"It was very enlightening to find one of the places where all the right-wing anthropologists come to offer their praises for imperialist engagements, under the grossly mendacious pretext that this is the way out of the Ivory Tower. If anthropology continues to be the handmaiden of colonialism, it continues to do so in good part because of the load of recognition-seeking opportunists who populate its very White ranks."

Where do you being here? I wonder what this gentleman's definition of colonialism is? One can make many valid and strong arguments against the invasion of Iraq, but if removing a vile dictator, pumping in billions of reconstruction money, making the security of the local populace the focus of the counter-insurgency strategy, and holding elections is colonialist, then it is certainly a very different kind of colonialism. But it doesn't matter to people of this worldview. They will say that these things don't matter, they are just a facade to hide the true purposes. Well in that case, what would matter? Has there ever been a "colonialist" power who held an election in an occupied country after a little over a year of occupation? That instead of trying to keep the "natives" powerless and dependent, spent billions trying to empower them, militarily and economically? In what possible world can these things not matter?
The use of the word colonialist is extremely telling of the larger symptom. Instead of using words and concepts to get as close to the reality of a situation as possible, everything that is to be disapproved of is lumped together under a word like "colonialism." All of the differences, subtleties, and particularities of the issue at hand are ignored. When you really stop and examine it, it is amazing how utterly stupid it is. Imagine an alternate case. Let's say there's a character whose politics are of the far right, and any domestic policy which he disapproves of, he labels Communist. So Medicare, that's communist, welfare assistance, communist. I think you get the picture. Now isn't it obvious how absurd this would be? Because of course there is a world of difference between Medicare and communist doctrine. One can try and make an ideological link, but to completely ignore that there is a fundamental difference is either one of two things: 1)deceptive, probably for rhetorical purposes, or 2) paranoid, fearing that any step in a particular direction will necessarily lead to the culminating, most extreme result. Now this seems obvious, so how can people like the afore-mentioned poster, who I assume is well-educated (I know of few places he would learned such rhetoric than the academy), be so completely brain-dead? The word colonialist matters, because it means something. If you are going to use words, define them. So if removing Saddam is colonialist and bad, then what is leaving him in power? Good? Another key symptom of this kind of thinking: the consistent failure to address alternatives. Instead of examining policies in the context of other available options, policies are compared to some ideal of what should happen. Any realistic argument against the Iraq War would address what alternative course should have been taken and what the benefits and costs of this would have been as compared to what was in fact chosen. But amid all the protest and outrage I saw as a student, very view discussed their opposition to the war in terms of alternative choices. It was simply a calculation of WAR=BAD, US=WAR, so US=BAD. This looks silly, but honestly, this is essentially the level of reasoning that occurs in the minds of many otherwise sophisticated people, like our friendly poster above. Sorry for rambling, I'm at work doing research and your article just sparked some memories. Also, I don't mean to imply that opposing the war was somehow stupid, merely a particular way of opposing it.

By placing Iraqi and US Military Police, Military Intel and Contractors in an area where they can study, learn, conduct surveillance and communicate with the locals of a specific area in Iraq, they can slowly counter an insurgency and change people's mindsets. The basics are that, this would help us in finding the bad people…the "hard-liners" and who can then be arrested, removed or eliminated. Finding the straw the breaks the camel’s back is what they are ultimately trying to do.

Much of this is a joint effort that would include distribution of reading materials, controlling news and other biometric / psych-ops programs. By having small community meetings with local politicians, business owners, and people of that community that are looking for a “positive change” is what makes the wheels spin on this style of operation. This "change" that would be the topic and discussion of meetings, would be for violence to end and for people to not live in fear. They have to re-educate and slowly change the Iraqi’s and also empower them to defeat their insurgency. Working with the local population and gaining their trust is what primarily needs to take place.

Sure there are going to be numerous ways of learning more about these people by tapping into local phone lines, seeing what they are doing on their computers, find out who they are communicating with and by putting troop / contractors out there who are going to learn their education levels / finding out what their beliefs and systems are in their native tongue. Are they friend or foe? How can we gain their trust? This is very much a surgical style of operation, compared to what has been used in the past during a War. Will it take time? Yes. Can we do this with a reduced presence of military forces on the ground in Iraq? Yes, but it will increase the amount of analysts and linguists in the rear who are going to crunch information. SPSS and Research Methods will definitely have to be used and key foreign national figures will have to be found or invented, in each region, to help guide the rest of those individuals in the local community to a positive change and outcome.

It was interesting that Montgomery McFate discussed her dissertation about Counter Insurgency Operations in Northern Ireland by the British. She said that this was where she learned most of her knowledge and information on COIN. The thing I don’t get is, Montgomery said her idea of Counter Insurgency was more hands off, when the facts are that the Brits treated Ireland very much like a Police State and Martial Law was imposed on Ireland by the UK. If one has read up on the Special Branch’s informers and their handlers, particularly since security sources have, in recent years, played up the role of a "double agent" within the IRA known as "steaknife" (or stakeknife – spellings vary), he was the key individual who was responsible for finding and eliminating three of the top leaders in the IRA. Raids on houses in Ireland occurred on a regular basis, for those who were suspected of being involved with the IRA or even being a sympathizer to the IRA. Raids purposes included the planting or removing of listening devices. A Sunday Times article (14 April, 2002) claimed the removal of covert bugs was the motive behind the raids.

So can we expect that a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus will likely occur in Iraq for the next decade or more? Who knows, but I think Montgomery McFate needs to stop jerking me off from behind and not try so hard to paint a pretty picture of how COIN Operations work. It is War, isn’t it? Hopefully things will get better in Iraq and we‘ve learned from the mistakes that have been made in the past.

Thank you, Peter (above) for the only respectable comment I could find on the whole page.

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

We face a barbaric enemy who's militant and intolerant ideology commands it to execute (preferably by beheading as prescribed in the Koran) all those who violate its draconian lifestyle and Sharia laws. Such capital offense violations would include being a homosexual, a woman having relations with a man without being married, listening to foreign music, flying a kite, wearing a short skirt, educating girls, etc., etc. This militant ideology doesn't ask permission to impose its will upon its citizens, but, rather uses extreme force to subjugate the population.

This militant ideology considers America, all Western nations, India and Asians as mortal enemies. It believes it has a duty to execute all Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and, especially, Atheists, as well as communists and socialists.

This militant ideology unilaterally declared war on the United States in 1996 during the Clinton Administration and has violently attacked Americans on a dozen of occasions prior to 9-11-01, on which date it murdered almost 3,000 innocent civilians that it deliberately targeted – there was no collateral damage, they were the targets.

Now, the DoD wants to better understand this enemy so that our soldiers can track them, find and kill them. DoD has asked the anthropological community to lend its skills to "Map the Human Terrain" so that our fighting men and women may be more effective in neutralizing (and, yes, I do mean killing) these enemy combatants while at the same time minimizing collateral damage to innocent civilians (unlike our enemy which deliberately seeks to kill innocent civilians).

Given the evil enemy we face, isn't it the duty of every American to lend his or her skills in enabling our fighting men and women to be as effective as possible in defeating this evil (again, I do mean killing the hard core members of this movement)? In fact, isn't this the duty not only of every American but of every person who considers himself a decent and humane individual.

Are you so committed to your belief that America is the root of all evil that you can not recognize true evil when you see it? Will you at least condemn the evil actions of our enemy and their ideology?

I meet more and more young people today who realize that when their professors tell them to "question authority" that the "authority" they most need to question is that of their very own professors.

You have lost your way and are on the wrong side of good and evil. This is especially ironic since the enemy we face hates you even more than it hates me.

Good and evil – make a decision. There is no room on the sidelines. There is only the choice between Western civilization with all of its faults and an evil and intolerant ideology that wants to impose itself upon the world and slaughter all those who disagree with it. One would think the choice would be clear and simple, because it is.

Good and evil – make up your mind which side you are on. Unfortunately, there are no sidelines, my friend. I wish I was wrong, but I am not.

As a non-anthropologist, I still seek to understand the difference between sociology and anthropology. Is it the case, as a Zimbabwean anthropologist friend used to insist to me, that sociology is the study of white people and anthropology the study of non-whites? If so, then being the handmaiden of someone or other is likely to the fate of the discipline whilesoever there are large inequalities in wealth between nations.

Grant is of course right that better anthropology probably reduces civilian casualties, so "ethical" concerns are doubly bogus. But even if the only effect of anthropological advice were, say, to make it easier to find and kill enemy leaders, disapproval of such assistance is either a) all-out pacifism or b) disapproval of American victory and preference for American defeat. The former is both unlikely and hard to justify as a principle of anthropology; the latter is dishonorable and immoral.