Colonel Martin Schweitzer, commander of the 82nd Airborne Division unit working with anthropologists here, said the unit's combat operations had been reduced by 60 percent since the anthropologists arrived this spring.
He said the focus had shifted from combat to improving security, health care and education for the population.
Sounds like folks are taking the Petraeus/Mattis mission seriously: "Warrior, nation-builder, peace-maker".
This mission-shift is not something our forces absolutely have to do. Because "defeat" is an option. But to win in Iraq and Afghanistan, it *is* what we have to do. Like it, or not.
Politicians who do not back the military 100%, in their new nation building and peace making missions, must be voted out ASAP. Otherwise we have no hope of victory.
Like it or not, politically convenient, or not ... that's the way it is. My 2¢.
Thanks for that article. I am embarrassed to admit that adding anthropologists to the equation was something I had missed. It appears that with Petraeus' having broken ground, others are starting to think outside the box as well. As an aside, found this comment in the article to be short, succinct and on the mark:
"Who else is going to do it?" asked Lieutenant Colonel David Woods, commander of the 4th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry. "You have to evolve. Otherwise, you're useless."
I'd suggest most of our politicians could learn a valuable lesson from those few words. Too many of them are "stuck on stupid" in both parties.
... "Who else is going to do it?" asked Lieutenant Colonel David Woods, commander of the 4th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry. "You have to evolve. Otherwise, you're useless."
... I'd suggest most of our politicians could learn a valuable lesson from those few words.
Hey, it's not my choice of article ... it's military.com's front-page article for this Sunday.
Perhaps they chose this particular article, because it describes a strategic shift that is IMHO vital to America's chances of winning this war.
I like the rest of your remarks too.
There is nothing like facing committed and adaptive enemies (in Iraq and Afghanistan) and also, committed and adaptive economic rivals (China and India), to remind Americans that we had better get our "learn and adapt" act together too.
My chronic disgust with politics comes about, because IMHO the ideologues of both parties, have *zero* clue about how to do this. The result is a gaping "leadership vacuum" that is severely hurting our nation.
My chronic disgust with politics comes about, because IMHO the ideologues of both parties, have *zero* clue about how to do this. The result is a gaping "leadership vacuum" that is severely hurting our nation.
That's about what one would expect when one group is so busy defending mistakes and the other group is so busy attacking mistakes that nobody is left to constructively fix them. It is amazing how one letter in a word can make so much difference. We could use a few less "ideologues" and a few more "idealogues".
This portion of the article was a bit disappointing:
quote:
Yet criticism is emerging in academia. Citing the past misuse of social sciences in counterinsurgency campaigns, some denounce the program as "mercenary anthropology" that exploits social science for political gain. Opponents fear that, whatever their intention, the scholars who work with the military could inadvertently cause all anthropologists to be viewed as intelligence gatherers for the U.S. military.
Hugh Gusterson, an anthropology professor at George Mason University in Virginia, and 10 other anthropologists are circulating an online pledge calling for anthropologists to boycott the teams, particularly in Iraq.
I think Gusterson and Co. are taking a very narrow and shortsighted view. If I was my normal cynical self this fine Sunday morning, I might even suggest that it is Gusterson attempting to exploit this for "political gain".
My chronic disgust with politics comes about, because IMHO the ideologues of both parties, have *zero* clue about how to do this. The result is a gaping "leadership vacuum" that is severely hurting our nation.
That's about what one would expect when one group is so busy defending mistakes and the other group is so busy attacking mistakes that nobody is left to constructively fix them. It is amazing how one letter in a word can make so much difference. We could use a few less "ideologues" and a few more "idealogues".
This portion of the article was a bit disappointing:
quote:
Yet criticism is emerging in academia. Citing the past misuse of social sciences in counterinsurgency campaigns, some denounce the program as "mercenary anthropology" that exploits social science for political gain. Opponents fear that, whatever their intention, the scholars who work with the military could inadvertently cause all anthropologists to be viewed as intelligence gatherers for the U.S. military.
Hugh Gusterson, an anthropology professor at George Mason University in Virginia, and 10 other anthropologists are circulating an online pledge calling for anthropologists to boycott the teams, particularly in Iraq.
I think Gusterson and Co. are taking a very narrow and shortsighted view. If I was my normal cynical self this fine Sunday morning, I might even suggest that it is Gusterson attempting to exploit this for "political gain".
As a researcher myself, may I say, you are right-on.
Preferring to study problems, and especially, to criticize other folks---instead of taking-on responsibility for *fixing* problems---is pretty much universal.
If an idea can't stand up to direct criticism, well ... maybe ... the idea isn't so great in the first place. Sooner or later, every idea has to be tried in the real-world ... where many illusions are shattered ... but also, many truths are uncovered.
The neoconservatives and Reaganites who planned the Iraq War have surely learned a lot, for example. Well, some of them!
Originally posted by Jade_Gate: Yet criticism is emerging in academia. Citing the past misuse of social sciences in counterinsurgency campaigns, some denounce the program as "mercenary anthropology" that exploits social science for political gain. Opponents fear that, whatever their intention, the scholars who work with the military could inadvertently cause all anthropologists to be viewed as intelligence gatherers for the U.S. military.
Hugh Gusterson, an anthropology professor at George Mason University in Virginia, and 10 other anthropologists are circulating an online pledge calling for anthropologists to boycott the teams, particularly in Iraq.
quote:
I think Gusterson and Co. are taking a very narrow and shortsighted view. If I was my normal cynical self this fine Sunday morning, I might even suggest that it is Gusterson attempting to exploit this for "political gain".
The operative phrase here is "Citing past misuse of social sciences". Looking at the historical use of social scientists in places like South and Central America and in psy-ops in various countries, there is room for some suspicion of what the military may be up to; however, on the face of it this appears to be a very good policy as long as the military does not try to make the anthropologists into spies and secret interrogators. If the military will just lay off and let the anthropologists do their work, then everyone comes out a winner. One of the things which has bothered me the most about this whole fiasco is the shocking lack of cultural understanding on the part of the neocons in particular. Let's get people in there who understand something about what makes the indigenous people in these countries tick.
The operative phrase here is "Citing past misuse of social sciences". Looking at the historical use of social scientists in places like South and Central America and in psy-ops in various countries, there is room for some suspicion of what the military may be up to; ...
I'm unfamiliar with any examples of the military "enlisting" experts from the civilian community in any social sciences arena though I don't claim it has never happened. Can you provide an example or so? I can think of examples where the military did NOT seek outside expert advice and bollixed it up. That the military is tapping a civilian national resource rather than going it alone is, in my view, one of the high points of this effort.
Originally posted by Jade_Gate: ... I'm unfamiliar with any examples of the military "enlisting" experts from the civilian community in any social sciences arena though I don't claim it has never happened. Can you provide an example or so?
The science fiction writer Paul Linebarger (pen name "Cordwainer Smith") is perhaps the single most famous example of such.
Another famous science fiction writer with strong ties to the military and the CIA was Alice Sheldon (pen name "James Tiptree, Jr.").
The reason being, that the essence of psychological operations---and American politics nowadays too---is to convince people that a story is both beautiful and true.
Operatives like Karl Rove are as skilled at fiction, as any science fiction writer!
Indeed, many folks still believe, that the fables Mr. Rove concocted, are "true".
Colonel Martin Schweitzer, commander of the 82nd Airborne Division unit working with anthropologists here, said the unit's combat operations had been reduced by 60 percent since the anthropologists arrived this spring. He said the focus had shifted from combat to improving security, health care and education for the population.
a unit's combat ops REDUCED by 60% and yet the annals of liberal acdemia complain and accuse the government of politicizing anthropology or militarizing it. I agree with McFate's comment at the end of the article
quote:
"I'm frequently accused of militarizing anthropology," she said. "But we're really anthropologizing the military.
E. Afghanistan, as everyone knows, is hugely tribal. The cultural distance between the indigenous population there and our American soldiers is gargantuan. More so in A-Stan than in Iraq. I would say that the report of a unit's 60% REDUCTION of combat ops in the area proves this program is successful and that anthropologists indeed are anthropologizing the military; not the other way around.
Every young man that can be provided with an alternative to joining the Taliban or AQ is a young man that has a chance of a living a life that does not involve terrorism.
Originally posted by GroovyLady: Every young man that can be provided with an alternative to joining the Taliban or AQ is a young man that has a chance of a living a life that does not involve terrorism.
Always a pleasure to agree 100% with a GL comment!
GL's strategy is IMHO America's *only* long-term winning strategy against terror.
Her strategy also works at-home. Because every young American who gets a family-supporting job becomes the nucleus of an American family that will raise kids, pay taxes, and work hard to preserve what they have built.
The shortage of good family-supporting jobs---a shortage that is made far worse by illegal immigration---is IMHO the root cause of many of America's problems at home.
That is why I have very little patience with "the stock market" and the "housing market" -- because the only market that counts, as far as America's well-being as a nation is concerned, is the number of jobs that pay enough to provide health-care insurance, buy a house, and raise kids.
Which is why out-sourcing and illegal immigration both are disasters for America, no matter how many individual Americans they make rich.
If those new, dignified, family-supporting jobs aren't being created in abundance, for each new American generation, then we can all kiss America good-by. My 2¢.
One of the most persuasive advocates for the view of scientific treatment of philosophy would be John Dewey (1859-1952). He began, as Marx did, in an attempt to weld Hegelian idealism and logic to experimental science, for example in his Psychology of 1887. However, he abandoned Hegelian constructs. Influenced by both Charles Sanders Peirce and William James, he joined the movement in America called Pragmatism. He then formulated his basic doctrine, enunciated in essays such as The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy (1910).
This idea, based on his theory of how organisms respond, states that there are three phases to the process of inquiry:
1. Problematic Situation, where the typical response is inadequate. 2. Isolation of Data or subject matter. 3. Reflective, which is tested empirically.
quote:
The rise of industrialism had created a series of social, economic, and political problems, particularly in managing supply and demand in their political economy, the management of resources for military and developmental use, the creation of mass education systems to train individuals in symbolic reasoning and problems in managing the effects of industrialization itself. The perceived senselessness of the "Great War" as it was then called, of 1914-1918, now called World War I, based in what were perceived to be "emotional" and "irrational" decisions, provided an immediate impetus for a form of decision making that was more "scientific" and easier to manage. Simply put, to manage the new multi-national enterprises, private and governmental, required more data. More data required a means of reducing it to information upon which to make decisions. Numbers and charts could be interpreted more quickly and moved more efficiently than long texts.
In the 1930s this new model of managing decision making became cemented with the New Deal in the US, and in Europe with the increasing need to manage industrial production and governmental affairs. Institutions such as The New School for Social Research, International Institute of Social History, and departments of "social research" at prestigious universities were meant to fill the growing demand for individuals who could quantify human interactions and produce models for decision making on this basis.
Coupled with this pragmatic need was the belief that the clarity and simplicity of mathematical expression avoided systematic errors of holistic thinking and logic rooted in traditional argument. This trend, part of the larger movement known as Modernism provided the rhetorical edge for the expansion of social sciences.
quote:
Anthropology is the holistic discipline that deals with the integration of different aspects of the Social Sciences, Humanities, and Human Biology. It includes Archaeology, Prehistory and Paleontology, Physical or Biological Anthropology, Anthropological Linguistics, Social and Cultural Anthropology, Ethnology and Ethnography. The word anthropos (άνθρωπος) is from the Greek for "human being" or "person." Eric Wolf described sociocultural anthropology as "the most scientific of the humanities, and the most humanistic of the sciences."
quote:
Anthropology (from Greek: ἀνθρωπος, anthropos, "human being"; and λόγος, logos, "knowledge") is the study of humanity. Anthropology has origins in the natural sciences, the humanities, and the social sciences.[1][2] Ethnography is both one of its primary methods, and the text that is written as a result of the practice of anthropology and its elements.
Since the work of Franz Boas and Bronisław Malinowski in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, social anthropology has been distinguished from other social science disciplines by its emphasis on in-depth examination of context, cross-cultural comparisons (socio-cultural anthropology is by nature a comparative discipline),[3] and the importance it places on long-term, experiential immersion in the area of research, often known as participant-observation. Cultural anthropology in particular has emphasized cultural relativity and the use of findings to frame cultural critiques. This has been particularly prominent in the United States, from Boas's arguments against 19th-century racial ideology, through Margaret Mead's advocacy for gender equality and sexual liberation, to current criticisms of post-colonial oppression and promotion of multiculturalism.
quote:
In the 1950s and mid-1960s anthropology tended increasingly to model itself after the natural sciences. Some anthropologists, such as Lloyd Fallers and Clifford Geertz, focused on processes of modernization by which newly independent states could develop. Others, such as Julian Steward and Leslie White, focused on how societies evolve and fit their ecological niche—an approach popularized by Marvin Harris. Economic anthropology as influenced by Karl Polanyi and practiced by Marshall Sahlins and George Dalton focused on how traditional economics ignored cultural and social factors. In England, British Social Anthropology's paradigm began to fragment as Max Gluckman and Peter Worsley experimented with Marxism and authors such as Rodney Needham and Edmund Leach incorporated Lévi-Strauss's structuralism into their work.
Structuralism also influenced a number of developments in 1960s and 1970s, including cognitive anthropology and componential analysis. Authors such as David Schneider, Clifford Geertz, and Marshall Sahlins developed a more fleshed-out concept of culture as a web of meaning or signification, which proved very popular within and beyond the discipline. In keeping with the times, much of anthropology became politicized through the Algerian War of Independence and opposition to the Vietnam War;[citation needed] Marxism became a more and more popular theoretical approach in the discipline.[20] By the 1970s the authors of volumes such as Reinventing Anthropology worried about anthropology's relevance.
Since the 1980s issues of power, such as those examined in Eric Wolf's Europe and the People Without History, have been central to the discipline. In the 80s books like Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter pondered anthropology's ties to colonial inequality, while the immense popularity of theorists such as Antonio Gramsci and Michel Foucault moved issues of power and hegemony into the spotlight. Gender and sexuality became popular topics, as did the relationship between history and anthropology, influenced by Marshall Sahlins (again), who drew on Lévi-Strauss and Fernand Braudel to examine the relationship between social structure and individual agency. Also influential in these issues were Nietzsche, Heidegger, the critical theory of the Frankfurt School, Derrida and Lacan.[1]
Amerian Four Field Approach:
quote:
The "four field" approach
Principally in the United States,[23] anthropology is often defined as being "holistic" and based on a "four-field" approach. There is an ongoing dispute on this view; supporters[24] consider anthropology holistic in two senses: it is concerned with all human beings across times and places, and with all dimensions of humanity (evolutionary, biophysical, sociopolitical, economic, cultural, psychological, etc.); also many academic programs following this approach take a "four-field" approach to anthropology that encompasses physical anthropology, archeology, linguistics, and cultural anthropology or social anthropology. The definition of anthropology as holistic and the "four-field" approach are disputed by some leading anthropologists,[25][26][27] that consider those as artifacts from 19th century social evolutionary thought that inappropriately impose scientific positivism upon cultural anthropology.[25] While originating in the US, both the four field approach and debates concerning it have been exported internationally under American academic influence
Biological or physical anthropology seeks to understand the physical human being through the study of human evolution and adaptability, population genetics, and primatology. Subfields or related fields include anthropometrics, forensic anthropology, osteology, and nutritional anthropology
Socio-cultural anthropology is the investigation, often through long term, intensive field studies (including participant-observation methods), of the culture and social organization of a particular people: language, economic and political organization, law and conflict resolution, patterns of consumption and exchange, kinship and family structure, gender relations, childrearing and socialization, religion, mythology, symbolism, etc. (U.S. universities more often use the term cultural anthropology; British universities have tended to call the corresponding field social anthropology, and for much of the 20th century emphasized the analysis of social organization more than cultural symbolism.) In some European countries, socio-cultural anthropology is known as ethnology (a term also used in English-speaking countries to denote the comparative aspect of socio-cultural anthropology.) Subfields and related fields include psychological anthropology, folklore, anthropology of religion, ethnic studies, cultural studies, anthropology of media and cyberspace, and study of the diffusion of social practices and cultural forms.
# Linguistic anthropology seeks to understand the processes of human communications, verbal and non-verbal, variation in language across time and space, the social uses of language, and the relationship between language and culture. It is the branch of anthropology that brings linguistic methods to bear on anthropological problems, linking the analysis of linguistic forms and processes to the interpretation of sociocultural processes. Linguistic anthropologists often draw on related fields including anthropological linguistics, sociolinguistics, cognitive linguistics, semiotics, discourse analysis, and narrative analysis.[29]
* Archaeology studies the contemporary distribution and form of artifacts (materials modified by past human activities), with the intent of understanding distribution and movement of ancient populations, development of human social organization, and relationships among contemporary populations; it also contributes significantly to the work of population geneticists, historical linguists, and many historians. Archaeology involves a wide variety of field techniques (remote sensing, survey, geophysical studies, coring, excavation) and laboratory procedures (compositional analyses, dating studies (radiocarbon, optically stimulated luminescence dating), measures of formal variability, examination of wear patterns, residue analyses, etc.). Archaeologists predominantly study materials produced by prehistoric groups but also includes modern, historical and ethnographic populations. Archaeology is usually regarded as a separate (but related) field outside North America, although closely related to the anthropological field of material culture, which deals with physical objects created or used within a living or past group as a means of understanding its cultural values.
Sounds good. The generals studied quickly.But it is not enough. As a bystander,I give my advise here.If u want to beat out the torrist,first,u should help the most native pepole instead of conquring them;The second is acting based on fact not imagine.Using the Chairman Maos words :servicing for pepole;probing the truth from fact.
You heard it here from Kiloton first: "Stargate: Afghanistan". Copyright (c) 2007. ;-)
Where science fiction meets military fact. The premise of the "Stargate" franchise is that anthropologists work alongside combat teams in both battling, and trying to understand and build bridges with, supposed "alien" cultures.
Sans its Hollywood gloss, the concept is a valid one. And, truth be told, it did not not originate in Hollywood or the minds of sci-fi writers. It's an idea, and a methodology, with long history. The difference is that it's now being applied in a more focused, systematic, conscious, and practical manner.
And now that Star Trek's "Seven of Nine" (see below) has joined the Army, what's next?
Man, ya gotta admire a civilian anthropologist that's willing to get out into the Wild West with the big boys to help alleviate fighting and bring about harmony! My thoughts are that this is an outstanding approach and my hat is off to the parties that contrived this meaningful objective. I wish it much success and safety to those that have stepped up to do it.
Originally posted by JimSorber: Man, ya gotta admire a civilian anthropologist that's willing to get out into the Wild West with the big boys to help alleviate fighting and bring about harmony! My thoughts are that this is an outstanding approach and my hat is off to the parties that contrived this meaningful objective. I wish it much success and safety to those that have stepped up to do it.
Agreed 100%. We have nothing to lose, and much to gain.
Originally posted by JimSorber: Man, ya gotta admire a civilian anthropologist that's willing to get out into the Wild West with the big boys to help alleviate fighting and bring about harmony! My thoughts are that this is an outstanding approach and my hat is off to the parties that contrived this meaningful objective. I wish it much success and safety to those that have stepped up to do it.
Agreed 100%. We have nothing to lose, and much to gain.
Our Warriors, that are the "Boots On The Ground" in A-stan truly want this to work.
Our Warriors want to see A-stan and Iraq prosper and sustain on its own, to be a contributor to our world's betterment. Not a safe haven for meaningless death and destruction.
GOD BLESS OUR WARRIORS
quote:
Originally posted by usmc_family:
quote:
Originally posted by JimSorber: Man, ya gotta admire a civilian anthropologist that's willing to get out into the Wild West with the big boys to help alleviate fighting and bring about harmony! My thoughts are that this is an outstanding approach and my hat is off to the parties that contrived this meaningful objective. I wish it much success and safety to those that have stepped up to do it.
Agreed 100%. We have nothing to lose, and much to gain.
Our Warriors, that are the "Boots On The Ground" in A-stan truly want this to work.
Our Warriors want to see A-stan and Iraq prosper and sustain on its own, to be a contributor to our world's betterment. Not a safe haven for meaningless death and destruction.
GOD BLESS OUR WARRIORS
quote:
Originally posted by usmc_family:
quote:
Originally posted by JimSorber: Man, ya gotta admire a civilian anthropologist that's willing to get out into the Wild West with the big boys to help alleviate fighting and bring about harmony! My thoughts are that this is an outstanding approach and my hat is off to the parties that contrived this meaningful objective. I wish it much success and safety to those that have stepped up to do it.
Agreed 100%. We have nothing to lose, and much to gain.
SgtSchaeffersMom: AMEN! Whatever works!
Four posts in a row that agree! A new record for the forum!
Our Warriors, that are the "Boots On The Ground" in A-stan truly want this to work.
Our Warriors want to see A-stan and Iraq prosper and sustain on its own, to be a contributor to our world's betterment. Not a safe haven for meaningless death and destruction.
GOD BLESS OUR WARRIORS
quote:
Originally posted by usmc_family:
quote:
Originally posted by JimSorber: Man, ya gotta admire a civilian anthropologist that's willing to get out into the Wild West with the big boys to help alleviate fighting and bring about harmony! My thoughts are that this is an outstanding approach and my hat is off to the parties that contrived this meaningful objective. I wish it much success and safety to those that have stepped up to do it.
Agreed 100%. We have nothing to lose, and much to gain.
SgtSchaeffersMom: AMEN! Whatever works!
Four posts in a row that agree! A new record for the forum!
To start, let me say that I think this is an amazing project, and as an academic I think it really could be a good way for both academia and the military to grow collectively and to achieve more in cooperation rather than in antagonism.
What I do wonder about though, is why we do not have these types of capabilities within the various Civil Affairs communities? As an economics professor/naval officer, I've never figured out why some gnome in BUPERS has never noticed my civilian skills and tasked me for this kind of a mission. I'm glad to see the Army moving this way, but isn't there some way either to identify these skills within the military or to recruit them into the service? BUPERS knows where I went to school and what I do for a living when I'm not in uniform - yet we go recruiting outside the military for these missions? Like I said, this is more curiosity than anything else. I really do applaud the mission and the anthropologists.
