Ethics of the Human Terrain System and Anthropological Research
This paper examines the ethical controversy surrounding the U.S. Army's Human Terrain System (HTS), a program that embedded anthropologists with military units to improve cultural understanding in conflict zones such as Iraq. The paper explores the American Anthropological Association's formal condemnation of the program, focusing on two central ethical violations: the inability of embedded anthropologists to clearly identify themselves as researchers rather than military personnel, and the near-impossibility of obtaining genuine informed consent from local populations living under military occupation. The paper concludes that while improved cultural understanding is a legitimate military goal, using civilian anthropologists in this capacity creates irresolvable conflicts of interest that ultimately harm the discipline of anthropology and the communities it studies.
- Introduction: Cultural Knowledge and the Post-9/11 Military: Post-9/11 military lacked cultural knowledge of Middle East
- The Human Terrain System Program: HTS embedded anthropologists with troops for cultural insight
- The AAA's Condemnation and Ethical Concerns: AAA condemned HTS for researcher identification failures
- Informed Consent in a War Zone: Occupation context makes genuine informed consent impossible
- Conclusion: Conflict of Interest and the Limits of Embedded Anthropology: Civilian anthropologists cannot ethically serve military roles
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its argument in a specific, real-world controversy — the AAA's formal condemnation of the HTS program — giving it a clear and concrete focus.
- It uses direct quotation from the AAA's published statement to anchor its ethical claims, lending authority to the critique rather than relying solely on the author's opinion.
- The paper considers multiple stakeholders — the anthropologist, the local population, and the military — showing an awareness of competing interests that strengthens the analysis.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates the technique of applying a professional ethical framework (the AAA's standards on informed consent and researcher disclosure) to a specific policy case. Rather than arguing abstractly about research ethics, the author uses the AAA's own language as a lens, then tests it against a concrete scenario — an Iraqi civilian facing an anthropologist embedded with U.S. soldiers — to show how the ethical violation plays out in practice.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by contextualizing the HTS program within post-9/11 military shortcomings, then explains what the program does. It transitions into the AAA's condemnation, devoting separate attention to researcher identification and informed consent as distinct but related ethical problems. The conclusion synthesizes both concerns and offers a narrow alternative, maintaining logical coherence throughout its short but well-organized arc.
Introduction: Cultural Knowledge and the Post-9/11 Military
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 Cold War — it was ill-equipped to fight the current war against terror. Specifically, it lacked the cultural knowledge necessary to fully comprehend the complexities of the Middle East. This gap in understanding prompted a controversial response: embedding social scientists, particularly anthropologists, directly with combat units.
The Human Terrain System Program
In response to such allegations, the Human Terrain System (HTS) 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. The program was framed as a way to make military operations more culturally informed and, by extension, less destructive to civilian life and local social structures.
The AAA's Condemnation and Ethical Concerns
The American Anthropological Association (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 appear to pose a risk to the societies in which they are accumulating knowledge. They enter the homes of their subjects, ask intimate questions, and cannot afford to have — or appear to have — a conflict of interest when doing so. When an anthropologist takes on the role 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 clearly distinguish between fact-finding and information that could potentially be used in a military operation. If this issue arises, it is not implausible that locals would regard the anthropologist as a collaborator with the U.S. military. The AAA pointed out that when working for the military, there is an almost inevitable conflict of interest between the needs of the discipline of anthropology, the local population, and the military itself.
Conclusion: Conflict of Interest and the Limits of Embedded Anthropology
While the desire of the U.S. military to better understand Islamic and other cultures is commendable and a necessary part of international security policy, using civilian anthropologists with a potential conflict of interest between academia and the military is ultimately not a wise decision, nor does it support the interests of the anthropological profession as a whole. If fact-finding from an anthropological perspective is to be accomplished in such contexts, it should be carried out by members of the U.S. military explicitly in a military capacity — personnel who carry no such conflict of interest.
References
Weinberger, S. (2007). Anthropology ass'n blasts Army's "Human Terrain." Wired. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/2007/11/anthropology-as/
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.