United for Peace of Pierce County, WA - We nonviolently oppose the reliance on unilateral military actions rather than cooperative diplomacy.

UFPPC's 2007 speaker series will continue on Fri. evening, Oct. 26, at King's Books in Tacoma when critical anthropologist David H. Price of St. Martin's University gives a free talk about how the so-called "war on terror" is curtailing academic freedom and harnessing academics for the production of knowledge that serves intelligence agencies and the military. -- David Price's work on how the U.S. government has put social scientists to work to serve its geopolitical ends is nationally known. -- Price teaches at St. Martin's University and is writing a three-volume series on American anthropologists' relationship with intelligence agencies, the second volume of which will be published in 2008 by Duke University Press. -- His work has recently been in the news on account of the Pentagon's plan to ramp up use of anthropology in its Mideast wars. -- On Friday, the New York Times reported about the operations of "the first Human Terrain Team, an experimental Pentagon program that assigns anthropologists and other social scientists to U.S. combat units in Afghanistan and Iraq."[2] -- And "[l]ast month, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates authorized a $40m expansion of the program, which will assign teams of anthropologists and social scientists to each of the 26 U.S. combat brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan. . . . [M]ilitary officials are scrambling to find more scholars willing to deploy to the frontlines. Last month, five new teams have been deployed in the Baghdad area alone." -- Prof. Price is one of the founding signers of last month's "Pledge of Non-Participation in Counter-Insurgency," which is circulating among professional anthropologists. -- The pledge declares: "While often presented by its proponents as work that builds a more secure world, protects U.S. soldiers on the battlefield, or promotes cross-cultural understanding, at base it contributes instead to a brutal war of occupation which has entailed massive casualties. . . . In addition, much of this work is covert. . . . We are not all necessarily opposed to other forms of anthropological consulting for the state, or for the military, especially when such cooperation contributes to generally accepted humanitarian objectives. A variety of views exist among us, and the ethical issues are complex. . . . However, work that is covert, work that breaches relations of openness and trust with studied populations, and work that enables the occupation of one country by another violates professional standards."[3] -- Price and others also provided a helpful FAQ page that addressed some of the inevitable questions their position raises, including this apparently inevitable one: "If you are against anthropologists participating in counter-insurgency operations, then aren't you against U.S. troops and their immediate safety?"[4] -- They provide a cogent response, but also point out that the "support the troops" rhetoric is "in fact a public relations strategy first developed in its modern form by the Nixon administration to thwart anti-war sentiment during the Vietnam War." -- Six of David Price's pieces on related subjects can be accessed through the group's link to background articles. -- Price's UFPPC-sponsored talk at King's book on Oct. 26 is free and open to the public. -- More information below....

WHAT: "The War on Terror and Academic Freedom," a lecture with discussion
WHO: Dr. David Price, St. Martin's University
WHEN: Friday, October 26, 2007, at 7:00 p.m.
WHERE: King's Books, 218 St. Helens Ave., Tacoma, WA 98402 (253-272-8801)

David H. Price will discuss the ways the war on terror is limiting academic freedom and harnessing the production of knowledge for use by military and intelligence agencies. Many attacks on academic freedom are undertaken by groups, such as the American Council of Trustees of Alumni and Campus Watch that focus on students and professors expressing views counter to the Bush administration. Others, such as the Pat Roberts Intelligence Scholars Program and the Intelligence Community Scholars Program, are shifting student funding to secretive scholarship programs funding students as embedded members of intelligence agencies.

David H. Price teaches courses at St. Martin's University on anthropology and social justice. Using documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, Price is researching various covert relationships between American anthropologists and military and intelligence organizations. He is writing a three-volume series of books examining American anthropologists' interactions with intelligence agencies.

Price's first work on this subject was Threatening Anthropology: McCarthyism and the FBI's Surveillance of Activist Anthropologists (Duke UP, 2004). Threatening Anthropology received glowing reviews, and has been called "a timely and critically important book" in American Ethnologist and "an important contribution to our understanding of the dimensions of McCarthyism" in the Journal of American History. Ellen Schrecker wrote in History: "David Price . . . has been carving out a niche as the chief chronicler of the impact of McCarthyism and the FBI on his discipline. . . . His efforts have produced the expectedly chilling glimpse of a federal agency that spied on dozens of scholars . . . and an inquisition and blacklist that directly victimized about a dozen."

In 2008 Duke University Press will publish Price's second volume in the series, Anthropological Intelligence: The Use and Neglect of American Anthropology in the Second World War, and he has plans for a third volume that will explore anthropologists' interactions with the CIA and Pentagon during the Cold War.

David H. Price (dprice@stmartin.edu) is an Associate Professor at St. Martin's University where he teaches courses in anthropology and social justice. He has conducted cultural anthropological and archaeological fieldwork and research in the United States and Palestine, Egypt, and Yemen. He has published articles in the Nation, CounterPunch, Identities, Critique of Anthropology, Anthropological Quarterly, Anthropology Today, Anthropology News, American Anthropologist, Human Organization, Science & Society.

This event is the second in a 2007 speaker series sponsored by United for Peace of Pierce County. Call 253-573-1504 or 253-535-7219 for more information.

SHABAK VALLEY -- In this isolated Taliban stronghold in eastern Afghanistan, American paratroopers are fielding what they consider a crucial new weapon in counterinsurgency operations here: a soft-spoken civilian anthropologist named Tracy.

Tracy, who asked that her surname not be used for security reasons, is a member of the first Human Terrain Team, an experimental Pentagon program that assigns anthropologists and other social scientists to American combat units in Afghanistan and Iraq. Her team's ability to understand subtle points of tribal relations -- in one case spotting a land dispute that allowed the Taliban to bully parts of a major tribe -- has won the praise of officers who say they are seeing concrete results.

Col. Martin Schweitzer, commander of the 82nd Airborne Division unit working with the anthropologists here, said that the unit's combat operations had been reduced by 60 percent since the scientists arrived in February, and that the soldiers were now able to focus more on improving security, health care and education for the population.

''We're looking at this from a human perspective, from a social scientist's perspective,'' he said. ''We're not focused on the enemy. We're focused on bringing governance down to the people.''

In September, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates authorized a $40 million expansion of the program, which will assign teams of anthropologists and social scientists to each of the 26 American combat brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since early September, five new teams have been deployed in the Baghdad area, bringing the total to six.

Yet criticism is emerging in academia. Citing the past misuse of social sciences in counterinsurgency campaigns, including in Vietnam and Latin America, 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 American military.

Hugh Gusterson, an anthropology professor at George Mason University, and 10 other anthropologists are circulating an online pledge calling for anthropologists to boycott the teams, particularly in Iraq.

''While often presented by its proponents as work that builds a more secure world,'' the pledge says, ''at base, it contributes instead to a brutal war of occupation which has entailed massive casualties.''

In Afghanistan, the anthropologists arrived along with 6,000 troops, which doubled the American military's strength in the area it patrols, the country's east.

A smaller version of the Bush administration's troop increase in Iraq, the buildup in Afghanistan has allowed American units to carry out the counterinsurgency strategy here, where American forces generally face less resistance and are better able to take risks.

A NEW MANTRA

Since Gen. David H. Petraeus, now the overall American commander in Iraq, oversaw the drafting of the Army's new counterinsurgency manual last year, the strategy has become the new mantra of the military. A recent American military operation here offered a window into how efforts to apply the new approach are playing out on the ground in counterintuitive ways.

In interviews, American officers lavishly praised the anthropology program, saying that the scientists' advice has proved to be ''brilliant,'' helping them see the situation from an Afghan perspective and allowing them to cut back on combat operations.

The aim, they say, is to improve the performance of local government officials, persuade tribesmen to join the police, ease poverty and protect villagers from the Taliban and criminals.

Afghans and Western civilian officials, too, praised the anthropologists and the new American military approach but were cautious about predicting long-term success. Many of the economic and political problems fueling instability can be solved only by large numbers of Afghan and American civilian experts.

''My feeling is that the military are going through an enormous change right now where they recognize they won't succeed militarily,'' said Tom Gregg, the chief United Nations official in southeastern Afghanistan. ''But they don't yet have the skill sets to implement'' a coherent nonmilitary strategy, he added.

Deploying small groups of soldiers into remote areas, Colonel Schweitzer's paratroopers organized jirgas, or local councils, to resolve tribal disputes that have simmered for decades. Officers shrugged off questions about whether the military was comfortable with what David Kilcullen, an Australian anthropologist and an architect of the new strategy, calls ''armed social work.''

''Who else is going to do it?'' asked Lt. Col. David Woods, commander of the Fourth Squadron, 73rd Cavalry. ''You have to evolve. Otherwise you're useless.''

The anthropology team here also played a major role in what the military called Operation Khyber. That was a 15-day drive late this summer in which 500 Afghan and 500 American soldiers tried to clear an estimated 200 to 250 Taliban insurgents out of much of Paktia Province, secure southeastern Afghanistan's most important road and halt a string of suicide attacks on American troops and local governors.

In one of the first districts the team entered, Tracy identified an unusually high concentration of widows in one village, Colonel Woods said. Their lack of income created financial pressure on their sons to provide for their families, she determined, a burden that could drive the young men to join well-paid insurgents. Citing Tracy's advice, American officers developed a job training program for the widows.

In another district, the anthropologist interpreted the beheading of a local tribal elder as more than a random act of intimidation: the Taliban's goal, she said, was to divide and weaken the Zadran, one of southeastern Afghanistan's most powerful tribes. If Afghan and American officials could unite the Zadran, she said, the tribe could block the Taliban from operating in the area.

''Call it what you want, it works,'' said Colonel Woods, a native of Denbo, Pa. ''It works in helping you define the problems, not just the symptoms.''

EMBEDDING SCHOLARS

The process that led to the creation of the teams began in late 2003, when American officers in Iraq complained that they had little to no information about the local population. Pentagon officials contacted Montgomery McFate, a Yale-educated cultural anthropologist working for the Navy who advocated using social science to improve military operations and strategy.

Ms. McFate helped develop a database in 2005 that provided officers with detailed information on the local population. The next year, Steve Fondacaro, a retired Special Operations colonel, joined the program and advocated embedding social scientists with American combat units.

Ms. McFate, the program's senior social science adviser and an author of the new counterinsurgency manual, dismissed criticism of scholars working with the military. ''I'm frequently accused of militarizing anthropology,'' she said. ''But we're really anthropologizing the military.''

Roberto J. González, an anthropology professor at San Jose State University, called participants in the program naïve and unethical. He said that the military and the Central Intelligence Agency had consistently misused anthropology in counterinsurgency and propaganda campaigns and that military contractors were now hiring anthropologists for their local expertise as well.

''Those serving the short-term interests of military and intelligence agencies and contractors,'' he wrote in the June issue of Anthropology Today, an academic journal, ''will end up harming the entire discipline in the long run.''

Arguing that her critics misunderstand the program and the military, Ms. McFate said other anthropologists were joining the teams. She said their goal was to help the military decrease conflict instead of provoking it, and she vehemently denied that the anthropologists collected intelligence for the military.

In eastern Afghanistan, Tracy said wanted to reduce the use of heavy-handed military operations focused solely on killing insurgents, which she said alienated the population and created more insurgents. ''I can go back and enhance the military's understanding,'' she said, ''so that we don't make the same mistakes we did in Iraq.''

Along with offering advice to commanders, she said, the five-member team creates a database of local leaders and tribes, as well as social problems, economic issues and political disputes.

CLINICS AND MEDICATION

During the recent operation, as soldiers watched for suicide bombers, Tracy and Army medics held a free medical clinic. They said they hoped that providing medical care would show villagers that the Afghan government was improving their lives.

Civil affairs soldiers then tried to mediate between factions of the Zadran tribe about where to build a school. The Americans said they hoped that the school, which would serve children from both groups, might end a 70-year dispute between the groups over control of a mountain covered with lucrative timber.

Though they praised the new program, Afghan and Western officials said it remained to be seen whether the weak Afghan government could maintain the gains. ''That's going to be the challenge, to fill the vacuum,'' said Mr. Gregg, the United Nations official. ''There's a question mark over whether the government has the ability to take advantage of the gains.''

Others also question whether the overstretched American military and its NATO allies can keep up the pace of operations.

American officers expressed optimism. Many of those who had served in both Afghanistan and Iraq said they had more hope for Afghanistan. One officer said that the Iraqis had the tools to stabilize their country, like a potentially strong economy, but that they lacked the will. He said Afghans had the will, but lacked the tools.

After six years of American promises, Afghans, too, appear to be waiting to see whether the Americans or the Taliban will win a protracted test of wills here. They said this summer was just one chapter in a potentially lengthy struggle.

At a ''super jirga'' set up by Afghan and American commanders here, a member of the Afghan Parliament, Nader Khan Katawazai, laid out the challenge ahead to dozens of tribal elders.

''Operation Khyber was just for a few days,'' he said. ''The Taliban will emerge again.''

We, the undersigned, believe that anthropologists should not engage in research and other activities that contribute to counter-insurgency operations in Iraq or in related theaters in the “war on terror.” Furthermore, we believe that anthropologists should refrain from directly assisting the U.S. military in combat, be it through torture, interrogation, or tactical advice.

U.S. military and intelligence agencies and military contractors have identified “cultural knowledge,” “ethnographic intelligence,” and “human terrain mapping” as essential to U.S.-led military intervention in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East. Consequently, these agencies have mounted a drive to recruit professional anthropologists as employees and consultants. While often presented by its proponents as work that builds a more secure world, protects U.S. soldiers on the battlefield, or promotes cross-cultural understanding, at base it contributes instead to a brutal war of occupation which has entailed massive casualties. By so doing, such work breaches relations of openness and trust with the people anthropologists work with around the world and, directly or indirectly, enables the occupation of one country by another. In addition, much of this work is covert. Anthropological support for such an enterprise is at odds with the humane ideals of our discipline as well as professional standards.

We are not all necessarily opposed to other forms of anthropological consulting for the state, or for the military, especially when such cooperation contributes to generally accepted humanitarian objectives. A variety of views exist among us, and the ethical issues are complex. Some feel that anthropologists can effectively brief diplomats or work with peacekeeping forces without compromising professional values. However, work that is covert, work that breaches relations of openness and trust with studied populations, and work that enables the occupation of one country by another violates professional standards.

Consequently, we pledge not to undertake research or other activities in support of counter-insurgency work in Iraq or in related theaters in the “war on terror,” and we appeal to colleagues everywhere to make the same commitment.

--The founding members of the Network of Concerned Anthropologists include Catherine Besteman, Andrew Bickford, Greg Feldman, Gustaaf Houtman, Roberto Gonzalez, Hugh Gusterson, Jean Jackson, Kanhong Lin, Catherine Lutz, David Price, and David Vine.

The Network of Concerned Anthropologists (NCA) is an independent ad hoc network of anthropologists seeking to promote an ethical anthropology. For more information, write us at concerned.anthropologists@gmail.com.

1. What is the motivation for signing the Pledge? Has anything like this ever been done before?

The eleven originators of the Pledge are deeply concerned that the "war on terror" threatens to militarize anthropology in a way that undermines the integrity of the discipline and returns anthropology to its sad roots as a tool of colonial occupation, oppression, and violence. We felt compelled to draft the Pledge to say that there are certain kinds of work -- for example, covert work, work contributing to the harm and death of other human beings, work that breaches trust with our research participants, and work that calls other anthropologists into suspicion -- that anthropologists should not undertake. In many ways we are restating the position that Franz Boas famously articulated in 1919. We encourage you to sign the Pledge as a way to support this position on ethical work in the discipline and as a way to make a statement to government and military officials, the social science and other scientific communities, and the broader public that that anthropologists will not participate in such work or support wars of occupation.

Our Pledge is modeled on a pledge campaign in the mid-1980s organized by two physics graduate students who are now on the staff of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Signatories to that pledge promised not to seek or accept funds to work on the Strategic Defense Initiative (also known as "Star Wars"). The pledge was signed by 6,500 scientists and engineers, including 15 Nobel Laureates. Over half of the faculty in the top 20 physics departments signed it.

2. I don't have a Ph.D. in anthropology, but I'm an anthropology graduate student. (Or: I don't have a Ph.D. in anthropology, but I am a scholar in a closely related field.) Can I still sign the Pledge?

Yes, you can still sign the Pledge! We welcome anthropology graduate students and scholars in related fields (particularly those that use ethnographic methods) to sign the Pledge and join our email list.

3. If you are against anthropologists participating in counter-insurgency operations, then aren't you against U.S. troops and their immediate safety?

The political and cultural climate in the U.S. today has made "do you support the troops?" the most prominent framing question for debate about war. It has emerged as such a powerful question in part because it appeals to patriotism, nationalism, and basic humanitarianism, but more importantly because it diverts attention from civilians dying in war zones and from powerful policymakers who put U.S. soldiers on the battlefield in the first place. (This was in fact a public relations strategy first developed in its modern form by the Nixon administration to thwart anti-war sentiment during the Vietnam War.) The Pledge, conversely, directs our attention to those same policymakers who want to put anthropology on the battlefield or in the command bunkers.

Nonetheless, if we take up the question in its own terms, we might view the Pledge as a way of encouraging anthropologists to help and protect U.S. soldiers as human beings in much more effective ways. Some examples might include anthropological research on: (1) techniques used by the U.S. military to recruit 18-year-olds for employment and social valorization, and the other options they have available; (2) the degree of homelessness, war injuries, employment, social support, and resilience among enlisted veterans of this and previous wars; and (3) popular attitudes that sustain or contest the war including attitudes towards the nation, race, and Islam, towards permanent bases in Iraq, and towards Americans' rights to world resources. Such anthropological work would be more likely to address the problem of assisting past, present, and future soldiers through ethnographic realities, rather than through propaganda about homefront mobilization and war.

An anthropological "surge" of efforts to make culturally smarter soldiers on the battlefield, whatever its putative effects, is destined to be used by the government on the U.S. homefront to claim that it is fighting a humane war. More importantly, it draws attention away from the ways in which war hurts soldiers and the communities from which they come, no matter how culturally smart they become.

4. Are you saying that anthropologists should only work within the "ivory tower" of academia?

No, opposition to participation in counter-insurgency operations does not mean that anthropologists should only be working within academia. Such an argument presents a false dichotomy be demarcating only two positions. From this perspective, action can only be achieved by working for the government towards military goals, while opposition or criticism of government policies is inaccurately portrayed as abandoning the U.S. government, soldiers, and the public. This argument leaves no room for a discussion about the issues surronding military- and security-related anthropological work. The Pledge aims to raise critical awareness about ethical concerns surrounding such work aimed.

It is worth mentioning that research, planning, and policy decisions made within the Pentagon, the CIA, and many "think tanks" often takes place within cloistered "ivory towers" of their own.

The "war on terror" includes U.S. counter-terrorism military initiatives throughout the world. For example, U.S. military involvement in Africa as part of the "war on terror" has skyrocketed since 9/11. The establishment of the US African Command (AFRICOM) by George W. Bush has established U.S. military and surveillance bases in many African countries. Countries like Kenya, Algeria, Djibouti, and Mali are now defined as frontline states or active partners in the "war on terror," and have received between eight and forty times more military funding after 9/11 than in the five years prior to 9/11. Congress approved the Trans Sahara Counter Terrorism Initiative at a cost of $500 million between 2005-2011. U.S. military forces operating in the Horn of Africa have launched secret incursions into Somalia as part of the "war on terror," contributing to the ongoing destabilization of that country and the abuse of local populations in the Ogaden region of Ethiopia. Because of the harm caused to local populations by the militarization of their countries and the use of military force to silence local political dissent, the Pledge asks anthropologists to refrain from supporting covert military work throughout the world.

6. Is there a risk that your pledge campaign will turn into a "witch hunt" of anthropologists who are doing work for military and intelligence agencies?

There is no risk that the pledge campaign will turn into a "witch hunt." The primary concern of the Network of Concerned Anthropologists is widely shared across the discipline: to be honest about the intents and purposes of our research with the people with whom we work and to not support activities that might harm their well-being. Yes, we argue that this commitment precludes anthropological research research and consultancy that is covert, that is not made publicly available, and that contributes to counter-insurgency and military occupation. However, anthropologists have foregrounded these types of concerns for nearly a century. Beyond that, there is no firm ideological tenet shared be everyone in the Network, and therefore no basis upon which its members would blacklist other anthropologists. It is worth repeating that the Network has not called for anthropologists to refrain from working with the military altogether and that it recognizes the moral complexities of such work.

7. Are you opposed to all dialogue and communication with members of the military and other government officials? How do you expect to change things if you aren't talking to policy makers and other government officials?

We are not opposed to dialogue and communication with members of the military and other government officials. Several of the authors of the Pledge engage in such dialogue on a regular basis, advising peacekeepers, briefing diplomats, debating military policy, and informing the general public about issues of war and peace, to name a few examples. We do, however, draw a distinction between work that falls within the ethical codes of the discipline and work that, directly or indirectly, enables and condones the occupation of one nation by another, assists with military combat operations, or otherwise supports military and other activities causing harm and death.

Peacekeepers provide a good example of where most of the original signatories draw this line. Peacekeepers are charged with keeping the peace, protecting civilians, and preventing violence. U.S. and allied forces in Iraq and elsewhere in the "war on terror" are not keepers of the peace. They are occupying forces engaged in regular, active combat operations often charged with killing other human beings. Most of us believe that while anthropologists can ethically support those attempting to prevent violence in the case of peacekeepers, they cannot ethically assist with the violence inherent in the "war on terror."