This paper examines the ethical controversy surrounding anthropologists embedded with U.S. military forces in Iraq. It addresses the American Anthropological Association's position that anthropologists should "do no harm," while arguing that active engagement with the military can, in practice, reduce cultural destruction, prevent forced westernization, and ultimately save lives on both sides. The paper contends that refusing to participate does not eliminate harm — military action will occur regardless — and that anthropologists have a professional responsibility to minimize damage to foreign cultures and communities. By providing qualitative cultural insight, social scientists can promote understanding and move conflict situations toward peace.
The paper demonstrates concessive argumentation — granting the validity of the opposing position ("the very presence of troops in the country is harm") before turning that concession into support for the author's own thesis. This technique strengthens persuasive essays by showing the writer has engaged seriously with complexity rather than ignoring it.
The essay opens by framing the issue and stating a thesis, then presents the opposing view (AAA's position) fairly before offering a series of affirmative arguments. Each paragraph introduces a distinct claim — soldier-level cultural sensitivity, macro-level anti-assimilation guidance, the inevitability of harm, and the value of qualitative insight — before a brief conclusion tying anthropological work to peacebuilding. The structure is linear and thesis-driven, appropriate for a short argumentative essay.
The use of anthropologists in the war in Iraq is both compelling and troubling. The thought that social scientists could partner with marines to produce results in a war zone extends our understanding of the role of social scientists well beyond their initially limited confines. Social scientists have played dominant roles in business, academia, and other sociopolitical arenas, but their inclusion on the battlefield redefines that role and opens new avenues for controversy. The central troubling issue is the ethics of deploying social scientists in a war zone. Nevertheless, it is my view that the role of social scientists in such contexts will be more beneficial than harmful.
From the relevant readings and video materials, it is clear that the American Anthropological Association is decidedly against anthropologists providing critical information to assist in military decision-making. This position is grounded in the view that anthropologists, in their interactions with other peoples and cultures, should do no harm. Consequently, if an anthropologist provides critical intelligence information that leads to the deaths of civilians or combatants, that fundamental principle is broken. On the surface, this appears to be a directly measurable and largely uncontestable claim. It is my view, however, that the work of anthropologists, rather than creating harm, can actually reduce the destruction inflicted on civilizations and communities.
When American forces fight wars in foreign locations, an immediate concern is the interaction between soldiers and local populations. Soldiers are frequently unaware of the customs of the communities they enter. The non-material cultural elements of these nations — belief systems, social norms, rituals — are systematically eroded alongside the material ones. War, by its very nature, is destructive and places cultures in direct conflict with one another. At this first level, anthropologists have a pivotal role to play in mitigating the impact of soldiers operating on foreign soil. They are able to advise troops on how to engage without destroying the important elements of another nation's culture.
You’re 46% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.