(1) “Is the gathering of information a sin in itself?”

Why are you under the impression that this is even a significant question, one worth raising, or one that I need to address? It is too decontextualized to be of any value. Also, is anthropology merely an “information gathering” instrument?

(2) “relevant knowledge will be used to seduce traditional leaders into US arms”

That is clearly the aim, is it not? Does anyone think that U.S. forces are there to acquire “cultural knowledge” just as an end in itself, as if the whole invasion and occupation effort were merely an exercise in learning about different cultures?

(3) “…that the gathered information will be used to regiment Iraqis into a more orderly managed society”

This betrays a bias that I find reprehensible, and therefore, no, it is my not argument. The line above suggests that Iraqis are incapable of self-rule without American tutelage, which is an imperial and Eurocentric view of the situation (not conveniently bolded, but necessarily bolded since it is clear that these reflections are constantly being missed).

(4) The harm HTS will do…

You seem to suggest that “imperialism” and “US hegemony” were conveniently bolded, but optional considerations, as if these can be side stepped somehow. I clearly disagree. In addition, you are not considering how HTS can harm anthropologists themselves, by creating a public association between the discipline and the U.S. military, potentially jeopardizing the lives of anthropologists overseas in the future. Why are journalists to be protected from being used by the CIA, according to a law passed in 1977, but anthropologists can be used?

Finally, “snide dismissives” in the face of militarist propaganda for war profiteers, peddled by a cowed media, are hardly an issue of importance here. I am surprised you raised that. I would expect “the casual reader” to show greater sensitivity, or at least be shocked by an awareness of something missed. As for who this “casual reader” might be, I wonder what assumptions are being smuggled into that image.

If you feel like coming back and clarifying what you wrote, I would welcome that.

That said, I am inclined to agree with you. Nowhere near the proper level of scrutiny is being given to the glaring concerns in what would more accurately be characterized as the militarization of anthropology, rather than vice versa. The effectiveness of this program derives largely from the knowledge of its existence in the media. On the other hand, I question the concerns about the actions of HTS itself abroad. Between the conveniently bolded descriptions of imperialism and US hegemony, I never properly determined the specific harm the program will do. Touching on that much-loathed argument, without a generalized absence of murder, it seems unlikely that HTS will ratchet up the amount of butchery taking place. Clearly I have failed to put together an essential piece of the puzzle. The information gathering is obviously directed at civillians, but is the expectation that the gathered information will be used to regiment Iraqis into a more orderly managed society? That relevant knowledge will be used to seduce traditional leaders into US arms? Is the gathering of information a sin in itself?

* * * *

Subject: Dstl seeks anthropologists

******************************************************
* http://www.anthropologymatters.com *
* A postgraduate project comprising online journal, *
* online discussions, teaching and research resources *
* and international contacts directory. *
******************************************************

Dear all,

Dstl, a Government research organisation owned by the UK Ministry of
Defence, is recruiting social scientists, particularly anthropologists,
for positions as Strategic Analysts. More information below and on
http://www.dstl.gov.uk/careers/analysts/vacancies.php#3. Closing date is
31 October.

*

The Strategic Analysis Group exists to help decision makers, principally
within the Ministry of Defence but also other areas of Government such as
the Home Office, to assess, manage and prepare for future strategic
defence and security challenges. The Group achieves this through taking a
holistic, structured, rigourous and analytical view of a range of
security challenges, drawing the social and cultural dimension into all
areas of its work. Areas of work might include analysing:

=95 The future security challenges that the UK will face in ten years time
=95 Ways and means of countering weapons proliferation
=95 The causal mechanisms that drive conflicts
=95 How the UK can be more resilient to strategic shocks

The Group is part of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL)
which is part of the Ministry of Defence. In order to fulfill its
high-profile and demanding role, the Group employs analysts with enquring
minds, strong analytical skills and excellent communication skills from a
diverse and wide range of backgrounds. The Group is now seeking to take
on analysts (graduate and post-graduate) and senior analysts (with 5+
years of post-graduate experience) with backgrounds in the the Social
Sciences including Anthropology and Sociology, Humanities, the Human
Sciences, Operational Research, Intelligence Analysis, Risk Analysis or
other applied analysis in support of government.=20

In order to meet growing demand for our services applications to the
Group are now being invited. Interested? To find our more about the jobs
and the benefits of working for DSTL, or to apply, go to:
http://www.dstl.gov.uk/careers/analysts/vacancies.php#3

Closing date for applications is 31st October 2008. Please note that Dstl
is only able to accept applications from UK Nationals and successful
applicants will be need to be vetted to obtain security clearance before
commencing employment.