Anthropologists in the military - Term Paper Example

For far too long, the Pentagon and other military institutions have put too much focus on overwhelming firepower. Tanks, planes, and artillery are incredibly important resources which any military must bring to bear in a conflict. This is called hard power. But there are other aspects to the exercise of power that modern militaries must consider. It is extremely important to remember that hard power is most effective when used, hand in glove, with soft power. Soft power doesn't involve violence or coercion.

It involves being smart about obtaining and using information. Having anthropologists in the military is a great use of soft power. The goal of having military anthropologists is an important one, the army says. The army talks about the Human Terrain of every conflict. It is vital to have specialists on the ground who can help assist soldiers in understanding the social context all around them. In many cases, this has to do with power: Who is it the soldiers should talk to? How should they treat that person?

What are the cultural norms? As one Army paper succinctly puts it: “The environment in which we operate is complex and demands that we employ every weapon in our arsenal, both kinetic and non-kinetic. To fully utilize all approaches, we must understand the local culture and history. Learn about the tribes, formal and informal leaders, governmental and religious structures, and local security forces. We must understand how the society functions so we can enable Iraqis to build a stable, self-reliant nation” (Human Terrain).

Applied anthropology can be useful to many different fields, but it is an unspecific term. When anthropology is applied in contemporary warfare settings it is called military anthropology. Involving anthropologists in these kinds of scenarios can be controversial. Groups such as the American Anthropological Association have said that anthropologists engaged in this kind of work are violating ethical standards in that their subjects may be hurt (AAA). That is one way of looking at it. Another way is to suggest that using anthropologists actually saves lives, as it makes the military work more efficiently and can avoid the deaths of innocence.

No one can doubt that being embedded with American military unit in Iraq is not only dangerous but ethically controversial. However, anthropologists are on the ground and able to work in real life setting, in situations with real consequences. For some, that surely must be better than writing a research paper about some long-dead tribe. Patriotic anthropologists have an opportunity to improve the safety and security of not only their own country, but civilians in whichever country that they are engaged in.

It might not be for everyone, but it should not be ruled inappropriate for everyone. There will always be critics of these kinds of operations, but the key is to maintain a flexible position. All aspects of civilian expertise should be incorporated into military operations, if they provide an edge. As Anne Mulrine explains in an article on the subject: Some anthropologists, while remaining critical of the program, are beginning to argue that perhaps the Pentagon has a point, to an extent. "I think we need to break out of the 1960s mold that many of us are in," says Shweder.

He notes that such a move is "a long way" from supporting the notion of anthropologists on the Pentagon payroll, but he adds that perhaps it is