Wait…I thought Pravda Vodka owned Pravda! Just kidding…

Ahhhhhh, the “better dead than red” mindset still exists! Haven’t heard that in a long time. I’m tempted to duck and cover! I’m wondering if HTTmember knows about the BRIC’s (all suffering economically now) and the many vested interests the US has in/with Russia, and for that matter China. For example, this group https://www.usrbc.org/aboutus/boardofdirectors/. A trip to the Foreign Agent (lobbyist database) would undoubtedly reveal former members of congress who lobby for US business in Russia.

And better not fill your gas tank at Lukoil–they own 2000 gas stations on the Eastern US seaboard.

And almost forgot to mention that the platform for the Sea Based X-Band radar was made in….Russia by Vyborg shipping. Prime on the SBXB was Boeing. Whoops!!!!

I wrote some pieces on these matters a couple of year’s ago.

The world has changed since HTTmember last took a hard look at it.

I almost forgot to add this. There is piece out just this morning from a former colleague of yours in HTS:

http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/02/19/humanterrain

Yes, I will speak to that.

First, again to Mr. Stanton, I would like to clarify my previous message. You are essentially what’s known as an ‘access agent.’ You are taking official government documents and communications, leaked by traitors inside the Human Terrain System, and feeding them directly to a foreign government and the rest of the world via Pravda. I hope that you do not continue to publish such information.

Second, the Anthropological Association of America has every right to be concerned about HTS. Anthropology exists in order to advance its Theory within the ethical framework established by its professional organizations. To demonize HTS critics because of their concern for what appears to be an abuse of the discipline and for jeopardizing all American anthropologists around the world is something for which the HTS leadership should be held accountable. But the HTS program is not anthropology; it is the pursuit of national interest by utilizing the social sciences, including the anthropological technique. The program could have avoided much of the current criticism if they simply cast this program as a US government tool intended to assist combat operations. Instead, they went hat-in-hand to organizations such as the AAA (who even cares about them, anyways?), seeking recruits and approval. This was a recipe for disaster.

Since the government has ‘nationalized’ the HTS program (excellent verbiage, by the way), maybe there will finally be some accountability in the way the program recruits, deploys teams (for example, enforcing fitness standards), and operates overseas. This decision was one I actually respected of Mr. Fondacaro; a man who’s clearly mission-orientated. Also, there is also absolutely no reason to think that because HTS employees are now in temporary government positions that social scientists have to put ‘intelligence analyst’ on their resumes. That is absurd – they’re still social scientists. That’s just more whining about the money. Of course, where the program leadership failed the taxpayer to begin with is that they SHOULD be considered intelligence analysts! They are highly qualified intelligence analysts like the numerous PhD eggheads in the Intelligence Community; they’re informing military decisionmakers about the disposition of the battlespace. What is wrong with being an intelligence analyst or collector? It’s only wrong if HTS members masquerade as Anthropologists inside the same myopic framework as those studying the mating rituals of the peoples of Papua New Guinea, when in fact they’re studying local populations to increase the effectiveness of our counterinsurgency operations. Guess what? American taxpayers demand that their warfighters have every advantage possible – this mission is supposed to be for that purpose. The debate about the ethics of this program is moot if HTS leadership would stand up and say, “We are not Anthropology.”

This is necessary work, and if “other” organizations did their jobs in the first place (as they were mandated by the 1947 National Security Act), the Department of Defense wouldn’t have been required to fund the program this late in the game.

I left HTS because it’s a loser. But it doesn’t have to be. To the HTS leadership, stop blaming public affairs and greedy employees about your woes (although to be fair both could use improvement). As the father of American public diplomacy Edward Murrow stated, “Skilled propagation of poor policy would merely intensify error “. Think strategically! Develop an organic counterintelligence function that protects the customer from enemies both ‘foreign’ (after all you do provide a direct pipeline into the military decisionmaking process), and ‘domestic’ (leaks), reframe the program in a manner that reflects reality and avoids unnecessary confrontation with an inconsequential group of professionals, and get the job done for us all. The battle is on all over the world, and US foreign policymakers need you to bring your best to the fight.

First, to John Stanton, I wonder if you realize that Pravda has been the mouthpeice of the Bolsheviks since before the Revolution in 1912. Everything you publish there is used to undermine US interests in the information battlespace and I question your motives.

Second, in response to httmember, your statement that the “money offered is not worth the risk” implies that there is indeed a pricetag on your life. The risk was worth it when you were making big money, but now that the money has been taken away from you, your intentions become very clear. This applies to everyone else whining about the money, too. There are plenty of US marines and soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for much less than what you’re making as a GG-13, and taking much higher risks. The mismanagement of this program revolved around, in my humble opinion as an HTT member for about a year, the contractor management of BAE Systems and all its sub-contractors. This program has great potential to not only assist combat troops in hostile zones, but also a conflict mitigation tool for informing future US national security policy. Those ideals and goals should be what’s driving you to participate in this mission in the first place. If money is really the only issue, then good riddance. The United States of America, her warfighters and taxpayers deserve better.

Having worked through at least one of my own contradictions, I can say that I have to agree: that money is not worth the risk at all.

Does it undermine HTS if social scientists do not wish to be employed under the changed circumstances?

Are they worried that “intelligence analyst” will be the label on their work record?

Then there is this strange, contradictory statement above:

“This is a major pay cut [for us] and you would not believe how much. I was making six figures (USD) with the opportunity to make much more when I got to Iraq. Now I drop to five figures and with my cap as a government employee I will not make much more. But a social scientist with absolutely no experience will still be making the six figure amount!”

So who is the speaker here, if not a social scientist? And does it not suggest that social scientists will continue to get paid a great deal? It is very unclear.