The Flaws behind Human Terrain Systems

David B. Edwards offers a critique of Human Terrain Systems which the US military attempted to implement in the beginning of 2007. Edwards discusses the impact of public anthropology beyond the ivory tower, and shows us possible improper uses of anthropology. Human Terrain Systems was created as a means to lower civilian casualties and to increase the success of counterinsurgency within Afghanistan. Edwards himself is an anthropologist whose studies are conducted in Afghanistan, so Edwards is personally involved in the impacts of HTS on the local Afghan peoples. Edwards gives a very mild critique of HTS, completely ignoring the ethical dilemmas of using anthropology for military endeavors.

Edwards argues that HTS is theoretically beneficial for the military and for the people of Afghanistan. The US military is largely ignorant when it comes to the culture that they are based in, and HTS may be a means to defeat the Taliban. Not only that, but HTS could decrease the amount of force required in many military situations. HTS could overall strengthen the relationship between the military and the society they are based in. However, this is not as easily done when implemented.

                Edwards brings up various critiques and issues surrounding the practical usage of HTS in military practice. Firstly, the HTT (Human Terrain Team) is unable to get off of the base, and has a time restriction when meeting with the Afghans. Not only that, but HTTs will have a large restriction as their informants will have issues establishing trust with the military personnel; they are there for limited amounts of time, immediately asking invasive questions, surrounded by soldiers for protection. After the difficulties gathering “accurate” ethnographic information, the HTT cannot holistically present the data. Military personnel must be briefed through bulleted point, PowerPoint presentations, making the ethnographic information impressionistic, anecdotal, and inconclusive.

                While Edwards brings up many relevant issues with HTS use in the US military, I think that his article overlooks some substantial points. Edwards, it seems purposefully, ignores the ethical issues surrounding the use of anthropology for military use. The ethical issues are discussed widely about this issue by other anthropologists, as the AAA “blackballed” any anthropologist who got involved with the mission. If there are such substantial consequences for involving yourself with this, then this warrants an important, thoughtful discussion of the ethical issues, and his stance on the ethical significance. This lends itself directly into a discussion of the public and social goals of anthropology. Near the end, Edwards touches on what the ultimate goal of anthropology is, but I think that this is a fundamental question which should be given much more attention. This dictates the ethical stance of anthropologists all over the world; we must understand what the goal of public anthropology is before debating the ethical dilemma surrounding the issue. Finally, Edwards doesn’t seem to discuss the fact that the people doing the ethnographic work, are actually not anthropologists. If the HTT team has not been properly trained as anthropologists, then how can a holistic, comprehensive study of these cultures be done? Rather, HTS is the systematic manipulation of the field of anthropology. Edwards seems to be saying that HTTs are anthropologists, in the sense that they are completing ethnographic work; however, I am unsure if this is true. I feel that this fact must be acknowledged in an anthropological critique of HTS, otherwise we are, as anthropologists ourselves, changing what it means to be an anthropologist.