologists.

   — Bill    Sep 20, 07:56 AM    #

2. I find myself in agreement with Bill. I would add however, that this argument is an example of the hypocrisy practiced by many on college campuses in this county.

   According to the Concerned Network, they should have nothing to do with military actions in Iraq because those actions are illegitimate. It appears to me that these “scientists” have made a decision without all of the data or have chosen to ignore parts of the data to reach a pre-ordained conclusion – a violation of appropriate methods of doing science. Second, this same group of people want the United States to enter into dialogue with Al-Qaeda, North Korea’s lunatic Dear Leader, the nut pushing Iran into nuclear confrontation and other assorted individuals around the globe. As their argument goes, if we don’t talk, we can’t solve problems. If we don’t open a dialogue with these individuals and groups we are the transgressors. Because President Bush will not do so, he is “shortsighted,” “arrogant,” “imperialistic,” “stupid,” etc., etc.

   Applying the same standard and logic the Concerned Network espouses, they fall into all of the same categories they assign to George Bush because they don’t want anthropologists to talk to the military. Did it ever occur to them that talking to the military could actually help circumstances by introducing intelligent and capable military officers to concepts of another discipline; lessen bloodshed by providing cultural context thereby, helping front-line military personnel develop and use measures other than 1,000 lb explosives; prevent destruction of vital anthropological sites by helping military individuals identify what they might be looking at; encourage cross-cultural understanding between US and Iraqi citizens and so forth? No. The reason – they are not acting out as concerned scientists. They are acting out of their personal bent toward Bush-bashing.

   Because after all, everything wrong in the world today is the personal fault of George Bush.

   — R2    Sep 20, 10:32 AM    #

3. My response:

   http://www.captainsjournal.com/2007/09/20/anthropologists-in-iraq-and-those-in-america-who-attack-them/

   — Herschel Smith    Sep 20, 11:27 AM    #

4. Anthropology as a discipline, with its origin in colonialism, has a logn way to go to convince the world that it is an objective science. Directly or indirectly, it is a handmaiden of colonialsim and global domination. One is not surprsied that the AAA cannot take an official stance on cooperating with the military. The American Psychological Association has finally come up with a statement that it is unethical for psychologists to participate in torture. Will the American Anthropological Assocation issue a statement about anthropologists assisting the military?

   — Steve    Sep 20, 12:04 PM    #

5. I was encouraged by the first three responses, but I’m not sure I understand the point of number four. Steve – are you suggesting that assisting the military is in the same category as participating in torture?

   It’s very difficult for me to not take this kind of thing personally. I retired from the Army after the fist Gulf War in 1994. I have three children, all of whom were on active duty in Iraq at the same time in 2003. Two of them are still on active duty. I can assure you that neither I, nor they, have ever tortured anyone.

   My kids were over there defending your right to write whatever you like on this blog. They lost friends over there. I have a friend from my military days who lost a child over there. Quite frankly, as far as I’m concerned, people should be falling all over themselves to thank my kids and their military contemporaries for their service, and to assist them if possible. Some do, but those who do typically are not members of “the academy”. Try to remember that our soldiers don’t enjoy being in war, and they really wish they could just come home, but thay can’t because they have been called upon to defend you. Anything you can do to help them get the job done more quickly and more safely would truly be appreciated.

   — Floyd Bowles, Ed.D    Sep 20, 04:53 PM    #

6. It seems as though mostly all those who have commented here have not closely read the brief pledge of the Network of Concerned Anthropologists or have completely misread and misunderstood the purpose of the pledge. If you read it carefully, the last paragraph states, “We are not all necessarily opposed to other forms of anthropological consulting for the state, or for the military, especially when such cooperation contributes to generally accepted humanitarian objectives.” So the outrage that some of you have expressed is based upon misinformation. It is quite a basic pledge that other disciplines have formed—including doctors—that they will not use their status as an academic or the knowledge built upon trust of informants to engage in counter-insurgency and torture.

   I read the background articles posted on the concerned anthropologists site and if you take the time to do so as well, you will learn that anthropologists have a long history of helping the military, for both good and bad, and not just in this country. Price writes about how anthropologists were instrumental in the Nazi regime and how teams of anthropologists have been used through every war in the US. In fact, many prominent anthropologists have gotten their start from military funding to do “national character studies.”

   There are very well documented studies (via the freedom of information act) that shows the abuse of anthropology by the military and the state and the scientists themselves (including a violation of professional ethics—like covertly gaining information from people and not telling them their true intentions on how the knowledge gathered will be used, a big no no) and that destroys the groundwork that many in the field have built in an attempt to rebuild faith in the discipline since the high era of colonialism. What’s the big deal in signing a pledge to not engage in these kinds of covert operations? And #5, just because you have never personally engaged torture does not mean no one else ever has. Again, read the background articles to see how cultural knowledge was used in Japan during WWII, how it was used in Vietnam, etc. This is no secret. Time will show us how it is currently being used now. What is more interesting to me is why more Anthropologists aren’t doing an Anthropology of the Military and teasing out the tensions between say the Marines and the Army, the state dept and the DOD, the major disillusionment among troops (as shown by the military’s own research in this war and in previous ones), the fact that many soldiers are more loyal to each other and express that is why they fight—than expressing other reasons on why they fight (besides the socio-economic reasons and pure notions of patriotism). How has our notion of “national security” shifted through the years and how has our language and coding shifted in this country when it comes to meanings of humanitarian and anti-humanitarian during war times? How in the world did being against the war and all its horrific planning and implementation become coded as unpatriotic or anti-humanitarian or anti-troop?

   — m. carter    Oct 12, 03:43 PM    #

7. The military has one and only tool that it can use to achieve the mission and objects set for it by the policy makers. That tool is blowing up things and people. This has always been a crude and wasteful tool. The US has attempted to make it less cruel by relying on technology to increase its effectiveness and efficiency. What has evolved, however, is a technologically dominated dehumanized video game with all too real consequence for the avitars/humans on the ground.

   M. Carter raises a good point, Why aren’t those concerned about the role of anthropology in the military applying their science to the study and understanding of the military and the institutions it is part of?

   Anthropology is as much a humanistic discipline as it is a social and behavioral science. Maybe, just maybe, through such study, anthropologists can help to rehumanize the “art of war.”

   — barry    Oct 16, 03:12 PM    #

Previous: Anthropology Group Makes Official Its Long-Rumored Publishing Deal With Wiley-Blackwell
Next: Former Athlete at Mercyhurst College Charged With Killing Her Newborn Baby