Guest Post by Nick Bluhm

Students of anthropology face a renewed debate about the role of anthropology in the military, one that has recently drawn the attention of the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association (PDF) and the ire of many professional anthropologists. The American military, intent on surmounting the Taliban in Afghanistan, has sought out the expertise of social scientists, including anthropologists, as a means to enhance their counterinsurgency tactics.

Two contrasting views shape the debate. Critics deride anthropology for its role as what they scathingly characterize as “the handmaiden of the empires.” These commentators see anthropological involvement in U.S. military operations as a return to the 19^th century when anthropologists assisted governments in maintaining control over colonized people. In contrast, anthropologists who have joined the Pentagon’s Human Terrain System to aid in the Afghanistan war effort depict critics as malcontents who subscribe to an antiquated view of anthropology as a purely academic pursuit. Engagement, they conclude, is better than opposition and non-engagement.

Between these extremes, I see the potential for some fruitful middle ground. Most importantly, anthropologists could influence the manner in which the war is conducted, with possible effects on the length and consequences of the military occupation. Indeed, the need for an anthropological perspective in U.S. military strategy is ever more pronounced today. As General McChrystal stated emphatically in his August 30, 2009 Afghanistan report, “…focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely…our objective must be the population.” Furthermore, “gaining [the population’s] support will require a better understanding of the people’s choices and needs.” Anthropologists who focus on researching local culture could enhance the effectiveness of the governance and development aspects of the counterinsurgency.

However, before anthropologists will be seen as contributors to foreign policy discussions, they must indicate that they are willing to work with the U.S. government, though in ways that accord with the discipline’s ethical principles.

While I acknowledge the value that anthropology could contribute to international relations through more socially informed military activities, I also see specific problems with anthropologists assisting the U.S. effort in Afghanistan. I believe that the current U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is founded in part on faulty assumptions, largely reflecting the desires and values of foreign diplomats and not those of the local people. Furthermore, while fighting terrorism is an altruistic goal that affects global stakeholders, the strategy largely disregards the anthropological focus on the needs of the local population.

And, overall, the results so far are not comforting. Using brute force to achieve peace and security appears to be backfiring. In particular, the U.S. military is finding it difficult to distinguish between the Taliban extremists, and the vindictive locals who attribute the deaths of family members to U.S. forces. By associating with this military operation, anthropologists endanger their reputation as trustworthy researchers.

Obviously, I do not mean to proffer anthropology as a handmaiden of the U.S. military. But the U.S. military will be in Afghanistan regardless of anthropological criticism. Presuming that anthropologists have some control over their assignments, an anthropological presence in Afghanistan could be used to positively direct the means, and possibly the presumed ends, of the counterinsurgency. Further, I see this cooperation as one step in a larger effort to make anthropology relevant to foreign policy stakeholders while retaining the discipline’s concern for marginalized populations.

Nick Bluhm is a public policy analyst at the law firm Cooley Godward Kronish, in downtown D.C. He holds an M.A. in anthropology from the George Washington University.

Photo, “afghanistan,” from Flickr via Creative Commons.