"U.S. forces in Afghanistan are using a controversial tool in their efforts to hold the ground recently captured from the Taliban. It is the work of civilian anthropologists and other social science researchers, who advise military commanders on how to win the hearts and minds of local people"
This article focuses on the Human Terrain System, a data collection method developed by anthropologists and social scientists for use by the U.S. military. One of its developers Kristin Post explains she spent much of her time "interviewing local farm families, trying to get a sense of the people and their relationships to one another. Already, you start to get a picture of how things work -- who knows who, who doesn't know who."
This doesn't seem so bad right? I mean, the military has always been (for better or worse) an environment where social scientists can work, study, test, and develop theories. I mean, doesn't this kind of project tell the scientific community the military is at least trying? I have no point of reference for military protocol and procedure, however this kind of approach at least seems to be attempting a more scientific and diplomatic method of learning about how to be most effective in the field, yes?
The article also quotes the current president of the American Anthropological Association, and he seems to believe that the actions of these social scientists in the field breaks the code of ethics found within their discipline, citing the "do no harm" clause. He claims that informed consent can certainly not be obtained when approached by a person or a person representative of a gun-toting detachment of soldiers. I see his perspective, but this isn't a laboratory chief.
This is applied science, albeit not necessarily for the sake of science. If this approach saves lives of soldiers, improves the publics' perception of military operations, and increases efficacy and long-term stability, how can this guy sitting in his office at George Mason University really be against it?
Leave a comment