A Call to Sympathy: Critique of Edwards' Counterinsurgency Article

     I have always enjoyed learning new languages. Or, at least, I like having studied a language, even though I generally hate the actually studying it part. So, when I came to Wake, I decided to study Arabic to fulfill my language requirement. It’s strange to me that having studied Arabic, I have had so any people ask me if I want to work in the government because the answer, to be frank, is hell no. That’s why I found Edwards’s article “Counterinsurgency as a Cultural System” so interesting.

            I really liked what Edwards did with the article, because even though I don’t personally want to work in the government, I was glad that his paper gave a more sympathetic analysis of the HTS program. I was glad that he didn’t simply rip on the program for being highly unethical and counter to the purposes of anthropology. What’s more, I think that kind of critique is unnecessary, and less compelling than the argument he actually makes. He really eloquently and thoroughly examines why the program is not inherently bad, but rather he brings to the foreground the idea that the methods and goals of anthropology simply might not fit within the framework of military culture. I believe whole heartedly that the best anthropology cannot be rushed, because it takes time to build relationships with people. One part that I thought Edwards could have examined more was how by rushing the relationships, we are not being respectful of the culture we are studying. By forcing ourselves on these people, we are forcing our western culture and worldview on them, and therefore I believe the data and information might be tainted. We understand the importance and the goals of anthropology, and we generally think that by doing anthropology we will do no harm to the people. But they might not believe that, especially when the anthropologist is linked to the US military. In addition, we are assuming, to an extent, that these people will trust an anthropologist more, and open up to them more quickly. In certain cultures, that might be true, but in others, there might be a strong sense of distrust. Therefore, the information we might gain would be tainted.

            Edwards mentions how the AAA is extremely critical of this program, but I wish he had gone into a further argument of why this could be counterproductive to the field of anthropology as a whole. One of the main criticisms students of anthropology face is “What are you going to do with your degree? How are you going to get a job?” In a world where so many college graduates are unemployed, this is a very real fear. So, I believe that by blackballing anthropology students who are jobless and desperate seeking work with the counterinsurgency programs, anthropology is contributing to the understanding that a degree in anthropology doesn’t help you get a job. Therefore, people are less likely to study it, and we gain fewer minds that will contribute to the field. I am not arguing that anthropologists should blindly support any job involving anthropology, but I do believe they should show a little more compassion and sympathy. The program might need to be reworked before it can be productive, but who better to do so than anthropologists? I rather believe as Margaret Mead did, that everything is better with anthropology.