Panelists take on torture, the issue of “embedded” anthropologists in the war on terror

By MILO SYBRANT
Observer Staff

A panel of anthropologists condemned the involvement of their peers in U.S. counterinsurgency operations in Iraq at American University, Tuesday.

While the panel’s focus was abuse and interrogation in Nazi death camps, U.S. detention facilities and elsewhere, anthropologists’ participation in counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq was a recurring theme in the discussion.

Most anthropologists do not support their colleagues’ participation in such efforts, said Cymene Howe, a faculty member in American University’s Department of Anthropology and panelist.

“I don’t know what the numbers are,” Howe said. “But I’m willing to bet my right arm that the vast majority of anthropologists are opposed to [working with the U.S. military].”

There is not total agreement within the discipline on the issue of anthropologists in the military, however. “You have some anthropologists who see it as their profession and as a way to mediate cultural difference and perhaps create better understanding through military involvement,” Howe said.

Anthropologists take action

In response to U.S. military efforts to recruit members of the discipline, panelist David Vine formed the Network of Concerned Anthropologists along with 10 other anthropologists, mostly from U.S. colleges and universities.

The anthropologists drafted a pledge urging their colleagues to abstain from participating in counterinsurgency operations in the war on terror. The pledge, posted on the group’s Web site, calls the conflict in Iraq a “brutal war of occupation, which has entailed massive casualties.”

Vine, a faculty member in American University’s Department of Anthropology, said he believed that there was no legitimate way for anthropologists to be involved in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But he did allow for limited possibilities for anthropologists’ involvement in military training. “I could see, potentially, a very limited role for anthropologists to play in classrooms in the United States in training soldiers in a critical perspective about other societies,” Vine said.

When asked if he had any colleagues involved in counterinsurgency operations in Iraq, Vine said “there are anthropological colleagues, but I wouldn’t call them my colleagues because I think it’s deeply unethical to participate in such work.”

Torture under the lens of culture

An overarching theme that arose from Tuesday’s discussion was how anthropologists could help bring the issue of torture into sharper focus in the United States.

The panelists said that the need for such elucidation was clear in light of debates on how tactics like waterboarding and bombarding detainees with loud music have blurred definitions about what constitutes torture.

“Does it cause physical harm? Does it cause psychological harm? What kind of harm is exercised? These are things that you can parse out, more or less,” Howe said. “But the overriding question for anthropology is, does it undermine human integrity? And that needs to be the key focus.”

The American Anthropological Association, a professional association for anthropologists, commissioned a report on the engagement of anthropologists with security and intelligence communities in 2005.

The association’s executive board received the results of that commission last month at their 106th annual meeting in Washington.

The executive board commissioned the report in response to a debate that erupted over postings in the association’s publications by the U.S. military, which sought the aid of anthropologists in counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.