Human Terrain System

¶ … ethics when conducting research that involves human subjects?-why? As importantly, do you agree with the decision made by the American Anthropological Association (AAA) in its condemnation of the U.S. Army's Human Terrain System program? One of the great criticisms of the U.S. military after 9/11 was that while it was well-equipped to fight the "last war" the U.S.

fought (i.e., the cold war), it was ill-equipped to fight the current war against terror, specifically it lacked the cultural knowledge to fully comprehend the complexities of the Middle East. In response to such allegations, the Human Terrain System was developed to allow the military to gain greater cultural understanding of other areas of the world through the use of anthropologists. These social scientists would accompany U.S.

troops to enable the military to have a greater understanding of the cultural worldview of the societies in which it was operating. However, the AAA issued a strong condemnation of the program: "As military contractors working in settings of war, HTS anthropologists work in situations where it will not always be possible for them to distinguish themselves from military personnel and identify themselves as anthropologists.

This places a significant constraint on their ability to fulfill their ethical responsibility as anthropologists to disclose who they are and what they are doing" (Weinberger 2007). Anthropologists must not seem to pose a risk to the societies where they are accumulating knowledge. They come into the homes of their subjects and ask intimate questions and cannot seem to have a conflict of interest when they do so. When an anthropologist takes on the mantel of working for the U.S.

Army and potentially acts in a manner, however indirectly, that could harm the local populace, the entire profession suffers not just the individual anthropologist. When working for a military entity, even ostensibly in a purely informative capacity, it is very difficult for the anthropologist to easily screen out what is fact-finding and which could potentially be used in a military operation. If this issue arises, it is not unfeasible that locals could blame the anthropologist as a collaborator with the U.S. military.

The AAA pointed out that when working for the military there is almost an inevitable conflict of interest between the needs of the discipline of anthropology, the local population, and the military itself. The relationship in the military program is also a critical violation of the principle of informed consent, which the AAA demands be freely given.

"Anthropologists work in a war zone under conditions that make it difficult for those they communicate with to give "informed consent" without coercion, or for this consent to be taken at face value or freely refused" (Weinberger 2007). Someone living in Iraq when the U.S. was occupying the nation might find it difficult to differentiate between the civilian statuses of a white anthropologist accompanying a member of the U.S. Army and assume that the anthropologist was acting in a military capacity along with the soldier.

Not only would this make the Iraqi feel forced to respond to the anthropologist's questions, it also would potentially.