[R-G] Efforts to aid US roil anthropology - Some object to project on Iraq, Afghanistan

[Anthony Fenton]

Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company
All Rights Reserved
The Boston Globe

October 8, 2007 Monday
THIRD EDITION

SECTION: NATIONAL; Pg. A2

LENGTH: 1161 words

HEADLINE: Efforts to aid US roil anthropology - Some object to  
project on Iraq, Afghanistan

BYLINE: Bryan Bender Globe Staff

BODY:


WASHINGTON - A new project in which university anthropologists study  
tribal customs in Iraq and Afghanistan for the US military has  
prompted a fierce backlash among academics, some of whom accuse their  
colleagues of engaging in a wartime effort that violates their  
professional ethics.

The handful of anthropologists working with so-called human terrain  
teams designed to help commanders navigate the cultural thickets of  
both countries are being accused of "prostituting science" and  
presiding over the "militarization of anthropology," the study of the  
social practices and cultural origins of humans.

Internet blogs oppose the project, urging "anthropologists of the  
world, unite!" Academic journal articles with titles such as  
"Anthropologists as Spies" criticize the efforts. And some of the  
scientists under attack fear they could be blackballed by their  
profession.

Felix Moos, who has been an anthropology professor at the University  
of Kansas for 47 years, is helping train the human terrain teams at  
nearby Fort Leavenworth. Colleagues who oppose his actions have  
called him a "killer for hire."

"Academia looks at me as being too close to the military," he said in  
recent interview in his crowded campus office, copies of the Nepali  
Manual of Insurgency and Counterinsurgency strewn about. "It has  
affected me negatively. I have been accused of introducing spies into  
academia."

At issue is a longstanding code of ethics for the discipline, one  
which decrees that anthropological research should never be used to  
inflict harm, must always have the consent of the population being  
studied, and must not be conducted in secret.

The debate over the role of anthropology in national security is  
expected to come to a head next month in an American Anthropological  
Association report examining the ethical questions of cooperating  
with the military.

Last week, a group calling itself the Network of Concerned  
Anthropologists urged colleagues to sign a "pledge of  
nonparticipation in counterinsurgency."

While anthropology conducted on behalf of the military is "often  
presented by its proponents as work that builds a more secure world,  
protects US soldiers on the battlefield or promotes cross-cultural  
understanding," the pledge states, "at base it contributes instead to  
a brutal war of occupation which has entailed massive casualties."

Such work "breaches relations of openness and trust with the people  
anthropologists work with around the world," it added.

One of its authors is David Price, a professor at Saint Martin's  
University in Lacy, Wash., who is also a member of the ethics  
commission set to report in November.

"I am not sure that adequate consent [from the research subjects] is  
going on," said Price. He said he believes it will be difficult to  
know how the military and intelligence agencies will use the  
population studies.

"I am not opposed to anthropologists engaging with the military, but  
I am very concerned when it happens under conditions of secrecy," he  
said. "There will always be spies but it shouldn't be anthropologists  
who are doing it."

The military's own descriptions of the new teams give pause to Price  
and others - such as one Pentagon official who likened them to the  
Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support project during  
the Vietnam War. That effort helped identify Vietnamese suspected as  
communists and Viet Cong collaborators; some were later assassinated  
by the United States.

But some anthropologists in favor of the program urge their  
colleagues to look beyond stereotypes and assess the military's new  
efforts firsthand.

"The military is changing in a dramatic way," said Brian Selmeski, an  
anthropology researcher at the Royal Military College of Canada who  
consults with the US Army and Air Force. "It is reevaluating itself  
not just to make war but to fix some profound deficiencies."

He stressed that the highly controversial human terrain teams are  
just one way anthropologists assist the military. Others include  
teaching at military colleges and helping draft cultural training  
programs for soldiers operating overseas.

"I don't want to help them kill people," Selmeski said. "What I want  
to do is help them avoid conflict."

The US forces' superficial understanding of local tribal customs and  
ancient ethnic and sectarian rivalries has hampered their efforts in  
Iraq and Afghanistan. An outstretched arm, palm facing forward, for  
example, means "stop" in most Western cultures, but in Iraq it's  
considered a sign of welcome. Confusion over the signal has had  
deadly consequences, leading US troops to open fire at Iraqi  
civilians who didn't stop at checkpoints.

Authorities hope the human terrain project, which plans to create 26  
teams by next summer, can help avoid such potentially disastrous  
misunderstandings, according to Jim Greer, the deputy program  
manager. One seven-person team is working in Afghanistan and five  
teams are on the ground in Iraq.

But Greer worries that unless the academic world can get past its  
deep suspicions about the military's intentions, finding enough  
brainpower to make the project work "could get tough."

Greer maintains that the project is sensitive to anthropologists'  
concerns, pointing to the fact that the anthropologists' work - if  
not the military's - will be unclassified and their findings  
available for publication.

"It's all open-source research," said Greer, who has a master's  
degree in education. "They are not spies. They don't have informants  
running around."

Selmeski of the Royal Military College of Canada believes the US  
armed forces must do more to ease anthropologists' concerns, and more  
independent monitoring of the project could help. "There is no  
charter or civilian oversight or a human subjects review board," he  
said.

Kerry Fosher, recently hired as the command social scientist at the  
Marine Corps Intelligence Activity in Quantico, Va., has been pleased  
so far with her dealings with the military. "I asked a lot of really  
hard questions about what kind of freedoms I would have," she said.

But she said it's still unclear whether the military bureaucracy will  
tolerate her approach.

"One thing I will not give up is my ability to step back ... and get  
the long view," Fosher said. "That's why they want us but it is very  
difficult" for the military's rigid hierarchy to accept their methods.

Specific guidelines are needed for the relationship to work, she added.

Jim Peacock, an anthropologist at the University of North Carolina  
who is chairman of the ethics commission, says he believes there is  
enough room to help the military if there is enough transparency and  
oversight to make anthropologists more comfortable. Using  
anthropological data for use in a military offensive would probably  
"violate the code," he said. But teaching cultural sensitivities to  
military personnel before they deploy "might not do harm and it might  
even diminish harm."

Bryan Bender can be reached at bender at globe.com

SIDEBAR:

HAND SIGNALS

PLEASE SEE PDF FOR CHART DATA

...