ERROR LOADING HTML FROM SOURCE (http://ncf.sobek.ufl.edu//design/skins/UFDC/html/header_item.html)

The Ethical and Practical Limitations of the Use of Anthropology in The Military

Permanent Link: http://ncf.sobek.ufl.edu/NCFE004569/00001

Material Information

Title: The Ethical and Practical Limitations of the Use of Anthropology in The Military
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Dolan, Morgan
Publisher: New College of Florida
Place of Publication: Sarasota, Fla.
Creation Date: 2012
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Human Terrain System
Anthropological Ethics
Military Engagement
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The development of the Human Terrain System was a unique step in the United States military's counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan because it sought to combine social scientists and anthropological expertise in order to provide the military with a better understanding the cultural environments in which it was operating. This led to a debate in the anthropological community over the ethical soundness of the Human Terrain System and on a larger scale, over the engagement of anthropologists and the United States military. In order to better understand the context of this debate, this thesis examined the historical intersection of anthropology and the military in World War I, World War II and the Vietnam War. This identified the Vietnam War as a key turning point for how the military, social scientists and the public viewed the dangers of engagement. The thesis then looked at the current HTS program based on publicly available articles and information on their website then presented stances taken on the program by social scientists. The issues of ethics and the ethical soundness of the program are then explored based on the ambiguous state of anthropological ethics. It becomes clear through contrasting inconsistencies between the American Anthropological Association's Codes of Ethics and how ethical transgressions within anthropology have been dealt with previously, that over-simplified understandings of the military and military operations significantly influence the future of anthropological engagement and threaten the discipline's relevancy in the globalized world.
Statement of Responsibility: by Morgan Dolan
Thesis: Thesis (B.A.) -- New College of Florida, 2012
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO NCF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The New College of Florida, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Local: Faculty Sponsor: Baram, Uzi

Record Information

Source Institution: New College of Florida
Holding Location: New College of Florida
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: local - S.T. 2012 D6
System ID: NCFE004569:00001

Permanent Link: http://ncf.sobek.ufl.edu/NCFE004569/00001

Material Information

Title: The Ethical and Practical Limitations of the Use of Anthropology in The Military
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Dolan, Morgan
Publisher: New College of Florida
Place of Publication: Sarasota, Fla.
Creation Date: 2012
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Human Terrain System
Anthropological Ethics
Military Engagement
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The development of the Human Terrain System was a unique step in the United States military's counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan because it sought to combine social scientists and anthropological expertise in order to provide the military with a better understanding the cultural environments in which it was operating. This led to a debate in the anthropological community over the ethical soundness of the Human Terrain System and on a larger scale, over the engagement of anthropologists and the United States military. In order to better understand the context of this debate, this thesis examined the historical intersection of anthropology and the military in World War I, World War II and the Vietnam War. This identified the Vietnam War as a key turning point for how the military, social scientists and the public viewed the dangers of engagement. The thesis then looked at the current HTS program based on publicly available articles and information on their website then presented stances taken on the program by social scientists. The issues of ethics and the ethical soundness of the program are then explored based on the ambiguous state of anthropological ethics. It becomes clear through contrasting inconsistencies between the American Anthropological Association's Codes of Ethics and how ethical transgressions within anthropology have been dealt with previously, that over-simplified understandings of the military and military operations significantly influence the future of anthropological engagement and threaten the discipline's relevancy in the globalized world.
Statement of Responsibility: by Morgan Dolan
Thesis: Thesis (B.A.) -- New College of Florida, 2012
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO NCF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The New College of Florida, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Local: Faculty Sponsor: Baram, Uzi

Record Information

Source Institution: New College of Florida
Holding Location: New College of Florida
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: local - S.T. 2012 D6
System ID: NCFE004569:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 2

Acknowledgements I would like to thank all those w ho helped make this thesis possible through their support throughout the vari ous stages of the writing process. I would particularly like to acknowledge Uzi Baram who has served as my thesis advisor, my academic adviso r and a guiding hand throughout my time with the New College of Florid a’s Anthropology department. I would also like to thank Maria Vesperi, who encouraged me in ethnographic methods and critical thi nking at a crucial point in my undergraduate career. Nat Colletta, who prom oted me in the areas of security studies and conflict resolution and to a pply anthropological thinking towards large-scale problems that exist in the world today. I also thank my peers in the Anthropology department, Michael W aas, Alexis Santos, Eric van de Castle, Elizabeth Usherwood and Ro zelyn Crews who have provided feedback and critique on this project over the past year. Finally, I would like to thank all of those men and women across the globe who apply the principles of an thropological thought towards fostering cultural understanding and peace in our dynamic and increasing interconnected world.

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter One: Introduction…………… ………….…..….…….…………..........1 Chapter Two: A Historical Survey of Anthropological Engagement with the United States Military.... ..................... ................. ..........7 Chapter Three: The Huma n Terrain System and the Anthropological Comm unity……................. .....................20 Chapter Four: Anthropological Ethics and the Future of the Discipline…………………………..………..41 Chapter Five: Conclusion…………………………………………...………...66 Appendix A: American Anthropological Association Statement on HT S……………………………………..……….69 Appendix B: American Anthropological Association Code of Ethics 1998………………………………………...…..72 Appendix C: Society for Applied Anthropology Ethical and Professional Responsibilities…………………….………….…82 Appendix D: American Anthropological Association Code of Ethics 2009……………………………………..……..84 Appendix E: American Anthropolog ical Association Commission on the Engagement of Anthropology with the US Military and Intelligence Communities Fina l Report on the Human Terrain Sy stem Program Executive Summary…………………….….....96 Bibliography…………………………… ………………………………….....98

PAGE 4

Chapter One: Introduction In the modern era, it se ems that culture is everywhere. Wars of the past century have encouraged the disi ntegration of empires and have given rise to people having, or wanting, thei r own country, with their own flag and their own seat that the United Nations General Assembly. Since World War II, unprecedented numbers of museums have cropped up all over the world (Lowenthal 1998) with purposes ranging from trying to bring the Elgin Marbles back to Athens to celebrati ng the African American community in Bradenton, Florida. Globalization has criss-crossed lines of production and distribution across the map and the internet has made it possible to communicate across distances in a fraction of second. The whole of humankind exists in an increasingly interconnected world (Wolf 1982). It would seem that now more than ever the study of people and culture would be coveted in order to bring mutual understanding to everything from international conflict to internati onal business. On the contrary, the discipline of anthropology in which the issues of culture ar e examined, is not currently on a path of engaging its perspective outside of academia. The most famous anthropologist to most Americans is Margaret Mead (19011978), who worked in the mid 20th century. The lack of current engagement

PAGE 5

of anthropology with the public a nd non-academic institutions has arisen indirectly from a discord over what an thropology is and does as well as what it should be and even could be. This thesis examines the discipline and practice of anthropology and its engagement with th e United States military in a historical context in order to illuminate the complex state of anthropological ethics. Over the course of the discipline’ s existence, anthropology as been defined in different ways. In th e mid-1800s, anthropology was defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “the study of human nature encompassing physiology and psychology” (Moore 2009: 2). In 1873, British anthropologist Edward Tylor (1832-1917) published The Science of Culture and permanently shifted the focus of anthropology towards the concept of culture. Tylor defined culture as “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, customs and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society” (2010:30). American anthropologist Leslie White (1900-1975 ), viewed the study of culture as equivalent to the study of thermodynami cs; “an organization of things in motion, a process of energy transformati on. [and] may be analyzed into the following factors: energy, tools a nd product” (2010: 29 6, 298). Clifford Geertz (1926-2006) defined anthropol ogy as an interpretive science of

PAGE 6

meaning; “man is an animal suspende d in webs of significance he himself has spun, I take culture to be thos e webs” (2010: 342). The American Anthropological Association (AAA) defines anthropology on its website, www.aanet.org, as the study of “humans, past and present anthropology draws and builds upon knowledge from the social and bi ological sciences as well as the humanities and physical scie nces” (2012). This thesis broadly defines anthropology as the st udy of peoples and culture. Anthropological ethics are not a simple matter of categorizing one thing as right and another as wrong. Et hics in a broad sense are guidelines for appropriate professional behavior. In the discipline of anthropology, ethics are guidelines and principles w ith which to guide anthropologists in the stages of anthropological work including research, description, publication and application. The Americ an Anthropological Association has Code of Ethics that will be discussed in Chapter 4. This thesis will examine how the current discourse over anthropological ethics is concerned with the outcomes of applications of cult ural knowledge. However, ethics particularly when concerning the use of cultural knowledge is influenced by and concerns a whole range of things outside of the cultural knowledge itself. To illustrate the dynamic of th is point, two stories will be shared below.

PAGE 7

After the United States entered Worl d War II, British historian George Taylor was appointed Deputy Director fo r the Far East at the Office of War Information. Taylor hired thirty wellqualified social scientists including numerous anthropologists. Research was directed towards understanding Japanese culture, in particular the ro le of the Emperor. With the knowledge of the role the Emperor played in Japanese society, Taylor petitioned President Roosevelt that if the Japanese were to ever su rrender, it would be absolutely necessary to leave the Em peror out of any terms or conditions (Price 2002a: 19). The cultural knowledge acquired by Taylor’s research team contradicted both the prevailing id ea that the Japanese were incapable of surrender and the precedent of unconditional surr ender that was demanded of Hitler and Mussolini (McFate 2005). Taylor ultimately convinced President Roosevelt, and th en later President Truman, and the Emperor was left out of surrender agreements. The second example is post WWII: From 1948 to 1954 the Huk rebels combatted the Filipino central govern ment on the island of Luzon. Two American military advisors worked w ith the central government and were key in disintegrating the Huk rebels: Colonel Edward Lansdale and Charles Bohannon, former ethnographer of the Sm ithsonian Institution. Together they used cultural knowledge regardi ng Huk superstitions to launch target

PAGE 8

psychological warfare. One example of this, retold by Lansdale in his memoirs: A combat psywar team…planted stories among town resident of an asuang (vampire) living on the hill where the Huks were based. Two nights later, after giving the st ories time to circulate among Huk sympathizers in the town… the psywar squad set up an ambush along the trail used by Huks. When a Huk patrol came along the trail, the ambushers silently snached the last man on the patrol... They punctured his neck with two holes, vampire fashion, held the body up by the heels, drained it of blood, and put the corpse back on the trail…When daylight came, the whol e Huk squadron moved out of the vicinity (Lansdale 1991: 72-23) These two examples illustrate how cultural knowledge can be applied towards the peaceful resolution of c onflict versus terrorizing a population. However, what influences these exam ples to be positive or negative are factors not related to the information itself. Anthropological engagement is about taking cultural knowle dge and anthropological expertise and using it for a purpose and the goal can be assessed or evaluated. This thesis focuses on anthropological engagement with the United States military because the issue of appl ying cultural knowledge extends beyond

PAGE 9

the confines of anthropology and the work of anthropologists. It confronts the reality that in a globalized worl d in which anyone can have cultural knowledge, what anthropologists do with their skills matters. How anthropologists and the anthropol ogical community address and move beyond the controversy of anthropological engagement in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars could either fragment th e discipline or open up a new way of thinking about what anthropology can contribute beyond itself. The thesis is organized into three main chapters. Chapter 2 focuses on historical instances of anthropological engagement with the United States military in order to illustrate how opinions on engagement as well as the agency of anthropologists changed over the 20th century. Chapter 3 examines the Human Terrain System as it is pr esented on its website and the stances taken on the program by anthropologi sts and members of the military. Chapter 4 explores the Code of Ethi cs of the American Anthropological Association as well as the Society fo r Applied Anthropologists and explores the application of those principles in assessing whether the HTS program is ethical. The conclusion, chapter 5, expl ores the potential of anthropological engagement in U.S. military peac e operations and engagement in anthropologically-based or anthro pological informed endeavors.

PAGE 10

Chapter Two: A Historical Survey of Anth ropological Engagement with The United States Military In order to take on stance on the contemporary role of anthropology in the United States military it is nece ssary to first examine the history of anthropology’s engagement with the military. Anthropology and the military are not inherently linked nor inhe rently sovereign. Rather, at various points over the last century social sc ientists have clashed, joined and entwined with the military establishment. In this chapter, these interactions shall be elaborated upon, showing how previous interactions have set the stage for the current ethical argumen t and moreover, how different sides chose to argue about it. Anthropology has been called the hand maiden of colonialism, or “the child of imperialism” (Gough 1967) but th at does not refer to the discipline as it is known today. In the late 1800 s the discipline of anthropology was essentially a consortium of everything leftover from the formation of other academic disciplines. Anthropology “lay special claims to the study of nonWestern and ‘primitive’ peoples” (W olf 2010: 414) and was enabled by European colonial expansion. Colonial control not only facilitated fieldwork, allowing anthropologists to venture into colonial territories and collect data, but colonial governments financed and supported these expeditions providing protection, salaries, grants posts and research opportunities (Asad 2002). At the turn of the century, Franz Boas, a German immigrant to the

PAGE 11

United States, began to conduct research that transformed anthropology. In one of his most famous works, Changes in the Bodily Form of Descendents of Immigrants he conducted fieldwork in New York City and systematically gathered data, measuring the heads a nd physiologies of immigrants. Boas’ final report featured graphs, mathem atical equations and statistics. Ultimately concluding “that I find myself unable to give an explanation of the phenomena, and that all I try to do is to prove that certain explanations are impossible” (1912: 555). Those certain explanations were attempts to use race in order to ascertain knowledge about immigrants. Boas used his anthropological methods to scientifica lly prove that different races do not denote different subspecies of human. Boas worked to comb at the idea that cultural traits were fixed in biology but argued instead that the e nvironment modified cultural traits (Moore 2009:38). In order to make these strides against biological determinism, Boas approached hi s study of people and culture through temporarily suspending “the values and viewpoints of [his] own culture and [assuming] those of the cultures [h e] was studying” (Patterson 2001:47). This became the foundation for the concep t of cultural relativism. A pillar of modern anthropological thought, cultura l relativism contends that cultures should be judged by their own standards. With the idea of cultural relativism, along with a prescription for fieldwork and anti-biological determinism, Boas influenced a genera tion of anthropologists like Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict who would la ter become strong public voices in influencing how Americans underst ood other cultures and peoples. The first intersection of anthropol ogy and the military came in World War I. Anthropology was not engaged or applied, rath er used as a cover for

PAGE 12

espionage. Boas found this reprehensible and publicly denounced using fieldwork as a cover for government spying. Howe ver, Boas’ criticism was in the minority both publicly and professionally. During WWI Harvard archaeologist Samuel Lothrop used his academic position as a cover to spy for Naval Intelligence in the Caribbean (Patterson 2001:53-54). This overlap enraged Boas and in a 1919 letter to the editor of The Nation Boas chastised any academic working with intelligence groups stating: A person .who uses science as a cover for political spying, who demeans himself to pose before a fore ign government as an investigator and asks for assistance in his alleged research in order to carry on, under this cloak, his political machin ations, prostitutes science in an unpardonable way and forfeits the right to be classified as a scientist (Boas 2005). For Boas anthropology was a scienc e and the weight of his radical messages against racism a nd colonialism came from the empirical scientific nature he has created around the new field of social science. Boas’s positioning of social science as sepa rate from intelligence gathering and government use resulted in his censure and expulsion from the newly established American Anthropological Association (AAA) (Stocking 1960). It is important to note that the AAA is a professional organization that serves as a forum for the discussion of anthropological work. This WWI example shows that desp ite Boas academic prowess and legacy, his critique of anthropologists using their positions as covers for espionage did not change policy or th e larger anthropological community’s

PAGE 13

position on the issue. Boas attempted to create and enforce boundaries of what was appropriate and et hical behavior for social scientists, but he was unusual in his era and his attempts not only contradicted the norm but the opinions of the professional field. Later generations of social scientists well versed in the Boasian tradition would echo his perspective within debates regarding engagement of social scientis ts with military conflicts during their own era. After WWI, anthropology and ethnogr aphy rapidly developed into an explanatory means for describing non-W estern societies. Fieldwork had become the standard practice and work such as Margaret Mead’s Coming of Age in Samoa were not only gaining pub licity but also taking root in public consciousness. This era “represented a boom time for applied anthropology in the United States” (Chambers 1987:311). When World War II broke out, the majo rity of American anthropologists became directly involved with th e war effort (Price 2002a: 16). This reflected both the positive public opi nion of the war and a positive impulse that led scholars to they had knowledge and skills worth contributing to the war effort. The AAA even formed a ‘Committee on Anthropology and the War Effort’ and publicly supporte d of the war (Price 2002a: 16). The nature of anthropological e ngagement during WWII can be best summarized for the purpose of this ch apter by three different incidences involving the British academic George Taylor. Although Taylor himself was not an anthropologist, once the Unite d States entered the war, he was appointed Director for the Far East at the Office for War Information (OWI). He believed that understanding Japane se culture was critical in achieving Japanese surrender and r ecruited dozens of anthropologists and social

PAGE 14

scientists to study Japanese nationa l character. Following Taylor and his team’s redesign of propaganda leaf lets dropped on Japanese troops and villages, surrender rates dr amatically increased. The study of the Japanese national character by American anthro pologists led to anthropologist Ruth Benedict’s 1946 work The Chrysanthe mum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture. Benedi ct detailed aspects of Japanese culture through what has come to be known as anthro pology at a distance, meaning that Benedict did not conduct fieldwork in Japan but rather used other methods of research such as reading existi ng literature and inte rviewing JapaneseAmericans to in order to understa nd the Japanese national character (Benedict 1986). Her work was ultim ately used by Taylor to convince President Roosevelt to leave the Japa nese Emperor out of any terms of surrender (Price 2002a: 19). During his time with the OWI, Tayl or encountered decision makers within the military establishment who were opposed to a non-military academic perspective. Ge neral Joseph Stilwell flew Taylor out to China to discuss how OWI’s findings could be be tter used in psychological warfare and was completely unreceptive to Tayl or’s point of view. As David Price recounts: Stilwell would listen to none of this, scoffing at the claim that academicians were needed to tell him how to fight his enemy or how to engage in effective psychological warfare. Stilwell then instructed one of his soldiers to take the ne xt five captured Japanese soldiers; right in front of Professor Taylor he was to take his sidearm and make one of the soldiers shoot the othe r four in their heads. The fifth prisoner was then to be flown behi nd enemy lines and set loose so that

PAGE 15

he could tell his countrymen what his enemy had made him do. Stilwell reportedly ended his disp lay of disdain for Taylor by exclaiming, ‘Now that is what I call psychological warfare!’ (2002a: 19) The third example from Taylor’s e xperience at the OWI shows that no matter what someone may know and be lieve to be true, he might be overruled or ignored. In 1945 Taylor informed President Truman that the OWI strongly believed the Japanese were ready to surrender (Price 2002a: 19). Taylor’s reasoning was ignored a nd instead the American government took exponentially offensive action against the Japanese through the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What the experiences of Taylor a nd the OWI during in WWII contribute to this thesis is historical precedent for a cruel reality: the effectiveness of anthropological knowledge, cultural kno wledge or any insight for that matter, depends on the desire and willin gness of decision makers to listen. This in many ways lies outside of the anthropologist’s control just as the decisions of Roosevelt, Stilwell and Tr uman did for Taylor. However, that does not discount the importance of th e contributions and efforts made by Taylor and the researchers working for him in the OWI. It is important to note that Taylor and his team were not viewed by the anthropological community as complicit in the ac tions taken by the United States government at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is a stark contrast to the backlash government anthropologists would experience after the Vietnam War. The role of anthropologists and social scientists in the Korean Conflict and in the Cold War will not be examin ed in this historical survey. Although

PAGE 16

fascinating, for the purposes of this exercise, the use of anthropology in these conflicts is too complex to be properly summarized. Further inquiry can be directed towards David Price’s numerous articles on the topic (2003, 2005, 2008). The conflict in Vietnam was the th ird major clash of anthropology and the military establishment. Unlike WWII, the Vietnam War was not seen as a ‘just war’ and the public, as well the academic and military communities were strongly divided over the issu e. Moreover, the public failure of government projects employed anthropologists creating a lasting legacy for anthropology that continues to the presen t day. This legacy is a distrust of government intentions for using anthropology, specifically in a counterinsurgency (COIN) context and fueled a shift in ethnography away from explanatory into a mo re descriptive realm. During the Vietnam War it became cl ear that the United States was fighting the Viet Cong as an insurgen cy and thus needed to increase its COIN efforts. COIN was seen as “predicated upon the understanding of human behavior” (Clemis 2009:166). Thus the military was much more open to engaging social science for th e purposes of more effective COIN operations. Anthropology wa s believed to be able to provide an on-theground understanding of the insurgency environment and how human factors that fuel conflict (Clemis 2009). This belief was operationa lized through the development of Project Ca melot and Project Agile. Project Camelot was designed in 1964 by the Special Operations Research Office (SOR O) and had anthropologists along with other social scientists researching counterinsurgen cy in place all over the world. The integrated scientific and political amb itions of the project were to “devise

PAGE 17

procedures for assessing the potentia l for internal war within national societies identify with increased degrees of confidence those actions which a government might take to re lieve conditions which are assessed as giving rise to a potential for internal war assess the feasibility of prescribing the characteristics of a system for obtaining and using the essential information needed for doi ng the above two things” (Solovey 2001:181). Project Camelot was seen as “the Manhattan Project for social scientists” (Solovey 2001: 182) and Hugo Nuttini, an anthropologist from University of Pittsburg, was sent to Ch ile to begin resear ch. The project was quickly exposed, igniting a whirlwi nd of controversy both amongst the public and the social science comm unity. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara quickly cancelled the project (Fawcett 2009:19). In 1970, as anti-war sentiments m ounted, Project Agile was exposed and became known as the Thai Scanda l. The DOD and the Royal Thai Government funded anthropologists to embed themselves in Thai villages and research the Communist insurgency there, in pa rticularly, how to best keep villages aligned with the Thai government and not support insurgents (Clemis 2009). The anthropologists in question claimed to have been working to help protect the village s where they were working (McFate 2005:14). Joseph Jorgenson and Eric Wolf strongly critiqued the actions of anthropologists in Thailand in th eir 1970 article “Anthropology on the Warpath in Thailand” stating: The days of naive anthropology are over. It is no longer adequate to collect information about little known and powerless people; one needs to know also the uses to which that know ledge can be put. Behind an appeal

PAGE 18

for pure research, a research grant, a consultant's fee, an appeal to personal vanity or to patriotism, is a government that may well use the knowledge gained to damage the s ubjects among whom it was gathered. Perhaps this is the grimmest lesson of all the events of the past years: many a naive anthropologist has become, wittingly or unwittingly, an informer. (1970: 15) These events sparked h eated ethical debates within the AAA regarding whether or not social scientists should lend themselves to governmental establishments. Professor Gerald Berre man of University of California Berkeley left a study on the Himalayan border countries on ce he discovered that the DOD funded the project. Professor Berreman openly acknowledged the political impetus behind this decision. Calling the war in Vietnam “illegal and genocidal. [he] stat ed, ‘I cannot accept research money from an agency whose primary interest and purpose is the prosecution of that war and the furtherance of policies which are likely to lead to similar wars including wars in the very areas of my research endeavor’” (quoted in Clemis 2009:168). Other perspectives within the ac ademic community ranged from viewing the use of social science in the government as necessary to defeat Communism in the developing worl d to a fundamental strategy for liberalizing and humanizing military policy. There was no escaping the political overtones of the debate or the discipline’s colonial roots. As Noam Chomsky wrote, “When we strip away the terminology of the behavioral sciences .see revealed, in such work as this [the paci cation program in Vietnam], the mentality of the coloni al civil servant, persuaded of the benevolence of the mother country and th e correctness of its vision of world

PAGE 19

order, and convinced that he understands the true interests of the backward peoples whose welfare he is to administer” (1967: 41). The harsh backlash from the an thropological community was overwhelmingly politically motivated a nd created a dynamic that demonized any social scientist working for the government. The experience of anthropologist Gerald Hickey during the Vietnam era illustrates how what had been acceptable enga gement just a generation prior was influenced by the polarizing nature of the war. Hickey was recruited to produce a study on the recently implemented Strategic Hamlet Program and how hi ghland peoples of Vietnam might be best courted to support the United St ates and South Vietnamese government. Hickey suggested that concrete connec tions between security and any efforts devoted to the strategic hamlets. Hick ey also cautioned against using force as a motivator because farming comm unities often have many forms of passive resistance. His suggestions we re ignored and ultimately the project was a failure. Several years later, the Montagnards of the central Vietnamese highlands revolted against the South Vietna mese government. Hickey, who had ethnographic experience with this group, provided General William Westmoreland with perspective on why the revolt was happening. The Montagnards has been relocated by th e South Vietnamese governments into poorly managed camps and the response to which, was tribal national and resistance against the South Vietna mese government (Clark 1988:465). Hickey continued to study and resear ch the culture of Vietnam looking for a way to end what he viewed to be a primarily political struggle. He

PAGE 20

believed military force woul d be ineffective and instead favored the idea of accommodation a concept Hickey identif ied as already rooted in Taoist beliefs and Vietnamese culture. Hickey presented this idea in a paper titled "Accommodation in South Vietnam: th e Key to Sociopolitical Solidarity" (1967). However leaders at the Penta gon interpreted accommodation to be the same as giving in to the Communi sts and ignored Hickey’s proposal and instead, favored a strategy of bombing (McFate 2005:13). Hickey’s work was not unethical by the current AAA Code of Ethics (see Appendix I for Code of Ethics, Chapte r 4 for explanation of the Code of Ethics) and especially given the preced ent for anthropologists to engage with the military. The abuses of social sc ience in Project Camelot and Project Agile that outraged members of th e anthropological community were realistically outside of Hickey’s control and most likely outside of his potential awareness. Yet, where George Taylor’s failure had not tainted the nature of his efforts and positive c ontributions to the WWII war effort, Hickey was stigmatized by the politics of the war and the political opinions of colleagues. Although he was awarded the medal for Distinguished Public Service, Hickey was unable to find an academic job after the war (McFate 2005:13) Within the military there was a sh ift away from the idea that social science as useful to COIN opera tions. Many were still in favor of maintaining the involvement of social science due to its “contributions towards understanding and working with indigenous populations in foreign areas” as well as “make th e unfamiliar familiar” and “help foster social and economic prosperity and win hearts and minds” (Clemis 2009:169). Others, like Admiral Hyman Rickover, in the legacy of Genera l Stilwell, rejected the

PAGE 21

idea that an academic perspective on culture would aid military men on the ground. The repeated failure of an thropology-aided projects strengthened Rickover’s position. This combined with the backlash from the anthropological community against e ngagement with the military and the failure of the Vietnam War led COIN to fall “into doctrinal and operational obscurity following Vietnam” (Clemi s 2009:170) and the Pentagon shifted towards only engaging in conflicts that could be won with force. This culminated in the Weinberger-Powell Do ctrine that sought to avoid any future Vietnam-style engagements th rough the reluctance to use military force unless immediate victory was attainable (Campbell 1998). After the Vietnam War, the disc ipline of anthropology shifted onto a new path. As students who went th rough undergraduat e and graduate education during this era began publishing, ethnographic work focused increasingly on cultural descriptions and resembled less the explanatory work. Applied work fell out of favor a nd isolated as a fifth discipline of anthropology, since the Vietnam War had made clear to students at the time that once information was divulged it could easily be “used to control, enslave and even annihilate. communities studied” (McFate 2005:14). Also, after the Vietnam War there was not another conflict that required a military draft and thus military service became an experience that socially stratified the American people. Howe ver, as the paths of academic anthropology and the military establis hment diverged, none of the ethical issues that were raised in the Vietna m-era were ever reso lved. While critique and discussion continued within the anthropological community, the military was not a part of any dialogue. In the next chapter, this thesis will examine the resurgence of COIN operations and anthropological engage ment through the Human Terrain

PAGE 22

System. Criticism of the program will be examined in or der to separate criticism into what can be identifie d as politically motivated, practical concerns about the program’s effec tiveness and structure and criticism stemming from concerns that the program violates the AAA C ode of Ethics.

PAGE 23

Chapter Three: The Human Terrain System and the Anthropological Community This chapter will examine the Huma n Terrain System (HTS) and the stances taken on the program by anthro pologists. The origins, development and operations of the program will be discussed based on publicly available reports and how the program self-repres ents on its website. Criticism of the program will then be detailed and analyzed in order to illustrate that a large part of the critique is criticism of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. On September 11th 2001, members of the terrorist group Al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial airliners and used them to attack the World Trade Center buildings in New York and the Pentagon in Washington D.C. The attacks resulted in the deaths of over 3000 Americans and marked the watershed moment in shifting the focu s of American foreign policy towards the Middle East. In a speech to a joint session of Congress, President George W. Bush declared that the United States would no t only wage war against Al-Qa’eda, the Islamic fundamentalist group responsible for the attacks, but any nation that supported these types of terrorist organizations (Clemis 2009:170). The United States conducted a bombing campaign of Afghanistan starting in October 2001 in conjunction with NATO and the

PAGE 24

Northern Alliance, the governing bod y in Afghanistan that held the country’s seat in the United Nation’ s General Assembly (The Estimate 2001) and Al-Qaeda’s allies, the Ta liban, were overthrown. Then in December 2001, the Bonn Conference led to the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). According to ISAF’s webside, www.isaf.nato.int, NATO a ssumed governing control of ISAF and initially was only mandated to provide security in Kabul, in 2003 the mandate expanded to mission to the entir e country (2012). Due to the initial limits of ISAF’s mandate, troop-contri buting countries fielded provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs) across Afghanistan as a part of security and reconstruction efforts. PRTs will be expl ained in greater detail in Chapter 4. After the successful US-NATO conquest of Afghanistan, the Taliban began an insurgency against ISAF forces. In 2003, the concerns over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq became tied to US fears over terrorism In 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell stated in a speech to the Unite d Nations Security Council, “weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists or states that support terrorism would represent a mortal danger to us all” (quoted in Clemis 2009:171). In March 2003, a US-led coalition forces invaded Iraq and quickly toppled Saddam Hussein’s regime. However, by the summer of 2003, US coalition

PAGE 25

forces acknowledged they faced a lowintensity guerilla style insurgency (BBC News 2012). In 2005, several years into the Afgha nistan and Iraq wars, social science and the United States military once agai n crossed paths. The swift victory along the lines of the Weinberger-Powe ll doctrine in both Afghanistan and Iraq led to an unanticipated long o ccupation which fed protracted and difficult counterinsurgency. The de arth of Middle Eastern cultural knowledge within all levels of the military establishment had become apparent. Retired Major Ge neral Robert Scales publis hed an article stating that the conflict in Iraq had become a “culture-centric war” (Scales 2004:33) meaning that the conflict was “fought brilliantly at the technological level but inadequately at the human level The U.S. Military is not accustomed to finding collective solutions to addr ess human failures” (2004: 32). Scales defined the human element as encomp assing information operation, cultural awareness, soldier conduct, civil affairs and intelligence (2004:32). The Department of Defense (DOD) published the Defense Language Transformation Roadmap which stat ed, “Language skill and regional expertise are not valued as Defense core competencies yet they are as important as critical weapons system s” (Department of Defense 2005). In 2005, General David Patraeus was appointed commander of the multi-

PAGE 26

national forces in Iraq and implemen ted a new counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine that emphasized public outr each, economic development, protection for the local population and empowerment for local politicians and security forces (Greanias 2010). This was a noticeable shift away from the longstanding Weinberger-Powell doctrine th at had formerly directed the Pentagon to engage only in conflicts that could be won with overwhelming force in order to avoid insurgency en tanglements like that of the Vietnam War. General Patreus’ new COIN efforts required a different level of outreach both at the governmental and gra ssroots level. This shift in strategy not only exposed the cultural gap betw een the American forces and local culture but also the immediate need fo r cultural knowledge within deployed units. In 2005 the 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan filed an Operational Needs Statement (ONS) reque sting more socio-cultural support. Following this request, numerous Ar my and Marine commanders in or preparing to deploy to Iraq also filed ONSs. Research indicated that many improvised explosive device (IED) attack s were fueled as violent backlash against cultural offenses (Human Terra in System 2011), which meant that unless soldiers were purposefully offe nding local cultures and customs, the IED attacks were resulting from cultural misunderstandings and

PAGE 27

miscommunication. The Joint Impr ovised Explosive Devices Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) agreed to f und a counter-IED initiative. This, combined with the continued floodi ng of ONSs coming from both Iraq and Afghanistan led to the funding and creation of a new program designed to meet socio-cultural operational needs. On its website, www.humanterr ainsystem.army.mil, the Human Terrain System situates the origins of the program within the context of the military’s need for cultural informati on. In a quote posted to the website from an unclassified Joint Urgent Operational Needs Statement from Afghanistan: “US Forces continue to operate in Afghanistan lacking the required resident and reach-back sociocultural expertise, understanding, and advanced automated tools to conduct in-depth collection / consolidation, visualization, and analysis of th e operationally-relevant socio-cultural factors of the battle space.” The HTS website lists the ways in which the military was unable to meet its cultural needs such as the “Ina bility to exploit open source and unclassified cultural information. Li mited subject matter expert support to assist commanders to understand. in ability to tap into worldwide cultural knowledge & information.”

PAGE 28

In this vacuum emerged Mont gomery McFate, a Ph.D. level anthropologist who in 2005 pub lished several articles in Military Review delineating how the strengths of an thropology and social science could address the human element needs of the military. In her article “An Organizational Solution for the DOD’s Cultural Knowledge Needs” McFate and veteran war researcher Andrea Jack son provide not just another call for more cultural knowledge in the military ’s operations but an actual pilot program proposal for how to fix the problem. Immediately shutting down the idea that Regional Combatan t Commanders (RCCs) should be responsible for cultural outreach and cultural operational support, McFate and Jackson proposed an Office for Operational Cultural Knowledge that would encompass ethnographic field resear ch, cultural training, advisers to commanders, a centralized unit for socio-cultural support and produce analytical studies for military consum ption (McFate and Jackson 2005). The proposal pursued by the Foreign Military Studies Office, a subsection of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command and developed the proposal into the Human Terrain System based in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas (Kipp, et al, 2006). Although McFate has been a light ning rod for criticism of the HTS program, this thesis will not cover he r in depth. Although she put forth the

PAGE 29

idea of HTS and has been its public face she realistically should not be the target of programmatic or ethical critic ism. The military is a hierarchical organization and it is not reasonable to assume that McFate alone created the program. Through the processes of f unding, creating and implementing this program, the DOD made this program their own and this thesis views the HTS program as a DOD program. Althou gh anthropologists’ critique of the program will be elaborated upon later in this chapter, it is important to note that McFate’s proposal, for how to he lp the military with its dearth of cultural knowledge, was th e only proposal to come from someone within a discipline that is based upon th e study of cultural knowledge. Human Terrain is defined as “t he social, ethnographic, cultural, economic and political elements of the people among whom a force is operating” (Kipp 2006). From its incep tion, the information and data collected by Human Terrain System was to be unclassified so that it would “not become unnecessarily fettered or made inaccessible to large numbers of soldiers and civilians routinely invol ved in stability operations” (Kipp 2006). The mission statement and raison d’et re of the Human Terrain System is represented on the website homepage (2012) Task: Recruit, train, deploy, and supp ort an embedded, operationally

PAGE 30

focused sociocultural capability; conduct operationally relevant, sociocultural research and anal ysis; develop and maintain a sociocultural knowledge base. Purpose: Support operational decisionmaking, enhance operational effectiveness, and preserve and share sociocultural institutional knowledge. The HTS website has an entire secti on dedicated to explaining how the program developed and expanded. The Human Terrain System began as a proof-of-concept program, a test pilot of the idea, consiste d of five Human Terrain Teams (HTTs), which were to be embedded with five different brigade or regimental staffs. Two te ams would be working Afghanistan and three in Iraq. The Afghan HTT depl oyed in February 2007. Each HTT consisted of five individuals: a team lead er, a research manager, an analyst, a cultural analyst and a regional studies an alyst. The first three positions were designated for military personnel and the latter two were designated for civilian MA/PhD level anthropologists with the regional studies analyst to be fluent in area language. After the deployment of the first HT T to Afghanistan in February 2007, the program fielded numerous requests for an HTT from units in both Afghanistan and Iraq. That year recr uitment to the program and training

PAGE 31

dramatically increased and by Nove mber 2008 a total of 26 HTTs were deployed in both theaters of war. The ebb and flow of HTT’s locations and requested presence reflected the surg e of forces in Iraq in 2007, the drawdown in 2009 and then the redirect ing of forces to Afghanistan. In 2011, 23 HTTs are working in Afghanistan and 10 HTTs are in Iraq. In early 2012, after military operations ceased in Iraq, the website updated to reflect its current organization, with 23 HTTs deployed in Afghanistan. The HTS website outlines the curre nt HTS components which have extended beyond the initial pilot progr am. In addition to HTTs, Human Terrain Analysis Teams (HTATs) a nd a Theater Coordination Element (TCE) are also deployed to Afghanist an and previously Iraq. HTATs are described as “deployed to support ech elons above brigade/regimental level [the level where HTTs are deployed] The HTAT inte grates into the commanders staff, conducte d unclassified open source and field research, synthesizes the information from HTTs deployed with subordinate units Consists of five to seven civilian and m ilitary personnel .one to two social scientists.” The TCE “provides socio-cult ural support to the theater staff and decision makers and coordi nates and manages the social science research and analysis capability.” The TCE is co mprised of six to eight military and civilian personnel including th ree are social scientists.

PAGE 32

The success of the HTS program is presented on the website through links to articles and newsletters wr itten by Army journalists as well as positive testimonials and quotes from commanders and staff that HTS has supported. The program is not put fort h as the pilot it once was but as an integrated and indispensable asset. In an article written by Army journalist Sgt. Mike Pryor (2007), the cont ributions made by HTT member and anthropologist Dave Matsuda, are de tailed for a military readership. Dr. Dave Matsuda, an anthropologist at Ca lifornia State University, East Bay, embedded with an HTT in Iraq from 20072008, described an example when his brigade intended to publish wanted posters featuring the image of the scales of justice. Matsuda intervened, pointing out that the scales of justice was a Greek symbol and would most lik ely lack the intended effect. Instead he put forth the image of two open hands, an image drawn from the Islamic tradition and Matsuda believe d would be more likely to resonate with Iraqis who see the poster. Professor Matsuda also recounted an event where soldiers thought they had settled a dis pute with Iraqi villagers by making a condolence payment. However, when th e soldiers returned several days later, they were attacked. The soldie rs viewed this as betrayal but the villagers on the other hand viewed th e payment as not being valid because the reconciliation ritual had not been conducted and Pro fessor Matsuda was

PAGE 33

able to contextualize the event so that the mistake would not be repeated. Throughout the website, testimonies of commanders and staff HTS has supported, including high ranking U.S Military and other NATO-allied officers is used to legitimize and so lidify the program’s mission. In 2010, Major Flynn reported, “The number one performance measur e is whether I can pry them (HTTs) out of the co mmander’s hands when I need to reallocate them on the battlefield. I can tell you I have not been successful, not once…there is a desire to have th is capability in the battlespace” (2012). Other quotes lacked dates but were ex amples of positive military opinion of the program. Lieutenant General Peter Chiarelli states, “I asked my Brigade Commanders what was the number one th ing they would have liked to have had more of, and they all said cu ltural knowledge” (2012). Canadian Brigadier General Vance believes in Af ghanistan, “the key for human terrain teams is to help us understand so we can decide which action to take or whether any action is even appropria te This knowledge provides the baseline. It is all about understanding” (2012). Finally, the HTS website uses testimony to show that demand from co mmanders and units with what is driving its continued existence. Successes of the HTS program are not only represented through its own self-promotion but also recounted in third party literature. In a

PAGE 34

monograph titled Cultural Understanding in Counterinsurgency: an Analysis of the Human Terrain System written by Major Grant Fawcett (2010) submitted to the School of Advanced Military Studies, Fawcett details how an HTT in Afghanistan whose members advised the brigade commander on how to successfully reconcile with the Jayash al Mujahedeen Army (JaMA). The HTT believed that most me mbers of the JaMA were tired of fighting, and although they wanted coalition forces out of Iraq they supported the increased legitim acy of the Iraqi government and security forces. As a result, the leadership of the JaMA faced the decision between continuing the fight and losing the support of the JaMA. Through a series of meetings with local sheiks, the HTT was able to coordinate the reconciliation of 10 to 12 mid-level leaders of the JaMA, along with obtaining a written declaration that fighters would lay down arms and support the local government. Without the advice and assessment from the HTT, it is likely that U.S. forces would have remained in conflict with the JaMA for a significantly longer period (2010:29-30). This is significant because the corro borations of HTS program’s success, especially in a document that is pub licly available but aimed at military

PAGE 35

readership, shows that the program ha s been integrated into the military establishment and its success withsta nd the scrutiny of military personnel outside of the program. The HTS program has been a cataly st of controversy within the anthropological community. Stances on the program echo the central concern of whether or not it is ethical for anthropologists to partake in the HTS program. Some academics, like Roberto Gonzalez, question the accuracy and objectiveness with whic h the HTS program has represented itself, writing, “it appears that HTS ha s two faces: one de signed to rally public support for an increasingly unpopul ar war, and the other to collect intelligence to help salvage a failing occupation” (2008:21). Pauline Kusiak Ph.D. has a different perspective on the et hics of anthropologists engaging in the HTS program and raises an importa nt critique of the discourse coming from academics like Gonzalez, writing, “there seems little doubt that some of the critique (of HTS in particular) is indeed thinly veiled protest of the war in Iraq. But the more substantiv e aspects of the critique are instead motivated by the. .desire for proprieta ry self-preservation” (2008:73). This section illustrates that although anthropologists and professional anthropological organizations are cr itical of the HTS program on ethical grounds, the real debate is over wh ether or not anthropologists should

PAGE 36

engage with the military and contri bute their cultural knowledge towards military programs. In 2007, the American Anthropologi cal Association published a one-page statement of its stance on the HTS pr ogram (see Appendix A for the full statement). Through comparing the progr am to the AAA’s Code of Ethics (see Appendix B for the Code of Ethics), five points of concern were laid out: the possible inability for HTS social scientists to identify themselves as anthropologists and not military pers onnel, the inability of HTS social scientists to make sure no harm comes to those that they study, the possible inability to achieve informed consent fro m those studied, the possible use of information derived from HTS anthropolo gists in targeting populations for military action and the possibility of HT S anthropologists’ association with the US military to bring harm to non-HTS anthropologists working worldwide. Following these points that the AAA stated, “Thus the Executive Board expresses its disapproval of the HTS program” (American Anthropological Association Execu tive Board Statement on the Human Terrain System Project 2007). Disappr oval by the AAA meant that the organization could not condone or en courage members to join the HTS program. The Network for Concerned Anth ropologists (NCA), another

PAGE 37

professional anthropologist organiza tion, took a firmer stance against the HTS program, stating that it is “an in appropriate and ineffective use of anthropological and other social science expertise” (NCA 2010). Founded by Hugh Gusterson of George Mason Un iversity, the NCA describes itself as an “independent ad hoc network of anthropologists seeking to promote ethical anthropology” (NCA 2012). In 2010, the NCA took political action against the HTS program by sending a letter of disapproval to Congress accompanied by over 650 signatures fro m professors and domestic and foreign social science Ph.D.s The letter stated that the NCA, despite being “heartened and encouraged by the Pe ntagon’s interest in expanding its cultural knowledge” (NCA 2010), has fo ur points of opposition to the HTS program that should move Congress to call an immediate halt to the program’s funding: 1) There is no evidence that HTS is effective. 2) HTS is dangerous and reckless 3) HTS wastes taxpayer money 4) HTS is unethical for anthropolog ists and other social scientists The letter did not succeed in ha lting funding to the HTS program. In addition to professional anthropological organizations, individual

PAGE 38

anthropologists have spoken out agai nst the program and anthropological engagement with the military at larg e. Two professiona ls who frequently publish books and articles on the HTS pr ogram and issue of anthropological engagement in the military are Robe rto Gonzalez and David Price. The positions of both Gonzalez a nd Price are grounded in a larger critique of the military establishment and the ways in which anthropological knowledge could be abused. This stance is a st rongly influenced by abuse of social science by the military during the Vietnam War. Roberto Gonzalez, an associate anth ropology professor at San Jose State University, has published three books on the topic: Anthropologists in the Public Sphere: Speaking Out on War, Peace, and American Power (2004), American Counterinsurgency: Hum an Science and the Human Terrain (2009), Militarizing Culture: Essays on the Warfare State (2010) and numerous articles. Gonzalez is skep tical of any claims made by HTS regarding the program’s effectiveness si nce “there is no verifiable evidence that HTTs have save a single life—Am erican, Afghan, Iraqi or otherwise” (2008:21). Gonzalez also believes that HTS “enables the entire kill chain” (2008:22) meaning that involvement of so cial scientists inevitably leads to a lethal conclusion. Thus, Gonzalez view s the engagement of anthropologists with a fundamentally lethal organization as running counter to the principles

PAGE 39

of ethical anthropology, specifically the principle of do-no-harm. David Price, a professor of anthropol ogy and sociology at St. Martin’s University, has written extensively on the topic of anthropology and the military with books and articles rangi ng from anthropology in World War II up though the present day deba te. His most recent book, Weaponizing Anthropology: Social Science in Service of the Militarized State (2011) takes an aggressive stance not only against the HTS program but also the Pentagon’s quest to gain cultural know ledge. Many of his articles, "Case Western Breakdown: How Critical Enga gements with Military Scholars Can Threaten Academic Transparency” ( 2011) “Silent Coup: How the CIA is Welcome Itself Back onto American Un iversity Campuses”(2010), “Human Terrain Systems Dissenter Resigns, Tells Inside Story of Training’s Heart of Darkness” (2010) put forth an analysis that is grounded in a larger critique of the U.S. Military establishment as a whole. Price is skeptical of any contribution anthropology could make through engagement with the military due to the military’s own needs and furthermore, that the military is incapable of incorporating anthropologi cal analysis in a constructive way. As Price says in “The Army’s Take on Culture” (2010:61): Some argue that the military needs good anthropologists to improve its understanding of ot her cultures. But this view

PAGE 40

misunderstands the military’s in tentions. The military adopts inadequate cultural models beca use they comfortably echo the military’s own worldview. But this is exactly the sort of “Science” that the military continua lly seeks, despite the groans of academics who know that at best such efforts will quietly fail, and at worst, will be weaponized to harass minority populations. The military appears bound to reproduce its own blindness even as it flails to reach outside its institutional bor ders for new ideas. The military recognizes its shortcomings in anthropological understandings of culture but its. predilections to support neocolonial missions hinders its ability to incorporate rigorous anthropological analyses. Both Gonzalez and Price critiq ue the HTS program based on a fundamental belief that th e military is a dangerous and fundamentally lethal organization. Their critique of the HTS program is thus a part of a larger critique of anthropological engagement based on what they view their discipline as engaging with—an organiza tion that will inevitably use cultural knowledge to harm people. This pers pective firmly places any sort of anthropological engagement with the military into the realm of unethical behavior. Anthropologists, who do not view the military as a fundamentally lethal

PAGE 41

and unethical organization, view th e HTS program as an opportunity to expand what anthropologists can contri bute outside of their professional work. As Kusiak writes, anthropologi sts can use their cultural knowledge and perspective to help the military, “differentiate between the ubiquitous from the abnormal in another sociocu ltural milieu, [provide] understanding of the role of identity in fueling conflict and fluency in alternative explanatory frameworks and narratives” (2008:66). Kathleen Reedy, a Ph.D. social anthropologist who worked in the HTS program said of the program, “You can actually see the results of your work in a day-to-day environment” (Redden 2008). Another HTS member Marcia Hartwell had larger interpretation of program stating, “It’s a chance to change the military; it’s a chance to change the Army .in many ways, the Army is ready to do things in a different way” (2008). These anthropologists view critiques lik e that of Gonzalez and Price as an “over-simplification of the full ra nge of security-rel ated activities in which the military engages, and it co mpletely ignores those military operations whose purpose is actually to avoid killing or to bring violence to an end” (Kusiak 2008:72). Laura McNamara, who sits on the AAA’s Commission on the Engagement of Anthr opology with the U.S. Security and Intelligence Communities, argues that the staunchest critics of the HTS

PAGE 42

program, “have absolutely no experien ce dealing with government agencies” (Redden 2008) and ethically studying w ithin bureaucratic cultures like U.S. intelligence agencies “is the kind of thing that anthropologists really should be doing” (2008). The debate over whether or not the HTS program is ethical for anthropologists to partake in, has ope ned up the issue of whether or not anthropological engagement with th e military is ethical and exposed inconsistencies with how the anthropological ethics are interpreted within the discipline. The clash of anthropology and the military as discussed in this chapter highlights the lingering distru st of the military instilled in many academics following the Vi etnam War and how that ha s created an negative impression of the current military es tablishment. However, this stance creates the possibility for a widespread subjective understanding of the military and of military operations. The next chapter will examine the in consistencies and ambiguity existing within the realm of anthro pological ethics. Codes of ethics and professional responsibilities will be put fort h as published by the American Anthropological Association and the Society for Applied Anthropologists. Then contrasted with the ethical concerns emerging from the AAA’s Commission on the Engagement of Anth ropology with the US Security and

PAGE 43

Intelligence Communities. Ultimately, cu lminating in a discussion of what the AAA and the anthropo logical community are ove rlooking in the debate over the ethics of the HTS program a nd anthropological engagement in the military.

PAGE 44

Chapter Four: Anthropological Ethics and the Future of the Discipline The controversy surrounding the HT S program and the staunch position against it taken by both individual anthropologists and the American Anthropological Association (AAA) is an interesting indication of how some anthropologists see themselves and th e work they do in relation to the government and the military establishm ent. In 1919, the AAA implicitly condoned academics joining forces w ith the government and during World War II, individual anthropologists did not see it as inappropriate to work with or through the government to spr ead cultural knowledge to the public, contribute to the creation of policy and see that governmental policy was carried out in the best way possible. Over the last several years, the uncertainty over the ethical soundness of the Human Terrain System (HTS) program and over the use of anthropo logical knowledge by the military has opened up a discussion on the AAA Code of Ethics and in doing so, exposed inconsistencies in how the AAA has chos en to address this ethical issue. This chapter will examine the AAA’s di scussion of anthropological ethics and the contradictions in the organiza tion’s response to the larger issue of ethical anthropological engagement with the military. This chapter will then put forth that the current discussion of anthropological engagement with the

PAGE 45

military ignores potential contributions to military Peace Operations and Provincial Reconstructions Teams. Furt hermore the current debate over the role of social science and the military presents an opportunity to redefine the boundaries between what constitute s professional and academic work compared to what anthropo logists can contribute outside of the discipline to anthropologically-based or anthropolo gically informed endeavors. The AAA Code of Ethics (see Appendix B for the Code of Ethics) is a recent document in the history of both the discipline of anthropology and of the organization. Approved in 1998 af ter the Commission to Review the AAA Statement on Ethics published its 1996 final report, it serves as “guidelines [to] address general contexts, prioritie s and relationships which should be considered in ethi cal decision making” (American Anthropological Association 1998) while also acknowledging that “no code or set of guidelines can anticipate unique circumstances or direct actions in specific situations” (American Anthro pological Association 1998). Thus the Code of Ethics does not act as law, fo rcing anthropologists and their work to a certain set of standards, but rather se rves to set a general tone and standard for what modern anthropology should encompass. The AAA cannot enforce th e Code of Ethics onto its members or their work. Before its final approval in 199 8, the 1996 final report by Commission

PAGE 46

to Review the AAA Statem ents on Ethics stated, “the AAA no longer adjudicate claims of unethical behavior and focus its efforts and resources on an ethics education program” (1998:1). This stance could not have been overlooked in the subsequent editing of the AAA Code of Ethics and thus makes the document a set of ideal standards to guide the current discipline. Some argue that such guidelines and the emphasis on ethical education is “legalistic, adjudicative and restrictiv e, an attempt to codify research behavior in anticipation of legal challenge” (Harper and Jimenez 2005). Because the Code of Ethics is a general guideline fo r an entire discipline put forth by a single professional organizati on, there is an unclear process for how the AAA and the anthropological community are supposed to address issues of ethical misconduct. One of the most recent issues of ethical misconduct since the publication of the Code of Ethics, was what ha s come to be known as the TierneyChagnon Affair. In the 1960s, the anth ropological researcher Napoleon Chagnon worked with the Yanamami, an indigenous group in the Amazon and produced severals works including his famous book, Yanomam: The Fierce People and several film documen taries. Although Chagnon has drawn criticism for his work for most of his long career, the staunchest allegations were put forth only recen tly. In 2000, journalist Patrick Tierney,

PAGE 47

who has an undergraduate degr ee in anthropology, published Darkness in El Dorado: How Scientists and Jour nalists Devastated the Amazon, which not only explicitly criticized Chagnon for crea ting the conflict he attributed to Yanomami culture but also for worki ng with geneticist James Neel in 1968 to vaccinate the Yanomami for meas les and then observe their immune responses. The experiment resulted in the death of some of the Yanomami who were vaccinated (T ierney 2000:53-82). During the AAA annual c onference the year Darkness in El Dorado was published, Tierney’s ethical misconduct charges were “raucously debated” and led to a subsequent meeting desc ribed as a being “filled with ethics charges and bitter, sometimes personal debate, and unable to finish on time, as arguments spilled into the hallway s” (Mann 2009). The AAA referenced the Code of Ethics and conducted an i nquiry task force to address Tierney’s charges against Chagnon and Neel. Th e following year the task force exonerated Chagnon and Neel of Tier ney’s accusation that the measles vaccine led to an epidemic yet c oncluded, “Chagnon’s work had been damaging to the Yanamam” (Mann 2009). Despite the inquiry taken by the AAA, opinions within the anthropological community on the Tierne y-Chagnon affair and the measures taken by the AAA are both heated and diverse. In an email former AAA

PAGE 48

president and head of the inquiry task force Jane Hill described Tierney’s book as “just a piece of sleaze” (quoted in Mann 2009); likewise another task force member Janet Chernela relayed that “ nobody took Tierney’s book seriously” (quoted in Mann 2009). Anth ropologist Terence Turner, a critic of Chagnon, argued that the inquiry wa s unfairly organized. Turner only had fifteen minutes to defend Tierney’s wo rk while over an hour was given to those who wanted to critique Tierney’s work. Turner also alleged that the inquiry board ignored points Tierney ma de about other “putative unethical work” (quoted in Mann 2009). Some be lieve that the action taken by the AAA was too harsh and done only to prot ect future research opportunities in Latin America. Historian Alice Dreg er, who reported on Chagnon’s critiques and the AAA’s actions, saw them as so problematic, as to state: “‘I can’t imagine how any scholar feels safe as a member” (quot ed in Mann 2009). The Tierney-Chagnon Affair illustra tes that although the AAA and the anthropological community have a syst ematic way for addressing issues of ethical misconduct, the personal seems to overtake professional guidelines There was no definitive acti on taken to solidify what was ethical or unethical about Chagnon’s work and scholars fell on one side of the debate or the other based on their own inte rpretations of the ethics of anthropology. With this precedent of how the AAA and the scholarly community addresses with

PAGE 49

charges of ethical transgressions, th is chapter will now examine the AAA’s statement on HTS program in greater detail (see Appendix A for the full statement). The AAA’s 2007 Executive Board Statem ent on the then fledgling HTS project appears to have stated its disappr oval of the program in an attempt to anticipate any future ethical accusati ons against the project. The statement acknowledges that “the Commission’s work did not include a systematic study of the HTS project” (2007) yet goes on stating the Executive Board has “concluded that the HTS project rais es sufficiently troubling and urgent ethical issues to warrant a statement” (2007). The statement put forth was: “the Executive Board expresses its di sapproval of the HTS program.” The only support given for this conclusion we re five points that primarily rested on the stipulation that the HTS operates in “settings of war” (2007) and the potential for both the Code of Ethics, section III A, 1 and section III A, 4, (see Appendix B for the full Code of Et hics) to be compromised. Section III A, 1 encompasses the do-no-harm prin ciple in that “anthropological researchers have primary ethical ob ligations to the people species and materials they study.” Section III A, 4 re fers to the principle of “informed consent of persons being studied, providing information, owning or controlling access of material being st udied or otherwise identified as having

PAGE 50

interests which may be impacted by the research.” The Executive Board’s conclusi on that “the HTS project as an unacceptable application of anthropo logical expertise” (Executive Board Statement on the Human Terrain Syst em Project 2007) seems unreasonably absolute given that the support fo r their conclusion has been preacknowledged as fungible, non-absolu te and dependent upon context. The concern over work occurring in “settings of war” seems tied to the fact that it is a war in which the United States is involved. This influences the belief that the HTS program automatically vi olates the do-no-harm principle and automatically implies that anthropologist s who are a part of the program will bring harm to the people they study or at least not be able to stop harm from coming to them. This is a str ong departure from the ability of anthropologists in World War II to contribute their expertise without being responsible for political decisions outsi de their control. The AAA’s stance on the HTS program’s relationship to the do-no-harm principle directly reflects the experience of social scientis ts in the Vietnam War in that social scientists are viewed as responsible fo r projects that were viewed negatively by the public. This is also supported by the ambiguous nature of informed consent as being “dynamic and continuou s” (1998) and “it is understood that the degree and breadth of informed consent required will depend on the

PAGE 51

nature of the project” (1998). The AA A statement on HTS does not clearly distinguish whether or not the orga nization views the HTS program as anthropology and whether or not th e AAA takes issue with the HTS program’s engagement with the milita ry or the methodology of the program itself. At the time of the statement’ s publication, the program was still in a pilot phase and it is likely the nature of the project, which is anthropological engagement with the military, is the source of the AAA’s disapproval more than the project itself. The Society for Applied Anthropology (SFAA) has a slightly different position on both anthropological ethics and the HTS program. Applied anthropology will not be examined exte nsively in this thesis and the SFAA is invoked here primarily to provide a contrast of how another professional anthropological organizations interprets the ethics of the discipline and of the HTS program. The SFAA define s applied anthropology as “the application of the principles, theo ries, methods and approaches of anthropology to the interdisciplinary identification and solution of human problems” (SFAA 1999). The lack of cu ltural knowledge in the military was a clearly documented human problem and the HTS progra m openly applies the principles, theories, methods and approaches of anthropology and thus could be considered to fall under the banner of applied work. Susan

PAGE 52

Andreatta, president of the SFAA stated, “the Society will refrain from issuing a formal opinion in order that further exchange and discussion may proceed in a productive fashion and to benefit our members” (Andreatta 2007:1). The SFAA makes a point to no t “function as a spokesperson for the discipline of Anthropology” (2007:2) an d to not position itself as “the voice of all applied and practicing anthropolo gists, sociologists, geographers etc.” (2007:2) Compared to the AAA Code of Ethics, “there is nothing in the SFAA Code of Ethics [See Appendix C for SFAA Code of Ethics] which is directly affected by the HTS or participation in the HTS” (2007:2). In February 2009, two years after the AAA published its statement on the HTS program, the AAA approved an upda te to its Code of Ethics (See Appendix D for 2009 Code of Ethics) that added a new clause in its section on Responsibility to the Public and a new section titled Dissemination of Results: C. Responsibility the to Public 2. In relation with his or her own government, host governments, or sponsors of research, an anthropolog ist should be honest and candid. Anthropologists must not compromise their professional responsibilities and ethics and shoul d not agree to conditions which inappropriately change the purpose, focus or intended outcomes of

PAGE 53

their research… VI. Dissemination of Results 1. The results of anthropological research are complex, subject to multiple interpretations and suscep tible to differing and unintended uses Anthropologists have an ethical obligation to consider the potential impact of both their research and the communication or dissemination of the results of their research on all directly or indirectly involved. 2. Anthropologists should not withho ld research results from research participants when those results ar e shared with others. There are specific and limited circumstances however, where disclosure restrictions are appropriate and ethical, particularly where those restrictions serve to protect th e safety, dignity or privacy of participants, protect cultural heritage or tangible or intangible cultural or intellectual property. 3. Anthropologists must weigh the intended and potential uses of their work and the impact of its distribu tion in determining whether limited availability of results is warranted and ethical in any given instance. These additions to the Code of Ethics seem to be a direct response to the

PAGE 54

controversy of the HTS program a nd the confusion over the ethical soundness of the program. The additions also illustrate increasing political undertones masked within anthropological jargon. In October of 2009, the AAA Commission on the Engagement of Anthropology with the US Secu rity and Intelligence Community (CEAUSSIC) produced its final report on the HTS proof of concept program (see Appendix E for the full executive summary of the report). CEAUSSIC had been charged to “thoroughly revi ew the Human Terrain System program so the AAA might then formulate and official position on members’ participation in HTS activities” (C EAUSSIC 2009). The ex ecutive summary of the CEAUSSIC 2009 report’s five main conclusive points are worth quoting at length: 1) HTS and similar programs are m oving to become a greater fixture within the U.S. military. Given still outstanding questions about HTS, such developments should be a source of concern for the AAA but also for any social science organiza tion or federal agency that expects its members or its employees to adhe re to established disciplinary and federal standards for the treatment of human subjects. 2) The current arrangement of HTS includes potentially irreconcilable

PAGE 55

goals which, in turn, lead to irreduc ible tensions with respect to the program’s basic identity. These in clude HTS at once: fulfilling a research function, as a data source, as a source of in telligence, and as performing a tactical function in counterinsurgency warfare. Given this confusion, any anthropologis t considering employment with HTS will have difficulty dete rmining whether or not s/he will be able to follow the disciplinary Code of Ethics. 3) HTS managers insist the progr am is not an intelligence asset. However, we note that the pr ogram is housed within a DoD intelligence asset, that it has reportedl y been briefed as such an asset, and that a variety of circumstances of the work of Human Terrain Teams (HTTs) “on the ground” in Iraq and Afghanistan create a significant likelihood that HTS data w ill in some way be used as part of military intelligence, advertently or inadvertently. 4) HTTs collect sensitive sociocultural data in a high-risk environment and while working for one combatant in ongoing conflicts. Given the lack of a we ll-defined ethical framework of conduct for the program and inability of HTT researchers to maintain

PAGE 56

reliable control over data once collected, the program places researchers and their counterparts in the field in harm’s way. 5) When ethnographic investiga tion is determined by military missions, not subject to external re view, where data collection occurs in the context of war, integrated into the goals of counterinsurgency, and in a potentially coercive enviro nment – all characteristic factors of the HTS concept and its application – it can no longer be considered a legitimate professional ex ercise of anthropology. These points echo initial concerns put forward in the 2007 statement, specifically having researchers working in settings of war, confusion over informed consent and doubt over the ability of researchers to adhere to the do-no-harm principle of the AAA Code of Ethics. Ultimately however, the report does not contribute to defining whether or not the nature of the project, the engagement of anthropologi sts with the military is unethical. The 2009 CEAUSSIC report states its intentions as “providing the discipline of anthropology with a de scriptive basis to enable our ongoing conversation about anthropology and the security sector.” The review team discloses that “it makes no claim to being comprehensive” as well as the broad spread of its sources, including published writings, blogs, and

PAGE 57

interviews. The report does not give any blanket statement regarding whether or not the HTS program is unethi cal but says, “HTS could be said to passively encourage ethical inde terminancy” despite citing the 2008 formation of the Ethics Working Group by HTS social scientists who worked with other HTS members to draft the HTS ethical guidelines and that “HTS has ‘read and reviewed’ most of the ethical guidelines of relevant professional social science associ ation and believes itself to be in compliance.” The tone of the report im plies that despite the SFAA Code of Ethics stating that HTS does not violat e anthropological ethics and the AAA disapproving of the program, rather than stating it violates anthropological ethics, somehow HTS is f undamentally unethical. The main conclusions of the CE AUSSIC report strongly imply that the commission members view the milita ry and military knowledge with extreme skepticism. In point 1, th e commission states that the growing fixture of HTS and similar programs is a concern for any organization that expects “it’s members or its employees to adhere to established disciplinary and federal standards for the treatment of human subjects.” In point 3, the commission acknowledges that despite “HTS managers insist[ing] the program is not an intelligence asset. .the program is housed in a DOD intelligence asset .[and there is] a significant likelihood that HTS data will

PAGE 58

in some way be used as a part of military intelligence, advertently or inadvertently.” in point 5 that the commission distrusts, “when ethnographic investigation is determined by military missions, not subject to external review, where data collection occurs in the context of war, integrated into the goals of counterinsurgency and in a potentially coercive environment”. This skepticism in its concerns and phrasing seems rooted in the concern that the current military estab lishment will abuse social science in the same way that it did during the Vi etnam War. It is not the skepticism itself that this chapter seeks to critique but rather than it stems from a reactionary position that oversimplifie s the military in its structure, ambitions and culture. In point 1, th e commission members imply that the military has no way of either establishi ng disciplinary standards or ensuring its members adhere to them. As Pauline Kusiak points out, “nothing precludes the DOD from organizing and managing its own institutional review boards or from ensuring that research conducted for the DOD subscribes to common regulations of federally funded research” (2008, 72). The CEAUSSIC report’s doubt of the entire military justice systems seems to stem from the well-publicized failings of military personnel, such as the Abu-Graib scandal and fuels an unders tanding of military knowledge as lethal or contributing to lethal knowledge. The report’s skepticism and

PAGE 59

overall negative opinion of the HTS proj ect reflects the concern abuses of anthropological knowledge could happen again, as it did in the Vietnam War. However, this completely ignores the engagement of the military in non-lethal contexts such as peace ope rations and reconstructions efforts. Furthermore, in ignoring this reality, the report discounts the potential wealth of expertise that anthropologists could contribute. Peace Operations (PO) are define d by the pentagon as “crisis response and limited contingency operations c onducted by a combination of military forces and non-military organizations” (Joint Chiefs of Staff 1993) and encompass five types: peace keeping, peace enforcement, peace building, peace making and conflict prevention. On e of the fundamentals for all PO is cultural awareness and both the useful ness and importance of understanding local culture is emphasized througho ut the Pentagon’s Peace Operations Manual. The conflicts in Afghanistan a nd Iraq were not entered into as PO and this thesis will not cover how these conflicts came about. However, since General Patreus took over operations in 2005, both theaters transitioned in a counterinsurgency position and moved towards trying to win hearts and minds. As Defense Secr etary Robert Gates stated in 2005, “Kinetic [violent] operations should be subordinated to measures aimed at promoting better governance, economic programs that spur development and

PAGE 60

efforts to address the grievances among the discontented” (quoted in Lemerande 2011:9). In Naval Lieutena nt Theodore Lemerande’s 2011 thesis to the Naval War College, Lemerande suggests that despite having been the aggressor in both Iraq and Afghanistan the United States found itself in a situation that straddled the line betwee n COIN and PO. In this situation, Lemerande describes the contributions of HTTs as extremely relevant and necessary for stabilizing both countries Lemerande also asserts that the contributions HTTs could be extremely useful in future PO. Lemerande is invoked here because he put forth one of the only arguments for how HTTs can be incorporated out of a war setti ng and into PO. This is the type of thinking about the HTS program that is being overlooked in the discussion within the anthropolo gical community. During the peace process, Lemora nde theorizes that HTTs are well situated to further the understanding of a country’s human terrain so that soldiers who are a part of a peace fo rce can maintain security through nonkinetic (non-violent) methods: When strategic commanders a nd diplomats may be directly involved in the formation of pr ovincial governments, operational commanders can find themselves ob ligated to deal with local squabbles A HTT employed by th e local commander will assist in

PAGE 61

understanding culturally appropriat e mechanisms for helping to resolve conflicts before they can become large enough to affect the peace he is working to keep (Lemerande 2011:13-14). HTTs are also well positioned to work against potential spoilers of the peace process and stability, mainly the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, by introducing projects and performing functions that move the general populace away from supporting insurgen ts. Lemerande presents a potentially idealized scenario: In one case from Afghanistan the Taliban was driven completely out of one village by th e villagers themselves after an onsite HTT encouraged coalition for ces to buy a volleyball net for the local people. Without a single shot be ing fired, that simple act eroded every shred of support the Taliban had enjoyed in that village (2011:12). Good governance and social stability ar e necessary elements to creating lasting peace. As the peace process progresses, phasing out forces from a role of governance and into a position of empowering local organizations is necessary to ultimately exit the conflict. In Iraq, HTTs convinced a brigade commander to allow local authorities to hand out relief supplies rather than

PAGE 62

the American reconstruction team. Th is allows the people within the community to distribute supplies by tribal consensus—the local tradition— thus achieving more equitable distribution of supplies and supporting the new government’s role in fulfilli ng civic duties (Lemerande 2011:15). Another contribution of the HTS progr am that has been ignored in the anthropological discourse is the supp ort that the HTS gives to Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs). Any discu ssion of PRTs is noticeably absent from ethical critiques of the HTS program and supports the idea that much of the backlash against the HTS progra m is founded in a reactionary position to the Vietnam War rather than a cr itical analysis of current military operations, culture and thinking. First developed in 2002 and implem ented in 2003, PRTs were designed to help spread the effect of the United Nations-established International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) without expanding ISAF itself. US-led PRTs originally included 60-100 soldie rs and were later expanded to include Afghan advisors and representatives fro m civilian agencies like the US State Department, US Agency for Internatio nal Development a nd US Department of Agriculture. PRTs are described as arising out of the shift from active fighting to an unexpected occupation si nce “America’s inability to achieve its goals in both countries [Afghanistan and Iraq] more qui ckly has sparked

PAGE 63

much-needed debate on how America a nd the world should prepare for and conduct stabilization and reconstruc tion (S&R) activities” (McNerney 2006:33). NATO detailed PRTs objectives as promoting security, governance, development and public di plomacy and information operations in Afghanistan (Ruiz 2009). PRTs in itially used DOD funds build schools, dig wells, repair clinics, demine area s etc. All activities objectively would categorize PRTs as a part of PO. US-led PRTs al so worked alongside PRTs funded by the UK, Germany and other coalition nations PRTs were the first efforts undertaken by the military wher e the main tenant for mission success was based in the PRT’s ability to e ngage with local people and local communities (McNerney 2006:35). Howeve r, measuring the success of USled PRTs was difficult to document si nce the only measure for success was “the number of smiling Afghan childre n” (McNerney 2006:39). The success of PRTs was also stifled due to the well-documented cultural knowledge deficiency and in his article on c ounterinsurgency, anthropologist David Kilcullen, who went on to be an active member in the HTS program, described PRTs as being: often treated as a pa ncea for civilian insurgency. They are not. But careful analysis of why PRTs succe ed in some areas and do less well in others can help tailor approaches” (Kilcullen 2006:6-7).

PAGE 64

PRTs are the main programs that HTS was designed to provide with cultural knowledge so that outreach pr ojects and projects designed to fulfill Patreus’ COIN objectives, could take r oot and be effective at stabilizing the security situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The discussion of anthropological contributions to PO or security and reconstruction efforts is missing from the anthropological discourse on the US military, specifically from critiques like those of Gonzalez a nd Price that use the HTS program as a catalyst to critique the military establishment as a whole. At this point, it is necessary to separate cultural knowledge from anthropology. The CEAUSSIC report concludes “it is not clear, in sum, if the overall goal of the HTS program, to provide cultural insight to military commanders in the field, or if activitie s of data collection of HTTs in the field can be reasonably described as ‘a nthropology’” (2009:49). This forces not only a more concrete distinction be tween the boundaries of what is and what is not professional academic anthropology but also opens up whether or not it is ethical for anthropologist s to engage in projects that require cultural knowledge thus becoming project s that are anthropologically-based or anthropologically informed. This will encourage the anthropological community to address whether or not it is fundamentally ethical for anthropologists to engage with the milita ry and if not, then what sorts of

PAGE 65

projects is it ethical for anthropol ogists to lend their expertise. The HTS program may not be profe ssional anthropology but it is not an unethical use of cultural expertise. The debate over whether or not the HTS program is ethical for anthropologi sts, is allowing the anthropological community to avoid overtly taking a stan ce on the larger issue of whether or not anthropologists view engagement with military as unethical. How cultural expertise is presented and used in the military evokes the cautionary tale of how it was abused during the Vi etnam War but to focus on that alone, ignores the larger picture of how cultu ral knowledge is bei ng used outside of university campuses. As Kusiak e xplains: “The challenge here for sociocultural researchers is. a funda mental divergence between the needs and priorities of sociocultural resear ch conducted for the military and that conducted in a university context” (Kusiak 2008:71). The HTS program is using an anthropological foundation to create a system for acquiring and disseminating cultural knowledge in a wa y that the military can work with and understand which is different from a university setting. The military is a much more vertically-oriented hier archical organization and the HTS program is designed to work within that structure. This thesis is not taking a stance on whether or not HTS is the be st program to meet the military’s needs and there are numerous progra mmatic and methodological critiques

PAGE 66

(Greanias 2010, Fawcett 2009) but HTS is the first program of its kind to come out of the anthropological community that seeks to use anthropological expertise to inform the military in a way that has been embraced and incorporated into the military establishment. One of the fears arising out of the HTS debate that is a central concern to the large issue of anth ropological engagement with the military, is the fear the military will ignore anthropologi sts and use the cultural information provided in a lethal way. While it has previously been stated in this chapter that such a fear is a part of the le gacy of the Vietnam War, it is a real concern that deserves to be addressed in greater depth. If an anthropologist is politically or morally opposed to engagi ng with the military that is their prerogative but it should not be a platfo rm with which to broadly condemn all anthropological engagement with the military, or any other organization inspires a differing in political or mo ral opinion within the anthropological community, as unethical. Because not everyone who is exposed to anthropology or trained in anthropological theory and methods goes on to pursue a career as a prof essional academic anthr opologist. Those people use their background and training to in form any number of activities and professions they may undertake during thei r life, thus opening up a wealth of anthropologically-informed endeavors that do not identify as such. These

PAGE 67

types of endeavors or professions, c ould then be actively recruiting people with training in anthropological theory methods and ethics. This then not only offers employment for anthropolo gy graduates outside of teaching, but furthers the interest and sense of re levancy that brings funding to the discipline, thus fueling the ability fo r professional academic anthropologists to research and keep contributing to th e field. Most importantly, the support of anthropologically-based and an thropologically-informed endeavors furthers ideas, theory and tools th at can help the globalized world communicate better across cultures. If the anthropological discourse continues to entertain a politically charged debate over whether or not th e HTS program is ethical, the real issue of the current ambiguous relationship of anthropological ethics and anthropological engagement beyond th e discipline especially with the military and the government, professi onals and their contributions will fragment. The need for cultural knowle dge in the military, the government and endless other interna tional institutions will c ontinue but the people who study culture and who are also trained in theory, methods and ethics, will be forced to turn down or shun oppor tunities to contribute because the consensus within the discipline is that it is an unethical use of their expertise. For the discipline to embrace such a future, critiques of HTS program and

PAGE 68

anthropological engagement with th e military need to produce a more compelling agenda for the discipline that is not based in an ambiguous code of ethics.

PAGE 69

Conclusion: A Turning Point for Anthropology This thesis has examined the historical pattern and current engagement of anthropologists and anthropological knowledge with the United States military. This thesis argued the debate within the anthropological community over the ethical soundne ss of the Human Terrain System stems from a reaction to the ne gative experience of anthropological engagement that occurred during the Vietnam War and fails to address whether or not anthropological engage ment with the military, or any other entity, is unethical. The current ambi guous nature of ethics within the anthropological community has allo wed for the debate over the HTS program and anthropological engageme nt with the military to become politically charged and based in ove rsimplified understandings of the military. The anthropological commun ity must move beyond this debate and address the ethical and practical confusion that allows anthropologically-based and anthropologi cally informed projects to be held to the same scrutiny as professional ac ademic work. To do this however, the community must come to a consensus on what then qualifies as professional academic work and to what standards that work should be held. Then the community can turn towards discu ssing and addressing what, how and

PAGE 70

within what type of ethical framewo rk anthropologists or people with anyone with anthropological training can contribute outside of the professional academic arena. Furtherm ore this can be examined with the objective and relativistic perspective that the discipline prides itself upon. The work of anthropologist R obert Rubinstein provides a hopeful outlook for the future of ethical an thropological engagement with the military and peace operations. Rubi nstein has published numerous books and articles on the topic of culture a nd peace operations: “Intervention and Culture: An Anthropological Appro ach to Peace Operations” (2005), Peacekeeping Under Fire: Culture and Intervention (2008), “Culture and Interoperability in Integrated Missions” (2008), Building Peace: Practical Reflections from the Field (2009). Rubinstein ha s also engaged in predeployment training with Army units bound for peacekeeping missions. In 2001, Rubinstein helped train two Army units in negotiation and communication skills prior to their de ployment to Kosovo (Rubinstein 2003:16). This type of engagement was not treated as unethical or compromising to Rubinstein’s other pr ofessional work such as chairing the Commission on Peace and Human Rights of the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences This is an encouraging prospect of the type of expertise anthropol ogists can be contributing to military

PAGE 71

operations that is et hical and relevant. Clifford Geertz (1973) once stated that the purpose of anthropology was to make cultures mutua lly intelligible. This should be the principle that guides that anthropological community into the future. Anthropologists are free to incorporate whatever personal be liefs, political or moral, into their publications, research, projects outside th e discipline but if the discipline of anthropology is to survive l ong enough for a new generation of undergraduates to study, the anthropolog ical community should take the idea of cultural relativism to heart. Anth ropologists have the choice to only produce scholarly work and not partic ipate in anthropologically-based or anthropologically informed endeavor s however, these endeavors must be accepted and given room to grow in a real and practical way. If not, the discipline will be pushed in the directi on of becoming increasingly irrelevant in today’s world.

PAGE 72

Appendix A American Anthropological Associat ion Executive Board Statement on the Human Terrain System Project October 31, 2007 Preamble Since early October, there has been extensive news media coverage of the U.S. military’s Human Terrain System (hereafter, HTS) project and of that project’s use of anthropologists. Later this fall, the American Anthropological Association’s Ad Hoc Commission on the Engagement of Anthropology with U.S. National Security and Intelligence Communities will issue its final report. In advance of that report, the Executiv e Board affirms that it is important that judgments about relationships between anthropology, on the one hand, and military and state intelli gence operations, on the other, be grounded in a careful and thorough investigation of their particulars. The Commission’s work did not include sy stematic study of the HTS project. The Executive Board of the Association has, however, concluded that the HTS project raises sufficiently troubling and urgent ethical issues to warrant a statement from the Executive Board at this time. Our statement is based on information in the public record, as well as on information and comments provided to the Executive Board by th e Ad Hoc Commission and its members. The AAA Executive Board’s Asse ssment of the HTS Project The U.S. military’s HTS project places anthropologists, as contractors with the U.S. military, in settings of war, for the purpose of collecting cultural and social data for use by the U.S. military. The ethical concerns raised by these activities include the following: 1. As military contractors working in settings of war, HTS anthropologists work in situations where it will not always be possible for them to distinguish themselves from military personne l and identify themselves as anthropologists. This plac es a significant constraint on their ability to fulfill their ethical responsibility as anthropologists to disclose who they are and what they are doing. 2. HTS anthropologists are charged with responsibility for negotiating relations among a number of groups, including both local populations and the U.S. military units that employ them and in which they are embedded. Consequently, HTS anthropologists may have

PAGE 73

responsibilities to their U.S. military units in war zones that conflict with their obligations to the persons they study or consult, specifically the obligation, stipulated in the AAA Code of Ethics, to do no harm to those they study (section III, A, 1). 3. HTS anthropologists work in a war zone under conditions that make it difficult for those they communicate with to give “informed consent” without coercion, or for this consent to be taken at face value or freely refused. As a result, “voluntary informed consent” (as stipulated by the AAA Code of Ethics, section III, A, 4) is compromised. 4. As members of HTS teams, anth ropologists provide information and counsel to U.S. military field commanders. This poses a risk that information provided by HTS anthropologists coul d be used to make decisions about identifying and selecting s pecific populations as targets of U.S. military operations either in the short or lo ng term. Any such use of fieldworkderived information would violate the stipulations in the AAA Code of Ethics that those studied not be harmed (section III A, 1). In addition to these four points about the activities of an thropologists working in the HTS project itself, the Executive Board has this additional concern: 5. Because HTS identifies anthropology and anthropologists with U.S. military operations, this identifica tion—given the existing range of globally dispersed understandings of U.S. militarism—may create serious difficulties for, including grave risks to the personal safety of, many non-HTS anthropologists and the people they study. Conclusion In light of these points, the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association concludes (i) that the HTS program creates conditions which are likely to place anthropologists in positions in which their work will be in violation of the AAA Code of Ethics and (ii) that its use of anthropologists poses a danger to both other anthropologists and persons other anthropologists study. Thus the Executive Board expresses its disapproval of the HTS program. In the context of a war that is widely recognized as a denial of human rights and based on faulty intelligence and undemocratic principles, the Executive Board sees the HTS project as a proble matic application of anthropological expertise, most specifically on ethica l grounds. We have grave concerns

PAGE 74

about the involvement of anthropological knowledge and skill in the HTS project. The Executive Board views the HTS project as an unacceptable application of anthropological expertise. The Executive Board affirms that anthropology can and in fact is obliged to help improve U.S. government policies through the widest possible circulation of anthropological understanding in the public sphere, so as to contribute to a transparent and informed development and implementation of U.S. policy by robustly democratic processes of fact-finding, debate, dialogue, and deliberation. It is in this way, the Executive Board affirms, that anthropology can legitimately and effectively help guide U.S. policy to serve the humane causes of global peace and social justice.

PAGE 75

Appendix B Code of Ethics of the American Anthrop ological Association Approved June 1998 I. Preamble Anthropological researchers, teacher s and practitioners are members of many different communities, each with its own moral rules or codes of ethics. Anthropologists have moral oblig ations as members of other groups, such as the family, religion, and comm unity, as well as the profession. They also have obligations to the scholarly discipline, to the wider society and culture, and to the human species, other species, and the environment. Furthermore, fieldworkers may develop close relati onships with persons or animals with whom they work, genera ting an additional level of ethical considerations In a field of such complex involvements and obligations, it is inevitable that misunderstandings, conflicts, and th e need to make choices among apparently incompatible values will ar ise. Anthropologists are responsible for grappling with such difficulties a nd struggling to resolve them in ways compatible with the princi ples stated here. The purpo se of this Code is to foster discussion and education. The American Anthropological Association (AAA) does not adjudicate clai ms for unethical behavior. The principles and guidelines in this Code provide the anthropologist with tools to engage in developing and main taining an ethical framework for all anthropological work. II. Introduction Anthropology is a multidisciplinary fiel d of science and scholarship, which includes the study of all aspects of humankind--archaeological, biological, linguistic and sociocultural. Anthropology has roots in the natural and social sciences and in the humanities, ranging in approach from basic to applied research and to scho larly interpretation. As the principal organization represen ting the breadth of anthropology, the American Anthropological Associati on (AAA) starts from the position that generating and appropriately utilizing knowledge (i.e., publishing, teaching,

PAGE 76

developing programs, and informing policy) of the peoples of the world, past and present, is a worthy goal; that the generation of anthropological knowledge is a dynamic process using many different and ever-evolving approaches; and that for moral and practical reasons, the generation and utilization of knowledge should be ac hieved in an ethical manner. The mission of American Anthropological Association is to advance all aspects of anthropological research and to foster dissemination of anthropological knowledge through publi cations, teaching, public education, and application. An important part of that mission is to help educate AAA members about ethical obligations and challenges involved in the generation, dissemination, and utili zation of anthropological knowledge. The purpose of this Code is to provi de AAA members and other interested persons with guidelines for making ethi cal choices in the conduct of their anthropological work. Because anthro pologists can find themselves in complex situations and subject to more than one code of ethics, the AAA Code of Ethics provides a framework, not an ironclad formula, for making decisions. Persons using the Code as a guidelin e for making ethical choices or for teaching are encouraged to seek out illustrative examples and appropriate case studies to enrich their knowledge base. Anthropologists have a duty to be info rmed about ethical codes relating to their work, and ought periodically to receive training on current research activities and ethical issues. In additi on, departments offering anthropology degrees should include and require ethical training in their curriculums. No code or set of guidelines can antic ipate unique circumstances or direct actions in specific situations. The indi vidual anthropologist must be willing to make carefully consider ed ethical choices and be prepared to make clear the assumptions, facts and issues on wh ich those choices are based. These guidelines therefore address general contexts, priorities and relationships which should be considered in ethical decision making in anthropological work. III. Research In both proposing and carrying out res earch, anthropological researchers

PAGE 77

must be open about the purpose(s), potential impacts, and source(s) of support for research projects with fund ers, colleagues, persons studied or providing information, and with releva nt parties affected by the research. Researchers must expect to utilize the resu lts of their work in an appropriate fashion and disseminate the results th rough appropriate a nd timely activities. Research fulfilling these expectations is ethical, regardless of the source of funding (public or private) or purpose (i.e., "applied," "basic," "pure," or "proprietary"). Anthropological researchers should be alert to the danger of compromising anthropological ethics as a condition to engage in research, yet also be alert to proper demands of good citizenship or host-guest relations. Active contribution and leadership in seeki ng to shape public or private sector actions and policies may be as ethically justifiable as inaction, detachment, or noncooperation, dependi ng on circumstances. Similar principles hold for anthropological researchers employe d or otherwise affiliated with nonanthropological institutions, public in stitutions, or private enterprises. A. Responsibility to people and animals with whom anthropological researchers work and whose lives and cultures they study. 1. Anthropological researchers have primary ethical obligations to the people, species, and materi als they study and to the people with whom they work. These obligations can supersed e the goal of seeking new knowledge, and can lead to decisions not to unde rtake or to discontinue a research project when the primary obligation c onflicts with other responsibilities, such as those owed to sponsors or clie nts. These ethical obligations include: .To avoid harm or wrong, understa nding that the development of knowledge can lead to change whic h may be positive or negative for the people or animals worked with or studied .To respect the well-being of humans and nonhuman primates .To work for the long-term conservati on of the archaeological, fossil, and historical records .To consult actively with the affected individuals or group(s), with the goal of establishing a working relationship that can be beneficial to all parties involved 2. Anthropological researchers must do everything in their power to ensure that their research does not harm the sa fety, dignity, or privacy of the people with whom they work, conduct resear ch, or perform other professional

PAGE 78

activities. Anthropological research ers working with animals must do everything in their power to ensure that the research does not harm the safety, psychological well-being or surviv al of the animals or species with which they work. 3. Anthropological resear chers must determine in advance whether their hosts/providers of information wish to remain anonymous or receive recognition, and make every effort to comply with those wishes. Researchers must present to their research par ticipants the possible impacts of the choices, and make clear that despite th eir best efforts, anonymity may be compromised or recognition fail to materialize. 4. Anthropological researchers shoul d obtain in advance the informed consent of persons being studied, providing information, owning or controlling access to material being studied, or otherwise identified as having interests which might be impact ed by the research. It is understood that the degree and breadth of informed consent required will depend on the nature of the project and may be affe cted by requirements of other codes, laws, and ethics of the country or community in which the research is pursued. Further, it is understood that the informed consent process is dynamic and continuous; the process shoul d be initiated in the project design and continue through implementati on by way of dialogue and negotiation with those studied. Researchers ar e responsible for identifying and complying with the various informed consent codes, laws and regulations affecting their projects. Informed consen t, for the purposes of this code, does not necessarily imply or require a partic ular written or signed form. It is the quality of the consent, not th e format, that is relevant. 5. Anthropological researchers who have developed cl ose and enduring relationships (i.e., covena ntal relationships) with either individual persons providing information or with hosts must adhere to the obligations of openness and informed consent, while carefully and respectfully negotiating the limits of the relationship. 6. While anthropologists may gain pers onally from their work, they must not exploit individuals, groups, animals, or cultural or biological materials. They should recognize their debt to the societies in which they work and their obligation to reciprocate with pe ople studied in appropriate ways. B. Responsibility to sc holarship and science

PAGE 79

1. Anthropological researchers must expe ct to encounter ethical dilemmas at every stage of their work, and must make good-faith efforts to identify potential ethical claims and conflicts in advance when preparing proposals and as projects proceed. A section rais ing and responding to potential ethical issues should be part of every research proposal. 2. Anthropological resear chers bear responsibility for the integrity and reputation of their discipline, of scholarship, and of science. Thus, anthropological researchers are subj ect to the general moral rules of scientific and scholarly conduct: they should not deceive or knowingly misrepresent (i.e., fabri cate evidence, falsify, pl agiarize), or attempt to prevent reporting of misconduct, or obstruc t the scientific/scholarly research of others. 3. Anthropological researchers s hould do all they can to preserve opportunities for future fieldworkers to follow them to the field. 4. Anthropological researchers should u tilize the results of their work in an appropriate fashion, and whenever possi ble disseminate their findings to the scientific and scholarly community. 5. Anthropological researchers shoul d seriously consider all reasonable requests for access to their data and other research materials for purposes of research. They should also make every e ffort to insure preservation of their fieldwork data for use by posterity. C. Responsibility to the public 1. Anthropological researchers should make the results of their research appropriately available to sponsors, students, decision makers, and other nonanthropologists. In so doing, they must be truthful; they are not only responsible for the factual content of their statements but also must consider carefully the social and political im plications of the information they disseminate. They must do everything in their power to insure that such information is well understood, prope rly contextualized, and responsibly utilized. They should make clear th e empirical bases upon which their reports stand, be candid about their qualifications and philosophical or political biases, and recognize and make clear the limits of anthropological expertise. At the same time, they mu st be alert to possible harm their information may cause people with whom they work or colleagues.

PAGE 80

2. Anthropologists may choose to move beyond disseminating research results to a position of advocacy. This is an individual decision, but not an ethical responsibility. IV. Teaching Responsibility to students and trainees While adhering to ethical and lega l codes governing re lations between teachers/mentors and students/trainees at their educational institutions or as members of wider organizations, an thropological teachers should be particularly sensitive to the ways such codes apply in their discipline (for example, when teaching involves close c ontact with students/trainees in field situations). Among the widely recogni zed precepts which anthropological teachers, like other teachers/me ntors, should follow are: 1. Teachers/mentors should conduct th eir programs in ways that preclude discrimination on the basis of sex, ma rital status, "race," social class, political convictions, disability, religion, ethnic background, national origin, sexual orientation, age, or other criteria irrelevant to academic performance. 2. Teachers'/mentors' duties include continually striving to improve their teaching/training techniques; bei ng available and responsive to student/trainee interests; counseling stud ents/ trainees realistically regarding career opportunities; conscientiously supervising, encouraging, and supporting students'/trainees' studies; being fair, prompt, and reliable in communicating evaluations; assisting stud ents/trainees in securing research support; and helping students/train ees when they seek professional placement. 3. Teachers/mentors should impress upon students/trainees the ethical challenges involved in every phase of anthropological work; encourage them to reflect upon this and other codes; encourage dialogue with colleagues on ethical issues; and discourage participa tion in ethically questionable projects. 4. Teachers/mentors should publicly acknowledge student/trainee assistance in research and preparation of thei r work; give appropriate credit for coauthorship to students/trainees ; encourage publication of worthy student/trainee papers; and compensate students/trainees justly for their participation in all professional activities.

PAGE 81

5. Teachers/mentors should beware of the exploitation and serious conflicts of interest which may result if they engage in sexual relations with students/trainees. They must avoid sexua l liaisons with students/trainees for whose education and professional traini ng they are in any way responsible. V. Application 1. The same ethical guidelines apply to all anthropological work. That is, in both proposing and carrying out research anthropologists must be open with funders, colleagues, persons studied or providing information, and relevant parties affected by the work about th e purpose(s), poten tial impacts, and source(s) of support for the work. A pplied anthropologists must intend and expect to utilize the results of their work appropriately (i.e., publication, teaching, program and po licy development) within a reasonable time. In situations in which anthropological knowledge is applied, anthropologists bear the same responsibility to be open and candid about their skills and intentions, and monitor the effects of their work on all persons affected. Anthropologists may be involved in many types of work, frequently affecting individuals and groups with diverse and sometimes conflicting interests. The individual anthropologist must make carefully considered ethical choices and be prepared to make clear the assu mptions, facts and issues on which those choices are based. 2. In all dealings with employers, persons hired to pursue anthropological research or apply anthropological knowledge should be honest about their qualifications, capabilities, and aims. Prior to making any professional commitments, they must review th e purposes of prospective employers, taking into consideration the employer' s past activities and future goals. In working for governmental agencies or private businesses, they should be especially careful not to promise or imply acceptance of conditions contrary to professional ethics or competing commitments. 3. Applied anthropologists, as any anthropologist, should be alert to the danger of compromising anthropological ethics as a condition for engaging in research or practice. They should also be alert to proper demands of hospitality, good citizenship and guest status. Proactive contribution and leadership in shaping public or private sector actions and policies may be as ethically justifiable as inaction, detachment, or noncooperation, depending on circumstances.

PAGE 82

VI. Epilogue Anthropological research, teaching, a nd application, like any human actions, pose choices for which anthropologists individually and collectively bear ethical responsibility. Sin ce anthropologists are me mbers of a variety of groups and subject to a variety of ethi cal codes, choices must sometimes be made not only between the varied obligati ons presented in this code but also between those of this code and those incu rred in other statuses or roles. This statement does not dictate choice or pr opose sanctions. Rather, it is designed to promote discussion and provide general guidelines for ethically responsible decisions. VII. Acknowledgments This Code was drafted by the Commi ssion to Review the AAA Statements on Ethics during the period Janu ary 1995-March 1997. The Commission members were James Peacock (Chai r), Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, Barbara Frankel, Kathleen Gibson, Janet Levy, and Murray Wax. In addition, the following individuals participated in the Commission m eetings: philosopher Bernard Gert, anthropologists Cathleen Crain, Shirley Fiske, David Freyer, Felix Moos, Yolanda Moses, and Ni el Tashima; and members of the American Sociological Association Committee on Ethics. Open hearings on the Code were held at the 1995 and 199 6 annual meetings of the American Anthropological Association. The Commission solicited comments from all AAA Sections. The first draft of the A AA Code of Ethics was discussed at the May 1995 AAA Section Assembly mee ting; the second draft was briefly discussed at the November 1996 meeting of the AAA Section Assembly. The Final Report of the Commission was published in the September 1995 edition of the Anthropology Newsletter and on the AAA web site (http://www.aaanet.org). Drafts of the Code were published in the April 1996 and 1996 annual mee ting edition of the Anthropology Newsletter and the AAA web site, and comments were solicited from the membership. The Commission considered all comments fr om the membership in formulating the final draft in February 1997. Th e Commission gratefully acknowledge the use of some language from the codes of ethics of the National Association for the Practice of Anthro pology and the Society for American Archaeology. VIII. Other Relevant Codes of Ethics

PAGE 83

The following list of other Codes of Ethi cs may be useful to anthropological researchers, teachers and practitioners: Animal Behavior Society 1991 Guidelines for the Use of Animals in Research. Animal Behavior 41:183-186. American Board of Forensic Examiners n.d. Code of Ethical Conduct. (American Board of Forensic Examiners, 300 South Jefferson Avenue, Suite 411, Springfield, MO 65806). Archaeological Institute of America 1991 Code of Ethics. American Journal of Archaeology 95:285. 1994 Code of Professional Standards. (Archaeological Institute of America, 675 Commonwealth Ave, Boston, MA 02215-1401. Supplements and expands but does not replace th e earlier Code of Ethics). National Academy of Sciences 1995 On Being a Scientist: Res ponsible Conduct in Research. 2nd edition. Washington, D.C.: National Academ y Press (2121 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20418). National Association for the Practice of Anthropology 1988 Ethical Guidelines for Practitioners. Sigma Xi 1992 Sigma Xi Statement on the Use of Animals in Research. American Scientist 80:73-76. Society for American Archaeology 1996 Principles of Archaeological Ethics. (Society for American Archaeology, 900 Second Street, NE Suite 12, Washington, D.C. 200023557). Society for Applied Anthropology 1983 Professional and Ethical Responsibilities. (Revised 1983). Society of Professional Archaeologists 1976 Code of Ethics, Standards of Re search Performance and Institutional Standards. (Society of Professional Archaeologists, PO Box 60911,

PAGE 84

Oklahoma City, OK 73146-0911). United Nations 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1983 United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. 1987 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Forthcoming United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

PAGE 85

Appendix C Society for Applied Anthropology Statement on Ethical and Professional Responsibilities This statement is a guide to professi onal behavior for the members of the Society for Applied Anthropology. As me mbers or fellows of the society, we shall act in ways consistent w ith the responsibilities stated below irrespective of the specific circ umstances of our employment. 1. To the peoples we study we owe di sclosure of our research goals, methods, and sponsorship. The particip ation of people in our research activities shall only be on a voluntary basis. We shall provide a means through our research activities and in subsequent publications to maintain the confidentiality of those we study. The people we study must be made aware of the likely limits of confiden tiality and must not be promised a greater degree of confiden tiality than can be rea listically expected under current legal circumstances in our resp ective nations. We shall, within the limits of our knowledge, disclose any significant risks to those we study that may result from our activities. 2. To the communities ultim ately affected by our ac tivities we owe respect for their dignity, integrity, and worth. We recognize that human survival is contingent upon the continued existence of a diversity of human communities, and guide our professi onal activities accord ingly. We will avoid taking or recommending action on behalf of a sponsor which is harmful to the interests of the community. 3. To our social colleagues we have th e responsibility to not engage in actions that impede their reasonabl e professional activities. Among other things, this means that, while respec ting the needs, responsibilities, and legitimate proprietary interests of our sponsors we should not impede the flow of information about research outcomes and professional practice techniques. We shall accura tely report the contributi ons of colleagues to our work. We shall not condone falsifica tion or distortion by others. We should not prejudice communities or agencies against a colleague for reasons of personal gain. 4. To our students, interns, or train ees, we owe nondiscriminatory access to

PAGE 86

our training services. We shall provide training which is informed, accurate, and relevant to the needs of the larg er society. We recognize the need for continuing education so as to main tain our skill and knowledge at a high level. Our training should in form students as to their ethical responsibilities. Student contributions to our professi onal activities, including both research and publication, should be adequately recognized. 5. To our employers and other sponsor s we owe accurate reporting of our qualifications and competent, efficient, and timely performance of the work we undertake for them. We shall estab lish a clear understanding with each employer or other sponsor as to the nature of our professional responsibilities. We shall report our research and ot her activities accurately. We have the obligation to attempt to prevent distortion or suppression of research results or policy reco mmendations by concerned agencies. 6. To society as a whole we owe the benefit of our special knowledge and skills in interpreting sociocultural systems. We should communicate our understanding of human life to the society at large.

PAGE 87

Appendix D Code of Ethics of the American Anthro pological Association Approved February 2009 I. Preamble Anthropological researchers, teacher s and practitioners are members of many different communities, each with its own moral rules or codes of ethics. Anthropologists have moral ob ligations as membersof other groups, such as the family, religion, and comm unity, as well as the profession. They also have obligations to the scholarly discipline, to the wider society and culture, and to the human species, other species, and the environment. Furthermore, fieldworkers may develop close relati onships with persons or animals with whom they work, genera ting an additional level of ethical considerations In a field of such complex involvements and obligations, it is inevitable that misunderstandings, conflicts, and th e need to make choices among apparently incompatible values will arise. Anthropologists are responsible for grappling with such difficulties and struggling to resolve them in ways co mpatible with the principles stated here. The purpose of this Code is to foster discu ssion and education. The American Anthropological Associati on (AAA) does not adjudicate claims for unethical behavior. The principles and guidelines in this Code provide the anthropologist with tools to engage in developing and main taining an ethical framework for all anthropological work. II. Introduction Anthropology is a multidisciplinary fiel d of science and scholarship, which includes the study of all aspects of humankind--archaeological, biological, linguistic and sociocultural. Anthropology has roots in the natural and social sciences and in the humanities, ranging in approach from basic to applied research and to scho larly interpretation. As the principal organization represen ting the breadth of anthropology, the

PAGE 88

American Anthropological Association (AAA) starts from the position that generating and appropriately utilizing knowledge (i.e., publishing, teaching, developing programs, and informing policy) of th e peoples of the world, past and present, is a worthy goal; that the generation of anthropological knowledge is a dynamic process using many different and ever-evolving approaches; and that for moral and practical reas ons, the generation and utilization of knowledge should be achieved in an ethical manner. The mission of American Anthropological Association is to advance all aspects of anthropological research and to foster dissemination of anthropological knowledge through publi cations, teaching, public education, and application. An important part of that mission is to help educate AAA members about ethical obligations and challenges involved in the generation, dissemination, and utili zation of anthropological knowledge. The purpose of this Code is to provi de AAA members and other interested persons with guidelines for making ethi cal choices in the conduct of their anthropological work. Because anthro pologists can find themselves in complex situations and subject to more than one code of ethics, the AAA Code of Ethics provides a framework, not an ironclad formula, for making decisions. Persons using the Code as a guideline for making ethical choices or for teaching are encouraged to seek out illustrative examples and appropriate case studies to enrich their knowledge base. Anthropologists have a duty to be info rmed about ethical codes relating to their work, and ought periodically to receive training on current research activities and ethical issues. In additi on, departments offering anthropology degrees should include and require ethical training in their curriculums. No code or set of guidelines can antic ipate unique circumstances or direct actions in specific situations. The indi vidual anthropologist must be willing to make carefully consider ed ethical choices and be prepared to make clear the assumptions, facts and issues on wh ich those choices are based. These guidelines therefore address general c ontexts, priorities and relationships which should be considered in ethical decision making in anthropological work. III. Research

PAGE 89

In both proposing and carrying out res earch, anthropological researchers must be open about the purpose(s), potential impacts, and source(s) of support for research projects with fund ers, colleagues, persons studied or providing information, and with releva nt parties affected by the research. Researchers must expect to utilize the resu lts of their work in an appropriate fashion and disseminate the results th rough appropriate a nd timely activities. Research fulfilling these expectations is ethical, regardless of the source of funding (public or private) or purpose (i.e., "applied," "basic," "pure," or"proprietary"). Anthropological researchers should be alert to the danger of compromising anthropological ethics as a condition to engage in research, yet also be alert to proper demands of good citizenship or hostguest relations. Active contribution and leadership in seeki ng to shape public or private sector actions and policies may be as ethically justifiable as inaction, detachment, or noncooperation, dependi ng on circumstances. Similar principles hold for anthropological researchers employe d or otherwise affiliated with nonanthropological institutions, public in stitutions, or private enterprises. A. Responsibility to people and animals with whom anthropological researchers work and whose lives and cultures they study. 1. Anthropological researchers have primary ethical obligations to the people, species, and materi als they study and to the people with whom they work. These obligations can supersed e the goal of seeking new knowledge, and can lead to decisions not to unde rtake or to discontinue a research project when the primary obligation c onflicts with other responsibilities, such as those owed to sponsors or clie nts. These ethical obligations include: • To avoid harm or wrong, unders tanding that the development of knowledge can lead to ch ange which may be positi ve or negative for the people or animals worked with or studied • To respect the well-being of humans and nonhuman primates • To work for the long-term conserva tion of the archaeological, fossil, and historical records • To consult actively with the affected individuals or group(s), with the goal of establishing a working relationship th at can be beneficial to all parties involved 2. In conducting and publishing their research, or otherwise disseminating

PAGE 90

their research results, anthropological researchers must ensure that they do not harm the safety, dignity, or privacy of the people with whom they work, conduct research, or perform other professional activities, or who might reasonably be thought to be affected by their research. Anthro pological researchers working with animals must do everything in their power to ensure that the research does not harm the safety, psychological wellbeing or survival of the animals or species with which they work. 3. Anthropological resear chers must determine in advance whether their hosts/providers of information wish to remain anonymous or receive recognition, and make every effort to comply with those wishes. Researchers must present to their research par ticipants the possible impacts of the choices, and make clear that despite th eir best efforts, anonymity may be compromised or recognition fail to materialize. 4. Anthropological researchers shoul d obtain in advance the informed consent of persons being studied, providing information, owning or controlling access to material being studied, or otherwise identified as having interests which might be impact ed by the research. It is understood that the degree and breadth of informed consent required will depend on the nature of the project and may be affe cted by requirements of other codes, laws, and ethics of the country or community in which the research is pursued. Further, it is understood that the informed consent process is dynamic and continuous; the process shoul d be initiated in the project design and continue through implementati on by way of dialogue and negotiation with those studied. Researchers ar e responsible for identifying and complying with the various informed consent codes, laws and regulations affecting their projects. Informed consen t, for the purposes of this code, does not necessarily imply or require a partic ular written or signed form. It is the quality of the consent, not th e format, that is relevant. 5. Anthropological researchers who have developed cl ose and enduring relationships (i.e., covena ntal relationships) with either individual persons providing information or with hosts must adhere to the obligations of openness and informed consent, while carefully and respectfully negotiating the limits of the relationship. 6. While anthropologists may gain pers onally from their work, they must not exploit individuals, groups, animals, or cultural or biological materials. They

PAGE 91

should recognize their debt to the societies in which they work and their obligation to reciprocate with pe ople studied in appropriate ways. B. Responsibility to sc holarship and science 1. Anthropological researchers must expe ct to encounter ethical dilemmas at every stage of their work, and must make good-faith efforts to identify potential ethical claims and conflicts in advance when preparing proposals and as projects proceed. A section rais ing and responding to potential ethical issues should be part of every research proposal. 2. Anthropological resear chers bear responsibility for the integrity and reputation of their discipline, of scholarship, and of science. Thus, anthropological researchers are subj ect to the general moral rules of scientific and scholarly conduct: they should not deceive or knowingly misrepresent (i.e., fabricat e evidence, falsify, and plagiarize), or attempt to prevent reporting of misconduct, or obstruc t the scientific/scholarly research of others. 3. Anthropological researchers s hould do all they can to preserve opportunities for future fieldworkers to follow them to the field. 4. Anthropologists have a responsibil ity to be both honest and transparent with all stakeholders about the nature and intent of their research. They must not misrepresent their research goals, funding sources, activities, or finding s. Anthropologists should never deceive the people they are studying regarding the sponsorship, goals, methods, products, or expect ed impacts of their work. Deliberately misrepresenting one’s res earch goals and impact to research subjects is a clear violation of resear ch ethics, as is conducting clandestine research. 5. Anthropological researchers should u tilize the results of their work in an appropriate fashion, and whenever possi ble disseminate their findings to the scientific and scholarly community. 6. Anthropological researchers shoul d seriously consider all reasonable requests for access to their data and other research materials for purposes of research. They should also make every e ffort to insure preservation of their

PAGE 92

fieldwork data for use by posterity. C. Responsibility to the public 1. Anthropological researchers should make the results of their research appropriately available to sponsors, students, decision makers, and other nonanthropologists. In so doing, they must be truthful; they are not only responsible for the factual content of their statements but also must consider carefully the social and political im plications of the information they disseminate. They must do everything in their power to insure that such information is well understood, prope rly contextualized, and responsibly utilized. They should make clear th e empirical bases upon which their reports stand, be candid about their qualifications and philosophical or political biases, and recognize and make clear the limits of anthropological expertise. At the same time, they mu st be alert to possible harm their information may cause people with whom they work or colleagues. 2. In relation with his or her own gove rnment, host governments, or sponsors of research, an anthropologist should be honest and candid. Anthropologists must not compromise their professi onal responsibilities and ethics and should not agree to conditions which inappropriately change the purpose, focus or intended outcomes of their research. 3. Anthropologists may choose to move beyond disseminating research results to a position of advocacy. This is an individual decision, but not an ethical responsibility. IV. Teaching Responsibility to students and trainees While adhering to ethical and lega l codes governing re lations between teachers/mentors and students/trainees at their educational institutions or as members of wider organizations, an thropological teachers should be particularly sensitive to the ways such codes apply in their discipline (for example, when teaching involves close c ontact with students/trainees in field situations). Among the widely recogni zed precepts which anthropological teachers, like other teachers/me ntors, should follow are: 1. Teachers/mentors should conduct th eir programs in ways that preclude

PAGE 93

discrimination on the basis of sex, ma rital status, "race," social class, political convictions, disability, religion, ethnic background, national origin, sexual orientation, age, or other criteria irrelevant to academic performance. 2. Teachers 'mentors' duties include continually striving to improve their teaching/training techniques; being available and res ponsive to student/trainee interests; counseling students/ trainees realistically regarding career opportunities; conscientiously supervising, encourag ing, and supporting students'/trainees' studies; being fair, prompt, and re liable in communicating evaluations; assisting students/trainees in securing research support; and helping students/trainees when they seek professional placement. 3. Teachers/mentors should impress upon students/trainees the ethical challenges involved in every phase of anthropological work; encourage them to reflect upon this and other codes; encourage dialogue with colleagues on ethical issues; and discourage participa tion in ethically questionable projects. 4. Teachers/mentors should publicly acknowledge student/trainee assistance in research and preparation of thei r work; give appropriate credit for coauthorship to students/trainees ; encourage publication of worthy student/trainee papers; and compensate students/trainees justly for their participation in all professional activities. 5. Teachers/mentors should beware of the exploitation and serious conflicts of interest which may result if they engage in sexual relations with students/trainees. They must avoid sexua l liaisons with students/trainees for whose education and professional traini ng they are in any way responsible. V. Application 1. The same ethical guidelines apply to all anthropological work. That is, in both proposing and carrying out research anthropologists must be open with funders, colleagues, persons studied or providing information, and relevant parties affected by the work about th e purpose(s), poten tial impacts, and source(s) of support for the work. A pplied anthropologists must intend and expect to utilize the results of their work appropriately (i.e., publication, teaching, program and po licy development) within a reasonable time. In situations in which anthropological knowledge is applied, anthropologists bear the same responsibility to be open and candid about their skills and

PAGE 94

intentions, and monitor the effects of their work on all persons affected. Anthropologists may be involved in many types of work, frequently affecting individuals and groups with diverse and sometimes conflicting interests. The individual anthropologist must make carefully considered ethical choices and be prepared to make clear the assu mptions, facts and issues on which those choices are based. 2. In all dealings with employers, persons hired to pursue anthropological research or apply anthropological knowledge should be honest about their qualifications, capabilities, and aims. Prior to making any professional commitments, they must review th e purposes of prospective employers, taking into consideration the employer' s past activities and future goals. In working for governmental agencies or private businesses, they should be especially careful not to promise or imply acceptance of conditions contrary to professional ethics or competing commitments. 3. Applied anthropologists, as any anthropologist, should be alert to the danger of compromising anthropological ethics as a condition for engaging in research or practice. They should also be alert to proper demands of hospitality, good citizenship and guest status. Proactive contribution and leadership in shaping public or private sector actions and policies may be as ethically justifiable as inaction, detachment, or noncooperation, depending on circumstances. VI. Dissemination of Results 1. The results of anthropological rese arch are complex, subject to multiple interpretations and susceptible to differing and unintended uses Anthropologists have an ethical obliga tion to consider the potential impact of both their research and the communicat ion or dissemination of the results of their research on all directly or indirectly involved. 2. Anthropologists should not withho ld research results from research participants when those results are shar ed with others. There are specific and limited circumstances however, where disc losure restrictions are appropriate and ethical, particularly where those rest rictions serve to protect the safety, dignity or privacy of participants, pr otect cultural heritage or tangible or intangible cultural or intellectual property. 3. Anthropologists must weigh the intended and potential uses of their work

PAGE 95

and the impact of its distribution in determining whether limited availability of results is warranted and ethical in any given instance. VII. Epilogue Anthropological research, teaching, a nd application, like any human actions, pose choices for which anthropologists individually and collectively bear ethical responsibility. Sin ce anthropologists are me mbers of a variety of groups and subject to a variety of ethi cal codes, choices must sometimes be made not only between the varied obligati ons presented in this code but also between those of this code and those incu rred in other statuses or roles. This statement does not dictate choice or pr opose sanctions. Rather, it is designed to promote discussion and provide general guidelines for ethically responsible decisions. VIII. Acknowledgments This Code was drafted by the Commi ssion to Review the AAA Statements on Ethics during the period Janu ary 1995-March 1997. The Commission members were James Peacock (Chai r), Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, Barbara Frankel, Kathleen Gibson, Janet Levy, and Murray Wax. In addition, the following individuals participated in the Commission m eetings: philosopher Bernard Gert, anthropologists Cathleen Crain, Shirley Fiske, David Freyer, Felix Moos, Yolanda Moses, and Ni el Tashima; and members of the American Sociological Association Committee on Ethics. Open hearings on the Code were held at the 1995 and 199 6 annual meetings of the American Anthropological Association. The Commission solicited comments from all AAA Sections. The first draft of the A AA Code of Ethics was discussed at the May 1995 AAA Section Assembly mee ting; the second draft was briefly discussed at the November 1996 meeting of the AAA Section Assembly. The Final Report of the Commission was published in the September 1995 edition of the Anthropology News letter and on the AAA web site (http://www.aaanet.org). Drafts of the Code were published in the April 1996 and 1996 annual meeting edition of the Anthropology Newsletter and the AAA web site, and comments were solicited from the membership. The Commission considered all comments fr om the membership in formulating the final draft in February 1997. Th e Commission gratefully acknowledges the use of some language from the codes of ethics of the National Association for the Practice of Anthro pology and the Society for American

PAGE 96

Archaeology. Subsequent revisions to this Code were initiated by the passing of a resolution, offered by Terry Turner at the AAA Business Meeting he ld in November of 2007, directing the AAA Executive Boar d to restore certain sections of the 1971 version of the Code of Ethics. A related motion, introduced by John Kelly, directed the Executive Board to report to the membership a justif ication of its reasoning if a decision was made to not restore, in total, the language proposed in the Turner motion. On January 20, 2008, the Executive Bo ard tasked the Co mmittee on Ethics, whose membership included Dena Plem mons (acting chair), Alec Barker, Katherine MacKinnon, Dhooleka Raj, K. Sivaramakrishnan and Steve Striffler, with drafting a revised ethics code that “incorporates the principles of the Turn er motion while stipulating principles that identify when the ethical conduc t of anthropology does and does not require specific forms of the circul ation of knowledge.” Six individuals (Jeffrey Altshul, Agustin Fuentes, Merr ill Singer, David Price, Inga Treitler and Niel Tashima) were invited to advise the Committee in it s deliberations. On June 16, 2008, the Co mmittee on Ethics issued its report to a newly formed subcommittee of the Executive Bo ard created to deal with potential code revisions. The subcommittee (c onsisting of TJ Ferguson, Monica Heller, Tom Leatherman, Setha Low, Deborah Nichols, Gwen Mikell and Ed Liebow) examined the Committee on Ethics report and solicited the input of the Committee on Ethics; the Commission of the Engagement of Anthropology with the US Security and Intelligence Communities; the Committee on Practicing, Applied and Pub lic Interest Anthropology; and the Network of Concerned Anthropologists, asking these groups to advise before making its own recommendations to the larger Executive Board. After examining the input of these gr oups, the EB subcommittee forwarded its recommendations to the entire Execu tive Board August 8. Subsequent to these activities, AAA President Seth a Low reached out to a number of stakeholders to solicit their input. On September 19, 2008, the Executive Board approved a final version of the Code of the Ethics. IX. Other Relevant Codes of Ethics

PAGE 97

The following list of other Codes of Ethi cs may be useful to anthropological researchers, teachers and practitioners: Animal Behavior Society 1991 Guidelines for the Use of Anim als in Research. Animal Behavior 41:183-186. American Board of Forensic Examiners n.d. Code of Ethical C onduct. (American Board of Forensic Examiners, 300 South Jefferson Avenue, Suite 411, Springfield, MO 65806). American Folklore Society 1988 Statement on Ethics: Principles of Professional Responsibility. AFSNews 17(1). Archaeological Institute of America 1991 Code of Ethics. American Journal of Archaeology 95:285. 1994 Code of Professional Standards. (A rchaeological Institute of America, 675 Commonwealth Ave, Boston, MA 02215-1401. Supplements and expands but does not replace th e earlier Code of Ethics). National Academy of Sciences 1995 On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research. 2nd edition. Washington, D.C.: National Academ y Press (2121 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20418). National Association for the Practice of Anthropology 1988 Ethical Guidelines for Practitioners. Sigma Xi 1992 Sigma Xi Statement on the Use of Animals in Research. American Scientist 80:73-76. Society for American Archaeology 1996 Principles of Archaeological Ethics. (Society for American Archaeology, 900 Second Street, NE Suite 12, Washington, D.C. 200023557). Society for Applied Anthropology 1983 Professional and Ethical Res ponsibilities. (Revised 1983).

PAGE 98

Society of Professional Archaeologists 1976 Code of Ethics, Standards of Res earch Performance and Institutional Standards. (Society of Professional Archaeologists, PO Box 60911, Oklahoma City, OK 73146-0911). United Nations 1948 Universal Declarati on of Human Rights. 1983 United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. 1987 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Forthcoming United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

PAGE 99

Appendix E AAA Commission on the Engageme nt of Anthropology with the US Security and Intelligen ce Communities (CEAUSSIC) Final Report on The Army’s Human Terrain Syst em Proof of Concept Program Executive Summary Submitted to the Executi ve Board of the American Anthropological Association October 14, 2009 Executive Summary In December of 2008, the Executive Bo ard of the American Anthropological Association asked the Commission on the Engagement of Anthropology with the U.S. Security and In telligence Communities (CEAUSSIC) to thoroughly review the Human Terrain System (HTS) program, so that the AAA might then formulate an official position on members’ participation in HTS activities. This re port details CEAUSSIC’s primary findings, which are summarized in the following key points: 1. HTS and similar programs are moving to become a greater fixture within the U.S. military. Given still outstandi ng questions about HTS, such developments should be a source of c oncern for the AAA but also for any social science organization or federal ag ency that expects its members or its employees to adhere to established disc iplinary and federal standards for the treatment of human subjects. 2. The current arrangement of HTS incl udes potentially irreconcilable goals which, in turn, lead to irreducible te nsions with respect to the program’s basic identity. These include HTS at once: fulfilling a research function, as a data source, as a source of intelligence, and as performing a tactical function in counterinsurgency warfare. Given this confusion, any anthropologist considering employment with HTS will have difficulty determining whether

PAGE 100

or not s/he will be able to follow the disciplinary Code of Ethics. 3. HTS managers insist the program is not an intelligence asset. However, we note that the program is housed with in a DoD intelligence asset, that it has reportedly been briefed as such an asset, and that a variety of circumstances of the work of Human Terrain Teams (HTTs) “on the ground” in Iraq and Afghanistan create a signifi cant likelihood that HTS data will in some way be used as part of mil itary intelligence, advertently or inadvertently. 4. HTTs collect sensitive socio-cultural data in a high-risk environment and while working for one combatant in ong oing conflicts. Given the lack of a well-defined ethical framework of condu ct for the program and inability of HTT researchers to maintain reliable control over data once collected, the program places researchers and their counter parts in the field in harm’s way. 5. When ethnographic investigation is determined by military missions, not subject to external review, where data collection occurs in the context of war, integrated into the goals of c ounterinsurgency, and in a potentially coercive environment – all characteristic factors of the HTS concept and its application – it can no longer be c onsidered a legitimate professional exercise of anthropology. In summary, while we stress that constructive engagement between anthropology and the military is po ssible, CEAUSSIC suggests that the AAA emphasize the incompatibility of HTS with disciplinary ethics and practice for job seekers and that it fu rther recognize the problem of allowing HTS to define the meaning of “anthropology” within DoD.

PAGE 101

Bibliography American Anthropological Association. 1998. “Code of Ethics of the Amer ican Anthropological Association.” Accessed March 9, 2012. http://www.aaanet.org/commit tees/ethics/ethcode.htm. 2007. “American Anthropological A ssociation Executive Board Statement on the Human Terrain System Pro ject.” Accessed March 9, 2012. http://www.aaanet.org/issues/policyadvocacy/Statement-on-HTS.cfm. 2009. “Code of Ethics of the Amer ican Anthropological Association.” Accessed March 9, 2012. http:// www.aaanet.org/issues/policyadvocacy/upload/AAA-Ethics-Code-2009.pdf Andreatta, Susan 2007. Society for Applied Anthropo logy, Newsletter, 18:3, 1-39. Asad, Talal 2002. “From the History of Colonial Anthropology to the Anthropology of Western Hegemony” in The Anthropology of Politics: a Reader in Ethnography, Theory and Critique ed. Joan Vincent. 133-142. BBC News 2012. “Iraq Profile: Timelin e.” Accessed Ma rch 10, 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/w orld-middle-east-14546763. Benedict, Ruth. 1986. The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture New York: Mariner Books. Boas, Franz 1912. “Changes in Bodily Form of Descendents of Immigrants.” American Anthropologist 14: 3, 530-562. 2005 (1919). “Scientists as Spies” Anthropology Today 21:3, 27. British Broadcasting Company News 2012. “Iraq Profile.” Accessed Marc h 9, 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/w orld-middle-east-14546763.

PAGE 102

Campbell, Kenneth J. 1998. “Once Burned Twice Cautious : Explaining the Weinberger-Powell Doctrine.” Armed Forces and Society 24:3, 357-374. Chambers, Erve 1987. “Applied Anthropology in the Po st-Vietnam Era: Anticipations and Ironies.” Annual Review of Anthropology 16, 309-337. Chomsky, Noam 1967. American Power and the New Mandarins New York: Pantheon. Clark, Jeffrey J. 1988. Advice and Support: The Final Years, 1965-1973 US Government Printing. Clemis, Martin 2009. “Crafting Non-Kine tic Warfare: the Academic -Military Nexus in US Counterinsurgency Doctrine.” Small Wars & Counterinsurgency 20:1, 160184. AAA Commission on the Engagement of Anthropology with the US Security and Intelligence Communities (CEAUSSIC) 2009. “Final Report on the Army’s Human Terrain System Proof of Concept Program.” Connable, Ben MAJ 2009. “All Our Eggs in a Broken Baske t: How the Human Terrain System is Undermining Sustainable M ilitary Cultural Competence.” Military Review March-April, 57-64. Daily, Eric 2010. “Escorted Ethnography: Ethics the Human Terrain System and American Anthropology in Conflict.” Berkley Undergraduate Journal 22:2. Department of Defense 2005. “Defense Language Transforma tion Roadmap.” Accessed September 29, 2011. http://www.defense.gov/ne ws/Mar2005/d20050330roadmap.pdf. Fawcett, Grant S. MAJ

PAGE 103

2009. “Cultural Understanding in C ounterinsurgency: Analysis of Human Terrain System.” School of Advanced Military Studies Ferguson, R. Brian 2010. “Full Spectrum: The Military I nvasion of Anthropology.” Rutgers University-Newark. Geertz, Clifford 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures New York: Basic Books. 2010. “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture.” Readings for a History of Anthropological Theory Paul A. Erickson and Liam D. Murphy, editors. 341-359. New York: University of Toronto Press. Gough, Kathleen 1967. “Anthropology: Child of Imperialism.” Monthly Review 19:11. Gonzalez, Roberto J. 2004. Anthropologists in the Public Sphere: Speaking Out on War, Peace, and American Power Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 2008. “Human Terrain: Past, Prese nt and Future Applications.” Anthropology Today 24: 1, 21-26. 2009. American Counterinsurgency: Human Science and the Human Terrain Prickly Paradigm Press. 2009. “Anthropologists or ‘Technicians of Power’? Examining the Human Terrain System.” Practicing Anthropology 31:2, 34-37. 2010. Militarizing Culture: Essays on the Warfare State Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Greanias, Jennifer 2010. “Assessing the effectiveness of the US military's human terrain system.” MA Dissertation, Security St udies, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Georgetown University. Harper, Ian and Alberto Corsin Jimenez 2005. “Towards Interactive Professional Ethics.” Anthropology Today

PAGE 104

21:6, 10-12. Hickey, Gerald 1967. “Accommodation in South Viet nam: the Key to Sociopolitical Solidarity.” RAND Corporation Human Terrain System 2011. Accessed Febraury 21, 2012. http://humanterrainsystem.arm y.mil/htsAboutBackground.aspx. International Security Assistance Force 2012. Accessed March 9, 2012. www.isaf.nato.int. Joint Chiefs of Staff 1993. “FM 100-23: Peace Operati ons.” Accessed March 9, 2012. www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/service_pubs/fm100_23.pdf. 2006. “FM 3-24: Counterinsurgen cy.” Accessed March 9, 2012. http://www.fas.org/irp/do ddir/army/fm3-24.pdf. Jorgenson, Joseph G. & Eric Wolf 1970. “Anthropology on the Warpath in Thailand.” The New York Review of Books 15: 1, 1-20. Kilcullen, David 2006. “Three Pillars of Counter insurgency.” US Government Counterinsurgency Conference Accessed February 5, 2012. http://sites.google.com/site/concernedanthropologists/. Kipp, Jacob and Lester Grau and Ka rl Prinslow and Captain Don Smith 2006. “The Human Terrain System : a CORDS for the 21st Century.” Military Review September-October, 8-15. Kusiak, Pauline 2008. “Sociocultural Expertise and the Military: Beyond the Controversy.” Military Review Novermber-Decem ber, 65-75. Lansdale, Edward 1991. In the Midst of Wars: An American’s Mission to Southeast Asia Fordham University Press.

PAGE 105

Lemerande, Theodore J. 2011. “Culture Beyond Counterinsurgen cy: Applying the Human Terrain System to Peace Operati ons.” Naval War College. Lowenthal, David 1998. The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History New York: Cambridge University Press. Mann, Charles C. 2009. “Chagnon Critics Oversteppe d Bounds, Historian Says.” Science 326:5959, 1466. Accessed February 9, 2012. http://www.sciencemag.org/c ontent/326/5959/1466.full. McFate, Montgomery 2005. “Anthropology and Counterinsurgency: the Strange Story of their Curious Relationship.” Military Review March-April, 24-38. 2005b. “The Military Utility of U nderstanding Adversary Culture.” Joint Force Quarterly July, 42-48. McFate, Montgomery and Andrea Jackson 2005. “An Organizational Solution for the DOD’s Cultural Knowledge Needs.” Military Review July-August, 18-21. McNerney, Michael J. 2006. “Stabilization and Reconstructio n in Afghanistan: Are PRTs a Model or a Muddle?” Parameters Winter 2005-2006, 32-46. Moore, Jerry D. 2009. Visions of Culture: An Introduction to Anthropological Theories and Theorists Altamira Press. Network for Concerned Anthropologists 2010. “Anthropologist’s Statement on the Human Terrain System Program.” http://sites.google.com/site/c oncernedanthropologists/, accessed March 2, 2012. 2012. Network for Concerned Anthr opologists, Accessed February 18, 2012. http://sites.google.com/site/con cernedanthropologists/, accessed.

PAGE 106

Patterson, Thomas 2001. A Social History of Anthropology in the United States New York: Bloomsbury. Price, David 2000. “Anthropologists as Spies.” The Nation. 2002. “Lessons from Second World War Anthropoloy: Peripheral, Persuasive and Ignored C ontributions.” (Eggan 1943). Anthropology Today 18:3,14-20. 2002b. “Past Wars, Present Dange rs, Future Anthropologies.” Anthropology Today 18:1, 3-5. 2003. "Subtle Means and Enticing Carrots: The Impact of Funding on American Cold War Anthropology." Critique of Anthropology 23(4):373401. 2005. "How the FBI Spied on Edward Said," CounterPunch 12:21, 4-5. 2008. “McCarthyism.” In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 2nd edition, William A. Darity, Jr. ed., Volume 5, pages 43-44. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA. 2010. “Silent Coup: How the CIA is Welcome Itself Back onto American University Campuses.” Counterpunch 17(2):1-5. Jan. 16-31, 2010. “Human Terrain Dissenter Resigns Tells Inside Story of Training’s Heart of Darkness.” Counterpunch February 15, 2010. 2011. "Case Western Breakdown: How Cr itical Engagements with Military Scholars Can Threaten Ac ademic Transparency.” CounterPunch November 14, 2011. 2011. Weaponizing Anthropology:Social Sc ience in the Service of the Military State. Petrolia, Ca :AK/C ounterPunch Books. Pryor, Mike Sgt.

PAGE 107

2007. “Human Terrain Team Helps Soldiers in Iraq Understand Cultural Landscape.” Army News Se rvice, Dec. 11, 2007. Redden, Elizabeth 2008. “Anthropological Engagement, for Good and for Bad?” Inside Higher Ed, November 24. Acce ssed February 9, 2012. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/11/24/anthro. Rubenstein, Robert A. 2003. “Peacekeepers and Politics: Expe rience and Political Representation Among U.S. Military Officers.” Anthropology and the United States Military: Coming of Age in the Twenty-first Century Pamela R. Frese and Margaret Harrell, editors. Ne w York: Palgrave Macmillan. 2005. “Intervention and Culture: An Anthropological Approach to Peace Operations.” Security Dialogue 36:4, 527-544. 2008. Peacekeeping Under Fire: Culture and Intervention New York: Paradigm. 2008. “Culture and Interoperab ility in Integrated Missions.” International Peacekeeping 15:4, 540-555. 2009. Building Peace: Practical Reflections from the Field New York: Kumarian. Ruiz, Moses T. 2009. "Sharpening the Spear: The Unite d States’ Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan" (2009). Applied Research Projects, Texas State University-San Marcos. Paper 297. Accesse d February 16, 2012.http://ecommons.txstate.edu/arp/297 Scales, Robert 2004. “Culture Centric Warfare .” Proceedings, 130:10, 32-38. Society for Applied Anthropology 1999. “Mission, Vision, Values, Go als.” Accessed on February 12, 2012. http://www.sfaa.net/sfaagoal.html. “Statement of Ethical and Professional Responsibilities.” Accessed

PAGE 108

February 12, 2012, http://www. sfaa.net/sfaaethic.html. Solovey, Mark 2001. “Project Camelot and the 1960s Epistemological Revolution: Rethinking the Politics-patronage-Social Nexus.” Social Studies of the Sciences 31: 1, 171-206. Stocking, George W. 1960. “Franz Boas and the Founding of the American Anthropological Association.” American Anthropologist 62, 1-16. The Estimate 2001. “Dossier: Background on the No rthern Alliance.” The Estimate: Political and Security Intelligence Anal ysis of the Islamic World and Its Neighbors, 13:21, acce ssed on March 9, 2012. http://www.theestimate.com/public/111601.html Tierney, Patrick 2000. Darkness in EL Dorado: How Scien tists and Journalists Devastated the Amazon New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Tylor, Edward 2010. “The Scienc e of Culture.” Readings for a History of Anthropological Theory Paul A. Erickson and Liam D. Murphy, editors. 30-42. New York: University of Toronto Press. White, Leslie 2010. “Energy and Tools.” Readings for a History of Anthropological Theory Paul A. Erickson and Liam D. Murphy, editors. 293-310. New York: University of Toronto Press. Wolf, Eric 1982. Europe and the People Without History University of California Press. 2010. “Introduction: Europe and the People Without History” Readings for a History of Anthropological Theory Paul A. Erickson and Liam D. Murphy, editors. 406-422. New York: Un iversity of Toronto Press.


ERROR LOADING HTML FROM SOURCE (http://ncf.sobek.ufl.edu//design/skins/UFDC/html/footer_item.html)