Thanks for your comments – I should note that I have simply re-posted information about the AAA’s call for signatures and highlighted an upcoming journal issue here. I’m sorry to hear that you feel that by doing so I am “dishonoring the memory [of the] fallen… the same as bad-mouthing a veteran”, offending you as a taxpayer, making “unprofessional” and “illegitimate” assumptions, being” offensive”, “laughable” and “slanderous”. I wish I were able to assess the facts as professionally, objectively and unemotionally as you are.

Brian

1) There is no evidence that HTS is effective. There is no evidence, as some supporters
have claimed, that the program saves lives. In fact, a special commission of the
American Anthropological Association (AAA)—the largest professional anthropology
society in the US—concluded in December 2009 that “there exist no publicly available
independent evaluations of the effects of HTS’s activities, either positive or negative.
Whether, or how, HTS might reduce conflict, in short, has yet to be evaluated.”

- There is no evidence to contradict either, because the program is new and information is being collected and reviewed for efficacy. Congress is doing their homework, as is President Obama. Your facts and the AAA reports are based on RUMINT, hearsay, and quotes from disgruntled employees who are no longer with that program or were never deployed for lack of qualifications.

2) HTS is dangerous and reckless. To date, three embedded social scientists assigned to
Human Terrain Teams have been killed in theaters of war. According to the journal
Nature, “some scientists who have joined the program have complained about inadequate
training,” while some military personnel reportedly complain that protecting Human
Terrain Team members puts the lives of their soldiers at risk.

The Nature article is outdated. Yes there have been casualties, but it is clear that participants in the program go into it willingly. More lives have been lost in other more risky, senseless manners- so why do you continue to dishonor the memory of those three fallen? It is the same as you bad-mouthing a veteran, because those three served their country as honorably.

3) HTS wastes taxpayer money. In addition to its human costs, HTS has been costly.
According to one report, approximately $250 million has been allocated to HTS since its
creation in 2006.

The war wastes taxpayer money. KBR/Halliburton wasted over a billion. Money was wasted that went into the funding of the writing and research for the not-yet-and-may-not-be approved healthcare bill. Money is wasted in the funding of the Clinton’s 250 acre estate and Bill’s salary, which taxpayers get to pay until he dies. This program has potential- so what Exactly is your point? I could easily say the same about NSF that funds projects within the anthropological community that are a waste of time and resources and have little to no applicable value. As a taxpayer I am offended that you are quibbling over this when there is potential for this program to save lives and bring our soldiers home safely.

4) HTS is unethical for anthropologists and other social scientists. In 2007, the Executive
Board of the AAA determined HTS to be “an unacceptable application of anthropological
expertise.” Last December, the AAA commission found that HTS “can no longer be
considered a legitimate professional exercise of anthropology” given the incompatibility
of HTS with disciplinary ethics and practice. Like medical doctors, anthropologists are
ethically bound to do no harm. Supporting counterinsurgency operations clearly violates
this code. Moreover, the HTS program violates scientific and federal research standards
mandating informed consent by research subjects.

-Again, I’d fact check if I were you. The AAA CEAUSSIC report was a joke. It was unprofessional, quoted the board’s internal work as their academic sources, used repeatedly quotes from the same set of 1-2 people, who were disgruntled former employees of HTS, and “indy-media” which last time I checked, was not a recognized scholarly reference resource. And, BTW- the author of most of those indy-blogs was a hugh school teacher who passes himself off as a reputable journalist. The majority of the anthropological community was shocked at that report and the lack of true “investigative” reporting. As a forensic anthropologist, I can assure you there was no “investigation” anywhere to be found within that report.

Additionally- there is absolutely no proof that the professionals within the HTS program are not performing their work according to their own professional ethical guidelines. It is unprofessional or you to illegitimately assume (since there is no proof) that they are not providing informed consent, specifically when the program trains their people on AAA ethical guidelines, NIH, and IRB protocols. I find this to be offensive as well- that you and your cohorts would assume that a trained social scientist would throw away their ethical beliefs (which BTW are NOT the same as a medical doctor and it is laughable for you to compare them) for the HTS program. You are making assumptions about something you clearly know little about. You are also making unprofessional (and one could consider slanderous) remarks in your assumptions about your colleagues without any evidence or proof of wrong-doing. I have friends in this program and I find it egregiously unprofessional the accusations you level against the people who risk their lives to serve their country. As a result I have dropped my AA membership and will encourage and continue to encourage my colleagues to do the same.