Comments on: More on the AAA’s decision to oppose the HTS http://anthropology.net/2007/11/08/more-on-the-aaas-decisin-to-oppose-the-hts/ Beyond bones & stones Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:03:54 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Kamaaina47 http://anthropology.net/2007/11/08/more-on-the-aaas-decisin-to-oppose-the-hts/#comment-11711 Kamaaina47 Sun, 13 Jul 2008 02:09:29 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2007/11/08/more-on-the-aaas-decisin-to-oppose-the-hts/#comment-11711 How does HTS differ from embedded journalists joyriding through Iraq during the 2003 invasion? How does HTS differ from embedded journalists joyriding through Iraq during the 2003 invasion?

]]> By: Antropologia@guerra « direitos e humanos http://anthropology.net/2007/11/08/more-on-the-aaas-decisin-to-oppose-the-hts/#comment-10519 Antropologia@guerra « direitos e humanos Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:55:16 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2007/11/08/more-on-the-aaas-decisin-to-oppose-the-hts/#comment-10519 [...] Anthropology.net (US Army is Embedding Anthropologists; Anthropologists in the Military; The AAA decides to oppose HTS Anthropology; More on the AAA’s decision to oppose the HTS) [...] [...] Anthropology.net (US Army is Embedding Anthropologists; Anthropologists in the Military; The AAA decides to oppose HTS Anthropology; More on the AAA’s decision to oppose the HTS) [...]

]]> By: Mark http://anthropology.net/2007/11/08/more-on-the-aaas-decisin-to-oppose-the-hts/#comment-6128 Mark Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:21:17 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2007/11/08/more-on-the-aaas-decisin-to-oppose-the-hts/#comment-6128 The argument that this is a chance for anthropologists to affect US military policy is not well-considered, and itself indicates a lack of study of the HTS program. The purpose of the HTS program is not to affect military policy, but to IMPLEMENT it, regardless of what the policy is. This program implicitly entails anthropologists surrender the right to critique US policy. As a practical point, the HTS teams operate at a very low level in the military hierarchy. It is unlikely they will have any more to offer than a reasonably bright soldier who has been in-country for a while. The "more studies are required" argument is pretty cynical. What studies could you possibly conduct, beyond letting the program run its course?! The nature of the program is public, the facts are not complex. But the ethical issues are complex. Further studies are not required. Informed debate is. The argument that this is a chance for anthropologists to affect US military policy is not well-considered, and itself indicates a lack of study of the HTS program. The purpose of the HTS program is not to affect military policy, but to IMPLEMENT it, regardless of what the policy is. This program implicitly entails anthropologists surrender the right to critique US policy.

As a practical point, the HTS teams operate at a very low level in the military hierarchy. It is unlikely they will have any more to offer than a reasonably bright soldier who has been in-country for a while.

The “more studies are required” argument is pretty cynical. What studies could you possibly conduct, beyond letting the program run its course?! The nature of the program is public, the facts are not complex. But the ethical issues are complex. Further studies are not required. Informed debate is.

]]> By: Eric http://anthropology.net/2007/11/08/more-on-the-aaas-decisin-to-oppose-the-hts/#comment-5942 Eric Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:59:12 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2007/11/08/more-on-the-aaas-decisin-to-oppose-the-hts/#comment-5942 Normally I find your posts on this blog extremely well informed and insightful. This is not one of those cases. How you can justify anthropologists collaborating with an illegal and unjustified occupation of a land and its people raises serious doubts in my mind concerning your judgment. A handful of anthropologists embedded in military units could not hope to alter in any substantial way the orders from Washington or from the generals barricaded in the green zone. Any limited good such individuals might achieve would be outweighed by their use as tools of an occupation force that only supports the local population's interests if it happens to coincide with their own agenda. By attempting to gain the trust of local people anthropologists would be identified as supporting the occupation and would further erode the already fragile barrier that separates anthropologists from agents of the state. I fully support the AAA's decision and, <a href="http://primatediaries.blogspot.com/2007/10/anthropology-goes-to-war-part-3.html" rel="nofollow">in light of the Thailand counterinsurgency operations in the 1960s</a>, I am grateful to see the association learning from their past mistakes. Normally I find your posts on this blog extremely well informed and insightful. This is not one of those cases. How you can justify anthropologists collaborating with an illegal and unjustified occupation of a land and its people raises serious doubts in my mind concerning your judgment. A handful of anthropologists embedded in military units could not hope to alter in any substantial way the orders from Washington or from the generals barricaded in the green zone. Any limited good such individuals might achieve would be outweighed by their use as tools of an occupation force that only supports the local population’s interests if it happens to coincide with their own agenda. By attempting to gain the trust of local people anthropologists would be identified as supporting the occupation and would further erode the already fragile barrier that separates anthropologists from agents of the state. I fully support the AAA’s decision and, in light of the Thailand counterinsurgency operations in the 1960s, I am grateful to see the association learning from their past mistakes.

]]>