An understanding of society is integral to the human enterprise of armed conflict. This is why the United States Military has synthesized its war tactics with social science research in its post-9/11 military operations. In particular, the U.S. has taken interest in militarizing anthropology in order to get intelligence on the “human terrain”. In 2007, this led to the development of the Human Terrain System (HTS), through which anthropologists are embedded with soldiers for the purpose of gathering operationally-relevant sociocultural information. The HTS program emerged in response to the gaps in the U.S. military’s understanding of the local culture in the regions in which they were fighting: the mismanaged operations in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) in particular brought these concerns to the forefront. Finally, it became clear that such information – con local leaders, tribes and social groups, political disputes, economic issues and social problems – was in fact crucial to effective counterinsurgency.

However, the involvement of anthropology in U.S. war efforts represents a controversial consolidation of academia and the military – and consequently, the American Anthropological Association (AAA) openly condemned and strongly criticized the program.

HTS was quietly discontinued in September 2014 due to poor organization and execution of the program. But if the U.S. intends on intervening in localized insurgent warfare, for instance in the current multi-dimensional conflict in Syria, a similar progressive and innovative approach is needed in order for the military to be more effective and less dangerous to the society in which they are operating. It is important that the debate remains open so that the U.S. might move forward in developing a more socially conscious approach to military operations in the Middle East and elsewhere.

The AAA, however, has engaged in a confrontation rather than a collaboration with the U.S. Military. Strong criticism has come from American anthropologists who are concerned about the integration of anthropology into military tactics, not only due to the fact that it would put anthropologists in harm’s way, but more importantly due to their Code of Ethics which requires them to “do no harm to those they study” and ensure voluntary informed consent. In particular, there is a fear that the gathered intelligence might be used against the group of people being studied for the purposes of war. Indeed, the AAA perceives it to be impossible to reconcile the multipurpose of HTS, which seems to serve both a research and tactical counterinsurgency function. The Network of Concerned Anthropologists (NCA) also criticized HTS for “weaponizing anthropology” and the program has been accused of being a tool for neo-colonialism.

Such seemingly harsh criticism is actually grounded in an awareness of anthropology’s past imperialistic character. The profession emerged out of 16th century Western colonialism, and as described in 1966 by father of modern anthropology Claude Lévi Strauss: “Anthropology is daughter to this era of violence.” During this period, knowledge of the native society was acquired by European observers from a perspective that was not only looking in from the outside, but also looking down from above. Anthropologists were white and privileged, and the cultural and social information they obtained was often passed onto authorities in the European colonies and used as a tool for control and manipulation against the native people. Anthropology thus became an invasive social science that involved exploiting sociocultural knowledge for the purposes of oppressing the society being studied.

Now, ever since decolonization in the 50s and 60s, there exists a constant struggle to divorce the social science from its past reputation. The War on Terror in the 21st century has unquestionably been controversial, with the U.S. military’s occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan being the subject of heated debate ever since 9/11, and the superpower’s enduring presence in this area seems to bare an uncomfortable amount of resemblance to the colonial legacy that anthropology is trying to escape.

This issue is sensitive and the AAA’s dedication to ethics is highly commendable. However, the unique circumstances of war perhaps calls for some flexibility and consideration for the potential benefits that the social science could serve in diminishing the destructive effects of war and increasing the legitimacy of military action.

Anthropologist Montgomery McFate, who developed the HTS program, emphasizes the need for what she calls “knowledge of adversary culture” because of U.S. involvement in new, complex wars abroad among people they do not understand. McFate explains that these post-9/11 wars take the form of “low-intensity counterinsurgency operations where civilians mingle freely with combatants in complex urban terrain.” The human dimension of warfare has never been greater.

As stated in the 2013 in-depth assessment of the HTS in Afghanistan: “The need for a standing program to provide sociocultural knowledge should be well recognized after a decade of difficult military operations.” Indeed, many experts believe that, “the need for cultural understanding is one of the top five lessons learned from the post-9/11 wars”, and the U.S. Army has expressed their support and appreciation for HTS. The Human Terrain Teams (HTTs) have been praised for keeping their soldiers alive and providing a framework for alternative thinking.

The social sciences easily lend themselves to practical applicability in war, and as HTS expert Christopher Sims writes:

“Where conflict has most explicitly impacted and is impacted by society, the call to the social sciences becomes loudest.”

The connection between society and war is intimate and enduring, and therefore the call should not cease. With an increase in the use of air strikes rather than grounds troops and technological developments toward Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS), there is the risk of losing our awareness of the war-society connection. This is especially worrying due to the simultaneous dispersion of warfare: entire towns become battlefields and the boundaries are undefined. War takes place within society itself. Therefore, instead of divorcing itself completely from armed conflict, anthropology should be open to adaptation for the sake of applicability in the area where it is needed most. 

Wars are only justifiable insofar as they lead to greater peace and stability, and in order for that to be true, they must be conducted in a socially conscious framework with respect for and knowledge of the local culture. Although there are many other complicated and technical issues involved in sending anthropologists to war (written about extensively in recent literature on HTS) there are ways of moving forward and past these difficulties. Anthropology might forever grapple with its colonial past, but its present and future utility in helping one of society’s greatest problems – the pervasive destructiveness of war – presents an opportunity to create a more humanitarian way of fighting.